It was a political assassination done by someone who vehemently disagreed with certain viewpoints. The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on. Kimmel's comments were grossly inaccurate and wildly irresponsible.
> The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on.
The only thing clear about the shooter's political positions, is that it'll be presented as whatever will be most convenient to the speaker. He held views that individually map across the spectrum, allowing anyone to point to something and assign him at an arbitrary location.
> Kimmel's comments were grossly inaccurate and wildly irresponsible.
Kimmel’s comments are about the behavior of the MAGA world, and they were true: the MAGA world was trying very hard to push the idea that the shooter was not one of them.
> The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on.
I'm sorry, which details? Why does his opinion about a handful of topics mean that we can infer his entire worldview? Why do we have to assume that his views mapped neatly onto one end of the US political spectrum or the other?
I think the problem no one on either side wants to admit is that these shooters rarely fall into either side. They’re mentally unstable people who are attracted to fringe crazy ideas, regardless of the political stripes.
Their behavior indicts all of us Americans.
But of course admitting that and doing something about it means working together, which is a much harder solution than pointing fingers at the other side and doing little else.
That's a scathing reply that seems unwarranted. If you start with the question "why isn't fire on the periodic table?" you might answer, "fire is a process" but if we probe slightly we can find that all the elements of the periodic table are processes and not static unchanging entities. That is the truth highlighted by quantum physics and the makeup of atoms. I'm not certain why you felt entitled to post a rude comment on my work bridging 2 disparate domains in a sensible and logical way.
Really interesting that Dorsey unironically says "governments" instead of "government" and expects us to believe that Twitter has not been aiding and abetting foreign assets after that whistleblower testimony came to light in Congress
California is a government too, separate from the federal government of the United States, and it hasn't been shy about regulating tech companies. I don't think this jump to foreign governments is substantiated.
