@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:This is untrue. If it was a random politician, maybe. But the fact is it wasn't; it was someone who was specifically targeted by the right-wing using violent rhetoric. Recently.
Nothing I've seen comes close to rising to the level of even being considered incitement, you can't blame the acts of a mad man on some bad metaphors, especially if said madman may not even have been paying attention to them.
Quote:When people who are on targeting lists start showing up dead, it's not irresponsible to speculate as to whether the list was responsible for the death or not.
I have no qualm with speculation, I just think there is an obvious selection bias here where you speculate in ways that fit preconceived ideological leanings.
Not all speculation is created equal and I'm just saying this is dumb, politically biased speculation. I'm not saying it's "irresponsible", just baseless.
Quote:Or to decry such lists and rhetoric no matter what the eventual truth of the disturbed individual is.
Sure, but I think this guilt by association gig with murder is itself one of the examples of overheated rhetoric in America. I think it's much more divisive than mere crosshair graphics and bad metaphors to play the guilt by association card the way it often is and I am choosing to decry the unreasonable decrying.
Quote:It's not irresponsible to use the focused media attention to point out how violent right-wing rhetoric is, whether it had anything to do with this event or not.
Again, I have no idea what you mean by "responsible", I just think it's opportunistic and daft. I don't think it's going to cause anything other than a general spread of some daftitude.