OccamsRazer @ OccamsRazer @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

640

Joined

2 yr. ago

"If i name myself anti fascist, then anyone who criticizes me is a ...."

That conspiracy ran it's course in the first few hours. How are you still believing that

Come on, acting like people weren't cheering about Charlie Kirk

Historically I agree, but there has definitely been more shooters lately who can only be from the left. Regardless, most of the shooters are disturbed people foremost, and political motivation doesn't seem to be the main reason for their actions. Charlie Kirk was probably the most political, and after that it gets less so.

Was his motive political? His being a Trump supporter could be related to the shooting, but it doesn't have to be.

Everyone (pretty much) agrees that fascism is bad, but Antifa is a movement that means more than anti fascism. Antifa is branding or marketing in the same way that the anti defamation league is, or like the patriot act put a certain spin on a bill that stripped privacy rights from citizens. Groups use branding to gain power and aren't all encompassing as to their motives or actions. In the case of antifa it's less of an actual organization and more of a rallying cry that gets used for a wide variety of people with different motives, and it's detractors point to a wide variety of actions or intents (real or imagined) when criticizing it.

I'm not familiar with this conspiracy, but it sounds spicy.

Charlie Kirk got murdered for saying offensive things.

That's his whole shtick. He has been outraged and animated for his entire career.

In any event, Kirk was targeted specifically for his views, whereas school shootings are indiscriminate attacks.

Kirk's killing is inherently more political. School shootings are a slightly different matter. I don't think Robinson was capable of killing random people. He chose his target. It was an assassination.

Yes, just as there are those on the left who view the killing as deserved or somehow an acceptable outcome.

"For 37 years I practiced 14 hours a day, and now they call me a genius." -Pablo de Sarasate

I read it as him saying that the shooter was unquestionably right wing, which is different than saying that the right wing is desperate to prove that it's anyone else.

Did you read the article? It's not quite that simple.

Here's hoping we get back to the good old days of hating big pharma.

I see, you could actually interpret it either way.

He literally said that the right is "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them".

Wasnt he indicted for false statements about Trump colluding with Russia in 2016? I'm confused by the timeline.

He got in trouble for saying that Kirk was killed by his own side.