Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EmptyCalories t1_isy1ym0 wrote

>So my benign and banal observation

I disagree with that assessment. You offered up a strawman of an argument and since it's a strawman no one should bother engaging with you other than to tell you you're wrong.


[deleted] t1_isy6il0 wrote



EmptyCalories t1_isydral wrote

Maybe if you started off with something besides, "Right wing tantamount to homicidal?" You immediately begin with hyperbole and then expect people to think you are arguing in good faith? Not even close.

Nobody believes that all right-wingers are homicidal killers, but that does not mean there are no right-wing homicidal killers.

You won't even attempt to address the statement of the person you originally responded to, which is that essentially, "Right wing rhetoric is responsible for right wing whackjobs becoming violent." Instead, you came up with your strawman.

Example 1:

>Shiffer frequently posted about going to the Capitol on social media.
>In the days after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, Trump's compound in Palm Beach, Florida, he appeared to post multiple times on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social.

Example 2:

>The suspect, who is white, allegedly posted a manifesto on Google and livestreamed the fatal shooting of 10 people at a supermarket in a predominantly black neighbourhood on Twitch, a company owned by Amazon.

Finally, an explanation:

>Republicans have become more explicit about embracing the actual words, helped by the amplification of Fox News, particularly prime-time host Tucker Carlson. Rather than implying it, as many on the right previously had, Carlson is explicit — even if he denies somehow that he's talking about the "racist fantasy," as he called it.
>But just look at his words:
>"I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,'" Carlson said in April 2021, "if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening actually."

I don't believe that all conservatives want to be violent against liberals, but there are some that do. Even if they don't want to become violent personally, they will support those that are violent, making said violence acceptable in their peer group, as long as it's against someone that group sees as a threat, or wants a punching bag, or whatever.


[deleted] t1_isynr6n wrote



EmptyCalories t1_isyqgdj wrote

Original comment:

>It takes a certain kind of ignorant, gullible, cowardly person to be susceptible to the fearmongering lies and narcissistic entreaties of religious swindlers in the first place.
>And then it takes someone who is mentally ill on top of that to be "radicalized" by violent cultish/religious hate propaganda like this.

Your response:

>Oh, is Reddit right wing now? And is simply being Right wing tantamount to homicidal?

You took a perfectly reasonable statement and created a strawman for which you have a hyperbolic response... so you can point out hyperbole and moving goalposts? I don't see any logic in your thought process and neither does anyone else.


[deleted] t1_isywewv wrote



EmptyCalories t1_isywwkv wrote

He didn't characterize the entire right wing as homicidal, but a smaller subset of it. It's good that you're out because you don't seem to grasp the concept of subsets and supersets all that well.