politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
the shooter was a right winger. we know this. it was not ideologically motivated, dude just wanted to do something 'important', and his right wing beliefs led him to believe shooting someone, which he was insecure about, was what he should do.
You can say we know it all you want. We really don't. We can make assumptions, and we can hope for things that make us feel more secure in our beliefs, but it doesn't actually create proof. What proof is there that I didn't list that you must have? Saying "we know this" doesn't make me any more confident. You must know more, right?
his social media accounts.
journalists have talked to people who knew him. he was like a center right dude, in the way stupid teens sometimes are.
the whole reason he decided to do this is because he got laughed off the school's rifle team for being bad, and was so upset about it he decided to try to kill an 'important' person to prove it to them.
I think he said why? IDR the medium. I don't super care. look it up.
why are you saying we don't know? are you just now stumbling into the fundamental limits of knowledge and epistemological uncertainty and having an existential crisis and getting an urge to build a time machine so you can go back to when kurt godel was alive so you can MURDER HIM and never have to think about this again? are you okay? do you need a hug and an ice cream koan? can I help? not with the time machine; kurt godel is one of like three mathmeticians whose work I actually like,but, you know, with your feels?
I addressed everything you said, except for 4 which I don't think exists as far as I'm aware. As for the rifle team thing, there are plenty of leftists who like to shoot guns. For example, I do.
Why I'm saying we don't know is because the top comment made a claim that we do know. Why did it say that? Isn't that the issue if someone is making a claim without it being backed up by evidence? I like that you're making an attack on me as if I'm being emotional. I promise you I'm not. I just don't appreciate people spreading false information. It can only work to undermine us if we make a false claim and it's proven false in the future. Let's just stick to what we know. We're on the right side. We don't need lies.
plenty of people like to shoot guns. lefties, however, do not get butthurt because its a core part of our identities so when someone says 'you're so bad at shooting we dont even trust you to point that thing in the right ~120 degree arc to not risk shooting at us, go away'.
you addressed everything I said. so... what IS up with you? lets go back to point 5. feels like that's more what this is about.
I promise you there are lefties that would get pissed off if they were told they were a bad shot. Stop assuming everyone on the left is your perfect model of person. They aren't. We can have issues too.
I addressed point 5 multiple times at this point I think. Pretending like we have information we don't have leaves us in danger, and lying about information we don't have makes our standing fragile. We have no need to lie because we're on the right side.
Just be honest. The kid had conservative parents, supposedly expressed some conservative views to other students, wanted to join the gun club but was dangerous whole shooting so was denied, donated a small amount to a progressive fund, and searched for both Biden and Trump events. That's what we know (I think, unless more has come out). He obviously wasn't a leftist, but he was a dumb teenager. I don't know if he knew what he believed.
pissed? sure. 'murder someone about it'? unlikely. the things we get THAT upset about are entirely different.
okay but we do have information. I addressed that in points one and two. we do have information. I told you what information we have. so I return to point five, and wonder if you need a hug.
he searched for both biden and trump (and I think some others?) events because he didn't care WHO he shot, just that it was important. the kid was a right winger, in specifically the way that children can be, and that motivated that he did a shooting, but not who he shot. correct. this is what I said originally.
that is what I meant by 'in the way that kids are'
You keep implying I'm being emotional because you're arguing with me and have no grounding, so it makes you feel like your argument is stronger. Please, go away if that's all you're going to keep doing. I have not been emotional. Your insults seem to imply you potentially are though, so reconsider why you're doing this.
It seems pretty clear to me it was suicide. That was the goal, and leaving a mark was a bonus. He searched for both Biden and Trump events. It seems he would have taken either opportunity to go out while killing a (former) president and presidential candidate. It was not politically motivated and I don't know how you can assume he's right wing?
Yet you still say he's right wing. Based on what evidence? His parent's Trump signs, or the fact he said some "conservative" things to classmates at some point in time (and assume they can correctly identify conservative from anarchist or anything else being dumb teenagers)?
Look. I don't really care. I just don't appreciate dishonesty. Saying we have more information than we do is dishonest. I'm not replying to this anymore unless you actually add information. All you added this time is that "I'm being emotional" and even that wasn't the first time you did so. If you have more information, go ahead and include it. If not, you don't actually know his political ideology and you don't care about honesty.
i keep imply an existential crisis about the limits of knowledge, because we pretty-much know, and that's the only good-faith assumption I can think of that explains the uncertainty here.
How do we pretty much know? What more information do you have? You hope, and that's it. You have faith, which isn't useful.
Also, this isn't existential. It happened for sure, and the reasons exist. We may never know them though, but that isn't an existential crisis. If you're going to use terms like that, at least learn what they mean.
I said all this.
and I ask again: are you currently having an existential crisis about the limits of knowledge and the fundamental contradictions of knowledge? are you courting chapel perilous? are you balancing on the knifes edge of zen and madness? because that's the only way I can explain this level of skepticism.