277
One person dead and five injured after car explodes near IVF facility in Palm Springs
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
277 points (98.9% liked)
politics
23538 readers
2351 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Something tells me you never visited the article itself and only read the first four paragraphs OP posted on Lemmy. If you had, you would've seen this:
They're not suspiciously avoiding anything; they may literally not know yet, and immediately jumping definitively to terrorism while they work out what happened is irresponsible, because "terrorism" isn't just an epithet: it's a real, actual, specific crime.
No, I did. My point is that they’re passively skating around it in this case, but in the case of the Tesla incidences that I’m referencing they very actively come out with ‘terrorism’ first.
Didn't this just happen less than four hours ago? And ostensibly the perpetrator is dead? The police aren't lawyers and have more leeway with what they accuse people of (let alone a dead(?) person), but domestic terrorism has a specific criminal definition. In four hours, the police have responded, gotten people to safety, made sure the attacker was dead(?) and there were no others, and started to investigate the scene. And you surmise that during that investigation, they've so far found compelling evidence this person whose corpse(?) may not even be identified yet was motivated by one of the intentions in Criterion B?
Also, who's "they" who very actively came out with terrorism first? Trump and Musk? Because literally of course the fascists did. I'd like to see what the police said in the first few hours of those attacks. Moreover, why do you want to whataboutism to alleged bad police behavior elsewhere to explain why the police should behave badly here?
Edit: here's how The Guardian covered a story about an incendiary device at a Tesla dealership two months ago. Notice how it's fascist Trump mouthpiece Pam Bondi talking about "terrorism" so immediately, while the police statement mentions nothing of the sort.
They're happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so they've ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car. The bar for "terrorism" is pretty low - they charged an Atlanta student with is for tossing bottles of water and dry ice out his window.
Regardless, it's definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenant's very careful, and possibly technical statement, or to quote the business owner (Musk) or US President speculating. And maybe it just turns out that it's carefully ethical journalists reporting on potential right-wing violence, and usually unethical hacks reporting on possible attacks on the corporatocracy, but it sure does feel like a pattern.
That's Criterion A and the first part of Criterion B* of domestic terrorism. There are three criteria, and the second part of Criterion B is the hardest.
The bar for terrorism is as defined in what I just linked, and specifically Criterion B is where most of the uncertainty would lie.
The Guardian is a UK-based center-left newspaper with a generally good track record of journalistic integrity. Yes, quoting the police lieutenant is a choice here, because it's the correct one. They currently have the most information about the situation. This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely don't understand: do you want them quoting Trump's unhinged rant about this bombing that I don't think he's even put out yet?
Dude, it's The Guardian. Here's how they recently covered Tesla dealerships if you care to explain how it's biased compared to this story.
* By "first part of", I mean the phrase "appears to be intended". What it appears to be intended to do is the hard part.
Do you get so excited when someone says, 'My house was robbed"? Houses, of course, can't be robbed. They can be burgled; only people can be robbed. Legally. Colloquially, we all know what they're talking about.
Maybe "The Technician" does, but insisting that people be very carefully precise with language outside of the specific technical domain is a form of sealioning.
I don't know what you want except to make yourself look like a jackass who can't learn from their mistake when gracefully given the opportunity.
Don't come at me with facts when it ignores my feelings.
I'm not going to rag on NJSpradlin or tburkhol; I tried to debunk what they said on a factual, dispassionate basis. Their comments to me are examples of what happens when one side is never held to account for and is constantly rewarded for taking the easy path and spreading disinformation that makes them feel better, while the other side is punished with more lies to correct and is never rewarded for enduring the other side's firehose of falsehoods, tediously researching their points, and speaking up for truth. These well-meaning comments are made by victims of their environment.
Now more than ever, everyone needs to be a vanguard of the facts, but it's not hard to see why that's become so difficult.