• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

BOTH SIDES

Well I gave the story an honest shot. I actually went to the Newsweek link and started reading the article. I got this far:
He added: "People tend to tell pollsters what's on the top of their mind at the moment... Of course people have strong opinions about political violence in the hours after a political attack. Those opinions will fade and shift with time."

So why the fuck are you bothering?
Duh! Understand the real business of reporters: saying something that the viewers will want to watch, ideally saying something that somebody else didn't find (yet). Whether it's true or not is secondary even for the basically honest reporters, whether it's true is of little concern to the more sensational ones.
 
Dems More Likely to Think Celebrating Public Figure's Death Acceptable—Poll

A new poll shows a sharp partisan divide over reactions to political violence, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say it is acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure.

A YouGov poll conducted on September 11 among 2,623 adults found that 11 percent of Democrats said it is "always" or "usually" acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure they oppose, compared to 6 percent of Republicans.

Meanwhile, 71 percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Republicans said it is "usually" or "always" unacceptable.
11% of a group or subgroup does not "more" of anything and a five point difference between two subgroups is not significant when the question is a hypothetical.

In any case, I'd like to see the same poll taken the week Ruth Bader Ginsberg died.
 
Well I gave the story an honest shot. I actually went to the Newsweek link and started reading the article. I got this far:
He added: "People tend to tell pollsters what's on the top of their mind at the moment... Of course people have strong opinions about political violence in the hours after a political attack. Those opinions will fade and shift with time."

So why the fuck are you bothering?
Duh! Understand the real business of reporters: saying something that the viewers will want to watch, ideally saying something that somebody else didn't find (yet). Whether it's true or not is secondary even for the basically honest reporters, whether it's true is of little concern to the more sensational ones.
It isn't about reporters. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC generally report the news accurately. Newsmax and OANN are the false news corporations. Where the issue is for Cable News is all the opinionated to bitterly partisan commentary.
 
Fox News, CNN, MSNBC generally report the news accurately.
Hahaha, that's funny. No, they don't.

They generally report the news with a heavy conservative bias tuned for whatever liberal population they are trying to drag to the right.

Fox news has been outright telling Pinocchio "plain as the nose on their face" lies, like that liberals are rioting or that Portland is a war zone.

CNN is no better seeing as they are now bending knee to the Suck L'Orange.
 
Dems More Likely to Think Celebrating Public Figure's Death Acceptable—Poll

A new poll shows a sharp partisan divide over reactions to political violence, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say it is acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure.

A YouGov poll conducted on September 11 among 2,623 adults found that 11 percent of Democrats said it is "always" or "usually" acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure they oppose, compared to 6 percent of Republicans.

Meanwhile, 71 percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Republicans said it is "usually" or "always" unacceptable.
11% of a group or subgroup does not "more" of anything and a five point difference between two subgroups is not significant when the question is a hypothetical.

In any case, I'd like to see the same poll taken the week Ruth Bader Ginsberg died.
And once again celebrating a death does not equal "promoting violence" no matter how much right wingers lie about that too.
 

Both sidesss
Which side is sending him hate mail and death threats?
Once again, it's not "the same thing" and a false equivalence to suggest it is. This person is being hateful due to race, these people are hating him because of his outright racism.
I am not saying democrats are just as bad as republicans just that it doesn’t help the case when republicans get death threats that involve a newborn child (assuming that’s true). I know all people can be bad but it’s hard to support the “high-ground” side when people do stuff like that.
 

Both sidesss
Which side is sending him hate mail and death threats?
Once again, it's not "the same thing" and a false equivalence to suggest it is. This person is being hateful due to race, these people are hating him because of his outright racism.
I am not saying democrats are just as bad as republicans just that it doesn’t help the case when republicans get death threats that involve a newborn child (assuming that’s true). I know all people can be bad but it’s hard to support the “high-ground” side when people do stuff like that.
I have mixed feelings. I'm not a "high road" person, but I don't support death threats etc either.

(I'm sure some right wing moron will still claim I support death threats even though I obviously don't).
 
Last edited:

Both sidesss
Which side is sending him hate mail and death threats?
Once again, it's not "the same thing" and a false equivalence to suggest it is. This person is being hateful due to race, these people are hating him because of his outright racism.
I am not saying democrats are just as bad as republicans just that it doesn’t help the case when republicans get death threats that involve a newborn child (assuming that’s true). I know all people can be bad but it’s hard to support the “high-ground” side when people do stuff like that.
I have mixed feelings. I'm not a "high road" person, but I don't support death threats etc either.

(I'm sure some right wing moron will still claim I support death threats even though I obviously don't).
So, I think it's important to have said this:


Let's say there are two people, Harry and Dick.

Harry says "if you attack me, I will defend myself and may end up killing you."

Dick says "aha, you have threatened me!"


Dick has, in his statement, acknowledged that Dick is threatening Harry unilaterally.

Dems More Likely to Think Celebrating Public Figure's Death Acceptable—Poll

A new poll shows a sharp partisan divide over reactions to political violence, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say it is acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure.

A YouGov poll conducted on September 11 among 2,623 adults found that 11 percent of Democrats said it is "always" or "usually" acceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure they oppose, compared to 6 percent of Republicans.

Meanwhile, 71 percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Republicans said it is "usually" or "always" unacceptable.
11% of a group or subgroup does not "more" of anything and a five point difference between two subgroups is not significant when the question is a hypothetical.

In any case, I'd like to see the same poll taken the week Ruth Bader Ginsberg died.
And once again celebrating a death does not equal "promoting violence" no matter how much right wingers lie about that too.
It's not a death threat to shit on Margaret Thatcher's grave, or the grave of even a person killed by another.

It is saying "the world is better now that you are no longer doing what you did."

There is a prime minister of Japan now a corpse who many would proudly do whatever it is that Japanese people do that is the cultural equivalent.

This is not a threat.

It is saying "do better so as to not be remembered as a MAGA≈Nazi piece of shit".
 
GOP just tore down the entire east wing of the White House without following any laws regarding such action. GOP has masked police disappearing people. GOP just bailed out investors that fucked up in Argentina. Both sides though.
 

Both sidesss
Which side is sending him hate mail and death threats?
Once again, it's not "the same thing" and a false equivalence to suggest it is. This person is being hateful due to race, these people are hating him because of his outright racism.
I am not saying democrats are just as bad as republicans just that it doesn’t help the case when republicans get death threats that involve a newborn child (assuming that’s true). I know all people can be bad but it’s hard to support the “high-ground” side when people do stuff like that.

I am not going to assume it's true, but of course it might be. I am also not going to conclude it's a Democrat if it is true. It could be someone trying to make Democrats look bad or someone in one of the targeted groups who was very angry...or just some Internet troll.

To review: he made a statement about a woman saying she wasn't Indian, just didn't bathe. So that could create some feedback from Indians and some of those Indians could be Republican or Libertarian or living in another country or Independents. Likewise, when he says his family is getting threats, it has to be made clear that his wife also wrote something. She wrote something about "expecting the Jew to be honest." So you can imagine that she could have gotten a lot of flack from Jews outside the US, Jews in the US, who might or might not be Democrats or liberals, or might be some other political group. Now, also, a lot of non-Jews get upset about anti-Semitism and so feedback to her could have been from non-Jews as well. Many people could just have been upset about the whole group and the group comments. And some people could have trolled.

Right now, I tend NOT to believe the magnitude of his story. I say this because (1) I don't trust his character based on his behavior, (2) I have heard nothing about a follow-up investigation of people sending him threats...if they really reached the level of death threats you would expect that; and (3) I know the Republican playbook is to always go on the offensive and his original statement barely apologized at all, it just said he was resigning to protect his family from crazy people which is a counter-attack not accepting responsibility.

That said, I DO believe him that he received nasty, unacceptable text messages/emails/tweets/whatever. That is consistent with the world we live in. I believe he could have felt unsafe from some of the messages, but I do not think they were technically death threats. And again, if there is anything concrete there about a specific action that someone says they will do, then the police should be involved and we can unmask the person and find out who they are.

And I can be wrong. We may hear news of an investigation at some point.
 
Back
Top Bottom