By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

You said most people and then used "they're" twice, referring to most people, as if they are of the same thought, yet thinking different things. You didn't make the distinction that a minority of others felt differently.

So both a minority of liberals and conservatives think and feel the same way about something, so it's a conservative trait then because it's seen as negative?

Just because the act fits the narrative doesn't necessarily mean the killer did so for the reasons that are being conveyed. If only we could find out why those racist MAGA hat wearing conservatives went to the trouble of beating up Jussie Smollett near his home in Chicago... Oh wait, everyone lived to tell the tale...

"when most people are either concerned about gun violence in general regardless of political motivation or they're concerned about politically motivated shootings rising due to right wing fear propaganda."

In the simplest form:

"most people are either A or they're B."

There's no confusion about people being opposite things at the same time like your previous post claimed.  

The grammar is a bit confusing because I was talking about nondistinct subgroups of a larger group.  

>So both a minority of liberals and conservatives think and feel the same way about something, so it's a conservative trait then because it's seen as negative?

No, it's a conservative trait because it's a historic status quo.    

Preserving status quo is by definition conservative.  

>Just because the act fits the narrative doesn't necessarily mean the killer did so for the reasons that are being conveyed

Sorry but if your argument is that a secret liberal decided drive 9 hours just to murder people to make conservatives look like bad guys, that's a level paranoia I am not going to argue with.  

Agree to disagree.

Well conservatives also 'progress' but in different ways than liberals which may be seen as a lower rate, but you wouldn't say liberals are the only ones who 'progress'. As you go back in history, liberals themselves are more conservative the further back you go, and conservatives are even more conservative, so the status quo doesn't really mean much in terms of overall history.

It's not so easy to tell what exactly someone's motives are in general, let alone if they've got some screws loose in their head. Luckily in the El Paso case the suspect is still alive which should be remarkably more helpful into finding out the details about what exactly their incitement and rational was, using known professional methods based on the shooters issues. To take the info known about the El Paso shooter and pin it to a political ideology, but show political disregard for the known info about the Dayton shooter, seems biased in the least. I'm not saying what the exact conclusion is, but I am saying I think you need to treat both situations with the same lens. Using your left eye in some situations and right eye for others will lead to poor results.