This thread is not what you think about the new thinking of what you call the social engineering crew. It's merely a very failed effort on your part to try to troll Liberals here, but you have still not really adressed the actual content of the OP at all. What a shame.
Looks more like you are exhibiting a guilty mind and trying to cover it up, you are trying to create a straw........man argument? Jestsayin'
There's no justification for violence. There will come the time, though, that the progressive left will organize a violent revolution. When that happens, then, and only then, will self-defense violence be justified against these progressive scum. Conservatives who are angry with the left have no moral or legal right to start the violence. Currently, the progressive left as a whole have been trying to change the culture through legal and non-violent means.
I obviously don't condone murdering them, but the reality is that all media organizations in this country are currently doing damage to our nation. By placing profits and sensationalism over the truth, telling people what they want to hear and setting americans at each other's throats they have manufactured a national environment akin to a pot on the verge of boiling over. All this just for the sake of carving out a loyal viewer base to stay profitable. They pretend to be paragon of truthful journalism, then mix lies and opinions into their reporting. Now americans are figuratively clawing each others eyes out while they rake in the ad revenue. I don't think they should be executed but something needs to be done about their ****ing business model.
Definition of non sequitur 1: an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1);specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1) 2: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.
He's probably fed up by being made a fool of, and ridiculed for, posting CNN's fake news on Facebook.
I did condemn the man's threat towards CNN. I just added how, though, violence against the progressive left would only be justified if they began a violent revolution.
I was just laughing that you left out the RW part when you answered me, and pivoted hard to the Resist movement. This thread was discussing how this dude might have been affected by the incessant chants of "Fake News", which is clear RW/Trump rhetoric, so I'm not discussing the Resist movement on here... Maybe I jumped a little hard using the word "goal", so I'll backtrack a bit and post this from a URL I read a while back... SNIP there are some particular features of conservative political rhetoric today that help create an atmosphere in which violence and terrorism can germinate. ENDSNIP
If he were Muslim, Republicans heads would literally explode. Especially with all the immigration talk but alas just another violent American.
What? #35 is an absolutely plausible motive. Delicate snowflakes commit suicide over Facebook derision. Hodgkinson was apparently driven to violence after being taunted on FB for his rantings ... maybe CNN fueled rantings ???
LOL Guilty mind. That's precious. The team needs to come up with something other than the single note "Strawman" claim. So explain how my post is a strawman argument? How do comments related to rhetoric and it's use on both sides fit that definition?
No. I implied nothing at all. You saw what you wanted to see because your perception of me is very likely as a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, which I am not. Interesting that you think that only the MSM that leans Left lies, while day in and day out I can count the verifiable lies that come out of Fox and Breitbart and Co. You see, this thread is not necessarily about dangerous rhetoric. It's about an actual thing, a criminal act, that has happened. You DO understand the difference, I hope...
Ok. So why is the team scared to address the general impact of "rhetoric" coming from all spectrums? Is this just a bash the RW thread, and nothing else will be considered? The OP certainly doesn't put such limitations in place.