159
Donald Trump says he 'took a bullet for democracy'
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
159 points (81.2% liked)
News
23674 readers
3261 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think many people's choices don't seem to represent their best interests or the best interests of society. And, I can't and won't force them to choose differently. Anything I can do begins with asking myself why they may be choosing as they are.
We engaged yesterday about propaganda. You're a solid communicator in good faith. Browsing, I ran across your post today. I thought I'd throw something a little controversial at you to see what you make of it.
No need to be slippery if that's what's up. Just don't engage. No biggie. The historians will sort it out later.
Ok. People have looked into the intent of presidential assassins before and there's just no pattern. Some of them did it for political reasons (Booth, Czolgosz, Sirhan Sirhan). Some for personal reasons (John Hinckley Jr., Squeaky Fromme) and some were just completely batshit (Charles Guiteau). You could also put Hinckley and Fromme in the 'completely batshit' categories, but Guiteau was a level unto himself.
And then there's Sam Byck, the guy who tried and failed to assassinate Nixon twice. He fits all those categories.
The point is, there's just nothing to conclude here based on history and we will, barring the discovery of some sort of manifesto, likely never know what the intent was.
I agree with all of this.
But, what I'm thematically understanding is that you don't believe there's context to form perspective of merit. I'd agree with that, too.
You've better alternative uses of your time than guessing with very little information? I've value for this one. But, I could see how perfectly reasonable and good faith others would not.
Better? Maybe not. But I also don't engage in such speculation because I prefer to have an evidence-based outlook and I am fine with not knowing the answer to something. When it comes to this dead man's reasons for doing the thing he was killed for, there's just not enough evidence. We don't even know what his political leanings were because he was a registered Republican but also gave a donation to a left-wing group.
I don't know what his intent was. I may never know. I am also not an expert in psychology or criminology, so any speculation on my part would be far more likely to be wrong than right.
If you want to know a dead person's intent, asking a former comedian is probably the wrong way about doing things. I can brainstorm some amusing concepts for you if you'd like. Maybe he did it because he was fired from Claire's and was going to prove to everyone that he could pierce a fucking ear.
I admit that sometimes I spend time on a thing irrationally. It's certainly true for this line of speculation. My gut says it'll be valuable later. My experience says there's no point in trying to reason the nature of the future value.
I respect why you don't want to speculate, particularly given the history of speculation in modern public forums. Thanks for explaining yourself. I think I again fell short of responsibly adapting: My question wasn't really fair. I apologize.