[techpineapple]

> he shot someone on the right, which are both strong evidence of left-wing motivation on their own.

I think the idea that there are two sides is one of the most toxic ideas in our politics. We associate with teams and anyone on our side must be good, and ignore things like the tyranny of small differences - the far left hates the center left more than they do the right. And there are similar dynamics on the right. Especially in obscure conspiracy filled corners of the internet.

This doesn’t mean all people on the right are bad, or the right is inherently violent! But to ignore the complex breakdown of political ideologies is to ignore the crazy ways things actually happen, not to mention the fact that generally speaking, people who commit random acts of violence like this are not coming from a politically rational place.

[like_any_other]

I should clarify that I don't think there's much merit in the guilt-by-association smearing that happens after such events (or the stripped-of-context quote-mining character assassination the article engages in), and by "left-wing motivation" I did not mean to imply blame should fall on the left as a whole.

Unfortunately such smearing is very effective propaganda, so most people, including journalists, only take this position when it is their side getting smeared.

[techpineapple]

My specific point is there are people in this world with “right-wing” motivation to kill Charlie Kirk, social media has been full of it in just recent weeks, just like if a prominent left winger died there would probably be evidence of left-wing motivation to kill them. Or maybe it’s more complicated than that even!

It would be productive to our discourse if we didn’t automatically see it as two sides.