No. of Recommendations: 12
Paul Pelosi's attack wasn't political.
Shapiro's was by a left wing pro-Hamas type.
Whitmer's idiots were...idiots.
The Hortmans were attacked by a crazy Walz appointee who wanted Walz to be a Senator. Or something.
Again, if you sort your data before you look for patterns, you'll just find the patterns you put in. Thomas Crooks (Trump's would-be assassin) wasn't motivated by Trump's politics, and himself was an idiot or crazy who wanted "something" other than a political outcome.
You're pre-filtering your data, finding reasons to exclude things you want to exclude while leaving in the stuff you want to leave in.
The other thing that's happening? Check out BlueSky and the reaction of mainstream democrats to this shooting. Do you think that's healthy?
There's nothing healthy about any of it. The reactions to Paul Pelosi's attack (like Trump making jokes about it) weren't healthy. The reactions to the planned Whitmer kidnapping weren't healthy. The responses to the Trump assassination attempt weren't healthy. Higgins response to try to ban people from social media isn't healthy, and Matthew Dowd's response to the assassination wasn't healthy. These things always bring out the worst in people.
Again, if all you're looking at is left-wing responses to violent attacks on right-wing folks, and don't look at right-wing responses to violent attacks on left-wing folks to the same degree and taking them just as seriously, you'll find the patterns that result from your initial filter choice.
You don't have to conduct an unfiltered review of those things, of course - you're free to just look at the stuff that confirms one theory and not any of the other stuff, if you want. But just keep in mind that the patterns you then "find" in that will be the result of your choice of what to look at....
