Let's look at the rhetorical methods used in this image, and specifically why individuals may end up reading it with a much different message than it facially suggests.
"the assassination" -- passive voice, it just did itself! His neck started bleeding because an assassination happened! Just like how it rained last week. "We should condemn the act" huh, so are you going to or are you just saying you should, like how I really should exercise or not eat that extra slice of cake? It seems to me that this post does not actually condemn the assassination.
A second heinous act besides the assassination isn't even mentioned, that individuals witnessing a heinous assassination were celebrating it, justifying it, or calling for more pointed assassination attempts towards further political enemies.
Meanwhile, "the maga response" -- in the active voice, apparently didn't just happen on its own, it had a person who did it, and a political movement who did it. And rather than just saying that it should be condemned, this post does in fact condemn it.
The way that this post distances itself from political assassinations while clinging desperately to the reaction to the reaction to political assassinations is damning. Assassinating a political opponent is not an action one takes but something like the weather, and it is a thing that should be condemned but won't be. The people who see that assassination and cheer for it or call for more aren't even mentioned, because it is not even worth discussing. However, people who call for consequences for the people who are cheering for an assassination which occurred and calling for more assassinations to occur, they are the only ones who will be in fact condemned for their actions.
The underlying message here appears to be "you deserve to die, so die silently".
I will now demonstrate what it might look like to condemn someone on the right-wing side for a terrorist attack: A right wing extremist blew up a Tesla Cybertruck in front of Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. This was an unforgivable act of terrorism. I condemn this man for his stupid selfish actions completely. Nobody on either side of the political spectrum ought to be using political violence to further their ends. Anyone celebrating the attack, either because a right winger died or because they supported the right winger is evil and wrong and I condemn them. However, as is consistent with my worldview as long as no one is breaking any laws they are entitled to their own opinions.
Note that in my demonstration, I named the ideology and I assign the blame for the attack to a specific individual. I directly condemn the attack rather than meekly saying that it is something that should be condemned by someone somewhere, and I also attack people who would celebrate the attack for any reason. Then, like the original post, I point out that people ought to be entitled to their own opinions regardless. My demonstration refers to an actual event that occurred on the 1st of January of this year. It demonstrates the problems with the rhetoric on display here.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
@sj_zero while I somewhat agree I think you're reading more into it than is there and is necessary to see it for what it is...
"assassination" instead of murder.
although for those of us with brains know that assassination implies murder of an uninjured and unsuspecting person.
it reduces the emotion
"condemn the act"
it reduces the severity of the actions and event
"tastelessness" is used instead of more accurate language like "blood thirsty cheering" or "revelry over the violence"
@sj_zero tastelessness would be to comment about the composure of his wife or his fans or something adjacent, not comments about someone's murder and your joy and enthusiasm, this isn't "tasteless" this is morally and ethically disturbing, distressing, alarming with deep implications for the mental state of the person in question
again, downplaying the severity
"weaponizing grief into rage" is just predictive programming button pushing
one of the stages of grief is already anger itself
the only thing going on besides showing how much of a mealy mouthed piece of shit this apologist is,
is to invert the script
that "we" should expect to be victims of "the purge" in the face of the violence "our side" just did and cheered about
and yes (very bottom)
free speech absolutism means being able to say STFU you disgusting communist faggot while implying there should be no political consequences or otherwise for the garbage I want you to shut your cake hole about
@sj_zero TL;DR it's a child like effort to invert the narrative while using beta cuck language to downplay the violence committed
https://www.youtube.com/@martindecoder
@sj_zero It's the "Republicans pounce" meme. If a right-wing extremist does something wrong, blame the right. If a left-wing extremist does something wrong, blame the right for their reaction to it.
The thing is, people like this will never change their minds, they'll never reflect. But you can change the minds of the reasonable people watching, which is what Kirk was great at.