News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
“Yet”
The investigation will continue until we have completed the manufacturing process.
I'm sure they are looking for some sense of organization, a group that they can define and eliminate. That's not going to happen. Read "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations." This is a leaderless movement where the rhetoric of some inspires others to violence without there being any material connection between the two. It'll increase and it won't stop so long as the conditions continue and so long as these don't morph into an organization with leadership.
None of these shooters are left wing though. It's not like the only thing the administration is wrong about is their level of organisation. The premise that there is a left-wing extremism problem is completely false. They're trying to pin all this violence on completely the wrong people so that they can ramp up their persecution of trans people and anti-fascists.
It's not just that he wasn't actually "organized" with a left wing group, it's that even as they go fishing they can't even find credible evidence of significant leftist influence at all.
He wasn't organized with anyone, and the only whiff of influence they seem to have found was playing with right wing shit post fodder. They haven't indicating finding any sort of "militant" influence at all.
It seems that he just kind of broke on his own, with his gun friendly upbringing escalating that to a supremely high profile assassination out of nowhere.
Now they can certainly find leftists celebrating Kirk's death a bit tastelessly much and they are mad as hell about that all on its own but the actual killing seems to be nihilist violent extremism. They have a good reason to be concerned that obviously tensions are tight enough to have these things pop off. Bernie Sanders certainly seems to understand that and put forward an inclusive message about victims on both sides and for at least some unifying response from both sides.
However the biggest blowhards on the right seen to be doubling down and escalating rhetoric, which is the last thing the situation needs.
Exactly. It's not an organized group. It's just people that still have their moral compass intact.
I wouldn't assume the Kirk shooter has anything particularly "intact". He seemed to enjoy the right wing meme stuff more and treated the killing more like a shit post that any ideological stand.
As a target, Charlie Kirk was actually a pretty terrible choice. He has no real power, and even in terms of influence I'd say he was a bit removed from any directly influential circle. He said vile stuff but say least he did actually let others get a fair share of his stage in his engagements. May have just been for the heightened engagement for content, but either way at least he let things play out in ways that the left could enjoy him getting owned by good points to his face, instead of settling for "reaction videos".
I'm not talking about him, I don't see any reason to consider him a member of antifa or the "left" at all. I've even read that a subset of groypers have a fetish for femboys. Hell, his Steam username was DonaldTrump according to Kotaku. No progressive I know would want to associate with that scumbag, even ironically.
"Yet" appears to be editorialized. The actual quote doesn't use that word
It says "thus far" which is synonymous
Not quite.
Yet implies they expect to.
Thus far is more neutral, erring towards not expecting to find anything.
"Thus far" means "up to this point in time".
It is neutral about anything in the future, yes, because it is avoiding making any commentary on it. But it is NOT "erring towards not expecting to find anything"
It is explicitly not predicting any outcome positive or negative. No expectation of any kind.
It states what the communicator believes are the facts to date with ZERO speculation about the future
It implies the trend is likely to continue. That the searched areas and the unsearched areas are nominally the same.
E.g. An inspector saying they have found 20 problems, this far, while 50% finished implies they expect to find 40ish overall.
Finding zero problems thus far implies you are not expecting to find many/any, if the trend continues.
No it doesn't. It's a summary to a point in time.
If the inspector has found 20 problems then he's found twenty problems. The reader may extrapolate that more will be found, but the statement makes no such implication
Or until they beat the confession into the suspect, whichever happens first.
While the real suspect lives a new life. 👀
If you believe that sort of thing that is