It’s only a threat of violence if it’s from the right. Otherwise, we know this is a metaphor. 🤣

It’s only a threat of violence if it’s from the right. Otherwise, we know this is a metaphor. 🤣 https://x.com/aoc/status/1844034727935988155?s=46

"Violent" rhetoric always has to be contextualized. Politicians have always used words like "Fight" (or "Brawl" in this case). It's different when you use a lot of crazy rhetoric and then refuse to condemn violence (or in Trump's case, encourage it or promise to pardon rioters).

Coinbase employee (Investigatooor), personal account. Onchain is the future.

That's not the argument though. If Trump said the same thing, the NYT would report it differently. It's a Russell conjugation.

The point I'm making is that the reason it gets reported differently with Trump is that he behaves distinctly different than all of his contemporaries. Because he refuses to condemn political violence we *should* view similar statements from him differently.

I'll respond to both replies here:

I don't think NYT hides it's lean, the editorial board just endorsed Harris publicly. 

I agree that how we ought interpret his words is subjective and prescriptive, but it’s based on sufficient matters of fact and does not require partisanship to arrive at.

All of these are facts:
When he was asked to condemn white supremacist militias, specifically Proud Boys, he said “Stand back and stand by” which drove up their membership more than ever and they were prime instigators on 1/6.
Trump was inactive during the 1/6 riot despite the pleadings of his staff and family, further stoking the crowd with his tweets.
He has promised to pardon a large portion of 1/6 defendants and fundraised for them
He has refused to say he’ll accept the results of the ’24 election

Taken collectively, a reasonable, non-partisan conclusion is that Trump is comfortable with political violence and his rhetoric can be fairly reported on through that lens.

> Because he refuses to condemn political violence we *should* view similar statements from him differently

"we" and "should" is a fundamentally a moral and political point of view. Which is fine and reasonable. Just not universal nor is it how society is organized, i.e. laws.

Right, and the point I'm making is the the issue is the NYT / mainstream media is still trying to claim they are objective. They are partisan, which is fine. Just drop the impartiality pomp and circumstance.