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.

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.

> 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.

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.