Translation - I made up my own narrative

haven't seen it, so I shouldn't comment, but from the reviews they went out of their way to make the movie apolitical, or at least to obfuscate the setting's relation to our current zeitgeist. which resulted in a tortured, implausible scenario.

if that was their goal, it would have been better to never explain the conflict in the first place. just start in medias res, with asemic dialogue and references.

I wish they'd try again and do better.

My takeaway was civil war isn't something to be desired in any way, not even journalists who might gain (money, work, notoriety) regardless of the outcome.

The shock seems to be the point.

Quite different from all the documentaries my dad was really into about the US civil war. (Many of which lionized the southern generals.) Or annoying "states rights" points that he seems to have picked up from some YouTube gutter.

If we're placing bets, you'd bet on political motive but we're not placing bets. I'll throw out one option that's been very popular on the right wing conspiracy circuit and maybe it was a false flag to set the stage for Martial Law. I have no proof it's true and no proof it isn't.

The biography of the kid shows no coherent political beliefs. He appeared to be interested in also killing Biden. It just so happens, Trump’s campaign event was very close to Crooks’ home.

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/18/would-be-assassin-may-have-...

His actions aren't a motive. They turned his life upside down and didn't find any strong political opinions and no indication he hated Trump. People also do stuff like this to get attention. The guy who shot at Reagan wanted to impress Jodie Foster.

The finance minister was paraded round the streets of Nepal in his underwear and badly beaten. Do you consider that controlled?

They assassinated some guys in Doha very recently.

You mean, like deporting students for speaking out against Israel?

Or is it free speech only for you?

Looking at that source I’m skeptical of the validity of graph.

Anecdotally in recent years I generally see far more casual references to violence from left leaning people both online and in person. After the attempted assignation of Trump, my Facebook feed was full of left leaning friends saying “shame he missed!”. It was gross. Similar comments abounded on a Washington Post article about Kirk’s shooting. Or the guy who murdered the UnitedHealth CEO, etc.

On the linked graph take the case of that attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania where the shooter is listed as “conservative/right leaning”.

However no motivation for that shooting has been found and the shooters politics were mixed. Seems he registered to vote as a republican but that’s not uncommon in a rural state as otherwise you don’t get to vote in primaries. He also donated to a democratic cause. His Wikipedia page lists his political beliefs as unknown.

Other cases I’ve looked into in my local Idaho area were listed as “right wing” or “white supremacist” but were a couple of members of a gang trying to free another who was imprisoned for dealing drugs.

Most of those drug gangs aren’t left or right leaning, just thugs.

> As of 2021, the United States government considers white supremacists to be the top domestic terrorism threat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Un...

Don’t forget about Melissa and Mark Hortman. Or the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.

Perhaps a good starting point would be whatever the complete opposite of this is: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/nyregion/cuomo-blau-donor...

[flagged]

100% serious statement here, who are you looking at on Bluesky or how? Looking at the Discover (so a general feed) my follow which would be unique to me, and the trending ALL I see is people talking about this being bad OR posts showing how everyone is saying Bluesky is celebrating. I truly do not see this celebration happening that people are saying is happening rampantly. Right now, in a private browser going to https://bsky.app/ there is 0 celebration.

(quick edit) And anyone who doesn't believe me go to Bluesky right now and look.

The majority of what I see on Bluesky is people saying that political violence is unacceptable. There are a good number juxtaposing Kirk's saying mass school killings are an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms. They are not, however, saying that political violence is acceptable. I haven't seen anyone say that.

I have seen right-wing commenters say that the left was saying this. When I asked for examples I got nothing. I got responses, but the left-of-center commenters they pointed to were in the two categories I describe above: those saying the event is terrible and those saying it's ironic.

Now, I'm sure you can find people saying political violence is okay. I'm just saying I haven't seen it at all and therefore it isn't the central tendency in my feed.

You're drawing comparisons from the most deliberately-inflammatory portion of the internet. It's equally as silly as logging into X and thinking anything you see reflects a real political opinion. It is all ragebait, if you want an opinion that isn't mired in virtue signalling then turn on the news.

This is a chronic problem here in America - nobody knows when to stop anymore. It was plainly apparent January 6th when Ashli Babbitt died, pumping the brakes is hard when nobody listens to reason.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Can you give me links?

That's not what deterrence is.