Your obfuscation carries no argumentative weight, as the uncertainty your obfuscation attempts to introduce might as well be used in the reverse: maybe the guy who made the original threat (that was not prosecuted) had a criminal record involving violent crimes whereas Lars' text obviously should be taken in the political, non-violent, activist context that is his modus operandi.

▲

protocolture 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Correct

▲

teiferer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> might as well be used in the reverse

I don't think they would reject that. In fact, you are arguing their point: It's the context that matters, not just the act. Without knowing the context it's not valid to presume a particular scenario.

Not sure how that's "obfuscation".

	▲	spwa4 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's obfuscation because you're leaving out that this is an openly political fight of an in-power leftist politician against an "extreme-right" party (of course, they're well to the left of the US democrat party). The underlying problem is that a LOT of public servants are very scared what will happen if the party who keeps getting threatened gets elected, which is a real possibility. So, they're using all sorts of underhanded tactics to try to prevent it. In a way, it's a fight about public servants trying to keep their job safe. It's political because they all owe their jobs to a particular coalition that's been in power for ages and ages. Oh and it's a fight about muslim immigration and the influence of that in and on society. So ... That's why it's obfuscation. You're leaving important things out.