Washington Post "Social Change Reporter" On Garland Shooting: "If the event was intended as bait, it worked."

There are only two kinds of political shootings in this country:

1. Shootings of leftwingers by groups associated with the right -- which actually doesn't happen (when was the last one?). The left is very quick to claim every shooter is on the right, though.

2. Shootings of rightwingers by groups associated with the left -- which the media actually suggests are the fault of the right.

Everything's the right's faults-- when they don't shoot people, it's their fault.

When parts of Obama's coalition shoot up rightwingers, that's also the right's fault. They intended themselves to be "bait" to excite leftwingers into murdering people.

Heads must fucking roll.

And what the fuck is a Social Change Reporter anyway?

Are there any women or minorities working at these papers who are capable of doing real reporter work, not in the ghetto of the feminist/minority/gay blogs?

Are they being held out of real reporter jobs -- you know, reporting on real things, not just Social Justice Warrior activism -- by the white males at the papers in question due to the papers' racism, or are they being held out of such positions because they're not interested and/or not qualified?

Here's the headline, which is awful enough:

Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas

I'm sorry, was the intended target of a terrorist attack supposed to apologize?

And to whom? The greater Muslim community which supposedly has nothing to do with the terrorist attack?

But then it gets even worse:

"If the contest was intended as bait, it worked. "

If the contest was intended as bait, it worked?

It's Gellar's fault that terrorists tried to kill her?

Can we use this logic on leftwing "bait"? If someone decides to open fire in a Planned Parenthood rally, can we also agree that the organizers intended themselves to be "bait"?

If someone starts shooting up the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the gay cross-dressing attack on Christians, will the Washington Post likewise write that those shot down had held themselves out to be "bait"?

If the leftwing is going to be so blatant about their belief that Political violence is justified as regards right wingers, well.

Assumedly, then, the Washington Post and the left generally will not object if the right likewise stops opposing political violence conducted against the left?

Right?

Society is a social compact between strangers and often adversaries. But this compact extends two ways, or not at all.

We are in a very careful place now.

By the way: The attack that the Washington Post's Social Change Reporter wants Gellar to apologize for? Claimed by IS, a sworn foreign enemy of the US, as their project.

Washington Post "Social Change Reporter" On Garland Shooting: "If the event was intended as bait, it worked."&bodytext=There are only two kinds of political shootings in this country: 1. Shootings of leftwingers by groups associated with the right -- which actually doesn't happen (when was the last one?). The left is very quick to claim every shooter...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 05:28 PM

| Access Comments