MEGA THREAD - Trump shot but safe, 2 others killed at PA rally
WHAT
- Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump was shot at a rally in PA.
TRUMPS STATEMENT
“I want to thank The United States Secret Service, and all of Law Enforcement, for their rapid response on the shooting that just took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Most importantly, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the person at the Rally who was killed, and also to the family of another person that was badly injured. It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country. Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead. I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place, so I realized then what was happening. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”
WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW SO FAR
- gunman is dead
- Trump "is fine"
- one attendee is dead
- another attendee is in critical condition
News Sources
- CNN - Trump rushed off stage after shooting at Pennsylvania rally
- AP News - Live updates: Shooting at Trump rally is being investigated as assassination attempt, AP sources say
- The Hill - George W. Bush condemns ‘cowardly attack’ at Trump rally
- Warren Sharp (@SharpFootball) on Xitter - video interview with witness who tried to warn police before shooting happened
- Sky News - Gunshots reportedly fired at Donald Trump rally - as former president rushed off stage (Article confirms one rally attendee dead)
- Reuters - Biden says he is grateful to hear Trump is safe, has been briefed on shooting
- OAlexanderDK on Xitter - The shooter was on a roof approximately 125m or 400ft from where Trump was standing.
- JakeMRosen on Xitter - An emergency room doctor I spoke with tried to save someone’s life in the crowd
Do not advocate or celebrate violence, please. Comments advocating violence will be deleted and bans will be issued.
Also, please avoid promoting conspiracies. Discussing current events is fine but suggesting things like “it’s a false flag” without evidence is spreading a conspiracy.
A reminder, he incited people Jan 6th which resulted in deaths.
That's the wild thing.
This is a "Oh no what will Cheeto say to start a riot?"
And his cult still defends the insurrectionists.
Unless it's more convenient to call them Antifa.
Or all the domestic violence
This shit was never here before because it's likely CYA mode for Lemmy because feds could come sniffing here if copycat incidents occur.
bro the feds are already sniffing lemmy you think they arent?
They're sniffing lemmy just like their sniffing literally every other social media platform right now.
Is it not actually called the fed........averse....
fed i verse.
Federal investigation universe. Checkmate.
Oh so that’s why my official Lemmy moderator paycheck comes from the FBI?
(This is a joke, we are not paid)
the M stands for Money :)
There is a difference between background-level bulk sniffing and someone-here-maybe-incited-violence targeted sniffing. The former is data collection, which is passive in the form practiced by “the feds”. The latter is data connection, putting effort into connecting a subset of the data that has been collected to form a story. Data connections need a framing, a nucleation seed, an impetus for why the feds might think such a connection is interesting or relevant or worth adding to their story about a larger incident. Collecting data is cheap and done in bulk, partly because it can be done passively and partly because the US govt paid a lot of money on storage and collection mechanisms. Connecting data is something that requires a lot more time, effort, patience, and vetting to make sure you are doing it right.
Or you can give the job to generative AI and hope it doesn’t hallucinate that someone innocent is guilty; with a large enough data pool (ie the internet, reality, what-have-you) it’s possible to select a misleading subset to support whatever hallucination you want.
It’s easy to do wrong, which is exactly why you don’t want the feds sniffing around. Especially now that they have the tools to automate doing it wrong, and might not know how to use them yet.
yeah obviously, but it's all the same at the end of the day. And they definitely have people actively sniffing around social media posts surrounding this at the moment.
Two wrongs do not make a right though.
But 3 rights make a left
But 1 click on a windage knob would have.
This is funnier retrospectively because apparently this fucking dumbass wasn't even using an optic. insanity
Ehhhh
That's not a justification for more violence, two wrongs don't make a right. He was wrong for doing what he did and this is wrong as well. This is because political violence in it's entirety is wrong. Jesus, do people not have principles anymore? Seeing all the supposedly moral people turn into Q anon level conspiracy theorists who condone violence is depressing.
You're right. But let me tell you all about the sympathy I have for him:
That's about it.
Let us take this as a reminder for everyone concerned with their own safety in a fascist state.
Guns wont do shit for you unless you regularly practice your marksmanship and keep your equipment in good condition.
A fascist exercised and practiced marksmanship today, did you, dear reader?
That's when you say I will happily read their obituary
I don't have any sympathy for him either, but that's still not a reason to abandon my principles and start cheering for political violence
Why do you keep saying that when I didn't?
I'm not cheering for political violence
I'm not saying that you are, I'm just pointing out that, in general, lack of sympathy doesn't justify political violence. We're in agreement here.
The death of Hitler, sadam hussein, Bin laden and all the others who threatened the free world disagree.
But these are vastly different situations. For the record, all three of these individuals used political violence to achieve political aims, that's one of the reasons why history doesn't remember them fondly. The constantly killed people they didn't like under the justification that it's for the greater good or self defense. Saddam Hussien did that when he genocided the Kurds in Iraq and the invasion Kuwait, Hitler did that with the Holocaust and the invasion of Europe, and Bin Laden did that with 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks he launched.
Keep in mind, we actually have a justice system in this country that actually works. If we want Trump to face justice it has to go through the justice where he faces trial and is found guilty based on evidence... which has already happened btw for one of his crimes. That's how justice is handled in a civil democracy. We can't have randos going on self righteous terrorism crusades killing political candidates they don't like. If someone tried assassinate Biden, would you being say the same? Probably not, and rightfully so, but the terrorist who tried to kill would be making similar justifications to what you're trying to make right now. The very idea is wrong.
Donald Trump intentionally and maliciously mishandled an epidemic and allowed it to turn pandemic for his own stupid and shortsighted political gains. He then intentionally hindered national response.
And then he intentionally incited a literal insurrection. He has absolutely employed political violence.
I'm not here to defend him. He's one of the worst of the presidents in our history. His list of horrendous acts goes far beyond his pandemic response and the insurrection, and it goes was past his presidency too. He's truly awful. But with that being said, things like assassinations and terrorism should not become normalized as a legitimate way of achieving political means.
Hitler committted suicide. Any insight in how the other executions actually improved the world?
Millions of fascists were murdered to win WW2, are you saying we should've used strong debate language instead?
lmao
While its not perfect you could easily be alot more oppressed. Democracy dies when people stop fighting for it.
The US invaded Iraq under GW Bush on a lie about WMD's. Killed Saddam and countless Iraqis, including journalists, for nothing.
The US invaded Afghanistan rather than negotiate with its ruling power to hand over Bin Laden, then didn't get their hands on him for another decade even though the US won the war and took over the country from day 1. 20+ years of bloody occupation later you lost the war and the Taliban is back in power. Another pointess war started with deception.
Don't get me started on Vietnam.
You guys have some twisted idea of democracy where the 'Democrats' don't even elect their own candidates.
Please stop exporting democracy. The world doesn't want your perverse version.
Hitler killed himself btw.
To be fair, the US did try to negotiate with Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden and the Taliban refused.
The US did not really try to negotiate with the Taliban regime. The US just demanded the Taliban hand them over, then refused a quite reasonable condition to show some evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack.
Conflating a government or regime with an international terrorist organisation is the lie the propaganda told you to accept invading and occupying an impoverished foreign country that had just gone through a famine.
I didn't say it was. You just put those words in my mouth.
Tell me, should we have turned the other cheek during WWII? Two wrongs don't make a right after all, right?
technically two negatives multiplied does.
We didn't join WWII because the Nazis were bad, we joined because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler declared war on the US.
Exactly, should've just turned the other cheek, right?
Really? You don't realize that the US didn't join a war that started in 1939 until 1941 when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor ... so was only part of the war for less than 4 years?
Wow!
You inferred something about Nazis, and now what you're saying makes no sense as a response to what I've been asking you.
I'll put it more clearly so you can actually give an answer: When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, you're saying we should've turned the other cheek?
I think this poster is saying: “since you believe two wrongs don’t make a right, then when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the correct thing to do in your view would to turn the other cheek.”
No, I'm just pointing out that your comparison is flawed. We didn't know about the Holocaust until the war was almost over. The Soviets were the first to discover and liberate the camps back in 1944 (too bad they ended up having their own brutal camps) and the Americans liberated the first camp they discovered (Ohrdruf) in April 1945... the war in Europe was over in a month. That's when the then general Eisenhower ordered the American soldiers to find the other camps, free the captives, and take pictures of everything they came across so Nazi crimes can be thoroughly documented and the American public can be made aware of them.
My point is that we didn't intervene in the war because of what the Nazis were doing like you seem to imply, we intervened because we got attacked and declared war on.
It wasn't confirmed until the war was nearly over. But even before then we knew the Axis powers were slaughtering people while they conquered Europe.
Fair, but the situation is similar to what's happening to Uyghurs in China right now. We know something is going on there, but it's not exactly sufficient grounds to invade China and intervene.
Right, but China hasn't invaded another country on top of the genocide.
I mean one could argue that Tibet is an invaded country, but that's besides the point. The only way we would realistically intervene is if China decides to either invade an American ally like Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea or if they directly attack and declare war on the US proper. Even then, it would be quite a stretch for us to have soldiers reach western China, but if we did and if our soldiers found camps where people are imprisoned, then we would have a similar reaction to what we saw towards the end of WWII. However, until then, we don't have sufficient grounds to invade a major world power.
A wrong makes a right if it prevents many many horrible wrongs in the future.
The ends don't justify the means politics, that's how you end up with terrorism, tyrannical governments, and atrocities. I'm all for bringing Trump to justice, but it has be done through civil and democratic means via the established criminal justice system. If Trump goes through trial and is found guilty, which has already happened for one of his crimes, then our criminal justice system will punish him accordingly. If the punishments aren't deemed harsh enough then we reform our punitive laws. We can't have self righteous assholes going on terrorism crusades assassinating political candidates they don't like. That's a sign of a failed state.
Tyrannical governments rise from apathy. The final governmental check is its people.
True, which is why now is the most important time to condemn political violence, get people politically active, and vote to keep the fascist wannabes out of power.
So you're telling me conservatives will realize this has gone to far and tell everyone to remain calm and peaceful?
The reasonable conservatives have already jumped off ship a long time ago and are now mostly either apolitical, independent, disenfranchised Democrat, or still a minority Republican opposing Trump. The only ones left that support Trump are his cult, and they will never see reason. However, we can't get rid them with violence. It's like what America tried to do with the Taliban or Israel is trying to do now with Hamas or what Saudi Arabia has tried to do with the Houthis, you can't use violence to get rid of ideologies. The way to get rid of ideologies is to make them irrelevant. This can happen either by defeating them in democratic elections or using their track records to delegitimatize them or ignoring them or providing better alternatives or whatever. Political violence will only fuel them, and that is something I don't want to see.
Mhmm. Where exactly do you draw the line regarding use of force as a preventative measure?
When it's used as a means to achieve power in a democracy. Normalizing violence is not okay in general, but especially during democratic elections, and this applies to everybody regardless of who does it.
one wrong plus another wrong, generally seems to overthrow most rights throughout the history of man kind.
I'm not sure what to do with this information, but it's present.
If by rights you mean you human rights then normalized widespread violence tends to do that, that's the whole reason why tyranny isn't exactly good.
if by wrongs you mean human wrongs, then i have no idea what you're talking about.
What?
same, you and me both.
the word right has different meaning in different contexts, I assumed you were talking about human rights as in the legally protected privileges that are granted to people... idk wtf you're talking about
unless the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" is referring to human rights, i was making an extension on that phrase.
Ikr!
How many deaths did it result in? Cause there is only one death on Jan 6 that has ever been attributed to Jan 6.
I don't disagree that he incited the insurrection, but making false claims doesn't help show that the left is the party of honesty.
Why are you pretending like right-wing violence isn't the literal leading domestic security threat?
Have you been living under a rock since 2016?
2016? It's been since at least the 90s.
Well, yeah, I mean, we can go back a hundred years, conservatives will always be pushing violence and division whatever era you look at since they can't hold power without it, I mostly mean it's come out fully into the open since 2016. The mask dropped off completely and they're no longer even pretending to be anything but the Confederacy 2.0.
The left, who? What party?
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
Babbitt plus suicides, and other "natural" deaths.
The left isn't even a party, genius.
Hey numbnuts, America doesn’t have a left and it’s the MAGA fascists that are the problem here
I know you have to say this, but holy shit do I disagree.
This person advocated significant violence and contributed to the deaths and loss of human rights of thousands. A good whack of the world would turn up hungover to work tomorrow after celebrating only a few inches over.
They don't have to say that.
Why not? Isnt that what americans claim the second amendment is for?Prevent fascism?
Sic semper tyrannis.
Communism, not Fascism, or to protect workers' rights if you go back far enough. We only got involved in fighting fascism because we were drawn into the war, otherwise it's never been that big of an issue to Americans and many schools aren't even allowed to teach about it anymore because "kids shouldn't have to feel bad about something like that" or whatever excuses the far right is currently using to prevent their schools from teaching about Anne Frank, concentration camps, slavery, anything else they want to implement themselves.
Lemmy users when they can’t advocate violence:
young_guy_straining.jpg
Advocating for violence to prevent a fascist from abolishing the democracy is the only acceptable violence. Sometimes a democracy has to be protected violently if it is too weak to protect itself. Trump allies always say its why they have the second amendment. Now that it is used against them they cry about it.
Everybody thinks their form of violence is the only acceptable violence.
The paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you don't believe in the social contract.
Beliefs that violate the social contract deserve no protection under it.
Violence is rarely good for anything as we have seen it just now. It would be better even if this guy shot at Biden that’s how counterproductive it is.
Modern problems aren’t solved with blood but with marketing. You cannot kill an idea but you can ridicule it
You cannot just eradicate everyone who opposes you. China tried, Soviets too. Now they have something vastly better - troll farms.
Tell that to the Ukrainians and the Palestinians. I know you want this to be the case, but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
In both cases they didn’t solve anything and only made things worse for themselves
Not sure what you mean, but Ukraine and Zelensky have been marketing themselves all over the place. They need all the help they can get, and they are doing whatever they can to boost support. So far pootin hasn't achieved his goals so it's working.
You're right, better to allow a violent oppressor to slowly eradicate your people than attempt to free or defend yourself by whatever means necessary....
Eh I think you guys see what you want to see in my comment. I was talking about Russia. putin attacked Ukraine, it was insane in any case and what did he got out of it really?
The violence on Ukraine was just plain stupid.
I am kinda surprised and amused you take me for some pacifist goodie two shoes, other cheek blah blah. funny from my pov. Idk how you extracted that from my comment, I bet you will now continue to argue with something that doesn’t exist. My congratulations
Because you replied to a comment about ukrainians and Palestinians and said it accomplished nothing.
I am actually almost flying now
Lmao enjoy your high bud.
I wish I could continue this but I am hella stoned now. I am glad or sorry it happend
Appeasement of an aggressor never works. History has taught this over and over and over again. We still haven't learned I see. I'm mainly talking about Ukraine. Palestine is a lot more complex.
Your last point is actually not a bad analysis - but it is missing that the ones operating their propaganda and troll farms already also control the violence monopoly. And both entities also use violence where they deem it practical.
Lol how kind of you, thank you I guess
I know this is off-topic, but can we please go back to saying "conspiracy theory"? Conspiracy and conspiracy theories are not the same. There are actual conspiracies (a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful) , and there are theories of conspiracies. They should not be confused.
Surprised you're not already banned just for the c-word. I mean, if someone crashes their car through a storefront, I could speculate without evidence that the driver was excessively old, young, drunk, or just plain stupid and it's left up to the reader to take my comment with a grain of salt, but if I so much as entertain the possibility of this shooting being anything besides what is being reported by official channels, I must be silenced.
How do the people get justice for a convicted criminal that's above the law? Is there a reason why the constitution has an amendment for guns? Why are so many platforms against the constitution and against the need for correct course when apt?
Stop acting like corpo reddit admins and mods.
"Convicted criminal" who is "above the law?"
Seems like he was convicted, thus not above the law.
You keep him from being president by getting enough people to vote against him, or you accept the will of the people.
The 2nd Amendment was originally to make sure militias weren't disarmed, in a time when militias were more relevant. Has nothing to do with political assassination.
How about when said political candidate openly calls for violence and murder against his opponents, to the point of asking the Supreme Court if he could assassinate people.
Maybe the 2nd amendment comes in to play a little? Last I checked we didn’t vote king George off our shores.
But we did vote Trump out of office, and he left. That's the difference between Republics and Monarchies.
He left after his last stand Jan 6. There is lots of news coverage of that, with many arrested as well. There are plenty of vids of Trump talking about Jan 6 people, not condemning them.
Also answer one question: What was Trump asking Pence to do on Jan 6?
Trump was asking Pence to return legally cast electoral votes to the states for reconsideration on false pretenses. Yes obviously bad and we don't want a president who would do such a thing. But not assassination worthy.
We also voted Gore IN office but whatever.
Orange Julius has become a cult god and is literally talking about assassinating rivals
…that’s the difference between republics and monarchies
Also this has been an oligarchy the whole time anyone who thinks republic is either willfully or unintentionally ignorant
We did not vote Gore or Hillary into office. They got more popular votes and lost in electoral votes, and only electoral votes count for president. They lost fair and square, in the system we have.
No the difference between republics and monarchies is not "talking about assassinating rivals." You can say anything, that is anyone's right. In the context from above, this difference is why political assassination is not acceptable in a republic. It would be insane to say that political assassination is OK if the person had ever talked about assassinating rivals. The penalty for distasteful speech is not death.
Do you think a convicted criminal should be walking around free?
While they await sentencing? If a judge allows it, obviously yes. People have lives and jobs, if they might not even get prison time it would be cruel to force them into all the downsides of prison time (lose your job, child care difficulties) and then let them go.
Trump would be more impacted by his inability to campaign, but we only have one justice system and I don't want to betray my beliefs on how the justice system works just because I don't like this guy's politics.
Most sit in jail until sentencing, and the time spent waiting will be accounted with the sentencing. I say most, because only the king walks around free.
Also convicted criminals people should not run for president. The corrupted courts made a new law, something they don't have the power to do, where the criminals can run, explicitly the hitler felon.
No, they didn't. There's just nothing that requires a candidate for president not be a convicted felon, other than the willingness of people to vote for them.
"no actual discussion allowed" got it
If the only way you can discuss an assassination is by advocating for additional violence and pushing lies, then I guess not?
How did you determine what was true in this situation and what was false? I am curious about your methodology.
True: confirmed information. False: unconfirmed information of a speculative nature. Do you see a specific issue you disagree with or are you just trying to argue?
You are just moving the problem around via definitions not actually saying what method you used to know exactly what happened yesterday.
All I asked is how you arrived at the truth. Did you see evidence that the general public didn't? Because what I am seeing is you all are so absolutely certain you have literally compared it to Covid misinformation. Amazing, a 30 hour news event is so well understood you can compare our knowledge of it to the single most studied virus in human history months after a new variant had appeared.
It is not unreasonable how you were able to obtain information the rest of us apparently do not have and how you were able to eliminate all other alternatives so quickly.
You are limiting discussion to centrist viewpoints, centrism caters towards permissive attitudes towards fascism. You know this.
"hey guys don't politicize an attempted political assassination"
Not really what I said at all. “Hey guys, don’t make stuff up, please rely on credible sources, and don’t advocate for violence”.
Or, in other words: follow the rules we’ve always had in place
Advocating for, or not advocating for, violence is a political stance. Many people defend Israel's ongoing genocide and are not blocked from doing so. That doesn't feel like the rules being consistently enforced. The people speculating on whether or not this is staged have access to the same information as everyone else, and in the spirit of true discourse, if it was seen to be false you could figure that out by discussion rather than censorship.
If you have evidence that it was staged, feel free to share it. If you don't, then we ask that you not speculate. It's no different than any other claim for which we'd require a basic amount of credible substantiation.
Should I start reporting every comment that doesn't have sources? 😂😂
If someone has made a claim that runs counter to commonly acknowledged information, please report it. If you need a few examples…
You would need a source to say:
You would NOT need a source to say:
"widely speculated" ... like I said, I don't think it was staged, but it's clear that most of what is being stated the day after this event is speculation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Saying that someone who shot a president is likely an assassination attempt is not a logical fallacy. There are pretty much 2 possibilities: targeted attack and random acts of violence. The fact that he seemed to be aiming at Trump suggests the former.
What methods did you use to eliminate a false flag operation?
Common sense and the ability to view photographic evidence
I don't personally think it was staged, but be honest ... it's not like you delete every single comment that doesn't have sources ...
We remove comments that make objectively false claims, especially when they involve life or death situations. Covid misinformation is a good example.
The virus was studied by multiple different healthcare agencies across multiple different continents.
This is not comparable to the performance yesterday.
I didn't compare a vaccine to an assassination attempt.
Yes you personally did not compare the vaccine to the performance yesterday, that doesn't mean other members of the mod team in this thread did not.
Edit: oh my bad you did, sorry about that.
"Covid misinformation is a good example."
Speculating on an event that has already occured is not a "life or death situation" in the way spreading information that discourages the use of life-saving vaccines is.
Given the state of American discourse right now, I'm going to hard disagree with you there.
So you're making moderation policy based on an assumption that people who have been exposed to the idea that the shooting may have been staged are more likely to incite violence than people who haven't been? You don't have source for that stance do you? One could argue that believing it is a failed assassination attempt would also incite people to violence. If a comment in particular calls for violence, thats one thing, but what you're saying is not logical.
No, we are not. Our sidebar rules are posted and have not changed, nor have the rules of Lemmy.
Here's your source.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583
It's INSANE to me that you'd suggest we do nothing or even promote political violence over this.
The Lemmy.World content policy prohibits advocacy of violence. We are enforcing the rules of Lemmy, not our own personal preferences. If you prefer an instance without such limitations, you are free to engage with another instance.
Yet you seem to think acting like a petulant child is appropriate. Some of us have had our hands slapped because we crossed a line. But you can still act like an adult when it happens.
If you don't like the rules, fine. Then go elsewhere.
......its nice to see how complacent and naive we have all become. Pathetic. This country deserves what's coming if that's the mind-set.
How do you spread a conspiracy? I think you mean speculation.
My friend, you know exactly what they mean. Don't push a "well maybe somebody set it up because ..." theory unless you have facts to back it up.
Obviously someone set this up, bullets don't just appear out of nowhere. It may have just been the gunman who acted entirely alone. We have no evidence that anyone worked with the gunman but what's that saying about the absence of evidence?
Yeah but there's also no evidence that this was anything other than a single person acting on their own. Most loan shooters are actually loners.
The issue is the volume of comments about this being faked entirely or a false flag.
You can't use the English language in an openly misleading fashion and expect that people are going to go along with it, not in a situation like this. The expression "someone set this up" clearly implies the existence of a second person.
What made you think that another person is involved? Nothing. If we were to look at historical evidence, we would find that a lot of these situations are done by so-called lone wolf attackers. So if we're going to blindly speculate, we should at least be consistent with historical evidence, and we should certainly speak unambiguously.
I would like facts that back up you claim to know what your "friend" was thinking
I take issue with inaccurate language. This is how trains crash. A conspiracy is where 2 or more people plan something in secret. A conspiracy theory is where an outsider speculates about the nature of such plans. Also, without wanting to speculate myself, logically it was either a lone actor or a group conspiring, since it clearly wasn't publicised in advance. I personally doubt it was some grand conspiracy.
Lol stfu, nobody cares about your fricked censorship
Was it wrong when Trump triggered Jan 6 with his calls for violence?
If yes, why do you get to call for violence?
If no, you should read more about the ramifications of Jan 6
What if we disagree with what happened on Jan 6 not because of the violence but rather because of the attempted political coup?
Personally, it's the attempted coup that really gets my goat.
Yup, a peaceful coup would be just as bad and that is in the works through the courts and SCOTUS right now by setting the stage for Republicans to refuse to certify election results.
This sub has some crazy censorship. I’m pretty sure it’s all right-wing mods.
Didn't know this was the "othe r/ place" now...but.. Okay.
This community can be whatever it wants to be. If you want to advocate for violence you are free to do that elsewhere in the fediverse. Just not here.