you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 1 year ago (22 children)

Would like more confirmation on this than a picture of a tweet saying so.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Its very much still up, now just framed in a "maybe do your own research before believing us" kinda way lmao

    Early Bulletin Said Ammunition in Kirk Shooting Engraved With Transgender, Antifascist Ideology; Some Sources Urge Caution

    https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammunition-in-kirk-shooting-engraved-with-transgender-antifascist-ideology-sources-pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Huh? It was a lie. You want confirmation that a lie is a lie? How does one prove that? You literally got this backwards—the onus would be on you to prove that there was pro-trans messaging on the bullet.

    Also, fucking google it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Settle down, Francis. I don’t believe something just because someone posted a picture of someone else’s tweet saying it. That’s how propaganda works.

    This is someone making a claim, secondhand. People who make claims have the burden of proof. I am not making a claim.

    e: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/20824428

    And the claim isn't true. That wasn't a retraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Now apply that same logic to the original claim

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    The thread parent posted, as a quote from somewhere:

    Cartridges with "transgender and anti-fascist" writing on them were found.

    A responder replied:

    are you seeing that in the article?

    Because that claim was not in the article posted.

    I replied, what you're linking to:

    That’s from other reporting, but it is being reported from legitimate sources.

    That it was being reported. At legitimate sources. Which it was. Being reported.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

    I would argue that news organizations that report about something that could incite more violence without knowing any details is not legitimate.

    Edit: Downvote me all you want, but reporting on something that immediately sounded made up without asking any more questions or knowing any details is journalistic malpractice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I downvoted you because you're making it out like I was being disingenuous, which I clearly was not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    You gave credence to an wild claim with no available evidence or details because it came from "legitimate sources", even though it was obvious they were trying to push a narrative. Then you turned around and demanded a higher standard when someone claimed the opposite. They're both untrustworthy without verification, and it is a bit hypocritical to say one was legitimate while immediately doubting the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Jesus fucking christ, shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Well fuck me seems I really hit a nerve. I was just pointing out some passing observations. Its not like I'm screaming about some strongly held opinion. I was just giving my two cents and people are jumping all over me, and I genuinely don't know why the strong reaction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    You’re being pedantic for the sake of pedantry. You didn’t hit a nerve, you’re just being really fucking annoying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    You seem very angry. I wasn't trying to troll just point things out that I noticed and it resulted in me getting cussed out. I understand disagreements, but I was civil the whole time. I'm guessing you're saying I'm being pedantic about op being hypocritical? Maybe. But in the end all I was trying to say was people need to reevaluate what they consider legitimate. Any news that reported trans idealogy was carved into the bullet casing without asking any further questions is absolute trash journalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Jesus fucking christ, shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    ... no...

    Are you disagreeing and trying to support that trash journalism? I generally don't understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    You realize a 34-counts-of-fraud, demented rapist is in the White House with this corporate news system doing what it does right?

    Malpractice? We are so far away from what they're doing being called journalism now we can't talk about malpractice for a long time.

  • source
  • parent