Oh, when they finally drive someone to it, I'm sure there'll be the videos about how terrible it is that even this Nazi \ white person \ man was killed. They might even remember not to grin ear-to-ear while they're doing it.
That said, didn't Vice grant to guy who just executed a Trump supporter an interview or something?
I consistently underestimate how shameless the media will be.
I don't think so. If terrorists were to storm the court-room and kill Chauvin during trial; I think they'll rationalize it. The communists have been pushing the concept of "Communal Self-Defense" for a while, which is a) the definition of lynching, and b) actual Nazi rhetoric.
It would not surprise me of the media said something like "It's inappropriate but understandable. If you don't empathize with the discomfort of Black Liberation, you are a sociopath!"
That said, didn't Vice grant to guy who just executed a Trump supporter an interview or something?
Basically. He came to them, they ran the story, and tried not to praise him. They were just trying to not challenge the narrative he was pushing. They didn't explicitly endorse the murder, though.
I don't think so. If terrorists were to storm the court-room and kill Chauvin during trial; I think they'll rationalize it. The communists have been pushing the concept of "Communal Self-Defense" for a while, which is a) the definition of lynching, and b) actual Nazi rhetoric.
You could well be right. Like I said, I consistently underestimate just how big a bunch of shitbags the media is prepared to be. That said, I suspect that they'd do the omerta thing and just bury the story. As a tactic, it's working well for them so far - they've got enough of a monopoly that aside from a small group of people, if they don't talk about it, it didn't happen.
Vice not explicitly endorsing the murder.
I wonder if that's simply because Michael Reinoehl got himself killed with such alacrity - Danielson was murdered August 29^th, Reinoehl was dead by the 3^rd September - that they just didn't have time to do so.
I suspect that they'd do the omerta thing and just bury the story
I don't think an in-court mob lynching is their objective, just that they'd defend it. Burying the facts of the story and supporting the narrative echos of it is the far more common action taken: hands up, don't shoot.
Michael Reinoehl
Well, nobody but the feds even knew where the guy was. He was clearly fucking crazy and went on the lamb. They not only couldn't make him a hero, they didn't even have communication to idolize him. They tried a half-assed martyr narrative, but the abandoned it since it just wasn't worth the effort.
Oh, when they finally drive someone to it, I'm sure there'll be the videos about how terrible it is that even this Nazi \ white person \ man was killed. They might even remember not to grin ear-to-ear while they're doing it.
That said, didn't Vice grant to guy who just executed a Trump supporter an interview or something?
I consistently underestimate how shameless the media will be.
I don't think so. If terrorists were to storm the court-room and kill Chauvin during trial; I think they'll rationalize it. The communists have been pushing the concept of "Communal Self-Defense" for a while, which is a) the definition of lynching, and b) actual Nazi rhetoric.
It would not surprise me of the media said something like "It's inappropriate but understandable. If you don't empathize with the discomfort of Black Liberation, you are a sociopath!"
Basically. He came to them, they ran the story, and tried not to praise him. They were just trying to not challenge the narrative he was pushing. They didn't explicitly endorse the murder, though.
You could well be right. Like I said, I consistently underestimate just how big a bunch of shitbags the media is prepared to be. That said, I suspect that they'd do the omerta thing and just bury the story. As a tactic, it's working well for them so far - they've got enough of a monopoly that aside from a small group of people, if they don't talk about it, it didn't happen.
I wonder if that's simply because Michael Reinoehl got himself killed with such alacrity - Danielson was murdered August 29^th, Reinoehl was dead by the 3^rd September - that they just didn't have time to do so.
I don't think an in-court mob lynching is their objective, just that they'd defend it. Burying the facts of the story and supporting the narrative echos of it is the far more common action taken: hands up, don't shoot.
Well, nobody but the feds even knew where the guy was. He was clearly fucking crazy and went on the lamb. They not only couldn't make him a hero, they didn't even have communication to idolize him. They tried a half-assed martyr narrative, but the abandoned it since it just wasn't worth the effort.