I agree about the shooter's obsession and the possible effect of that despicable ad (now acceptable for Republican candidates). However, I'm not sure that's going to be persuasive. What is persuasive is the fact that the paper rescinded it's reporting three days after making it. Which is what responsible individuals and organizations do.noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:41 pmI don't think that the fact that he had been obsessed with her before he went on a shooting spree means that he wasn't inspired to do so by her ad. He may well have taken the ad as a directive from the woman he admired, to kill her enemies. IIRC, the ad showed RINOs in what appeared to be the crosshairs of a rifle scope.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:38 pmHe had already been obsessed with her for years before that ad came out.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... -shooting/
So, I think that the jury will have to decide if the NYT was "mistaken" in their editorial opinion.
That may not be enough (as it was not enough for that stupid kid in DC with the Native American dude). But if fucking well should be. I've lost track of the last time I heard a right wing individual or organization EVER admit that they were wrong. cf COVID, racism, CRT, violence, and on and aon. Part and parcel of the rejection of professionalism.