https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/blogs/kathygriffintw...
That alone is true, but this imagery itself is so grotesque that we ought to assume it led to a change in the degree of motive to cause harm. If you don’t believe me, consider a thought exercise where the identity of the person involved is exchanged with someone who did end up assassinated this way. Would it be reasonable to conclude this influenced it?
Anyways, we probably understand each other at this point and don't need to belabor this, even if we don't agree with each other.
In any case, I stand by my claim that to say you can know the full effect on all minds of a certain image is a poor argument to make, since it's literally impossible to know. I hope you'll at least recognize that kind of claim is worth avoiding, if for no other reason that it inadvertently undermines any other point you are trying to make.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
Like many assassins, the person who fired on a congressional sports practice did appear to be motivated by political animus that on the face of it would not include shooting up the players on a ball field. But that is what the person did. This is similar to the attempted assassination of the Arizona congressperson in response to the Alaskan politician's crosshair advertisements.
As a reasonable person it is difficult to understand that folks might not share your views because as a reasonable person one's views seem logical and well grounded. That is totally understandable.
Is that so? Curious, because I was seeing a lot of guillotine memes from leftists last month.
(For the record: I think the guillotine imagery is as offensive as the Pinochet helicopter stuff, which is to say, extraordinarily offensive, and I think less of anyone who uses it. That's easy for me to say though, because I'm also not a leftist.).
Another factor is the climate: nobody is using guillotines anywhere now but mass shootings are sadly common.