It’s the first time in NBC News polling across five different violent incidents that there has been bipartisan agreement blaming extreme rhetoric from political and media figures.
More than 6 in 10 registered voters said they think “extreme political rhetoric” was an important contributor to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this year — including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, according to the latest NBC News poll.
The findings represent a grim milestone in America’s reckoning with growing political violence and its root causes. The survey marks the first time, across questions about five different violent incidents over 15 years of NBC News polling, that there has been cross-partisan agreement that rhetoric played an important role in an attack, as opposed to the incident having been more about the actions of a single disturbed person.
Overall, 61% of respondents said they feel that “extreme political rhetoric used by some in the media and by political leaders was an important contributor” to Kirk’s killing.
Not as violent or extreme as the groypers who killed him for not being violent and extreme enough tho…
Did I miss credible evidence coming out that he was a groyper?
Last I heard that theory had been retracted because it was based on a misidentification of the markings on the shell casings.
Yes, you did
And if you ask someone else politely they might even take the two seconds to type it into a search engine for you.
Best of luck!
In the ranking of helpfulness of comments:
-Providing a source
-Providing an explanation
-Just not commenting at all
-Making a snarky reply that contains no useful info and tells people to look things up themselves.
You mean like this article?
Why People Fell for an Outlandish Charlie Kirk Theory
Oh…
So I was right, you can use a search engine, you’re just JAQing off…
That article says he’s not because… They actually don’t give a reason, just call the idea stupid.
Check out their other articles:
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/graeme-wood/
They’re pro-israel, worried about the “plight” of white south Africans, and call Kirk getting shot “one of the worst moments in American history”…
But they agree with you, that’s all that matters, right?
Otherwise you’d have linked something that shows evidence, instead of just calling it “stupid”.
But I’m sure as shit never wasting time on you JAQing off again
How can I link to something that shows evidence that doesn’t exist?
You’re more than welcome to provide a source to counter mine instead of moving the goalposts, though.
Do you know what the word “evidence” means?
Always gotta assume they’re your enemy. Because why be any other way on the Internet? It’s just helpful!