The Mass Shooting Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

At some point it has to come from Trump, Musk and Miller etc. to cool things down. He is chief offender in the deterioration of bipartisanship, moderate tenor, and accelerating division. You had a judge's house set on fire after being the social media target of Trump, and not a word from anyone noteworthy on the right. Not dissimilar from the political assassinations in Minnesota or the attack on Pelosi's husband (ironically, Charlie Kirk tweeted about raising money to get Paul Pelosi's attacker out of jail).

Within the last few days you've had two MAGA influencers with massive audiences call for ICE to use deadly force against protestors. That's a bit more concerning.

I don't think anyone is going to see Bagley's comic and get inspired to attack a disappointing Utah politician.

Of course it happens on both sides. It is an epidemic. If you truly cared about it, you would unequivocally condemn garbage like the Bagley cartoon rather than defend and rationalize it because it comes from a member of your tribe.

Let's remember your behavior here next time you are calling out shaka for seemingly never criticizing Trump.

[frank ryan]

Of course it happens on both sides. It is an epidemic. If you truly cared about it, you would unequivocally condemn garbage like the Bagley cartoon rather than defend and rationalize it because it comes from a member of your tribe.

Let's remember your behavior here next time you are calling out shaka for seemingly never criticizing Trump.

It is wildly unfair for you to tell I don't care about the issue because you don't agree with me.


I still don't get your pushback and defensiveness against pointing out that Shaka is anything but a Trump skeptic. Why that is so awful is beyond me.

[dabrockster]

Any sensible person would see that cartoon and cringe. It does not take much to connect the dots of that statement and the death of Charlie in Utah to find it abhorrent. A simple-minded HS kid could make that distinction and see this is crossing a line.

Any attempt to defend, lessen or roll-eyes over any person’s reaction is equally deplorable. And this non-chalant idea that only MAGAs are upset by this is also troublesome to see stated here. The action and the poor taste of this cartoon was offensive to many. While MAGAs may have been more vocal. Let’s not pretend this wasn’t disgusting to see.

And any attempt to alleviate culpability from the cartoonist and editor falls on deaf ears. You don’t become an editor without having some sense of understanding of current events They went for click-bait and got what they wanted. More publicity. I find their whoring of clicks over decency to be par for the course for the tribe.

[dabrockster]

Honest question, JL:

Let's say this exact political cartoon, title and all, is published 4 months ago. Does it get any media attention at all? Is there anyone out there accusing Bagley of fomenting violence by accusing the Congressional delegation of abdicating their duties and publishing their office phone numbers? Is there anyone on the right trying to claim classic old-west iconography is a threat if this appears then?

What difference does this question make. You cannot throw out such hypotheticals in this instance. Not comparable at all..

[Northwestcoug]

Any sensible person would see that cartoon and cringe. It does not take much to connect the dots of that statement and the death of Charlie in Utah to find it abhorrent. A simple-minded HS kid could make that distinction and see this is crossing a line.

Any attempt to defend, lessen or roll-eyes over any person’s reaction is equally deplorable. And this non-chalant idea that only MAGAs are upset by this is also troublesome to see stated here. The action and the poor taste of this cartoon was offensive to many. While MAGAs may have been more vocal. Let’s not pretend this wasn’t disgusting to see.

And any attempt to alleviate culpability from the cartoonist and editor falls on deaf ears. You don’t become an editor without having some sense of understanding of current events They went for click-bait and got what they wanted. More publicity. I find their whoring of clicks over decency to be par for the course for the tribe.

Ive been holding back commenting about this because there are some really strong reactions in this thread. So just to make sure I went back and looked at the cartoon to verify that my initial less-than-abhorrent attitude was what I truly felt. And yeah, definitely not abhorrent, and I wouldn’t call it disgusting either. In this current god forsaken political climate it was in poor taste. And if you call it a poor editorial decision to run with it you won’t get an argument from me. But I’m sorry, there are a few sensible HS grads who look at this and do not share your visceral reaction. There’s even a couple of posters here who are not as left as I am who feel similarly not enraged.

[LVAllen]

What difference does this question make. You cannot throw out such hypotheticals in this instance. Not comparable at all..

Of course I can. I just did. I think if you divide it from the hyper-sensitivity surrounding Charlie Kirk's death, there's not much there that's objectively deplorable or threatening. Within the context of Kirk's death, I think the most you get is a claim that it's tone deaf and/or insensitive to a possible interpretation that might implicate Kirk's death. So what's the standard for political cartoons these days? Are we all still Charlie (Hebdo)?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Honest question, JL:

Let's say this exact political cartoon, title and all, is published 4 months ago. Does it get any media attention at all? Is there anyone out there accusing Bagley of fomenting violence by accusing the Congressional delegation of abdicating their duties and publishing their office phone numbers? Is there anyone on the right trying to claim classic old-west iconography is a threat if this appears then?

Yes, of course the Charlie Kirk thing changes the current dynamic. As it should. Would this have been called out 4 months ago? Given the assassination attempts on Trump, my guess would be yes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ive been holding back commenting about this because there are some really strong reactions in this thread. So just to make sure I went back and looked at the cartoon to verify that my initial less-than-abhorrent attitude was what I truly felt. And yeah, definitely not abhorrent, and I wouldn’t call it disgusting either. In this current god forsaken political climate it was in poor taste. And if you call it a poor editorial decision to run with it you won’t get an argument from me. But I’m sorry, there are a few sensible HS grads who look at this and do not share your visceral reaction. There’s even a couple of posters here who are not as left as I am who feel similarly not enraged.

I am close to several people who told me that they are not sad that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. That is where we are in America.

[tooblue]

I don't know what possessed Bagely to create the cartoon other than in his mind, it was a funny Utah meta critique of Utah politics, but I see no malice in it. Its editorial timing is odd—how could an editor not see that many individuals could draw a correlation, whether valid or not, to the Charlie Kirk assassination? That shows a lack journalistic professionalism, and awareness.

[dabrockster]

I am close to several people who told me that they are not sad that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. That is where we are in America.

I was about to post a similar comment. The fact people do not find it abhorrent or disgusting. Is a reflection of the state of where we are more so than the my opinion of it.

[falafel]

Of course it happens on both sides. It is an epidemic. If you truly cared about it, you would unequivocally condemn garbage like the Bagley cartoon rather than defend and rationalize it because it comes from a member of your tribe.

Let's remember your behavior here next time you are calling out shaka for seemingly never criticizing Trump.

Careful JL, you are trending towards the true scotsman. You don't get to tell people how they should react if they "truly cared about it." That is a ridiculous thing to say.

[falafel]

Ive been holding back commenting about this because there are some really strong reactions in this thread. So just to make sure I went back and looked at the cartoon to verify that my initial less-than-abhorrent attitude was what I truly felt. And yeah, definitely not abhorrent, and I wouldn’t call it disgusting either. In this current god forsaken political climate it was in poor taste. And if you call it a poor editorial decision to run with it you won’t get an argument from me. But I’m sorry, there are a few sensible HS grads who look at this and do not share your visceral reaction. There’s even a couple of posters here who are not as left as I am who feel similarly not enraged.

I agree with DH and NWC (and anyone else expressing similar opinions here). I can't believe people here are pushing back and calling for (or expecting) someone to get fired for this. A newspaper editorial page pushing back against Utah's elected officials for not doing enough against a Dictator like Donald Trump. Are we being serious here?

Also, what exactly is the connection to Charlie Kirk? A red bandana around their necks?? This political cartoon isn't about Charlie Kirk in any way, why is anyone trying to tie it to his death? Bagley is calling them criminals, not calling for their deaths. I thought we had a lot more level-headed people around here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with DH and NWC (and anyone else expressing similar opinions here). I can't believe people here are pushing back and calling for (or expecting) someone to get fired for this. A newspaper editorial page pushing back against Utah's elected officials for not doing enough against a Dictator like Donald Trump. Are we being serious here?

Pushing back with violent imagery and language. Come on. Are YOU being serious here?

FTR: I haven't called for anyone to be fired.

Also, what exactly is the connection to Charlie Kirk? A red bandana around their necks?? This political cartoon isn't about Charlie Kirk in any way, why is anyone trying to tie it to his death? Bagley is calling them criminals, not calling for their deaths. I thought we had a lot more level-headed people around here.

It is a connection to political violence in general. Wanted posters. Hole in the head. This isn't complicated.

[falafel]

I see Frank's point here. The cartoonist may have been using the red scarves around the neck to signify GOP. Not sure why red scarves was what he decided to go with, but the pencil marks around the red lend to the intent of it being apparel rather than blood spurts/stains.

If the editors are the ones who came up with the headline, it reads much different. Bagley was calling them "The Gutless Gang". Having an alternate title of Hole-in-the-Head Gang doesn't really make much sense.

There's a clarification issued by the editors but it doesn't address who came up with that title, maybe to avoid admitting their own culpability.

Why on earth are you defending this??

[falafel]

Pushing back with violent imagery and language. Come on. Are YOU being serious here?

FTR: I haven't called for anyone to be fired.

It is a connection to political violence in general. Wanted posters. Hole in the head. This isn't complicated.

WHAT VIOLENT IMAGERY?!?! WHAT VIOLENT LANGUAGE!?!? Also, convenient of you to cut out of your quote of my post the part where I talk about this NOT being violent imagery and language so that you could then claim people were pushing back with violent imagery and language.

This is exactly my point. You are reading so much into this that isn't there. And then getting outraged about it and demand that others (aka Frank) be outraged too! This is exactly the kind of thing you have griped about in the past, except in the reverse.

Others in this thread think someone should be fired.

The confusing thing is why you feel the need to read violent imagery and language where none exists. Even going so far to conflate "hole in the head" and a red bandana around the neck as some kind of allusion to murdering these people. To even DO that, you'd have to argue that "hole in the head" means we should shoot them in the neck rather than head, like Charlie Kirk was shot. Bagley has been working for the Trib for 45 years, one year longer than I've been alive. I would assume he knows how to intimate that the people should MURDER their representatives rather than just be upset with them for violating their Constitutional oaths.

Wanted posters aren't connected to political violence. They are connected to accountability. There is no "WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" on the poster.