• I bet chalk sent him over the edge.

    • Alain


  • tamale

    I don’t get the ear thing. What is with these kids?

    • WalterBannon

      I bet this left wing terrorist is non-binary

    • Clausewitz

      They think it makes them special and unique when they all adopt the same moronic fashion statements.

  • The article says “man” but that’s an ambiguous term these days.

  • Clink9

    I would say don’t drop the soap in prison, but he’d probably like it.

    • Clausewitz

      Words from Bubba, “You got a purdy mouth”.

  • John

    And what about those Black rappers openly calling for Trump’s death? Incitement to murder used to be a very serious crime, but these days if such incitements emerge from a Black mouth, then they’re A-OK

    • I’m declaring a 300 yard safe space around my person. Hell let’s make it 400 yards it’s a good scope.

    • That’s what I was thinking. Although I disagree with his position on Trump, the kid’s statement sounds like a rather speculative question in comparison to the more overt threats from BLM and such. Maybe they’re cracking down more on Internet stuff.

      • andycanuck

        There was a second tweet that might have been more proactive-sounding…

        A second Twitter post warned the suspect’s friend to have his family members leave the rally so they wouldn’t be hurt.

        • Exile1981

          That one sounds like he had crossed from talking to planning.

  • mauser 98

    Suckerburg has no problem with Facebook pages calling for Trumps assassination
    …also Twitter

  • pdxnag

    It was just a joke. Let Obama invite him to the White House. And, let him sue someone for 15 Million Dollars.

    • So long as it’s a “joke” against Trump supporters I don’t think Obama would have a problem with that.

  • luna

    Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict

    Political conflict between American Democrats and Republicans and ethnoreligious conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seem intractable, despite the availability of reasonable compromise solutions in both cases. This research demonstrates a fundamental cognitive bias driving such conflict intractability: Adversaries attribute their ingroup’s actions to ingroup love more than outgroup hate and attribute their outgroup’s actions to outgroup hate more than ingroup love. This biased attributional pattern increases beliefs and intentions associated with conflict intractability, including unwillingness to negotiate and unwillingness to vote for compromise solutions. In addition, offering financial incentives for accuracy in evaluating one’s outgroup mitigates this biased attributional pattern and its consequences. Understanding this bias and how to alleviate it can contribute to conflict resolution on a global scale.

    • “Adversaries attribute their ingroup’s actions to ingroup love more than
      outgroup hate and attribute their outgroup’s actions to outgroup hate
      more than ingroup love.”

      Jeezus Murphy I had to read that statement 7 or 8 times, then I had to make a coffee and come back and read it again before I understood (I think). And they even have mathematical formulas for balancing out love and hate with one’s ingroups and outgroups to end all conflict. Life must be nice over there at the National Academy of Sciences.

      • luna
        • I’m no genius, but I think the premise of the argument can be refuted with one question: If the asymmetrical position is wrong then who’s “symmetry” should we conform with to correct the problem — my symmetry, or your symmetry, or the symmetry of John Smith who lives down the street?

          It’s a circular argument, an error in logic. And it cloaks the fact that it is advancing the belief there is some sort of universal symmetry, which in and of itself is an ideological position that not everyone will agree with. Hence, we’re back to square one: asymmetry. Circular argument.

          • luna

            I think your confused.

            This described a phenomena where members of political groups believe they are motivated by love, while their opponents are motivated by hate.

          • I understand that. But to critique it logically (and mathematically which the NAS attempts to do) you have to think of it in terms of the standard P / Q relationship. It matters little whether you’re talking about love and hate, horses and cows, or bits and bytes. e.g.: P=Q. if P then Q; if not P then not Q, et cetera.

            My argument is that the premise itself is faulty — there is no universal symmetry. Furthermore, there is no universal measure of love or hate, and any way of objectively measuring these human emotions. No one can show me 25 milliliters of love or 65 grams of hate.

          • luna

            You just ask people about their feelings.

            On a scale of 1 to 10 how do you feel about ______?

          • Exactly! It’s a subjective measure.

          • luna

            C’est la vie.

          • Qué será, será. Although I hope I didn’t destroy symmetry! I think God might encompass perfect symmetry.