PhilipTheBucket

I really can’t tell what “raised” means

"Raising a rifle" has a single fairly unambiguous meaning to most people I know; although we have only the story's word for that being what happened, it's not like a confusing type of description of events, along with the other elements (him retrieving the rifle instead of having it carried with him, running towards the crowd ignoring people trying to talk with him, and so on.) I actually think they did a pretty good job of explaining the circumstances which sort of clearly point to one conclusion, without doing anything other than presenting the factual circumstances.

There isn’t enough information in this story to infer intent.

If we assume that what's in the story is accurate, then yes, to me there is.

And I definitely can’t deduce the political leaning of someone barely mentioned

Correct. So why did you speculate that he may have been a leftist? I never said anything about his political leaning or the underlying motives.

Going through brutal things will destroy your empathy. I am fine with this guy standing trial for his crime but I don't think it was really "his fault" at the end of the day after how he grew up.

Some people have strong character and they can turn out fine no matter how you treat them. Some people, you can give every opportunity in the world to, and they're still going to turn towards the dark. For most people, it's down to circumstances.

That's why it is important to create good circumstances. The schools, the police, the meeting places where people hang out, the shops and the structure of the economy. It all has to serve the good, it has to be alive with life. Because the people who are in it will be molded.

Who was so enthusiastic he felt like he had to raise his rifle and move towards the crowd with it, to show his enthusiasm?

I think he was about as leftist as the people on Lemmy who were super vocal about Gaza and the US economy, before the election, and then moved on and stopped caring about any of those issues or their relationship to the US presidential administration as soon as the election happened.

It's literally in the subtitle: "Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, 39, was apparently shot by member of event’s peacekeeping team." And then at the beginning of the story, it explains in detail the situation, which honestly wasn't all that complex, a short direct event with 3 people involved in it. I and apparently all the downvoters managed to read it and make perfect sense of it.

You just couldn't understand it because of your prejudices. You can only draw one type of conclusion in this type of situation, and this wasn't it, so you couldn't comprehend and reached a totally different conclusion and then broadcasted it to everyone who would listen. It had nothing to do with passive voice. And now, you're doubling down on the same prejudices that led you to be unable to read the article and make sense of the clear explanation. That's why I was kind of blunt with you: Because you're going to keep failing to understand the world, sometimes in situations that are a lot less clear-cut and immediately obvious than this one, for as long as you cling to those prejudices (which are pretty popular prejudices to cling to in the modern left.)

As it happens, the world is more complex than your pre-established prejudices you jump to. The police's action was to find and arrest the actual shooter, which is, believe it or not, a good thing.

The peacekeepers were, I believe, working with the protest organizers. They have people in bright vests keeping people in the right designated areas, attending to emergencies, or giving armed response when shit goes down.

You have no idea how psyched I am that they are armed. Well, not happy that this is where we've ended up, but about the fact that they're out there ready to defend the people. This isn't the first video I've seen about them jumping into action with this sort of "armed maniac" situation.

Click the image title, the preview that gets served along with the comments is downsampled to save bandwidth and basically unreadable for things like this. It’s Lemmy, it’s not OP.

Everyone wants to do an Operation Praying Mantis, and walk into the briefing room the next day and yell "WHAT'S UP NOW" and then run the meetings from then on. I suspect that it's a strong motivating factor behind a lot of things which actually aren't in the best interests of any country from the standpoint of the people in the country.

Also, the current US president at least has been fine with US forces directly blowing up Iranians and Iranian installations. (Also, for the matter, with Iranians blowing up Americans.) It's only within the brute logic of geopolitics that they can say with a straight face that Iran "must not" attack Americans.

You walk forward boldly with your lady into a more rewarding future

Competition? Send 'em south
They're gonna drown? Put a hose in their mouth.
Do not pass go, go straight to hell
I smell that meathook smell...

I was once on a farm, laughing at something, and a horsefly came up and bit me on the tongue.

I had no idea why it happened, still don't, but it was one of the worst things that had ever happened to me at that point in my life.