this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
1000 points (98.6% liked)
Bluesky
1625 readers
1633 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Would like more confirmation on this than a picture of a tweet saying so.
Its very much still up, now just framed in a "maybe do your own research before believing us" kinda way lmao
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammunition-in-kirk-shooting-engraved-with-transgender-antifascist-ideology-sources-pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b
Thank you! That’s hardly a retraction, innit?
It's not.
But obviously their affirmation is as credible as the tweet. Surprise, surprise, narratives are trying to get the upper spin. The tribes continue. Nothing is learned; nothing is gained. It goes on...
Huh? It was a lie. You want confirmation that a lie is a lie? How does one prove that? You literally got this backwards—the onus would be on you to prove that there was pro-trans messaging on the bullet.
Also, fucking google it.
Settle down, Francis. I don’t believe something just because someone posted a picture of someone else’s tweet saying it. That’s how propaganda works.
This is someone making a claim, secondhand. People who make claims have the burden of proof. I am not making a claim.
e: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/20824428
And the claim isn't true. That wasn't a retraction.
Now apply that same logic to the original claim
I fucking did.
https://fedia.io/m/news@lemmy.world/t/2696480/-/comment/12284533
Did you?
The thread parent posted, as a quote from somewhere:
A responder replied:
Because that claim was not in the article posted.
I replied, what you're linking to:
That it was being reported. At legitimate sources. Which it was. Being reported.
I would argue that news organizations that report about something that could incite more violence without knowing any details is not legitimate.
Edit: Downvote me all you want, but reporting on something that immediately sounded made up without asking any more questions or knowing any details is journalistic malpractice.
I downvoted you because you're making it out like I was being disingenuous, which I clearly was not.
You gave credence to an wild claim with no available evidence or details because it came from "legitimate sources", even though it was obvious they were trying to push a narrative. Then you turned around and demanded a higher standard when someone claimed the opposite. They're both untrustworthy without verification, and it is a bit hypocritical to say one was legitimate while immediately doubting the other.
Jesus fucking christ, shut the fuck up.
Well fuck me seems I really hit a nerve. I was just pointing out some passing observations. Its not like I'm screaming about some strongly held opinion. I was just giving my two cents and people are jumping all over me, and I genuinely don't know why the strong reaction.
You’re being pedantic for the sake of pedantry. You didn’t hit a nerve, you’re just being really fucking annoying.
You seem very angry. I wasn't trying to troll just point things out that I noticed and it resulted in me getting cussed out. I understand disagreements, but I was civil the whole time. I'm guessing you're saying I'm being pedantic about op being hypocritical? Maybe. But in the end all I was trying to say was people need to reevaluate what they consider legitimate. Any news that reported trans idealogy was carved into the bullet casing without asking any further questions is absolute trash journalism.
Jesus fucking christ, shut the fuck up.
... no...
Are you disagreeing and trying to support that trash journalism? I generally don't understand.
Who the fuck has time for this kind of pedantry? Blocked. Bye.
You've literaly provided nothing to the conversation anyway so not a big loss.
You realize a 34-counts-of-fraud, demented rapist is in the White House with this corporate news system doing what it does right?
Malpractice? We are so far away from what they're doing being called journalism now we can't talk about malpractice for a long time.
Someone just posted proof they didn’t retract it.