Having tweeted Americans should "arm themselves to defend rights" so as to "end any politician or lobbyist" who are "collaborators", Brian O'Shea says its a typo (?). 'Stalkers' lost their minds" by imagining any openness to violence in literal call to arms against collaborators 
I am left unclear as to how the priority given to procuring guns (as well as to using cash) would help in what is now (thankfully) an entirely non-violent advocacy of how to defend rights and save the free world from any politician or any lobbyist identified as a "collaborator"
He tweeted that on Jan 6th, the day a Stop the Steal march on the capital went from protest to violent insurrection, with some taking weapons. If he may have been tweeting earlier that afternoon, it should help demonstrate why incendiary rhetoric is dangerous in heightened times.
'I never thought I'd be the one to say this' appears to be about the taking up of weapons to defend rights. That would seem to be an odd and unnecessary prelude to 'use your vote' or 'write letters' or 'donate to campaigns and candidates' wouldn't it?
https://twitter.com/wimdows/status/1348922785146540034?s=19
2 days after that insurrection, O'Shea continued to tweet about how nobody could be say unless both the Chinese Communist Party and its "collaborators" are "eliminated"
We should champion human rights & challenge the Chinese dictatorship. This language is OTT and dangerous
We should champion human rights & challenge the Chinese dictatorship. This language is OTT and dangerous
This is his on reflection reworking of his tweet.
The nature of the armed actions with which "Americans need to arm themselves to defend rights" against the "many collaborators on left and right" does retain a considerable ambiguity, despite careers being added in "end careers"
The nature of the armed actions with which "Americans need to arm themselves to defend rights" against the "many collaborators on left and right" does retain a considerable ambiguity, despite careers being added in "end careers"
He has specifically identified some major broadcasters - ABC and CNN - as "collaborators", who he believes need to be eliminated
If intended to be merely rhetorical, good to make two further changes
* ditch the explicit call to "arm themselves" (weapons)
* make robust points in less incendiary language. (Eg "oppose""defeat" "remove", rather than "end" and "eliminate")."Allies" not "collaborators" (treason)
* ditch the explicit call to "arm themselves" (weapons)
* make robust points in less incendiary language. (Eg "oppose""defeat" "remove", rather than "end" and "eliminate")."Allies" not "collaborators" (treason)
These seem to me reasonable calls to make on everybody, reflecting on the events of 6th Jan, to avoid incendiary political rhetoric.
(US context differs given context of 2nd amendment. But calls to *use arms to secure political ends* are the problem of legitimising violence)
(US context differs given context of 2nd amendment. But calls to *use arms to secure political ends* are the problem of legitimising violence)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
