I read this post and see someone who is really invested in the BlackRock* CEO being targeted on purpose and is spreading the ~possibility~ of the murder being along the same lines as the UHC CEO murder.
Why would it be more important if the guy was targeting the Black Rock CEO than the published target of the NFL CEO?
The insistence that he's not spreading conspiracy theories, but rather refusing to declare a motive falls apart when you look at the first post in the thread. This is bad journalism. This is how conspiracy theorists spread their conspiracy theories. Very few claim the title of conspiracy theorist.
What I see here are toned down Alex Jones tactics. Implication, insinuation, deflection, and just asking questions. Just modified for a leftist audience. He is trying to lead you to a specific conclusion while maintaining plausible deniability.
*Edit: the correct name is Blackstone, not BlackRock. Nullagent uses BlackRock in his posts
🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
@CorvidCrone Agreeing on your base (i think?) conclusion that this is not good journalism.
But
> Why would it be more important if the guy was targeting the Black Rock CEO than the published target of the NFL CEO?
is pretty clear: it does make a difference if people are targeted ranked by how much damage they do to others. Random or for personal issues would be normal in the US (i hear), targeted ranked by damage done relevant to the question if there is a revolution going on.
