Chuck Schumer radicalizes man, man tries to murder SCOTUS justice.

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-11-2022, 12:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Abortion:
1. Unequivocally, yes. It entirely is based on people who were born female and have female genitals/reproductive organs.
2. Unequivocally, yes. It is based on decreasing women's (or birthing persons', if you prefer) access to services and operations that they want.
3. Again, yes. Women are historically oppressed throughout history.
4. Yes. If abortion is restricted, it will affect women's/mothers' lives, guaranteed. From removal of the ability to get an abortion when her life is in danger, such as ectopic pregnancies (which several snap back laws currently do not have exceptions for) all the way to the physical pain of child birth for someone who does not want to be pregnant, removing the right to abortion will harm or hinder anyone who wants to get an abortion.

The other side would argue that you're looking at this from one side, the mother. They'd tell you to look at this issue from the babies pov and then answer these 4 questions. 

Quote:Trans rights:

1. Yes, it exclusively affects trans people.
2. Yes again. If a person wants gender affirming care, whether it be hormones, puberty blockers or surgery, their right to have those things are in jeopardy.
3. Yes. We've just now entered a time frame where people are even willing to admit that they're trans because of how oppressed and not socially accepted they have been in modern history.
4. Yes. If a person does not want to go through male puberty, forcing them to do so through denial of treatment will permanently change their physical appearance, their voice, hair growth etc. If you look at people who transitioned pre-puberty and post-puberty, you'll notice physical differences that are associated with puberty. It also increases the risks of them committing suicide, if they are terminally unhappy with their appearance or the acceptance of their identity.

Now let's try gun rights:
1. No. Restricting gun rights would affect every American equally. There is no law that would restrict your right to buy a gun based on your immutable characteristics. Just your age and personal history, which are already mainstay precedents for restrictions in this country (underage people can't drive, drink, rent a car etc. Felons cannot do a lot of things).
2. No, see above.
3. No.
4. You could make a weak argument that if someone wants to buy a gun but can't they can't do a few things that they may want to do like hunt at 18, but even then there are often youth hunter laws in states that allow a 12 to 17 year old person to hunt as long as they are with an adult, so age restriction laws wouldn't really prevent that either.

Again, the AZ bill is aimed at preventing minors from accessing these services, not adults. The argument being that they are too young and not yet responsible enough to make such an important decision, just the same as people are too young and not yet responsible enough to drink, drive, or rent a car. 

There's nuance to peoples opinions on issues and labeling them as crazy or delusional or extremist without considering the nuance or at least trying to understand it is counterproductive. 

You simply labeling them as such, or as anti-women or anti-trans is no different from them calling you a delusional extremist anti-gun communist because you believe in gun registration, waiting periods, and age limits for high powered weapons. 

[CJD]

(06-12-2022, 05:05 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: The other side would argue that you're looking at this from one side, the mother. They'd tell you to look at this issue from the babies pov and then answer these 4 questions. 



Again, the AZ bill is aimed at preventing minors from accessing these services, not adults. The argument being that they are too young and not yet responsible enough to make such an important decision, just the same as people are too young and not yet responsible enough to drink, drive, or rent a car. 

There's nuance to peoples opinions on issues and labeling them as crazy or delusional or extremist without considering the nuance or at least trying to understand it is counterproductive. 

You simply labeling them as such, or as anti-women or anti-trans is no different from them calling you a delusional extremist anti-gun communist because you believe in gun registration, waiting periods, and age limits for high powered weapons. 

And I'm sure the people who were fighting against women's right to vote, against gay people's right to marry or black people's right to vote had nuances to their opinions as well. I'm talking about how history will view these opinions and it rarely, if ever, comes down in favor of the traditionally conservative side.

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-12-2022, 05:47 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: And I'm sure the people who were fighting against women's right to vote, against gay people's right to marry or black people's right to vote had nuances to their opinions as well. I'm talking about how history will view these opinions and it rarely, if ever, comes down in favor of the traditionally conservative side.

Except that the current issues of women's rights and trans rights are not the same as women's and minorities right to vote and gay marriage. You've only been fooled into believing that they are by ignoring the nuance of the opinion on the other side. Rather than listening to and understanding what they are saying, you are blanket-ly demonizing them by labeling them as anti-women and anti-trans. Going by an earlier post, at least you are considering the abortion issue, so that's a positive step. 

Im sure that if you ask someone on the other side, they'd say that you are speaking out against imagined oppression rather than actual oppression.

Which brings my point full circle.....

[StrictlyBiz]

And I'd add that in many cases, "nuance" is only nuance because you are defending against the blanket labeling of your opinions.

It's not one sided either. It works going the other way too....
Someone can be Pro-2A but be in favor stricter gun measures like background checks, waiting periods, etc, even going as far as the banning of certain weapons, but that doesn't make them an anti-gun Commie.

[CJD]

(06-13-2022, 06:14 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Except that the current issues of women's rights and trans rights are not the same as women's and minorities right to vote and gay marriage. You've only been fooled into believing that they are by ignoring the nuance of the opinion on the other side. 

Again, I'm sure that's what the conservative side told the progressive side in the past as well:

For centuries, people have been gaining more and more rights in each generation but, now, in present day, we've reached the summit of that fight. And giving out any more human rights would just be people being greedy and unreasonable.

Quote:Rather than listening to and understanding what they are saying, you are blanket-ly demonizing them by labeling them as anti-women and anti-trans. 

I'm not demonizing anyone. I'm just saying they're wrong. I used the term "delusions," and "denying reality," which I guess is why you think I demonized them but, to me, that is not their fault as much as it is the people whose agendas they are advancing by fighting against civil rights, like the Lee Atwaters of the past and the Tucker Carlsons of the present.

Quote:Going by an earlier post, at least you are considering the abortion issue, so that's a positive step. 

You say I don't listen to and understand what they are saying, but then say I am "at least considering" the abortion issue.

The reason I am considering the abortion issue is because I do listen and understand. I have never once said "Anyone who believes *X Belief* is a human piece of garbage and I hope they die." I spend a LOT of time dissecting why they may feel that way and what their reasoning behind their beliefs is. Abortion just happens to be the only one in which any of their arguments even kind of hold water. It's why I pointed it out specifically.

See, you claim I'm demonizing and generalizing people, but it's actually the opposite. I listen and evaluate every single thing people on the right do and say. In many cases, I even recognize "Oh, if I didn't have this or that life experience, I bet I would have agreed with that too." I think there are a lot of beliefs on the right that are the "path of least resistance" for a lot of people and I'm thankful that I have the personal experience and knowledge to recognize fallacies (whether they be moral, ethical or logical) when I see them. I'm not convinced people on the right do the same for the left.

Quote:Im sure that if you ask someone on the other side, they'd say that you are speaking out against imagined oppression rather than actual oppression.


Which brings my point full circle.....

I've already explained to you how you can use a framework of through lines to determine what is likely oppression and what is likely imagined oppression.

But, like you said, we've come full circle.

[StoneTheCrow]

https://twitter.com/steveguest/status/1536009575408799744?s=21

Bang up job.

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-13-2022, 09:05 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You say I don't listen to and understand what they are saying, but then say I am "at least considering" the abortion issue.

The reason I am considering the abortion issue is because I do listen and understand. I have never once said "Anyone who believes *X Belief* is a human piece of garbage and I hope they die." I spend a LOT of time dissecting why they may feel that way and what their reasoning behind their beliefs is. Abortion just happens to be the only one in which any of their arguments even kind of hold water. It's why I pointed it out specifically.

See, you claim I'm demonizing and generalizing people, but it's actually the opposite. I listen and evaluate every single thing people on the right do and say. In many cases, I even recognize "Oh, if I didn't have this or that life experience, I bet I would have agreed with that too." I think there are a lot of beliefs on the right that are the "path of least resistance" for a lot of people and I'm thankful that I have the personal experience and knowledge to recognize fallacies (whether they be moral, ethical or logical) when I see them. I'm not convinced people on the right do the same for the left.

Yet here you are calling those people delusional and saying that they are speaking out against imagined oppression, even though you've considered their argument. 

So you are basically hearing what they have to say, and then dismissing it as delusional and imagined. This is why we can't have compromise. Of course they're going to push back when you think of them in such a way. 

I don't know your specific stance on the 2A, but this is no different than a gun owner who is also in favor of registration, background checks, etc, being dismissed as a delusional Commie.

I suspect that if we actually discussed it, we'd have similar views on abortion. But I see both sides of it and respect theirs and would never criticize and dismiss them as imagined and delusional. 

Quote:I've already explained to you how you can use a framework of through lines to determine what is likely oppression and what is likely imagined oppression.

You still haven't used your framework from the pov of the child. 

[CJD]

(06-15-2022, 07:56 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yet here you are calling those people delusional and saying that they are speaking out against imagined oppression, even though you've considered their argument. 

So you are basically hearing what they have to say, and then dismissing it as delusional and imagined. This is why we can't have compromise. Of course they're going to push back when you think of them in such a way. 

Yes, exactly. Thank you. I listened to their arguments, considered them and determined that they are based on misinformation and delusions.

Quote:I don't know your specific stance on the 2A, but this is no different than a gun owner who is also in favor of registration, background checks, etc, being dismissed as a delusional Commie.


I suspect that if we actually discussed it, we'd have similar views on abortion. But I see both sides of it and respect theirs and would never criticize and dismiss them as imagined and delusional. 

You're focusing really hard on Abortion, which I've already said is the one that actually has nuance. I don't think people who are against abortion are delusional on the same level as the people who consider white people an oppressed race in America. This feels like a situation where we are talking past each other rather than to each other.

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-15-2022, 09:16 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yes, exactly. Thank you. I listened to their arguments, considered them and determined that they are based on misinformation and delusions.

I completely understand. 

Although, it's too bad that you go to the point of saying that they are misinformed and delusional, rather than acknowledge a valid but differing opinion. It's unfortunate. Why is that? I have my ideas, but I won't ascribe them to you without knowing for sure. 

IMO this is where things break down (not just between you and I, but between everyone) and we end up with two sides just yelling at each other. Rather than acknowledge a legitimate and valid point, but respectfully disagreeing and possibly seeking common ground, you have decided unequivocally that they are wrong, delusional, and misinformed. 

I know, you have a homemade litmus test that you use to validate your opinion. It is noted though that you've now twice refused to apply that test to the abortion issue through the pov of the child. 

Quote:You're focusing really hard on Abortion, which I've already said is the one that actually has nuance. I don't think people who are against abortion are delusional on the same level as the people who consider white people an oppressed race in America. This feels like a situation where we are talking past each other rather than to each other.

Well, there's that and Trans rights which are the two things that you brought up in your original reply to this thread. I am focusing on abortion because that's the issue that you elaborated on. 

But regarding trans rights and the imagined oppression that the other side wants to take away....there's nuance to that as well. Don't you agree that underage children are not yet responsible enough to make such an important and possibly irreversible decision about surgery and hormone blockers? If you feel that they are, do you also feel that they should be able to drive and drink alcohol too?  

Quote:There is no law that would restrict your right to buy a gun based on your immutable characteristics. Just your age and personal history, which are already mainstay precedents for restrictions in this country (underage people can't drive, drink, rent a car etc.)Felons cannot do a lot of things).

There's nuance there too...
Believing that underage children are too immature to make an irreversible decision is a valid opinion, and does not make the person who holds it delusional, uniformed, wanting to strip away trans people's rights, or anti-Trans. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-15-2022, 07:18 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I completely understand. 

Although, it's too bad that you go to the point of saying that they are misinformed and delusional, rather than acknowledge a valid but differing opinion. It's unfortunate. Why is that? I have my ideas, but I won't ascribe them to you without knowing for sure. 

IMO this is where things break down (not just between you and I, but between everyone) and we end up with two sides just yelling at each other. Rather than acknowledge a legitimate and valid point, but respectfully disagreeing and possibly seeking common ground, you have decided unequivocally that they are wrong, delusional, and misinformed. 

I just want to chime in and say your approach here is fine for a lot of things, but I think that one of the big issues we have is legitimizing opinions that are misinformed and just plain wrong. Remember the whole "alternative facts" thing? That is what it is rooted in. This idea that facts are somehow subjective and that any opinion can be valid. In a lot of situations it can't.

[CJD]

(06-15-2022, 07:18 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I completely understand. 

Although, it's too bad that you go to the point of saying that they are misinformed and delusional, rather than acknowledge a valid but differing opinion. It's unfortunate. Why is that? I have my ideas, but I won't ascribe them to you without knowing for sure. 

If there's a valid but differing opinion, I'll happily acknowledge it, as I have with abortion. I completely disagree with the idea of restricting abortion for the reasons I listed (too much red tape, too much risk to the mother's life and too little gain for the child's life), but I understand why someone would feel the way they do about abortion. It's just certain matters, such as many regarding human rights, often do not have that multiple valid but differing opinions. I can't respect a slave owner's opinion that they should own slaves. I can't respect a person's opinion that you shouldn't be able to vote based on your race or gender and I can't respect a person's opinion that you should have fewer rights based on your sexuality. And I know you say that today's social issues are different than the previous generations' social issues because we've, presumably, solved all the obvious problems and now we're down to just trivial issues where there is no right or wrong way to feel about them, just differing perspectives. I wish I could agree with you on that, but I don't think our journey towards equal rights, as a society, is complete.

Quote:I know, you have a homemade litmus test that you use to validate your opinion. It is noted though that you've now twice refused to apply that test to the abortion issue through the pov of the child. 

I never refused, just noted that it wouldn't prove anything since I already exempted it, but I can if you'd like:

1. Arguably, yes. Is being an unborn fetus an immutable identity? No, because it obviously can change (from unborn to born) given time, so it isn't immutable by definition, but I could understand someone saying it is close enough, as the unborn fetus did not make a decision to be unborn and cannot reasonably cease being unborn at their will.
2. Yes, most likely. You are not increasing or decreasing an unborn fetus' access to certain things because they are an unborn fetus, but you are ending their potential for life.
3. No, I wouldn't say so. In order to be oppressed there has to be some standard of expected rights and I don't think that's clearly defined for unborn fetuses.
4. Sure. Ending an unborn fetus' life will hinder it.

Perhaps a 5th test that should be added to the litmus test would be "Does this increase of rights for this group substantially decrease the rights of another group?" to which the answer would very clearly be yes but, alas, I didn't include it in my off the top of my head thought process, so I understand if you'd feel like adding this section now would be a case of me moving the goal posts.

This is what makes abortion a complicated issue; it's essentially an issue in which we're contrasting two groups' rights to fairly reasonable things. A woman should not be compelled by the state to remain pregnant and give birth to a child against her will and an unborn fetus should, you know, not have their life ended.  Now, from my standpoint, I believe an adult human woman's rights are more important than an unborn fetus' rights because they're already born and are entrenched as a human life, whereas a fetus is obviously not. But that's just my opinion and, like you said, there is room to have a valid but differing opinion on that.

Quote:Well, there's that and Trans rights which are the two things that you brought up in your original reply to this thread. I am focusing on abortion because that's the issue that you elaborated on. 

Well, my original post's main point was about Tucker Carlson radicalizing a person to murder innocent black people, but I guess I did mention trans people

Quote:But regarding trans rights and the imagined oppression that the other side wants to take away....there's nuance to that as well. Don't you agree that underage children are not yet responsible enough to make such an important and possibly irreversible decision about surgery and hormone blockers? If you feel that they are, do you also feel that they should be able to drive and drink alcohol too?  

I agree that children are not yet responsible enough to make irreversible decisions such as surgery. But calling hormone blockers an "irreversible decision" is dubious at best (and I believe it to be outright erroneous). It is almost universally accepted that hormone/puberty blockers are physically reversible because they don't really introduce anything to the body, but rather pause the production of the hormones that spurn puberty's physical changes. After all, they've already been used to treat precocious puberty for 40 years now in non-trans children.

So, let's say a child says they are transgender at 9 years old. You give them puberty blockers until they're 13. They have not gone through puberty yet and decide "you know what. I'm actually not transgender." They can stop taking the puberty blockers and then they will begin puberty as they normally would have, just a year or two later than their peers. To me, this is not something that should be banned because it does not physically harm the child and there is no evidence that they psychologically harm the child either. 

In addition to the reversible effects of puberty blockers, they are also a major psychological and mental boost to transgender youths who suffer from depression (in many cases caused by gender dysphoria) and, subsequently, suicide at a disproportionally higher rate. Getting treatment such as puberty blockers has been shown to substantially improve the mental well being of transgender children.

The other side of the argument, as far as I can tell, is "Just do nothing until you're older. Then, if you still feel that way, you can become trans then when you're smart enough to know your body." Let's disregard the implied condescension that they know your mind and body better than you do and the implied belief that being trans is an inherently bad thing that you can simply grow out of (or that you can "pray away" much like they thought/still think being gay can be reversed) and focus on the more palpable problem with this argument. In these cases, doing nothing is not a neutral decision, as the above statement would seem to indicate. Puberty for trans adolescents causes significant harm, both physically and psychologically. Once you go through puberty, there is no going back. Your body physically changes, as does your self image. Puberty blockers are proven to be beneficial in both regards. Withholding beneficial medical care is not a value neutral ethical decision.

Imagine a child tells you/you notice that they are depressed (or sad, or whatever word they may use). You take them to a doctor and the doctor diagnoses them with depression and prescribes them anti-depressants to feel better and you tell them "you're not old enough to know if you're depressed. We're going to wait until you're 16 and, if you're still depressed at that age, then you can treat it."

That is what a lot of Republicans want to force transgender children to do. And I think that is immoral. If a child is expressing a concern or mental issue, you don't ignore it. You treat it. And puberty blockers have been proven to improve these issues.

So this isn't similar to smoking or drinking alcohol (or owning a gun) where they can just wait to gain that right to something they want to do. This is a situation where you are neglecting treatment of a person who is requesting it because of beliefs with no basis other than something along the lines of "being transgendered is not natural" and, as far as I can tell, a systemic mistrust of anyone who believes transgendered people exist. It's not like a trans child says they're trans and you can go to CVS and get puberty blockers. They undergo evaluations by doctors who specialize in treatment of trans people. They go through therapy and counseling and, if the doctors agree, they can prescribe puberty blockers. 

Denying this treatment is just the same old tired "corrupted youths" argument that every generation makes of the younger generation, except it has now been blended with "doctors have been corrupted by liberal trans ideology and are harming YOUR children." The previous generation also said that ADHD doesn't exist and we used to just beat children who didn't focus in school...It's basically the same argument today, just wrapped up in more politicized anti-trans rhetoric.

Fear tactics, essentially.

For trans people, puberty is a ticking time bomb that, ironically, does cause irreversible changes to their body if you allow it to begin. Puberty blockers are actually the neutral decision in this case.

[*Nately120*]

(06-15-2022, 08:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to chime in and say your approach here is fine for a lot of things, but I think that one of the big issues we have is legitimizing opinions that are misinformed and just plain wrong. Remember the whole "alternative facts" thing? That is what it is rooted in. This idea that facts are somehow subjective and that any opinion can be valid. In a lot of situations it can't.

Ya gotta admit, it takes some chutzpah for neo-cons to blame the downfall of our society on participation trophies being given out to kids while simultaneously accepting participation arguments as a valid means to shape national policy.

[CJD]

(06-15-2022, 08:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to chime in and say your approach here is fine for a lot of things, but I think that one of the big issues we have is legitimizing opinions that are misinformed and just plain wrong. Remember the whole "alternative facts" thing? That is what it is rooted in. This idea that facts are somehow subjective and that any opinion can be valid. In a lot of situations it can't.

Thank you for this. I wanted to make this exact point but couldn't put the words together properly. 

[StoneTheCrow]

Hypothetically. Red Hat toothless deplorable fella outside Sotomayor’s house. Then how is it treated and covered? Be honest with yourselves about it.

[*Nately120*]

(06-16-2022, 12:24 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Hypothetically. Red Hat toothless deplorable fella outside Sotomayor’s house. Then how is it treated and covered? Be honest with yourselves about it.

Either running for office or speaking at the RNC eventually. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-16-2022, 08:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Either running for office or speaking at the RNC eventually. 

Anyone want to actually answer? Or is it just so obvious how that would look across media that it doesn’t warrant an answer?

[*Nately120*]

(06-16-2022, 11:01 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Anyone want to actually answer? Or is it just so obvious how that would look across media that it doesn’t warrant an answer?

I stand by my answer. It's not my fault the GOP has become farcical enough to catch up to my incessant shitposting. 

Hell I can already picture Tucker doing his confused face and wondering why the media is so intent to convince him this patriot was in the wrong.  

[CJD]

(06-16-2022, 11:01 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Anyone want to actually answer? Or is it just so obvious how that would look across media that it doesn’t warrant an answer?

It wasn't a trumper because they didn't exist in 2009, but a man was arrested after calling 911 and threatening to blow Sotomayor up.
It's fairly similar to this story about Kavanaugh, as the shooter did not approach his house after seeing the added protection but rather called the police to turn himself in and was promptly arrested. The main difference is proximity to the person they wanted to kill. The more recent one traveled to Kavanaugh's house whereas the Sotomayor threatener did not leave New York.

 I can't find any major news publishers covering this, just local New York sites, many of which now have dead links.

https://gothamist.com/news/man-charged-after-threatening-to-kill-sotomayor

https://thedailybanter.com/2009/06/06/john-zaubler-arrested-for-threats-to-obama-sotomayor/

There was also that one story back in 2020 about the shooter who targeted a federal judge and their family, apparently was targetting Sotomayor as well.
Of course, he killed himself before he had an opportunity to do so, but he certainly showed the means, since he had attacked that judge's family already.
If you believe wikipedia, the guy was apparently a Trump supporter.

Quote:"Den Hollander has been described as a men's rights activist by various sources, and had been a part of the National Coalition for Men, before being kicked out, although he has himself denounced the movement, calling them "wimps and whiners".[23]

In various online writings running to thousands of pages, Den Hollander denounced women and specifically female judges.[24] In 2,028 pages posted online in 2019,[20] he espoused "sexist, racist, and misogynistic" views,[20][21] and in one such document, disparaged Salas directly.[21] In another document, which outlined possible "solutions" to feminists and "political commies", he wrote, "Things begin to change when individual men start taking out those specific persons responsible for destroying their lives before committing suicide."[21]

He said that he was a volunteer for Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and attacked President Barack Obama, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Hillary Clinton.[20][24]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Den_Hollander
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/esther-salas-sonia-sotomayor-60-minutes-2021-02-19/

So, probably about the same response that we got here.

[hollodero]

(06-16-2022, 11:01 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Anyone want to actually answer? Or is it just so obvious how that would look across media that it doesn’t warrant an answer?

I wager I already did, I widely agree with you. Of course depending on what you perceive to be the media.
I often wonder how people can say "the media" and mean the part of the media that is leaning liberal. How did FOX pull off that trick, that they can permanently brag about their superior ratings and still not being considered a part of the media. They are, and they would behave just in the way you lament, just the other way round (and a bit more extreme). 

In that sense, yeah I'd agree the media is a part of the problem, but it's not a problem exclusively found on the left, but way more distributed over the spectrum. And still it's often conservatives that use lines like "believe my take that just so happens to perfectly align with the FOX take, or I paint you as a gullible doofus that lets himself be tricked by the media". How does that work.

[Dill]

(06-11-2022, 12:06 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m not the one who started a thread blaming a few lines Schumer said in 2020 for radicalizing a man who went try to kill a scotus member in 2022. Then compared it to tucker who for years has a a nightly tv show where he goes on for an hour spewing hate and division. Acting like these two things are the same

If you are worried about someone having double standards maybe check on yourself

I'm late to this thread, but I share your skepticism about the Schumer-Carlson analogy, and I'm glad others have rejected the analogy as well.

So far as I understand it, the Dem/liberal/"leftist" critique of Carlson places his actions in a much larger context, namely that of an international white nationalist ideology responsible for mass murders outside the U.S., like Norway and New Zealand, as well as in the U.S., like our synagogue and mosque shootings, and other mass murders, like Dylan Ruf killing 9 black churchgoers or the guy who traveled across Texas to shoot up a shopping mall in Texas. They draw from the same reservoir of white nationalist ideology whose centerpiece is the "replacement theory," which Tucker consistently boosts on his show by the selection and angle of stories he covers, while also pretending he has no idea what this theory is.
The argument is that there is a causal connection between the spread of this nationalist ideology and a number of mass murders in this country.

E.g., This Dem/liberal/"leftist" article from Vanity Fair makes this larger context clear, then proceeds to compare statements about "diversity" in the Buffalo shooter's manifesto with Tucker Carlson's commentary on the subject.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/tucker-carlson-buffalo-shooting-payton-gendron

So the claim is not simply that Tucker--one person--said x and so one shooter did y. The claim is that this nationalist ideology is an internal security threat to the U.S. which cannot be sourced to one person, but Carlson has positioned himself to articulate its premises in a public forum without using the label. He is effectively spreading it, and from his prominent soapbox he could be activating pre-existing dispositions in some of his viewers to act against the "replacers."  People who don't dispute the link between this nationalist/racist ideology and race-based mass murders in the U.S., do see an urgent need  to contest Carlson's amplification of an ideology upon which some people clearly do act, and will likely respond "say what?" if asked why they don't also jump on Schumer for saying that one thing two years ago.

The following Rutz opinion from Fox News also places the attempt on Kavanaugh in a larger context, reaching back to Schumer's comments in 2020 and the Scalise shooting by a "far-left Sanders supporter" in 2017.  Rutz also analogizes Schumer's remarks to Trump's lethal incitement of the Capitol riot, to construct a Dem "double standard." Dems complain about Trump's threats while inciting a mob to help his coup attempt, but say nothing about Schumer's "equally" dangerous rhetoric which maybe someone acted on two years later, though it did not throw our democracy into crisis. https://www.foxnews.com/media/kavanaugh-threat-new-york-times-networks-downplaying

Both of the Rutz's examples were of unstable individuals, not called to action by some widespread ideology identified by law enforcement as a security threat, and separated from Schumer's remarks by years. Carlson characterizes the Buffalo shooter in similar terms, as just one crazy guy NOT motivated by racism, despite the manifesto Gendron himself presented as the driver of his actions.

Schumer's rhetoric crossed a line, but it hardly deserves the level of attention given Carlson and Trump--and won't until some mass of Dems poses a threat to the whole democratic order. The historically unique criminality of team Trump creates tremendous pressure on many on the right to minimize and normalize that behavior by constantly "calling out" Dem/msm "hypocrisy" to create false equivalences, just as it also creates pressure for a minority to dissociate him from the GOP.  But "seeing through" Dem/msm hypocrisy to insist "both sides" do x but Dems don't acknowledge their own just undercuts any ground from which to critique actually dangerous right wing behavior and hold its instigators accountable.  It only creates fog and paralysis where clarity is needed to recognize degrees of danger/criminality and to assess levels of accountability. 

The #1 problem in U.S. politics at moment is NOT that there are people on "both sides" who "call out" the other side for x but then remain silent when their own side does it, so tsk tsk shame on all. The problem is that the leadership of one party turned to openly anti-democratic means to remain in power, and despite that retains mass support among party voters. The other party is not "blind to its own faults" or just "partisan" for laying that #1 problem at the feet of one party, and giving it greater legal and media attention.