295

One person dead and five injured after car explodes near IVF facility in Palm Springs (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Police say explosion outside American Reproductive Centers fertility clinic was ‘an intentional act of violence’

At least one person is dead after a car exploded near a reproductive facility in Palm Springs, California, according to local authorities.

Palm Springs Police spokesperson Mike Villegas told reporters the car explosion was “an intentional act of violence” but the investigation is ongoing.

Officials did not immediately say whether or not the person who died was associated with the car, but a facility official said all of the building’s staff were safe and physically unharmed.

At least also five people were injured in the explosion, ABC7 reported, citing law enforcement sources.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They're happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so they've ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car.

That's Criterion A and the first part of Criterion B* of domestic terrorism. There are three criteria, and the second part of Criterion B is the hardest.

The bar for "terrorism" is pretty low - they charged an Atlanta student with is for tossing bottles of water and dry ice out his window.

The bar for terrorism is as defined in what I just linked, and specifically Criterion B is where most of the uncertainty would lie.

Regardless, it's definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenant's very careful, and possibly technical statement, or to quote the business owner (Musk) or US President speculating.

The Guardian is a UK-based center-left newspaper with a generally good track record of journalistic integrity. Yes, quoting the police lieutenant is a choice here, because it's the correct one. They currently have the most information about the situation. This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely don't understand: do you want them quoting Trump's unhinged rant about this bombing that I don't think he's even put out yet?

And maybe it just turns out that it's carefully ethical journalists reporting on potential right-wing violence, and usually unethical hacks reporting on possible attacks on the corporatocracy, but it sure does feel like a pattern.

Dude, it's The Guardian. Here's how they recently covered Tesla dealerships if you care to explain how it's biased compared to this story.

* By "first part of", I mean the phrase "appears to be intended". What it appears to be intended to do is the hard part.

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 6 points 1 year ago

Don't come at me with facts when it ignores my feelings.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not going to rag on NJSpradlin or tburkhol; I tried to debunk what they said on a factual, dispassionate basis. Their comments to me are examples of what happens when one side is never held to account for and is constantly rewarded for taking the easy path and spreading disinformation that makes them feel better, while the other side is punished with more lies to correct and is never rewarded for enduring the other side's firehose of falsehoods, tediously researching their points, and speaking up for truth. These well-meaning comments are made by victims of their environment.

Now more than ever, everyone needs to be a vanguard of the facts, but it's not hard to see why that's become so difficult.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Do you get so excited when someone says, 'My house was robbed"? Houses, of course, can't be robbed. They can be burgled; only people can be robbed. Legally. Colloquially, we all know what they're talking about.

Maybe "The Technician" does, but insisting that people be very carefully precise with language outside of the specific technical domain is a form of sealioning.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I've shown you how The Guardian has quoted a statement from the police about the Tesla incendiary to the exact same effect. So "it sure does feel like a pattern" sure feels a lot like bullshit you made up with no evidence.
After an FBI statement called it an "intentional act of terrorism", the Guardian article now references this three separate times (I think this was changed like a few hours after you wrote your comment).
You're making up a ridiculous strawman about colloquial versus technical terminology, where in reality domestic terrorism's legal definition is how it's used colloquially. You did read what I linked, right? Four hours after the bombing, where was the evidence the police were supposed to present showing it was terrorism in the colloquial sense? That it happened at a fertility clinic? Did you play Ace Attorney and think "Now that's how we should do detective work"?
"be[ing] very carefully precise with language" is 1) exactly what the police should be doing and consequently 2) exactly what any reputable newspaper should be reporting in the immediate aftermath absent additional sources, and 3) not even what was happening here; if you think not throwing around "terrorism" in the immediate aftermath of a bombing where the perpetrator is dead is "very carefully precise", then I hope high school essays and forum posts are the extent of your writing. If you want sensationalist bullshit, don't rag on good outlets; go to Newsweek and consume your slop.
Not at all what sealioning is.

I don't know what you want except to make yourself look like a jackass who can't learn from their mistake when gracefully given the opportunity.

this post was submitted on 17 May 2025

295 points (99.7% liked)

politics

30941 readers

2363 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News