- We do not know the motivation of the shooter, but charlie had violent enemies who claimed he wasn't fascist enough, just like he had enemies who claimed he was too fascist.
- We do not know the alignment of the shooter, but we have at least as much evidence that he was right-wing as we do that he was left-wing.
- There is not a consensus that condemnation for fascist rhetoric was false, but we do have a nonzero, nonmajority of people claiming there is.
- We do not know if charlie was "good" or "innocent", but I personally feel that this violence was a bad idea, and feel bad that his family is suffering through it. Also, he clearly had friends who are hurting, too.
I agree that we should tone down actions and rhetoric, and as explained above, the things in your post after the first sentence work against those aims. Better to just tell everybody on all sides to tone down their actions and tone down their rhetoric. I am on board with you there.
We do know that name-calling and calls for violence and propensity for violence (all things suspected of contributing to this action) are coming from right-wing voices at least as much as they are coming from left-wing voices. So let's start by not engaging in political violence (both assassins and ICE attacks), and see if we can find agreement on language.
As far as I can see, there's nothing there mentioning people accusing others of being 'not fascist enough'. Also, you said 'violent enemies', but I can't see that mentioned either.
Interesting! I and many others have read the exact same sections and come to the opposite conclusion: that the sections do indeed describe multiple feuds with a violent group that felt that Charlie wasn't fascist enough
(Obviously they don't use those exact terms, so I hope you're not hung up on a lack of a quote saying verbatim "we are fascist and you aren't fascist enough" or "we hereby announce that we are violent", please let me know if you are fixated upon this)
Like I said, we shouldn't speculate on motive, because we can see there is at least as much there as anywhere else. Anyhow, why do you think your conclusion is so opposite others'?
That's absolutely not what happened; this isn't MLK, this man died while spewing dog whistles about gang violence to justify the very gun culture that would kill him (in the hands of a peer conservative, not a leftist, not a democrat, not a liberal).
