They posted graphics calling him a "biological female" before he caved. Rittenhouse backtracked his criticism not even 12 hours after the online hate from his fellow conservatives started.
So let me get this right: we can’t criticize any position that our side takes because that automatically brands us as posers, right
Nope, that’s a ridiculous strawman. You’re allowed to take any position you want. Just as I’m allowed to have my suspicions when you take positions that make no sense outside of credulity caused by far right gaslighting.
Who else plays this game? Do you see how close to the MAGA crowd we’ve circled back to? They do the exact same game to anyone that disagrees with their narrative (See RINO).
More horseshoe theory bullshit. Even if you WERE right about me (you’re not), equating anything I’ve said with the utterly insane drivel of a literal fascist movement is the kind of thing disingenuous “moderates” and cosplaying Republicans do.
YOU said the video was doctored or taken out of context. But then you never backed that up.
I backed it up by providing the context that the video omits: that he traveled heavily armed across state lines to a peaceful protest in order to shoot protesters, deliberately provoked protesters until some of them tried to stop him and then murdered those protesters.
Those are actual facts that the biased judge ordered stricken from the record because they made it clear that it was all premeditated rather than spur of the moment self defense.
There is no evidence this case was rigged
Yeah there is, see above.
YOU said the integrity of the judicial system can’t be trusted
Yeah, I tend not to trust a system where a biased judge who has no business presiding over a case can just arbitrarily throw out crucial evidence because it doesn’t match his predetermined conclusion and nobody can do anything about it.
I’m kooky like that.
It’s this odd knee-jerk reaction I see here on Lemmy anyone that disagrees with established narratives is automatically branded:
Outsider / other
Facts become irrelevant
This you?
I MUST brand you as something. I can’t engage with someone unless I put a label on them
I didn’t accuse you of bad faith
Not explicitly, no, but your opening comment accused EVERYONE not convinced about his innocence of bad faith, so excuse me if I don’t celebrate your magnificently magnanimous restraint 🙄
I brought the facts of the matter
Nope. You brought your conclusion based on omitting key evidence.
described how similar your rhetoric is to the way elements of the far right manifest themselves
Which, again, is horseshoe theory bullshit. Especially when it’s not even CLOSE to true like in this case.
As a leftie
Give it a rest, Dean. Nobody’s buying it.
all I want to do is combat misinformation
Spreading it is an awfully peculiar way of going about that task…
But just that was enough to get me all the downvotes and labels needed to put me in a box so we don’t have to hear about it.
Nah, you got that for lying and trying to distort reality in order to defend a murderer and then doubling down when corrected.
Actually. Scratch my last comment. I want your advice.
We’ve had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.
What is the appropriate way to express disagreement or question a mainstream narrative on this platform in such a way I don’t get labeled something (ie the way you did when you called me zionist or Dean browning here). Give me some pointers. I want to get better.
Don’t say vague stuff ( don’t lie etc). Pretend I’m asking in good faith. Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.
We’ve had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.
That’s usually a sign that you have a tendency to argue in bad faith and to pretend to be something other than what you self-label as.
Give me some pointers.
You want to learn how to argue in good faith? Take a course in rhetoric and one in ethics. While I’m able to argue in good faith, I’m neither inclined nor qualified to teach people foreign to the concept how to.
Pretend I’m asking in good faith.
There’s suspension of disbelief, there’s putting completely justified skepticism aside, and then there’s this. I might as well pretend that you’re the sultan of Brunei or my cat 🙄
Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.
I have this whole time. That I’ve called out your dishonesty and misconceptions while doing so doesn’t in any way dehumanize you. Stop being such a Drama Dean.
While I’m disappointed by all this because we’ve had some good conversations here in the past, a quick view of your post history shows me those were the exception, not the rule. You frequently deflect, project, fabricate, and ultimately insult to attack opposing viewpoints, all the while wrapping yourself in a banner of legitimacy by claiming the other is illegitimate, simply for being the other. You determine they’re the other by pulling frequent “no true Scotsmans” based on the flimsiest proof. All of this just like the MAGA fascists did to Kyle Rittenhouse as described in the linked article. For what it’s worth, we’re on the same side on Rittenhouse, though I now know you’ll use that as evidence I’m a MAGA plant, a fake leftist, or something similar.
You’re so afraid of facing someone on an equal playing field that you burn and salt the field as a matter of course. Or maybe you just believe what you think of right is the ultimate truth so strongly that you feel justified in bludgeoning people that disagree. Or maybe you’re just a bully that enjoys what you do. Who knows.
Literally none of that is true of me and a lot of it is true of others in this thread, including yourself in the very comment I’m replying to right now.
But you go to the bad faith accusation right away. You waste no time. It’s usually 1-2 comments in. As a person on the left, I can never disagree with any of the positions our side takes. It’s absurd. Even here, I’m asking you for genuine advice. Sincerely. From one human being person to another, and the best you can do is “take a course on rhetoric”. You never even gave me a chance.
I never called you out as bad faith. I never labeled you. I never accused you. You still put me down. Your tone is dismissive and derisive. Why? What did I say exactly that triggered this reaction? I"m genuinely curious.
It’s not worth arguing with these people. They’re so antigun that they’ll defend the domestic abuser, the child molester and felon because they hate guns. Even though one of the people they defend had a firearm there illegally… they’re also very very ignorant about the case. The last time this shit came up, there were people on here saying Rittenhouse killed 3 black people… that’s how fucking ignorant they are.
These people are the equivalent of the rightwing maga idiots. There is zero discussion you can have with someone who is willfully ignorant of facts.
I know. But look at the vote ratio. It’s a lot of them. I never get to discuss the substance of any topic because I have to spend 90% the time defending why i’m not a conservative. Sometimes I wonder if its a limitation of text based communication where tone is inferred. Or maybe people are captured by epistemic bubbles. I have no idea! I’m going to keep trying though. There has to be a way to communicate with them.
I’m assuming you’re an adult and probably already know this, but don’t drive yourself crazy. Step back and disconnect from this if it’s stressing you out.
I’m a dyed in the wool progressive and used to frequently argue with libs about my being in favor of responsible firearm ownership. I’ve learned to just ignore them if they’re being assholes or are arguing in bad faith, as I see is the case here with a few users who can’t stop trumpeting how they’re arguing in good faith. Funny, that.
Yea, thanks. I had hopes for lemmy because the user base was smaller, but at this point i think all online forums are epistemically captured by one side or the other.
I agree with the other chap. The issue is you’re on .world, but because it’s because .world is full of centrist neoliberals that think they’re leftists. Blahaj, in my experience, is a nice compromise between .world and .ml.
Good luck, I’m always labeled a rightwing nut job because I’m a die hard 2a supporter, even though I support a ton of social policies that focus on helping our citizens here. The hard left are so afraid/mad about firearms they’re willing to ignore facts and create conspiracies to justify their actions. They’re the magas of the left, which sucks because most of those types always act like they’re intellectually more honest than the right.
To be fair, they’re not the hard left. Hang with enough actual socialists and communists and you’ll hear a lot of comments to the extent of a “well armed proletariat”. These tend to be United States neoliberal centrists, who believe they’re hard left because their Overton window has been yanked hard to the right.
That’s a fair assessment. I’ve always said, if the dems want to completely destroy the repubicans and make force a new party to come from the ashes of whatever is left. All they would have to do is drop their anti-2a rhetoric and they’d sweep pretty much everything.
I’m not obsessed with labels man. Engage with what I actually wrote ffs. All I’m saying here is maybe my messaging is bad. No matter how I write, you guys will zoom in on if im a conservative or not. If I don’t write that im a progressive, then I spend the whole time explaining why i disagree with conservatives. If I write that im left/progressive, then i spend the whole time debating whether im an impostor. As long as my opinion strays .02% from yours I will have no opportunity to discuss ANYTHING
As long as my position doesn’t align with yours thats all I hear.
I never ad hommed. I never labeled you. I never accused you of bad faith.
Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie? Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform? It’s because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.
You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying, yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased, the trial was rigged or the video was doctored - all your claims. You provided some context. Neat.
I never ad hommed (…) I never accused you of bad faith
Categorically false.
Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie?
Because you introduced yourself as a leftie and proceeded to spew a bunch of horseshoe theory bullshit often deployed in an effort to dismiss the left as just another color of fascism.
Just like Dean Browning introduced himself as a gay black guy in order to attack a black guy and praise a homophobic party.
It’s not exactly rocket science, dude…
Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform?
Yes, and I specifically addressed it: in order to coat your defense of Rittenhouse in a false veneer of impartiality.
It’s because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.
Once again exactly what Republicans on Lemmy (and all other platforms that aren’t explicitly fascist, for that matter) always say when their erroneous and transparently bad faith arguments are engaged with.
You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying
Because you were. And because of your absolutist claims based on said lies.
yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased
His actions did that for me. Want me to present evidence that Eileen Cannon isn’t a Democrat too?
You provided some context. Neat.
Congratulations on sneaking in one true detail at the end of your rant of false accusations and bad faith whining. I promise not to tell your handler.
I vote left, and support a bunch of socialist policies… I also am a die hard pro2a supporter…you on the other hand are willfully ignorant because you didn’t like the outcome of a case that had firearms involved, so you went full maga…never go full maga.
Deal with the fact that a large and growing portion of the left in this country is armed and continues to purchase arms.
you on the other hand are willfully ignorant because you didn’t like the outcome of a case that had firearms involved, so you went full maga
Congratulations on combining three logical fallacies (strawman, third-cause fallacy, and ad hominem) in one sentence. You must be so proud of your excellence in illogic.
He planned to murder people. Then he murdered people. Then the judge overruled evidence proving that it was premeditated and thus disproving his self defense defense.
I don’t disapprove because he used a gun to carry out his murders. I disapprove of murder and helping murderers be unjustly acquitted.
Though Republicans would have celebrated him less for it, I would disapprove just as much if he had used a knife like that other famously acquitted murderer. The one from the first Naked Gun movie.
An armed minority is harder to suppress
And an armed minority is also much more likely to use the gun on itself or have the gun used on itself by someone else than to successfully use it in self defense.
It’s like one of my favorite dark jokes:
“My dad had a gun. He said he had to have a gun to protect his 5 kids. Of course, he later had to get rid of the gun to protect his 4 kids.”
Congratulations on combining three logical fallacies (strawman, third-cause fallacy, and ad hominem) in one sentence. You must be so proud of your excellence in illogic.
Lol sure… you’re about to do exactly what I said right below in the next quotes lol
He planned to murder people. Then he murdered people. Then the judge overruled evidence proving that it was premeditated and thus disproving his self defense defense.
Lol no he didn’t, or are you saying that the jury of his peers acquitted him because it was a conspiracy?
I don’t disapprove because he used a gun to carry out his murders. I disapprove of murder and helping murderers be unjustly acquitted.
Lol you don’t know what murder is apparently. You just made shit up because you’re mad that self defense of domestic abusers, child molesters and felons… attacking a single fleeing person didn’t go how you wanted it to… because you don’t like guns.
Though Republicans would have celebrated him less for it, I would disapprove just as much if he had used a knife like that other famously acquitted murderer. The one from the first Naked Gun movie.
Are…are you really trying to compare OJ’s trial to the hours and hours of footage from Rittenhouse case? Lol holy fuck you’re being ignorant.
And an armed minority is also much more likely to use the gun on itself or have the gun used on itself by someone else than to successfully use it in self defense.
Lol fuck off with that shit. That’s such an anti-2a talking point. It’s like saying people with pools drown more often than people without pools…yea no shit… correlation doesn’t equal causation. I thought you were smart enough to know this…guess not.
Also Malcolm X and the black Panthers would like a word.
It’s like one of my favorite dark jokes: “My dad had a gun. He said he had to have a gun to protect his 5 kids. Of course, he later had to get rid of the gun to protect his 4 kids.”
This is you:
All guns should be taken away from citizens, only the military and police should have them.
I was about to go through your litany of lies, distortion and pure willful ignorance point by point, but ultimately you’re not worth it as there’s a 0% chance of you paying attention since you’ve already made up your mind.
In the end, you came up with the only appropriate answer I can give you to all of that without wasting even more time on you than I already have:
Nah, I’ve just wasted most of the day arguing in good faith against bad faith and I’m fucking exhausted. I don’t owe them the few spoons I have left for the day.
says the user who literally ignores a verdict by a jury
Nope. The jury was instructed to ignore key evidence that proved premeditation and thus disproved self defense. Due to that, they were not legally allowed to deliver a guilty verdict.
I’m not ignoring the verdict, I’m pointing out that it’s incorrect based on the totality of the evidence.
You keep putting your head in the sand kid.
Says the one ignoring key evidence and the suppression thereof 🙄
I don’t know man. There’s some barrier and I just can’t reach you. I asked for help. Genuine effort. I don’t know why it’s so hard. If I ever ad-hommed you at any point I’m truly sorry. Do you have an example of me ad-homming you? Take this as a genuine apology. There is absolutely nothing I can say or do to discuss something without having to spend half the time why I’m not a zionist or a conservative. I asked for your advice in how I could improve my rhetoric, and you put me down again. It’s so exhausting.
The only reason I included the mention that I’m on the left is the hope that I would be offered some charitability or grace. But even with that, I had to spend the rest of the conversation defending why I’m not Dean browning. You said the video was doctored. I took that to mean the video was doctored. You said the judge was impartial. I really read that as you saying there is evidence that the judge was impartial or something to support that the case was rigged. Maybe I misread. I really don’t know. Thanks anyway.
The only reason I included the mention that I’m on the left is the hope that I would be offered some charitability or grace.
There it is. “I’m not actually left, i just use the label as a smoke screen to conceal my propaganda.” Hey, admitting it is the first step to recovery.
No, I’m saying the reason I included the mention. I will often omit it even though I am left. The only thing you’ve done in this whole thread is attack how left I am. That’s it. That’s your only prerogative. How is anyone supposed to voice a difference of opinion on this team?
Well, for starters, they could avoid claiming “team allegiance” and let their arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
Or they could acknowledge that “The Left” isn’t just one thing and explain what they mean by their allegiance to it so as to square their claims of affiliation with the policy positions espoused.
Nope, that’s a ridiculous strawman. You’re allowed to take any position you want. Just as I’m allowed to have my suspicions when you take positions that make no sense outside of credulity caused by far right gaslighting.
More horseshoe theory bullshit. Even if you WERE right about me (you’re not), equating anything I’ve said with the utterly insane drivel of a literal fascist movement is the kind of thing disingenuous “moderates” and cosplaying Republicans do.
I backed it up by providing the context that the video omits: that he traveled heavily armed across state lines to a peaceful protest in order to shoot protesters, deliberately provoked protesters until some of them tried to stop him and then murdered those protesters.
Those are actual facts that the biased judge ordered stricken from the record because they made it clear that it was all premeditated rather than spur of the moment self defense.
Yeah there is, see above.
Yeah, I tend not to trust a system where a biased judge who has no business presiding over a case can just arbitrarily throw out crucial evidence because it doesn’t match his predetermined conclusion and nobody can do anything about it.
I’m kooky like that.
This you?
Not explicitly, no, but your opening comment accused EVERYONE not convinced about his innocence of bad faith, so excuse me if I don’t celebrate your magnificently magnanimous restraint 🙄
Nope. You brought your conclusion based on omitting key evidence.
Which, again, is horseshoe theory bullshit. Especially when it’s not even CLOSE to true like in this case.
Give it a rest, Dean. Nobody’s buying it.
Spreading it is an awfully peculiar way of going about that task…
Nah, you got that for lying and trying to distort reality in order to defend a murderer and then doubling down when corrected.
Actually. Scratch my last comment. I want your advice.
We’ve had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.
What is the appropriate way to express disagreement or question a mainstream narrative on this platform in such a way I don’t get labeled something (ie the way you did when you called me zionist or Dean browning here). Give me some pointers. I want to get better.
Don’t say vague stuff ( don’t lie etc). Pretend I’m asking in good faith. Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.
That’s usually a sign that you have a tendency to argue in bad faith and to pretend to be something other than what you self-label as.
You want to learn how to argue in good faith? Take a course in rhetoric and one in ethics. While I’m able to argue in good faith, I’m neither inclined nor qualified to teach people foreign to the concept how to.
There’s suspension of disbelief, there’s putting completely justified skepticism aside, and then there’s this. I might as well pretend that you’re the sultan of Brunei or my cat 🙄
I have this whole time. That I’ve called out your dishonesty and misconceptions while doing so doesn’t in any way dehumanize you. Stop being such a Drama Dean.
Aaaand I just lost all respect for you.
Oh woe is me! How will I ever cope without the respect of some rando slinging false equivalences? 😭
While I’m disappointed by all this because we’ve had some good conversations here in the past, a quick view of your post history shows me those were the exception, not the rule. You frequently deflect, project, fabricate, and ultimately insult to attack opposing viewpoints, all the while wrapping yourself in a banner of legitimacy by claiming the other is illegitimate, simply for being the other. You determine they’re the other by pulling frequent “no true Scotsmans” based on the flimsiest proof. All of this just like the MAGA fascists did to Kyle Rittenhouse as described in the linked article. For what it’s worth, we’re on the same side on Rittenhouse, though I now know you’ll use that as evidence I’m a MAGA plant, a fake leftist, or something similar.
You’re so afraid of facing someone on an equal playing field that you burn and salt the field as a matter of course. Or maybe you just believe what you think of right is the ultimate truth so strongly that you feel justified in bludgeoning people that disagree. Or maybe you’re just a bully that enjoys what you do. Who knows.
Literally none of that is true of me and a lot of it is true of others in this thread, including yourself in the very comment I’m replying to right now.
Be better.
LOL
But you go to the bad faith accusation right away. You waste no time. It’s usually 1-2 comments in. As a person on the left, I can never disagree with any of the positions our side takes. It’s absurd. Even here, I’m asking you for genuine advice. Sincerely. From one human being person to another, and the best you can do is “take a course on rhetoric”. You never even gave me a chance.
I never called you out as bad faith. I never labeled you. I never accused you. You still put me down. Your tone is dismissive and derisive. Why? What did I say exactly that triggered this reaction? I"m genuinely curious.
“I’m a Leftist” counter: 1,230,579,078 instances this thread and counting folks!
It’s not worth arguing with these people. They’re so antigun that they’ll defend the domestic abuser, the child molester and felon because they hate guns. Even though one of the people they defend had a firearm there illegally… they’re also very very ignorant about the case. The last time this shit came up, there were people on here saying Rittenhouse killed 3 black people… that’s how fucking ignorant they are.
These people are the equivalent of the rightwing maga idiots. There is zero discussion you can have with someone who is willfully ignorant of facts.
I know. But look at the vote ratio. It’s a lot of them. I never get to discuss the substance of any topic because I have to spend 90% the time defending why i’m not a conservative. Sometimes I wonder if its a limitation of text based communication where tone is inferred. Or maybe people are captured by epistemic bubbles. I have no idea! I’m going to keep trying though. There has to be a way to communicate with them.
I’m assuming you’re an adult and probably already know this, but don’t drive yourself crazy. Step back and disconnect from this if it’s stressing you out.
I’m a dyed in the wool progressive and used to frequently argue with libs about my being in favor of responsible firearm ownership. I’ve learned to just ignore them if they’re being assholes or are arguing in bad faith, as I see is the case here with a few users who can’t stop trumpeting how they’re arguing in good faith. Funny, that.
Yea, thanks. I had hopes for lemmy because the user base was smaller, but at this point i think all online forums are epistemically captured by one side or the other.
I agree with the other chap. The issue is you’re on .world, but because it’s because .world is full of centrist neoliberals that think they’re leftists. Blahaj, in my experience, is a nice compromise between .world and .ml.
Your problem is that you’re on lemmy.world, one of the big instances that skews left because lemmy users in general do.
Find yourself a right-wing lemmy server. You’ll be happier there without any lefties to contest your claim of leftism.
Good luck, I’m always labeled a rightwing nut job because I’m a die hard 2a supporter, even though I support a ton of social policies that focus on helping our citizens here. The hard left are so afraid/mad about firearms they’re willing to ignore facts and create conspiracies to justify their actions. They’re the magas of the left, which sucks because most of those types always act like they’re intellectually more honest than the right.
To be fair, they’re not the hard left. Hang with enough actual socialists and communists and you’ll hear a lot of comments to the extent of a “well armed proletariat”. These tend to be United States neoliberal centrists, who believe they’re hard left because their Overton window has been yanked hard to the right.
That’s a fair assessment. I’ve always said, if the dems want to completely destroy the repubicans and make force a new party to come from the ashes of whatever is left. All they would have to do is drop their anti-2a rhetoric and they’d sweep pretty much everything.
Y’ know, for someone that’s accusing others of being obsessed with labeling, you sure do seem to be concerned with labels. Interesting.
Ah, that glorious sense of superiority. Please, enlighten us others with your rarified intellect! We lowly heathens know not what we do!
You literally just did what we’re talking about lol
I’m not obsessed with labels man. Engage with what I actually wrote ffs. All I’m saying here is maybe my messaging is bad. No matter how I write, you guys will zoom in on if im a conservative or not. If I don’t write that im a progressive, then I spend the whole time explaining why i disagree with conservatives. If I write that im left/progressive, then i spend the whole time debating whether im an impostor. As long as my opinion strays .02% from yours I will have no opportunity to discuss ANYTHING
As long as my position doesn’t align with yours thats all I hear.
You can’t discuss your position without first clarifying what side of the aisle you sit on, and yet, you don’t care about labels…
K.
I never ad hommed. I never labeled you. I never accused you of bad faith.
Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie? Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform? It’s because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.
You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying, yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased, the trial was rigged or the video was doctored - all your claims. You provided some context. Neat.
Categorically false.
Because you introduced yourself as a leftie and proceeded to spew a bunch of horseshoe theory bullshit often deployed in an effort to dismiss the left as just another color of fascism.
Just like Dean Browning introduced himself as a gay black guy in order to attack a black guy and praise a homophobic party.
It’s not exactly rocket science, dude…
Yes, and I specifically addressed it: in order to coat your defense of Rittenhouse in a false veneer of impartiality.
Once again exactly what Republicans on Lemmy (and all other platforms that aren’t explicitly fascist, for that matter) always say when their erroneous and transparently bad faith arguments are engaged with.
Because you were. And because of your absolutist claims based on said lies.
His actions did that for me. Want me to present evidence that Eileen Cannon isn’t a Democrat too?
Congratulations on sneaking in one true detail at the end of your rant of false accusations and bad faith whining. I promise not to tell your handler.
I vote left, and support a bunch of socialist policies… I also am a die hard pro2a supporter…you on the other hand are willfully ignorant because you didn’t like the outcome of a case that had firearms involved, so you went full maga…never go full maga.
Deal with the fact that a large and growing portion of the left in this country is armed and continues to purchase arms.
An armed minority is harder to suppress.
Congratulations on combining three logical fallacies (strawman, third-cause fallacy, and ad hominem) in one sentence. You must be so proud of your excellence in illogic.
He planned to murder people. Then he murdered people. Then the judge overruled evidence proving that it was premeditated and thus disproving his self defense defense.
I don’t disapprove because he used a gun to carry out his murders. I disapprove of murder and helping murderers be unjustly acquitted.
Though Republicans would have celebrated him less for it, I would disapprove just as much if he had used a knife like that other famously acquitted murderer. The one from the first Naked Gun movie.
And an armed minority is also much more likely to use the gun on itself or have the gun used on itself by someone else than to successfully use it in self defense.
It’s like one of my favorite dark jokes:
“My dad had a gun. He said he had to have a gun to protect his 5 kids. Of course, he later had to get rid of the gun to protect his 4 kids.”
Lol sure… you’re about to do exactly what I said right below in the next quotes lol
Lol no he didn’t, or are you saying that the jury of his peers acquitted him because it was a conspiracy?
Lol you don’t know what murder is apparently. You just made shit up because you’re mad that self defense of domestic abusers, child molesters and felons… attacking a single fleeing person didn’t go how you wanted it to… because you don’t like guns.
Are…are you really trying to compare OJ’s trial to the hours and hours of footage from Rittenhouse case? Lol holy fuck you’re being ignorant.
Lol fuck off with that shit. That’s such an anti-2a talking point. It’s like saying people with pools drown more often than people without pools…yea no shit… correlation doesn’t equal causation. I thought you were smart enough to know this…guess not.
Also Malcolm X and the black Panthers would like a word.
This is you:
All guns should be taken away from citizens, only the military and police should have them.
Trump is a fascist.
Why are the fascist now stuffing me into an oven…
I was about to go through your litany of lies, distortion and pure willful ignorance point by point, but ultimately you’re not worth it as there’s a 0% chance of you paying attention since you’ve already made up your mind.
In the end, you came up with the only appropriate answer I can give you to all of that without wasting even more time on you than I already have:
Removed by mod
Nah, I’ve just wasted most of the day arguing in good faith against bad faith and I’m fucking exhausted. I don’t owe them the few spoons I have left for the day.
Removed, civility.
Lol says the user who literally ignores a verdict by a jury
Sure you do. You keep putting your head in the sand kid.
Nope. The jury was instructed to ignore key evidence that proved premeditation and thus disproved self defense. Due to that, they were not legally allowed to deliver a guilty verdict.
I’m not ignoring the verdict, I’m pointing out that it’s incorrect based on the totality of the evidence.
Says the one ignoring key evidence and the suppression thereof 🙄
I don’t know man. There’s some barrier and I just can’t reach you. I asked for help. Genuine effort. I don’t know why it’s so hard. If I ever ad-hommed you at any point I’m truly sorry. Do you have an example of me ad-homming you? Take this as a genuine apology. There is absolutely nothing I can say or do to discuss something without having to spend half the time why I’m not a zionist or a conservative. I asked for your advice in how I could improve my rhetoric, and you put me down again. It’s so exhausting.
The only reason I included the mention that I’m on the left is the hope that I would be offered some charitability or grace. But even with that, I had to spend the rest of the conversation defending why I’m not Dean browning. You said the video was doctored. I took that to mean the video was doctored. You said the judge was impartial. I really read that as you saying there is evidence that the judge was impartial or something to support that the case was rigged. Maybe I misread. I really don’t know. Thanks anyway.
There it is. “I’m not actually left, i just use the label as a smoke screen to conceal my propaganda.” Hey, admitting it is the first step to recovery.
No, I’m saying the reason I included the mention. I will often omit it even though I am left. The only thing you’ve done in this whole thread is attack how left I am. That’s it. That’s your only prerogative. How is anyone supposed to voice a difference of opinion on this team?
Well, for starters, they could avoid claiming “team allegiance” and let their arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
Or they could acknowledge that “The Left” isn’t just one thing and explain what they mean by their allegiance to it so as to square their claims of affiliation with the policy positions espoused.