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.
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.
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
Removed, civility.
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 by mod
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 🙄
Lol no they didn’t
Did you even watch the trial? Do you think he killed 2 minorities as well?
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.