877
Kyle Rittenhouse criticized Donald Trump. So conservatives said he's transgender.
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
877 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24562 readers
2856 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 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?
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."
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.
Nope. That's just not true. Now leave me the fuck alone.
I see I'm not the only person calling you on your bad faith argument bullshit. Clearly, we're all the problem, not you. I'll leave you the fuck alone since I'm blocking you.
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 🙄