US Politics |OT|

[Robert_Downey_Jr.]

Ryuu96 said:

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

Exactly!  Which is it?  Was I right there or right here? It's not a safe assumption at all on your part.  It's a wild baseless assumption. Far more reasonable to say years of calling a particular person a Nazi would cause one person to go to violence than not liking an immigration policy causing multiple attacks on random people.  But you do you and continue to live in convenient delusion and bias to suit your narratives.

Why are you asking me? You're the one changing your arguments that words and disinformation can't lead to violence.

Context and motivating factors matter beyond simple words too, for example, we have zero evidence as to the motivation of the shooter as of yet and conflicting evidence of what political party he was aligned to, hence why I leaned more towards the typical "mentally ill dude wanting to go down in infamy" rather than a political motivation.

With the UK riots, we know a large motivating factor for the riots was anti-immigrant factors, inflamed by the fake misinformation that the killer was an illegal immigrant, the riots literally happened straight after this killing and the rioters are attack immigrants over the country, a contributing factor to these riots is therefore misinformation.

But you've gone from broadly saying that calling Trump a Nazi and "Democrat rhetoric" aka words, causes someone to commit violence, to that posts (aka words) do not cause people to commit violence in the UK, as people are responsible for their own actions, back to words caused someone to commit violence on Donald Trump. You keep changing your argument with a broad brush.

It ain't my issue if you can't stick to your script.

No I've caught you in a trap.  Either you say it's simple and broad as "social media posts influence people so these two are the same" or you admit it's more nuanced and can acknowledge the difficulty of convincing one man to hate one man compared to influencing an entire group of people.

Or you just keep going.  It's quite entertaining watching you try to square the circle and wiggle away from either of those when they're really the only two options available to you.

Well since the other thread got locked when I back him into a corner I guess I don't want this one to also be.  Ah well he's throwing the typical playbook of you're an ist, ism, phobe, etc. And anything you say to dissent to our golden goddess is only further proof.  Apparently sleeping with someone couldn't possibly influence their decision to promote you and if you think different you're a sexist.  At this point I feel like I'm arguing with a South Park character that's supposed to be there to parody an American liberal.

Last edited by Robert_Downey_Jr. - on 15 August 2024