Shaunodon said:
It wasn't 'evidence', they were wild speculations and borderline conspiracy theories to link him to some fringe alt-right movement even most Conservatives haven't heard of. None of them were stronger evidence than the concept of 'why the hell would a right-winger shoot Charlie Kirk'? That was enough to get the other thread locked, why have none of these people even been moderated, except two people who were speaking against them? I'm not calling for moderation either. Just pointing out the blatant bias taking place. As for you, you came here at first with a bad faith 'both sides' argument, when pushed, immediately took a clear side and want to talk about hypocrisy? You are the hypocrisy you speak. This thread is a den for hypocrites and sophists. |
When do speculations turn from wild to well founded deduction? The accumulation of so many posts each bringing their own piece of reasonable evidence. As I could call many court cases wild speculation due to lacking more evidence than this.
My argument earlier wasn't really meant to be about both sides being equally bad, even if I had stated as much without really thinking about specific words, more of a both sides have capacity to be equally bad. The hypocrisy element was more how people will try to paint one side out to be exclusively bad, while actions taken by their own are good, even if they are the same actions. Though even that I may have to rethink as Rol stated earlier all the perpetrators were Republican or apolitical
Last edited by badskywalker - on 17 September 2025
