A man who admits he ran down a Muslim family said he did so because he believed anti-Muslim conspiracies he found on fringe websites like Alex Jones’ Infowars.
No one is saying his sentence should be less because the ideology he fell into turned him into a raging asshole.
The argument is that these communities exist to create raging assholes. It’s an indictment of the right-wing media ecosystem as a whole by reasonably associating it this person’s clear hateful actions. In other words, others should be on the hook along with this asshole.
When you start your reply by gaslighting me, you’re off to a bad start.
Intentionally framing my comment as aggressive against a group of people is insincere and childish in nature.
If your counterpoints can’t stand by themselves, and you feel the need to denigrate my comment via gaslighting me, then you’re also off to a bad start.
Also, the basis of your self proclaimed argument is entitlement. Gross.
If you feel your comment was denigrated because I pointed out that you’re arguing with a strawman, then…yeah, I’m guilty. If that’s also gaslighting you, rather than you being wrong for arguing with an strawman, then…I suppose that’s my second offense. And you want to respond that I’m a stupid, entitled fool for thinking that people should be held responsible for the radicalization of others, then I anticipate my third strike that gets me thrown in conservative cancel jail.
Or you can just admit literally no one was saying he should be charged less for anything at all. I mean, it’s easy enough to just prove me wrong by quoting directly from the article. Where did they say that? I know conservatives aren’t really concerned about evidence and truth and objective reality, but if you’re going to convince me that I’m wrong, you’ll need to understand those things better than you understand the concept of “counterpoints” and certainly better than you understand gaslighting.
Who are you arguing with?
No one is saying his sentence should be less because the ideology he fell into turned him into a raging asshole.
The argument is that these communities exist to create raging assholes. It’s an indictment of the right-wing media ecosystem as a whole by reasonably associating it this person’s clear hateful actions. In other words, others should be on the hook along with this asshole.
When you start your reply by gaslighting me, you’re off to a bad start.
Intentionally framing my comment as aggressive against a group of people is insincere and childish in nature.
If your counterpoints can’t stand by themselves, and you feel the need to denigrate my comment via gaslighting me, then you’re also off to a bad start.
Also, the basis of your self proclaimed argument is entitlement. Gross.
Upvote for entertainment.
If you feel your comment was denigrated because I pointed out that you’re arguing with a strawman, then…yeah, I’m guilty. If that’s also gaslighting you, rather than you being wrong for arguing with an strawman, then…I suppose that’s my second offense. And you want to respond that I’m a stupid, entitled fool for thinking that people should be held responsible for the radicalization of others, then I anticipate my third strike that gets me thrown in conservative cancel jail.
Or you can just admit literally no one was saying he should be charged less for anything at all. I mean, it’s easy enough to just prove me wrong by quoting directly from the article. Where did they say that? I know conservatives aren’t really concerned about evidence and truth and objective reality, but if you’re going to convince me that I’m wrong, you’ll need to understand those things better than you understand the concept of “counterpoints” and certainly better than you understand gaslighting.
(Bullshit)