4 ms·

Put another way, you have absolutely no evidence a particular team you dislike was responsible for a specific event, but you're more than willing to blame them

Put another way, you have absolutely no evidence a particular team you dislike was responsible for a specific event, but you're more than willing to blame them publicly for it based on something totally unrelated and even more flimsy because a reputation has developed in your mind (and the minds of those like you), and you're willing to surrender all logic to arrive at your position. Then, ironically, you talk about partisanship while missing how partisan your own remarks are. It's disgusting to watch people attack "the left" and "the right" as a boogeyman. It's "you're not on my team, so you're part of a grand conspiracy to take down my team," which is a line of thinking that has never, ever been dangerous in American history. I'm from "the left" and I find your examples abhorrent. What does that make me? Did I miss the meetings where we gang up on the poor folks from "the right?" Please prove your accusation regarding, specifically, "the left." I'm still waiting. One question I have is how all the parties on "the left" coordinate. Do we all have dirty tricks operatives who meet between all the parties over here? Or is this a unilateral Democrat conspiracy?

artursapek 10y ago
You're right - I was wrong to blame that particular event on "the left". I lumped it together in the same sentence with another event that can be blamed on them with hard evidence. I'll admit that I was wrong to lump them together like that. However, this is really beside the point. My original comment was simply trying to explain why Trump supporters are shy to show their political stance. The violence against the headquarters in North Carolina is still a completely valid reason for that - a building got firebombed because it was used by people with a particular political stance. So it doesn't really matter whether it was committed by liberals or some other group I'm not aware of, and I didn't mean to make that accusation the focus of my comment (though you latched on to it nonetheless).
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  No, your not-so-subtle accusation that "the left" was responsible for burning down that building is the whole point because you are galvanizing your side based on a fear-based rhetoric and a complete disregard of facts. You're now trying a different tack several replies into this thread because you've realized I am correct; your apology and reversal is very hollow given that mere minutes ago you were advising me to "oh come on" and just admit that the event is clearly partisan. I "latched on" to this particular claim because your own citation comes with absolutely no proof that "the left" was responsible and it is trivial to demonstrate the tactic that you are employing. Which you at least admit, to your credit. The point is that many groups in history have played the for us/against us cards much like you're doing here, and the results have never been positive. I also find it infinitely fascinating that you've assumed a group is responsible for the event, even in this last comment. One crazy person is not an effective narrative to leverage, and groups were initially blamed for Oklahoma City, too, if I recall.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    > fear-based rhetoric A place was firebombed because it belonged to republicans, that's terrorism. People are completely right to be afraid to express their opinions because of that. It's not fear-based rhetoric. Furthermore, there has been no terrorism of this type against liberals. I just told you that you're right that I should not have made the accusation so casually with no evidence. But as I just wrote, you're missing the point I was trying to make. You've picked out one dubious claim I made and ignored everything else I was trying to say.
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    "a complete disregard of facts" ERROR: false premise

artursapek 10y ago

You're right - I was wrong to blame that particular event on "the left". I lumped it together in the same sentence with another event that can be blamed on them with hard evidence. I'll admit that I was wrong to lump them together like that. However, this is really beside the point. My original comment was simply trying to explain why Trump supporters are shy to show their political stance. The violence against the headquarters in North Carolina is still a completely valid reason for that - a building got firebombed because it was used by people with a particular political stance. So it doesn't really matter whether it was committed by liberals or some other group I'm not aware of, and I didn't mean to make that accusation the focus of my comment (though you latched on to it nonetheless).

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
No, your not-so-subtle accusation that "the left" was responsible for burning down that building is the whole point because you are galvanizing your side based on a fear-based rhetoric and a complete disregard of facts. You're now trying a different tack several replies into this thread because you've realized I am correct; your apology and reversal is very hollow given that mere minutes ago you were advising me to "oh come on" and just admit that the event is clearly partisan. I "latched on" to this particular claim because your own citation comes with absolutely no proof that "the left" was responsible and it is trivial to demonstrate the tactic that you are employing. Which you at least admit, to your credit. The point is that many groups in history have played the for us/against us cards much like you're doing here, and the results have never been positive. I also find it infinitely fascinating that you've assumed a group is responsible for the event, even in this last comment. One crazy person is not an effective narrative to leverage, and groups were initially blamed for Oklahoma City, too, if I recall.
- artursapek 10y ago
  > fear-based rhetoric A place was firebombed because it belonged to republicans, that's terrorism. People are completely right to be afraid to express their opinions because of that. It's not fear-based rhetoric. Furthermore, there has been no terrorism of this type against liberals. I just told you that you're right that I should not have made the accusation so casually with no evidence. But as I just wrote, you're missing the point I was trying to make. You've picked out one dubious claim I made and ignored everything else I was trying to say.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  "a complete disregard of facts" ERROR: false premise