3 ms·
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
by 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