3 ms·

According to Kyle's lawyer, that never happened. The gun never crossed a state line, not that it matters. The lawyer is a reputable source. See what happens whe

According to Kyle's lawyer, that never happened. The gun never crossed a state line, not that it matters. The lawyer is a reputable source. See what happens when information is suppressed? You didn't know that fact.

ianleeclark 6y ago
> The lawyer is a reputable source I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer, and start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money. So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system. > start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient? I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So now we believe that lawyers and judges act in good faith even though we have seen statistically that for instance the “War on Drugs” is biased toward minorities by prosecutors (lawyers) and judges? What next? We should also trust the police - video evidence to the contrary?
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        > So now we believe that lawyers and judges act in good faith No. In fact, I specifically listed instances where they didn't.
- phroobster 6y ago
  You are essentially arguing against “innocent until proven guilty” and implying it’s okay for a global corporation to take a public stance against a minor before his court case is even finished. Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case. If it turns out he is innocent then this is going to be the Nicholas Sandmann situation all over again.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > You are essentially arguing against “innocent until proven guilty” and implying it’s okay for a global corporation to take a public stance against a minor before his court case is even finished. Their platform, their rules. Vote with your dollar, support their competitors, etc. Facebook isn't the judicial system, though, and it's ridiculous to even imply it is. > Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case. First were talking, "innocent until proven guilty," now were talking public opinion? You're confusing the judicial system for hearts and minds.
scarface74 6y ago
> The lawyer is a reputable source. Johnnie Cochran also said OJ wasn’t guilty.....

ianleeclark 6y ago

> The lawyer is a reputable source I'm highly suspect of any legal team containing a QAnon extremist, and I'm not using that word lightly or attempting to smear, "the other side." QAnon is a conspiracy that launders traditional blood libel myths with a desired end goal of having Trump lock up the political opposition. You can't be a reputable source and adhere to those beliefs.

rootsudo 6y ago
At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer, and start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient?
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > At what point do you stop believing in titles society gives people such as Judge, Doctor, Lawyer The judicial system is, in effect, highly dependent upon good faith. This can be seen with parking tickets being paid by the wealthy or not stalling the lawsuit until the opposition runs out of money. So, if a person acts in bad faith against such an incredibly fragile system, then I don't think their title ought to be recognized. And, in my eyes, hoping that the president extra-judicially locks up half of hollywood and his opposition, and then ships them to guantanamo bay, qualifies as acting in bad faith, as it seems to overturn the judicial system. > start to fill in your own narrative because it's simply convenient? I'm sure I'm the one seeking convenient narratives, not the group of people who believe in satanic ritual abuse is being conducted by their political enemies because of a guy who used to post semi-anonymously on 8chan. There's not much nuance to be had in that belief system
  - scarface74 6y ago
    So now we believe that lawyers and judges act in good faith even though we have seen statistically that for instance the “War on Drugs” is biased toward minorities by prosecutors (lawyers) and judges? What next? We should also trust the police - video evidence to the contrary?
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > So now we believe that lawyers and judges act in good faith No. In fact, I specifically listed instances where they didn't.
phroobster 6y ago
You are essentially arguing against “innocent until proven guilty” and implying it’s okay for a global corporation to take a public stance against a minor before his court case is even finished. Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case. If it turns out he is innocent then this is going to be the Nicholas Sandmann situation all over again.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > You are essentially arguing against “innocent until proven guilty” and implying it’s okay for a global corporation to take a public stance against a minor before his court case is even finished. Their platform, their rules. Vote with your dollar, support their competitors, etc. Facebook isn't the judicial system, though, and it's ridiculous to even imply it is. > Deleting only the content suggesting he might be innocent will significantly affect public opinion, regardless of the final outcome of the case. First were talking, "innocent until proven guilty," now were talking public opinion? You're confusing the judicial system for hearts and minds.

scarface74 6y ago

> The lawyer is a reputable source. Johnnie Cochran also said OJ wasn’t guilty.....