2 ms·

You really seem to be missing, repeatedly, that I was replying to a comment that misrepresented the entire concept of evidence. You can agree or disagree with m

You really seem to be missing, repeatedly, that I was replying to a comment that misrepresented the entire concept of evidence. You can agree or disagree with me about whether or not evidence is sufficient, that's fine. But you're still missing that someone tried to claim that evidence for Not-A was actually somehow evidence for A, which is simply not how anything works. Can A and Not-A both be true? Sure, maybe, it's possible. But evidence for Not-A is not therefore magically evidence for A.

blackflame7000 6y ago
What you don't seem to get is that Facebook and Twitter have censored Trump 65 times according to this study compared to a total of 0 for Biden. You keep ranting about lack of evidence but when confronted with it, you can't register it. Having a large community is NOT evidence of impartiality. For example, /TheDonald was the largest subreddit before it was shutdown completely because it was not inline with the ideologies of China's new asset. So you can take your argument and put it in the garbage where it belongs. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-twitter-censored-trump-campaign-65-times-/?cache https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-tw... https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-facebook-and-twitter-censored-trump-65-times-biden-zero/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-faceboo...