3 ms·

Another possibility is that you are so partisan that you have a hard time seeing that the author is less partisan than you are.

• scoopertrooper 5y ago
  That's a pretty sophomoric response. It's fine to disagree, but I took the time to explain my position in detail, I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. Were there any errors of fact in what I said? Or did you take issue with my analysis of those facts? Do you think degree mills provide a net public good? Was everybody arrested for protesting after the death of George Floyd actually involved in rioting and looting? Do you believe the incursion into the Capitol Building was performed by Antifa? Was Steve Bannon not convicted of wire fraud and money laundering?
  • tehwebguy 5y ago
    I felt the same way reading the article, a focus on “looters” and “rioters” which certainly existed but the vast majority of protests last year were peaceful. I think this particular item felt bad faith because loads of people actually faced charges and missing from the list were the unaccountable, unlawful police. By now people should have been able to peruse the list of >1000 police brutality videos from the protests. That said, I didn’t have any significant issue with the takeaways in the article and don’t expect every instance of the phenomenon described to make the list.
• lovich 5y ago
  I mean starting with hunter biden as his first example is pretty obvious dog whistle. The example certainly fits his theory here(which sounds like he’s independently discovering the rule of law), but the level of offense there is so far below numerous individuals with actual power in government or the corporate world.
• dataangel 5y ago
  His list is 90% Fox News talking points. It's blatantly partisan.