3 ms·

The report from his “friend” (who didn’t actually know him at all) that was subsequently retracted as bullshit? Why continue to push things you know aren’t true

• like_any_other 1y ago
  Well I went to the updated Guardian article that is the original source [1], and it now states: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship. That reads more like "there's too much room for doubt for us to be willing to publish it", and not at all like "known-untrue bullshit". But it's a nice argument we're having - any uncertainty debunks my position, even when nobody has even disputed my strongest evidence, the shell casing messages, while the position I'm arguing against is simply taken as true without any evidence. Hey why don't we flip things around? Why don't you give a source for "didn't know him at all", as well as for the "retracted as bullshit" (specifically the as bullshit part, not just "source was unreliable"). And if you can't find a reliable source, we'll assume the opposite is true. That's how you're making me argue, so it's only fair the same rules apply, isn't it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-shooter-suspect-latest-news-updates-donald-trump-utah?page=with:block-68c4542d8f086519d3270fb8 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie...