George Floyd...

[philkilla]

Doesn't the media have to present false information for there to be defamation? Last I checked he still took a gun to a protest, got "scared", and killed people. It doesn't seem similar in my mind to the Sandmann case where he was wrongly presented as the aggressor in the situation.

The Biden political ad is still out there referring to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist; I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like defamation of character.

 

[StevenC]

The Biden political ad is still out there referring to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist; I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like defamation of character.

He would have to show that he isn't a white supremacist or at least that he's not believably a white supremacist. Him hanging out, associating and doing illegal things with white supremacists is going to hurt any chance he has of not being perceived as a white supremacist. Biden can likely get it thrown out on "fair comment or criticism" on that basis.

 

[narad]

The Biden political ad is still out there referring to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist; I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like defamation of character.

The one with the proud boys? Is there something where he referred to Rittenhouse directly because that one has a zero percent chance of getting traction. Defamation cases are really tough.

 

[jaxadam]

The one with the proud boys? Is there something where he referred to Rittenhouse directly because that one has a zero percent chance of getting traction. Defamation cases are really tough.

Sadly he won’t be able to respond because he’s been banned. It’s nice to know that when you don’t agree with someone, you can just have them banned. Hope everyone is happy.

 

[narad]

Sadly he won’t be able to respond because he’s been banned. It’s nice to know that when you don’t agree with someone, you can just have them banned. Hope everyone is happy.

"Have them banned"? If you go around posting personal attacks, congratulations, you banned yourself.

 

[StevenC]

Sadly he won’t be able to respond because he’s been banned. It’s nice to know that when you don’t agree with someone, you can just have them banned. Hope everyone is happy.

Ooh, twice in one week

 

[jaxadam]

"Have them banned"? If you go around posting personal attacks, congratulations, you banned yourself.

Like @StevenC insulting him earlier calling him irreconcilably stupid and making fun of where he’s from, or telling @mbardu to go fuck himself?

It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.

So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.

 

[bostjan]

The one with the proud boys? Is there something where he referred to Rittenhouse directly because that one has a zero percent chance of getting traction. Defamation cases are really tough.

There was a photo of Rittenhouse used in the video that referred to Trump's refusal to disavow white supremacists.

It might be a different conversation if the photo included in the video was the one of Rittenhouse wearing a tee shirt with the phrase "Free as Fuck" flashing a white power hand gesture standing with leaders of the Proud Boys. Maybe Rittenhouse will come back and say that he was being ironic or something, but I'd say that, in general, if it talks like a white supremacist and it shoots BLM protesters like a white supremacist, it's very likely a white supremacist.

EDIT: Rittenhouse has recently cleared himself by saying on television "I am not a racist person."

 

[StevenC]

Like @StevenC insulting him earlier calling him irreconcilably stupid and making fun of where he’s from, or telling @mbardu to go fuck himself?

It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.

So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.

I've been trying to get banned here for years, though to be fair I said he was irreconcilably stupid or willfully ignorant. Happy to stand by what I said to mbardu in the context of him making imaginary arguments and attaching them to me when I was saying the opposite.

 

[narad]

There was a photo of Rittenhouse used in the video that referred to Trump's refusal to disavow white supremacists.

It might be a different conversation if the photo included in the video was the one of Rittenhouse wearing a tee shirt with the phrase "Free as Fuck" flashing a white power hand gesture standing with leaders of the Proud Boys. Maybe Rittenhouse will come back and say that he was being ironic or something, but I'd say that, in general, if it talks like a white supremacist and it shoots BLM protesters like a white supremacist, it's very likely a white supremacist.

Sure, but there were also just a ton of random other protesters in there too. And it'll be tough for Rittenhouse to full dissociate himself from the proud boys when he's doing photo ops with them.

[oh wow, thought you were being facetious about the signs/shirt]

Like @StevenC insulting him earlier calling him irreconcilably stupid and making fun of where he’s from, or telling @mbardu to go fuck himself?

It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.

So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.

I can't speak for that, but I didn't flag his post, so you're going to have to come up with some other storyline.

 

[jaxadam]

Sure, but there were also just a ton of random other protesters in there too. And it'll be tough for Rittenhouse to full dissociate himself from the proud boys when he's doing photo ops with them.

[oh wow, thought you were being facetious about the signs/shirt]



I can't speak for that, but I didn't flag his post, so you're going to have to come up with some other storyline.

I never said you did, you seem to think everything is about you. Everyone reading can see it, and I’ve presented the evidence of the strong bias.

 

[Randy]

Reported posts are handled. You don't report it, it doesn't get handled.

 

[narad]

I never said you did, you seem to think everything is about you. Everyone reading can see it, and I’ve presented the evidence of the strong bias.

Well at any rate he's gone. Can we go back to talking about how great MSNBC is now?

 

[StevenC]

Well at any rate he's gone. Can we go back to talking about how great MSNBC is now?

MSNBC is something I am definitely able to get on my TV.

 

[narad]

MSNBC is something I am definitely able to get on my TV.

Yes, it is readily available and popular in Japan as well.

 

[StevenC]

Yes, it is readily available and popular in Japan as well.

The global cause of liberalism.

 

[Emperor Guillotine]

It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.

So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.

A reinforcement of the echo chamber along with a culling of the dissenters?

Yep, probably. Forums 100% always tend to go that way.

 

[narad]

A reinforcement of the echo chamber along with a culling of the dissenters?

Yep, probably. Forums 100% always tend to go that way.

Regardless of whether there is some imbalance in who is reporting who, if he didn't throw insults, he wouldn't have been banned. That's the bottom line. You don't get banned for having a wrong opinion.

It's a very "conservative" type of point to take reality -- being banned for personally insulting people -- and spin it as an effort to suppress opposing opinions. Next thing you know he'll be back and posting about being "cancelled" in the cancelled thread, vs. violating forum rules and facing consequences. It's just exhausting.

 

[jaxadam]

Regardless of whether there is some imbalance in who is reporting who, if he didn't throw insults, he wouldn't have been banned. That's the bottom line. You don't get banned for having a wrong opinion.

It's a very "conservative" type of point to take reality -- being banned for personally insulting people -- and spin it as an effort to suppress opposing opinions. Next thing you know he'll be back and posting about being "cancelled" in the cancelled thread, vs. violating forum rules and facing consequences. It's just exhausting.

I was banned in this very thread for having the opinion that no one agreed with, which ironically was just proven in court. I’ve never insulted any members.

So why don’t you speak to why @StevenC can insult people and tell them to fuck off and get a pass, yet my opinion that was just supported by the ruling gets me banned?

I am also perma-banned from the big politics thread for posting memes, which is clearly a big no-no.

 

[Adieu]

The global cause of liberalism.

MSNBC? Japan? ...yup, clearly the spitting image of liberalism.