▲ 554 ▼ The FBI killed a Utah man who issued numerous death threats. Far-right figures are now claiming the Biden administration is coming to kill conservatives. (www.mediamatters.org) submitted 3 years ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 165 comments fedilink hide all child comments Mediamatter.org
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 years ago (2 children) could you still be asleep at that point? do you have proof she wasn’t? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] randon31415@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you and that other guy are arguing about. I just laid out that it was noisy and her husband made two calls and got a gun. Whether or not she was still asleep could only be confirmed by the two people in the room. One is dead and one has legal and legitimate reasons why he might exaggerate a claim like that. Either way, it shouldn't matter on the argument that no knock raids should be banned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 years ago not wanting to go to jail for murder is a legitimate reason to exaggerate a claim permalink fedilink source parent [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Source: Courier Journal - Local Newspaper Claim: Taylor was shot while she was asleep in bed Various social media posts and media reports have said Louisville police gunned down Taylor as she was asleep in bed. Commonwealth's Attorney Tom Wine played partial recordings of police interviews with Walker during a May 22, 2020, news conference in which Walker told police he and Taylor were watching a movie in bed — it was “watching them more than we were watching it,” he said — when they heard a loud bang at the door, scaring both of them. Walker said he initially thought it might’ve been Taylor's former boyfriend, but there was no response when Taylor twice called out, “Who is it?” Then, Walker, saying he was "scared to death," grabbed his legally owned handgun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Claim: Taylor was shot while she was asleep in bed I never claimed this also, you link doesn’t prove this: If your husband had a full conversation with his mother about noises coming from below and then calls 911 and then gets his gun, could you still be asleep at that point? and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. I provided a good source that directly refutes your claim, with a statement from the witness at the scene. You clearly don't care about the truth, and just want to "win." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) with a statement from the witness at the scene I didn’t see any statements supporting any of your claims or refuting mine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) I don't know what you and that other guy are arguing about. I just laid out that it was noisy and her husband made two calls and got a gun. Whether or not she was still asleep could only be confirmed by the two people in the room. One is dead and one has legal and legitimate reasons why he might exaggerate a claim like that. Either way, it shouldn't matter on the argument that no knock raids should be banned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 years ago not wanting to go to jail for murder is a legitimate reason to exaggerate a claim permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 years ago not wanting to go to jail for murder is a legitimate reason to exaggerate a claim permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Source: Courier Journal - Local Newspaper Claim: Taylor was shot while she was asleep in bed Various social media posts and media reports have said Louisville police gunned down Taylor as she was asleep in bed. Commonwealth's Attorney Tom Wine played partial recordings of police interviews with Walker during a May 22, 2020, news conference in which Walker told police he and Taylor were watching a movie in bed — it was “watching them more than we were watching it,” he said — when they heard a loud bang at the door, scaring both of them. Walker said he initially thought it might’ve been Taylor's former boyfriend, but there was no response when Taylor twice called out, “Who is it?” Then, Walker, saying he was "scared to death," grabbed his legally owned handgun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Claim: Taylor was shot while she was asleep in bed I never claimed this also, you link doesn’t prove this: If your husband had a full conversation with his mother about noises coming from below and then calls 911 and then gets his gun, could you still be asleep at that point? and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. I provided a good source that directly refutes your claim, with a statement from the witness at the scene. You clearly don't care about the truth, and just want to "win." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) with a statement from the witness at the scene I didn’t see any statements supporting any of your claims or refuting mine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Claim: Taylor was shot while she was asleep in bed I never claimed this also, you link doesn’t prove this: If your husband had a full conversation with his mother about noises coming from below and then calls 911 and then gets his gun, could you still be asleep at that point? and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. I provided a good source that directly refutes your claim, with a statement from the witness at the scene. You clearly don't care about the truth, and just want to "win." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) with a statement from the witness at the scene I didn’t see any statements supporting any of your claims or refuting mine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) and it doesn’t prove she was awake at the time, ether. people doze off while watching movies. I provided a good source that directly refutes your claim, with a statement from the witness at the scene. You clearly don't care about the truth, and just want to "win." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) with a statement from the witness at the scene I didn’t see any statements supporting any of your claims or refuting mine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) with a statement from the witness at the scene I didn’t see any statements supporting any of your claims or refuting mine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Bullshit. You are arguing in bad faith and you 100% know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child) just because you can’t prove your claims, you start hurling personal insults? that’s on you, not me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) It's not a "personal insult," it's my direct observation of what you are actively doing based on my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) no, it’s just an personal attack because you can’t back up your claim permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I made the claim you are arguing in bad faith because from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing. I state your original claim is untrue, then you tell me your statement should be interpreted as she was asleep before police woke her up. Then I present solid evidence that she was watching a movie. Then you move the goalpost and claim my evidence isn't explicit enough for you. You also present no counter evidence. I then call you out on arguing in bad faith. How else am I supposed to interpret what you are doing? From my perspective it seems obvious you are just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth of the matter. From my perspective, I am the person saying "We found these facts. care to respond?" and you are the person replying "Everything in the media is FAKE NEWS!" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) you’re making personal attacks because you can’t prove your claim that: I state your original claim is untrue and that’s your problem, not mine. making up lies about what I’ve said is just taking things worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) What are you even saying? The text thread is all there. There are no "lies" to be found in my comments. This is clearly an actual ad hominem attack. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago (1 child) if you can’t tell what I’m saying after all of my comments, that’s not my problem. ive been perfectly clear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, this is definitely a bit confusing. I think I replied to you on multiple threads and also wrongfully assumed you were the original poster of the graphic. I apologize for any frustration that added to the situation. Edit for any future readers: Upon closer look, "bauhaus" and "BrooklynMan" have extremely similar looking profiles pictures, banners, and writing styles. On brief inspection, it looks like the images in particular were generated by AI. It's not a smoking gun per se, but it seems sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) my advice: let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ripcord@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (not self-aware enough to take your own advice) permalink fedilink source parent