Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan  #36 Wrote: You're transparent attempts to equate me to partisan extremists, is as pathetic as it is futile.  No one but your little cabal is buying it.
Based on your overly verbose responses to pretty much everything we can all determine you find this to be a valuable use of your time.
Trust me, no one is surprised to hear you claim this.
Yes, just "windows".  Not occupied buildings being set on fire.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/man-sentenced-5-years-arson-portland-police-north-precinct/283-ea1cea0f-d86c-4ebe-b3bc-6b57e1f4909c
"Spontaneous"?!  You precious far left court jester you.  You're adorable!!!
Both are bad.  At least the more centrist/right leaning posters here can acknowledge this.
Still laughing about "spontaneous" btw.  You partisan shill. 

#41

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I don't really care to search for examples, but I will surprise you.   I'm also referencing people who don't believe 01/06 was a bad thing.  Also, I see you dodged the whole committing arson on an occupied police precinct rather than actually address it.  Probably the smart move on your part.

I found this whole thing very interesting.  Every single major news outlet ran with this data and treated it as gospel.  I didn't find any real investigation into the source's claims or any explanation of their methodology.  Contrast that to counter claims that are more critical.

I'm sure your ideological distinction is a tremendous comfort to the families and friends of those who were murdered.  The point rather being that the level of violence on 01/06 was on par, if not less, than numerous BLM riots.

Yes, we understand your position here as well as your desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the 01/06 riot.  I can only reiterate the fact that what Dill finds to be more important doesn't negate facts.  Facts such as the billions in property damage, the many people "injured" and the people killed during these protests.

An interesting aside, more from the other thread on the Capitol Hill police officers.  One of those "honored" retired as a result of the riot, claiming, and I'm paraphrasing, that he did not want to retire, the rioters made him retire.  While I wouldn't want to minimize the man's experience, and we all have different mental thresholds, I did find it a curious statement to make.  Seeing as I know hundreds of officers who went through days like 01/06 and did it for months at a time.  Some days were better, some were worse, but they lasted for months.  Yet I don't know a single one of them who retired because of those days.  Sadly, I know hundreds who have retired within the past four years because they are sick of Democratic politicians, including our DA, destroying their profession.  Maybe that doesn't strike you as important?  Just thought I'd add it as a bit of a cherry on top.

#44

(06-11-2024, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah.  Dill doesn't set any rules here, not are you my father.  You know the second statement is true, yet you refuse to concede it.  It's interesting to say the least.
And it is framed as nothing other than exactly that.  Of course your "source" provides no details, as I took pains to point out, yet you don't question that.  I think I raised some legitimate concerns about the wording used by that source and provided examples of why they should concern anyone.  I can understand why you'd prefer to duck that, but your doing so is noticeable.
Oh, not just property damage, but injuries and deaths as well.  Considerably more.
Did he use a "mission of peace'?  I certainly wouldn't agree with that, certainly not the right as a whole.  It wouldn't change a single point I made either way.
No.  Nor has anyone claimed otherwise.
With the Capitol riots?  No.  With the BLM riots?  Most certainly.
I'd argue that tacitly, at the very least, condoning riots is bad.  Not as bad as actively directing them, no.  But did Trump not say to be peaceful?  You can argue that he didn't mean it, but he did say it.  He certainly didn't condone setting up an autonomous district within US borders and label it a "summer of love".  He didn't help raise bail money for people arrested for attempted murder as our current VP did.  Again, you seem to think riots only matter when they have a certain goal, and not at other times.  I can agree that the 01/06 riots were abhorrent and a stain on our history.  I do not use them to excuse the riots of others.  I also do not think the Capitol riot being "worse" in any way lessens the impact of the dozens of BLM riots.  Your position only works if you're seeking a direct, point by point, equivalence.  I'm not.  I'm being empathetic to the tens, if not hundreds, or thousands of people who had their lives upended by months of rioting.

I don't think Trump said anything illegal.  I certainly don't agree with his statements, for the most part.  But, again, I have a hard time with a left leaning person clamoring for the rule of law considering what I've experienced the past four years.

Quote:And when I further flagged your imprecise use of the term "leftist," which collects all manner of non-aligned actors into one bag responsible for riots, reminded you that "mostly peaceful" is not some "leftist standard," and explained what the actual term of comparison was, you unleashed a firehose of abusive language, at one point positioning yourself, hivemind-like, as speaking for all forum members except my "cabal." Nevermind that most of the people you respect in the forum do not ascribe to the BLM whattabout. While that far right from which you distance yourself does ascribe to it. That's basically your "we" on this issue--virtually everyone who regularly attacks "leftists." But it's "pathetic" if I associate you with the right.

This is an odd screed as no one could reasonably infer any of that from the post you're responding to.  Are you now addressing posts outside the scope of this conversation?  It would seem counter productive to do so, especially when this discussion was proceeding rather amicably.  Perhaps this is the response I should prepare for when you're confronted by arguments you cannot even begin to address?  Such as the methodology and definitions used by a source you used to make an objective claim?  Seeing as this is your 7th or 8th attempt at this post I'd expect a little more organized and coherent response.  Unfortunately, this reads as rather angry and ill intended.
No, I affirmed that either injury is significant to the one upon whom it is inflicted.
Of course, one could argue that Dill finds an attempt to overturn an election, as half-hearted as it was, more important than dozens dead, scores injured and billions of dollars in property damage.  I also think you'd have a hard time framing this now borderline screed as a "rational argument" as well.

A US election came nowhere close to falling because of a coup.  As disgusting an event as I believe 01/06 to be at no point did it come to even 1% of succeeding as a coup.  Your hyperbolic reframing of it actually diminishes what it was, as does any extremist retelling of a story.  It was bad enough without you embellishing it to absurd levels.  Your flailing attempts here actually do more to minimize the event than the most die hard Trump supporter's best effort.

I'm not exaggerating when I say I expected a much more coherent response given the time and effort you apparently devoted to it.  It almost makes me a little sad, in a way.

#56

(06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources?  That seems like a poor argument.  As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point.

So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

Adding crowd estimations together and reporting them as 100% empirical fact and then amalgamating all said numbers seems to me to be poor practice.  A more scientifically robust, and infinitely more honest, practice would be to put an estimate on that number and round it off.  So, yes, it is an oddly specific number and immediately raises concerns about the source's honesty.

Quote:Then regarding your question "why injured" and  not "assaulted." A "thinking person" should quickly see that the CCC is relying on public data, whose criteria of selection are set by a number of different sources, such as local newspapers relying on local police and hospitals and reporters. Your own description of the vagaries of what counts as assault already suggest why assessing scale of violence might make "injuries" the more reliable guide. Yet you rush to speculate whether those at CCC collecting data already categorized as "injury" themselves DECIDED to use numbers of injured rather than assaulted--i.e., data which no one has compiled--to "manipulate data."   

A "thinking person?"  Yet you hold yourself up as this paragon of polite debate and intellectual rigor.  Either your standards are slipping quite a bit or you were never what you claimed to be.  But I'll move on from your insult and address your actual response.  There are no vagaries as to what legally constitutes an assault.  It is codified into law and laws have to be specific, especially criminal law.  There are vagaries as to what constitutes an "injury", especially as your source provides no explanation of their criteria.  In addition to what they consider an injury, how were these injuries reported and by who?  Also, why can they compile data on injuries but not assaults?  You're actually raising more concerns about your sources credibility, not lessening them

No, I gave it a "thinking persons" perusal and immediately identified ways they could have fudged numbers and flaws in their process.  Working in a deep blue jurisdiction I am intimately familiar with the way wording is used to manipulate and hide unpalatable data.  Your source had several immediate red flags in that regard.  I started with no conclusion, unlike yourself in this sentence, I examined your source and what I spoke on stood out to me.

How is directly addressing the claims of your source and raising legitimate questions disregarding anything?  It would be more accurately described as paying it intense attention.  

Your entire post only addressed a single point I raised, and I'm afraid it did so rather poorly.  In fact, as I already stated, your poor attempt actually raised more concerns while alleviating or addressing any.  I understand your desire to dismiss this out of hand, despite it being rather in conflict with your self assertion of being a logical and fact based debater of topics.  But you're going to have to do a little bit better if you're hoping to convince anyone but yourself that you posted anything of substance here, or that I am making a disingenuous argument.

#74

(06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said they shouldn't vet sources.  In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so.
Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed.  Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise.
Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?"  I would certainly hope not.
To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording.  I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word.
Actually, you added it's not "necessarily" their job.  I'm asserting it is, and absolutely should be. Why be dubious and scrutinize one source and not another?
No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do.  It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you.
I'd present a third option, own your amazingly bad statements and interpretations for once in your posting career here.  I don't expect it, and would be amazed to see it.  But it's certainly another option.

Which is you admitting you're either less intelligent than me, less talented than me, wrong as opposed to my being right, or all of the above.  I'm thinking this thread rather proves the fourth option.
It's certainly worse for you, no doubt.  A better compromise would be for you to admit the complete bankruptcy of your position, but I certainly won't hold my breath.

@rkiv