54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 2 minutes ago, Substatic said: So I'm just gonna' ignore him Run away, coward. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 1 minute ago, Saucer said: The Southern Strategy? Going to ignore your nitpicking on a hypothetical. But .....wait........ you also fucking think the Southern Strategy was fake? Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Saucer said: Run away, coward. Run away by spamming studies and data that you can't refute? They never taught you that if someone posts a peer reviewed study, you can't just pretend your way out of it? Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Substatic said: You have to prove the people actually RIOTING where there due to politics and not random people just trying to loot or blow shit up. Time to get a new "degree". You're giving opinions and theories. Give peer reviewed studies like I did. You think that out of 450 violent protests with thousands upon thousands of acts individual violence, there were only about 23 that were politically motivated? You think that database is pretty accurate? Does that at all seem like a reasonable conclusion? No really. Is it? Edited November 3, 2022 by Saucer Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Man this is going like every other debate I have with far right freaks. Me: Posts multiple studies Con: Nu uh! Me: Got counter citation? Con: Nu uh! Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Impossible 407 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 18 minutes ago, Saucer said: Your fact check site has The Lincoln project listed as centrist. What are they? Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 2 minutes ago, Saucer said: You think that database is pretty accurate? Yeah. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Just now, Substatic said: Run away by spamming studies and data that you can't refute? You're samming studies you found on Reddit that you haven't read and don't have the education to analyze. You argue politics like a 12-year-old. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 1 minute ago, Mr. Impossible said: What are they? Neocon grifters. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Impossible 407 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Just now, Saucer said: Neocon grifters. So Republicans. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 2 minutes ago, Substatic said: Yeah. They have The Jacobin listed as high in factual reporting. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Just now, Mr. Impossible said: So Republicans. They side with whichever party advances their political agenda and lines their pockets. Currently they're aligned with the Dems. During the Iraq War they heavily sided with the Republicans to protect Israel. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 8 minutes ago, Substatic said: Yeah. They have The Root -- the most racist corporate vertical media in the US -- listed as merely Left and Mostly Factual. LOL! Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 I'm sick and in quarantine. This is no fun. I took a friend to urgent care a few days ago and there was a pair of little kids with death-rattle coughs standing next to us in line. I was even wearing a KN95. Shit. At least the covid tests I took came back negative. That's my exciting update. And that database really is worthless. Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Saucer said: That's my exciting update. And that database really is worthless. Sit the fuck down. Three reputable sources verifying similar trends now while you keep spamming opinions. Take the L. Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Substatic said: A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world | PNAS In this research we address these gaps by comparing the use of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and worldwide using two unique datasets that cover real-world examples of politically motivated, violent behaviors. Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. I The Military, Police, and the Rise of Terrorism in the United States | Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis.org) Hey Bitch Ass @Saucer. What data do you have to show that all of these Very High Fact sources (one of which is peer reviewed) are false? Getting tired of your guesswork and opinions. At this point my citation is too grand to ignore with arm-chair theory from a rando. Post equal sourcing showing my 3 data sets are falsified or incorrect. Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Just now, Substatic said: Sit the fuck down. Three reputable sources verifying similar trends now while you keep spamming opinions. Take the L. You think there were only 23 acts of political violence during all the 2020 Antifa and BLM protests and riots because a random think tank told you so. You are the L. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 3 minutes ago, Substatic said: Hey Bitch Ass. What data do you have to show that all of these Very High Fact sources (one of which is peer reviewed) are false? I've already dismantled the CSIS database, and a ten second glance at the PNAS study shows it's an abstract that's comparing the intensity of "political attacks" not the frequency, and the full study is locked behind a paywall. You have no idea what you're even looking at. Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 Why is Sub getting so mad? Even he knows he's always been considered a lightweight on this board so it's not like I'm knocking him off a high pedestal and ruining his public image. Sub, are you having home problems? Link to post Share on other sites
Substatic 420 Posted November 3, 2022 Share Posted November 3, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Saucer said: I've already dismantled the CSIS database You didn't do shit. Who the fuck do you think you are. 6 minutes ago, Saucer said: and a ten second glance at the PNAS study shows A 10 second glance..... A glance he says. Shut the fuck up with these opinions and give me a peer reviewed study that counters it. 6 minutes ago, Saucer said: You have no idea Shit tier debater forgot to even mention the GAO study. Calling 3 high quality sources "fake" with zero citation is the definition of an L. Accept the facts. Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts