Unhinged leftist kills Republican teenager for being ''part of a Republican extremist group.''

[54212 432]

15 minutes ago, Substatic said:

So you have no source to refute my "Very High Fact" and "Least Biased" one? Get. The. Fuck. Out. Of. Here.  This is a direct and undebatable L.

 

Mediabiasfactcheck.com it has NPR listed as only slightly left.

 

15 minutes ago, Substatic said:

Tell me why you think a peer reviewed source is wrong because some county college politics course.

 

I already did, and UC Berkeley is universally considered one of the best universities in the world. You're acting like a spastic retard now because you got called out.

 

According to CSIS' own dataset there were over 450 violent protests in 2020 along but they were only able to categorize 23 of them as left or right, yet you're such a moronic sheep that you think their database is accurate.

 

How did you get this way? Did your parents cane you if you questioned their authority? 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Saucer

[Substatic 420]

3 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

Mediabiasfactcheck.com is so ridiculous it has CNN listed as "minimal bias." 

 

 

 

What...

 

CNN - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

 

They are listed as "Mixed Fact" (which is bad) and Left Bias. CNN sucks dick.

 

Lmao this liar caught lying.

 

"Ayo I took a course in Social Studies when I was at Rutgers, I can now say the southern strategy is fake without citation!". Rofl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

How did you get this way? Did your parents cane you if you questioned their authority? 

 

What are you talking about. My people use facts and data. Only "Very High" fact and/or Peer Reviewed Sources.  Don't be an anti-intellectual. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic

[54212 432]

Just now, Substatic said:

 

What...

 

CNN - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

 

They are listed as "Mixed Fact" (which is bad) and Left Bias. CNN sucks dick.

 

Lmao this liar caught lying.

 

"Ayo I took a course in Social Studies when I was at Rutgers, I can now say the southern strategy is fake without citation!". Rofl.

 

I immediately correct it when I saw the error. Try again.

[Substatic 420]

Just now, Saucer said:

 

I immediately correct it when I saw the error. 

 

Yes you corrected a false statement. You should stop making those all the time here.

[54212 432]

Just now, Substatic said:

 

Yes you corrected a false statement. You should stop making those all the time here.

 

There are so many of these fake lefty "fake check" sites they blur together.

 

Getting back to yours, they have The Atlantic as centrist to center-left. LOL

 

 

[54212 432]

This is fun. They have  The Atlantic listed as more centrist than the NYTimes and WaPo. 

[Substatic 420]

13 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

You're acting like a spastic retard now because you got called out.

 

 

 

Your low IQ has failed you in this thread.

 

You have to offer citation refuting both of my highly reputable sources. Not giving me your opinions.  I don't come in here and start posting shit bin blogs. Get on my level of debating. This isn't Stormfront or Bertibart.

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic

[54212 432]

They have Fox News listed as Extreme but MSNBC listed as merely Left. You're doing great with the sources again, Sub. 

[Substatic 420]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

They have Fox News listed as Extreme but MSNBC listed as merely Left. You're doing great with the sources again, Sub. 

 

I don't see the issue with this....

 

And both are in the "Mixed Fact" section. Man you have to sue that Uni for that worthless degree.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic

[54212 432]

Just now, Substatic said:

 

Your low IQ has failed you in this thread.

 

You have to offer citation refuting both of my highly reputable sources. Not giving me your opinions.  I don't come in here and start posting shit bin blogs. Get on my level.

 

 

 

 

You don't even know the difference between objective analysis and opinion. Again, their own dataset claims there were 450 violent protests in 2020 alone but they were only able to categorize 23 of them as left or right. They methodology doesn't accurately measure left-right political violence at all but you're treating it as bulletproof because you're that much of a mindless sheep.

 

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, Substatic said:

 

I don't see the issue with this....

 

And that shows your own bias and why you're so terrible at analysis.

 

[Substatic 420]

7 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

 their own dataset claims there were 450 violent protests in 2020 alone but they were only able to categorize 23 of them as left or right.  

 

 

And your job is to show this is false with citation. You think it's false because "muh feels" and that trash degree. Prove all of the violence there was for politics and not just some random black dude wanting to loot. The Rioters don't always have to be rioting for a political reason, you get that right? You must understand how simple reality works, right?

 

I've now posted 2 highly valid sources and you can't respond with anything. It's great winning so easily here.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic

[Substatic 420]

Just now, Saucer said:

 

And that shows your own bias 

 

It shows your bias. As does your post on The Atalantic, that was a head scratcher. You sure you studied politics? 

[54212 432]

I've never met someone who thinks arguments from authorit

1 minute ago, Substatic said:

 

And your job is to show this is false with citation. You think it's false because "muh feels" and that trash degree.

 

I've now posted 2 highly valid sources and you can't respond with anything. It's great winning so easily here.  

 

Degrees. Plural. 

I think the study lacks internal validity because it's not able to categorize the vast majority of political violence as left or right as I've shown. It's a shit study. And all you have left to retreat to is mindless arguments from authority.

 

Sub is a great name for you because I've never seen an adult this mindlessly submissive to arguments from authority. Christ maybe the Sihks suck afterall. That would be disappointing.

[Substatic 420]

5 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

 lacks internal validity 

 

[Citation Needed]

 

5 minutes ago, Saucer said:

  the vast majority of political violence as left or right as I've shown. 

 

 

 

Prove they were all political violence. (With citation). You know some random black guy throwing a brick doesn't HAVE to be political......right? Welcome to how reality works.

 

5 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

 

 mindlessly submissive to arguments from authority.  

 

So every time I have ever seen a far right idiot losing a debate due to highly reputable citation I always see them run to "appeal to authority".

 

Post the massive 13 federal agency peer reviewed climate change studies? "Appeal to Authority".

Post every study on vaccines? "Appeal to Authority"

Post every encyclopedia entry and PHD study on The Southern Strategy? "Appeal to Authority".

 

It's tiring and it has never worked. Just get sources bro, it's not hard. Never mind, it actually is hard if what you're saying is wrong. 

 

It's tough to find reputable sources that agree with you, that aren't blogs, when what you're typing is objectively incorrect.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic

[54212 432]

Your fact check site has The Lincoln project listed as centrist. 

[Substatic 420]

So I'm just gonna' ignoring his keyboard warrior non expert opinions, until he finds equally as amazing citation and just keep citing facts that hurt his feelings. I can find too many sources agreeing with me, none on his side tough.

 

 

A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world | PNAS

 

Quote

Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent.

 

 

The Military, Police, and the Rise of Terrorism in the United States | Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis.org)
 

Quote

 

 

White supremacists, extremist militia members, and other violent far-right extremists were responsible for 66 percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in 2020—roughly consistent with their share in other recent years.57 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Substatic

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, Substatic said:

Prove they were all political violence. (With citation). You know some random black guy throwing a brick doesn't HAVE to be political......right?

The CSIS own dataset says there were around 450 violent protests in 2020 alone. Not 450 violent individual acts, but 450 violent protests. That means the number of violent individual acts was almost certainly exponentially more. Yet they were only able to categorize 23 individual violent acts. We also know the protests were mainly leftwing BLM and Antifa protests, so the number of leftwing acts of violence is being vastly undercounted.

 

Yet you act like the database is definitive. That's how dumb you are.

 

[54212 432]

13 minutes ago, Substatic said:

Post every encyclopedia entry and PHD study on The Southern Strategy?

 

You posted every encyclopedia entry and PhD study on The Southern Strategy? See and now you're just resorting to dumb exaggeration. 

[Substatic 420]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

  We also know the protests were mainly leftwing BLM and Antifa protests, so the number of leftwing acts of violence is being vastly undercounted.

 

 

 

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.