I was wrong

[Cliffycomeback]

Yeah, I'm aware of all of it, I just used ChatGPT to summarise it in an easily digestible format for those in here with "room temperature IQ".

I suppose you're trying to claim the "context" of each of these statements excuses them, yes?

What a guy Charlie Kirk was.

Why don't you pick one statement & explain how it was justified?

Are there any Muslim ruled countries you would like to live/raise a family? Have you seen some of the hate being preached by many Muslims around the world? What do you think about the disproportionately high amount of Muslim criminal shootings around Sydney and Melbourne? Because you would have to be entirely disingenuous to not admit there is a very real problem there. Why is that? What do you think about the tens of thousands of Africans being butchered by Muslims? Do you feel as much outrage for the Christian Africans? What about the Taliban and the disgraceful way women are treated? How did ISIS become such a big thing? Then there's the terrible murders at Charlie Hebdo, because someone dared to draw a cartoon of Mohammad. The list just goes on and on.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

There is an amazing example of how broken some people are in this thread

A post is made on what appears to be consensus regarding politically motivated violence which shows it is far more attributable to the “right”.

How to deal with this if it goes against your beliefs?

What about Islam? Why is 9/11 not included? Trans people are bad or my favourite “it does not include property damage” (which is a different discussion l)

To be fair, Islam continues to inflict a lot of bloodshed in the name of Allah.

 

[lsz]

There is no consensus regarding politically motivated violence, which was the point I was making about violence being much broader than murders.

The discussion on Islam was relevant as the data included Islamic terrorist attacks. The omission of 9/11 deaths from those statistics would be considered a rather glaring omission by most people.

Not sure who said trans people are bad.

This study was being quoted as proof that the assertion by conservatives that leftist violence is on the rise was false. If we agree that violence includes rioting, injuries, property damage etc, then that is far from proven.

In so far as the research itself, even the author himself acknowledged that categorisations were far from objective and different ideological motivations could be assigned to attackers. The only conclusion they were willing to make is that total politically motivated murders were relatively small.

Finally, this is one study. I’m not sure how a consensus can be agreed based on a single study, particularly one with apparent self-highlighted flaws that specifically warn against just that type of over-interpretation.

Nobody is broken, just unwilling to jump to conclusions unquestioningly.

Did you not read when I gave several other examples? Perhaps you did not have the time