GroundControl_1

GroundControl_1 t1_j6f2quk wrote

Except that neither of those things is really true.

  1. Be really honest with me for a second: did you watch the Tucker piece about M&Ms for yourself, or did some other media property tell you what it said and what conclusions should be drawn about it?

  2. Lawyers? Really? Fox corporate lawyers? I think you would be one of the first people to argue that they are perhaps top 1% full of shit (and I would agree), so they don't really help your case at all.

  3. All of them? You can know this for sure?

−15

GroundControl_1 t1_j6f01xj wrote

Again, you're using an ad-hom and providing no data. Calling someone "a joke" isn't an argument and doesn't support your claims, rather, it tends to indicate that you are not debating from facts. Can you make your case without diminishing the humanity of the people you are debating? It doesn't seem like you can, and that's a problem.

2: there is ample data provided by both RFK and Carlson, but you refuse to review or acknowledge it because "those people." Isn't that classical, textbook wilfull ignorance? How does that differ from the behavior we see e.g. in "To Kill a Mockingbird?"

It doesn't 🤷‍♂️

you're refusing to review information because you hate people.

That's it.

−7

GroundControl_1 t1_j6ewet9 wrote

Never mind the documentation, never mind the factual evidence. Just use ad-homs because "those people"

That Reddit still considers itself an open minded, tolerant, and evidence-based community is one of the biggest jokes on the Internet, and every one is laughing at it but you. You guys gotta start doing better.

−3

GroundControl_1 t1_j6ew1eo wrote

Never mind the documentation, never mind the factual evidence. Just use ad-homs because "those people"

That Reddit still considers itself an open minded, tolerant, and evidence-based community is one of the biggest jokes on the Internet, and every one is laughing at it but you. You guys gotta start doing better.

−10