• FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How were these demonstrators to know if he was intending to run them over prior to his doing so?

    It was a credible threat, given the history of fash killing people with their cars at demonstrations and any step taken to protect themselves from that potential threat would be justified.

    • Rivalarrival
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not even the overtly biased author of the article was willing to make that claim. You’ll need a primary source before you can reasonably make such a claim.

        • Rivalarrival
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why stop there? He’s got a dick, so by your personal evidentiary standard, he must have been raping the protesters as well.

          • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If he had been getting his dick out I’d certainly condone kicking it before he could.

            …not that you have any proof he does have a dick.

            Why are you defending a guy who shot at protesters and refers to himself as “a domestic terrorist” on his own youttube channel though?

            • Rivalarrival
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Why are you defending

              As I said, I observed considerable bias in the article. I further observed libelous claims in the comments, far exceeding the bias in the article.

              Frankly, I don’t give a shit about him. I’m more interested in this site, this author, and you. The inherent bias in the article tells me I should be cautious in trusting them. I should not believe them simply because I like what they have to say.

              Do you form opinions on the basis of logic and rationality, or on emotion? Do you trust stereotypes over evidence? Do you subscribe to principles like Hanlon’s Razor and Presumption of Innocence, or do you assume malice and guilt?

              Your statements here tell me that your opinion is not formed on a rational basis, but from your hatred and disgust of this driver’s political position. You have demonstrated to me that your arguments cannot be trusted.

              • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can “Logical, captain” all you want. You’re still going to bat for a right wing populist who surrounds himself in white nationalist imagery.

                I don’t have to argue that fascist are bad.

                • Rivalarrival
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t have to argue that fascist are bad.

                  Fascists are the only ones who get to assume their position is true without ever bothering to prove it.

                  • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, fascists are the right wing populists who appeal to violent authority to subjugate marginalized persons in attempts to reacquire a fictitious idealized past they have rationalized as stolen from them by these already disempowered groups.

                    If you’re asking me to prove fascism is bad, you’re doing to work of fascists.