Gypsy Crusader

[UncleLad]

I don't agree with anything he believes, but if you've heard his story, it can be easier to understand WHY he feels that way. He wanted to become a journalist, and BLM and Antifa ruined his life. He got in a fight with someone with Antifa, while he just wanted to record the event, and then later he got doxxed. They found out where his mother lived, and threatened to burn her house down and kill her, all while chanting "black lives matter."

They harassed her at her business, and she called him and cried on the phone.

They took his job, banned him from the gym, and even got the FBI sent to his house.

It's tragic really. The people who hated racists so much, ended up creating an extreme racist. He's ironically similar to the Joker he dresses up as. All it took was a few bad days to turn him into something he was not before. Maybe one day his views will change if the people he hates so much show him some love and kindness.

What are your thoughts?

[EdyKel]

This reminds me of another would be journalist, who claimed they were innocently reporting on a protest event only to be savagely attacked by members of antifa for no reason. His name was Andy Ngo, and he was made famous by that attack, with all the media outlets promoting his narrative.... Yet, it was later reveled that he hated Antifa with a passion before that attack, and who constantly trolled and provoked them. There were even videos showing him with a far right militia group, the Patriot Prayer, discussing how they were planning to get into a brawl with Antifa, with Andy laughing with them over it. All of this took place before the attack.

I don't know much about Gypsy Crusader, but given how people often embellish their stories, or claim innocence, I'll have to be a bit skeptical. And there are people on both sides getting doxed, with many being the wrong person.

[UncleLad]

At 12/23/20 10:39 PM, EdyKel wrote:This reminds me of another would be journalist, who claimed they were innocently reporting on a protest event only to be savagely attacked by members of antifa for no reason. His name was Andy Ngo, and he was made famous by that attack, with all the media outlets promoting his narrative.... Yet, it was later reveled that he hated Antifa with a passion before that attack, and who constantly trolled and provoked them. There were even videos showing him with a far right militia group, the Patriot Prayer, discussing how they were planning to get into a brawl with Antifa, with Andy laughing with them over it. All of this took place before the attack.

I don't know much about Gypsy Crusader, but given how people often embellish their stories, or claim innocence, I'll have to be a bit skeptical. And there are people on both sides getting doxed, with many being the wrong person.

Here's some videos covering it in better detail. It's better to look into it instead of assuming he's lying because you don't like him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXgK-TiBW8&has_verified=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuEUFy2O4U

[EdyKel]

At 12/24/20 02:41 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/23/20 10:39 PM, EdyKel wrote:This reminds me of another would be journalist, who claimed they were innocently reporting on a protest event only to be savagely attacked by members of antifa for no reason. His name was Andy Ngo, and he was made famous by that attack, with all the media outlets promoting his narrative.... Yet, it was later reveled that he hated Antifa with a passion before that attack, and who constantly trolled and provoked them. There were even videos showing him with a far right militia group, the Patriot Prayer, discussing how they were planning to get into a brawl with Antifa, with Andy laughing with them over it. All of this took place before the attack.

I don't know much about Gypsy Crusader, but given how people often embellish their stories, or claim innocence, I'll have to be a bit skeptical. And there are people on both sides getting doxed, with many being the wrong person.

Here's some videos covering it in better detail. It's better to look into it instead of assuming he's lying because you don't like him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXgK-TiBW8&has_verified=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuEUFy2O4U

*Sigh

Are you gullible?

It took me all but a few minutes to find this: Far-right group takes victory lap on social media after violence in Manhattan

After a series of physical altercations and brawls in Manhattan on Friday night, the founder of the far-right “Western chauvinist” group Proud Boys tried to justify the violence in a series of social media posts.

Videos of the violence circulated widely on social media over the weekend, with one showing what appeared to be a group of Proud Boys rushing to join several others who were beating three men, one being kicked relentlessly as he laid curled up on the sidewalk.

Miller, whose social media posts suggest that he is sympathetic to the right-wing group, posted videos to his YouTube account in which he claimed to want to "instigate" an altercation with counter-protestors outside of the Manhattan Republican club before alleging later he had been beaten and had his backpack stolen. The police are still seeking the person who allegedly stole Miller’s backpack. Miller and that person had engaged in a physical altercation earlier in the evening when Miller ran into him while filming and taunting counter-protestors. The short fight was captured on one of Miller’s videos.

So, I was right to be suspicious, because this guy ain't that innocent.

And OAN is a pure Conservative propaganda network, son. They spin shit to make people incredibly stupid. The whole thing sounded to perfect, to heroic, to be real, which made me incredibly suspicious, which led me to look at other sources.

[UncleLad]

At 12/24/20 03:35 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/24/20 02:41 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/23/20 10:39 PM, EdyKel wrote:This reminds me of another would be journalist, who claimed they were innocently reporting on a protest event only to be savagely attacked by members of antifa for no reason. His name was Andy Ngo, and he was made famous by that attack, with all the media outlets promoting his narrative.... Yet, it was later reveled that he hated Antifa with a passion before that attack, and who constantly trolled and provoked them. There were even videos showing him with a far right militia group, the Patriot Prayer, discussing how they were planning to get into a brawl with Antifa, with Andy laughing with them over it. All of this took place before the attack.

I don't know much about Gypsy Crusader, but given how people often embellish their stories, or claim innocence, I'll have to be a bit skeptical. And there are people on both sides getting doxed, with many being the wrong person.

Here's some videos covering it in better detail. It's better to look into it instead of assuming he's lying because you don't like him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXgK-TiBW8&has_verified=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuEUFy2O4U

*Sigh

Are you gullible?

It took me all but a few minutes to find this: Far-right group takes victory lap on social media after violence in Manhattan

So, I was right to be suspicious, because this guy ain't that innocent.

And OAN is a pure Conservative propaganda network, son. They spin shit to make people incredibly stupid. The whole thing sounded to perfect, to heroic, to be real, which made me incredibly suspicious, which led me to look at other sources.

"*Sigh" and "gullible". You always talk down to people, which makes you less likeable and makes people not want to listen to you. And I think others have pointed that out. You should work on that.

I honestly don't think it justifies an attack anyway, and it was more than just the fight. Doxxing and harassing his mom? That's not justifiable in any way.

Also, what you're saying is, all conservative sources are bad, and all leftist sources are good? Cuz that's what is sounds like you're saying, and that makes you biased.

[TurkeyOnAStick]

At 12/24/20 01:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:Also, what you're saying is, all conservative sources are bad, and all leftist sources are good? Cuz that's what is sounds like you're saying, and that makes you biased.

Minus the “sigh” and calling you gullible, let’s re-read what @EdyKel wrote:

It took me all but a few minutes to find this: Far-right group takes victory lap on social media after violence in Manhattan

So, I was right to be suspicious, because this guy ain't that innocent.

And OAN is a pure Conservative propaganda network, son. They spin shit to make people incredibly stupid. The whole thing sounded to perfect, to heroic, to be real, which made me incredibly suspicious, which led me to look at other sources.

There’s nothing here that states that he considers leftist sources are good.

[EdyKel]

At 12/24/20 01:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/24/20 03:35 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/24/20 02:41 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/23/20 10:39 PM, EdyKel wrote:This reminds me of another would be journalist, who claimed they were innocently reporting on a protest event only to be savagely attacked by members of antifa for no reason. His name was Andy Ngo, and he was made famous by that attack, with all the media outlets promoting his narrative.... Yet, it was later reveled that he hated Antifa with a passion before that attack, and who constantly trolled and provoked them. There were even videos showing him with a far right militia group, the Patriot Prayer, discussing how they were planning to get into a brawl with Antifa, with Andy laughing with them over it. All of this took place before the attack.

I don't know much about Gypsy Crusader, but given how people often embellish their stories, or claim innocence, I'll have to be a bit skeptical. And there are people on both sides getting doxed, with many being the wrong person.

Here's some videos covering it in better detail. It's better to look into it instead of assuming he's lying because you don't like him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXgK-TiBW8&has_verified=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuEUFy2O4U

*Sigh

Are you gullible?

It took me all but a few minutes to find this: Far-right group takes victory lap on social media after violence in Manhattan

So, I was right to be suspicious, because this guy ain't that innocent.

And OAN is a pure Conservative propaganda network, son. They spin shit to make people incredibly stupid. The whole thing sounded to perfect, to heroic, to be real, which made me incredibly suspicious, which led me to look at other sources.

"*Sigh" and "gullible". You always talk down to people, which makes you less likeable and makes people not want to listen to you. And I think others have pointed that out. You should work on that.
I honestly don't think it justifies an attack anyway, and it was more than just the fight. Doxxing and harassing his mom? That's not justifiable in any way.
Also, what you're saying is, all conservative sources are bad, and all leftist sources are good? Cuz that's what is sounds like you're saying, and that makes you biased.

So, you can't dispute what what I said about Gypsy, and all you can do is make excuses, project, and deflect. Son, you are biased as hell, and that automatically makes everyone who disagrees with you biased.

Your entire argument is a conservative talking point. Antifa is bad, beating up innocent and law abiding people, making them racists. And you give me this silly infomercial, with a made for TV far right narrative, of evil and good, with only one perspective. And you think that everyone is going to buy that? Yes, you are gullible.

Not only do other accounts differ over Gypsies claim, but the whole incident dusted the cobwebs in my mind. I remember reading about it, about a group of far right Proud Boys who were beating up people they suspected of being Antifa, and they got a lot of bad press that day. The thing about the proud boys is that some of them have in their charters an initiation that requires new members to beat up someone from antifa.

Yet, you have this one media outlet, and supposed journalist, trying to gaslight the whole situation by painting an entirely different picture of that day that is not even collaborated by the cops. This would explain a lot of things about how Gypsy wasn't so innocent, and how his own action, which seemed to be about promoting racism, and agitating other groups, for shits and giggles, seemed to be what led to the violent confrontation he was in. I think his alternative persona was already there, and he does this shit for attention, and to get sympathy. And you basically, and blindly assumed, that he was telling the whole truth.

[UncleLad]

The man before the disaster, not caring about race or nothing. Just with a fellow believer of his cause.

[UncleLad]

At 12/24/20 01:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/24/20 01:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/24/20 03:35 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/24/20 02:41 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/23/20 10:39 PM, EdyKel wrote:This reminds me of another would be journalist, who claimed they were innocently reporting on a protest event only to be savagely attacked by members of antifa for no reason. His name was Andy Ngo, and he was made famous by that attack, with all the media outlets promoting his narrative.... Yet, it was later reveled that he hated Antifa with a passion before that attack, and who constantly trolled and provoked them. There were even videos showing him with a far right militia group, the Patriot Prayer, discussing how they were planning to get into a brawl with Antifa, with Andy laughing with them over it. All of this took place before the attack.

I don't know much about Gypsy Crusader, but given how people often embellish their stories, or claim innocence, I'll have to be a bit skeptical. And there are people on both sides getting doxed, with many being the wrong person.

Here's some videos covering it in better detail. It's better to look into it instead of assuming he's lying because you don't like him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXgK-TiBW8&has_verified=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuEUFy2O4U

*Sigh

Are you gullible?

It took me all but a few minutes to find this: Far-right group takes victory lap on social media after violence in Manhattan

So, I was right to be suspicious, because this guy ain't that innocent.

And OAN is a pure Conservative propaganda network, son. They spin shit to make people incredibly stupid. The whole thing sounded to perfect, to heroic, to be real, which made me incredibly suspicious, which led me to look at other sources.

"*Sigh" and "gullible". You always talk down to people, which makes you less likeable and makes people not want to listen to you. And I think others have pointed that out. You should work on that.
I honestly don't think it justifies an attack anyway, and it was more than just the fight. Doxxing and harassing his mom? That's not justifiable in any way.
Also, what you're saying is, all conservative sources are bad, and all leftist sources are good? Cuz that's what is sounds like you're saying, and that makes you biased.

So, you can't dispute what what I said about Gypsy, and all you can do is make excuses, project, and deflect. Son, you are biased as hell, and that automatically makes everyone who disagrees with you biased.

Your entire argument is a conservative talking point. Antifa is bad, beating up innocent and law abiding people, making them racists. And you give me this silly infomercial, with a made for TV far right narrative, of evil and good, with only one perspective. And you think that everyone is going to buy that? Yes, you are gullible.

Not only do other accounts differ over Gypsies claim, but the whole incident dusted the cobwebs in my mind. I remember reading about it, about a group of far right Proud Boys who were beating up people they suspected of being Antifa, and they got a lot of bad press that day. The thing about the proud boys is that some of them have in their charters an initiation that requires new members to beat up someone from antifa.

Yet, you have this one media outlet, and supposed journalist, trying to gaslight the whole situation by painting an entirely different picture of that day that is not even collaborated by the cops. This would explain a lot of things about how Gypsy wasn't so innocent, and how his own action, which seemed to be about promoting racism, and agitating other groups, for shits and giggles, seemed to be what led to the violent confrontation he was in. I think his alternative persona was already there, and he does this shit for attention, and to get sympathy. And you basically, and blindly assumed, that he was telling the whole truth.

Extremely hypocritical of you. You yourself change the topic often in your discussions, or downright ignore questions and sources and dismiss them as propaganda when it doesn't line up with your ideology.

These things happened: there was a fight, there was doxxing, there was harassment. These things radicalized Paul Miller.

And these things can't be justified by changing the subject to other people who you say were lying or so. And you can't whine about a news article's bias when you've sent fucking Yahoo articles in the past.

[EdyKel]

At 12/26/20 12:09 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/24/20 01:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:So, you can't dispute what what I said about Gypsy, and all you can do is make excuses, project, and deflect. Son, you are biased as hell, and that automatically makes everyone who disagrees with you biased.

Your entire argument is a conservative talking point. Antifa is bad, beating up innocent and law abiding people, making them racists. And you give me this silly infomercial, with a made for TV far right narrative, of evil and good, with only one perspective. And you think that everyone is going to buy that? Yes, you are gullible.

Not only do other accounts differ over Gypsies claim, but the whole incident dusted the cobwebs in my mind. I remember reading about it, about a group of far right Proud Boys who were beating up people they suspected of being Antifa, and they got a lot of bad press that day. The thing about the proud boys is that some of them have in their charters an initiation that requires new members to beat up someone from antifa.

Yet, you have this one media outlet, and supposed journalist, trying to gaslight the whole situation by painting an entirely different picture of that day that is not even collaborated by the cops. This would explain a lot of things about how Gypsy wasn't so innocent, and how his own action, which seemed to be about promoting racism, and agitating other groups, for shits and giggles, seemed to be what led to the violent confrontation he was in. I think his alternative persona was already there, and he does this shit for attention, and to get sympathy. And you basically, and blindly assumed, that he was telling the whole truth.

Extremely hypocritical of you. You yourself change the topic often in your discussions, or downright ignore questions and sources and dismiss them as propaganda when it doesn't line up with your ideology.

These things happened: there was a fight, there was doxxing, there was harassment. These things radicalized Paul Miller.

And these things can't be justified by changing the subject to other people who you say were lying or so. And you can't whine about a news article's bias when you've sent fucking Yahoo articles in the past.

I always love this game. You're bias, no you are bias, no you are bias. Yahoo offers various perspectives from the left and right, and is often considered close to the center or neutral. NBC is also considered pretty neutral. OAN, on the other hand is pretty far to the right.

How did I change the topic? I just challenged your claim, along with Paul Miller' story. The only way you could have perceived that as changing the topic is thinking that challenging your echo chamber is off topic.

So, again, you have nothing, outside of promoting far right narratives, and further going off topic by being a hypocrite by focusing on me and assuming that Miller was telling the truth - which ignores the the roving band of proud boys beating up people they suspected of being antifa. You also ignore that Miller was trying to get into a proud boy event (didn't havea ticket) - the same group who revels in getting into fights with Antifa. The same group that the FBI labels as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism.

So, yes, he wasn't that innocent, and probably believed in a lot of the same racist shit that the Proud boys believed in, and probably agitated the situation on that day, only to get involved in a scuffle - then played the victim card.

At 12/25/20 10:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:The man before the disaster, not caring about race or nothing. Just with a fellow believer of his cause.

Umm... okay.

This reminds me of how Trump use to use this one black, who he called him "My African American", to throw off criticism of racism that were often levied at him. Now that person has quit the the Republican party, saying the following:

Now, the 62-year-old real estate broker, who supported the Republican approach to the economy, said he sees the party as pursuing a “pro-white” agenda and using black people like him as “political pawns.” The final straw for Cheadle came when he watched many Republicans defend Trump’s tweets telling four congresswomen of color, who are all American citizens, to go back to their countries, as well as defend the president’s attacks on Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and his comments that Cummings’ hometown of Baltimore is “infested.”

“They were sidestepping the people of color issue and saying that, ‘No, it’s not racist,’” he said. “They were saying these people were socialists and communists. That’s what they were saying. And I thought this is a classic case of whites not seeing racism because they want to put blinders on and make it about something else.”

So, you think standing next to, or talking to, a black person doesn't make you racist or say racist shit? That just as bad as people saying I have black friends, to absolve them of saying something racist.

I don't think you know how this all works. I've seen white nationalists claim they are not racist, while promoting the idea of kicking out minorities from the country. The problem is that you have a lot of people who say racist shit, while people like them don't see it as racist, while being easily offend if people call them out on that shit or because they see it as a racist attack against them. So, this argument of yours with Miller next to a black man proves absolutely nothing about his views on race and culture. Which goes back to how Trump was using this black person to stave on criticism, while promoting a lot of racist shit.

[UncleLad]

At 12/26/20 12:42 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/26/20 12:09 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/24/20 01:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:So, you can't dispute what what I said about Gypsy, and all you can do is make excuses, project, and deflect. Son, you are biased as hell, and that automatically makes everyone who disagrees with you biased.

Your entire argument is a conservative talking point. Antifa is bad, beating up innocent and law abiding people, making them racists. And you give me this silly infomercial, with a made for TV far right narrative, of evil and good, with only one perspective. And you think that everyone is going to buy that? Yes, you are gullible.

Not only do other accounts differ over Gypsies claim, but the whole incident dusted the cobwebs in my mind. I remember reading about it, about a group of far right Proud Boys who were beating up people they suspected of being Antifa, and they got a lot of bad press that day. The thing about the proud boys is that some of them have in their charters an initiation that requires new members to beat up someone from antifa.

Yet, you have this one media outlet, and supposed journalist, trying to gaslight the whole situation by painting an entirely different picture of that day that is not even collaborated by the cops. This would explain a lot of things about how Gypsy wasn't so innocent, and how his own action, which seemed to be about promoting racism, and agitating other groups, for shits and giggles, seemed to be what led to the violent confrontation he was in. I think his alternative persona was already there, and he does this shit for attention, and to get sympathy. And you basically, and blindly assumed, that he was telling the whole truth.

Extremely hypocritical of you. You yourself change the topic often in your discussions, or downright ignore questions and sources and dismiss them as propaganda when it doesn't line up with your ideology.

These things happened: there was a fight, there was doxxing, there was harassment. These things radicalized Paul Miller.

And these things can't be justified by changing the subject to other people who you say were lying or so. And you can't whine about a news article's bias when you've sent fucking Yahoo articles in the past.

I always love this game. You're bias, no you are bias, no you are bias. Yahoo offers various perspectives from the left and right, and is often considered close to the center or neutral. NBC is also considered pretty neutral. OAN, on the other hand is pretty far to the right.

How did I change the topic? I just challenged your claim, along with Paul Miller' story. The only way you could have perceived that as changing the topic is thinking that challenging your echo chamber is off topic.

So, again, you have nothing, outside of promoting far right narratives, and further going off topic by being a hypocrite by focusing on me and assuming that Miller was telling the truth - which ignores the the roving band of proud boys beating up people they suspected of being antifa. You also ignore that Miller was trying to get into a proud boy event (didn't havea ticket) - the same group who revels in getting into fights with Antifa. The same group that the FBI labels as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism.

So, yes, he wasn't that innocent, and probably believed in a lot of the same racist shit that the Proud boys believed in, and probably agitated the situation on that day, only to get involved in a scuffle - then played the victim card.

At 12/25/20 10:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:
The man before the disaster, not caring about race or nothing. Just with a fellow believer of his cause.

Umm... okay.

This reminds me of how Trump use to use this one black, who he called him "My African American", to throw off criticism of racism that were often levied at him. Now that person has quit the the Republican party, saying the following:

So, you think standing next to, or talking to, a black person doesn't make you racist or say racist shit? That just as bad as people saying I have black friends, to absolve them of saying something racist.

I don't think you know how this all works. I've seen white nationalists claim they are not racist, while promoting the idea of kicking out minorities from the country. The problem is that you have a lot of people who say racist shit, while people like them don't see it as racist, while being easily offend if people call them out on that shit or because they see it as a racist attack against them. So, this argument of yours with Miller next to a black man proves absolutely nothing about his views on race and culture. Which goes back to how Trump was using this black person to stave on criticism, while promoting a lot of racist shit.

Buzzfeed? Factual reporting? Yeah no that chart of yours is screwed up. And yahoo is leftist, idk where you got the idea of it being neutral. And I'm not talking about specifically in this instance, I'm critiquing your debating strategy in general. I recall you dismissing all sources against you, so nobody bothers showing you anything anymore because you won't listen anyway.

And using this one black person who quit as a token for racism is kinda dumb, sorry. He doesn't speak for all conservative minorities. He doesn't speak for me. I've also seen leftists wanting cuban republicans to get deported, but I'm not comparing all leftists to them. So you really can't make the point of an individual to make the whole movement bad.

Can I ask you, do you think what happened to Paul Miller is bad? Or is it justified in your eyes?

[EdyKel]

At 12/26/20 01:22 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/26/20 12:42 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/26/20 12:09 AM, UncleLad wrote:

At 12/24/20 01:43 PM, EdyKel wrote:So, you can't dispute what what I said about Gypsy, and all you can do is make excuses, project, and deflect. Son, you are biased as hell, and that automatically makes everyone who disagrees with you biased.

Your entire argument is a conservative talking point. Antifa is bad, beating up innocent and law abiding people, making them racists. And you give me this silly infomercial, with a made for TV far right narrative, of evil and good, with only one perspective. And you think that everyone is going to buy that? Yes, you are gullible.

Not only do other accounts differ over Gypsies claim, but the whole incident dusted the cobwebs in my mind. I remember reading about it, about a group of far right Proud Boys who were beating up people they suspected of being Antifa, and they got a lot of bad press that day. The thing about the proud boys is that some of them have in their charters an initiation that requires new members to beat up someone from antifa.

Yet, you have this one media outlet, and supposed journalist, trying to gaslight the whole situation by painting an entirely different picture of that day that is not even collaborated by the cops. This would explain a lot of things about how Gypsy wasn't so innocent, and how his own action, which seemed to be about promoting racism, and agitating other groups, for shits and giggles, seemed to be what led to the violent confrontation he was in. I think his alternative persona was already there, and he does this shit for attention, and to get sympathy. And you basically, and blindly assumed, that he was telling the whole truth.

Extremely hypocritical of you. You yourself change the topic often in your discussions, or downright ignore questions and sources and dismiss them as propaganda when it doesn't line up with your ideology.

These things happened: there was a fight, there was doxxing, there was harassment. These things radicalized Paul Miller.

And these things can't be justified by changing the subject to other people who you say were lying or so. And you can't whine about a news article's bias when you've sent fucking Yahoo articles in the past.

I always love this game. You're bias, no you are bias, no you are bias. Yahoo offers various perspectives from the left and right, and is often considered close to the center or neutral. NBC is also considered pretty neutral. OAN, on the other hand is pretty far to the right.

How did I change the topic? I just challenged your claim, along with Paul Miller' story. The only way you could have perceived that as changing the topic is thinking that challenging your echo chamber is off topic.

So, again, you have nothing, outside of promoting far right narratives, and further going off topic by being a hypocrite by focusing on me and assuming that Miller was telling the truth - which ignores the the roving band of proud boys beating up people they suspected of being antifa. You also ignore that Miller was trying to get into a proud boy event (didn't havea ticket) - the same group who revels in getting into fights with Antifa. The same group that the FBI labels as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism.

So, yes, he wasn't that innocent, and probably believed in a lot of the same racist shit that the Proud boys believed in, and probably agitated the situation on that day, only to get involved in a scuffle - then played the victim card.

At 12/25/20 10:15 PM, UncleLad wrote:
The man before the disaster, not caring about race or nothing. Just with a fellow believer of his cause.

Umm... okay.

This reminds me of how Trump use to use this one black, who he called him "My African American", to throw off criticism of racism that were often levied at him. Now that person has quit the the Republican party, saying the following:

So, you think standing next to, or talking to, a black person doesn't make you racist or say racist shit? That just as bad as people saying I have black friends, to absolve them of saying something racist.

I don't think you know how this all works. I've seen white nationalists claim they are not racist, while promoting the idea of kicking out minorities from the country. The problem is that you have a lot of people who say racist shit, while people like them don't see it as racist, while being easily offend if people call them out on that shit or because they see it as a racist attack against them. So, this argument of yours with Miller next to a black man proves absolutely nothing about his views on race and culture. Which goes back to how Trump was using this black person to stave on criticism, while promoting a lot of racist shit.

Buzzfeed? Factual reporting? Yeah no that chart of yours is screwed up. And yahoo is leftist, idk where you got the idea of it being neutral. And I'm not talking about specifically in this instance, I'm critiquing your debating strategy in general. I recall you dismissing all sources against you, so nobody bothers showing you anything anymore because you won't listen anyway.

For someone trying to critique my debating style you are doing a pretty bad job of it. I think I already mentioned that Yahoo also post articles from other sources, both from the right and left (fox news and National Review, are not left leaning). But Yahoo's actual reporting is more neutral. I often look at both sides to see what they are promoting, but I don't hinge my argument on any far spectrum site like you do.

And really? You are making an excuse for why you don't post some neutral source, while making an absolute over how everyone deals with me. I think you are speaking from your own position.

And using this one black person who quit as a token for racism is kinda dumb, sorry. He doesn't speak for all conservative minorities. He doesn't speak for me. I've also seen leftists wanting cuban republicans to get deported, but I'm not comparing all leftists to them. So you really can't make the point of an individual to make the whole movement bad.

Wait? Weren't you just speaking for everyone?

nobody bothers showing you anything anymore because you won't listen anyway

Hypocrisy, pass it on?

Back to your silly argument... This was exactly what you were doing with that picture of Miller and that black guy, implying he wasn't racist because he was next to a black person.

And considering that the majority of blacks don't support Trump, givein his racist rhetoric, actions, and policies, it's a reason why almost 90% of the GOP are white, in a country that is about 60% white. It's why Trump, and the GOP, have to find token blacks to speak on their behalf, to argue that they don't just favor whites christens over other minority groups and that they aren't racist. Hence where the above disillusioned former Trump supporter fit in. If you are racist, you don't try to adbvertise it, but surround yourself with a minority to claim you are not racist.

Can I ask you, do you think what happened to Paul Miller is bad? Or is it justified in your eyes?

I don't have any sympathy for him. I think he got himself into that situation by his own actions. I have a policy of never promoting violence, or egging someone into violence. I have also have criticized people on both sides who do that, including some people who try to justify Antifa's violence - including to one on this board who claimed to be part of Antifa. I don't feel sympathy for right leaning agitators, or left leaning ones, who hurt each other. I only feel sorry for those who are truly innocent, who became a casualty, because they got caught in the middle, and acidentaly targeted - which happens on both sides (but not in the case of Miller, who's story just doesn't add up).