damnedfurry

You said something stupid, and it was identified as such. That's not being offended.

Though the fact that you had to assume several things about me personally to rationalize the way you behave, as your ego is apparently just too fragile to conceive of the possibility that YTA, says a lot, and makes me wonder if you're available in IMAX.

What’s your source on that? Your arse?

Good luck finding a single source in any country that has females being on the receiving end of violence more often than males per capita, overall.

I think you’re an incel who hates women and doesn’t care about violence against them.

That's because you're enough of a fool to think caring about male suffering is misogynistic. All I did was point out your deliberate blindness to the suffering of half of humanity, by describing the half that is assaulted and killed less, as the half with the 'epidemic' of violence against them.

It's like when the reaction to 11% of journalists killed the year before being women is to say "stop targeting female journalists". You're so deeply sexist that the 89% who are male don't even land on your radar.

Men don’t deserve empathy.

You're sexist scum.

You know what else is an epidemic? Violence against women and girls

Men and boys are victims of violence at an order of magnitude greater frequency, you just don't care because you hate males, so only female suffering bothers you.

Misandry isn't a problem compared to misogyny, and likely wouldn't exist if there was no misogyny

This is what peak anti-male sexism looks like.

"Who cares?" Yeah, not your pathetic, empathy-free ass, you've made that abundantly clear.

For shame.

need a large gender affirming car

???

This is a projection of your own brainrot sexism, nothing more.

Don't try to make it sound like you ever mocked a woman for having a large car, either, you're not fooling anyone with "people", lol.

Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.

It's more known as a right-wing thing these days because of Covid, but the OG antivaxxer stereotype was the hippy mom who didn't want to put "chemicals" in their children because 'big pharma' is evil, and don't you know vaccines cause autism?

Edit: not a single inaccurate statement in my comment, but narrative-clingers gotta downvote because inconvenient facts just make them that mad, lol. Shameful.

Fact checking time~

the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to

The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.

to a state he didn’t live in

But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.

to shoot protestors he didn’t know

It's obvious he didn't go there "to shoot protesters", for several factual, verifiable reasons:

1. He had hours of opportunities to open fire on protesters, and never did. He did not even anti-protest.
2. He didn't shoot anyone unprovoked, and every time he was provoked, he ran away instead of escalating.
3. The only people who were shot by him that day were people who, when he ran away from their provocation, instead of letting him run away, chased him down and tried to kill him when they caught him. He prevented their murder attempts. This is crystal
4. None of those who were shot were ever protesting; all three were destructive rioters with violent criminal records who were there not there to support any cause.
5. Actions speak louder than words. Tons more people, tell their buddies they'd 'kick that guy's ass if I was there' etc., but do not act that way at all when they're actually in the situation. What happens in the actual situation is what matters. Also, none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted, so they don't even fall into the category he was speaking about.

ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with

There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed 'thank you' picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.

Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.

Nope, but I can understand how you'd reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That's what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There's a ton of hard video evidence, you know.

It's funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.

This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what's actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they're fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.

It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.

Nah, there's plenty of both, even mixed in very similar subject matter. Example:

An ATM (initialism) takes a card then asks you for its PIN (acronym).

To be fair, UFO is an initialism, not an acronym. But at the same time, if it was, I think it'd still be an example, because we'd likely pronounce the U like "oo" (as in "boo"), lol

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.