Yeah, I’m not trying to be unfriendly about it.

For the things I post, I’ll usually post them because I either 1) think that the content is probably both relevant and true, 2) it portrays a relevant perspective, or 3) is just plain interesting

But… you surely have to see how (2) and (3) are bad things, right? I’m not saying you necessarily mean any harm, but this whole explanation that something is “a perspective” or “interesting” and so that means it’s okay if it doesn’t fall into the category of “true” is… it’s not good. There’s a lot of deliberately misleading stuff out there.

There are a lot of people in the US getting amped-up over some thing that they saw online that’s total fabricated nonsense. People have died as a result. It really matters whether stuff is true. I know it is sort of popular in some circles to retreat into a kind of landscape where it’s not all that important, everything’s just a perspective, if the stuff starts getting challenged, but it is important. Perspective is perspective, and truth and falsehood are truth and falsehood. They’re not the same.

I mean just someone explaining their take on things is fine. Maybe that’s what you mean by (2). Something doesn’t have to be “objective” to be based in fact and reality. I guess my beef is more with the stuff where it’s treated as not that important that the factual backing is not there or just imaginary.

Edit: Also, the point of Rule 6 was to reduce spam, as my communities were starting to get brigaded by leftists basically saying “fake news” verbatim in the comment sections of certain news posts. I don’t like those types of rules, but it seems necessary for now since it keeps happening.

Yeah, I do get that. I would rather have some kind of productive conversation about it. I don’t think it’s really all that useful to just have two sides yelling at each other whichever side anybody happens to be on.

No this is a thing in blue states, and not at all related to being a citizen or immigrant. I think they call it “equitive justice” or “progressive prosecution”, either DAs will refuse to charge a POC for a crime due to their race, or judges will waive bail for the same reason.

Where did you read this? Can I find out more details about why you think this is happening, and read for myself the argument that it is happening?

This was something I noticed during BLM riots particularly, and in some blue areas afterwards like in New York (though not as prominently since the riots), there’d be cases of somebody stealing something or hurting someone, caught on video, and the DA would refuse to place charges on the individual. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out why else they would do that.

What you’re saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was “equitive justice” and “progressive prosecution” where people in the present tense are not prosecuted because of their race. Where does this happen, what are some of the cities? Where can I read more about it? How did you find out about it?

I have more to say on the arrests-during-BLM issue specifically, but that’s different than saying that blue states are using progressive prosecution and refusing to charge a crime because of the race of the person being accused, so I want to focus on the first thing instead of switching if we can.

Now to be fair I think there was some overlap between the BLM riots and me still watching Steven Crowder so maybe some of the stuff I observed at the time wasn’t entirely accurate or correct (I stopped watching him during the Summer Of Love because I noticed he wasn’t as truthful as he claimed to be during his coverage)

Yeah, fair enough. I’ve had that experience of paying attention to something online and believing it, and then later on putting it together that it was bullshit, so I can respect the idea. The whole endeavor of trying to figure out who is actually telling the truth is important and it’s not real easy.