Why is it that the right wing cannot support its own lies and gets mad when you ask it to produce evidence?

[msc545]

The Left Wing spends a lot of time rebutting the lies that the Right Wing keeps promulgating. But when you ask the Left Wing to produce evidence, it does, and often lists evidence prior to even being asked.

[MisterWack]

It is more like, they’ll say some strawman that has nothing to do with the conversation.

When I declared I want The Epstein Files released, it was only seen as a negative by right wingers once Trump clearly wanted to protect himself from it and couldn’t have it released otherwise would hurt him politically and his allies too.

The response was, “you want child p- to be released? You sick f-ck!”

Clearly bullshit since that stuff would clearly be censored, you can still release information on the billionaire sex fiends and political assholes from both parties.

Then it was, “we can’t release them since you love Bill Clinton”

Which again bullshit since nobody would cry if Bill Clinton was thrown in jail, though people would cry and tantrum if Donald J Trump did so that is the real reason. You don’t want to implicate your cult leader, even if it means never finding justice for child abuse victims of human sex trafficking.

Then there was, “the whole Epstein Files are a hoax”. When it has John Kerry’s Campaign For Presidency, Alec Baldwin, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Bill Clinton, and other Left Wingers in there along with Right Wingers Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Victoria Secret CEO at the time, etc.

The DOJ redacted not only victims, but redacted the names to politically exposed individuals and government officials according to Fox News Digital.

And we only got 0.06% of the files released, with no signs of the rest.
If you wanted an Anti-Establishment President, you elected the wrong administration.
They are as corrupt as all the other Deep State leaders.

[DrPepper12]

Cults require faith.

Courts require facts.

It's really that simple

[Mike_Hum]

From a guy who can't define what a woman is, this is hilarious.

[DrPepper12]

You got the wrong libtard for that issue. IDGAF. There's two. Make. Female. Next?

[purplepoppy]

Because it doesn't need to. It's convinced it's members that any evidence against it is fake news. Now the narrative has become "might is right" and doesn't care anymore. It's like the children's joke , " what do you call a gorilla with a machine gun?"

"Sir."

[sawno]

We can't agree on sources so we see your side lie all the time and not back it up. Its become to polarised to where we can't agree on reality anymore. You believe your biased sources, we believe our biased sources. Our biased sources debunk your biased sources and I am sure your ones try the reverse to.

[sawno]

Also worth adding, the right has to debate you on hard mode. Its hard to find sources back when your the side getting censored and you have to debate someone whose sources are being promoted.

[msc545]

I'm not talking about the comparative quality of sources. I'm talking about the complete absence of sources from the right-wing. This happens too frequently to just be a coincidence

[msc545]

You can debate on hard mode all you want, but when you literally fabricate something very unlikely to have occurred and then refuse to cite the source, that begins to be a bit suspicious. I think you'll agree.

[sawno]

I agree. Sometimes I do it as bait and then dump the sources in a later reply. Sometimes I can't find the source back for stuff I know. But if I can't back it up I don't expect that to be believed.

[msc545]

You probably should not say things that you don't have sources for or that you have inadequate sources for. First, then later try to find the sources. It would be far better to find your sources first. I know I do that.

[sawno]

Ill challenge you with one that may be possible to find back (Didn't actually check yet but I am somewhat confident I may be able to find it back).

In 2020 in the corona ers were testimonies in front of a comission, I recall it being a state hearing on the pandemic. He testified that vaccines even if working never prevent transmission. Find me that video back.

Because that is the kinda stuff I have to put up with, I listened and watched an extreme amount of content on the topic 5 years ago and finding content back that was part of hour long hearings from 5 years ago probably isn't easy.

But feel free to try and see if you can do it. I take his opinion as very credible.

[sawno]

Actually considering it was about vaccines it was probably in 2021.

[sawno]

Other example you can try, I know that vaccines even when its the incorrect vaccine will give you tempoary immunity because it will alert your immune system. This uses a more general defense which we have a limited amount off and then what it encounters turns into proper antibodies. Thus, even if a vaccine doesn't work it can help for a limited time. Find the source that explains this.

Again I tried finding neither of these back for this argument. Maybe its easy to find, maybe its not. This particular source I don't even remember what the source looked like so that one would be harder for me to try and look up.

[DrPepper12]

Right wing gets free infotainment & manufactroversy

Left wing gets paid journalism & reality.

We are not the same.

[sawno]

@DrPepper12 Yup, you pay corporations with shareholders and we listen for free to the sources that debunk it.

[DrPepper12]

Couldn't have expressed your anti capitalism cult thinking better! Ty!

[sawno]

@DrPepper12 Which is funny because its not us that are the anti-capitalist ones xD

[Mike_Hum]

@DrPepper12 What like CNN? Bahahahahahahahhaha

[msc545]

I think that the time for immunology to become matter for public discussion still hasn't come. It's just far too technical and difficult for most people to even understand adequately. I struggle with it myself even though I've taken many courses in it that were mandated. Needless to say, these were not my favorite educational experiences.

[sawno]

Thats not the point. Its not even relevant if those arguments I was making are real or not. The challenge is if you can find it back, its to put you into my shoes when trying to look up what I know.

[sawno]

Arguments are accurate or not*

[ProbablyClueless]

Because the vast majority of the left refuses to interact with or acknowledge the evidence when it is provided. That’s been happening for years.


If the most common reaction to me going to the effort of providing evidence is vitriol, denial and personal attacks; I’m simply not going to keep providing evidence. I have better uses of my time

[goaded]

Evidence like this?



Or this?

"Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.1 In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.2 A recent threat assessment by the U. S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions."
web.archive.org/.../306123.pdf (Deleted from the DoJ website some time after September 2025.)

[ProbablyClueless]

Do you know what’s funny? I was genuinely thinking about giving you a shoutout as I wrote this answer, but decided that I didn’t want to put petty unpleasantness out in the universe to start my day.

[goaded]

So, I suppose you have evidence that I've used "vitriol, denial and personal attacks" against evidence you've provided?

[ProbablyClueless]

You’re actually pretty good about not doing personal attacks. In a number of our pre-election interactions you had a few times where you got pretty bad with the vitriol and denial. I’m not interested in going through my old posts, but I’d be happy to point it out in the future.

[ProbablyClueless]

@Mike_Hum A thief believes everyone steals!

[msc545]

I'm sorry if you've had that experience, but my own experience lately has been that when I've asked someone from the right wing to provide evidence, they deflect and excuse and finally when they cannot provide it become angry.

[goaded]

That must be why I keep getting accused of arguing in bad faith. Projection.

When I point out a lie, I make it specific.

Things like "I posted the videos. the upper right clearly shows him getting hit. I don't play your stupid games." (Said video does not show Ross getting hit at all, let alone clearly, and the one video that would show exactly where he was when he fired is in the possession of the DHS who released all of it up until 4s before the shots were fired.)

x.com/SpiceyBits/status/2009027212524007905?s=20

www.fox9.com/.../minneapolis-ice-shooting-new-video-from-dhs-shows-what-led-up-shooting

[msc545]

And come on, man, you know darn well we ask for evidence. We don't just say things that are unsupported by facts. This is in contrast to the right wing, which often does that.

[slatyb]

You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason their way into.

[Anonymous]

what lies are you talking about?

the Left and their feminists constantly throw out false rape accusations on men and expect you to believe all women despite not having evidence

[beefcakebradybatson]

They secretly know they're full of ish and hope most people don't call out their garbage !!!

[Dargil]

nonsense.