Donald I, emperor of the world.

[Shortfall]

That got old a long time ago. We're probably going to get different results, for a start; never mind how we may interpret them differently.


You'd hope so. But not being a lawyer, I don't know exactly how you fact check, for example, "Maga gang".


In which case, welcome to the echo chamber.


Calling someone right wing is the insult du jour (not to be confused with insult du jure). I think "right" and "left" are past their sell-by date, being of use chiefly to stop listening and learning.

I think calling someone a right wing troll means roughly the same as "I don't agree with you so if I give you this label you can be ignored or treated with contempt.

 

[Pinno718]

If you spout right wing anything, it's a free country, 'free speech'. If you spout anything that challenges the govt./status quo*, you're going to get sued/slapped on the wrist/de-financed/vilified.

No one can tell me this isn't fascism.

*That's also a dig at the Democrats who seem to be beholden to APAC.

 

[Pblakeney]

It's debatable that Kimmel was "telling the truth". And who gets to decide what constitutes hate speech?

Okay. Debate which things he said that you think are untruths then.

 

[CXRAndy]

No one can tell me this isn't fascism.

I guess not then

 

[CXRAndy]

What, like when a Fox News presenter says homeless people should be rounded up and given an "involuntary lethal injection. Just kill 'em" - and no-one on the right bats an eyelid. Those sorts of consequences?

Some context

They were talking about the murder of the Ukrainian woman I believe, saying you can't keep letting these people back out on the streets to repeat their evil ways on the general public.

 

[Psamathe]

I think calling someone a right wing troll means roughly the same as "I don't agree with you so if I give you this label you can be ignored or treated with contempt.

I think it depends on what is being said. "Right-wing" can indicate general approach agreement or disagreement. "Troll" would normally apply when assertions being made are baseless or discredited data or demonstrated false conspiracy theories, etc.

eg. I assert "Trump's 2020 election loss was a stolen election". The assertor is likely right-wing but the assertion has been thoroughly discredited on multiple times by the courts and the only place it remains is in Trump and his sycophant's minds. To me that makes the statement trolling.

 

[Ianonabike]

Okay. Debate which things he said that you think are untruths then.

I said it's debatable; not that I specifically wanted to debate what comes out of Kimmel's mouth. (I should have been a lawyer.) He doesn't really interest me. If you give me a particular example (not his entire monologue) I might bite.

 

[matticus]

The rules of algebra are debatable.

I don't have any specific issues with them myself, but I'm sure someone COULD have, so we should keep an open mind ...

 

[Ianonabike]

The rules of algebra are debatable.

Much as I try to resist AI...
"No, the fundamental rules of algebra are not debatable because they are based on established mathematical axioms and logical deduction, not opinion. While the way algebra is taught, the rules used in specific contexts, or even the order of operations can sometimes be misunderstood or appear mutable, the underlying principles are consistent and necessary for mathematical consistency."

 

[Mr Celine]

I said it's debatable; not that I specifically wanted to debate what comes out of Kimmel's mouth. (I should have been a lawyer.) He doesn't really interest me. If you give me a particular example (not his entire monologue) I might bite.

More like a Spen sock puppet than a right wing troll.

 

[Pblakeney]

I said it's debatable; not that I specifically wanted to debate what comes out of Kimmel's mouth. (I should have been a lawyer.) He doesn't really interest me. If you give me a particular example (not his entire monologue) I might bite.

Ah, right. You don't want to debate but someone else somewhere might. Yeah, nah, not interested.
This is on the same level as being offended on someone else's behalf.

 

[Ianonabike]

Ah, right. You don't want to debate but someone else somewhere might. Yeah, nah, not interested.
This is on the same level as being offended on someone else's behalf.

I asked for an example. Give me one and I promise I'll bite after all. Fair enough?