Trump Supporters: How Can We Bridge the Gap?

[promethean75]

The satanic communists are now posing as air conditioning mechanics. Thankfully this courageous man had that officer's intuition and was able to apprehend the evil mastermind behind countless fraudulent votes.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ex-c ... ud-kingpin

[Pedro I Rengel]

*Godless.

Godless communists.

Better even godless commies.

[MagsJ]

_
That Senator is truly on it!

[Silhouette]

I think the uniting factor for all here is that we are each critical of ideology (to the degree that we are philosophers).

This almost goes without saying. Surely there is a fairly obvious correlation between philosophy and the act of getting to the bottom of all the seeming mysteriousness of human thought. To tie this in with psychology, I would speculate that we are united by high trait "openness to experience" to the degree that we are not conservatives. However, there is a degree to which conservatives might be interested in getting to the bottom of ideology in order to be able to engage with those who would criticise it on the same level. But in practice, the more conservative among us by definition seem to play along with ideology a lot more than the more progressive of us who would have certain aspects of the status quo changed, out of an intention to improve things rather than merely conserve them.

The dividing factors are down to materiality - i.e. how our various critiques of ideology would translate from thought into action. Here, there is both the distinction between different degrees and types of criticism of ideology, and between different ideas about how they currently affect things materially, which in turn effects our different ideas on how to change things for the better. Therefore there will inevitably be conflict over what the most advanced critique of ideology "looks like", as well as what its current application to materiality "looks like", and what improvements would "look like".

With regards to the first of these three things, I would assume that a more broad critique that takes into account the most possible perspectives to the fairest possible degree would be a good measure.
To the second of these three things, this is mostly down to our experience with material immersion in current events - in direct contrast to armchair proclamations and misunderstandings of what constitutes evidence.
Only with these first two things maximised can we thereby determine the "best" improvements.

A culture of competition, or at least one-upmanship, combined with various degrees of narcissism among those who "think" they're the best thing to ever happen to philosophy, makes a reconciliation of these first two things next to impossible. A fair determination of the third thing then becomes out of the question.
But to the credit of this culture, at least it exposes us to a hostile battleground of varying ideas, that we are each defending to the best of our abilities (as opposed to an echo chamber). This makes ILP like a training exercise to wade through all kinds of extremes so that we might be more prepared when it comes to dealing with actually constructive environments that would allow material implementation through cooperation.

Would that be a fair dissection of ILP?

[d0rkyd00d]

I'd like to try and take a new strategy with this thread to see if it is more productive.

I'd like to create of list of the points of agreement folks have shared on the forums. I see them here and there, so maybe it'd help to understand and identify how much we have in common.

Obviously things like abortion aren't going to be on this list. But maybe things like "reducing the size and influence of mega-corporations," would be.

Thoughts? I'll try to put a list together and hopefully we can build on it. If you would like to dispute whether or not something should be on the list, then we'll address it. Hopefully we can build a pretty substantial list of things most of us agree on. And apologies if I missed any points of agreement, I tried to comb through threads to look for at least a few.

Institutions have grown too powerful and need to be knocked down several pegs. <-thx UrWrong
the vast majority left and right want to see things improve, but we disagree on what that'd look like exactly and how to get there. <- thx gloom
And of course that's exactly what TPTB want to see, the middle and lower classes fighting with each other over our differences, which're insignificant compared to the difference between us and the ruling class. (not sure how many agree with this, let me know)
There are serious flaws and issues with large Social Media companies as it relates to free speech, and with free speech in general, that needs to be addressed.
There are serious flaws with Mainstream Media that need to be rectified.
Honesty and integrity in news and journalism, as well as a commitment to freedom of speech, is essential to an informed citizenry.
Having a well educated citizenry is essential to a well functioning democratic republic.
Voting systems must be as reliable and transparent as possible to gain the trust of the citizens.

[obsrvr524]

II'd like to create of list of the points of agreement folks have shared on the forums. I see them here and there, so maybe it'd help to understand and identify how much we have in common.

I'd like to see how you implement that. I support the intention, but ---

TPTB

And what do you mean by that acronym?

[obsrvr524]

I think the uniting factor for all here is that we are each critical of ideology (to the degree that we are philosophers).

This almost goes without saying. Surely there is a fairly obvious correlation between philosophy and the act of getting to the bottom of all the seeming mysteriousness of human thought. To tie this in with psychology, I would speculate that we are united by high trait "openness to experience" to the degree that we are not conservatives. However, there is a degree to which conservatives might be interested in getting to the bottom of ideology in order to be able to engage with those who would criticise it on the same level. But in practice, the more conservative among us by definition seem to play along with ideology a lot more than the more progressive of us who would have certain aspects of the status quo changed, out of an intention to improve things rather than merely conserve them.

I think the problem is that once the "best ideology" is accepted, philosophizing becomes an enemy unless that ideology includes philosophizing. And "faith based" ideologies (currently being promoted by the Left even more than the Right) disallow philosophizing (just ask Twitter, Facebook, Google, and the CCP).

That being said, I would support an initiative to maintain actual philosophical discussion as priority until an actual meeting of the minds could be achieved (just don't let my wife find out I said that). But not many on this board seem to philosophize as much as just entertain themselves with whatever ranting amuses their mind at the time. They seem to enjoy fighting for whatever they favor at the time and against any challenge to it - anti-philosophy I think.

The dividing factors are down to materiality - i.e. how our various critiques of ideology would translate from thought into action. Here, there is both the distinction between different degrees and types of criticism of ideology, and between different ideas about how they currently affect things materially, which in turn effects our different ideas on how to change things for the better. Therefore there will inevitably be conflict over what the most advanced critique of ideology "looks like", as well as what its current application to materiality "looks like", and what improvements would "look like".

That I think would be great. Just don't ask iambiguous about it or you will never get back on track.

You might have to suggest what it "looks like" before you even try to have debates about ideologies involved. That alone could be a huge argument that never gets resolved to anyone's satisfaction or compliance. Most members here seem to just do what is most entertaining - not follow any proposed progress oriented guidelines. Progress isn't their goal.

This makes ILP like a training exercise to wade through all kinds of extremes so that we might be more prepared when it comes to dealing with actually constructive environments that would allow material implementation through cooperation.

Is it "training" toward cooperation? Or is it merely giving practice to discord? I am confident of the latter.

Remember there are members on board - on this board - who don't see anything going on as particularly important - "it's all just fun and games. I just like to throw in some irrational anti-rhetoric to make things more interesting (to me)".

[Urwrongx1000]

I'd like to try and take a new strategy with this thread to see if it is more productive.

I'd like to create of list of the points of agreement folks have shared on the forums. I see them here and there, so maybe it'd help to understand and identify how much we have in common.

Obviously things like abortion aren't going to be on this list. But maybe things like "reducing the size and influence of mega-corporations," would be.

Thoughts? I'll try to put a list together and hopefully we can build on it. If you would like to dispute whether or not something should be on the list, then we'll address it. Hopefully we can build a pretty substantial list of things most of us agree on. And apologies if I missed any points of agreement, I tried to comb through threads to look for at least a few.

Institutions have grown too powerful and need to be knocked down several pegs. -thx UrWrong
the vast majority left and right want to see things improve, but we disagree on what that'd look like exactly and how to get there. - thx gloom
And of course that's exactly what TPTB want to see, the middle and lower classes fighting with each other over our differences, which're insignificant compared to the difference between us and the ruling class. (not sure how many agree with this, let me know)
There are serious flaws and issues with large Social Media companies as it relates to free speech, and with free speech in general, that needs to be addressed.
There are serious flaws with Mainstream Media that need to be rectified.
Honesty and integrity in news and journalism, as well as a commitment to freedom of speech, is essential to an informed citizenry.
Having a well educated citizenry is essential to a well functioning democratic republic.
Voting systems must be as reliable and transparent as possible to gain the trust of the citizens.

Look, the issue right now at this very moment is whether a fraudulent election could stand, and what that means if fraud can, does, and will influence the outcome of a Presidential Election, which is still the most powerful institution in the world.

Almost everybody will agree that such a thing is one of the highest threats possible. It's a no-brainer. It's common-sense. The Liberal-Left would act the same (in fact they did act the same for 4 years), if the situation were reversed. In fact, it was reversed, when Trump had a clear victory at hand on Election night and the MSM refused to call it for him!

I'm old enough to know that this hasn't happened in my generation. Even Bush v Gore was different circumstances. And the political climate is critical, entirely different situation.



It's too little, too late. The Liberal-Left pushed this through, Fraud be damned, and that is the unforgiveable action in my eyes.

They are desperately trying. But the Election isn't over. Congress is set to acknowledge a Contested Election, and Faithless Electors, so hopefully Trump can still win this, Trump 2020.

Is the Liberal-Left, the DNCommunist Party going to call for "reconciliation" after they lose, again??? Be honest with yourself, you know they won't. You know they'll burn down cities and bring murder to the streets.

[d0rkyd00d]

I think the uniting factor for all here is that we are each critical of ideology (to the degree that we are philosophers).

This almost goes without saying. Surely there is a fairly obvious correlation between philosophy and the act of getting to the bottom of all the seeming mysteriousness of human thought. To tie this in with psychology, I would speculate that we are united by high trait "openness to experience" to the degree that we are not conservatives. However, there is a degree to which conservatives might be interested in getting to the bottom of ideology in order to be able to engage with those who would criticise it on the same level. But in practice, the more conservative among us by definition seem to play along with ideology a lot more than the more progressive of us who would have certain aspects of the status quo changed, out of an intention to improve things rather than merely conserve them.

The dividing factors are down to materiality - i.e. how our various critiques of ideology would translate from thought into action. Here, there is both the distinction between different degrees and types of criticism of ideology, and between different ideas about how they currently affect things materially, which in turn effects our different ideas on how to change things for the better. Therefore there will inevitably be conflict over what the most advanced critique of ideology "looks like", as well as what its current application to materiality "looks like", and what improvements would "look like".

With regards to the first of these three things, I would assume that a more broad critique that takes into account the most possible perspectives to the fairest possible degree would be a good measure.
To the second of these three things, this is mostly down to our experience with material immersion in current events - in direct contrast to armchair proclamations and misunderstandings of what constitutes evidence.
Only with these first two things maximised can we thereby determine the "best" improvements.

A culture of competition, or at least one-upmanship, combined with various degrees of narcissism among those who "think" they're the best thing to ever happen to philosophy, makes a reconciliation of these first two things next to impossible. A fair determination of the third thing then becomes out of the question.
But to the credit of this culture, at least it exposes us to a hostile battleground of varying ideas, that we are each defending to the best of our abilities (as opposed to an echo chamber). This makes ILP like a training exercise to wade through all kinds of extremes so that we might be more prepared when it comes to dealing with actually constructive environments that would allow material implementation through cooperation.

Would that be a fair dissection of ILP?

I think you've honed in on what has drawn me back to these forums.

For me, reading The Bongino Report and Breitbart isn't enough. It is still an issue of a narrative being delivered vs. a conversation. I would prefer a conversation with those who believe differently than I, so I can get a better understanding of the opposing side, and to challenge my own beliefs, as I was raised in a religion that featured milieu control as a feature tenet.

[phoneutria]

But in practice, the more conservative among us by definition seem to play along with ideology a lot more than the more progressive of us who would have certain aspects of the status quo changed, out of an intention to improve things rather than merely conserve them.

there's that silhouette bias again
you have differing ideologies
but you are equally subservient to them

the simple proof of that is
for every conservative ideology you criticize
if I ask "why"
you'll reply with another ideology

[d0rkyd00d]

But in practice, the more conservative among us by definition seem to play along with ideology a lot more than the more progressive of us who would have certain aspects of the status quo changed, out of an intention to improve things rather than merely conserve them.

there's that silhouette bias again
you have differing ideologies
but you are equally subservient to them

the simple proof of that is
for every conservative ideology you criticize
if I ask "why"
you'll reply with another ideology

All you are saying here
is that people are subservient to their beliefs
which is tautological

For which ideology could possibly exist
the criticism of which does not contain
a counter-ideology?

[phoneutria]

which further proves my point against sil thank you

[Gloominary]

Democracy requires a great deal of tolerance to work.
I'm not sure the right can live with the left anymore and vice versa.
Because of all this Covid crap, I'm not sure I can peacefully live with the ruling class anymore.
I'd never target randos or my fellow plebs, but would I do things to those directly responsible for pushing this medical tyranny if I had the opportunity?
Maybe
If you make vaxxines mandatory to live a normal life, it's no holds barred for me.

[d0rkyd00d]

Look, the issue right now at this very moment is whether a fraudulent election could stand, and what that means if fraud can, does, and will influence the outcome of a Presidential Election, which is still the most powerful institution in the world.

Almost everybody will agree that such a thing is one of the highest threats possible. It's a no-brainer. It's common-sense. The Liberal-Left would act the same (in fact they did act the same for 4 years), if the situation were reversed. In fact, it was reversed, when Trump had a clear victory at hand on Election night and the MSM refused to call it for him!

I'm old enough to know that this hasn't happened in my generation. Even Bush v Gore was different circumstances. And the political climate is critical, entirely different situation.



It's too little, too late. The Liberal-Left pushed this through, Fraud be damned, and that is the unforgiveable action in my eyes.

They are desperately trying. But the Election isn't over. Congress is set to acknowledge a Contested Election, and Faithless Electors, so hopefully Trump can still win this, Trump 2020.

Is the Liberal-Left, the DNCommunist Party going to call for "reconciliation" after they lose, again??? Be honest with yourself, you know they won't. You know they'll burn down cities and bring murder to the streets.

I'm glad you mentioned this. It was only recently that I realized what a painful experience it was for millions of Americans to be told in the 2016 election that their vote was in fact meaningless, as foreign influence had supposedly stolen the election. It is a cruel disregard of the suffering of ~75MM Americans who are crying out for help from a government that has left them helpless over the past half century.

And I realize now how shitty that feels. And I realize that yeah, I am kind of a shitty person for not understanding how shitty it was until it happened to me, in the 2020 election, when I and 80MM other Americans are being told that their votes, in fact, were meaningless (which would also be the lingering sentiment if Congress shocked the world and actually let Trump stay in the White House).

So now, essentially, the entire country over the course of the past four years has been told the election was rigged by both sides. I'm not pretending I have the solutions, but I continue to empathize with my fellow Americans who are hurting economically across the country.

[Silhouette]

there's that silhouette bias again
you have differing ideologies
but you are equally subservient to them

the simple proof of that is
for every conservative ideology you criticize
if I ask "why"
you'll reply with another ideology

Have I given the impression that I'm saying those who are most critical of ideology are nearly/completely rid of it "including myself", or something similar to that?

That is not what I'm trying to say.
Your "point against sil" fits perfectly well into sil's point - I'm guessing it's probably where I used the phrase "play along" that'd be the source of any miscommunication.

Being critical requires an awareness of what's being criticised, and in the case of ideology, this also applies to an awareness of the ideology behind being critical.
I too "play along" with ideologies of which I'm aware all the time - as to some degree I'm sure plenty of people do - but not just to navigate everyday life in my culture, but also when I'm siding with the ideology behind being critical of it. I have become quite adept at hiding how I am aware of all the small details of etiquette in interacting with people and things with which others "play along" without hesitation or question - as is even more clear when I prompt or hint question subtly, or even pose a critical one directly. Even the intelligent and educated "well-adjusted" are usually no different to these types, and why would they question what works for them along with all the rationalisation (ideology) that supports it? Even the intelligent and educated who are not so well-adjusted usually seem to have barely scratched the surface when they dare express their private doubts in public. Some of these have even become aware of philosophy and developed an interest or even a love for it, and some of these types post here without really saying much in however many words they use - and so they are entitled. But it seems to be a matter of philosophical aptitude that grades how deeply they have explored/are able to comprehend.

For many years after you start out, each breakthrough seems to reveal only another layer beneath, which can sometimes appear endless, or cyclical, and maybe sometimes foundational until you realise there's yet more. Usually people get to a point where they're satisfied and the place where they settle down becomes their unbreakable conviction - for some this happens embarrassingly prematurely in direct correlation with the pride they feel for having "mastered" philosophy as far as they're concerned, and in direct correlation with the pity that others feel for them when they've lasted longer. Naturally, this pity is returned by those who "know" they're the best, because others who disagree must by process of elimination be "worse", and the characteristic shit-slinging that degrades this forum is all the proof that anyone might need for this.

Ideology is basically all that is not acting materially with the world - all the justification of how we conduct material matters - so the only way for humans to be nearly/completely rid of it would require significant mental disabilities. As is infamously the hypocrisy of nihilists - it's impossible to intentionally and knowingly reject all ideology outright, even to the point of complete dysfunction, without an ideology to justify and motivate such a choice.

Is it not the case that conservatives often want to conserve because they have accepted and/or adjusted to contemporary ideology, and either don't question it much at all, or they don't have as much incentive to question as far? There are no doubt conservatives who will relentlessly question against their preferred ideology, especially if they feel the need to protect it and disprove those with incentive and ability to question it - though this would seem to be more of a reactionary pursuit rather than proactive. And of course there might be those who were only formerly critical of ideology, only to have changed their mind or grown weary later on. My mind is open to exceptional cases even beyond these, but surely the general trend is for conservatives to be less critical of ideology?
I don't care if this rationale is wrong, I'll freely update it with a better one when I hear it. I do feel you are a little quick to accuse bias in general - though I understand that for most people you'll have encountered... it's just been plain bias so that's just expected.

[phoneutria]

i'd say conservatives are very critical of ideology
just as liberals are
the difference is the conservatives are critical of new ideologies
liberals are critical of old ones

the problem is your allusion
that conservatives accept ideology without questioning
more so than liberals
this is your bias

you probably consider me conservative
after the marxism thread
do i strike you as the kind of person
who would accept something
without questioning?

in fact i see this from both sides
because i am way more center than you are
you probably don't even realize it
when people are regurgitating talking points around you
without changing a comma
because i guess it sounds right to you
but that is one reason liberalism is so popular with young people
they are fucking gullible

[d0rkyd00d]

the problem is your allusion
that conservatives accept ideology without questioning
more so than liberals
this is your bias

I don't know.....is it biased to say those with less education tend to accept ideology more without questioning? Or is it demonstrably true?

It seems the evidence points towards the fact that those who lean Democrat tend to be more highly educated. I suppose, if one believes education somehow "poisons the mind," a common theme amongst totalitarian mind control regimes, then it simply plays into the narrative of "education leads to brainwashing, only the uneducated are free," mentality.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp ... .png?w=640

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... y-id_2-03/

[Silhouette]

I think the problem is that once the "best ideology" is accepted, philosophizing becomes an enemy unless that ideology includes philosophizing. And "faith based" ideologies (currently being promoted by the Left even more than the Right) disallow philosophizing (just ask Twitter, Facebook, Google, and the CCP).

That being said, I would support an initiative to maintain actual philosophical discussion as priority until an actual meeting of the minds could be achieved (just don't let my wife find out I said that). But not many on this board seem to philosophize as much as just entertain themselves with whatever ranting amuses their mind at the time. They seem to enjoy fighting for whatever they favor at the time and against any challenge to it - anti-philosophy I think.

I'm not convinced there is a "best ideology", though there are definitely worse ones (and therefore "better" ones). On one hand they are naturally tied to dasein (I hope iamb isn't watching), but the degree to which they are better will inevitably be tied to our current best epistemology: scientific experiment and logical reasoning. For all the Postmodernist critiques of this ideology, it just works... very very well at least. And still, this doesn't necessitate that the scientific is the best ideology, nor that one single ideology ought to be universal.

I suppose all authoritarian ideologies are "faith based", but ideology isn't just what functions at the overt political level - ideology under Authoritarianism goes deeper than that. For example, Authoritarian society can offer choices where one grows up to understand choices as not literally allowing you to refuse, and the populace are never fully compliant in their private thoughts, such that it's accepted that many can be overtly against Authoritarianism - sublimating their frustrations through mutually self-deprecating humour etc. Philosophy is very closely tied to humour (coming at the same thing using different approaches), and ideology functions on so many levels. Philosophy under Authoritarianism is more of an aesthetic - it doesn't simply "not occur", nor is it necessarily as one-dimensional and predictable as it's "literally" supposed to be. And no, I'm not supporting it nor hoping for it.

I guess there is a lot of "using philosophy as a channel to direct rage about material conditions on one's own life" going on here, whether one supports the ideology behind their material conditions or otherwise. Indulging ideology itself can be enough of a catharsis even in the face of material suffering - that's its primary function.

You might have to suggest what it "looks like" before you even try to have debates about ideologies involved. That alone could be a huge argument that never gets resolved to anyone's satisfaction or compliance. Most members here seem to just do what is most entertaining - not follow any proposed progress oriented guidelines. Progress isn't their goal.

There is intended progress, intended regress, and unintended regress. But there is also unintended progress, which may even be our best chance, with a lot of unintended regress along the way. That seems to sum up much of the history of scientific success... so who knows - never getting resolved to anyone's satisfaction or compliance could work. Just some casual speculation...

YIs it "training" toward cooperation? Or is it merely giving practice to discord? I am confident of the latter.

Remember there are members on board - on this board - who don't see anything going on as particularly important - "it's all just fun and games. I just like to throw in some irrational anti-rhetoric to make things more interesting (to me)".

Practice with discord is practice with cooperation, because objections will never be so wild and stupid and desperate as they can get under discord. It's a lot easier to persuade somebody who has objections but wants to work with you - in contrast to here.

i'd say conservatives are very critical of ideology
just as liberals are
the difference is the conservatives are critical of new ideologies
liberals are critical of old ones

the problem is your allusion
that conservatives accept ideology without questioning
more so than liberals
this is your bias

This is very fair.

I'd add that old ideology and new ideology might share superficiality in how they respectively appear in their distinct ways, but ideology is more about what works "underneath that" to uphold its actual material implementation. So old ideology has had plenty of time to grow with ideology to hold it together enough for it to have worked in practice. There is ideology behind the liberal mindset, but wherever aims are progressive, they have not stood the test of developing their own ideology in practice to a stable degree. In that sense there is more of an ideology to overcome for old ideologies, and it's much lower hanging fruit to pick apart the ideology behind the mindset of pushing for new ideologies.

you probably consider me conservative
after the marxism thread
do i strike you as the kind of person
who would accept something
without questioning?

in fact i see this from both sides
because i am way more center than you are
you probably don't even realize it
when people are regurgitating talking points around you
without changing a comma
because i guess it sounds right to you
but that is one reason liberalism is so popular with young people
they are fucking gullible

Do you not want to conserve the current neo-liberal economic model?
There's the current "politically conservative" category for people much more conservative than you, under which you clearly don't fall.
So I think of you as conservative, but not "Conservative".
You've questioned progressive thinking of the Marxist kind to a sufficient degree so as to be able to mount a reasoned argument against it without simplistically brute-forcing your own biases, which puts you head and shoulders above any other conservative interlocutor here. But is this a reflection of your conservativism or your progressivism? You love to remind how you're not conservative, and if anything politically left of centre - though ultimately centrist. I believe that's accurate, and that's even bearing in mind that the US regards anything close to centrist as deeply Socialist (and yes I cottoned onto your origins being in South America).

The way in which you see it from both sides is to cancel out any straying too far from the centre.
The way in which I see it from both sides is to be fair to the right and acknowledge its merits to constrain my left leanings from straying too far.

This is because I am critical of the left too. I hate the regurgitation of talking points, especially as they become more and more polarised - I feel like I'm speaking with somebody who hasn't thought much about the topic if they aren't even changing a comma.
But don't risk passively implying that the right don't blindly agree with the all talking points that other sympathisers happen to make in their company all the time - even here on a so-called philosophy forum. There's no gullibility divide here - sheep graze on both sides of your fence.

[phoneutria]

thqt's all i'm tryna say sil
you could have deleted all that
and kept that last sentenxe

[attano]

I know my worldview is different from both Trump supporters & opponents in most cases.

I feel that most Americans are actually "on the same team," even though each side views the other as the opposition. I also think it would also require the coordinated effort of these two opposing sides, facing a common enemy, to address and actually resolve the issues in government plaguing America today.

Where do we start?

https://youtu.be/PeJlHHatT3E

"Clean your room", maybe?
(Actually... I suck at it).

[d0rkyd00d]

I know my worldview is different from both Trump supporters & opponents in most cases.

I feel that most Americans are actually "on the same team," even though each side views the other as the opposition. I also think it would also require the coordinated effort of these two opposing sides, facing a common enemy, to address and actually resolve the issues in government plaguing America today.

Where do we start?

https://youtu.be/PeJlHHatT3E

"Clean your room", maybe?
(Actually... I suck at it).

Yes, the classic Biblical parable of the rafter and straw would be useful at a time like the present.

[Urwrongx1000]

Currently unconfirmed as to who the intended victim is, but I'll post anyway:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HOmMDLyaxoBP/

[d0rkyd00d]

Currently unconfirmed as to who the intended victim is, but I'll post anyway:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HOmMDLyaxoBP/

Hey Urwrong,

I saw the original video on this. It was actually a disgruntled ex-lover who was attempting to murder his ex.

Somebody took the video and put that headline on to mislead. Looks like it's working.

This is what worries me about the "sources" people use to support their positions on this forum.

[obsrvr524]

This is what worries me about the "sources" people use to support their positions on this forum.

There are far fewer mistaken videos than the mistakes of sourceless claims. Notice you proved no evidence. You merely stated that there is contradicting evidence. Perhaps the one you are referring to is the one that is the mislead.

Denials without evidence ("opinion") is a little worthless (not totally).

[d0rkyd00d]

This is what worries me about the "sources" people use to support their positions on this forum.

There are far fewer mistaken videos than the mistakes of sourceless claims. Notice you proved no evidence. You merely stated that there is contradicting evidence. Perhaps the one you are referring to is the one that is the mislead.

Denials without evidence ("opinion") is a little worthless (not totally).

I learned long ago from growing up in a cult that pointing out contrarian evidence doesn't convince those who came to conclusions a-rationally.