you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

That's obviously a racist site that wants to put a black face to almost every shooting in the US, referring to almost very shooting as a mass shooting. It's obviously pushing a narrative of hate. For what purpose, you might ask. Note that the information on that site is not in agreement with the information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

This is your playbook. As soon as you are shown to be wrong, you claim whatever evidence was presented to you is racist or was compiled by a racist. That's actually not an argument. Don't know how familiar you are with basic logic, though. Also, wikipedia is probably the most biased website in existence. It's also not made by omniscient beings and it is possible for them to be wrong. Wikipedia articles are not the end all be all of knowledge. Clearly, you can't argue against what the website says so you just ad hom and hope everyone will forget and move on.

Pathetic.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No - I kindly told you what's wrong with the website, and offered evidence. PLEASE do not respond to me again. You are not using basic logic. It's insane. Leave me alone.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Lmao. You're getting frustrated. Hahaha. You didn't make an argument. You called it racist, linked a Wikipedia article which disproved your initial assertion, and now you want to run away.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's tiring to continue getting easily refutable nonsense comments, with 200% confidence and 0% accuracy. There are others on Saidit. Respond to them.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

another L for socks

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Poor Popper - who can't bother to read the comment thread. Get back to trolling your grandmother's Facebook account.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

lame retort

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

to a lame insult

Go help granny

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Right. So, now that at least 3 different sources have falsified your claim, you begin resorting to childish insults. Classic socks.