In order to convince me that the “both sides” argument has any merit whatsoever, I’d have to see some examples of something on the left that is similar to: Pizzagate, Qanon, or the amount of stupid denialism during and after Covid when it comes to things like vaccines.
In fact, I see an insane amount of the right wing, right now, giving themselves cramps from clapping their own backs over their claim that “the only difference between a conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact is six months” kind of thinking over the Epstein Files and Pizzagate/Qanon, FFS.
I mean, LOLOLOL, everyone knew about Epstein, if they were paying attention. The guy went to prison the first time, before Obama even took office. Eight years later, the Pizzagate bullshit started up.
That doesn’t vindicate any of the Pizzagate or Qanon bullshit, at all. Their claims revolved around Hillary and company running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor with no basement. But seriously, you’ll see the right wing going around congratulating each other on being right, LOL - meanwhile, almost no one went to prison.
And that’s without going into the insane rabbit hole the right went down during Covid over things like Fauci, masks, vaccines and various nostrums like Ivermection and HCQ. I’d love to see where the equivalent to anything even close to this exists on the left.
I don’t think you understand what I am saying. I am not making a both sides are the same argument. I’m saying how they argue sounds the same. Im saying that if you take some of the arguments from that original video link, swap the context to be Miller and it could easily have been the left making those moments.
I said they have the same talking points. They have the same disease. That does not mean both sides are the same. That means they use the same way of arguing. They don’t believe the same stuff. They just argue their point the same way
So no, that’s not what I said. There’s a distinction there you’re not picking up.
Oh, I would agree that one could easily erase all the relevant context, and point at two groups of people objecting to the pleading of the Fifth and say it’s virtually the same argument.
In order to convince me that the “both sides” argument has any merit whatsoever, I’d have to see some examples of something on the left that is similar to: Pizzagate, Qanon, or the amount of stupid denialism during and after Covid when it comes to things like vaccines.
In fact, I see an insane amount of the right wing, right now, giving themselves cramps from clapping their own backs over their claim that “the only difference between a conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact is six months” kind of thinking over the Epstein Files and Pizzagate/Qanon, FFS.
I mean, LOLOLOL, everyone knew about Epstein, if they were paying attention. The guy went to prison the first time, before Obama even took office. Eight years later, the Pizzagate bullshit started up.
That doesn’t vindicate any of the Pizzagate or Qanon bullshit, at all. Their claims revolved around Hillary and company running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor with no basement. But seriously, you’ll see the right wing going around congratulating each other on being right, LOL - meanwhile, almost no one went to prison.
And that’s without going into the insane rabbit hole the right went down during Covid over things like Fauci, masks, vaccines and various nostrums like Ivermection and HCQ. I’d love to see where the equivalent to anything even close to this exists on the left.
I don’t think you understand what I am saying. I am not making a both sides are the same argument. I’m saying how they argue sounds the same. Im saying that if you take some of the arguments from that original video link, swap the context to be Miller and it could easily have been the left making those moments.
That is literally exactly what you fucking said. Are you for real right now? We can all read it.
I said they have the same talking points. They have the same disease. That does not mean both sides are the same. That means they use the same way of arguing. They don’t believe the same stuff. They just argue their point the same way
So no, that’s not what I said. There’s a distinction there you’re not picking up.
Oh, I would agree that one could easily erase all the relevant context, and point at two groups of people objecting to the pleading of the Fifth and say it’s virtually the same argument.