Is this what the kids call copium?
This would be strawmanning if I was having an argument with that man. Iâm not. He said that colleges make you stupider and so I seriously asked if he believes the earth is flat and that the GOP freed slaves. None of the three topics, college, flat earth, or GoP freeing slaves, have anything to do with the Blizzard accusations. But he wasnât talking about the accusations. He was trying to generalize a portion of the current generation as college graduates who have not read the constitution and whose only skill after graduating college is pandering.
My problem is I keep seeing comments like college only makes you stupider from a certain fanbase. And this fanbase partakes of YouTube videos I view for comedy because they are satirical but I believe their fans find them truthful. I was intrigued and hopeful that I may have finally found one of this fanbase capable of answering the question " do you really believe all this wild stuff youâre told that history books claim otherwise."
This is again what I am trying to get across.
People have every right to rush to judgment and base their feelings off of half of a story.
But if we as a society / culture accept this NOWâŚthen where does this end?
Are we going to just assume that everyone is guilty if the accusation is heinous enough and there are X number of people who say so?
Just trying to prompt the concept of âHave an opinion but know that there is still more to this case to go (namely the defense) and that your opinion can change. And for goodness sake dont stop dropping your sub and protesting all over because of it right now.â
Because if this rush to judgement mentality takes hold now and spreadsâŚjustice is going to be a very scary casuality.
I meanâŚ
Congress Passes 13th Amendment, 150 Years Ago - HISTORY⌠not sure why I wouldnât believe that it was the republicans that technically freed the slaves back in the day.
Quick political history note that has no relevance to the discussion being had:
The Republicans then became the modern Democrat party during the Southern Strategy years. So itâs accurate to say that the modern âGOPâ had nothing to do with that.
To be fair, both parties are full of equally terrible people that are bad for everyone but themselves.
1 Like
No they didnt.
Again this is getting off topic but that is the eventual fate of most WoW posts anyway.
The Dems and Reps did not suddenly âswitchâ sides and values and morals. They did not all get together and say
âEh now we are all going to change it up k?â
100%
None of us know what happened. Just let the process play out. If we donât want real justice then go to a country where you just end up in jails for differing opinions.
My point was it was the Republicans of those days. The political parties of that time period split and reformed many times between now and then. Which is why itâs ridiculous to believe the modern day Republicans (GOP) or the modern day Dems are the party that did x or y thing 100 years ago.
My bad that was too nuanced
I think the better assertion is
One party is fully of terrible people who care for nothing but keeping power for themselves and the other party is fully of people who will talk about standing up to the power hungry people in the other party but will do nothing more than show a front to keep their own power as well.
In the end the lesson isâŚpower corrupts
I generally have two rules that I like to follow when people are trying to convince me of something.
- Everyone has a special interest theyâre pursuing.
1.5. If they say they donât, then they DEFINITELY have a special interest their pursuing. - Anything and everything they show you will be in the service of presenting that special interest in the best possible light.
Special bonus rule: If theyâre a politician, those rules count double.
lmaoâŚso in YOUR mind blizzard IS actually innocent of any wrong doing UNTIL they are MAGICALLY transformed into being guilty when a judge or jury calls the verdict?
L M A O
Sorry guy, that AINT how reality works.
they ARE guilty NOWâŚor they ARE innocent NOW.
The verdict based on interpretation of evidence has ZERO bearing on it.
So no, we dont have to wait to see what some other man says as far as guilt goes. A jury is pretty much always citizens just like you and me interpreting evidence. I dont need a jury to come to MY own conclusions.
Based on what Ive read so far, I absolutely believe impropriety was happening AND being overlooked
I honestly dont give a squat about your own judgment of myself in looking at what Ive seen at this point and drawing conclusions from it.
Your opinion matters as much to me as any other person I dont know on the planetâŚnot at all.
Itâs not just a 2 year investigation. The state attempted repeatedly to get them to negotiate to get assurances that the situation was being dealt with, but Activision-Blizzard would not do this.
The standard in a case like this is not âInnocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.â It is âpreponderance of evidenceâ. Nobody who reads the filing could come to the conclusion that the state has no good evidence. Blizzard needs to take this seriously.
2 Likes
I agree.
Both sides however like to hang history around the otherâs neck.
The modern Dems are not responsible for slavery nor are Reps.
But Slavery is such a hot topic issue both sides want to accuse the other of being the Jim Crow party.
1 Like
Ah so you do get the nuance. Yeah itâs sh** show, obviously. But alas politics in our country is funny to listen to.
1 Like
Do I personally find blizzard at least probably guilty at least partially
Yes
Do I have a set in stone opinion about it
No, not until trial.
Except it wasnât nuanced at all. You made in incorrect statement with literally no way of knowing what your general point was. But youâre not wrong in the more nuanced explanation.
A man is accused of rape by a woman.
The woman has 3 people backing up her claim and a text chat to lend credit to her claim.
The man is still looking over the accusation and gathering his own evidence.
I assume at this point you would claim the man is guilty. Since it is based on the here and NOW and since she has 3 people backing up her claim and a text chat she clearly has the right of it correct?
But then it turns out her friends we lying and the text chat had more too it that proved the man was innocent.
But I guess that doesnt matter since he was first gulity before he was innocent by your standard so who cares?
And they will and win.
I know a person who was sequestered for a grand jury for over two years. The charges didnât pan out and the case was dropped.
Guessing the investigation that was started prior was probably equal in duration.
Going to agree that duration of investigation does not equate to the fact of guilt or innocence.
1 Like