Recent content by Asita

Poor choice of phrasing on my part, now that I look at it. My intended gist was that he'd been recognizably trying to pretend he'd really always known <insert topic he'd expressed and demonstrated ignorance of> long before people started calling him out on, and that I suspect that people's...

First, in all bluntness, I think you're lying when you now say that you're aware of the very thing that you just said you were unaware of just a few posts ago, and are just trying to save face now that it has become impossible for you to brush off just how telling your ignorance was. This is...

You asked me for a case where "where just saying something (like "hey, Steve you should beat up John") like that resulted in the person just saying something getting in legal trouble. I don't know of such a case that result in someone saying something like that getting in legal trouble." I...

See, this is what I mean about how you keep on telling yourself that you know the topic a lot better than you actually do. You just demanded that I prove the existence of the legal concepts of incitement and solicitation to you. Where do you want me to start? Wilcox v. Jeffrey, which I linked...

And once again you're trying so hard to find fault with something that contradicts your ignorant presumptions that you end up fundamentally misrepresenting the thing you're cherrypicking under the delusion that by so doing you create a pretext to sidestep the point being made without ever...

That's an awful lot of waffle that fails to present an actual argument. You are not disputed the substance of anything I've said, nor identified a flaw in any of it, you've simply declared that "There's a difference between stuff being connected and stuff being connected in a legal sense"...

And once again you completely ignore the surrounding context to make it look as if the problem was the simple use of the word "fight", in and of itself, in isolation. Once again: This did not occur in isolation. What makes it damning is how it fits into the broader pattern, including the...

That would depend on context, as has been explained to you. As was also explained to you, that is not "all there is that Trump did and said". That was just a refutation of your insipid argument that Trump said peaceful in that speech as if that itself somehow invalidated the surrounding...

Ok, first of all, that has absolutely nothing to do with your attempts to equivocate Trump's speech with a Beastie Boys song. Second, Trump also said that they needed to show everyone that they were "not going to take it any longer", that they were all here because they "do not want to see our...

Barring unstated circumstances? No shit, Sherlock. That would be because of a little thing called context and a legal concept called the "reasonable person". To make a long story short, a reasonable person is a hypothetical that is summed up as "what would an average person reasonably...

Someone else first suggested ralfy might be an alt (specifically, Sean's due to how similar their positions are). You were the one who passive aggressively insinuated that ralfy was instead Absent's alt due to what you were framing as suspicious timing which you capped off with the...

...Dude. Absent was also quite vocally critical of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of the user you are now implying they are using an alt account to defend, and even of the same user you are insinuating they are using as an alt.

I think it's plausible, especially given that I personally know several women who were, unfortunately, sexually abused in relatively public settings. That includes a member of my own family, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit testy about you trying to treat your personal incredulity as a...

No, it's a violation of Escapist policy to hound and harass people. To quote: What you're trying to allude to is a rule for the Current Events boards about keeping grievances within threads. Contrary to your implication, however, my comment does not qualify as a violation of that rule because...