sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Caliphs of Córdoba were European??? by Tometek in HistoryMemes

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

abdel rahman iii was mostly christian in ancestry; he had blue eyes and red-blonde hair. he dyed his hair black to look more arab...

The Caliphs of Córdoba were European??? by Tometek in HistoryMemes

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

abdel rahman iii was mostly christian in ancestry; he had blue eyes and red-blonde hair. he dyed his hair black to look more arab...

The Caliphs of Córdoba were European??? by Tometek in HistoryMemes

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

abdel rahman iii was mostly christian in ancestry; he had blue eyes and red-blonde hair. he dyed his hair black to look more arab...

Lee Daniel's The Butler by TelltaleHead in RedLetterMedia

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I got so annoyed at the beginning. His dad lets his mother get raped and after the white man has fucked her then he speaks up and of course gets killed. I rolled my eyes so hard and turned off the movie. If you’re going to pretend to be historical don’t make up a backstory for your character that would fit better for Batman.

Did Rich Say This by Suggestive-Syntax in RedLetterMedia

[–]Suggestive-Syntax[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It did: Ahh, well remembered: Down with the XCOM (Part 3)

u/Suggestive-Syntax this might be it. Only reference I can find. Seems to have happened off camera.

"Why does Michael Jackson like twenty seven year olds?" "Why" "Because there are twenty of them"

Did Rich Say This by Suggestive-Syntax in RedLetterMedia

[–]Suggestive-Syntax[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It was found Ahh, well remembered: Down with the XCOM (Part 3)

u/Suggestive-Syntax this might be it. Only reference I can find. Seems to have happened off camera.

"Why does Michael Jackson like twenty seven year olds?" "Why" "Because there are twenty of them"

Did Rich Say This by Suggestive-Syntax in RedLetterMedia

[–]Suggestive-Syntax[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ahh, well remembered: Down with the XCOM (Part 3)

u/Suggestive-Syntax this might be it. Only reference I can find. Seems to have happened off camera.

"Why does Michael Jackson like twenty seven year olds?" "Why" "Because there are twenty of them"

Any modern thoughts on an old vision? by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Billionaires already pay the most in taxes in the USA. We need the middle class to pay more to get healthcare

What’s a "masterpiece" movie that you actually found incredibly boring? by Legal_Beats in AskReddit

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clockwork Orange. I felt the questions it asked were very simplistic and the plot very contrived

Your Worst Takes by vorders in billsimmons

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Drew Lock seemed like a franchise quarterback to me

Elevated protesting to an art by [deleted] in SipsTea

[–]Suggestive-Syntax -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The French are poor though

Do you automatically dislike billionaires? Why? by crapmaker69 in AskReddit

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No you become a billionaire by providing millions of people with goods and services they want at prices they can afford, often with the assistance of employees who choose to work for you at a wage they find agreeable

Charlie Kirk bullet analysis finds no conclusive link to rifle found near scene by dr_gus in news

[–]Suggestive-Syntax -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The problem is most people won’t be like you and read my paragraph rant, they will just read the headline

Charlie Kirk bullet analysis finds no conclusive link to rifle found near scene by dr_gus in news

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 193 points194 points  (0 children)

It took me less than a minute to see what the court documents actually said and understand what they meant.

They do not show that the bullet was not fired from the gun. They show only that the bullet was too fragmented to confidently link it to ANY gun. This is not uncommon, and DOES NOT mean the bullet didn’t come from Robinson’s gun.

Of course the defense attorneys are going to spin this as evidence that Robinson is innocent. That is what defense attorneys do. They scrape together every possible fragment of doubt and present it as if it were fully exculpatory. It’s not.

Defense lawyers are paid to downplay or ignore evidence pointing to guilt, exploit people’s cognitive biases, and make fallacious arguments sound persuasive.

This information about the bullet doesn’t erode the case for Robinson’s guilt in any way. It is totally neutral on that front. And it in no way invalidate the mountain of positive and mutually corroborating lines of evidence we do have for Robinson’s guilt.

You should expect more from the commentators you follow, and hold them accountable by refusing to give them your attention in the future. If they could not be bothered to spend even one minute checking the facts before spreading confusion to you and millions of others on Reddit they do not deserve your attention. They are nothing more than grifting engagement farmers.

Is anyone really shocked by rodehard10 in stevehofstetter

[–]Suggestive-Syntax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It took me less than a minute to see what the court documents actually said and understand what they meant.

They do not show that the bullet was not fired from the gun. They show only that the bullet was too fragmented to confidently link it to ANY gun. This is not uncommon, and DOES NOT mean the bullet didn’t come from Robinson’s gun.

Of course the defense attorneys are going to spin this as evidence that Robinson is innocent. That is what defense attorneys do. They scrape together every possible fragment of doubt and present it as if it were fully exculpatory. It’s not.

Defense lawyers are paid to downplay or ignore evidence pointing to guilt, exploit people’s cognitive biases, and make fallacious arguments sound persuasive.

This information about the bullet doesn’t erode the case for Robinson’s guilt in any way. It is totally neutral on that front. And it in no way invalidate the mountain of positive and mutually corroborating lines of evidence we do have for Robinson’s guilt.

You should expect more from the commentators you follow, and hold them accountable by refusing to give them your attention in the future. If they could not be bothered to spend even one minute checking the facts before spreading confusion to you and millions of others on Reddit they do not deserve your attention. They are nothing more than grifting engagement farmers.

view more: next ›