You told people to do more research. I did research and it proved you wrong. Then you claimed my literal quotes were mental gymnastics. FYI it's ok to admit you are wrong based on new information. Not for you obviously, I mean for non-assholes.

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

On this same thread this guy is attacking me for pointing out the similar.

I just think he's a bit unhinged. Heart's in the right place (I assume, if he really believes Affleck is as bad of a guy as he's claiming), but I haven't found any concrete evidence supporting a single one of the claims sartalon has made here. Mostly it's speculation and a lot of conspiracy theory level nonsense.

It may be true, but nothing they've said or shown so far has changed my opinion here. It just sounds like they're latching onto a conspiracy theory around Weinstein and Affleck that doesn't really exist. They did not like each other. Nobody really liked Weinstein, and every interview I've seen with Affleck is that he's a deeply troubled individual who doesn't know how to deal with the stress and issues his fame has created in his life, but I haven't seen any indication that he's a sleezy rapist, other than some wild rumors.

We can only make choices with the data available to us. I'm not defending Affleck at all here. If he did those things, then he deserves to burn. But sartalon would like to send him to El Salvador without trial based on their misunderstanding of an interview it seems.

Now, if only we had an administration that also wanted to end due process, then sartalon and they might get along, despite their protestations that they're nothing like each other.

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

😂

I like your made up comment.

I also like how you are calling it a conspiracy theory.

I guess him talking on live t.v. and court documents are conspiracy theory.

🙄

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You have proof of it not being a conspiracy theory? Go ahead and link it. I'll check my account for replies. If the next reply to this isn't a link with irrefutable proof of the things you've said that people have (repeatedly) asked for proof (and in fact those that "googled" found evidence refuting your claims); we're done here.

Stop playing with rhetoric and link whatever it is you claim to have that 100% makes your case for you.

If you cannot, and if your reply to this never happens or doesn't contain the articles and evidence to support your claim, then you're a conspiracy theorist. That is exactly how that works. That's how conspiracies work. You just started one, and/or perpetuating one.

You don't even seem to grasp the difference between facts, and a conspiracy theory, so I suspect the kind of response I'll be receiving is:

Nothing
More personal attacks with rhetoric trying to shift the blame and burden of proof onto the people asking for it to cover for the fact that you are indeed perpetuating a made-up conspiracy theory without any actual evidence or facts.

So which one is it, #1, or #2 here? You could always try for the #3 option and post evidence to your claims, but you've had hours, and dozens of interactions to do that with people and you haven't yet. It would have taken you a fraction of the time to gather the data yourself and post, than whatever song and dance routine you think you've been doing to throw people off.

Something tells me you're not going to take door #3.