David Quinn wrote:We could say that the odds are 1 in 45.
You have no idea what the odds are. I think your opinions on these matters are completely warped.
The evidence, if it existed, couldn't have been all that good, as he ended up retracting the claim in September last year.
Your logic is faulty. The evidence may have been fairly good, but as I said, he may have agreed to preserve someone's anonymity, and so couldn't present what he had. You are in the dark on this issue, as we all are.
That's very much his style.
That's just your personal opinion, which I think is worthless on these issues.
The editorial board obviously doesn't accept any article unless it is dark and angry and stripped of all humour.
Most of the articles are written with an obvious and good sense of humour. You aren't able to see the humour because you don't like what the articles are saying.
I know you don't believe in white supremacy, but nonetheless you are choosing to be part of a movement which overlaps into white supremacy
No I'm not. You are speaking absolute nonsense. Firstly, I choose what movement I am a part of, and not you. And secondly, even when you are part of a movement it doesn't mean that you agree with every single thing that every other person in the movement thinks. It's incredible that I need to explain this to you.
Using your incredibly foolish "logic" then the movement you choose to be a part of - let's call it the authoritarian left, or the Left, or the anti-Trump movement, or apologists for the mainstream media, overlaps with all the SJWs and insane feminist, who are arguably far worse than any white supremacists.
If Breitbart is a white supremacist organization then why does it employ so many writers who aren't white? Your opinions on these issues are ridiculous.
I think you don't care about the truth at all on these issues, but that you have been beaten into submission by those you mistakenly believe to be your allies. I think you have been made afraid of what they might do to you, and so you are just believing everything they say.
. . . and thus you run the risk of being called a "white supremacist" by others.
And using your logic then you run the risk of being called an SJW and an insane feminist. This line of reasoning isn't going to get you anywhere. What you are "called" by others doesn't have anything to do with truth.
Your are basically saying that you should do whatever bullies tell you to do, otherwise they will bully you. You can live your life that way if you choose, but don't expect others to follow your lead.
Once an organization develops a reputation it tends to tar everyone involved in it, whether they like it or not.
I care about TRUTH. So long as Breitbart are speaking the truth, and the mainstream media are speaking untruth - as you are - then I will continue to promote Breitbart over the mainstream media.
The only reason Breitbart has a bad reputation in
your circles is because of how often you speak untruth about them. I don't think you realise that you are in an echo chamber, and that you aren't getting any input from the real world.
The obvious difference between the Catholic church and Breitbart is that we know there have been active pedophiles in the Catholic church, but we don't know that Brietbart is white supremacist. You have yourself said that in
your mind it's a "grey area", but you can't seem to keep your story straight.