This time it was this disgusting argumentation pattern that I've heard numerous times before, and which I really think needs a name.
---
There's always something a bit awkward about being a conspiracy theorist. I mean you're out there holding a sign that says jet fuel doesn't melt steel for instance. Everyone with a triple digit IQ knows that, but what do you want me to do about it? It's just not cool, or comfortable, or normal to be that much at odds with the status quo.
But hey, at least their heart's in the right place.
What I truly cannot stand is these shit-eaters who are not only awkward, but ALSO regime-apologist toadies. We've all heard their shit: Jet fuel DOES melt steel, vaccines are great, fluoride is healthy, raw milk is the biggest killer, chomos don't exist, and if you don't believe this then YOU are the problem.
The arguments aren't even well formed. If you wanted to make a pro-vaccine argument, the best approach would be to say: Obviously injecting foreign material into healthy people to make them sick is not ideal, but most people handle it well, and there are a lot of really scary viruses out there (like Polio) for which this is still the only effective tool we have.
But instead they try to equate vaccination to proper sleep or diet and exercise, which, no intelligent person believes.
---
In the case of the contrapoints she/her, one of the arguments was that asking questions about pizzagate is bad and evil because some dude shot up a pizza place somewhere. Now I don't know a whole lot about pizzagate per se, I do know that the leaked Obama email where he said he could get "hotdogs", from Chicago, for a Whitehouse party, is a bit fucking weird. Contra's bad argument comes right out of the ADL playbook - arguing basically that because some guy shot up a pizza place, me commenting on Obama's email makes me part of the same "movement" as him, and therefore responsible for his actions.
Now I know chomos are real, I know organized child trafficking is real, and I know that weirdos who (for some reason) say that it's not real, are real. I don't know if this particular story has anything to it, but in my opinion, contrapoints should get she/her's harddrive checked.
---
Finally, if I heard these shitty arguments from someone like Gates, I'd hate him (I already do), but I'd respect him for defending his system. This lowly worm doesn't warrant enough respect to even justify hate, they sold their soul for a few thousand a month in Patreon payments of suspicious origin.
At least as anonymous as possible, but there are always leaks.
If you look at the Mafia, that which is "allowed" to operate - in that they keep on existing and existing and never get shut down, the don of the don of the don gets you very close to The Real Guys.
The court system is really losing credibility. They've always kind of made stuff up as it suits them (Wickard v. Filburn) but now with the internet, everyone can second-guess them and have an opinion.
The big problem is that there's no realistic replacement. Possibly some kind of AI lawyers with massive-multiplayer-online-jury where jurors are given abstract philosophical questions which provide the glue that maps the facts of the case to an abstract model of law so that the actual judgement is something that can be checked with a proof verifier.
end up with two parallel governments <-- Generally speaking, that kind of thing resolves itself pretty quickly, but the resolution mechanism is just pure unadulterated power.
And invariably the side that is pro-Russia (Caleb's Law of European Politics : One side is always pro-Russia) cries "we are being oppressed, Russia please help" or something to that effect, after which the problem resolves itself once again, also, by way of pure unadulterated power.
From only those 2 pieces of information, it kind of sounds like they're more the pro-reconciliation party than really pro-Russia. Some of these "pro-Russia parties" are better described as not rabidly anti-Russia.