Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Man sets himself on fire outside Trump trial courthouse


OverSword

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, susieice said:

I know police were on scene because of the protests but I can't say other services were. The man himself didn't give anyone time. When he lit the accelerant, he went up like a roman candle. He was engulfed in flames in maybe 3 seconds. I can't blame emergency services for this. I think they did the best they could under the circumstances.

Yeah there really isn't anyone to blame here other than himself...

Guess I kind of just wish I didn't watch the video,or someone in a building nearby could have had an extinguisher a little quicker...

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Yeah there really isn't anyone to blame here other than himself...

Guess I kind of just wish I didn't watch the video,or someone in a building nearby could have had an extinguisher a little quicker...

 

I know how you feel. I wish the people in the crowd that the man told what he was going to do and watched him pour the accelerant on himself would have tried to talk to him or raised the alarm instead of uploading video to social media. There's been a long time of discussions on people who do this and offer no assistance. Car accidents, shootings, crimes, it's just people these days. It's really sad.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been posted, but this report has a link to his substack article; the one about why he was killing himself.  It makes sense... he picked the trial because of the number of reporters in the immediate area and I think he assumed it would become worldwide news; if people read his manifesto then they would begin to act.

link: https://www.newsweek.com/read-max-azzarello-manifesto-about-lighting-himself-fire-trump-trial-1892368

I don't think he understood people as well as he thought he did.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

link: https://www.newsweek.com/read-max-azzarello-manifesto-about-lighting-himself-fire-trump-trial-1892368

I don't think he understood people as well as he thought he did.

From your link: 

The site also claims that "the Democrat vs. Republican division has been entirely manufactured ever" since former President Bill Clinton's administration, writing that when presidents "present themselves in public, they are acting as characters that are against one another, practicing kayfabe as wrestlers do." 

***************** 

:yes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, acidhead said:

From your link: 

The site also claims that "the Democrat vs. Republican division has been entirely manufactured ever" since former President Bill Clinton's administration, writing that when presidents "present themselves in public, they are acting as characters that are against one another, practicing kayfabe as wrestlers do." 

***************** 

:yes:

Sharing a worldview and logical deductions with a guy who set himself on fire might be a red flag for some.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea what he was trying to prove (?) but in a land of gun owners you would have thought someone would have put him outta his misery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Sharing a worldview and logical deductions with a guy who set himself on fire might be a red flag for some.

It might be:

Quote

Max Azzarello, Who Set Himself on Fire, is a Former Democrat

Maybe it doesn’t matter what political party Max Azzarello, the man who set himself on fire outside the Trump trial, comes from. But the news media has a way of memory-holing any story unless the perp is a Trump supporter. This guy most definitely is not...

... image.thumb.png.5b5cfcb3ed770fa08b40543a7afb7a04.png

...So, in case anyone tries to spin this as some kind of “right wing extremist,” I think it’s pretty clear from these photos he is anything but.

Source for full article. 

Then again, it might not. The man was clearly mentally ill, no matter what his politics were. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

It might be:

Source for full article. 

Then again, it might not. The man was clearly mentally ill, no matter what his politics were. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

Right, so the guy wasn't setting himself on fire while down a weird conspiracy rabbit hole while he was a Democrat. Looks like he should have stayed that way instead of going crazy.

Looks like you and he might have some similar thoughts about COVID. He certainly has similar thoughts to acid and AT about the Uniparty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Right, so the guy wasn't setting himself on fire while down a weird conspiracy rabbit hole while he was a Democrat. Looks like he should have stayed that way instead of going crazy.

Something definitely happened to him. 

 

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Looks like you and he might have some similar thoughts about COVID. He certainly has similar thoughts to acid and AT about the Uniparty.

What COVID beliefs does he hold that you think I would hold similar? I just read through his manifesto to find out what Covid beliefs I might hold that are similar to his. His manifesto only mentions Covid twice, and neither time backs your suggestion that I would agree with him: 

Quote
  • Funneling trillions of dollars in stolen cash through the stock market created the largest stock-market anomaly in history. The stock chart signature of a Ponzi scheme is a massive increase (while they stack up cash) and then a massive fall (as they funnel out the stolen cash). This chart shape appeared in all the companies listed above. In order to explain the massive anomaly, our criminal government unleashed COVID on the world and told us these were the “stay at home stocks.”

Needless to say, I do not believe covid was released by the government for any reason, let alone an explicit reason based in covering up bitcoin ponzi schemes. I have never believed anything close to this. 

The other time Covid is mentioned is near the end of his manifesto: 

Quote

And with all this, a sharp rise in apocalyptic messaging: Climate change will kill us all; COVID will kill us all; vaccines will kill us all; AI will kill us all – no matter the bubbles we ascribe to, we’re bombarded with existential crises with no solutions. We’ve seen a surge in apocalyptic film, literature, and video games that tell us there is no way out of our poor circumstances but total societal breakdown. Zombies tell us that the public is our enemy. If you go to your nearest convenience store, you can buy a can of water called “Liquid Death.”

And all this is suggesting is that the media likes to use apocalyptic headlines, and that this apocalyptic messaging has become more popular as time has gone on. But that's not my beliefs about "covid" per se, that's my beliefs on the media, and most people would probably agree that the media likes apocalyptic headlines! Thus the best that can be said is that my opinions on the media is partially similar to his opinion on the media, though since he also mentions AI and vaccines as part of this conspiracy his views on the media are probably more extreme even than mine, and I know I already have a comparatively extreme view about the left wing  mainstream media to most others. 

At the end of his manifesto he does provide a couple of other links for further research, so maybe he says something about covid in those, but I really don't care enough to go down that rabbit hole, I already feel dumber for having read his initial manifesto, though at least I can understand him a little better and can confidently say that the man was bat**** crazy (did I need to read his manifesto to work that out, lol). If one of his further reading links bear similarity to anything I've said about covid, you can suggest it here. Otherwise I think you are 100% wrong on this one. 

Edit: pretty sure I've seen left wingers here on UM discuss the concept of a Uniparty also. Believing that politics is set up by the elites to get their policies through no matter who is in control isn't unique to right wing philosophy, though that's where the noise is amplified by the media. Considering the big money donors to both Democrats and Republicans, it's not that crazy to believe that whoever wins is already bought and paid for by corporate interests, and what is in the best interests of the American people rarely seems to rate a mention.

~ Regards,
Link (formerly PA)

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, acidhead said:

Once paramedics arrived he was more than likely injected with pain killer and never felt anything from there on. 

From the video I saw, he likely had a very large area with 3rd degree burns.  There is no pain with burns that are that extensive.  Still, the other skin that was still intact would have given extreme pain.  Poor b******.  May he RIP.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Something definitely happened to him. 

Good observation.

Was it the lighting himself on fire that clued you in? That was how I figured it out, personally.

33 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

What COVID beliefs does he hold that you think I would hold similar? I just read through his manifesto to find out what Covid beliefs I might hold that are similar to his. His manifesto only mentions Covid twice, and neither time backs your suggestion that I would agree with him: 

Needless to say, I do not believe covid was released by the government for any reason, let alone an explicit reason based in covering up bitcoin ponzi schemes. I have never believed anything close to this.

Well, you know, the whole "lab leak" idea that you're angry at the bad media for censoring. You know, a government releasing a virus. But of course, I know that's not what your "lab leak" ideas are (at least, of course, not now...). 

This is, as I've said before, the motte-and-bailey problem. We can go all the way from "somebody knocked over a vial and unknowingly carried the virus out with them" to "a bioengineered superweapon was leaked from a lab to cover up a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme". 

33 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

The other time Covid is mentioned is near the end of his manifesto: 

And all this is suggesting is that the media likes to use apocalyptic headlines, and that this apocalyptic messaging has become more popular as time has gone on. But that's not my beliefs about "covid" per se, that's my beliefs on the media, and most people would probably agree that the media likes apocalyptic headlines! Thus the best that can be said is that my opinions on the media is partially similar to his opinion on the media, though since he also mentions AI and vaccines as part of this conspiracy his views on the media are probably more extreme even than mine, and I know I already have a comparatively extreme view about the left wing  mainstream media to most others. 

I am glad to hear your views are not as extreme as his were. Good job!

33 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

At the end of his manifesto he does provide a couple of other links for further research, so maybe he says something about covid in those, but I really don't care enough to go down that rabbit hole, I already feel dumber for having read his initial manifesto, though at least I can understand him a little better and can confidently say that the man was bat**** crazy (did I need to read his manifesto to work that out, lol). If one of his further reading links bear similarity to anything I've said about covid, you can suggest it here. Otherwise I think you are 100% wrong on this one.

Having seen your brain on right-wing Youtube, I'd advise against jumping down this guy's rabbit hole much farther, for your own safety. 

33 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

 

Edit: pretty sure I've seen left wingers here on UM discuss the concept of a Uniparty also. Believing that politics is set up by the elites to get their policies through no matter who is in control isn't unique to right wing philosophy, though that's where the noise is amplified by the media. Considering the big money donors to both Democrats and Republicans, it's not that crazy to believe that whoever wins is already bought and paid for by corporate interests, and what is in the best interests of the American people rarely seems to rate a mention.

Horseshoe theory does explain quite a lot. But If I run a quick search of "uniparty" in this forum, I get 4 right-wing members (excluding this conversation, of course, but I suppose we could include it all the way to 6 right wing members if you desire).

The degree of influence of big money on politics is worth a mention, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Good observation.

Was it the lighting himself on fire that clued you in? That was how I figured it out, personally.

That was certainly a helpful clue, not sure I'd have worked it out if not for that. 

I'm not sure if it's just your sarcasm but your posts come across as very passive aggressive when you make comments like this. 

 

26 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, you know, the whole "lab leak" idea that you're angry at the bad media for censoring. You know, a government releasing a virus. But of course, I know that's not what your "lab leak" ideas are (at least, of course, not now...). 

This is, as I've said before, the motte-and-bailey problem. We can go all the way from "somebody knocked over a vial and unknowingly carried the virus out with them" to "a bioengineered superweapon was leaked from a lab to cover up a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme". 

So my views are nothing like his, glad we could agree :tu: 

 

26 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I am glad to hear your views are not as extreme as his were. Good job!

Having seen your brain on right-wing Youtube, I'd advise against jumping down this guy's rabbit hole much farther, for your own safety. 

:rolleyes: thanks for the tip, Doc. You really like trying to go down this road, don't ya :rolleyes: 

 

26 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Horseshoe theory does explain quite a lot. But If I run a quick search of "uniparty" in this forum, I get 4 right-wing members (excluding this conversation, of course, but I suppose we could include it all the way to 6 right wing members if you desire).

The degree of influence of big money on politics is worth a mention, of course.

You don't need to use the word "uniparty" to describe corporate dollars buying politician votes. Whether you call it a uniparty specifically, the point is that "the degree of influence of big money on politics is worth a mention" to quote a member on this forum. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

That was certainly a helpful clue, not sure I'd have worked it out if not for that. 

I'm not sure if it's just your sarcasm but your posts come across as very passive aggressive when you make comments like this. 

Me neither, honestly.

Him setting himself on fire is in fact literally what clued me in that "something had happened to him". I don't tend to hang out on weird Substack profiles.

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

So my views are nothing like his, glad we could agree :tu: 

Whew, glad to see you've been persuaded of the folly of the "lab leak" idea. Looks like Zuckerberg censoring you, or at the least the story thereof, managed to scare you straight. I give myself some credit too, of course.

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

:rolleyes: thanks for the tip, Doc. You really like trying to go down this road, don't ya :rolleyes: 

Trying to help, as always.

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You don't need to use the word "uniparty" to describe corporate dollars buying politician votes. Whether you call it a uniparty specifically, the point is that "the degree of influence of big money on politics is worth a mention" to quote a member on this forum. 

Yet not worth setting oneself on fire to protest, or subscribing to extreme views thereof.

"the entire divide is manufactured" is, of course, an extreme view. Max took it, and so do some people here. As my original comment stated, I think that's a red flag.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, and-then said:

From the video I saw, he likely had a very large area with 3rd degree burns.  There is no pain with burns that are that extensive.  Still, the other skin that was still intact would have given extreme pain.  Poor b******.  May he RIP.

I'm glad you came in. I actually looked into this today. Very deep burns may have damaged the nerve endings which would have given him numbness in those areas. He would also have been breathing, very hot air and who knows what gases from the accelerant he used which would have scorched his lungs. The research I found said many times they have to trach someone who's suffered burns like this to open an air passage. Burned skin looses elasticity and they have to replace a lot of fluids so they cut through the burned skin so it can expand. He was taken directly to a burn center. They said from the beginning they didn't expect him to survive but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try unless treatment was refused. I would think he'd be rendered unconscious while this is going on. They do now put burn patients into a medically induced coma while treatment is being given. I know you worked in a hospital. Have you ever been in one? I was just curious.

It's been a while since my friend was burned in a car accident. It wasn't any where near as bad as this poor guy but I remember going into the hospital burn unit and you could hear people in intense pain. It was an upsetting place and I only went once. 

What a horrible, horrible thing.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Whew, glad to see you've been persuaded of the folly of the "lab leak" idea. Looks like Zuckerberg censoring you, or at the least the story thereof, managed to scare you straight. I give myself some credit too, of course.

Azzarello did not believe in a lab leak theory, certainly not an unintentional one, though his manifesto never explicitly stated which government released the virus, so maybe you can squeeze his views into this. By contrast the Energy Department and the FBI have both investigated and based on the available evidence decided that a lab leak (most likely accidental) was the most likely cause of covid.

You're trying to squeeze my beliefs into a little box that you can associate with this crazy person, and it is extremely dishonest - please stop! 

 

3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Yet not worth setting oneself on fire to protest, or subscribing to extreme views thereof.

100% agreed, not sure why you're posting this like I'd disagree with you, but now that it's explicitly in black and white we can move on, yay :tu: 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Azzarello did not believe in a lab leak theory, certainly not an unintentional one, though his manifesto never explicitly stated which government released the virus, so maybe you can squeeze his views into this. By contrast the Energy Department and the FBI have both investigated and based on the available evidence decided that a lab leak (most likely accidental) was the most likely cause of covid.

Well that's the thing. An intentional leak from a laboratory fits right into "lab leak". And Max believed that.

At low confidence, sure. What that means, in the intelligence analytic game, is that "information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources."

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You're trying to squeeze my beliefs into a little box that you can associate with this crazy person, and it is extremely dishonest - please stop! 

You started this conversation, bud. If the implications are too uncomfortable for you, I'm happy enough to end it.

10 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

100% agreed, not sure why you're posting this like I'd disagree with you, but now that it's explicitly in black and white we can move on, yay :tu: 

You seem to have an oddly antagonistic view of what I'm saying here. Perhaps ease up on the paranoia, and accept that occasionally we might agree on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You're trying to squeeze my beliefs into a little box that you can associate with this crazy person, and it is extremely dishonest - please stop! 

You are being intentionally gas lit which is actually a personal attack and against the forum rules.  To your credit you take the time to discuss the slander,  how it doesn't make logical sense and present it in a way which is usually very respectful. It gets them frustrated and well worth the price of admission. Personally I dont have the time nor patience to engage with gaslighters. They've got nothing. It's why they do it. It's all they've got.  I simply laugh in their face... add a meme that's to the crux of their effort.  Though they usually then report me for trolling like they're now the victim.  Hahaha 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well that's the thing. An intentional leak from a laboratory fits right into "lab leak". And Max believed that.

At low confidence, sure. What that means, in the intelligence analytic game, is that "information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources."

You started this conversation, bud. If the implications are too uncomfortable for you, I'm happy enough to end it.

On the one hand we have him believing in an intentional lab leak to cover up a bitcoin ponzi scheme.  On the other we have me believing in an accidental lab leak,  a theory endorsed by several credible organisations.  If that qualifies to you as (to quote your original comment) "Looks like you and he might have some similar thoughts about COVID", then then you have a very low bar for comparison, as I would never conflate these two as being similar in any fashion whatsoever. 

Reasonable people following along with the discussion can see this, which is why I persist in responding to such a poor framing of my position. 

 

4 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You seem to have an oddly antagonistic view of what I'm saying here. Perhaps ease up on the paranoia, and accept that occasionally we might agree on things.

If you were agreeing,  then that's great. Maybe my antagonism comes from your insistence that believing an accidental leak is similar enough to compare to a belief in an intentional leak to further a bitcoin conspiracy theory!

~ Link (formerly PA)

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, acidhead said:

You are being intentionally gas lit which is actually a personal attack and against the forum rules.  To your credit you take the time to discuss the slander,  how it doesn't make logical sense and present it in a way which is usually very respectful. It gets them frustrated and well worth the price of admission. Personally I dont have the time nor patience to engage with gaslighters. They've got nothing. It's why they do it. It's all they've got.  I simply laugh in their face... add a meme that's to the crux of their effort.  Though they usually then report me for trolling like they're now the victim.  Hahaha 

There are definitely similarities to gaslighting. But this isn't about questions of sanity.  It's a deliberate attempt to  delegitimise. I'm not sure if there's a name for it specifically but it's a combo of ad hominem and straw man fallacies.  If person a holds belief b and then commits action c, then anyone who believes b is responsible for action c by association, even if my belief isn't actually similar at all!

Even if they need to shoehorn me into a round box by squinting enough to pretend it's a square. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

 

Looks like you and he might have some similar thoughts about COVID. He certainly has similar thoughts to acid and AT about the Uniparty.

It is not good to make stuff up to cause an argument.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Myles said:

It is not good to make stuff up to cause an argument.  

Right you are, chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

On the one hand we have him believing in an intentional lab leak to cover up a bitcoin ponzi scheme.  On the other we have me believing in an accidental lab leak,  a theory endorsed by several credible organisations.  If that qualifies to you as (to quote your original comment) "Looks like you and he might have some similar thoughts about COVID", then then you have a very low bar for comparison, as I would never conflate these two as being similar in any fashion whatsoever. 

Endorsed is not the correct word for a low confidence intelligence estimate, as I've pointed out.

Arguing that COVID was leaked out of a lab, either intentionally or unintentionally, is similar. But not exactly the same. I'm glad to see your stated position is that of an unintentional lab leak. Honestly, I don't find it a completely unreasonable position.

Both, however, fall under the umbrella of the "lab leak" theory, which you argue in general against the censorship thereof. I've made the point before, and I make it again now, if these two cases are not similar in any fashion whatsoever, it's not correct to generalize an objection to censorship of the nebulous, motte-and-bailey "lab leak".

Regarding the guy's other ranting, does this sound familiar to one who lived under the tyrannical lockdowns in Australia?

Quote

...COVID: An unexpected global event that we’re all too dumb and divided to do anything about, while we must accept the unknowable power of our almight[sic] government.

You also seem to be misunderstanding my point, via post #70. I don't think you're responsible for this man's demise, in any way. My point, which should have been clear in the original comment, was that "Sharing a worldview and logical deductions with a guy who set himself on fire might be a red flag for some." Pretty simple. It was directed at our resident memelord (who apparently wants to be taken seriously, when they're sporadically not trolling), and directed at a specific example presented.

15 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Reasonable people following along with the discussion can see this, which is why I persist in responding to such a poor framing of my position. 

You might be surprised what reasonable people see.

15 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

If you were agreeing,  then that's great. Maybe my antagonism comes from your insistence that believing an accidental leak is similar enough to compare to a belief in an intentional leak to further a bitcoin conspiracy theory!

This conversation started with you seemingly taking issue with that point. Perhaps your risible Substack link about the guy formerly being a Democratic was meant as an amusing and immaterial joke. My point on the similarity of different heads of the "lab leak" hydra did not come until later.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Endorsed is not the correct word for a low confidence intelligence estimate, as I've pointed out.

Whatever word you personally choose to use is irrelevant to the larger discussion point. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an intentional release of a virus (for any reason, let alone providing specific reasons rooted in outrageous conspiracy theories), and an accidental leak which you admit you "don't find it a completely unreasonable position". In which case, if you don't find it entirely unreasonable you also share similar beliefs about covid with this guy.   

 

17 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Arguing that COVID was leaked out of a lab, either intentionally or unintentionally, is similar. But not exactly the same. I'm glad to see your stated position is that of an unintentional lab leak. Honestly, I don't find it a completely unreasonable position.

Both, however, fall under the umbrella of the "lab leak" theory, which you argue in general against the censorship thereof. I've made the point before, and I make it again now, if these two cases are not similar in any fashion whatsoever, it's not correct to generalize an objection to censorship of the nebulous, motte-and-bailey "lab leak".

Regarding the guy's other ranting, does this sound familiar to one who lived under the tyrannical lockdowns in Australia?

You also seem to be misunderstanding my point, via post #70. I don't think you're responsible for this man's demise, in any way. My point, which should have been clear in the original comment, was that "Sharing a worldview and logical deductions with a guy who set himself on fire might be a red flag for some." Pretty simple. It was directed at our resident memelord (who apparently wants to be taken seriously, when they're sporadically not trolling), and directed at a specific example presented.

You might be surprised what reasonable people see.

I don't think you are trying to put the blame for his actions onto me. But you are trying to paint me with the same brush. You know what they say - crazy is as crazy does. 

 

17 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

This conversation started with you seemingly taking issue with that point. Perhaps your risible Substack link about the guy formerly being a Democratic was meant as an amusing and immaterial joke. My point on the similarity of different heads of the "lab leak" hydra did not come until later.

This conversation started because you stated that "sharing world views" with someone like this was a "red flag". His political history suggests he's a Democrat. You opened the door with that argument, I just walked through it. I don't actually believe that him being a Democrat had anything to do with his craziness. He's a nutter through and through, from what I can tell he doesn't seem to support either Trump or Biden. But if sharing world views is a "red flag" then the evidence seems to suggest that's the Democrats, if that's the line of argument you wish to travel down. He was a staunch Obama fan based on his social media history and he worked for a Democrat politician named Tom Suozzi, who in an interesting link to modern events, was the guy who was beaten by, and then won his seat back from George Santos after Santos left in disgrace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Whatever word you personally choose to use is irrelevant to the larger discussion point.

Not what I personally choose to use. What intelligence assessments are. 

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between an intentional release of a virus (for any reason, let alone providing specific reasons rooted in outrageous conspiracy theories), and an accidental leak which you admit you "don't find it a completely unreasonable position". In which case, if you don't find it entirely unreasonable you also share similar beliefs about covid with this guy.

Correct. Looks like you've got it.

A red flag for me as regards accepting that belief. I'd better think harder about it.

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I don't think you are trying to put the blame for his actions onto me. But you are trying to paint me with the same brush. You know what they say - crazy is as crazy does. 

So why did you say this in post #70?

"I'm not sure if there's a name for it specifically but it's a combo of ad hominem and straw man fallacies. If person a holds belief b and then commits action c, then anyone who believes b is responsible for action c by association, even if my belief isn't actually similar at all!"

So you don't think it, yet you said it. Curious.

I'm pointing out that his current views are more synonymous with right wing viewpoints than Democrat viewpoints. It's correct, as you've eloquently argued at length in other threads, the lab leak is a right wing partisan issue. And the current strongest proponents of "Uniparty" at its most extreme are also right wing members of the forum, as I've pointed out.

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

This conversation started because you stated that "sharing world views" with someone like this was a "red flag". His political history suggests he's a Democrat.

Which, it's pretty obvious, has nothing to do with his current worldview. The worldview that made him set himself on fire.

Since you're big on context, real and imagined, you should examine what I was responding to in that post.

His nihilistic "everyone in it together against us" worldview is shared with some of the most extreme right wing members of this forum one of whom explicitly felt the need to agree with Max's insane rant. Aspects of it are shared by others, including you, including me. 

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You opened the door with that argument, I just walked through it. I don't actually believe that him being a Democrat had anything to do with his craziness.

Well, good that you're not stupid.

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

He's a nutter through and through, from what I can tell he doesn't seem to support either Trump or Biden. But if sharing world views is a "red flag" then the evidence seems to suggest that's the Democrats, if that's the line of argument you wish to travel down.

Still no. His worldview, when he set himself on fire, is the key here.

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

He was a staunch Obama fan based on his social media history and he worked for a Democrat politician named Tom Suozzi, who in an interesting link to modern events, was the guy who was beaten by, and then won his seat back from George Santos after Santos left in disgrace. 

His social media history from 14 years ago, notably prior to his rabbit hole dive down and setting himself on fire? Yeah, not sure why that would be relevant, except insofar as it provides a baseline of normalcy against which to judge his current insanity. Well, his former insanity. Which currently still lives online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.