What am I distorting? Troll or weirdo, which is it? Or both?

I don't have any prejudices related to this. You're weird.

Dude you're trolling. You have strong feelings about breastfeeding, which has some decent science behind it, and you are obsessed with harassing mothers online about it. You can just say that.

Yeah. My ban was permanent. For stating facts reported by reputable local news, in r/news. No reason, no warning, no temp, no response to my questions. I wasn't expecting them to be an unbiased defender of truth, but I didn't realize how brazen they had gotten about utter disregard for facts and balanced discussion.

What are you talking about?

Yeah I don't think Trump knew or cared.

I don't need. I already know it has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Except for maybe you are using "needs of the child" as a strawman to hide what you were actually banned for.

r/politics is the biggest propaganda sub of them all. It's looney and you shouldn't expect any rational discourse there at all.

OP is big on breastfeeding and goes after anyone who seems to be talking about not breastfeeding their child. He/she should have the courage to say that's what the ban was for, rather than trying to hide it behind an argument.

It's a popular opinion, and one that always leads to an ugly comment section.

Seems like they took a legitimate thing and amplified it for lulz and hate.

Anything specific here do you want to talk about?

So it is something like what I said then.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Yeah I guess there are possibilities here that could get detailed in the trial. That fact that people are telling them he's unresponsive, and they don't bother to fuck off of him... that could amount to something. But I don't think it's a lot. The media are referring to it as "the murder of George Floyd" which is interesting.

You weren't actually asking a question, don't play that card.

What? I don't even follow what you're saying. Is this like some ego trip where you think I'm a 4chan troll and you want to prove you can out-troll me or beat me at my own game or something?

* The burden is on me to prove a negative. * Delving into my post history as if that proves anything, except that you're a desperate degenerate. * I'm automatically wrong and not even worthy of your enlightening discussion because you think I'm a conservative.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)01008-4/fulltext >In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness. 2008 study.

What I love about this is that everyone went berserk when Trump said literally the exact same thing.

A Japanese study says it was because they don't touch each other or talk loudly.

So, I just need to take your word for it, even though you've not really even made any coherent point or explained anything?

Because you're wrong. What conversations do you think you saw?

I think you guys are both kind of missing the point here. The autopsy report itself does not list a specific one of the six allowed manners of death, and thus does not say, "homicide." The autopsy report describes the death as resulting from (and I'm dutifully paraphrasing here): becoming unresponsive during police restraint because 1) he was in an altercation that caused abrasions and bruising, 2) he had Covid, severe heart disease, hypertension, and was on fentanyl and methamphetamine, and 3) no life threatening injuries occurred. There are other numbers after this, but these are in order for a reason, and they get less relevant after the first three. The memo to the press from the medical examiner is standard, not fake, and it does list the manner of death as homicide. There are some important things to note about this: 1) it is like criminal law 101 that this does not imply anyone is guilty of anything. Seriously, anyone suggesting "homicide" as a manner of death means he was murdered doesn't know the basics of what they're trying to talk about. 2) it is homicide for a number of reasons, including a) the #1 above. Ultimately had he not gotten in a fight with police he probably wouldn't have died. b) anyone who dies during police restraint is always listed as homicide, and part of the reason is, shit you not, because otherwise the media and the public will claim it's a cover-up and the medical examiner doesn't have time to deal with that crap. Incidentally, in this case they claimed it was a cover-up anyway. https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-vs-legal-conclusion/ >16\. Deaths due to positional restraint induced by law enforcement personnel or to choke holds or other measures to subdue may be classified as Homicide. In such cases, there may not be intent to kill, but the death results from one or more intentional, volitional, potentially harmful acts directed at the decedent (without consent, of course). Further, there is some value to the homicide classification toward reducing the public perception that a ‘cover up’ is being perpetrated by the death investigation agency. (…) And c) the classification of homicide doesn't mean anything with respect to a criminal trial unless and until the examiner testifies in court as to exactly why they classified it as homicide instead of suicide, accident, or undetermined. Until then, the assumption is simply that the fact that he died while being held down against his will makes it homicide. However, considering that the #2 in the report was severe heart disease, Covid, other morbid conditions, and multiple deadly drugs, and #3 was no life threatening injuries, we can speculate that "homicide" here was likely a term of convenience and that no one's getting successfully prosecuted for much of anything. Also since it was a legal restraint maneuver taught in police academy and paramedics were called from the very beginning. The fact that people keep referring to this as murder is just ridiculous. Even saying that he died from a knee to the neck is in direct contradiction to the autopsy. He died from fighting with and being restrained by police, because his body couldn't handle that while on multiple dangerous drugs and having Covid, severe heart disease, and hypertension. EDIT: Any conviction here will be an injustice performed out of fear of backlash from violent criminal mobs. But it very well might happen.

Yeah man I get it, I said that this was clearly created as a troll sub. But that doesn't mean they're wrong, and the point is not transphobia.

"No life-threatening injuries identified."

They had also called paramedics from the start.

Just that. Well also it reads like you have major problems with common sense and social skills.

That's not being a sucker; it seems clearly the point. If you believe this is some kind of secret transphobia, you're the sucker.

Your question is nonsense.

It used to be. It has changed dramatically.

There's a difference between exploiting a system to make a point because it's the only way you can be heard, and just trolling in bad faith. The former is a legitimate method used by all political leans. Yes the sub was not entirely genuine. But when it exposes hypocrisy and discrimination, that doesn't matter.

This is the Internet. And yes they are.

No they're trying to point out inconsistencies in modern moral thinking.

True but that doesn't mean they're the ones in the wrong.

The police weren't ready with a case against her that would stick. They came back once the evidence was much clearer that she was actively involved. You really think that if you rent someone a car to commit murder and hide the body, that the law is just going to let you be? They didn't arrest her because supposedly she had no involvement with her ex-boyfriend. But then that turned out to be completely false.