🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@koherecoWatchdog Thats not how riots work.. there is no need for the riots that led to countless cop stations and cop cars being burnt down over a single cop that killed george floyd either.. but riotous mobs dont think with reason. When they see numerous people from their own group being beaten repeatedly in handcuffs in plain view you get a riotous mob, once a riotous mob starts it tends to spread and be indiscriminate, thats how it works.

@koherecoWatchdog umm you do realize that a **ton** of people carry rifles in their car, that is hardly unusual, same with bats.. that isnt evidence anything is planned. I literally have a bat sitting in my car right now from a baseball game months ago.

Man your just stretching it more and more. The pipebomb you **might** be able to make a case on but at worst thats a single nut job, at best it was a prop made to scare and wasnt a live bomb (it looked pretty fake honestly)... we would need more evidence to really know but again your talking about one wakadoo in that case regardless

@koherecoWatchdog There is nothing logical at all about calling a symbol of peace, literally called by its proper name when used as a symbol of peace, to be a violent one.

@koherecoWatchdog No Trumps speech didnt trigger the violence. What trigged the violence was the cops who were pulling people out of the growd while they were still contained behind barricades and beating them in plain view of the crowd even after they were handcuffed.

You can literally see in videos from before the crowd surged and became riotous how the cops are beating them and the crowd is screaming in objection and threatening to beat the cops in return... then after some time of beating protestors the crowd surges and breaks through the barriers.

Trumps speech that never actually called for any violence is not what caused violence. The **literally** violence carried out in front of the crowd pulling victims from the crowd is what triggered the initial violence.

You dont need to blame dog whistles when there is literal and actual violence to point to as the cause.

@koherecoWatchdog The nutters are the people who actually bought the propaganda/lie that it was a call to violent action. It does appear you are in that group though as are most of the left.

Which really just proves my point about the left/liberals being the ones to fear.. You do realize arguments along the lines of "the majority believed this was a violent call to action and therefore must be true".. that is, arguments of the majority, is pretty much the defining quality of fascism.

You've kinda proved my point by your very argument that the left have a big fascism problem.

@koherecoWatchdog

What you just said is a classic logical fallacy, it is called, Argumentum ad populum

It sure did cause a lot of people to be offended, and I can garuntee you nearly 100% of those people were leftists who bought the propaganda the liberals sold them hook line and sinker, mixed with being offended that someone date point out the violence they have been conducting the past 4 years.

All the majority agreeing in this case simply means the majority of people are either idiots, victims of propaganda, or part of the extremists who conducted or supported the violence of the left and were offended at being called out... So this I already knew.. it is hardly an argument that your stance is correct per the above logical fallacy you invoked.

An argument fro

@koherecoWatchdog It is literally called "the clenched fist" when used as a non-violent symbol... it has had one meaning for 200 years "solidarity and unity"

Her wording was "The clenched fist of truth" which makes it **extremely** obvious this is the symbology she meant..

Look if thats the hill you want to die on, go for it, like i said, its not a good look for your credibility and your ability to accurately judge what you see when you have biases going in.

There was nothing remotely violent or suggestive of violence about what she said.. she DID however point out the rampant violence of the left, which is and has been very real. I've witnessed it myself more times than I'd like to admit.

@koherecoWatchdog You are loosing **so** much credibility dying on this hill right now... "clenched fist" has a very specific symbolic meaning, like the peace sign.. to argue its a symbol that is a call to violence when it is explicited called "the clenched fist" and has a non-violent meaning really causes you to loose so much credibility.

Couple with that the fact she even specifically choose wording that makes it clear she is talking about the symbolic, non-violent, clenched fist that has had the same symbology for over 200 years by saying "clenched fist of truth"

It is obvious what she meant, over the top obvious, and it was not a violent message.. to argue anything else is ignorant of what that symbol has meant for 200 years.

@koherecoWatchdog the words dont show a fist that is about to hit someone too..

Did you read the wikipedia article "clenched fist" is a symbol that goes back hundreds of years... why are you arguing its a symbol of violence when its meaning is well known?

@koherecoWatchdog You do realize the clench fist is a symbol of the BLM as well... Now I know it to mean solidarity and unity just as Dana used it, and thats how BLM uses it.

By your argument "clenched fist" implies violence. So your saying the BLM is a group calling for violence because it uses that exact same symbology as central to its movement?

@koherecoWatchdog The meaning of the clenched fist as a symbol is "solidarity and unity"... so the figurative meaning is quite obviously "Solidarity and unity behind the truth, dont buy the lies the liberals are selling".. and I agree with her both on her wording and the message.

@koherecoWatchdog No your missing the point, both figuratively **and** literally its clearly and obviously a call to non-violence..

@koherecoWatchdog FYI you lost some major credibility points referring to the video as a call to violence, leaving out critical words that specifically denote that it was not.

Literally your whole argument it was a call to violence was the reference to "clenched fist" which is well known to be a non-violent symbol already and made even more clear by the wording "clenched-fist of truth"

@koherecoWatchdog yes, it was a call to **unity** with the exact phrasing of "clenched fist of truth"... clearly not a call to violence and that symbology has well defined meaning that is not violence.

@koherecoWatchdog Her exact wording was "A clenched-fist of truth"... kinda left off an important part of that phrase dont you think?

Also I take it your not aware of the meaning of the clenched-fist symbol, it has never meant violence.

to quote wikipedia "The raised fist, or the clenched fist, is a universal symbol of solidarity and support.[1] It is also used as a salute to express unity, strength, or resistance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist

Sounds like you've been buying into the liberal propaganda and not bothering to actually research the propaganda your hearing, its quite clear from the above this was **not** a call to violence.

@koherecoWatchdog Is this it?

https://twitter.com/deray/status/880409739015766016

@koherecoWatchdog Again, I'd have to see it in context to form an opinion.

@koherecoWatchdog Trumps speech never asked anyone to be violent (I watched it)... so if you think trumps speech was calling for violence i am pretty skeptical your interpritation of Dana's video is actually accurate. That said, if you find a link I'd be happy to view it and decide for myself.

@koherecoWatchdog youll have to link me to it if you want me to evaluate such claims

@koherecoWatchdog I cant view that video so I cant judge your claim.