legitimately referred to as "a murderous equity doctrine" and whether that kind of rhetoric can be considered "hysterical". — Baden

Well, no, because Peterson did not specify which belief he thought was a "murderous equality doctrine." I went over this with Maw. You can read that sequrnce of posts if you would like to see how that discussion went.

We don't even have to argue over whether the left or the right is more unreasonable overall actually because it's not all that pertinent, — Baden

But you invited that discussion by saying that there were more conspiracy theorists on the right. This is what puzzles me: when I make an argument, you respond that you're not interested in a discussion, despite the fact that I was addressing one of your points.

Sanctimonious? Check. Self-righteous? Check. Hectoring? Well, there's a limit to the extent to which it can reasonably be claimed blatant sarcasm is just gentle ribbing, and so...Check. Sectarian? Check. Maudlin? Well, expressions of self-pity and claims of sad disappointment probably qualify, and so...Check. Blustering? Well, certainly indignant, at least, and the use of uppercase can be said to be "loud", so...Check. — Ciceronianus the White

I typed the words "woof woof" and got this in response. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but this seems a bit exuberant in response to "woof woof."

But you invited that discussion by saying that there were more conspiracy theorists on the right. This is what puzzles me: when I make an argument, you respond that you're not interested in a discussion, despite the fact that I was addressing one of your points. — Pneumenon

I agreed to disagree with you on that point because it's not that important and your response was pretty much irrelevant anyway. Naming what you believe to be three conspiracy theories of the left doesn't demonstrate that there are more conspiracy theories on the left. I could point out that we don't have a left-wing version of Alex Jones or that Russian interference is not necessarily a conspiracy theory (we won't know the full facts until the investigation is complete). And so on. But it's not the salient part of the argument for me. The salient part is the part you completely ignored in your answer just now.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but this seems a bit exuberant in response to "woof woof." — Pneumenon

It's curious the way you repeatedly use this strategy of pretending to be disappointed and sorry and so on about the posts of your interlocutors here. And I suppose you'll respond to this comment by feigning more heartbreak. Here, have a hankie in advance. Or even better, just answer the rest of my earlier post. Nobody's interested in your emotional state.

Well, no, because Peterson did not specify which belief he thought was a "murderous equality doctrine." I went over this with Maw. — Pneumenon

Is this honest-to-God that complicated for you? It's astonishing just how far you are willing to bending over backwards in order keep up with this facade of ignorance. Trudeau tweets his support of the Women's March and that the Canadian Government will keep fighting for gender equality. Peterson's response: Is that the murderous equity doctrine? For God's sake, how is this not hyperbolic? Or are you just unable to accept that fact that Jordan Peterson is capable of saying stupid shit on Twitter?

But I'm sure Pneumenon and Thorongil would make just as much effort to find a positive way to construe a hysterical tweet made by someone on the left. Fair and balanced™.

I want to summarize my basic positions, or at least the ones that are most important to me, to avoid more quagmire:

1) There is a lot of hysteria around at present on both the right and the left.
2) Examples on the left include some of the names JP has been called during protests. (And probably in tweets too).
3) Examples on the right include some of JPs tweets, along with Thorongil's claims regarding BLM.
4) BLM is not a terrorist organization. And if you want to make a case for that very serious accusation, you need strong evidence. Smears, fallacious reasoning and attempted rhetorical tricks aren't going to cut it.
5) Hyperbolic rhetoric on either side leads to polarization, and is a bad thing. Let's not do it.

It's curious the way you repeatedly use this strategy of pretending to be disappointed and sorry and so on about the posts of your interlocutors here. And I suppose you'll respond to this comment by feigning more heartbreak. Here, have a hanky in advance. Or even better, just answer the rest of my earlier post. Nobody's interested in your emotional state. — Baden

Well, a few of you told me I was being mean, so I apologized for it. And now you're angry at me for apologizing! You have invested considerable apparent effort into yelling at me for being a meanie, so the "grrr I'm too tough for this Mickey Mouse crap" thing comes off a little weird.

Also, why do you say you want to "agree to disagree" and then start arguing about the point you said you wanted to drop? This is inconsistent. I addressed the point you raised previously in the discussion with Maw.

Is this honest-to-God that complicated for you? It's astonishing just how far you are willing to bending over backwards in order keep up with this facade of ignorance. Trudeau tweets his support of the Women's March and that the Canadian Government will keep fighting for gender equality. Peterson's response: Is that the murderous equity doctrine? For God's sake, how is this not hyperbolic? Or are you just unable to accept that fact that Jordan Peterson is capable of saying stupid shit on Twitter? — Maw

Well, Peterson has a history of criticizing student activism of this kind so I imagine that's where his critique is aimed. I'd say the context makes that pretty obvious.

Well, a few of you told me I was being mean, so I apologized for it. And now you're angry at me for apologizing! You have invested considerable apparent effort into yelling at me for being a meanie, so the "grrr I'm too tough for this Mickey Mouse crap" thing comes off a little weird. — Pneumenon

Let's just call "cut" on this scene.

Also, why do you say you want to "agree to disagree" and then start arguing about the point you said you wanted to drop? This is inconsistent. I addressed the point you raised previously in the discussion with Maw. — Pneumenon

I presume there's no need now to argue about what we argued about what we should argue about. I wrote out what I think is important just now to avoid that. You might even agree with some of it.

Christ. If Sappy and I can be nicer to each other in another thread, y'all hysterical, bored adults ought to be, too.

~

I think it was Wayfarer who said that, "all paths lead back to the Donald," and I'm now thinking that, "all paths lead back to the Jordan B."

or I guess if a critical mass of its supporters were to engage in or condone violence — Michael

This is precisely the impression I get from the people who use this hashtag and support the organization.

4) BLM is not a terrorist organization. And if you want to make a case for that very serious accusation, you need strong evidence. Smears, fallacious reasoning and attempted rhetorical tricks aren't going to cut it. — Baden

Well, here is some (from one David Horowitz's websites):

- In February 2017, former BLM activist Trey Turner reported that his comrades had planned to burn down the Minnesota state capitol in Saint Paul and the governor’s mansion if Saint Paul-area police officer Jeronimo Yanez -- who fatally shot a black man named Philando Castile during a July 6, 2016 traffic stop -- was not prosecuted.

- During an anti-President Trump protest in Seattle in late January 2017, a female activist associated with BLM took a megaphone and, for four minutes, shouted obscenities, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and incitements to violence against white people and President Trump. Among her remarks were the following: "Fuck white supremacy, fuck the U.S. empire, fuck your imperialist ass lives. That shit gotta go. Fuck that shit. You know what America thrives off of? Capitalism. We use our mother fucking, fucking black and brown bodies to live and survive while white people own fucking properties after that.... White people, give your fucking money, your fucking house, your fucking property, we need it fucking all. You need to reparate [sic] black and indigenous people right now. Pay the fuck up, pay the fuck up. It ain’t just your fucking time, it's your fucking money, and now your fucking life is devoted to social change.... We're all operating under white supremacy.... And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your fucking White House, your fucking Presidents, they must go! Fuck the White House.... Capitalism is ... fucking racism...."

- Shortly after former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016, BLM published an article titled "Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante." The piece began by stating: "We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel."

The article praised Castro for having taught people "that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity." "As a Black network committed to transformation," it added, "we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding [cop-killer/fugitive] Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for [cop killers/airplane hijackers] Brother Michael Finney, Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill[;] asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton[;] and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era." Expressing gratitude to Castro for "attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters," BLM lauded the late dictator for having "provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish." The piece closed by saying: "As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!"

- In August 2015, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) officially endorsed BLM by approving a resolution that condemned "the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police"; stated that the American Dream "is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy"; demanded the "demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities"; and asserted that "without systemic reform this state of [black] unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation."

- On August 13, 2016, BLM activists in Milwaukee engaged in violence after police in that city shot and killed an armed man with a lengthy criminal record who was carrying an illegal gun that had been used in a burglary. One video clip of the violence showed rioters chanting “black power!”, vowing to "beat up every white person," and trying to drag white drivers out of their cars and assault them. The rioters also targeted local reporters for violent assaults, including one Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter who was thrown to the ground and punched. In another video clip, rioters could be seen burning down a gas station while chanting “black power!” This was just one of numerous businesses that were set on fire. In a Facebook post the following day, the Black Lives Matter Coalition For Justice wrote: "What happened last night was not the result of greed or an ignorant display of anger as some have called it, but rather pain and frustration built up from over 400 years of oppression. The rioting and looting that occurred last night in the city of Milwaukee is a demand for justice on every level.... What happened last night was a revolt and an uproar, not just a disturbance.... The people are angry. The people are fed up, and the people are demanding their freedom."

- In September 2016, BLM activists rioted in Charlotte, North Carolina after a black police officer there had shot and killed a gun-wielding black criminal named Keith Lamont Scott. Prior to that killing, Scott had been: convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in two different states, convicted of assault in three states, charged with “assault with intent to kill” in the 1990s, and spent 7 years in jail for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.” In multiple requests for domestic violence protective orders, one of which had been filed in 2015, Scott's wife claimed that the man had stabbed her, hit one of his children, and threatened to kill his entire family. The woman also reported that Scott carried a 9mm handgun but had no permit for it. (According to Fox News: "The gun recovered at the scene of Scott's shooting had been stolen and later sold to Scott.") At least 20 police officers were injured in the Charlotte riots, and National Guard troops were called in to help restore order. During the mayhem, protesters threw things at police, sometimes shot one another, looted and destroyed local businesses, set vehicles on fire, attacked white people who happened to be in the vicinity, decorated the landscape with BLM graffiti, and chanted slogans like “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”

- On July 7, 2016, BLM activists held anti-police-brutality rallies in numerous cities across the United States, to protest the recent shootings of two African American men by white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana. At a rally in Dallas, Texas, demonstrators shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, suddenly, at just before 9 pm, a gunman opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at that rally (in Dallas). Four policemen and one transit officer were killed, and six additional police were wounded. The perpetrator, Micah Xavier Johnson, subsequently told a hostage negotiator that he had acted alone, was angry about the recent police shootings of two black men, and was determined to kill white people -- "especially white officers."

- In the wake of the carnage in Dallas, a number of BLM activists taunted uniformed police officers who were standing guard in front of a gas station. Some Twitter users posted footage of a local news report that showed approximately 300 to 400 protesters dancing, shouting at police, and raising their middle fingers to them. Moreover, BLM sympathizers posted numerous online tweets to express their approval of the mass shooting. Some examples:

“Y’all pigs got what was coming for y’all.”
"GIVE A FUCK ABOUT DALLAS AND THEM PIGS FUCK EM ALL"
"wtf! Is when whites think their superior than us! Dallas must burn,black lives matter now, got the message pigs!"
"These fucking pigs deserve Dallas, and every incident after Dallas until reform. Fucking disgusting animals."
“Next time a group wants to organize a police shoot, do like Dallas tonight, but have extra men/women to flank the Pigs!”
“dude hell yeah someone is shooting pigs in dallas. solidarity”
"Shout out to them Dallas shooters !! rapping pigs in blankets"
“DALLAS keep smoking dem pigs keep up the work.”

- On July 9, 2016, activists participating in a BLM protest in Phoenix threw rocks at police officers and threatened to kill them.

- On August 29, 2015—just hours after a lone black gunman had murdered a white sheriff’s deputy in Texas while the latter was pumping gasoline into his car—demonstrators affiliated with the St. Paul, Minnesota branch of BLM disrupted traffic as they marched—with police protection—to the gates of the Minnesota State Fair. Carrying signs bearing slogans like "End White Supremacy," they repeatedly chanted in unison: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” “Pigs” was a reference to police officers, and "blanket" was a reference to body bags. The slogan echoed what gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsleyan had posted on the Internet—"Pigs in a blanket smell like bacon"—in December 2014, just before he murdered NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.

- During the September 1, 2015 airing of a blog-talk-radio program associated with BLM, the hosts laughed at the recent assassination of Texas Deputy Daron Goforth, a husband and father who was shot 15 times at point blank range from behind while he was gassing up his patrol car. One host, a self-described black supremacist known as King Noble, said the execution of that "cracker cop" was an indication that "it's open season on killing whites and police officers and probably killing cops, period." "It’s unavoidable, inescapable," he added. "It’s funny that now we are moving to a time where the predator will become the prey." After claiming that blacks were like lions who could win a “race war” against whites, Noble declared: “Today, we live in a time when the white man will be picked off, and there’s nothing he can do about it. His day is up, his time is up. We will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before. It’s about to go down. It’s open season on killing white people and crackas.”

- On September 14, 2015, BLM supporter/demonstrator Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks, a 25-year-old convicted felon, shot and killed a rookie Kentucky state trooper named Joseph Cameron Ponder after a high-speed chase. The perpetrator lived in Florissant, Missouri, near the town of Ferguson, and had participated in local demonstrations protesting the 2014 death of Michael Brown, a young black man killed by a white Ferguson police officer after he had tried to take the officer's handgun. (Click here for details of that case.) Johnson-Shanks was so preoccupied with the Brown case, that he even attended Brown's funeral and graveside service in August 2014.

- At a December 2014 BLM rally in New York City, marchers chanted in unison: "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."

- On a BLM-affiliated radio program the following month, the hosts laughed at the recent assassination of a white Texas deputy; boasted that blacks were like lions who could prevail in a “race war” against whites; happily predicted that "we will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before"; and declared that "It's open season on killing white people and crackas.”
In November 2015, a group of approximately 150 BLM protesters shouting "Black Lives Matter," stormed Dartmouth University's library, screaming, “Fu** you, you filthy white fu**s!," "Fu** you and your comfort!," and "Fu** you, you racist sh**!”

- In July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: "The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill 'em all right now! Kill 'em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!"

- A co-founder of BLM's Toronto branch is a young woman named Yusra Khogali, who in late 2015 posted the following message on Facebook: “Whiteness is not humxness. infact, white skin is sub-humxn.... White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual. white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”

- In the spring of 2016, Khogali issued a Facebook threat against a Toronto police officer: “The police officer who killed Andrew Loku. We. Are coming for you. U better believe it. You are going to spend the rest of your life without your family like how Andrew Loku’s 5 children will have to go on without their father. Justice will be served.” Around that same time, she tweeted: “Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz.”

- In February 2017, Khogali participated in a protest in front of the U.S. consulate where she shouted into a microphone that Canadian Prime Minister “Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist terrorist,” and she exhorted the crowd to “rise up and fight back.” “Look at us, we have the numbers,” she added.

- At all BLM events, demonstrators invoke the words that the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur once wrote in a letter titled “To My People”: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” (The fourth line was drawn from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.) In Shakur's original letter, she described herself as a “Black revolutionary” who had “declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heart-less robots [police] who protect them and their property.”

- Another figure greatly admired by BLM is Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, who in the 1960s was renowned for threatening that blacks would "burn America down," and for urging blacks to murder "honkies." In the spring of 2000, Al-Amin shot two black law-enforcement officers in downtown Atlanta, killing one of them.

- Born in 1981, Alicia Garza is a self-described “queer” social-justice activist who reveres the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, and convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur for her contributions to the “Black Liberation Movement.” Garza is likewise a great admirer of Angela Davis (another Marxist and former Black Panther), Ella Baker (an avowed socialist who had ties to the Communist Party USA and the Weather Underground), and Audre Lorde (a black Marxist lesbian feminist).

- In May 2015, Garza characterized the recent protests and riots in Baltimore—which erupted after a local black criminal named Freddie Gray had died under disputed circumstances while in police custody—as “Black Spring” demonstrations akin to the massive “Arab Spring” actions that had threatened and/or toppled a number of Middle Eastern regimes beginning in early 2011.

- In July 2015, Cullors spoke at the annual Netroots Nation convention in Phoenix. In the course of her remarks, she exhorted fellow blacks to “rise the fuck up” and “burn everything down!”

- Cullors herself was trained to be an activist by former Weather Underground leader Eric Mann.

First of all, before I even look this, link to the source.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7876

Cue condemnations because David Horowitz is on the right. All the incidents are documented, though.

So, you went and copied a wall of text from a right wing website expressly dedicated to discrediting the political left by David Horowitz who has a history of misinformation and on top of that is an alleged racist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

"Horowitz has been criticized for material in his books, particularly The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, by noted scholars such as Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin. The group Free Exchange on Campus issued a 50-page report in May 2006 in which they take issue with many of Horowitz's assertions in the book: they identify specific factual errors, unsubstantiated assertions, and quotations which appear to be either misquoted or taken out of context."

"Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others".

It's instructive to know where you get your ideas from but this source is trash. If you say these instances are documented though, go find them from a reliable source and I'll deal with them.

Cue condemnations because David Horowitz is on the right. — Thorongil

:lol:

If you say these instances are documented though, go find them from a reliable source and I'll deal with them. — Baden

Or you could actually read the articles and follow the links they provide.

I knew you would react in this way. Instead of addressing the information provided, you just trot out genetic fallacies to absolve yourself from having to consider it. Fine. In the future, I'll just state my opinions and disregard your pleas to substantiate them.

So, if I claimed the Republican party is a terrorist organization and provided the antifa website as a source, you'd be fine with that? Why don't you just make an effort and provide evidence from a reliable source? Is it laziness or what? I'd like to seriously address this issue if you're capable of that.

That you equate David Horowitz with antifa speaks volumes.

Refusal to engage doesn't win points. The suddeb loss of its sociocultural dominance has spooked the left, which is reacting by circling the wagons. Much like placing one's stones too close together in a game of go, this is a losing strategy.

Sorry, but have you two jokers ever even written a paper in your lives? You know where you need to provide evidence from a source that can be taken seriously? When your professor told you, you can't just copy-paste from anywhere on the internet? I'm happy to deal with this issue, so please get your act together, get some info from a source that's not polluted and we'll deal with it.

Says the guy who literally just copy-pasted from Wikipedia. I'm sorry, Baden, but have you ever written a paper for a professor in your life?

My source just compiles quotes and events. You fallaciously dismiss it because you don't like the people who compiled it, dredging up irrelevant accusations against Horowitz and even comparing the man to antifa activists. So be it, but that shows you're not actually "happy to deal with this issue," so spare us such patronizing insincerity.

Sorry, but have you two jokers ever even written a paper in your lives? You know where you need to provide evidence from a source that can be taken seriously. When your professor told you, you can't just copy-paste from anywhere on the internet. I'm happy to deal with this issue, so please get your act together, get some info from a source that's not polluted and we'll deal with it. — Baden

I just made an observation about the present behavior of the left. How does this response address that, besides proving my point by being defensive?

I've marked them and taught sourcing. That was my job for a long time. Your attitude is a bit bizarre. You want me to verify the information from a clearly biased source by having to go to the website and check it rather than simply provide information from a non-biased one. How about you go there, find the links, and put them in your post. That would be fine by me as long as the links point to reliable sites. OK?

Something constructive for you to do would be to find some reliable sources to back up the claim BLM are a terrorist organization presuming you agree with it. These side comments don't really add anything to the discussion.

I'm not doing your own work for you. Among other things, that would condone your fallacious assumption that the source of the information discredits the veracity of that information.

The wagon-circling has another component that leads to bad consequences, which is its tendency to shrink the solid base upon which a given ideology stands.

If an ideology has a high degree of sociocultural dominance, then massive retaliation against even moderate dissenters serves as a means of cementing that ideology's hold, because ideological dominance relies on the perception that the ideology is universal or near-universal. If you think that everyone agrees on X, you won't dare to contradict it, especially when you see even mild disagreement being quashed with extreme prejudice. This last serves as evidence that the given ideology (whatever it is) really is (near) universal.

Once this dominance is lost, however, attacking even mild dissenters is no longer a winning strategy, because the cat is already out of the bag; you're not going to convince anyone that your way of thinking is the default by viciously attacking all dissenters, because the jig is up and we all know that dissent is now socially acceptable. In fact, the massive retaliation against any and all dissenters now has the opposite effect, because it simultaneously vindicates those who claim to have been previously suppressed and makes people reticent to agree with you instead of compelling their agreement.

The sociocultural dominance of an ideology is self-sustaining when strong (perception of being the default --> nobody challenges --> stronger perception of being the default), and this reciprocal self-strengthening inverts into a spectacular meltdown once dominance is lost, since the tactics that formerly made it strong and became stronger with it now do the opposite.

Of course, the source of information is important in a serious debate, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and David Horowitz are not reliable sources of information about the left. Why would you think they are? And it's not my job to find reliable evidence to support your accusations. I made you a reasonable offer to provide links in your post to acceptable sources (you don't even have to change the information) and your refusal to do that suggests you can't find any. So, you have no case. That's your loss not mine.

A good question to ask oneself: if I insist that the world works in a particular way, what happens if someone decides to dislodge my worldview by using methods that, according to my worldview, don't actually work? If the mechanism used by my ideological enemies is non-existent according to my view of how the world works, then I'm in for a world of hurt.

My source is, as I keep repeating, a compilation of quotes and events derived from news articles, relevant websites, video clips, interviews, etc. It lists stuff people have said, documents that have been written, and events that have occurred. It contains little to no analysis. It isn't an op-ed. It stands to gain nothing and lose everything by making shit up.

If, as the logical consequence of your position, you will literally deny that person X said Y or that event Z took place in the real world on account of the fact that the source reporting on such things has political opinions you don't like, that's nuts, but also extremely tribal (Horowitz didn't actually write the articles, by the way; he pays others to research and publish information on the website). It also assumes that you are in possession of all the trustworthy sources. But you shouldn't need a peer reviewed journal confirming that a riot took place in Baltimore, for goodness' sake, so your position is absurd, not to mention fallacious (it commits the genetic fallacy).

Yawn. It's standard procedure to link to an unbiased source in any serious written debate that requires evidence to be analysed. That's the first step. I don't know if the information is correct or not and I'm not presuming it is or not. So, let's dispense with the strawmen. I'm asking you to link to a reliable source in your post because I'm not going to trawl through an obviously biased right wing site to try to find forward links to a reliable one.

I might dismantle some of that anyway as it's easy enough to do so, but your intransigence is silly. We should do this properly.

I see you're intent on doubling and tripling down on your logically fallacious and absurd stance. I'm done here.

Do you want me to explain the genetic fallacy to you before you run?