I think it's disingenuous for you to post "no, this is a lie, this isn't real" - and in response to people asking you to prove your statement, you respond with "well it's clearly coming from a place of bias, the title is biased so you can't trust it, they were looking for this result and they made sure they got it".
The group that put these figures forward was a centrist think-tank which came to this conclusion, and they put the results first because that's the most newsworthy aspect of the news.
You say it's clickbaity, but I would argue that "anti-fascists linked to zero murders in 20 years" is less clickbaity than "Scientists Tracked Antifa Murders Over 20 Years - The Results May Surprise You".
You feel like the news is fake. When you can't prove that this is the case, you call it biased and clickbaity. But the problem isn't with the figures or the news - it's with you.
I straight up proved it was fake. Not the report, I never said that was false because I don't know if it is and I'm not going to go through 26 years of terroism for it. Sorry I'm not. But the title is just false, and I gave a post that just straight up confirmed it was fake with the little blurb I mentioned above. If the title was more representative of the report, sure, but it wasn't.
Machete posted...
you pro-donald folks always care more about your feelings than you do about facts
ib4 "derrrrrrrrr im not pro-donald" followed by a bunch of transparent cliche buzz-speak bullshit
not to mention...
"This article is biased and the title is false" - a person who admits to having no interest in even reading the article
\_()_/
And then a couple of posts later, I did. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit lol.
And I'm not pro-trump. I hate the dude. But if you're going to throw out an article with a misleading title, at least don't link to sources that don't prove your title wrong, you know? ---
livingdeadrpg.proboards.com "And no I'm not signing your twitter after this type of attitude so don't ask..." - IIINCORRUPTIBLE