Y'know dude, that is a LOT of eroticism projected over some words and faceless random avatars.
She (how dare you misgender her!) absolutely is, actually. But seriously, I know you want to pretend everyone and every publication you disagree with "isn't credible", but you don't actually get to do that.
so that's usually a pretty dumb comment, but this time it didn't even make sense in context.
No, pretty sure his reading comp just sucked. And stop pretending you've ever read a word of the babylonbee.
I like when he writes about the cops using stingrays or just making shit up in general.
I mean it certainly is possible for a person to "doxx" themselves, tho the term usually isn't applied as such. Beyond that I'M not sure I understood your point.
Look, I know you don't read so good, but I was parodying your statement, and "private" and "personal" are different things. Not only is publishing your personal address doxxing, it is the quintessential example of it. And yes, it is almost always publicly available info! Still personal. Still very much "doxxing". Like if that isn't doxxing, nothing is. And the numbers on the tail are the exact same as the numbers on your mailbox, and tracking the tail in real time is exactly the same as providing your home address, for all the same reasons. I'd say you're making things up but you're not even doing that, you're pointing out things as if they matter somehow, but they don't.
DAFUQ? The Clinton campaign literally commissioned the thing ya dumb fuck And here I was responding to you seriously on the other post. My mistake.
technically, it was a parody, but still pretty close to what he was suggesting.
Oh, gawd, you're doing a "real communism has never been tried" thing. I assure you, the maoist reveolution was very, very communist. Stopped reading after that.
WaPo and CNN lie a lot more than NYP, and the NYT is a lot more biased. ;) (I don't know of any specific instance of the NYP lying, actually) It's credible, it's a perfectly valid source, you just don't like it, and I really couldn't give two shits. This is literally just you, a liberal, trying to ignore any and all conservative sources. Suck it, that's not how this works.
Hey, dumbass: 1) you're still attacking the source. I am not in any way obligated to provide a source you would prefer. I'm quite sure every source you prefer. NYT is known to have a liberal bias, so what? 2)I provided a source, a valid source, in fact. If I provide a different source, you'll just attack that one instead, and I am under no obligation to let you waste my time. Ultimately it's just a bunch of links back to the twitter files, anyway, so any objection over "bias" is even dumber than normal. Did you even read this thread at all? Guess not.
How many Proud boys (which damnit, makes me sound like I like them and I don't) burned down buildings during BLM riots? People actually died in those. Get fucked.
Again, not how it has always worked, not how it works now. ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing)
No no...it was only a light accusation of treason. Prosecutors do like to overcharge after all.
Bullshit. When presented with ironclad evidence (say the definition of Doxxing) you morons ignore it anyway.
It really isn't
I did explain
Yeah, fine, but also a reasonable reaction to a shithead calling people racist just cuz they disagree with them.
....you missed a logical step there. Try again.