A retired Tennessee law enforcement officer was held in jail for more than a month this fall after police arrested him over a Facebook post of a meme related to the September assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Prosecutors eventually dropped the criminal charge brought against Larry Bushart, but his stint behind bars came to exemplify the country’s tense political and legal climate following the tragedy, when conservatives sought to stymie public discourse about the late controversial figure that it saw as objectionable.
Now, Bushart is suing over his incarceration.
If you think that this account is somehow a sock puppet of other users who disagree with you, you might have a problem. I certainly don’t secretly follow you around online just to disagree with everything you say. I also don’t have people gangstalk you or send people to knock at your door ominously.
For someone who doesn’t care about being called racist, you sure like imagining that people have called you racist. I did ask you to contemplate why you might be so eager to anticipate me calling you racist because this is only my third comment in this thread. Never before have I interacted with you.
I did ask you to reflect upon why some might consider your remarks racist. Clearly, introspection is not your strong suit, so I’ll help you out.
Pointing out the immoral violence against and enslavement of people based around race is not some “idiotic argument blissfully unaware of nuance.” Accepting the legalistic justification of the perpetrators of this racially-justified violence isn’t just some really cool property fact. It’s disgusting. It’s not some fascinating instance of moral subjectivity as you seemingly want to believe.
Are you also going to share other really cool and nuanced moral debates like how black people were actually once considered 3/5ths of a person or how the institution of slavery is a positive good to those subjugated under it?
Initially, I just thought that your argument came across as odd and tone deaf. Initially, I just thought that you were just overly eager to respond and weren’t paying attention to who you were responding to. Your responses are somehow so much worse than that.
There is no nice way to say this: it is generally delusional and psychotic that you somehow think I am someone who I am not. Quite honestly, if you think that me pointing out that your, at best, distasteful and minimizing argument towards the enslavement and brutality against black Americans is such a stupid argument lacking nuance, you might be a racist. There. I sad it. (For the first time to you, I might add. I’m sure you genuinely don’t care, though, despite straight up imagining that I’ve said things that I haven’t and that I’m someone who I am not.)
You’re like some gross creature writhing on the ground lashing out at anyone who dares get near.
In all seriousness, some constructive criticism: think about what you are communicating when you so strongly tout and advocate for the legalistic justification used by a racist institution to try to justify the enslavement of black Americans. Think about how you come across when you so unwaveringly beat people over the head with points that they haven’t even made.
I think idiots run in pairs, though it is fun you jump straight to sock puppet. The rest sounds like a personal paranoia you’re projecting onto me.
You literally implied I was a racist dude. Own up or shut up, at the very least don’t cry about it.
“Some” like you.
You had all that time and you still can’t point out where I said slavery is right, it the civil war didn’t involve slavery. That nuance I was taking about is the fact the federal government didn’t want to stop slavery they wanted to keep the union together Lincoln wrote about it at length some of which I’ve linked here.
Nope that’s again you implying I’m a racist.
You clearly don’t understand what I’m saying or you do and you’re simply trying to play white knight.
No one said that, you’re being paranoid. And again you’re calling me a racist.
Personal attacks rather then contrary evidence, how unsurprising.
For it to be constructive criticism you need to understand the contention and look at it without bias which is something you’re clearly wholely unable to do.