• Akip@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    while I don’t approve of the method, leaving this person basically stranded and without indictment. I want to differentiate that the person in question is not a good person

    links in German:

    https://taz.de/RT-nahes-Medium-Red/!6039623/

    https://archive.is/t60qm

    The person seems heavily bound with Russian desinformation, ties with RT, and foreign letterbox company, to circumvent sanctions. Then got caught in the consequences of the freezing of Russian assets after the Ukraine war.

    I doubt this person is as innocent as your meme makes them out to be so let’s differentiate please.

      • Akip@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think context as always matters when looking at things. Generalising things at seeking easy truths is when we leave out the nuances and these matter. Let’s focus for example on what I said vs what I didn’t say. I didn’t say a person exercising free speech is a problem, I said the person had ties with Russian state propaganda. Which I even explained with sources. Here are some more:

        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(Fernsehsender)#Ukraine_und_Syrien

        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_(Plattform)

        Your next point, after indicating generalizing all Germans are the same, was that I said this person(and all persons) doesn’t deserve human rights, vs what I actually said, they should have an indictment, where they would have a chance to appeal against.

        Your ad hominem fallacy tactics are childish.

        • Grapho@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If they said you’re a dipshit therefore you’re wrong, that’s ad hominem, that’s not what they said. You are wrong and don’t know what an ad hominem is, you dipshit.