This story is unavailable.

So we’ve gotten to the “prove it” step now. I’m done. If my attempts to respond to you and address your points have not proven that you yourself should take a closer look at the situation, no additional proof will suffice to advance this conversation. A few parting links:

I do understand that media outlets skew the news and present incomplete or misleading information on a regular basis. The only time I think violence is justified is in self-defense or the defense of those who are unable to defend themselves against a violent attack. There is too much fear being stirred up by feuding “informational” outlets. Presentation of an argument is only as good as the reliability of the evidence used to support it, and there is only so far I can go to verify certain media reports short of an educational grant to study them. Thus I leave this here. I do understand principles of propaganda, and I work on identifying them in what I read. It exists on both sides. I would never allow an inflammatory article to incite me to violence. There is too great a chance that they’re just trying to manipulate me. But there are certain values I hold that I will speak against, and if I think an idea is unfeasible as well as harmful (as in the partitioning of the US), I will say so.

Thanks again for the conversation. Also many thanks to Jeffrey Field for some of those links I found from his comments and posted above.

Like what you read? Give Betta Tryptophan a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.