The fact that only those who have African textured hair can grow it into locs without any manipulation or styling if they want to does not make the hairstyle immutable. Even you yourself use the phrase “if they want to” in reference to those who choose to style / let it grow it that way.

Oh, how special for you. Do you feel appeased? Is the boo-boo fixed? Day.

The photo was not of the kid’s actual gun.

No its not, and I made no argument about how the electoral college system works - but I’m glad to see you’re still missing the point!

You missed quite a bit, and I’ll talk to you however I so choose.

As Cali/NY-centric as I agree the (formerly-) Gawker Media writers to be, the ‘coastal vs. flyover’ comparison is a common, long-standing one that does not imply only California and New York.

I read the story, thanks. The implication here is that middle-America leans towards racism (and as a result, would largely vote Trump) more so than coastal America.

Um, not everyone who lives on the coasts lives in New York or California, but sure.

You replied to me specifically to argue against something I never said, knowing that I never said that thing, ultimately acknowledging the fact that you know that I never said that thing - then tried to blame me for your own lack of reading comprehension skills, argued with me based on your own completely unreasonable…

“Putney said in a press conference earlier today that the video does not“definitively” show Scott holding a weapon. Despite the “definitive” lack of weapon, police maintain that Scott ignored commands to drop his weapon.”
“It feels patently ridiculous to suggest that a person drop something they supposedly weren’t…

“By assuming...”

“You are of course correct in that you don’t yourself state that any rights are being violated”

Supporting your assertion with nothing but “Yuh-huh!” is lazy and wholly unconvincing. Your argument went from asserting that they presented their theories and opinion as fact (without your being able to back that assertion up) to complaining that they presented their theories and opinions in a way that some may find…

Again, if you can provide a link to the transcript and quote the sections (with reference to their specific locations in the transcript) where they present their theories and opinions as fact, I’d be happy to read it. Otherwise, your argument amounts to nothing but “Yuh-huh!”, and I really have no interest in reading…

Dude, nobody claimed that Burke murdered his sister.

“Your unassailable logic has me there. It’s virtually impossible to argue with the subtle brilliance of “Nuh-uh!””

“It was not “clearly presented as opinion, and not fact”.”

“Of course not every situation, technology, etc. is listed in the Constitution”

“Please point to even a single spot in the Constitution that could be construed as protecting a police officer from having the video of them illegally murdering someone being released to the public?”

Where did I say any constitutional right is being violated?