Discussions about this are known to complain there is nothing “concrete” pointing to Mangione’s guilt. Not unfair on its own, I guess. But then the people in these discussions do a 180 when other people are being talked about who they are more inclined to dislike. Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.
We aren’t in your head. We can’t make these connections you’re seeing without more information. Please take the time to write out your thoughts and consider using examples.
Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but allegations of murder must be substantiated with evidence, otherwise they can be libel.
I don’t think anybody on any Lemmy instance has evidence to prove things one way or another.
You can believe he is guilty, but please make it clear that is your belief. It would be a pretty widely shared belief as well. But to claim something so insignificant as concrete evidence of guilt during an active trial is idiotic.
Discussions about this are known to complain there is nothing “concrete” pointing to Mangione’s guilt. Not unfair on its own, I guess. But then the people in these discussions do a 180 when other people are being talked about who they are more inclined to dislike. Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.
We aren’t in your head. We can’t make these connections you’re seeing without more information. Please take the time to write out your thoughts and consider using examples.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, but allegations of murder must be substantiated with evidence, otherwise they can be libel.
I don’t think anybody on any Lemmy instance has evidence to prove things one way or another.
You can believe he is guilty, but please make it clear that is your belief. It would be a pretty widely shared belief as well. But to claim something so insignificant as concrete evidence of guilt during an active trial is idiotic.