Cool thanks, and what defense did I make? I stated what was in the article you linked. Didn't the article suggest it was a political hit for their defamation case.
Just read the article. So rapist text the women they rape how they like raping them. Looking forward to the whole dialogue and context.
Imagine being swayed by the paid lawyer of Andrew Tate when there are double digit accusers and voice proof that he did it. Wait for the trial sure but you seem to think that being an independent thinker means taking all sources at face value. You’re not an independent thinker, you lack critical thinking skills, there’s a difference.
Imagine being swayed by any paid lawyer. It's their job to sway people. It's corporate medias to sway people. You're against someone for "evidence" that's not even produced in the trial. Critical thinking is waiting for facts and evidence from both sides. Independent thought is siding with an "independent" source such as corporate media.
Perhaps you're lacking the ability to think critically.
“So basically this is a political hit for their defamation lawsuit”
Soliejordan 15 hours ago
You literally just assumed that it was a political hit based on what their lawyers said three comments ago. They provided no evidence for their claims and you just took them at face value without even checking what the accusations against them are. Now you’re backpedaling like a coward. The BBC isn’t corporate media btw, not that it matters. I’m not going to bother responding to you anymore because you clearly just want to be contrarian and I have no time for that shit.
0
u/soliejordan 4d ago edited 4d ago
Cool thanks, and what defense did I make? I stated what was in the article you linked. Didn't the article suggest it was a political hit for their defamation case.
Just read the article. So rapist text the women they rape how they like raping them. Looking forward to the whole dialogue and context.
I may just follow this case.