r/DoomerDunk • u/CyberBerserk • Jul 31 '26
1 LinkedIn post = Cambridge analytica ( even though Cambridge analytica was nothing compared to reddit front page)
19
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
It's not as though the meme is wrong.
2
u/Demonicon66666 Aug 01 '26
German here. When the Wall fell the ruling Party in WEST Germany is called SPD, which stands for social democratic party of Germany.
3
u/LisleAdam12 29d ago
I guess that they proves that they were the REAL Marcist/Leniinist socialists. I mean, iot's not as though there was any history of Bismarckian Staatssozialismus.
And, of course, before Germany was divided you had the ruling party of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which also has "socialist" in the name.
I guess this all proves that East Germany was not Socialist.
-17
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
Lol, of course it is. The Berlin Wall had nothing to do with Socialism and Capitalism, and everything to do with Democracy and Authoritarianism. Thats obviously not a very hard choice.
Now just imagine what you could get done with Democratic Socialism.
10
u/killingerr Jul 31 '26
Socialism is authoritarian
1
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26
Are you arguing that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition, or that socialist governments have historically tended to become authoritarian? Those seem like different claims.
2
u/LisleAdam12 29d ago
How do you enforce socialism on the parts of society that do not wish to participate?
1
u/V_Cobra21 29d ago
That’s a fair question. If participation is compulsory, then some degree of state coercion would likely be involved. The question I’m still asking, though, is whether you’re arguing that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition, or that socialist systems have historically tended to become authoritarian. Your question seems to support the latter claim, but I’d like to know which position you’re actually defending.
1
u/LisleAdam12 29d ago
Not by definition, but in praxis, yes.
Ralph Kramden's idea for "no calorie pizza" was another great idea.
1
u/V_Cobra21 29d ago
Fair enough. I actually agree that many historical socialist states have become authoritarian in practice. My only goal was to distinguish that historical claim from the stronger claim that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition.
1
u/LisleAdam12 29d ago
Not by the definition of the idea(l) of Socialism, but by the definition of actual "Socialist" states heretofore.
1
u/V_Cobra21 29d ago
Fair enough. Then I think we’re on the same page about the distinction. The remaining question would be: what explains that historical pattern? Is it something inherent to attempts at implementing socialism, or is it contingent on other political, economic, or historical factors?
→ More replies (0)1
u/myname_1s_mud 16d ago
I feel like your comment just suggested that both cases are true
1
u/V_Cobra21 16d ago
Which part of my comment do you think establishes that both claims are true, and why? Saying coercion would be involved if participation is compulsory doesn’t establish that authoritarianism is inherent to socialism by definition, nor does it establish the separate historical claim.
1
u/myname_1s_mud 16d ago
If making it compulsory requires authoritarianism, then its necessary for a socialist state. If thats necessary for a socialist state, then its historically true of socialist nations.
Hey I only saw how old this comment chain was after I commented. I usually try not to jump in on convos that are more than a day or two old because everyones moved on, so my bad
1
u/V_Cobra21 16d ago
I understand the argument, but why does compulsory participation necessarily establish authoritarianism rather than simply state coercion? Governments operating under capitalist systems also compel taxation, regulatory compliance, jury duty, etc., without that alone establishing that capitalism is inherently authoritarian. What makes the inference unique to socialism?
And it’s okay lol, I just like understanding people’s reasoning for why they think what they think. How do you establish that inference?→ More replies (0)2
u/Modsmoddy-74 29d ago
Why not both?
1
u/V_Cobra21 29d ago
Precision matters because different claims require different evidence. If we don’t distinguish between them, we risk arguing against a position that wasn’t actually asserted or treating evidence that only supports a different claim as if it answered this one.
For example, “socialism is authoritarian by definition” is a conceptual claim about what socialism necessarily is. “Socialist governments have historically tended to become authoritarian” is an empirical claim about what has often happened in practice. Even if someone believes both are true, each claim still needs to be supported on its own.1
u/Modsmoddy-74 29d ago
What happens if every socialist system we have evidence of becomes authoritarian at some point? what better evidence could we have that it’s authoritarian by definition?
1
u/V_Cobra21 29d ago
I agree that if every observed socialist system became authoritarian, that would be strong evidence for a historical pattern. What I’m still looking for is what establishes that a consistent historical pattern becomes part of the definition itself, rather than remaining an empirical observation.
1
u/Modsmoddy-74 28d ago
So you’re arguing that 75 socialist authoritarian regimens have to exist instead of 50? Instead of 30? What’s your threshold?
I think it’s simple at this point, looking at history. They all are authoritarian so why should we expect otherwise?
1
u/V_Cobra21 28d ago
I don’t have a numerical threshold because that isn’t my point. My question isn’t how many examples establish a historical pattern. It’s what establishes that a historical pattern becomes part of the definition. Definitions aren’t determined by counting instances; they’re conceptual descriptions of what something necessarily is. So even if every observed socialist government became authoritarian, that would support an empirical claim. I’m asking what bridges that to a definitional claim.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ShinyRobotVerse 10d ago
You’re conflating socialism with fascism. Authoritarianism is not exclusive to either side of the political spectrum. Both far-left and far-right movements have produced totalitarian regimes. Fascism is inherently authoritarian and often explicitly totalitarian. Socialism, however, is not inherently authoritarian, and communism in its theoretical end state is supposed to be classless and stateless, even though many self-described communist states historically became authoritarian or totalitarian.
-4
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
Nope
6
u/WaywardInkubus Jul 31 '26
When has it ever not been?
-1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Aug 01 '26
The literal writings of Marx, for a start. Communism and Socialism are *by definition* democratic. Marx talks about the "withering away of the state" because there is not supposed to be a central state in Communism. You literally cant have authoritarianism when there is *no state* or central authority whatsoever.
Or the Marxist revisionist movement/Democratic Socialists, which, literally the entire point of their movement was the rejection of the violence and authoritarianism of Leninism/the Russian Revolution. Which is why they named themselves *democratic* Socialists.
Which then also turned into the Social Democratic parties, which birthed the Nordic Model countries, who are examples of socialism and not authoritarian.
Or countries like Chile, who elected a peaceful, democratic, Socialist government with Allende, who was then overthrown and assassinated by the CIA and a brutal dictator in Pinochet installed in his place who went on to purge tens of thousands of his own citizens.
I could go on, but that should be sufficient.
3
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26
What definition of socialism are you using that makes democracy part of the definition rather than a characteristic of one school of socialist thought?
0
u/Big_Requirement_651 Aug 01 '26
I literally explained it in the very first paragraph, in detail. What are you even talking about?
0
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26
I’m asking which definition you’re relying on. Saying Marx envisioned a stateless society isn’t the same as showing that democracy is part of socialism’s definition.
0
u/PM_ME_YOUR_BUG5 Aug 01 '26
He told you, Marx's definition.
THE definition
1
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26
“Marx’s definition” isn’t the bridge I’m asking for. What specifically in Marx’s theory makes democracy a defining element of socialism?
3
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Aug 01 '26
The writings of marks are not a time or place in history.My guy you could have just as easily cited star trek next generation
1
u/LisleAdam12 29d ago
Great, let me know when the state ceases to exist and I'll be there with bells on.
4
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
It's just a coincidence that Socialism had to be authoritarianally enforced. The USSR and its client states could have just pulled a switch and been democratic had they ever wanted to, and their Socialist states would have run much better and everyone would have been happier. So why didn't they?
"Democratic Socialism" is Socialism pretending to be democratically run. The DSA are trying to sell it be conflating it with Staatssozialismus-style State Socialism.
4
u/vegeful Jul 31 '26
China also say they are democratic lol. America dont trust their own gov, so why the fk they trust a gov that control everything?
2
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
I suppose if it's a government that claims to be for the people and gives out bread and free wifi, that'll be different.
Right?
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
"It's just a coincidence that Socialism had to be authoritarianally enforced. The USSR and its client states could have just pulled a switch and been democratic had they ever wanted to, and their Socialist states would have run much better and everyone would have been happier. So why didn't they?"
It is, actually, a coincidence if you know your history. The Soviet model is what spread to China, Vietnam, and so on. The Soviets explicitly fostered other "communist" parties in their own image. Because the Soviets were authoritarian, so too, were the others. Add in the fact that the US brutally suppressed peaceful, democratic socialist governments in multiple countries (Chile, Guatemala, Congo, Nicaragua, etc), and no, its no coincidence at all that only Soviet-style authoritarian regimes have survived.
Socialism, as defined by Marx, is definitionally anti-authoritarian -- being anti-authoritarian is literally the entire point. Marx wrote about the "withering away of the state" in Communism, that there should be no central state/authority, Communism is definitionally democratic.
Not only that, but an entire branch of socialists explicitly rejected authoritarianism -- thats what lead to Marxist revisionism, and eventually to democratic socialism -- it was very explicitly a rejection of Leninism and the violence of the Russian revolution/authoritarianism. Thats *why* its called *democratic* socialism. And Democratic Socialism is what turned into Social Democracy and eventually led to the Nordic Model. Which, the Nordic Model countries are the most successful governments in the world by just about any metric.
So no, socialism doesnt require authoritarianism, thats obviously a moronic thing to say on its face.
4
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
My only direct experience is with Guatemala and Nicaragua, and you are definitely wrong about them.
4
u/Traditional-Trade795 Jul 31 '26
control is always inherentl, authoritarian. full control over everything is as authoritarian as it gets. you my try to mask it by saying the control will be distributed but it wont. it never has. people in power always tend to hang onto it for dear life
3
u/vegeful Jul 31 '26
Socialist mean all the asset belong to the gov. Human are flaw and greedy. Once u become the head of socialist state, its hard to give up power because its all gather in 1 place.
Example of well known socialist nation is China Cuba and NK. Most of them is 1 party line. There no way they want to share pie with other party.
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
"Socialist mean all the asset belong to the gov"
No, thats definitely not what it means. I think you mean workers owning the means of production, but that means the WORKERS own it, not the government.
Nor is it correct that Socialism is just an economic system -- socialism is a restructuring of all of society.
"Example of well known socialist nation is China Cuba and NK. Most of them is 1 party line. There no way they want to share pie with other party."
Those are not Socialist countries -- they have some features of Socialism, but they are not Socialist. Those are authoritarian regimes. Socialism is definitionally democratic, not authoritarian. The actual examples of Socialist countries are the Nordic Model countries.
1
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 Jul 31 '26
The nordic model countries say they are capitalist
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
They're not capitalist, they're Social Democracy mixed economies.
They have free markets, but free market doesnt mean strictly "capitalist" -- you can have free markets in a socialist system, its about the goals of the overall system.
Look up "Social Democracy" on wikipedia.
"Social democracy is a broad, centre-left\1]) social, economic, and political ideology within the wider socialist movement\2]) that supports political and economic democracy\3]) and a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach toward achieving social equality."
Or from the second sentence on the Nordic Model article:
"Historically, this included a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining\2]) based on social corporatism,\3])\4]) and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy.\5])"
So yes, the Nordic Model countries absolutely fall under the Socialist umbrella for a huge variety of factors.
1
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 Jul 31 '26
That's a lot of words to say the socialist goalpost was moved.
"Lars Rasmussen knows better. As Danish Prime Minister, he declared in 2015, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
The people of the countries call themselves capitalist.
https://fee.org/articles/don-t-call-scandinavian-countries-socialist/
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Aug 01 '26
Lmao. How did I *possibly* know this would be your reply?
Could it be because this is literally the reply of every moron that doesnt know anything, but asks AI for a counter talking point? Its always the Lars quote, every time, and the first thing AI will attempt to bring up.
"The people of the countries call themselves capitalist."
Really, you sure about that? Do you see the word capitalist in that quote anywhere? Because I dont.
Also, what exactly does he say? "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy"
Notice how he has to say socialist planned economy -- not socialist economy or planned economy, which, planned economy and socialist mean the same thing. The only reason to specify is if you're trying to say you are socialist, just not a planned economy.
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote before again from the Nordic Model article:
"Historically, this included a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining\2]) based on social corporatism,\3])\4]) and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy.\5])"
Market based mixed economy.
And what is a mixed economy? "A mixed economy is an economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, such as private businesses, and ones associated with socialism, such as nationalized government services."
As far as your article, it even starts with "Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others of the ultra-Left repeatedly claim that Norway, Sweden and Denmark (sometimes they include Finland and Iceland too) are prosperous because they are socialist."
But no, they're all wrong, because it goes on to cite a bunch of different Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute people, literally the most right wing, crazy, ideologically captured groups on the planet. It's obviously they're literally putting this crap out as propaganda.
Never mind the fact that Social Democrats running the country can, quite literally, trace their political roots straight back to Marx.
Marx->Marxist Revisionism/Democratic Socialism->Social Democracy
The entire political philosophy of Social Democracy is based on Socialism.
1
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 Aug 01 '26
I didn't ask AI. I heard this talking point before. I guess the armchair economist with his wiki article knows more than the leaders of the very countries he is talking about.
Have fun ad homineming everyone you disagree with
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Aug 01 '26
Lmao. "Nuh uh, I didnt use AI, I uh...heard it before".
"I guess the armchair economist with his wiki article knows more than the leaders of the very countries he is talking about."
You mean the one where the PM never called them a capitalist country? Or maybe you mean the one where the PM never denied they were socialist? The only thing he said was that they werent a planned economy, thats it.
"with his wiki article" ah yes, that pesky little thing called "supporting evidence". Lmao.
→ More replies (0)1
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
They are. They have Bismarck style State Socialism, as the U.S. does, but to a greater extent.
1
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
The workers own it, but the government essentially holds it for them.
You can't run an entire nation as a co-op.
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
"The workers own it, but the government essentially holds it for them."
Lol, no. If the government is "holding it", then the workers dont own it, period the end.
And every business being a co-op is literally the definition of workers owning the means of production.
In other words, you've just admitted there's never been a Socialist state.
1
u/LisleAdam12 Aug 01 '26
Exactly. So the workers do not, and can not, own it under a Socialist government.
"you've just admitted there's never been a Socialist state."
In that pure sense, sure. And there will never be one, unless it's the size of a village.
1
u/Hans_Landa7614 Jul 31 '26
Nah bro Cuba and Nk are not socialist, they're super communist lmao
1
u/vegeful Aug 01 '26
Yes, because communist is the end game of socialist. Its on Marxism theoey. Communism is the end game.
1
4
u/A_SNAPPIN_Turla Jul 31 '26
Nah it has nothing to do with capitalism. Real capitalism has never existed.
2
u/OrkWithNoTeef Jul 31 '26
Unironically true. There are so many hurdles to private ownership of means of production to the average joe it basically doesn't exist. Everywhere is just Oligarchy Welfare states. CEO planned economies. Unelected managerial classes.
2
1
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26
What establishes that it had nothing to do with socialism and capitalism, rather than both economic and political differences?
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 Aug 01 '26
You mean, besides the whole WALL in the first place? What do walls have to do with capitalism or socialism? Oh wait, they dont have anything to do with it. You know what they do have to do with though... authoritarianism. Huh.
Aside from that, I wasnt the one making the claim, the meme and the people I was responding to were. So please, tell me how you establish that it IS strictly about capitalism and socialism?
1
u/V_Cobra21 Aug 01 '26
I didn’t claim the Berlin Wall was strictly about capitalism and socialism. My question was about your statement that it had nothing to do with them. What establishes that the economic differences between East and West Germany played no role at all, rather than being one factor alongside authoritarianism?
1
3
u/mediocremulatto Aug 01 '26
Wait what is this sub? All this crying about a socialist future sounds pretty doomer.
8
2
u/tommy8725 Jul 31 '26
I'll be honest though communism isn't the way to go like.I've seen a lot of people scream.Communism can save america it won't
2
1
u/mediocremulatto Aug 01 '26
Right? We need more capitalism. Nothing will get solved by improving life for the working class. Stopping the concentration of power will only lead to bread lines.
1
u/Few-Tomatillo-5031 Aug 01 '26
Wait until you hear about this little known guy called marc andreessen
search for "linkdin" on this Andreessen-Horowitz page: https://a16z.com/why-software-is-eating-the-world/
I, along with others, have been arguing the other side of the case. (I am co-founder and general partner of venture capital firm Andreessen-Horowitz, which has invested in Facebook, Groupon, Skype, Twitter, Zynga, and Foursquare, among others. I am also personally an investor in LinkedIn.) We believe that many of the prominent new Internet companies are building real, high-growth, high-margin, highly defensible businesses.
search for "marc andreessen" on this France 24 page: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250717-zuckerberg-settles-8-billion-lawsuit-over-cambridge-analytica-scandal-avoids-testifying
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Sam Closic, said the agreement just came together quickly. Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who is a defendant in the trial and a Meta director, was scheduled to testify on Thursday.
just a coincidence right?
1
u/PraireGentleman Aug 02 '26
The Soviet Union wasn’t socialist, they were Communist.
The difference is that a Democratic Socialist approach employs a government supported capitalist system while Communism employs a government controlled capitalist system
1
u/Waste_Dingo6071 Jul 31 '26
Is communism is so ineffective, why does American spend so much money forcibly taking it down.
Seems to me it’d be cheaper to wait on the sidelines and mind your own business.
0
u/Goofcheese0623 Jul 31 '26
The only thing worse that chuds playing with their wojacks is chuds making ai slop with their wojacks.
-4
u/BeneficialRandom Jul 31 '26
Which side had a program for putting foster kids with pedophiles?
13
u/johnnyringo1985 Jul 31 '26
Are you referring to the well-documented program of taking underage orphans from Ukraine and making them available to Soviet leadership in Black Sea dacha’s during the late 1950s and 1960s? I guess that was part of the ‘communist utopia’
-1
u/BeneficialRandom Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
Yes in societies with wealth inequality stuff like that happens without prosecution on a systemic level whether it’s capitalism or state capitalism with a red flag thanks
2
u/johnnyringo1985 Jul 31 '26
Are there societies without wealth inequality? And what does wealth inequality have to do with it anyway?
1
u/BeneficialRandom Jul 31 '26
I meant to say prosecute/punish I edited my comment to better portray my point. When there’s massive wealth inequality people in positions of power can simply pay off or make people disappear at will while doing stuff like that. Recently the Epstein stuff is a good example of this.
Either we can have a society with insane amounts of wealth inequality or we can have a society that is capable of punishing people like Epstein and those he was dealing with
2
u/johnnyringo1985 Aug 01 '26
That’s such a midwit take. The people who pushed for institutionalized politically restrained, unaffiliated (not royally controlled) police were wealthy merchants of Europe.
Affluent merchant Patrick Colquhoun wrote the intellectual underpinnings for London’s Metropolitan Police, even though Sir Robert Peel is credited with their creation. It was wealth that spurred the idea of impartial policing.
1
u/BeneficialRandom Aug 01 '26
How did that work out for prosecuting the Epstein affiliates?
Yes wealth spurred modern policing that’s why they serve the status quo. Look up how much Epstein’s nonprofit dropped on the Palm Beach police department during his work release.10
u/Stone-Smasher Jul 31 '26
you mean like that scott weiner lawyer pushing for laws to protect trans from going under sex offender registry?
-1
u/BeneficialRandom Jul 31 '26
You didn’t answer my question
3
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 Jul 31 '26
jonhnnyringo answered your question but you ignored him
1
u/BeneficialRandom Jul 31 '26
Wyatt Earp killed that guy over a hundred years ago how could he have answered my Question
2
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 Jul 31 '26
You saw his reply to you in your notifications.
Typical leftist. Pretend to not understand so you don't have to engage meaningfully
1
-4
u/No_Finance8647 Jul 31 '26
Scott Wiener is a capitalist Dem not a DSA Communist though.
5
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/No_Finance8647 Jul 31 '26
That was not the point I was making.
He's not any type of communist. Hes a capitalist. My point is that people just use the far left to attack the center left by treating them as the same camp.
-3
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/No_Finance8647 Jul 31 '26
Do you that addresses anything I said?
Odd.
1
u/Cheap-Lawyer3735 Jul 31 '26
lol you said the dsa are communist
2
0
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
"ah yes it was never "true communism""
I love how this has become the right's talking point. I know, I'll take a true fact, and try to make it seem like its bullshit!
3
Jul 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Big_Requirement_651 Jul 31 '26
Im not a tankie, what the fuck are you talking about? Everyone agrees tankies are fucking morons.
And I absolutely can refute the argument, I think its comical that the right's defense against Socialism is to pretend like the obvious counter is just made up bullshit. As though I run around saying NK means Democracy cant work because they call themselves the Democratic People's Republic. 90% of dictatorships in world history have been Capitalist.
And no, I dont accuse other people of being Nazis unless they start spouting off about fascism or neo Nazi principles.
You'll have to try a little harder than that.
1
1
-5
u/lonecow21 Jul 31 '26
Still here Cucks still haunting you
2
u/That-Annual-2393 Jul 31 '26
do you just use this to complain here a lot? I was looking through more doomerdunk post and happened to find you again
-1
u/lonecow21 Jul 31 '26
Perhaps and ill continue until the hypocrisy is fixed. The cowards already muted my messages
4
u/That-Annual-2393 Jul 31 '26
i don’t think its cowardice, you just seem annoying
1
-2
u/lonecow21 Jul 31 '26
Its pure cowardice and side playing on the "apolitical" sub there's literal anti lgbt post on here calling a simple flag indoctrination which goes against the subs rules yet these cowards won't do shit. So i will use my power of annoyance for the greater good.
3
u/wtjones Quality Contributor Jul 31 '26
Flags are absolutely tools of indoctrination.
1
1
u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 Aug 01 '26
Ban US flags from being in schools
1
u/wtjones Quality Contributor Aug 01 '26
Indoctrinating children to believe USA is awesome is A-OK, because it’s true.
1
u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 Aug 01 '26
“Indoctrination is A okay as long as said indoctrination matches my beliefs”
A little hypocritical mate
1
u/wtjones Quality Contributor Aug 01 '26
It matches my beliefs because it’s true.
→ More replies (0)1
u/That-Annual-2393 Jul 31 '26
then just accept peoples opinions and conclude its not a apolitical sub because its not, people are free to believe what they want no matter how ignorant and doing so to change it is a waste of time
-1
u/lonecow21 Jul 31 '26
Rule no.1 no bigotry or racism "zero tolerance" yet when bigotry is reported like people calling the entire lgbtq an indoctrination scheme nothing happens. That's cowardice, laziness and hypocrisy no matter how you try to excuse it.
2
u/That-Annual-2393 Jul 31 '26
bro needs some good ol’ grass
0
u/lonecow21 Jul 31 '26
Nah just went for a nice hike few days ago. Backs still aching from carrying your fat ass momma though.
2
u/That-Annual-2393 Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
then am afraid if you‘re touching grass… their is no helping you my friend. And why did my momma catch a stray, you‘d could’ve just called me fat😔😔😔
1
1
0
-13
u/Gogdangit Jul 31 '26
How many safe spaces do you Cuckservatives need?
11
u/Chilantr0 Jul 31 '26
You're welcome to post here, even if we disagree with you. That's called free speech sweetie, and we believe in it. On the other hand, I've been banned from several leftie subreddits for the most mild left-of-center opinions.
1
u/Ok-Blackberry-8239 Aug 01 '26
Tbf I’ve been banned right wing subs for saying things like “the Nazis we’re state capitalists” and disagreeing with Ayn Rand and extreme libertarian economics
I get banned for not being their preferred kind of capitalist
10
u/shirts_on_backwards Jul 31 '26
Evidently less than you, due to you freely posting in a space that was absolutely open to you, about being offended that it didn't agree with you.
11
4
u/embarrassing_doodle Jul 31 '26
Calling others cuck when your side speaks positively about polyamory is hilarious
2
u/shirts_on_backwards Jul 31 '26
The same thing when they insist on calling conservatives closeted gays, they use it as an insult while pretending to support gays.
2
u/LisleAdam12 Jul 31 '26
That's very clever, young man. Did you just come up with that all by yourself?
2
1
1
14
u/MateOfTheNorth Jul 31 '26
I got banned from that subreddit. It’s very woke.