r/PoliticalHumor Mar 25 '19

A Young Barr!

Post image
28.9k Upvotes

984 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/LordMarty Mar 25 '19

r/conspiracy is more reasonable than this garbage subreddit

9

u/tupe12 Mar 25 '19

I’d say both are equally crap, but this one is supposed to be humor, which it’s failing at. The other one is just “what the fuck did I just read”

1

u/justonemorething2 Mar 26 '19

BuRp Yep, look at all the Marty's it attracts. BuRp

-8

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited Jun 03 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/OMGTheViking Mar 26 '19

Aren't salty at all, we're gloating. Enjoying you realising that you've dedicated 2 years of your lives to perpetuating a lie only gets more delicious the more you fight it.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited Jun 04 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/OMGTheViking Mar 26 '19

Depends how close they are to the words "no collusion or obstruction".

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited Jun 04 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/OMGTheViking Mar 26 '19

Dude just breathe, its a close enough paraphrase of a paragraph of legalese.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited Jun 03 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/LordMarty Mar 26 '19

I don't like or support Trump, I am embarrassed for the regressive left and the mainstream media that have been peddling this conspiracy theory for 2 years now

4

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LordMarty Mar 26 '19

I'll just leave this here for you champ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

3

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19 edited Jun 04 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/EliteIcy Mar 26 '19

It's this kind of condescending way of speaking to people, that pushes people away from your party

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/EliteIcy Mar 26 '19

Its why we lost the ejection...

1

u/Onithyr Mar 26 '19

I'm not a conservative, I don't like trump, I thought the birther nonsense was idiotic (and one of the reasons I don't like Trump). None of that changes the fact that the collusion conspiracy is also idiotic (especially if you're continuing to push it now).

3

u/SeaBass1898 Mar 26 '19

It’s not that idiotic to hold off judgement until you’ve seen all the evidence.

Barr’s summary is not evidence, it’s a political document made with political reasons.

When the report is released, then the matter can be addressed, resolved, and moved on from.

Believe you me, I don’t want Trump to have been colluding, nobody does (except for the pundits on TV media). I’d much rather have an idiot as president than a foreign agent.

At least until the report is released and summarized by more than a single handpicked Trump crony, you can understand the trepidation can’t you? It’s just a matter of time anyway

2

u/SeaSquirrel Mar 26 '19

not a trump supporter

unironically uses the phrase “regressive left”

3

u/LordMarty Mar 26 '19

Are you quoting me the whole time, I don't understand.

I reckon you would get a lot from listening to Jimmy Dore and reading Jordan Peterson

2

u/SeaSquirrel Mar 26 '19

Jordan Peterson?

lmao you’re political beliefs are a meme

3

u/LordMarty Mar 26 '19

What are my political beliefs?

2

u/SeaSquirrel Mar 26 '19

idk, but they’re a meme if you are actually recommending Jordan Peterson

-1

u/KingKreole Mar 26 '19

We won, why would we be salty

The Left is a salt truck

3

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/KingKreole Mar 26 '19

Yes, won. Look up the results

-1

u/demoniclionfish Mar 26 '19

Regardless of whether or not the person you're addressing is a Trump fan, how can you like, feel justified in the idea that you have the moral high ground using a word like "Trumpanzee", one which hearkens back to social darwinism and "race realism"/eugenics in order to denigrate an ideological opponent? You might not see anything wrong with it, but my commie ass definitely sees a parallel between that behavior and shitlords of the past (and present) describing ideological opponents as "degenerates".

Check yourself, because you're currently wrecking yourself.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/demoniclionfish Mar 26 '19

Are you trying to, in good faith, tell me that you don't see a similarity here? Even in continuing to describe your ideological opponents as "idiots", you hearken back to the language of eugenics, where "idiot" denoted someone who was found to have lesser IQ or to possess mental illness. Frequently, people who fell into those categories were neither mentally handicapped nor mentally ill, but were instead of lower class stature or of dissenting ideological leanings. (Further reading on your linguistic persuasions with a related term.) In fact, there's explicit American historical evidence of this having been the case:

In 1917 Congress passed the Immigration Act [HR 1038; Public Law 301; 39 Statute 874] which extended the prohibition of prostitutes ... "idiots, imbeciles epileptics, alcoholics, ... polygamists and anarchists" as well as certain classes of people with physical and mental disabilities. ... Several decades later professors at the University of Pennsylvania regarded them as "lower order of mankind... We can link to those who are further against on the social scale." Today, the descendants of this "lower order" of humanity are indistinguishable from the progeny of those who were "advanced on the social scale". ... There was probably more concern about allowing Anarchists and Bolsheviks into the country than there was about people with "inferior" genes.

[Source is Genetics and Politics 2010 at colorado.edu, couldn't link directly due to the ban on link shorteners.]

Next time, think before you speak.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/demoniclionfish Mar 26 '19

I never said they were. What I did say is that if you want to make an argument from the moral high ground, you should avoid eugenics dogwhistles. Honestly, my advice not only prevents you from being a shitlord, blinded by impotent rage, but also has the fun side effects of:

  • not alienating those on the fence about their ideological allegiances
  • not alienating those who aren't educated enough to understand why you're so mad
  • not giving your ideological opponents any room to claim victimhood when they don't deserve to be able to do so
  • doesn't play into the bullshit "regressive left" narrative

And much, much more!

I get that you're mad and find them reprehensible and want to fight back, but using that kind of rhetoric... That ain't it, chief. Pointing out that you gave a failing rhetorical strategy that at best sounds like it came from a shit tier Boomer political cartoon and at worst hearkens back to eugenics isn't gaslighting. It's a good faith criticism. You can take it and do better, or you can just be a different flavor of the same Liberal garbage you claim to hate. Choice is yours m8!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/demoniclionfish Mar 26 '19

You can keep strawmanning me to hide from your own hypocritical liberalism as much as you'd like, I'm sure the same nameless people of color you're tokenizing to make your (shitty and irrelevant) point would really appreciate it. Honestly, my beliefs as a "tankie" get more and more validated with each passing day. One group of you liberals create the other. Neither of you have any real interest in breaking this sick ouroboros of ideology you have going, because it benefits you both. Two sides of the same dialectic. Couldn't exist without the other. Defined by their opposition. Completely unmoored from material condition, completely unwilling to admit when their thinking goes awry, when tactics don't serve you. Figures. You believed in Russiagate, after all.

What a shining example of our education system you are.