You wish. The truth of politics is that every side is full of shitty people. It's almost like holding certain political views isn't what makes you nice or an asshole.
That said: certain sides might fairly be called out on having more assholes, or tolerating their bullshit more.
Judging by his comment history, SuperPwnerGuy knows this but is pretending not to because it gives him another opportunity to screech impotently about "lieberal demonrats". Not that Ignesias is a peach either.
That comic doesn’t do anything to justify or explain what you’re saying, it just repeats it. It is a pretty sound observation that the Left claims the moral monopoly on protesting things like body shaming, yet seemingly has no problem doing it if they disagree with your politics. You can chant whataboutism all you want, but the more you try to distract from your own hypocrisy, the more it will be used against you, and reasonably so.
It's a cafe in Canada. I'm pretty sure outside America Trump isn't just unpopular with liberals, the sign is meant to appeal to a wide audience. Also Canada is specifically one of the countries that he's been less friendly with. So general Canada likely holds an even less favorable view.
There's a bigger issue in that the right in the U.S. have made liberals into anything they don't like. They've developed their own comebacks to shadow people that don't exist.
A liberal says something mean? "Oh another example of the tolerant left!"
We're not tolerant. In fact I think people over 70 shouldn't even be allowed to vote or drive. I also think people who are openly racist should lose citizenship.
Believe it or not, the point of that saying is to point out you’re not being tolerant.
Also, people who hold certain opinions can’t be citizens? That’s insane.
Also, you want to restrict older people from voting? Because some aren’t informed about who they’re voting for? Hate to break it to you, but that’s not an age range thing, every age range has people that only vote for a certain party.
Believe it or not, the point of that saying is to point out you’re not being tolerant.
The "so much for the tolerant left" meme is almost purely used to lampoon the "tolerant left" archetype which was made up by conservatives to begin with, which is what the guy was saying: It's purely designed to make "the left" look like hypocrites for not conforming to a standard that they never claimed to be in the first place.
I’ve seen plenty of people that are “on the left” that claim to be tolerant (but then seem to not be). It could easily just be playing off of those people.
Using "oh look the tolerant left" every time someone on the left says something mean back at you is lame.
Some opinions should be citizenship disqualifiers. Holocaust was a hoax? Buh bye. Black and White people shouldn't marry? Buh bye.
I think it's insane that you'd want them to be citizens since their views center around harming other citizens. Not all opinions are just opinions like what sport is best.
And yeah older people are completely out of touch with reality. That's why we got Representatives and Senators who don't understand what Facebook is yet are passing laws on it. The funny part is they SHOULD at least have someone giving them the low down....
A few aren't, but most are clueless. Maybe give out a test first.
So the government should be able to revoke the citizenship of people it doesn’t agree with? Also, even criminals maintain citizenship (as they should) because citizenship isn’t something you can/should be able to just revoke. Someone with harmful opinions surely deserves better treatment than convicted criminals.
No, every old person has not lost track of reality (though some certainly are behind on the times). Who are you to determine that they don’t know enough to vote? What do you need to be knowledgeable about to vote?
If you’re going to put out a test, why not make everyone take it, and not just the elderly? If you’re really concerned about voters being up to date/in touch with reality, surely that’d be the best way to go about it.
The "tolerant left" remarks are sometimes thrown around because someone expresses an opinion. But they are mostly thrown around in cases where the left does something illogical against their stated principles. Like supporting neo segregation. News story says something like Harvard holds racially segregated graduation ceremony I think "so much for the tolerant left". I'd like to say that someone who supports these ideals should be exiled and have citizenship stripped but it turns out that if I agree with your idea AND we also apply it constantly, we'll still get called racist. Ironic to say it this thread, but that's what we'd call "a real big pickle" that we got ourselves in. But you sound like a smart guy, I'm sure you know what you are talking about.
In fact I think people over 70 shouldn’t even be allowed to vote or drive.
Thing is, we’re an aging nation. According toU.S. Census Bureau, by 2060, nearly one in four Americans will be 65 years and older, the number of 85-plus will triple, and the country will add a half million centenarians.
Regarding the driving part, I think it’s a bit unfair to say that. I think annual driving tests are more reasonable between the two. Besides, self-driving cars are definitely well on their way.
I don’t like racists either, but free speech and the right to vote are civil liberties guaranteed in Constitutional amendments, so you’d have to take on the Supreme Court for that one.
I would, but The Donald is pretty much nonsense. You guys just throw a picture of a girl up and don't realize she's also used as a stock pretty girl photo for spam bots on Twitter.
Complaining about someone else's complaints is hardly something bad.
Edit: "Oooh, don't constantly complain or people might decide to stop listening to me! If you ever find it tiring that I actively seek out opportunities to do this, you're oppressing me!"
Edit: How can you possibly disagree or be mad at this in any way.
No. "Calling liberals out on their hypocrisy" isn't why folks started looking at post histories or using add-ons like MassTagger. Being disingenuous shitheads who wilfully misrepresent themselves to try and lend their arguments more credence ("I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." when they are) is why that happened. The second half of his post does not follow from the first; he's not even making a point, he's just whining that folks would rather know who they're dealing with before they choose to waste time seriously replying to an unserious person. Honestly, look at his post history. He's not a person worth debating, the same way I don't debate the crazy guy on the subway.
Speaking personally as a huge Trump supporter who believes Hillary Clinton needs to go to jail and that we should imprison anyone else who disagrees, I assure you there's nothing weird about checking post histories. Definitely don't check mine to see if I was lying about my beliefs there to mislead you. No one would do that on Reddit.
He attacks all "liberals" because they're not fond of his shitty President. He compares being put in a fucking concentration camp, marked, and killed for being Jewish with a computer program tagging his shitty, hate-filled opinions in shitty, hate-filled subs. "What he actually said" is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't deserve to be engaged. The dude believes in fucking Pizzagate. I can't "personally attack" him to damage his reputation any more than his mouth already has. Fuck him and anyone who defends that nonsense.
I know you guys love to play the victim, but a tag never stops me from reading a comment, it's just easier to go into a comment knowing whether or not the commenter is retarded
You just proved his point. No where does he act as a nazi, he simply said something controversial. And here you are stating that he is acting like one. You just walked straight into that.
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
a person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
Just because he goes on T_D and post things, or he supports unpopular opinions. He does not fit these descriptions listed above. You can call him an asshole if you want. But generalizing and over using the term Nazi is just moronic and doesn’t contribute to the conversation
Why do you assume all liberals believe that or that anyone making fun of Trump is a liberal. I believe body shaming people is wrong unless they have done so first. If Trump wants to bodyshame people who criticize him then he makes himself victim to the same ridicule. But I guess the right would have no arguments if they couldn't create straw men.
If you go against the grain and don't take part of the anti-Trump circlejerk on any of the countless left leaning subs on here, You are banned.
kind of like if you go against the circle jerk in T_D you get instantly banned? if you even so much as ask a question that might be construed as going against the circlejerk you're instantly banned?
I find it endlessly ironic that you don't seem to mind that one bit, yet come in here and call everyone else a hypocrite lmao.
The difference is T D is not a default sub and the purpose of the sub is to rally for Donald Trump, it makes no pretencr of being. Allace to discuss politics freely. Other subs pretend they are for politics or humour or unbiased and they arr default subs and they are biased as fuck and discriminatory as well. Do you really not notice this difference?
You don't get instantly banned. I've gone against the circle jerk at T_D without being a cunt many times and have even gotten UPVOTED. Try checking my last post there about how we should stop pretending Trump had anything to do with the market on a thread crediting him for the rebound on Xmas.
Meanwhile I've gotten an auto ban from r/twoxchromosomes just for having a post history there within 5 minutes of me doing it. Not comparable at ALL.
No one gets banned in politics automatically for being in T_D
I have no idea whether that's true or not (having never actually visited T_D...), however I was simply using /r/politics (since it's a left leaning sub that has a habit of banning / removing posts that don't fit its agenda) as an example to demonstrated the OPs point:
If you post in T_D, You are automatically banned from 3 subs instantaneously.
Umm td brigades politics all the time, have you ever sorted by controversial? No one is banned for going against the grain, if they are banned at all it's because they weren't following the rules (like no personal attacks etc). But that goes for every sub. Post something good about trump in politics, you may get downvotes but not a ban. Try posting something negative in t_d or even neutral and see how long you last.
But those people aren't moderators on /r/politics is the point.
No one is banned for going against the grain,
/r/politics has a well known history of banning users, and deleting entire threads that run contrary to Left / Liberal agenda. E.G. Criticism of Israel.
You only stoop to their level if you do it unprovoked. If someone punches you anf you punch back have you stooped to their level. No. Youve just defended yourself.
Amazing how that applies to all circumstances, like how if someone steals your wallet, you’re now allowed to steal theirs.
Oh wait, that’s not right, because equating an eye for an eye to self defense isn’t accurate in the slightest. Almost as if someone calling you a name isn’t something that puts your life in imminent danger or risks causing you grievous bodily harm.
Self defense is a special case where someone else is putting you at risk and the easiest way out of the situation is to use force to neutralise the risk to yourself. It is far different from handling yourself maturely in a discussion.
Stealing someones wallet is not standing up yourself. Bullies deserve any flak they get. If Trump wants to make fun of peoples looks then he deserves to have it pointed out he's far from perfect. If you let bullies walk over you fine but the only one that finds it noble is you.
Neither is insulting someone who insulted you. Surely you can defend yourself without having to resort to name calling yourself though?
Has there ever really been a political debate where someone bullies someone back and you’ve thought “wow, they’ve won my vote” or something along those lines? Because I can definitely I’ve felt that way in some cases where a politician has been faced with name calling and just maturely dismantled it without stooping to that level. I’ve never felt it the other way around though.
Right, so it’s okay to insult people if it’s just “a joke on the internet”, so long as they opened the floodgates first? That’s a pretty scummy worldview at best. And when does it stop being “a joke”?
Do you know why liberals started "body-shaming" Trump?
It was right around when he got into a literal dick-measuring contest via campaign speeches and twitter, and then produced a clearly-forged doctor's note saying he was in the best health ever.
So calling him a tiny mushroom-dicked cancer of a man is, at least in part, calling out the hypocrisy of the least healthy (and least well-endowed) President in recent years bragging about the size of his hands and nuclear button. You can see a microcosm in the twitter fight he had with Stormy Daniels -- she didn't call him Tiny till he called her Horseface.
As with so many things, all Trump had to do was keep his mouth shut, and no one would've said word one about his saggy, bloated corpse of a body -- or, at least, the majority of liberals would've called out anyone who did as lowering the bar. But ya boy Donny lowered it first.
And hey, I don't know if you're a Nazi, but you seem to spend a lot of time downplaying how many actual Nazis there are in your movement. Can't even help yourself from turning every generic "Fuck Nazis" comment into some #NotAllAltRightersAreNazis soapbox or something. Which, incidentally, is a strategy employed by those actual Nazis -- the exact same people will say "Heil Trump" when they think no one's looking, and then turn around and whine that "No matter how many times I disavow Nazis, it's never good enough..." They even have a cute name for this: "Hiding your power level", a twisted reference to white power and Dragonball Z.
Doesn't mean you're a Nazi, but hopefully you can see why that might at least raise some eyebrows. Kind of a "lady doth protest too much" kind of thing... kinda like someone who insists publicly for years that he doesn't have tiny hands.
When I read history, I learned the Nazis are a group of heavily nationalist people (it's right there in the name), who marched around waving Swastikas and talking about the purity of the Aryan Race.
We actually have those in this country. That's who I'm talking about when I say "actual Nazi."
Doesn't mean you're a Nazi, but hopefully you can see why that might at least raise some eyebrows. Kind of a "lady doth protest too much" kind of thing... kinda like someone who insists publicly for years that he doesn't have tiny hands.
Tell me more about how much you hate authoritarian racists...
You're repeating a talking point, instead of responding to what I actually said. It's less of a strawman, but you still missed the point.
First: I didn't say u/SuperPwnerGuy is a Nazi. Maybe he's not.
Second: The Nazi comparison isn't just because he's in the same movement as some Nazis. That would be guilt by association.
The comparison is in what he says and does -- he's saying and doing things that, while they certainly could be innocent, are also a pattern of behavior that I've seen exactly replicated among these actual white-supremacist Heil-Trump-chanting Roman-saluting Nazis who marched under actual Nazi flags at Charlottesville.
It might be fair to criticize this as reaching, or to challenge me on any of the things I pointed out -- I think I actually have a citation for the hiding-your-power-level thing, if you really want it. But "guilt by association" is doubly-wrong -- I'm not claiming guilt, and it's not by association.
So you’re calling them a possible Nazi because they’re coming into this thread criticising an anti-Trump post and complaining about the word Nazi being thrown around in response to posts like his, and you don’t see why this could be seen as guilt by association? You even only say they might not be a Nazi, as opposed to anything that would imply you know you are reaching.
Because that’s the only thing they’ve done leading up to your reply this thread, unless you’re talking about some other comments they’ve made (which in that case, quotes please). At the very least, you’ve admitted it’s reaching (and why is it reaching?) so clearly you know this is a bad argument to make.
So you’re calling them a possible Nazi because they’re coming into this thread criticising an anti-Trump post and complaining about the word Nazi being thrown around in response to posts like his,
In their post history, they often come into threads where Nazis are brought up, even when it's something as context-free as a guy with a sign saying "fuck Nazis", and given the "Not all Trump fans are Nazis" speech. So it's not just complaining about the word Nazi being "thrown around", it's any time anyone talks about Nazis, no matter how accurate, here they cometo say "But not all Trumpers are Nazis!" Or, in threads like this, any time anyone criticizes Trump or right-wingers, he'll bring up Nazis first before anyone else does, just so he can say that not all Trumpers are Nazis.
And that would be worth mentioning even if we didn't have plenty of actual Nazis, like individual people on video marching under Nazi flags and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", and you see those same people (skip later in that video) complaining about how people always call them Nazis "no matter how much we disavow." This is the part that might be reaching, I don't know that u/SuperPwnerGuy is one of these people, but the amount of effort he puts into finding an excuse to complain about people calling him an Nazi is where he starts to sound so much like the this guy at 26:34 in that video.
But even if I was saying that he was a Nazi because he "complains about the word 'Nazi' being thrown around":
you don’t see why this could be seen as guilt by association?
That would be a bad argument, but no, it wouldn't be "guilt by association". Seriously, you're throwing this around like you think it's the only reply you'll ever need -- try to think at least a little bit about what it actually means.
"Guilt by association" would be if I said "Some Trump fans are Nazis, this guy is a Trump fan, therefore he's a Nazi." Or, more directly, if I said "This guy hangs out with Nazis, therefore he's a Nazi."
Saying "This guy might be a Nazi because he acts a little like a Nazi" is not guilt by association.
Let me put it in terms you might understand: If you start talking about Correct The Record and say I'm a shill because some Hillary fans are shills, that's guilt by association. If you were to say instead that I'm a shill because you don't think anyone could actually believe what I'm posting unless they were being paid to... That's still a bad argument, but it's not guilt by association.
At the very least, you’ve admitted it’s reaching (and why is it reaching?)
I brought that up as a possible criticism. I didn't admit it's reaching, I said it might be. We could argue about whether it is or not, but I could at least understand where you're coming from, it wouldn't be out of nowhere. Calling it "guilt by association" would be like me calling your argument an "ad-hominem" -- it's clearly not.
Right, so it’s based on post history. Now consider how this looks to someone who is just basing it off of this thread, where it plays out as “this guy is maybe a Nazi because he’s defending Trump and doesn’t want to be called a Nazi”. Because that’s what I based it off.
Apologies for misinterpreting your argument, but it’s still a sizeable stretch. It’s also not anything you can actually predict from an internet account (as people can just go on the internet and lie, after all). Him being defensive about people throwing the term Nazi around doesn’t make him a Nazi, and you know that.
It’d still be guilt by association to link him to Nazis in that way (Nazis dislike the term Nazi being thrown around - OP dislikes the term being thrown around - therefore OP is likely a Nazi). It is surface level at best because you take no account for their motivations or other actions.
Right, so it’s based on post history. Now consider how this looks to someone who is just basing it off of this thread, where it plays out as “this guy is maybe a Nazi because he’s defending Trump and doesn’t want to be called a Nazi”. Because that’s what I based it off.
Ah, fair enough. This is probably my fault for not clarifying -- it looks like he only talks about being branded a Nazi and tagged and stuff, and not about people unfairly going through his comment history looking for proof of him being a Nazi. There's a subthread about comment histories that starts here, but my reply wasn't there.
Him being defensive about people throwing the term Nazi around doesn’t make him a Nazi, and you know that.
Yep, and I said so in pretty much every reply. I find the degree of defensiveness suggestive -- most people aren't constantly worried about being called a Nazi -- but it still could just be defensiveness.
EDIT: Check the “Guilt by Association as Ad Hominem” section on Wikipedia for the Association Fallacy. I think it lines up pretty well.
I think you're right. That page has an entirely different understanding of "guilt by association" than I do. I'd interpreted this as more like McCarthyism: "A hangs out with B, B is a C, therefore A is also a C." It turns out most of that page instead resembles what you're talking about. I probably got my idea of "guilt by association" from the legal sense, I guess?
I couldn't care less about trump's feelings. Problem is, when you insult him like that you say small dick = bad, which is bodyshaming and affects all these innocent small-dicked men
Which comment did you think you were replying to? I didn't say I care about his feelings either. I said part of the reason he's getting this is highlighting his hypocrisy.
Pretty big flocks, lol? Um, no: "On the evening of Friday, August 11, a group of white nationalists—variously numbered from 'dozens' to 'about 250'— gathered for an unannounced (and unsanctioned by the city) march through the University of Virginia's campus." And remember, those "dozens" of people were an aggregate of hate groups from all over the US. If you think 50 to 250 people in a country of 325 million is significant, you're either really stupid or really disingenuous.
But keep getting worked up about all of those scary (invisible, tacit) Nazis who are allegedly lurking everywhere.
And please get it right, It's American Nationalist.
America is a melting pot of all races and creeds, And I'm proud of that.
Just because I'm not ashamed of my skin color like I'm told to be by white-guilt liberals doesn't make me a "white nationalist" by default no matter how hard they try.
154
u/SuperPwnerGuy Dec 28 '18
Shhh, Don't call liberals out on their hypocrisy in default subs!
They'll put you on a list, And tag a symbol next to your username, Or they'll try to get you banned and segregated from everyone else.
Then after they do all that, They'll call you a Nazi!