Is celebrating the defeat of Trump a good thing?

[Voss]

Have you ever made a single argument defending a conservative stance without it being some variant of "left bad too"? I'm just curious.

it's okay that the right does ____ thing because leftists and their climate change hoax.

[Stealthbomber16]

this is not a case of 'left bad too' as you suggest. it's a case of 'the left has gone too far' and it absolutely has. you've gone WAY too far when you're starting to claim that half the country is racist just because, and when 77% of conservatives are AFRAID of voicing their opnions (even though they constitute about 50% of the population). I blame the radical left, not the entire left. there's still reasonable people on 'the left' (btw the left ranges from moderate liberals who just want welfare to socialists and communists on the really far end of the spectrum), like the people who published in the gender studies journals and jordan peterson (who is definitely left leaning if you listen to what he has to say).

virtually everyone in america agrees that political correctness is a thing, even leftists: about 80% of Americans agree political correctness is a problem. and political correctness is peddled by the left.

I think the issue that I have with this post is that you're strawmanning the entire left under people like the ones publishing gender studies journals, and radical feminists talking about how men are gonna ruin the world and we should send them into space. It's just as bad as people saying that every Trump supporter is racist. Which nobody should be doing if they're at all sane.

[Stealthbomber16]

To go back on topic, no. It's not a good thing. The country can't heal if we're throwing parties to celebrate presidential elections. That just drives up tension.

I agree with your point of view, Voss. I'll gladly be your echo chamber

[Renegade]

Fuck off. This is the worst post you've ever made.

As another person who voted for Biden, you don't seem to realize that the vast majority of Americans (accurately) understand that both of the candidates are fucking awful. If you genuinely think Joe "Poor kids can be just as smart as white kids" Biden is a good person please take another look at his record. He's awful. Kamala is worse. Trump is even worse.

Oh that is a low bar. I've made far worse posts. Give me a break.

[Renegade]

To go back on topic, no. It's not a good thing. The country can't heal if we're throwing parties to celebrate presidential elections. That just drives up tension.

I agree with your point of view, Voss. I'll gladly be your echo chamber

The country can't heal until Trump and his Trumpkins concede and stop protesting what was a legitimate election.

Reminds me of grade school. It is only fair if I win!

Healing is for Jan 20, 2021.

[Stealthbomber16]

Oh that is a low bar. I've made far worse posts. Give me a break.

Proposing to punish 60 million people because you don’t like their political views is a pretty fucking stupid post.

[yzb25]

It happens in my country and I think it’s fine.

We have strict laws on race, religion & government criticism.
Penalty is imprisonment, hefty fines & lashes.

This invites a lot of criticism about freedom of speech, human rights & censorship.

But I think it’s fine.

Such inflammatory topics should be regulated to keep the peace.
There are avenues for people to voice out their opinions, but these are controlled too.

Rabble-rousing is a no-no.
The public has the responsibility to make their own informed decisions.
People are not allowed to constantly blare widespread political messages to try to manipulate others.
If the public is too lazy and apathetic to do their own research or lift a finger, that’s their problem.

Also protests are illegal here lol.
Which is fine too.

I think I feel this way because we have a competent government?
Under an incompetent / corrupt government, such authority can be easily abused.

But if you have an incompetent government you’re screwed either way lol, it doesn’t really matter whether if it’s authoritarian or democratic.
Under a shitty “democratic” leader, the laws can be subverted / ignored anyway.

Feel free to ignore if it's too personal, but I'm really curious what country you live in. Your views are what we would understand to be "authoritarian", even if you understand your views to be fairly neutral. Is your viewpoint shared by many of the people you know? Or is your attitude on this anomalous amongst people you know?

I'm sorry I won't make another off-topic post after this one I just really have to ask lol.

[Renegade]

Proposing to punish 60 million people because you don’t like their political views is a pretty fucking stupid post.

That isn't what I was suggesting.

I was suggesting that Trumpkins stop bitching when their actions have consequences.

Call the cops on some black people because they are outside and lose your job? Not sorry.

Say racist shit on twitter and lose your job? Not sorry.

[Renegade]

This false equivalence of "my views and your views" being equal is total bullshit.

You don't entertain people who are delusional and hallucinating because "that is their view!".

Facts matter.

[Stealthbomber16]

The country can't heal until Trump and his Trumpkins concede and stop protesting what was a legitimate election.

Reminds me of grade school. It is only fair if I win!

Healing is for Jan 20, 2021.

There’s always gonna be people who are mad. People were mad that Hillary lost. People did legitimately claim Russia interfered with the election. They got over themselves.

[Renegade]

Everyone is titled to their own opinion - sure. But when your racist, homophobic, sexist opinions form into Trump backed policy that is where the line is drawn.

[Oberon]

@Stealthbomber16 I actually really respect you for taking that stance

[Renegade]

There’s always gonna be people who are mad. People were mad that Hillary lost. People did legitimately claim Russia interfered with the election. They got over themselves.

Russia did legitimately interfere in the election. They didn't "hack" it as in change votes, but they interfered.

There was collusion. Don Jr had a meeting with Russian agents to get "dirt", nobody refutes that.

There are far more Trumpkins who are protesting the results of the election and calling it illegitimate than there were Hillary supporters in 2016. Again with the false equivalence bullshit. The magnitude of any of these topics is much fucking greater than any cherry picked example you can find for the left.

[Renegade]

"All politicians lie" "Trump and Biden both suck" "But her emails"

let's dispel with this fiction that these sort of statements are equivalent.

[DJarJar]

I think talk of "let's unite and stop attacking each other" is just going to make people on the right angrier. Because for many of them, the election has only been called by the media but is still very much possible for trump to win. And, to be fair, it's not actually decided until the electoral college meets in december. So it's probably better to just say nothing for now than to ask for peace. Because from the perspective of somebody who believes trump can still win, your message probably just seems condescending.

[Stealthbomber16]

Everyone is titled to their own opinion - sure. But when your racist, homophobic, sexist opinions form into Trump backed policy that is where the line is drawn.

Well yeah, racism/sexism/homophobia is unacceptable.

Lumping every Trump supporter into that category is not fair to them. My parents and a lot of my friends parents voted Trump. Some of these parents have gay children. Those children are welcome in their households with their significant other. It’s not homophobia there... it’s just they don’t give a shit because it’s not a problem to them.

[Stealthbomber16]

@Stealthbomber16 I actually really respect you for taking that stance

I like to consider myself reasonable sometimes

[Stealthbomber16]

Russia did legitimately interfere in the election. They didn't "hack" it as in change votes, but they interfered.

There was collusion. Don Jr had a meeting with Russian agents to get "dirt", nobody refutes that.

There are far more Trumpkins who are protesting the results of the election and calling it illegitimate than there were Hillary supporters in 2016. Again with the false equivalence bullshit. The magnitude of any of these topics is much fucking greater than any cherry picked example you can find for the left.

Yeah I’m gonna stop this here because we must have very different outlooks on the 2016 election if you don’t think there was as much protesting after that one as there is now.

Clinton supporters were up in arms about “but muh popular vote” for a year. A lot of them called trump supporters as a whole sexist for not voting for a female candidate. You must not remember that if you think that this is way worse.

[Exeter350]

Your views are what we would understand to be "authoritarian", even if you understand your views to be fairly neutral.

I’m aware it’s authoritarian and I’m fine with it.

Again, it’s probably because they’ve done a good job so far.

I’m also aware of the advantages & disadvantages of authoritarian & democratic government styles, and I lean towards authoritarianism anyway.

Is your viewpoint shared by many of the people you know? Or is your attitude on this anomalous amongst people you know?

Most people my age don’t really care, or aren’t outspoken about it.

[yzb25]

I think talk of "let's unite and stop attacking each other" is just going to make people on the right angrier. Because for many of them, the election has only been called by the media but is still very much possible for trump to win. And, to be fair, it's not actually decided until the electoral college meets in december. So it's probably better to just say nothing for now than to ask for peace. Because from the perspective of somebody who believes trump can still win, your message probably just seems condescending.

That's a good take. It's kind of a lose-lose because not being arrogant about the win also comes with its own disadvantages in elections. It's just a shitty situation lol

[Oberon]

I think talk of "let's unite and stop attacking each other" is just going to make people on the right angrier. Because for many of them, the election has only been called by the media but is still very much possible for trump to win. And, to be fair, it's not actually decided until the electoral college meets in december. So it's probably better to just say nothing for now than to ask for peace. Because from the perspective of somebody who believes trump can still win, your message probably just seems condescending.

i don't think anyone genuinely wins trump can still win.. or rather, you can believe he'll still win but i dont think you can really say that its likely lol

[oops_ur_dead]

>Kween Kop Kamala
>radical left
>AOC
>running anything

I am legitimately recommending anti-psychotics at this point.

[Oberon]

>Kween Kop Kamala
>radical left
>AOC
>running anything

I am legitimately recommending anti-psychotics at this point.

I mean. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say this because the only thing I can do is just return to sender and I have no interest in that. We can keep juggling that until the sun dies.
Maybe you should just try to be more open minded? Lol

[FrostByte]

Maybe you should just try to be more open minded? Lol

That is so fucking rich coming from you

lmfaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo

[BananaCucho]

That is so fucking rich coming from you

lmfaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo

He isn't self aware at all.

[MartinGG99]

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that orange man lost the election. However, it has been a divided election/country for a while now. The massive celebrations around the leftist parts of the country don't really seem to be in the spirit of healing the country.

Is this post too soon? Let the left celebrate for a little? Or is this toxic sore winner-ism?

I think this can be either "okay or good" or a "bad" case.

If you're celebrating because of another parties' defeat in an election then that's bad imo.

If you're celebrating because who you voted for won, then that's fine or good imo.

The reason being is because I am very much tired of hearing arguments on the internet which can be summed up as "strategic voting" (also called tactical voting); in other words, where you vote in order to prevent someone else from winning (or in other words promote a parties' defeat).

This sort of thinking can stem into arguments where the idea is "if you don't vote for X, then that must mean you ultimately support everything that the other side does".

Celebrating solely or mostly because of a parties' defeat, rather than the victory of whatever you voted for, is basically the same or quite similar line of argument or thought fmpov.

I believe those kinds of arguments aren't healthy for reasons I don't really have the words to explain and argue effectively at the moment, but in general I feel like those arguments are inclined to promote partisanism by virtue of aiding in the straw-manning of every single political party member or non-party supporter (i.e. anyone not supporting the party that you support).

There's also the third case, in which case you are celebrating because of Trump's defeat, rather than the republican parties' defeat. In which case I think that's fine or even good as having opinions on a specific individual because of their personage rather than their party is more indicative of having an independent mind (and therefore less prone to partisanism).


Yes, I am aware some parts of my post here can be applied to extreme examples such as the Nazi's (Who collectively committed genocide) in order to disprove it. But let's be honest here and recognize that many beliefs will have exceptions for the extreme as the reality is that there is never a completely strict and consistent guiding moral principle or law in the universe; many philosophers have tried to create or find a single unwavering moral principle but failed.

[oops_ur_dead]

I mean. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say this because the only thing I can do is just return to sender and I have no interest in that. We can keep juggling that until the sun dies.
Maybe you should just try to be more open minded? Lol

I mean it's more that I've given up on arguing with you in earnest. Every single one of your posts is like listening to some talking head like Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, or whoever the fuck, except even worse because half the time you don't even understand their original point that you're trying to regurgitate. Any attempts to discuss anything with you inadvertently lead to either 1) "left bad too" 2) deflections to completely unrelated points that somehow popped into your head because you have no idea how to respond to a given argument or 3) tone policing and random accusations of ad hom fallacies.

It's more fun and productive to just directly watch the latest Tucker Carlson video and yell at the screen than try to get the same information from you but half-digested.

[Helz]

Something that occurred to me. This comes down to very basic poor sportsmanship.

I remember when I was a little kid playing sports one of the things they really pushed against was being a soar looser and saying "The other side cheated". Reminds me of the popular pushes that "Its just because of the electoral college" and the current "It was fraud."

They would also teach us to be graceful winners. That reminds me of Republicans telling celebrity's who had posted they would leave the country if Trump won to get the fuck out last election and the general subject this thread is discussing for democrats this one.

Could this issue simply be a reflection of the erosion of our society?

Maybe the behavior is not the problem but rather a symptom of us failing to pass down basic courtesy on a generational level?

Or maybe this is just the impact of technology on us, where people are protected by the ability to communicate with some degree of anonymity?

[FrostByte]

I mean it's more that I've given up on arguing with you in earnest. Every single one of your posts is like listening to some talking head like Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, or whoever the fuck, except even worse because half the time you don't even understand their original point that you're trying to regurgitate. Any attempts to discuss anything with you inadvertently lead to either 1) "left bad too" 2) deflections to completely unrelated points that somehow popped into your head because you have no idea how to respond to a given argument or 3) tone policing and random accusations of ad hom fallacies.

It's more fun and productive to just directly watch the latest Tucker Carlson video and yell at the screen than try to get the same information from you but half-digested.

oopsrep.jpg

[oops_ur_dead]

I remember when I was a little kid playing sports one of the things they really pushed against was being a soar looser and saying "The other side cheated". Reminds me of the popular pushes that "Its just because of the electoral college" and the current "It was fraud."

I take a bit of exception to this because the two arguments are not the same, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that they are. "It's just because of the electoral college", referring to Trump's victory, is not an unfactual statement. Biden also won because of the electoral college. The point there was that the electoral college led to Trump winning despite him having a minority of votes. The debate wasn't that Trump's victory was in any way fraudulent or illegal, but rather a criticism of the underlying mechanism that got him elected, and a call for potential change. Whether or not you agree with the criticism is another point; maybe you can find pros and cons for the electoral college, and maybe it was laid on a bit more thickly than it would have otherwise been because it was Trump. But if one believes that whoever gets the most popular vote should become leader, that wasn't a "sore loser" moment at all, or even claiming that anyone cheated, just a very rare example of why the system is broken under that premise (last time was in 2000 with Bush vs Gore, and before that in the 1800s).

The fraud thing is definitely thus far a set of unsubstantiated claims, and without a doubt something Trump planned to do from the beginning. I think one would have to be a fool to imagine that there is any scenario in which Trump would have accepted that he lost the election fairly. I don't think the two "sides" are comparable here.

[FrostByte]

I take a bit of exception to this because the two arguments are not the same, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that they are. "It's just because of the electoral college", referring to Trump's victory, is not an unfactual statement. Biden also won because of the electoral college. The point there was that the electoral college led to Trump winning despite him having a minority of votes. The debate wasn't that Trump's victory was in any way fraudulent or illegal, but rather a criticism of the underlying mechanism that got him elected, and a call for potential change. Whether or not you agree with the criticism is another point; maybe you can find pros and cons for the electoral college, and maybe it was laid on a bit more thickly than it would have otherwise been because it was Trump. But if one believes that whoever gets the most popular vote should become leader, that wasn't a "sore loser" moment at all, or even claiming that anyone cheated, just a very rare example of why the system is broken under that premise (last time was in 2000 with Bush vs Gore, and before that in the 1800s).

The fraud thing is definitely thus far a set of unsubstantiated claims, and without a doubt something Trump planned to do from the beginning. I think one would have to be a fool to imagine that there is any scenario in which Trump would have accepted that he lost the election fairly. I don't think the two "sides" are comparable here.

Killary won the popular vote, too

[Renegade]

I take a bit of exception to this because the two arguments are not the same, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that they are. "It's just because of the electoral college", referring to Trump's victory, is not an unfactual statement. Biden also won because of the electoral college. The point there was that the electoral college led to Trump winning despite him having a minority of votes. The debate wasn't that Trump's victory was in any way fraudulent or illegal, but rather a criticism of the underlying mechanism that got him elected, and a call for potential change. Whether or not you agree with the criticism is another point; maybe you can find pros and cons for the electoral college, and maybe it was laid on a bit more thickly than it would have otherwise been because it was Trump. But if one believes that whoever gets the most popular vote should become leader, that wasn't a "sore loser" moment at all, or even claiming that anyone cheated, just a very rare example of why the system is broken under that premise (last time was in 2000 with Bush vs Gore, and before that in the 1800s).

The fraud thing is definitely thus far a set of unsubstantiated claims, and without a doubt something Trump planned to do from the beginning. I think one would have to be a fool to imagine that there is any scenario in which Trump would have accepted that he lost the election fairly. I don't think the two "sides" are comparable here.

Thank you. The argument was about the electoral college itself, and not that Trump won it.

False equivalences once again. That's what Trumpkins employ to gaslight you. Equivocate their delusional fantasy land with reality.

Not gonna happen! (Like Trump's second term, so sad!)

[Bruno]

I mean. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say this because the only thing I can do is just return to sender and I have no interest in that. We can keep juggling that until the sun dies.
Maybe you should just try to be more open minded? Lol

u the type of person that if you ever fuck a girl then when ur done you'll have a debate with her on if she came or not

[FrostByte]

u the type of person that if you ever fuck a girl then when ur done you'll have a debate with her on if she came or not

nah the female orgasm is a myth bro my pastor told me women use it as a way to make us all feel incompetent about sex when they don't cum because they never do it's impossible

[rumox]

u the type of person that if you ever fuck a girl then when ur done you'll have a debate with her on if she came or not

I tried up repping this but I've broken my repping ability currently. That made me laugh

[Voss]

oopsrep.jpg

i got you fam

[Helz]

I take a bit of exception to this because the two arguments are not the same, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that they are. "It's just because of the electoral college", referring to Trump's victory, is not an unfactual statement. Biden also won because of the electoral college. The point there was that the electoral college led to Trump winning despite him having a minority of votes. The debate wasn't that Trump's victory was in any way fraudulent or illegal, but rather a criticism of the underlying mechanism that got him elected, and a call for potential change. Whether or not you agree with the criticism is another point; maybe you can find pros and cons for the electoral college, and maybe it was laid on a bit more thickly than it would have otherwise been because it was Trump. But if one believes that whoever gets the most popular vote should become leader, that wasn't a "sore loser" moment at all, or even claiming that anyone cheated, just a very rare example of why the system is broken under that premise (last time was in 2000 with Bush vs Gore, and before that in the 1800s).

The fraud thing is definitely thus far a set of unsubstantiated claims, and without a doubt something Trump planned to do from the beginning. I think one would have to be a fool to imagine that there is any scenario in which Trump would have accepted that he lost the election fairly. I don't think the two "sides" are comparable here.

I understand what you are saying and it is a fair point but I just disagree. I am sure we have all seen sports games where a last minute call by a ref changed the outcome of the game and people leave that game yelling about how they were cheated because of the call. If you have a contest and then after the contest yell that the result was unfair because the pre-agreed rules are wrong how much different is that than saying the rules have been violated? In either case its a push to invalidate your opponents victory.

In terms of football I could see it being like saying "Fieldgoals are stupid and shouldn't be allowed anyways, If they were not allowed we would have won" vs "They deflated the balls and had an advantage."

Even if you want to disagree on the electoral college bit I don't think you would call my argument as a whole as disingenuous. Pick your own equivalence out the tantrums thrown by democrats after Hillary lost to Trump if you would like. My point is that 'Loosing' or even 'Winning' with grace has a very clear parallel with sportsmanship. And that there are some very interesting systemic questions we can ask about our society when looking at that parallel.

False equivalences once again. That's what Trumpkins employ to gaslight you. Equivocate their delusional fantasy land with reality.

Pretty disappointing how these are the reactions I got while the underlying systemic questions didnt even provoke a thought. Do you even understand how quickly or why you went from taking what I said directly into categorizing me as a 'Trumpkin' and invalidating my argument using stereotypes of that categorization?

I really think at the heart of the increasing division in society in general (And as very well reflected in these sorts of topics on this form) this pattern is what drives that division. I will have a post on that at some point but I am genuinely curious how many people in this thread can look at their posts right now and realize how often they jump from debating a person/post into arguing against a social stereotype.

[Oberon]

u the type of person that if you ever fuck a girl then when ur done you'll have a debate with her on if she came or not

lmaooo

[Oberon]

Have you ever made a single argument defending a conservative stance without it being some variant of "left bad too"? I'm just curious.

Have you ever questioned your absolute hatred of conservatism? You've even said that 'I abhor conservatism' due to 'its inherent authoritarianism' (the last part is paraphrased). I'm quite sure that if you took a moment to examine your beliefs you would discover that, probably not so deep down, you are quite heavily biased where you cannot even accept the left is bad (not even the entire left, just a very vocal segment of it), if the right isn't bad as well. The problem is that the right is indeed 'bad' on some level, but the level of 'bad' is substantially different. You don't see people on the right trying to shame others out of their political beliefs or 'recommending anti-psychotics'.

To give you an example of the absurdities you sometimes reach, I'll refer to your meme about India where you pretty much made the claim that Hitler was more popular than Gandhi in India and that Hitler was popular there for the exact same reason that Trump is. I mean. I cannot make this shit up.

[FrostByte]

Have you ever questioned your absolute hatred of conservatism? You've even said that 'I abhor conservatism' due to 'its inherent authoritarianism' (the last part is paraphrased). I'm quite sure that if you took a moment to examine your beliefs you would discover that, probably not so deep down, you are quite heavily biased where you cannot even accept the left is bad (not even the entire left, just a very vocal segment of it), if the right isn't bad as well. The problem is that the right is indeed 'bad' on some level, but the level of 'bad' is substantially different. You don't see people on the right trying to shame others out of their political beliefs or 'recommending anti-psychotics'.

To give you an example of the absurdities you sometimes reach, I'll refer to your meme about India where you pretty much made the claim that Hitler was more popular than Gandhi in India and that Hitler was popular there for the exact same reason that Trump is. I mean. I cannot make this shit up.

You tried to dodge that question but I see you, Oberon. Answering a question with a question is intellectually disingenuous and indicative of you refusing to acknowledge the point he was making. I can tell you from person experience that oops doesn't absolutely hate conservatism. He holds some conservative views.

You're victimizing yourself. You justify people questioning you as "oh they must hate me" or "oh they must hate my ideology" but in reality we're all just questioning shit you're saying.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I've read too much disturbing things here for me to want to write a full reply now lol. Saying something that esentially comes down to "people should fear the state so much they will keep their political leanings concealed" or "people who voted for Trump should be punished" is advocating for the death of democracy, and if you're advocating for that, then you don't realize that the simple fact that you're at home writing this on your computer does not result in police knocking at your door to throw you into jail because you live under a democracy, even if it may be far from perfect (what Exeter is describing is not a real democracy at all, but at least it fakes being one, probably to avoid sanctions from actually democratic countries lol).

As for Aamirus' point, yes, Biden saying "heal the country" will make a part (not all because not all are insane, and some just want the country to heal, they just thought Trump was better for doing this (which is horribly wrong but still)) of Trump voters angry because "they stole our election!!!". However, by not saying anything, he'd just not be standing for what's right and would make those who had hope he'd clean the mess up angry, while not making Trump voters any happier because he'd still be president over Trump.

So to sum my views up: Voss and Stealth are right and I'm gonna be another part of their echo chamber!

[Oberon]

You tried to dodge that question but I see you, Oberon. Answering a question with a question is intellectually disingenuous and indicative of you refusing to acknowledge the point he was making. I can tell you from person experience that oops doesn't absolutely hate conservatism. He holds some conservative views.

You're victimizing yourself. You justify people questioning you as "oh they must hate me" or "oh they must hate my ideology" but in reality we're all just questioning shit you're saying.

The only person obsessed with victimhood here is you since you’re the one that keeps mentioning it. Also, I can literally pull snippets of oops uttering the words ‘I abhor conservatism’ because that is something factual that has been uttered.

[oops_ur_dead]

Have you ever questioned your absolute hatred of conservatism? You've even said that 'I abhor conservatism' due to 'its inherent authoritarianism' (the last part is paraphrased). I'm quite sure that if you took a moment to examine your beliefs you would discover that, probably not so deep down, you are quite heavily biased where you cannot even accept the left is bad (not even the entire left, just a very vocal segment of it), if the right isn't bad as well. The problem is that the right is indeed 'bad' on some level, but the level of 'bad' is substantially different. You don't see people on the right trying to shame others out of their political beliefs or 'recommending anti-psychotics'.

To give you an example of the absurdities you sometimes reach, I'll refer to your meme about India where you pretty much made the claim that Hitler was more popular than Gandhi in India and that Hitler was popular there for the exact same reason that Trump is. I mean. I cannot make this shit up.

You know, hearing your conclusions on that last bit, I really have to wonder if the way you twist things is intentional or if you just fundamentally have such a warped sense of understanding and input of facts that you really believe these types of things. If you think that I ever said Hitler is more popular than Gandhi in India, or that Hitler being popular for the same reason as Trump in anyway implies me equating the two, then you legitimately have a flaw in logical reasoning and how you interpret what others say. Either that, or you intentionally demonize and strawman people you disagree with.

As for the rest of your post, I'll say that I don't hate Conservatives and I don't even think the left is great. I actually post anti-leftist memes all the time. I just think that the left is more intellectually honest than the right and if I had to pick my poison then I'd prefer them.

Also, perfectly in line with my last post, your entire response was tone policing and "left bad too". Bravo.

[Oberon]

95AA311F-01D9-4B6F-B8A5-1C717BA52F26.png
25F28AC1-3AFF-4D55-B38F-6C1D0FD1986E.png
6792259B-E3E5-46D3-A665-A595ED2F50B4.jpeg25F28AC1-3AFF-4D55-B38F-6C1D0FD1986E.png

[Oberon]

I think its time to call it quits when people legit start lying about things they’ve said and attack you for ‘demonizing and strawmanning others’. So, I’m out.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Dear thread,

Petty arguments will fall, and logic shall rise, pure, free, uncontested! But for now, farewell to you, thread. You fell victim to a fateful struggle against off-topic namecalling.

[oops_ur_dead]

Thank you for posting those screenshots, I was too lazy to since I'm on my phone. They point out.... Exactly what I just said.

Maybe the only inaccurate part I said was generalizing all of India by saying they love "big strongman type" people. Of course not everyone in India loves Hitler, it's a small weird fandom if anything.

[rumox]

Hitler fucked Britain up so ofc Indians love Hitler

[rumox]

Anyway I can see how you thought oops said Hitler is more popular than Ghandi in India, but just cause he said Ghandi is controversial doesn't automatically mean his opinion defaults to Hitler being more popular due to Ghandi's controversial status.

[rumox]

And I think Hitler's adoration there can be linked to their adoration of Trump. They really do love strongman politicians, especially ones that cater to their interests. Quick google search of the question 'Why do Indians love Trump/Hitler nets the "Indians love strongman" general opinion based on the results. Obviously my use of 'they' shouldn't translate to literally every single Indian, but a good amount of them.