That was long? Oh.

I like the meme because of so many reasons.

Let’s start with, if I am not misinformed, technically 21% of the levers could win against the rest of levers. Let’s ignore the fact that those 21% levers are historically generally in favor of more genocide. And let’s assume those 21% levers all go for third parties. Then they would still probably lose because they haven’t voted for the same third party. So let’s say those 21% are all committed to the cause and vote for the same party. In 2020, the biggest third party got 1.18%. but let’s assume all previous third party voter unite and then there would be 1.72% third party voters. Now obviously those aren’t part of the relevant 21% that we have been talking about but let’s act as if. Now only 19.28% of all voter need to change their vote to third party. That are only 29 884 000 voters. Believe!

What debate? Have you addressed my first comment to your first comment? No. Have you addressed my second comment to you talking to me without talking about anything related to what I said? No. Have you addressed my third comment about you talking to me as if we had a conversation while you haven’t said anything addressing anything that was a response to what I said? No.

And I am not making an effort to make any kind of point? Dude you are talking to no one!

Wait, he was running? Did someone care? Like did he have any realistic change that anyone would like him to get through the primaries? I mean he certainly didn’t have the chance to get through them but maybe he had like 1 Supporter somewhere or something

Still talking to someone else?

I mean, why concession? It makes it sound like I said it wasn’t “all that good”, after expressing that it was. I did neither. You are really talking to someone else. Who is it? And why respond to my message instead of theirs?

Or did you mistake my summarization of your vaguely stated opinion on a very big multifaceted issue, as me expressing support for your “fire bad” take?

I like that you jump on a long rant over hierarchy and the unavoidability of it. Then rant over socialism how it is there is a hierarchy but people deny it. To quote me and act like my point was that hierarchy is tyrannical.

I am not sure who you are talking to but I hope you are enjoying yourself.

Sidenote, you are talking about property law systems, not a whole political system, remember that.

Who wouldn’t be?

I hate when people talk about system like capitalism and communism is so simplistic terms.

I mean this is about as vague and reasonable as “a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief”

Are you a bot? If yes, nice bot.

This format is so cringe.

First of all, there are people who think it is funny, like me.

Additionally, sometimes people just aren’t aware of stuff and people draw different lines. Apparently trump support has decreased since the verdict of his 34 felonies. That wasn’t my line for sure; the racism and history of racism was; but apparently some people didn’t care about the racism, transphobia, sexism, the sexualizing of his daughter, the cheating on his wife, the lies, … But about the felonies. So instead of telling people to not speak out about it, don’t engage.

That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn’t have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok… Well think about it.

I know an easy fix. Just don’t do ai.

I think you are very unfair in how you paint the picture. Biden shouldn’t support genocide, obviously. But realistically, you have to choose between 2 genocide supporters. And “stopping trump” is a good reason to vote for 1 genocide supporter over the other. Obviously you don’t like the genocide supporters and you shouldn’t be forced to choose one but you are living in a (practically) 2 party system and both run a genocide supporter.

Me going to school for free, me going to the doc for free

“That is not free that you pay for it by your taxes”

Ok, me paying taxes for the same benefits that I had. Effectively paying back my debt. The debt doesn’t control my life because if I lose my job, I don’t have to pay my debt through taxes, if I change careers, I still pay what I can.

“That is communism!!! That is bad”

Elsewhere, the same service for the same cost

Person goes into debt to go to school, person goes into debt to go to doc

“That is good! Taking accountability”

Same person pay extra through interest rates.

“Usa! Usa! Usa! Low taxes! Small government! Freedom from government!!!”

Person is slaving away at their job because they can’t afford losing their job and missing a pay check.

Okay buddy.

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

Oh I agree but I am strictly talking from the perspective of the idiots who would want such a list.

They want the government to police those poor women in order to “protect” the “child”, so the government can be “trusted” from their pov. And they want the government to police the women because from their pov, the mother is a danger to the “child”.

In the case of the guns, their opinion is that the guns will protect them against the government and so you don’t want them to have that list.

While I am strongly against a database of pregnant women, especially in regards of the obvious purpose of it.

I am not sure if I would call it cognitive dissonance… Fascistic? Sure.

The idea behind the tracking of pregnancy is the protection of the individual “Child” and “future member of the society” against “overreaching authoritarian forces” which could lead to the death of said “member”. And the threat to the “child” is not the government but rather the mother and the supporting force would be the government. So placing the information to control into the hands of the government is an obvious choice.

In the case of gun ownership, the government is the threat for which the guns exist. The government is the “overreaching authoritarian force” and the gun owner is the “member”. The government isn’t the ally and therefore can’t be trusted with such a list.

Again I am not agreeing them these people. I just don’t think that is cognitive dissonance. I think a better example would the desire for a small government and a database of pregnant women to spy on.

Again imo idiots but not hypocrites for that (specifically… Because they are, just not for that)

People just don’t understand that political discussions are in nature pr work. You need a good pr strategy to succeed in what you want and impulsively selected actions might be bad for your pr work. And the truth is most people don’t think about pr before posting about why XYZ is bad.

Literally the British government fucked themselves like that. They wanted to avoid responsibility and found someone to blame in their pr work. A few decades later and their country is leaving a huge market to avoid having to comply to the market’s rules, while also kinda wanting to join the market for trading and having to comply again for economically reasons (and the threat of terrorism due to north Irland)… While being unable to make it happen without splitting up the country due to people rejecting that by eu bad. So the best they can do is trade deals with little to no impact on their trading. And while everything goes so well, parts of it are looking into leaving them. Politics are pr work. If you want to have an impact, then play in the big leagues, play like it.

I feel like Dems are “centrists”™ but yeah. I take the “ignorant and privileged centrists” over the “actively hateful fascists”

Do you understand how they could change it? Like what their options are and the implications of it?