Topic: Ok, please, a Republican, refute this
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #103,780
Instead of deleting it.21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,169,830
Why would they refute this? They admit it's what they believe. Someone's a little obsessed tonight.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,832
How often do Republicans tell infants to get a job? Or say kids shouldn't have medical care or food?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,833
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
The point is that Republicans are 100% against helping the poor, school lunches, free food for poor children, and welfare. It is hypocritical. Be born, then suffer!
The point is that Republicans are 100% against helping the poor, school lunches, free food for poor children, and welfare. It is hypocritical. Be born, then suffer!
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,834
You are obsessed.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,835
@1,169,832 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I mean, many are against medical care and food for kids who can't afford it
I mean, many are against medical care and food for kids who can't afford it
21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,836
@1,169,833 (A)
Yes it's hypocritical, but being consistent isn't the point. When you notice an inconsistency in someone's belief system, that doesn't mean they're stupid - in many cases it simply reflects that they have some underlying belief that's informing both their opposing views. With the example you're criticizing, it does seem hypocritical that Republicans are against child welfare, something which decreases child poverty, but against abortion because they consider it child murder. It's not because they're dumb, it's because they aren't saying (in the case of politicians/pundits) or don't realize (in the case of the electorate) the actual purpose of both those positions - subjugation.
Yes it's hypocritical, but being consistent isn't the point. When you notice an inconsistency in someone's belief system, that doesn't mean they're stupid - in many cases it simply reflects that they have some underlying belief that's informing both their opposing views. With the example you're criticizing, it does seem hypocritical that Republicans are against child welfare, something which decreases child poverty, but against abortion because they consider it child murder. It's not because they're dumb, it's because they aren't saying (in the case of politicians/pundits) or don't realize (in the case of the electorate) the actual purpose of both those positions - subjugation.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,839
@previous (21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg)
I agree that not ALL inconsistency is a sign of stupidity, but some is. This is one case.
I agree that not ALL inconsistency is a sign of stupidity, but some is. This is one case.
21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg replied with this 3 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,844
@previous (A)
I don't think so. It's been well known for decades that criminalizing abortion doesn't significantly decrease abortion, it just makes it significantly more dangerous for the non-wealthy. Politicians know this, and they don't take this into account because they don't craft their policies around what's actually most effective at minimizing abortion, so the only reasonable conclusion is that the policy is designed to subjugate women. The cruelty is the point.
You could make an argument that the reason the Republican electorate believes the same things is because they're stupid, but pretty much everyone's equally stupid, the only reason most people think anything is because politicians have effectively taught them what to think. So it stems from the people crafting policy around cruelty.
I don't think so. It's been well known for decades that criminalizing abortion doesn't significantly decrease abortion, it just makes it significantly more dangerous for the non-wealthy. Politicians know this, and they don't take this into account because they don't craft their policies around what's actually most effective at minimizing abortion, so the only reasonable conclusion is that the policy is designed to subjugate women. The cruelty is the point.
You could make an argument that the reason the Republican electorate believes the same things is because they're stupid, but pretty much everyone's equally stupid, the only reason most people think anything is because politicians have effectively taught them what to think. So it stems from the people crafting policy around cruelty.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 57 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,845
@previous (21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg)
No, Trump-loving Republicans are a special kind of stupid. They believe QAnon and worship Trump like a cult god. They are stupid.
No, Trump-loving Republicans are a special kind of stupid. They believe QAnon and worship Trump like a cult god. They are stupid.
A republican joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,846
Yes, I refute that.
21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,847
@1,169,845 (A)
And Democrats believe they can stop climate change and rising fascism by voting for the same people they've been voting for for generations. We're all stupid.
And Democrats believe they can stop climate change and rising fascism by voting for the same people they've been voting for for generations. We're all stupid.
21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg double-posted this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,848
Also, reducing decades of complex politics to "they're just stupid" is itself stupid.
Politician Joshy joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,849
I eat peepee!
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,850
@1,169,847 (21bitch !eCZNmSIqCg)
> And Democrats believe they can stop climate change and rising fascism by voting for the same people they've been voting for for generations. We're all stupid.
I'm sure most of the republican outcry against "the squad" isn't founded in this. In fact, a lot of the fear and outrage is likely founded in new, progressive members of congress getting easily elected. (and being minorities and women) Also, it's not like the GOP isn't suffering from stagnation in it's own ranks. People like Mitch McConnell or Susan Collins have congressional terms old enough to order drinks at a bar. As the boomers die out, they're going to have to worry about a voting base that doesn't drool into their soup while watching Tucker Carlson every day.
> And Democrats believe they can stop climate change and rising fascism by voting for the same people they've been voting for for generations. We're all stupid.
I'm sure most of the republican outcry against "the squad" isn't founded in this. In fact, a lot of the fear and outrage is likely founded in new, progressive members of congress getting easily elected. (and being minorities and women) Also, it's not like the GOP isn't suffering from stagnation in it's own ranks. People like Mitch McConnell or Susan Collins have congressional terms old enough to order drinks at a bar. As the boomers die out, they're going to have to worry about a voting base that doesn't drool into their soup while watching Tucker Carlson every day.
lucky !DTWvtyGegw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,864
A cartoon doesn't prove anything
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,869
> You say you don't support murdering babies, and get when people have babies you don't think your tax money should go to handouts for them, which is basically the same thing as murdering them. Checkmate, republicans!Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 19 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,872
@previous (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
It kind of is the same. Especially when you also lobby to teach abstinence in schools and for insurance companies to not have to cover birth control
It kind of is the same. Especially when you also lobby to teach abstinence in schools and for insurance companies to not have to cover birth control
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,169,897
@1,169,833 (A)
> The point is that Republicans are 100% against helping the poor, school lunches, free food for poor children, and welfare. It is hypocritical. Be born, then suffer!
This is your textbook technique: make an utterly retarded histrionic claim, then when called on it scale it back incrementally until you finally throw in the towel and give up because you open your mouth before turning your brain on.
This is why you never get any serious engagement. What would you think of me if I was asking you to "refute" Stonetoss comics? You'd think I was an idiot and quite rightly so.
> The point is that Republicans are 100% against helping the poor, school lunches, free food for poor children, and welfare. It is hypocritical. Be born, then suffer!
This is your textbook technique: make an utterly retarded histrionic claim, then when called on it scale it back incrementally until you finally throw in the towel and give up because you open your mouth before turning your brain on.
This is why you never get any serious engagement. What would you think of me if I was asking you to "refute" Stonetoss comics? You'd think I was an idiot and quite rightly so.