1100
Pardon me for not finding “vulnerable people need to die for my ideology” very convincing.
(mbin.grits.dev)
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
1100 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
7516 readers
228 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Literally just read the meme you're responding to... Lol
He's not the only one
It's almost as if they have a little script of a handful of arguments that they like to switch among, and aren't actually organically reading the content and having organic thoughts that they feel like sharing in response, so it sometimes doesn't register with them if one of the things on their list has some specific connection with the meme they're responding to. Result, they don't react differently or even acknowledge the connection, they just say the thing on their list.
Almost as if
I wonder who would benefit most if these completely real and genuine people could get folks to stop voting by convincing everyone that is meaningless?
Must be nice inserting yourself in all the moments of the conversation you aren't part of and adding nothing to the thought taking place.
😅
Bro your talking points are like 15 years out of date
Abortion
Stronger NLRB -> stronger unions -> wage increases at the lower end of the pay scale
As long as you keep replying to me, I'm going to keep lightning-rounding concrete tangible changes that have happened as a result of recent elections.
I could write "no fascist dictatorship" but that one's a little easier to dismiss as hyperbole I think, even though it's not
Who do you imagine is showing me presentations, that make me think these things? I'm just curious.
Family separations at the border; for anyone in one of those families, the result of Trump being in office during that time versus Clinton or Biden is pretty fuckin significant
As do yours, dipshit. I'm sorry that you saw a bunch of depressing news and it turned you into a nihilistic edgelord, but you need to stop trying to drag other people down with you by trying to convince us that since we can't conclusively 100% definitively prove that voting makes a difference, we shouldn't bother getting off our couches on election day.
There is zero proof of the existence of God, yet people still pray. Even if they aren't sure they really believe, hey, they might as well. There is a mountain of evidence that voting works and it costs $0 to do it.
$15/hr minimum wage. People living in a studio apartment can now ring up people's hamburgers without choosing between food and rent as a direct result of a ballot measure in several states across America. But who's counting?
Very interesting choice of words.
I had my suspicions you had an ulterior motive to convince leftists not to vote when you didn't even try to defend your position, instead responding with the standard troll evasions and goalpost moving. It's nice having it confirmed, though.
Oh, and just in case anyone at home is keeping score: the SAG-AFTRA strike directly prevented Hollywood from replacing all of their existing actors with AI recreations and subsequently firing them.
I'm gonna get a little self congratulatory about it. During Covid, I was watching the news coming out of China, and somewhat ahead of the curve on explaining to people that it was going to be a huge deal, even down to the specifics of we're going to need to stay home for a while but it won't be an apocalypse, we want to stock up on masks, things like that. One of my friends actually told me I seemed like I had the inside track on it. If I was just watching CNN for what was going to happen I would have been absolutely an idiot about it... I actually remember when the news and CDC was telling people masks didn't work, and me telling someone "This might sound a little weird, but I actually don't think that's true." And then explaining why.
I've known people who've worked for presidential candidates and spent some amount of time with them. The world is not as isolated and theoretical as you're making it sound. I get what you're saying, but there's a whole world of experience beyond just what happens on the screen. If you're purely in the consumer mode then yes. If you're active in the actual events then you start to learn what is worth listening to and see what seems well-founded in terms of how things actually play out.
That's why abortion is a good touchstone. It's a lot of Republicans' first harsh wake up call to the idea that the news and how things are packaged has been lying to them all this time. I've been wrong about things plenty of time, but IDK why you would assume my only experience with the world is just what I'm observing on the screen.
40% reduction in emissions predicted by 2030 (not that that's enough, but it's definitely a difference from what Trump would have done)
(If you can tell me Trump maybe isn't real, I can tell you, yes it's definitely going to happen exactly that way because the New York Times told me so. The truth probably lies between those two extremes.)
You sound insufferable.
Idk, it sounds like you pursue ideological purism at the expense of things like women's rights.
Sure putting in a lot of engagement for someone who says they'd rather before alone...
You're an odd one. Twice now you've said that words on a screen are pointless, yet you're trying to convince others with words on their screens, thus showing that you believe words on a screen can be used to sway others, otherwise why would you bother debating at all if you believed words useless. But bad arguments seems to be all you have, so I guess that's just another example of it.
You can actually do this.
It's way more complex than a tour -- it's a whole process; among other things, they have average Joe Schmoes from both major parties overseeing everything (i.e. not like the DNC's agents, more like Betty who's been doing it since the 1970s), and they do things like hand recounts of randomly selected portions of the ballots that got fed into the machines, to give warning signs if someone has tried to rig the machines. It's definitely not perfect; in the early 2000s there were very, very strong indications that the Republicans were rigging election machines on a pretty big scale. But I think asserting that just because you personally don't understand how it works it means it must be untrustworthy is also not really airtight either.
My strongest argument for saying that it's not rigged is that, if it was rigged, I think it's highly unlikely that the establishment powers would have picked Trump. But yes, by signing up as an election worker, you can literally see for yourself a lot of the safeguards that are in place (at least in your area) and decide for yourself whether you think they're overall trustworthy.
apparently, he doesn't believe that Trump actually exists, so it's more than a little likely he's either completely insane and detached from reality, or, more likely, is just acting in bad faith / is disingenuous / an intelligent troll.
Yeah who knows dude
Most of the time I try to respond to people as if they were real and sincere unless they give me a specific reason to think they're not, even if internally I have some doubts.
unabashedly correct, and watch how those who dissent your opinion will do everything but engage with this example.
Lol, why would I try to convince you when you already stated you can't be convinced