EatATaco @ EatATaco @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

2,804

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you have to make up a position to make someone wrong, you can rest assured even you realize you don't have an actual argument.

Can you really not come up with any other explanation? I agree that this is fucking incredibly troubling, and I will assume the worst about this guy based on his past handling of the presidency, but it's shocking to me that people think he outright said he would end democracy and there is no ambiguity here.

Like easily I could strain and say "well, he's saying that he is going to make things so good that everyone is going to vote for him, so the Christians no longer will need to." Or "I don't care in 4 years because I won't be able to run."

I've seen plenty of people trying to justify it trying to convince themselves, and others, that this is not what he said. I've not seen a single person say it's good that he would do that, but those people probably should be watched closely.

Trump's a fucking criminal twat, and at best you're a rube if you are voting for him.

I recognize this, but it's not a crime to be stupid and fall for his shit.

Until someone actually breaks a law, suggesting that people should.be jailed for who they vote for is something I expect out of an idiotic authoritarians mouth, like trump.

I'm not defending their anti drag position, it is ridiculous.

But they find drag to be an affront to their beliefs, and thus them making fun of the last supper is offensive in this case (it isn't making fun of it, which I just learned, I'm speaking hypothetically here) and maybe not when it is referenced humorously in others.

It's like some white person getting up on stage and doing jokes about living fried chicken and watermelon. Maybe some people are mildly put off by it but most would just think it dumb. But put that white guy in black face and all of a sudden it's a lot more offensive. I'm not equating these two, just pointing out how context matters.

But I'm not even sure why that matters here because the statement was that it really isn't part of the bible, when it's clearly depicting a major moment in the Bible.

Ah yes, let's combine is violent rhetoric with claims of jailing people for committing the crime of...falling for a conman and voting for him.

That's the spirit.

Thanks.

I think religion is hogwash but criticizing a famous depiction of an event that happened in the Bible because it's not actually being part of the Bible strikes me as desperate.

I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t want to burn most paintings.

How does ignorant, fabricated hate get so many upvotes here?

I would like to hear from the actual people, rather than some historian just coming up with something that could be an excuse.

Additionally, I regularly go to museums, I took art elective art classes in both HS and college, including art history, and I've never seen this painting. Im willing to bed 99% of people haven't even heard of the artist. So attacking people for not making this connection ss "ignorant" seems to be a bit much.

My man, you were the dick first, not me. Well, I guess I was a dick to the general treatment of America Lemmy, but when you challenged that I responded respectfully making my case.

After saying you would agree with me if you saw it happening, I pointed it out happening right here. Did you agree? No, you just shifted blame, implying it's wrong to expect you to remember what we were talking about from post to post, even admitting latter that you meant this made me a stickler.

Again, I reiterate my point: if this is you giving people a second chance, it's little surprise that they often live up to your expectations.

I implied nothing about you other than you might be a stickler to expect me to scroll up and click several buttons to confirm I’m on the same page every time someone responds to tell me I’m wrong.

Exactly, you're trying to shift the blame away from yourself; it's my fault for being a stickler, not yours for not even bothering to make sure your point was disproved already in the short thread we're in.

Look, I don't blame you for me responding in kind. That's my own doing and I know I should be better about it. But you're projecting the victim mentality: you're blaming me for pointing out that my point had been made. You're making this whole negative interaction my fault for being a dick.

I could have been more kind, but you responded sarcastically when I pointed out that what I was talking about had just happened, basically trying to shift blame from yourself instead of just apologizing or admitting that I might have a point. You even kind of implied that because I remember the context, I don't have a life because your life distracts you from remembering what happens from post to post.

If this is how you typically treat people you're giving a second chance, it's no surprise that they respond in kind.

I can see how one would not remember a thing ever happening if they can't even remember it happening in a comment they had to have read no more than a minute earlier.

Literally the top level post is complaining that any blatant authoritarian would be dead in the water in any other democracy.

Nayib Bukele, a pretty blatant authoritarian, just won an election in El Salvador. And have you been paying attention to the rise in right wing authoritarians winning in Europe?

The idea that this is isolated to the us makes no sense.

I've got no problem with reasonable criticism of America. In fact I have many of my own. My issue is that here, shitting on America is well received regardless almost completely regardless of how reasonable it is.

100% agreed. But that's not what I'm talking about. People just mindlessly shit on America here all the time. Just because I recognize the unreasonable American hate does not mean I'm an unreasonable American supporter. Not every is simple and black and white how you would like it.

Well, first, judging what's right based on what's popular is dumb on it's own, but it's even more dumb here because the up vote/down vote is current equal for my post, making it clearly not "everyone."