Seasoned_Greetings @ Seasoned_Greetings @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

583

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sotomayor: cries

Dude, thanks for posting this.

Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don't understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.

But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.

There is at least an entire sub dedicated to hating on pit bulls. I think multiple subs. During its time a few years ago, one specific sub could make it to the top of r/all with 10,000+ upvotes.

Reddit really doesn't like pit bulls.

In Louisiana, we have a super majority republican congress, bought republican judges, and a republican governor for the first time in 8 years. We are in a phase of revenge passing whatever right wing bills they can get away with because we no longer have a Democrat governor to turn away the ridiculous crap.

Our legislature absolutely will write in Christianity as the "correct" religion, and our governor is in the process of rewriting our constitution for a few reasons, one of which could very well be naming Christianity.

It's going to take more than a challenge from tst to fix this one... We are deteriorating faster than Texas because Republicans are passing bills out of spite.

The beauty of being here on lemmy is that I genuinely can't tell whether you said this because you're far right or because you're far left

Stupid opinion either way. That Ai is going to catch its share of r/conservative idiots and be a nice blend of ignorance

Biden and Trump couldn't collude on a place to order takeout

I was talking about people who know me and interpret autistic behavior as a sign of danger.

You came into a conversation about unknown men being an implicit danger to women, a subject that's a title post and 3 comments deep, to talk about how people treat you like that because of something completely different, not clarify that you're talking about something completely different, and then you're wondering why I'm thinking you're talking about the subject of the post?

I'm willing to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but your insistence that I'm a clown for defending a point that you made no indication wasn't what you were even talking about until now has left me completely unwilling to talk to you further.

This is pointless. Goodnight.

This concept isn't hard to understand and every time someone has a problem with it it's always some variation of being personally offended because they think someone else's safety is actually about them.

You're not different. I didn't ascribe your position, you literally said you're insulted because you've never done anything to justify that behavior.

That's a variation of making it about you because you don't feel like you should be lumped in with other men, even though in the situations this happens in it's because the other person doesn't know you.

You're the exact type of person I was talking about with the exact point the last 5 have all made. I thought it might be sarcasm because you can't seriously be trying to assert the same thing they all did on a comment calling them all out for refusing to get it, but here we are.

Calling me a clown is a cheap cop out to deflect from the fact that your feelings are hurt. Go bait someone else.

Antarctica is technically not a country

We're all pointless opinions here on the world wide web, bucko.

That being said, I hate your pointless opinion with every fiber of my being and I'm fully prepared to sit at my computer and argue about it through the wee hours of the morning

So is this sarcasm or do you really not understand that it isn't your right to decide what other people discern as safe vs unsafe?

Because if it's not sarcasm, I'm really not in the mood to have a 6th argument with another person whose entire position boils down to "well it hurts my feelings because not all men are bad"

There's a similar concept that has sprung up in discission around here about how basically all women have a sense of danger around men they don't know or the ones obviously being creepy.

Way too many people here think that without a form of physical assault involved, taking measures to distance yourself from someone you get a bad feeling about is sexism and as bad as racism because not all men are bad.

Like, if I'm walking down a sidewalk and the person walking towards me decides to cross the street because I'm a man, I get it. It's not hard to grasp that some people don't want to be close to someone who might objectify them.

But I've been in probably 5 separate arguments on lemmy about how women who do that are misandrist garbage because every man deserves a shot and you should always give men the benefit of the doubt.

There's definitely a higher concentration of man-centric conversation here.

Had me in the first half

Bernie doesn't do a ton of grandstanding. He's also one of the only senators who introduces bills that get bipartisan support sometimes. I really don't think he's introducing a bill he means to go nowhere

No you misunderstand. These laws are for poor people. The lawmakers will have their daughters flown up north to a state where they can still get one

This is incredibly disingenuous. The US might not be a true democracy, but it's not an authoritarian regime. Xi and putin disappear people who have an opinion on whether they should be forever-rulers.

The fact that independent parties exist and hold seats at all three levels of government mean you are fundamentally wrong in saying there are only two choices.

The US is a flawed democracy. That's still better than an authoritarian regime.

most of the time for no reason at all

Not for no reason. It's a form of control. If you genuinely believe that the opposing party is going to bring the country to ruin, you're a lot less likely to consider their position in politics.

Look at the affordable care act. Conservatives hated/hate it because "obamacare" was portrayed as giving free health care to the lazy poor that you have to pay for as a hard working conservative. When asked if we should repeal Obamacare, conservatives poll something crazy like 95% yes, simply because it's a bad word they learned.

Many of those conservatives have health care through the ACA and get mad when Republicans take it away because they need it. Those same conservatives mostly aren't even aware that what they have is literally obamacare.

It's control all the way down.

Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It's drilled into them by their media outlets.

The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.

Seriously. Nixon's think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.

They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.

The Frankenstein's monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.

So there's your answer. It's because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don't believe me, turn on Fox news. There's always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.