El Barto @ elbarto777 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,580

Joined

2 yr. ago

There you go. That's what it is.

It's a classic "no u" retort. It was ineffective.

Don't get mad. That's what they want.

Get weirded out.

Because that's what they deserve. Said by Mr. Walz himself.

Calling a serviceman a traitor? Fucking weird. It makes no sense, man. Where do they get that weird logic from? Buncha weirdos.

I disagree with you and I'm done with this conversation. You haven't backed up any of your claims.

Edit: Hopefully you won't ban me for my opinions.

You haven't answered my question. All those links talk about the problem of homelessness, not that they "abdicated the responsibility to make decisions for themselves."

Excellent victim blaming, by the way.

Lol! What kind of weird ass argument is this?!

Can you back it up?

I'd teach all the raping and incest and send homework in which parents need to participate finding the answers.

Fox News is an "entertainment network" per their own lawyers, so I will never take them seriously.

Plus regardless of content, they played a BIG role into the whole "elections were stolen" bullshit.

It's just noise to me. Though I don't downvote it, I enjoy watching it being downvoted.

What the fuck is this comment...

"Donald, I'm speaking." Like a little kid.

This would be delicious!

Yup. Unfortunately, what sank Hillary was the fact that she was portrayed as unlikable. It worked wonder, as we know.

She had a commanding voice and the demeanor. But unfortunately 2016 was very different from 2024, and she tried to "play by the rules" when the other guy was a piece of shit from the get go. If she knew what we know today, the debates would be very different. I could see Hillary using a very condescending tone on Trump ("Oh, Donald, stop with your weird attacks"), and maybe it could have worked.

Ditto. Thanks!

It's so weird that Republican candidates are so obsessed with a harmless group of people who all they want is to love whom they want.

Which is even more asinine because - and I'm not going to pretend that racist black people don't exist - he is trying to apply the same logic that works with his non-black followers. Replace black with white - "Kamala now says she's white!!!" And you can tell that that's how he thinks.

And the funny thing is, from his point of view (not mine, okay?), shouldn't Kamala claiming she's black a plus for his campaign?

"Another black president?! Hell no!"

I'm not sure why he does what he does. I guess he likes to stir shit up for the sake of stirring shit up.

No, fuck that. I'll continue using DEI as it was intended. To convey Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

If the fuckers want to use it as a dog whistle, be my guest. It's a weak-ass whistle anyway.

If it's not DEI, then it will be something else. I'd rather continue thinking of something positive when someone mentions "DEI."

"Oh, you're not the best for this job, you're a DEI hire" - "I'm quite capable and if they hired me because of DEI then ALL THE BETTER. About time for me to catch up to what's given to you for the same fucking reason (your skin color), asshole."

Replace DEI with awesomeness. "You didn't get the job because you're the best. You got it because they think you're awesome." - "Welp... I can live with that!"

It's really hard to admit when one's world view is not what it seems. I've been there, and at the beginning it was hard to do. But it gets easier with time. Enlightening, even.

I will debate you to death if I am truly convinced that I am right. But if you prove me wrong, for me that's an awesome moment, and I'll feel like I learn something truly new.

Thanks, man. Yes, I think we were referring to two similar things, but definitely not the same.

When you said biases, you were referring to clinical, psychological ones, just like you said.

When I said biases, I was referring to those based on interests or an individual's experience. For example, a person might say that she has a bias for black kittens when trying to pick up on at the rescue shelter, because she grew up with one (you probably mentioned that kind of bias in the big list you shared - I just don't know how it's called.)

And I agree with you. Some people thought that Biden "is the most progressive president ever," or held other equally fallacious statements.

Particularly, my "bias," if we can call it that way, is that, at least up until the moment Biden bowed down, the Republicans seemed like a very unified party, whereas the Democrats didn't know what to do with themselves, and they didn't seem to be as unified. For example, Hillary Clinton (in sprite of winning the popular vote) didn't win enough votes because some party members protested by not voting. No unity whatsoever. And my bias, or fear, was that if Biden bowed down, the party would be like little ants scattering around - giving Trump the win.

Thankfully that was not the case in the end, and I happily stand corrected.

Anyway. Thanks. Nice discussion.

This is the part that is confusing:

"Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture."

Ok, what biases?

"Anchoring bias, blah, blah"

That's like saying "there are many reasons why that engine doesn't fit for that car" and then when someone asks you "what reason?" you reply "a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason," ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING CONCRETE. Is that red cable sticking out of the engine too thin and it risks catching fire?

Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is "anchoring bias" in this case.

That's all I want, man.

"Democrats have a Status Quo bias because they do this and they do that."

2012 too, man. Congress shut down the government under Obama because "fuck you, that's why!"