why do they keep calling themselves the "lesser evil"
I love that this is an admission on their part that they are in fact, evil.
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
why do they keep calling themselves the "lesser evil"
I love that this is an admission on their part that they are in fact, evil.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
I hate it when a pair of tiny men try to get me to do things when all I want is to dig holes with my shovel.
Tunnelgang
Tinyman Square, literally 1969
Malcolm FAX
A long time ago... back in the internet new atheist days, or whatever its called... I was watching YT videos of Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin (last I heard the org was full of chuds... dont @ me) talking about getting into conversations, arguments, debates with Christians trying to "change his mind".
At some point he started responding to their rhetoric with a question, "What convinced YOU to be a Christian?"
The point of the question being, 99% of the arguments are purely rhetorical, they are not real arguments, they only exist to try to score points or back somebody into a "logical" corner where a person would have to admit that logically and rhetorically the Christian was correct.
The "less of two evils" argument is not a real argument. No lib who is talking, debating, arguing with you thinks they are the "lesser of two evils". They think they are correct and are trying to find some way to get you to admit that (1) you have no valid rhetorical counter point, (2) change your opinion and/or actions because you didn't have a valid rhetorical counter point, and (3) reinforce their own position/opinion by seeing that there was no valid rhetorical counter point to their arguments.
Yeah this is something a lot of people gotta understand. Debates are so people can either reinforce their own beliefs to themselves or look cool to people who already share their beliefs.
Debates are performances not communication
how do liberals not understand
Bread, circuses, "voting"... they understand, they don't care. They have their part to play in the "divide and conquer" strategy the ruling class has been using against the working class forever. Quite successfully for the most part.
Honestly it boils down to real estate, seeing that property value on their screen unfetters their minds and makes them think they're invincible
The idea that the order that sustains that imaginary number could collapse terrifies and infuriates them in equal measure, so they cope with racism
Liberals professionally don't understand things, it's what they do
libs are oblivious to a lot of things
they still try to use the "well biden has the best chance of beating trump" line
look, im not a gambler. i dont view voting as gambling, full stop. end of discussion on that talking point. it has no more sway over my vote than pointing out something like biden having thicker fingernails than trump. i vote for the candidate i think is best and presents the most moral path for social and political change. end of story.
and they will never understand this. i view voting for the candidate that is most likely to win as a doomed strategy for societal progress and when that candidate happens to be genocidal then this strategy is not just foolish, but fundamentally immoral. again, liberals are stuck in their thinking and just cannot grasp this much less internalize it