The annoying thing is, it's not just the dumbest person from high school. It's people who seem normal, until anything political is brought up.
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
202 points (93.2% liked)
Political Memes
5487 readers
4815 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm old, is political just slang for biggotry and woke just slang for empathy? I can't keep up with modern language.
"Political" is not white, or male, or straight, or Christian.
"Woke" = accepting of events and / or circumstances that have had in-/direct influence on their lives, likely preventing then from reaching parity.
So you're pretty much spot-on.
Hey so I'm a straight white male (not by choice) and I'd like to stop being lumped in with assholes.
Like, lots of assholes are straight white males, I get it. But we're overwhelmingly decent dudes.
Also, dude, "male" is not the preferred nomenclature anymore
Why do you think they are talking about you? Projecting insecurities? That's what your reply seems like
And yes, "male" is still the preferred way to refer to.. people who identify as men.
That was a joke, Susan
And no, "men" is actually the preferred term for people who identify as men. Male and female refer to biological sex characteristics. Man and woman are gender identities.
"NoT aLl Men"
If you don't do the bad things then they're not talking about you. But they say "men" because it's almost always men.
Example: men are rapists. => Not all men are rapists, but the vast majority of rapists are men.
So you don't need to feel sensitive about this, unless you somehow think you're guilty of whatever they're talking about.
"Some men". Fixed. Just add one word. The fact that you're so fixated on gaslighting people into thinking that generalizations are only okay when it targets the correct sex is very telling of your ignorance.
No one says "all men". You're implying it.
Dogs bark. Not all, of course. But no one says some.
"Men" is a classification set that includes all individuals of a sex. You're wrong categorically and philosophically, and the more you suggest otherwise the more you just look like a bigot.
“Men” is a classification set that includes all individuals of a sex.
Gender, actually. Men/man is a gender, not a sex. Male is a sex. If we're going to be pedantic, let's be properly pedantic about all of it I guess.
all individuals
I can't help if you see the world in strict absolutes. Most people don't do that. Most people understand that you can refer to a category without meaning literally every thing in that category 100% of the time.
Like when you said: "Other people have kind of touched on this already, but clients prioritize connections based on..." You clearly didn't mean ALL other people. Not every human on earth, surely. You meant some other people, but that those people were 'other'. Likewise, when people say men are the problem, they're talking about toxic/harmful men. Not all men, but they're all men.
Also, your post history is ... interesting. You are quite argumentative. There's an old saying, "If everything around you smells like shit, check your shoes." Maybe, just maybe, you're not surrounded by jerks.
Gender, actually. Men/man is a gender, not a sex. Male is a sex.
Ackchyually, both of these are true. If you agree that male is a sex, and "men" includes all males, then I think that means we're all squared up. Just because you're prejudiced doesn't mean you have to be obtuse as well.
I can’t help if you see the world in strict absolutes. Most people don’t do that. Most people understand that you can refer to a category without meaning literally every thing in that category 100% of the time.
You can refer to a category in this way. It's easy. You add a quantitative adjective. Everybody knows this from Kindergarten. I can't help if you're so bigoted that you object to the effort of adding one. single. clarifying word to distinguish correctly between all and some. IDGAF about whatever normative assertion you're pretending to be true, that doesn't make it correct.
Like when you said: “Other people have kind of touched on this already, but clients prioritize connections based on…” You clearly didn’t mean ALL other people. Not every human on earth, surely. You meant some other people, but that those people were ‘other’. Likewise, when people say men are the problem, they’re talking about toxic/harmful men. Not all men, but they’re all men.
"Other" doesn't classify all. It means additional. This is such a ridiculously asinine tangent designed to detract from the simple fact that you want to perpetuate bigotry.
Also, your post history is … interesting. You are quite argumentative. There’s an old saying, “If everything around you smells like shit, check your shoes.” Maybe, just maybe, you’re not surrounded by jerks.
This is my favorite part of dealing with people that know they're incorrect but bury their head in the sand anyways. It's outrageously funny. You can't support your statements with any coherent logic? Quick, press the "whatever the hell irrelevant ad hominem I can think of at the time" button! You're stuck in this foolish position now of arguing that I'm argumentative because you are incapable of making the effort of adding a single, 4-letter word as to not generalize people.
And it's nice that you think push back on misandry is pedantic and all, but I'm gonna keep telling it how it is. I'm definitely sensing an unusual waft of shit at the moment.
I always heard people talking about how many of their Facebook friends lost their minds with the Qanon stuff, but that wasn't my experience at all, everyone I still saw by that point was pretty reasonable. I started talking to one of my friends from high school about it and it turns out that the handful of people in our friend group that did start posting Qanon and Christofascist nonsense were also the same people who unfriended me back in 2012 after I came out as trans. It was pretty great, actually.
I'm from the south, I literally have 50% or more of my highschool blocked from shit they said from 2018 to 2020, then I stopped using Facebook
I saw one podcast with Rogan years ago and thought, "wow, this guy really listens to the people he has on, the guest has interesting things to say and it's intriguing to watch." Then I saw more. He saw the same light all these bastards see, the conservative base full of money and completely devoid of any sense or rational. I don't know if I can truly blame these people for taking easy millions, but it's also pretty hard to definitively say which ones are just cons for the money and which ones are true believers of their own nonsense.
They're complete suckers. I too realized quickly Rogan was just another Alex Jones with different frosting.
The US warned people about being suckers in 1947: https://youtu.be/vGAqYNFQdZ4
Why does anyone keep in contact with the dumbest people they knew from high school? Why would you want to?
Even dumb people have friends.
It's just weird to see mold fester. Most people I have this association with are people I'm forced to interact with; eg., work, relatives.
Is Joe Rogan seriously on the same level as Qanon? He explicitly calls them out as crazy.
As far as fake progressives go, Tim Pool is unironically evil and infinitely worse. Even if he's genuinely giving his opinion, he's so far down the rabbit hole of insanity that it's irrelevant.