78
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
78 points (98.8% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15910 readers
426 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure if what he posted makes no sense or if that's because English is not my first language, but I cannot make sense of what he tried to say.
Could someone please explain it to me in simpler terms?
He's saying that people that are disadvantaged are
not always "right." And then he swings hard for the fascist fences by suddenly trampling over that open ended vagueness by saying might makes right, actually.
This was pretty much my take. Idk why he seems to think he needs to periodically post some quasi-intelligent drivel once a month though. His fans already think he's Space Jesus and the Left hate him for being a fascist dork and aren't at any risk of suddenly thinking he's some wise sage.
Otherwise he'd lose relevance. As a mere CEO, he's not doing the actual work at his companies after all
Thanks its clearer now.
He is saying it should be "correct makes strong and as either side can be correct it is being correct that makes you strong" .... I think. Or he's saying "strong makes correct" as in "sometimes weak is correct but strong is always correct." Either way its some murky 'too-clever-for-my-own-britches' bullshit.