AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

890 readers

1291 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

DougHolland@lemmy.world

We can't be friends. (64.media.tumblr.com)

submitted 4 months ago by DougHolland@lemmy.world to c/aiop@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] RadicallyBland@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

and if Trump being a FELON And RAPIST isn't enough to get you to overcome the Democrat bias you were raised with.. you are a sad, disgusting person. No, we cannot be friends if you support him. Kamala: I want to support the working class and help people buy homes. Trump: I will immediately punish everyone who has opposed me. The two sides are not the same. Maybe before Trump you could pretend they were. They weren't.. but the GOP kinda pretended they weren't fascist POSs. Project 2025 just fucking comes out and says it. They want to overthrow democracy.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

They are saying two different things.

But why would you believe Kamala is radically different is beyond me. It's lawful evil vs chaotic evil. Yes, with evil you'd prefer lawful.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Very, VERY much depends on HOW we disagree politically.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The typical issue with people making these statements is that they tend to wildly exaggerate and straw man the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on anything.

Who out there is actually saying "children shouldn't be fed", for example? Fucking nobody, lol.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they’re referring to the old idiom ‘actions speak louder than words’.

When people pass laws saying kids don’t get lunch at school, that trans people can’t legally change their gender, that being homeless is a crime, and that women can’t have abortions, they are saying all those things.

And when people tell you who they are, believe them.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, they’re referring to the old idiom ‘actions speak louder than words’.

What actions? This is done most commonly toward strangers they don't know at all.

If someone were to say, for example, "I'm okay with the government picking up the slack to keep a kid from starving, but it shouldn't be treated like a solution. Instead, it should be seen as a temporary necessary measure while resources are put into solving the real problem, by preventing children from being in a position where their own parents aren't capable of feeding them to begin with, since they're the ones who should be doing it", the people I'm talking about would happily contort it into "they want kids to starve", because that requires no thought/effort, and you get to look morally superior to boot, since now that guy's just evil, because what a horrible thing it is to want children to starve!

Fact is, almost nobody is willing to even take the majority of people at their word, much less actually steelman an argument, which is how you really end up with rock solid positions and arguments, instead of having to rely on stupid rhetorical and semantic maneuvers.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The entitlement of the average right winger really is something to behold.

I don't highly enforce my pronouns. Not because it doesn't effect me but because being labeled a troublemaker who is hard to get along with is a career limiting move... And some interactions are so limited that it's not worth creating social awkwardness to self advocate. Days where this happens a lot make me depressed, grumpy and eats into the energy I have reserved to enjoy my leisure time.

Which is why it is so frustrating that some people demand that calling me by my dead name or refer openly to my sex using pronouns I hate is completely consequenceless that even when I tell them the only reprocussion to them is that I will not like being around very much them they get angry. Like I am cheating them of being owed that I automatically enjoy their company.

They are so bloody sensitive that the consequence of me thinking they are kind of shit to be around is somehow a tyranny. I just wanna yell at them like dude.. You keep bringing attention to the physical body that represents my least favorite aspects of existing by mentioning directly in conversation because that's what words like "she", "her", "girl" and "woman" mean to you. You might as well be openly talking about my fucking genetalia because that is your only qualifier for using those words. You are reflecting the things I didn't like about about the experience of myself back at me. If I openly referenced your least favorite physical trait every time casually in conversation how much would you enjoy being around me?