i mean no it doesn’t because right wing ideology isn’t “these things are good” it’s “i want to hit people and not be hit back”

if we demand more from representatives and succeed you dingdongs accuse them of coopting all of the energy. depart, wrecker

gargoyle is the brand of sunglasses that Terminator made famous. they had a shirt with that slogan. if you know context it makes sense, but out of context the shirt is silly

is this a “Let A Gargoyle Sit On Your Face” where there’s an actual explanation or is it just a shirt that says that

did the bad news community ever delete that stupid fucking robot

i dislike wordfilters for this reason

i mean fun fact the person who appoints the police captain is elected, allowing bad voters to insert a bad police captain

qanon is, as the name suggests, anonymous, so you don’t contact qanon, qanon posts some dumb shit and you have no real way of identifying whether it was the real dipshit or a fake dipshit. there is no national qanon organization, only cult weirdos looking for secret codes on facebook, who you can talk to, I guess

generally the best way to contact antifa is to form your own group and then talk to them. second best is probably praying that you have a local group that isn’t a scam and has a PR side that you can instagram. there is no national or world antifa org; if you’re doing antifa shit then you’re antifa now

You’re probably right that OP has blocked this person (every sane comment has downvotes except in this chain!), but “unpleasant interactions?” I’m having unpleasant interactions with OP right now (I have put it on hold until they solve the multiple choice question above, though) and that individual sure can’t stop posting. Since I remain clearly unblocked, I have to conclude that OP blocked this person for some reason other than “unpleasant interactions.” Anyway if OP is curious about stuff they can’t see due to choosing to not see it, OP can log out of the account that’s choosing to not see the stuff.

I’m not continuing until you reply to the top comment in your post.

Since this is down in the bad comments zone and my attempt at getting people to play “find the assumption” has failed I’m gonna just answer this (also I looked at your post history and you seem to be a real human). “I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats” “If you can solve the multiple choice question of which of the four candidates to vote for, you are a centrist/liberal (in the leftist sense)/duopoly/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-boi. No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it and attempt to change the subject before anyone notices, thus normalizing it. A person not pushing an agenda who writes like a normal person would probably say “I can’t wait for you dumbdumbs/Lemmy to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset” or more likely just not bring it up at all. People are gonna accuse me of being silly but there’s simply no reason to bring it up and phrase it that way unless that’s what you’re attempting.

OP will engage in a ten hour discussion in the bad comments replying within seconds every time and not do one multiple choice question

OP is also pushing the assumption: “Everyone is either 100% paid by Putin directly, or 100% totally fine.” This is a bad assumption. It’s totally fine to say “I, an internet poster, have no idea as to how many handshakes away from Putin this person is. They could be paid, or paid by a surrogate, or ten degrees of that, or they could have been fooled into sincerely believing RT talking points. However, their behavior and statements are useful idiot behavior and useful idiot statements, and I’m judging them appropriately.”

Look I’m gonna engage with this for the benefit of people watching. I’m not engaging in personal attacks as you’re attempting to imply. I don’t want to “own” you in a debate. I want the people reading this to look more critically at the opinion you’re trying to insert without directly saying, so that they’re better inoculated against this kind of stuff in the future. Just saying “you opinion bad me good” doesn’t do that! Of course if you wanted to have a truly gigantic brain and “own” me you could openly name the assumption you’re trying to push, and show it isn’t an assumption (which is your job to do as the person making the argument, by the way, unless you’re a “prove there’s no bigfoot anywhere” type individual)

look no offense but I’m speaking to the people you’re attempting to influence (mods removed a slightly different phrasing of this for civility reasons, let’s see if removing a key phrase is good enough)

Removed by mod

there’s a typical sneaky bullshitter strategy that sneaky bullshitters always use (i am using “bullshit” according to the wikipedia definition so it is civility, there’s no other way to communicate the idea). the strat is this: sneak an assumption in and treat it as a fact. then, start an argument about an unrelated thing. nobody argues about the assumption. kapow! the sneaky bullshitter has just sneakily pushed a bullshit idea and gotten away with it. can you find the assumption, internet posters?

other posters of this type post chaff for this purpose yeah

oh my fucking god I almost got mad and then I realized

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

awful source, awful article, if this is news try again with a good one