Anonymous #1 23h

try hyperfixating on individual beliefs all you want, you made your chose by supporting this regime, and you make that same choice every single day that you continue to despite the president being a fucking rapist according to our judicial system. what an absolute joke

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

I never said I supported trump

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

Lmao I literally don’t support trump, and being pro life, generally pro 2a, and against hiring based on things outside of character and merit doesn’t make me a Nazi or Afrikaners during apartheid

1

Anonymous OP 23h

so are you saying, right now, that you don’t? or are you avoiding stating whether you actually do to avoid confirming the critique you’ve been receiving based on holding nearly every view that the current regime is perpetuating? because hey I will sincerely apologize if you actually do not support that rapist and the party enabling him; but as the black eyed peas once said, “I gotta feeling”

0

Anonymous OP 23h

ah so you don’t support Trump, but do you still ascribe yourself with the party actively enabling the rise of Trump, the same party actively dismissing his liability as a rapist, and his implication in the Epstein files? the issue are not any of those individual beliefs in isolation, it is the combination and how closely related they are to the current fascist regime in the nation. do you understand that?

-1

Anonymous #2 23h

So would it be good for me to be murdered for my beliefs, which I believe in because I think they’re morally justified and because I believe they’re good for people?

-2

Anonymous OP 23h

Also “pro-life”? you mean anti-abortion, right? don’t bullshit and call yourself pro-life if you’re only fixating on abortion; you don’t give a fuck about anyone actually alive right now, only weaponizing fetuses.

0

Anonymous OP 23h

Not saying anyone should be murdered. However, if your beliefs are hateful towards marginalized communities and something happens to you, oh well. Probably had it coming.

14

Anonymous OP 23h

you are actively instilling harm on others while refusing to listen to the people who were harmed, based on your insistence that your beliefs are justified and good for others. you do not deserve to be murdered, but you are not a good person lmao. aligning yourself with a rising fascist regime is indeed dangerous though.

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

I don’t support him, I think he’s part of the Epstein circle and should be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. However, I don’t think people who do support him deserve death. My mom, for example, voted for him despite hating him (she cried on her way home from voting) because she is very pro life and sees abortion equal to shooting an infant. Given this, even with everything he’s doing that’s morally evil, in her eyes he’s the lesser of 2 evils bc Harris supported abortion

0

Anonymous OP 23h

also, that whole “merit hiring” bullshit is a dogshit attempt at masking white supremacy. you can’t do any better than that?

3

Anonymous OP 23h

yes, it is common knowledge that members of fascist regimes (and cults, I might add) normally internalize justifications for their beliefs, even if they’re entirely unjustifiable. it’s a form of delusion, which is what is being displayed by the regime. they are deluding people into supporting him, aside from the subset of genuinely hateful people who actually describe themselves as white supremacists, neonazis, Christian nationalists, etc whatever.

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

Sharing certain beliefs with an individual or party don’t make you aligned with all they stand for, and I still don’t think people deserve death if they’re ignorant. Interestingly enough, the American right seems to be more ideologically diverse than the left (per pew research) which lends more credence to the idea that many trump supporters only support some policies of his, not everything, a lesser of 2 evils thing. Even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn’t deserve death

0

Anonymous OP 23h

It may not align you entirely, but knowingly voting for or supporting a side of people ok with a racist fascist misogynist leader means that those weren’t breaking n points for them.

3

Anonymous OP 23h

are you not sitting here justifying your association with the Republican Party? do you think the issue is isolated to Trump? and how many times must the same comment be shown to you?

0

Anonymous OP 23h

would you not acknowledge that the Nazis deserved death for their actions? do you acknowledge that the confederates deserved death for their actions ? (Not merely the act of rebellion, but the act of violently fighting to retain slavery) are you genuinely sitting here attempting to weaponize pacifism in defense of fascism?

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

I understand you mean well but this is so ideologically captured thought. There are rational arguments for pro choice and pro life, pro 2a and pro gun regulations, anti DEI and pro DEI. Categorizing those you disagree with as “actively instilling harm on others while refusing to listen to the people who are being harmed” is narrow minded and doesn’t make sense

0

Anonymous #1 23h

“I don’t think Israel should have a military occupation in Gaza” “actually no this is actively harming Israelis and you aren’t listening to them, and you are not a good person just because you think your beliefs are justified and good for others” What makes you a good person then? Only good outcome?

0

Anonymous OP 23h

restricting access to abortion case is documented to increase harm towards women. revoking legislation designed to mitigate the impacts of systemic racism, ie the impacts of both slavery and segregation, is documented to increase harm towards marginalized communities (especially black americans) the only partially-defendable view of yours is the pro-2a, which STILL is documented to cause harm without proper regulation.

5

Anonymous #1 23h

yes, you are contributing to an increase in violence and harm, and as I stated, you refuse to even consider the words of anyone you’re harming as you insist that you’re entirely justified. at best, you’re selfish and apathetic to what others go through. at worst, you’re a malicious narcissist and fully know exactly the impact of your views, and even hope for that harm to happen.

1

Anonymous #1 23h

It’s almost as though the post was responding to someone who said I should be dead for those 3 ideological beliefs. So is anyone associated at all with the Republican Party morally a bad person?

0

Anonymous OP 23h

why did you feel the need to weaponize (and simultaneously downplay) an ongoing genocide? do you genuinely refuse to engage in any form of self reflection whatsoever?

1

Anonymous #1 23h

I believe the nazis deserved court hearings. I don’t think you can compare supporting certain policies in the modern USA to nazis or the slave owning confederacy

0

Anonymous OP 23h

Yes.

3

Anonymous OP 23h

Yes you can.

5

Anonymous #1 23h

You don’t know that at all and again stereotyped someone else based on your bigoted preconceived notion about how other people must think. I do care deeply about people alive rn- that doesn’t mean that if I think infants are being killed I can’t be against infants being killed

0

Anonymous OP 23h

we can explicitly compare those topics as they’re intrinsically linked. what we’re living through today is a revitalization of the confederacy, and who do you think the Nazis were originally inspired by? (spoiler alert, it was us and our treatment of marginalized groups)

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

Explain exactly how this is the case. Claiming that measuring people on merit is white supremacy is racist against the very people DEI tries to support

0

Anonymous OP 23h

pro-life means being pro life. solely caring about a fetus, up until it leaves the womb, is not pro life whatsoever. you’re just weaponizing women and fetuses for your own personal gain, without giving a flying fuck that you’re doing so. otherwise you’d be advocating for things that actually help families, instead of criminalizing women who get abortions and doctors who perform them.

0

Anonymous OP 23h

Explain how you came to THIS conclusion.

4

Anonymous OP 23h

do you seriously want me to hold you hand and explain every step of this?

1

Anonymous OP 23h

what was life like, for anyone who was not white, before the civil rights act passed? did they have access to the same opportunities as white people? specifically, did they have access to the same jobs?

1

Anonymous #2 23h

OP is actually bugging for going down this route, he should’ve just pretending like he never saw the comment

0

Anonymous #1 23h

I’m applying your logic to another issue. You’re placing yourself in a very logically tricky spot- the beliefs you have must be right, people who say they are harmed by a policy must be right, and if you disagree with your policies you must be not a good person or at least ignorant and wrong. I applied it to the genocide in Gaza to show how supporters of even something as awful as this use the same logic you are using

7

Anonymous OP 22h

no you’re not, you’re deflecting by trying to invoke a completely separate topic, while downplaying said topic, as a means of avoiding addressing what my logic was actually discussing: your beliefs, and the impact of your beliefs. is an ongoing “military occupation” (which you oddly decided to frame an active genocide as) the same as one’s personal beliefs and what they advocate for politically? or are you being disingenuous as fuck to avoid acknowledging when you’re wrong?

-2

Anonymous OP 22h

furthermore, are you capable of acknowledging when you’re wrong, at all?

0

Anonymous #1 22h

Do you think close to 50% of the country who supports generally conservative policies are morally comparable to nazis or the confederacy?

1

Anonymous #1 22h

No pro life would be caring about a fetus until it leaves the womb and caring about the dignity and value of human life from conception until death. You have no clue what I advocate for but again make bigoted statements based on ignorance

0

Anonymous OP 22h

why would you think anywhere near 50% of this country supports your depraved bullshit? only about 60-70% vote in presidential elections, even less in midterms and local elections, and what do you think those polls are based on? (here’s a hint: voters) you’re more like 30-35% of the country, if that.

0

Anonymous OP 22h

and youre not “generally conservative” what are you conserving? please tell me. what in the hell is the modern fascist regime conserving? just keep digging that grave

0

Anonymous #2 22h

So to assume that minorities cannot be hired with merit based hiring practices is to assume they have less merit than majorities, usually white men

1

Anonymous OP 22h

you’ve put your own beliefs on display for us all to see, you dumbass. YOU are that person, don’t act as if you give a fuck about any of those fetuses once they’re born into babies. do you advocate for longer maternal leave? do you advocate for comprehensive parental care, including funding for necessities? do you advocate for literally anything else relating to families aside from criminalizing abortion? stop acting like we can’t all tell how much of a joke you ate

0

Anonymous #1 22h

you are*

0

Anonymous OP 22h

you’re not slick. WHY would there be more difficulty for anyone who isn’t white to secure employment, in a country that has violently oppression anyone who is not white for the majority of its lifetime (up until ~60 years ago, and even then, we still perform said oppression in other forms)

0

Anonymous OP 22h

like at this rate you’re just showing how you’re a white supremacist lmfao

0

Anonymous #1 22h

It sucked, and they didn’t. It was a reprehensible moral evil and no one deserved that treatment. DEI hiring practices prioritize things other than merit and character that people can’t change. It systematically discriminates against the worst off among the majority (ie poor whites) and gives racists ammunition to use against majorities while ignoring the actual systemic problems that create these issues

0

Anonymous #1 22h

I am, and this is a very disingenuous ad hominem and kinda an asshole move

-1

Anonymous OP 22h

oh my god you are merely a reprehensible white supremacist. you think “poor whites” are the worst off in our country? you’re fucking deluded, and you probably it, but you don’t give a fuck because you want to secure a bag at the expense of anyone who isn’t white. the more you talk, the more you show how 2 was right in that image you posted.

0

Anonymous OP 22h

like dipshit, YOU are the racist in question.

1

Anonymous #1 22h

Of course the subject matter is different, that’s how applying a principle to other things to test the validity of that principle works. I’m making a claim that judging people’s moral worth based on how you feel about their beliefs and what you think are the impacts of their beliefs isn’t a respectable or reasonable practice by showing how, in a severe situation, your method of judgment is perfectly used by genocide supporters.

5

Anonymous #1 22h

Why are you saying I support depraved bullshit? Again, making a bigoted claim about what I believe, making a value claim, and showing you haven’t engaged in good faith with opposing ideas.

1

Anonymous OP 22h

do you know what ad hominem is? It’s when someone tries to discredit your claim by purely attacking your character. meaning the discrediting is reliant on the disparaging of your character. I can give you an example. if I were to say, “you are wrong because you are dumb”, that is ad hominem. However, if I said, “you are wrong because of x, y, and z. you are dumb”, that is not ad hominem. so, did you not know what ad hominem truly was, or are you just lying for the love of the game?

0

Anonymous #1 22h

Again, like I’ve said before, I’m not facist and I don’t support trump. Dude engage with what I’m actually saying, not a picture of me or the “conservative boogyman” you’ve drawn in your head

0

Anonymous OP 22h

the issue in your claimed defense is that you cannot test a principle accurately by utilizing it within an apples to oranges comparison. I’m not judging your beliefs based on how I feel, I’m judging your beliefs based on the documented physical harm they cause. you need to propagandize that and are incapable of acknowledging that though, and thus you go on this deflective charade to avoid the actual content of my critiques. You are not slick, and you’re not as smart as you think you are lmfao

-1

Anonymous OP 22h

yeah, you’re just a white supremacist who thinks that white people are somehow the most oppressed in a nation that is inherently white supremacist, one that was founded directly in white supremacy. you’re absolutely a fascist, whether you support Trump or not lmfao. projection is not a good method of defense either.

0

Anonymous #1 22h

I literally do? I support all of those things. The only one I have a caveat with is parental necessities, bc I think the government getting involved in that market will produce more expensive lower quality things for parents, so we should support the hundreds of charities that cover parental necessities. Again, you’re making broad sweeping bigoted generalizations based on nothing. You know nothing about me at all dude and you’re completely unable to explain why I am

1

Anonymous OP 22h

I’ve already explained, multiple times, beginning with the foundation critique of how anti-abortion beliefs have a direct and documented correlation to an increase in harm towards women. you don’t like to acknowledge that though. and good, I’m happy you support some of the bare minimum. you’re almost there.

0

Anonymous #1 22h

Have you never had a political or moral debate outside of social media? This is the norm? You take a principle and apply it all over the place to see how it stands. My claim is your judgment isn’t a rational method to judge people. I apply your method of judgement as it would be used by others. I show that it doesn’t engage with logical reasoning and leads to dangerous conclusions and oversimplified judgements

6

Anonymous OP 22h

no, you do not apply it “all over the place”. you test it within reasonable comparisons. I’ve repeatedly told you how your beliefs are *documented* to lead to increases in harm. you created a hypothetical scenario without that same documented correlation, as a means of discrediting the critique I offered you; in addition to deflecting from acknowledging how your views are harmful. you are disingenuous lmao

-2

Anonymous #1 22h

I’m not sure why you’re ending every message with an insult, if you want to take a break and cool down legitimately like not trying to be an ass that’s cool. Rather than engaging with what I say you make value statements based on nothing concrete, insult me, insult my intelligence, and don’t provide evidence for claims about me, what you think I believe in, and just claim I can’t acknowledge when I’m wrong rather than actually engage. In this case I think my use of ad hominem was slightly

0

Anonymous OP 22h

Inaccurate but not across many of your messages

1

Anonymous #1 22h

Where did I say that? Where did I say any of that? Why don’t you back up your insults against me or take a break so you can calm down

0

Anonymous OP 22h

your use of ad hominem was entirely false, not just “slightly inaccurate”, but as for the insults, why do you think? you’re over here spouting off nonsense about being an anti-abortionist who thinks we should revoke the legislation passed to mitigate the impacts of systemic white supremacy, while simultaneously claiming that white people are somehow the worst off group of people in a nation FOUNDED ON WHITE SUPREMACY.

0

Anonymous #1 22h

go ahead and take a wild guess why you’re being insulted, aside from your infuriating arrogance in holding dogshit beliefs?

0

Anonymous #1 22h

Still not engaging with what I’m saying. Saying “pro life beliefs have a direct correlation towards harm of women” isn’t how you make a moral argument with someone who is pro life bc they believe abortion=killing and infant. Positive correlation towards harm of women is less bad than directly killing millions of infants. There are good arguments on both sides of whether abortion is murder, and someone who thinks it is or isn’t is not just an ignorant bigot. You judge their morality based

3

Anonymous OP 22h

On their intent and understanding of what they are doing

1

Anonymous OP 22h

you’re an imbecile. that conversation you posted this bullshit in was discussing white supremacy and systemic oppression, and you responded by claiming that the group that has been the oppressor in this nation, is somehow the oppressed. and if you don’t realize how this is problematic, like if you genuinely do not understand what i mean, feel free to DM me and I can explain it to in a calm manner between my classes today.

0

Anonymous OP 22h

What?

1

Anonymous #1 22h

Dude you are completely missing my argument and attacking a straw man. Suppose someone has some condition where for whatever reason they 100% believe killing dogs is a moral good and is really good for dogs. You aren’t going to attack that person as someone who is evil, you see their intent as good and their understanding as good given their perspective and though you try to stop them from killing dogs you don’t attack their character for wanting the good.

4

Anonymous #1 22h

you are a piece of shit dude lmfao, you think an unborn fetus in more valuable or important than the life of an existing woman with established and complex relationships? you’re not helping your case.

0

Anonymous #1 22h

These beliefs that are “documented” to do harm are similar. Suppose we live in another reality where there is no abortion, but there is legalized killing of newborns. Suppose the newborn living has the same effect as the fetus living. People against legalized killing of newborns even if it is correlated with general better wellbeing for women to have access to this aren’t morally evil and shouldn’t be judged based on their perspective

0

Anonymous OP 22h

you want to talk about a strawman after repeatedly making strawman arguments, then immediately make another strawman argument? what in the stupidity is this?

-1

Anonymous #1 22h

Did I say I was anti civil rights act? Another false assumption

0

Anonymous OP 22h

That is if that’s what you’re claiming

-1

Anonymous OP 22h

did I claim that you said that? I said you’re targeting the legislation and methods meant to mitigate the damage of white supremacy; the equal opportunity act is one of those methods. The concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion, is part of that. do you have anything better to respond with aside from projection and deflection?

0

Anonymous #1 22h

No I’m saying if you believe it’s a human being you’re accepting the unfortunate increase in harm for women over the murder of innocent human beings. My thoughts on this have nothing at all to do with religion (another false assumption). My claim is that because you can reasonably hold several positions on opposing sides of issues, and do so in a way that is focused on wellbeing for all other people and promoting human dignity, you can’t be going around saying those who disagree with u are immo

0

Anonymous OP 22h

immoral. I’m pro life. I don’t sit here thinking and treating you like you support the worst genocide in history, which would be abortion by the numbers if I’m correct about it, because I understand there are reasonable positions to take on both sides of the argument. I think you are immoral if you will evil for other people or have bad intent

0

Anonymous #1 22h

Do you know what a strawman is? It’s attacking a position someone doesn’t hold

0

Anonymous OP 22h

yeah I know, it’s your arrogance and spite that’s contributing to your beliefs, rather than religious psychosis (hence why I also stated arrogance and spite, dipshit) guess what, it does not matter. legally, they have no personhood until birth, so they have no rights until birth; and additionally, who says the mother isn’t innocent either? notice how you assume innocence only onto the entity incapable of advocating for itself (because it wasn’t fucking born yet)?

0

Anonymous OP 22h

I marvel at and admire your commitment to your level of understanding

2

Anonymous #1 22h

I assumed you were talking about that but realized you might not be, which is why I clarified with “that is if that is what you’re saying” immediately after so as to not strawman you. I care about undoing the damage of white supremacy. I think there are other ways to do it that do more good for people and cause less harm for people. I haven’t projected or deflected as far as I can tell, the one time I might have was accidental and I followed it up with a clarification immediately

0

Anonymous OP 22h

no, it’s not, you imbecile; stop trying to repackage my own critiques I’ve given you. it is not merely attacking positions that one does not hold, it’s twisting and manipulating a position into an entirely new position, then attacking that new position as a means of claiming that you’ve won the argument.

-1

Anonymous #1 22h

basically, if I were to claim something, and instead of you addressing that, you rather exaggerated my claim into an entirely new claim, then discredited that new claim while stating that you’re correct or won the argument; that is a strawman argument. do i need to explain any other logical fallacies to you?

-1

Anonymous OP 22h

“discriminates against the worst off among the majority(ie poor whites)” shut the fuck up, this “white people are becoming minority and it must be stopped” bullshit propaganda is very well known. like doubling down only confirms the suspicions.

1

Anonymous #1 22h

also, framing marginalized groups as “majorities” just lol.

1

Anonymous #1 22h

Dude oh my gosh read what I’m saying, I said the worst off of the majority dumbass. My whole point is it HARMS THE POOR AND IS NOT EFFECTIVE. I’m all for DEI principles about UNDOING THE HARM OF WHITE SUPREMACY, but yet once again you make a bigoted assumption and decide I’m racist, I’m a white supremacist, etc based on you not comprehending the words that I am saying.

3

Anonymous OP 22h

if you walk like a duck, and look like a duck, and even quack like a duck; what do you think we are going to assume you are? a duck. now replace duck with white supremacist.

0

Anonymous #1 22h

Ok so: You are making a claim about morally judging people for holding certain beliefs that you disagree with that’s you say are documented to cause harm I say you shouldn’t make moral judgments on people who fully believe they’re doing moral good for other people I present an analogy that shows it’s silly to judge people morally for trying to do the best they can for other people

1

Anonymous OP 22h

You say I’m straw manning your position

0

Anonymous OP 21h

These people hate you man. There's no point trying to reason with them

0

Anonymous #1 21h

So rather than engage with what I say, you make assumptions then claim I’m appearing as a white suprematist. check your biases. Great civic engagement dude

0

Anonymous OP 21h

yes, that’s directly strawmanning lmfao. I’m criticizing out of a correlation to increased harm; aka out of inflicting harm upon others. you’re criticizing that claim out of the belief that “you shouldn’t make judgements on people who fully believe they’re doing moral good for other people” that was never my argument, and you know that, but regardless since you insist: the Nazis thought they were morally justified. The confederates as well, the Afrikaners in South African during apartheid;

0

Anonymous #1 21h

the list goes on and on. so why the fuck should I not criticize people based solely on their own subjective belief that they may be doing “moral good for others”? why the fuck would such a subjective metric matter, at all? it sounds like you know your beliefs are harmful, but you need to justify them in one way or another for your subconscious; as it seems that changing your beliefs is out of the question. I’m going to class, scream into the void all you want; utter psychopath.

0

Anonymous dickcheneyfan12 21h

They want you dead. Remember that

6

Anonymous #1 21h

Dude I’m not arguing for pro life arguments I’m saying it’s a reasonable stance to take. Also, as an aside, though I won’t respond to your response bc an abortion argument isn’t what’s im getting at here, moral arguments based on it being legal or not don’t matter, no one says the mother isn’t innocent too, people say that if there are 2 innocents and you either kill one or the other suffers some bodily harm it is more morally impermissible to kill one

1

Anonymous #1 21h

You are completely ignoring what I’m saying dude. I know you are criticizing out of a correlation of increased harm. I acknowledged that. “You are making a claim about morally judging people for holding certain beliefs that you disagree with that you say are documented to cause harm” - the documented to cause harm = correlation to harm. Not strawman

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Dude be better. While I might have gotten a little heated I treated you with respect. Do the same to others

1

Anonymous OP 21h

hi friend. You can see others have told you about the other stuff you are wrong about. However, since they said your 2a opinions arent inherently wrong, you might be thinking that even in their eyes, you are right. However, you should really look at communal forms of gun ownership such that its not one person owning a gun, but a community of equals owning one. Such as two locks in one cabinet, one per parent. Gun ownership is to me inherently good, but is tainted by everything happening rn

5

Anonymous #4 21h

I agree, I think some sort of communal gun ownership, if it could work, would be fantastic. Private ownership has its virtues but public would be nice if possible

1

Anonymous #1 21h

What? I never said white people wouldn’t be the majority? I said the worst off of the majority (the majority is white, the worst off within the majority is poor white) and I mistyped majorities when I meant minorities at that second part lmao

1

Anonymous OP 21h

Ah, I see what you mean, and I mean I guess technically, assuming white people still are a majority (I’d have to double check because I’m uncertain), then I can see what you mean regarding “poor whites” if you’re referencing the nature of poverty. in that case, I apologize for hounding you on that specific point as it was my misunderstanding. do you see why I thought it was nefarious though, especially with the mistyped “majorities” referencing marginalized groups, on top of our full convo?

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Oh yeah that makes sense, I appreciate the apology and my bad on my own part for the typo and not seeing it sooner

1