Anonymous #3 10h

Society = engaging in a very optional and actually harmful/predatory consumption market?

-4

Anonymous #5 9h

You literally cannot smoke in public without poisoning the air of the others around you whether they consent to it or not. And yeah, I’m sure even 5% of smokers consistently ash their cigs over stomping them

-3

Anonymous OP 9h

yes this commenter is definitely targeting your post when they reply to a comment. they are definitely not responding to a comment calling everything leftists do hypocritical with an image that directly critiques that line of argument.

18

Anonymous OP 9h

You can smoke without smoking in public. Many people do it in their own homes, away from others

11

Anonymous #5 9h

So go for it lol. I don’t see how presenting the vast minority as the norm is a compelling argument but sure

-3

Anonymous OP 9h

You literally said that smoking was hypocritical as a leftist, even though there are plenty of ways to do it without harming others

13

Anonymous #6 9h

And yet they won’t admit/don’t care it’s bad for every person around them as well. I don’t think one person in this comments section just wanting to “smoke in peace” are victims. They just like what they enjoy despite how it affects others

-6

Anonymous OP 9h

i'm going to blow vape smoke on your baby

27

Anonymous #3 9h

I’m not saying that republicans are like the pinnacle of politics. They obviously have their own problems. My problem with the left is that they think they’re advocating for what’s best for America, but they actually do the direct opposite. Multiple lines of logic they have in their policy directly oppose each other.

-4

Anonymous OP 9h

you just refuse to acknowledge the impact of addiction. harm reduction and decriminalization/destigmatization of addicts are leftist/progesssive policies. you’re just reheating hating on homeless heroin addict nachos bro.

12

Anonymous #6 9h

Cigarettes are not even close to heroine. Especially when there’s tons of nicotine alternatives that don’t directly harm other people

-3

Anonymous #1 9h

you realize that leftism is an ideology held by many people who have distinct individual views and opinions about what is actually best, and that there is not a defined/unified ‘leftist policy platform’, right? like there no leftist version of the DNC.

14

Anonymous #2 9h

First of all, it’s not smoke, it’s some other shit

15

Anonymous #8 9h

we don't even fr know yet so it's ok

17

Anonymous OP 9h

eh a lot of alternatives are a lot harder to quit. this is anecdotal, but I know several people who vaped/used pouches and only managed to get off nicotine when they switched to cigs because the extra friction/inconvenience of smoking broke the instant gratification dopamine loop. addiction is addiction, it’s a particular set of neural signals and receptors being triggered repeatedly, as well as physical dependence. i never said nic was as addictive as heroin, but its still highly addictive.

7

Anonymous #8 9h

do another for me, i'm taking a break for a week 🙏

7

Anonymous justinian 9h

the workers of the world need their newports

11

Anonymous #6 9h

It’s less about what’s more addictive, and more about what directly inflicts harm on unwilling 3rd parties around them

-4

Anonymous OP 9h

you think heroin doesn’t inflict harm on third parties surrounding addicts? holy fuck you’re dumber than i thought.

22

Anonymous #6 9h

bro’s just mad he’s never looked cool as fuck in a hard outfit smokin a 100

8

Anonymous #6 9h

What PHYSICAL health harm does the act of injecting heroin inflict on people just walking by?

-3

Anonymous OP 9h

i inject them too

11

Anonymous OP 9h

Used needles lying around public spaces is a massive health hazard

14

Anonymous OP 9h

you realize heroin isn’t only injected? people freebase that shit. and limiting your scope to physical harm is contradictory of leftist ideals about evaluating the system and its impacts as a whole. hypocritical take from you as a leftist.

18

Anonymous #5 9h

That’s not the act of doing heroine. That’s disposal of needles. The physical act of smoking is bad for the environment AND people’s direct health

-4

Anonymous OP 9h

you sound like you need a cigarette

12

Anonymous #8 9h

i do too goddddd

8

Anonymous #6 9h

Holy fuck dude, “limiting my scope???” We can’t talk about one thing anymore? If I talk about cigarettes I also have to talk about AIDS and gas prices too? Why is it so hard to just say “yes it’s bad but I do it/excuse it anyways” Why must there always be a deflection

-4

Anonymous #2 9h

i don’t even smoke and this dumbass makes me want a fat stogie

16

Anonymous OP 9h

We all know cigarettes are bad. Baddies smoke cigarettes.

10

Anonymous #6 9h

when i was in the marching band nothing made me feel better than getting out of rehearsal and smoking, this guy is js missing out fr

5

Anonymous OP 9h

it’s not a deflection to acknowledge that harm can be societal. this isn’t expanding to AIDS and gas prices, it’s acknowledging the extreme harms that other addictions cause that aren’t directly physical. In my city we have sometimes people smoking fentanyl on public transit, and yet we don’t just call everyone who’s an addict a hypocrite or go on about how they’re harming others. they already fucking know and they’re harming themselves just as much.

11

Anonymous #6 9h

also saying that acknowledging non physical harms of addiction is akin to faulting you for not bringing up aids or gas prices is a strawman btw.

10

Anonymous #6 9h

You’re literally joshing around with people in this exact thread about smoking and in the same breath talking about the hopeless victims smoking cigarettes are right up there with the victims of something astronomically different in fent. Straight hypocrisy

-5

Anonymous OP 9h

leftism is when no jokes allowed

21

Anonymous OP 9h

I think it’s fine to joke around about one’s own relatively mildly shitty habits lmao

14

Anonymous #6 9h

I specifically singled out smoking because of the direct physical harm to others. And then YOU move the goalposts and call me the strawman for “only focusing” on the specific argument I brought up because of the unique specifics to it?? Ridiculous

-4

Anonymous OP 9h

i got smth for you to smoke right here in my pants baby calm down and take it

10

Anonymous OP 9h

also you’re being so dense i think you’re altering the gravitational field, so of course i’m going to joke at the expense of your moronic take. get over yourself.

12

Anonymous #2 9h

Sexual harassment, sounds about right for the US politics regulars

-3

Anonymous OP 9h

let's share a cigarette and discuss it

9

Anonymous OP 9h

i brought up other harms BECAUSE you said it was hypocritical in leftist frameworks. that in itself is antithetical to leftist frameworks, ergo you have a hypocritical take as a leftist. get zoo wee mama’d

13

Anonymous #6 9h

Being considerate of direct harm to others is a hypocritical leftist take. Put that on a billboard, I’m sure that’ll garner a lot of agreement

-3

Anonymous OP 9h

Smoking doesn’t have to cause direct harm to others though, that only happens when people are inconsiderate

15

Anonymous #6 9h

Obviously there is gonna be a little variance between people, but there are overarching policies that most leftists agree with. Illegal immigration, abortion, trans rights, etc.

-3

Anonymous OP 9h

another strawman. you’re just intentionally misreading my arguments because you aren’t interested in a conversation. you expected pats on the back and singing agreement. you didn’t get it and now you’re butthurt. honestly just disappointing.

8

Anonymous #1 9h

so what lines of logic do you claim oppose each other then?

5

Anonymous #6 9h

Being “for science,” but advocating for abortion and saying there are more than two genders and that men are women are the same.

-2

Anonymous #1 9h

Abortion 👍

10

Anonymous #10 8h

Yeah, you can’t advocate for abortion and say life is valuable at the same time, they’re the antithesis of each other. You can’t say that life doesn’t start at conception and say you believe in science either

-5

Anonymous #1 8h

ight bro i saw your comment before you deleted so im just gonna prefire you here. you just aren’t familiar with the science, or the definitions of the words you’re using. gender and sex are two different things, one of which is a social construct. there are 2(ish) sexes, scientifically speaking. as a social construct, there is no fixed number of genders.

6

Anonymous #1 8h

Abortion 👍

5

Anonymous #1 8h

you’re making a conflation here, between life and consciousness. killing living things is not fundamentally amoral or bad (is it a genocide when you wipe down the kitchen counter with a clorox wipe?). the reason murder is bad is that it is the ending of a subjective consciousness. If you disagree with this, it’s murder to pull the plug on someone’s life support. A fetus, until about 20-24 weeks, does not deploy any responses indicative of subjective consciousness.

2

Anonymous #1 8h

moreover, we don’t assign rights based on future potential, we don’t give 14 year olds drivers licenses because, given the right support and resources, they’ll be 16 eventually. 19 year olds can’t drink because they will be 21 eventually. Similarly, we do not give a fetus rights based on its future potential. I mention 20-24 weeks because I believe that’s a moral line. The potential and rights argument establishes abortion’s morality.

8

Anonymous OP 8h

*heroin

6

bro doesnt know about advanced biology POINT AND LAUGHHHHH

14

i farted onto your comment and it is stinky and wettttt

8