Anonymous #2 4w

And that’s all you’re conditioned to do. Nice work R2

-8

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m conditioned to care about prosecuting pedophiles? Insane thing to make fun of but okay.

13

Anonymous #2 4w

Oh really? I didn’t get that from the random picture you posted in response to a fairly accurate claim that made no points on the prosecution of pdfs.

-6

Anonymous #3 4w

Why does it bother you to see it?

6

Anonymous #1 4w

I’m frankly past rhetoric. Trump and all of the Republicans enabling him openly disdain the Constitution, and that’s both profoundly un-American and an existential threat to all of our liberties

5

Anonymous #2 4w

It doesn’t bother me to see it. It’s just a shame that that’s all people will post, like bots lol.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

It’s a shame people bring up how the president is protecting the names of his client list?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Is that what’s on the picture? Idk, looks like Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, not much else to see.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Yeah, the president and the guy who famously had a client list that’s being protected? Why are you acting intentionally dense on this issue?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Intentionally dense? You’re acting like a photo has weight because it’s spammed everywhere. Someone pointed out the very obvious and your response to it is something that has no relevancy to what was said at all.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

The photo does have weight, not because it’s spammed everywhere but because the right and the president do not want to bring up the list of kid fuckers anymore. Why don’t you agree?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

You’re acting like it’s somehow wrong to be adamant that this relationship and their client list be brought up as much as possible until the potential kid fuckers are known or prosecuted

1

Anonymous #2 4w

This guy beat your joke of a candidate btw

-1

Anonymous #2 4w

I’m saying it’s just not relevant to this conversation, and if your first instinct regardless of context is to post that, that’s just not smart. If someone’s post is “Trump is such a great guy” you can post that and follow up, but this main comment was essentially saying “your party’s rhetoric in terms of name-calling is going to prevent an electoral victory”, had nothing to do with Trump, or the Epstein stuff.

-1

Anonymous #1 4w

shove it up ur ass PLEASE shut up

1

Anonymous #6 4w

the pedo protector? lol you’re proud of that?

3

Anonymous #3 4w

so you only want it shown if people bring it up? That sounds pretty illogical lol

2

Anonymous #2 4w

No, I’m saying don’t be dumbass and post it randomly because that makes it ineffective. I know this is some form of protest to you, but it’s become so predictable and moot.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Makes it ineffective according to?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

According to? It’s just logic. If you keep doing this it becomes more annoying than meaningful, just as reusing the same labels in a negative manner over and over again slowly depletes its weight.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

No it doesn’t. Stfu trumpie

3

Anonymous #3 4w

It’s just logic, what logic? You claiming it’s just logic doesn’t actually make it a logical conclusion.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

But it is logic, and I have observed it countless times, especially online.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

what logic? You’re saying it’s objectively logical that doing this is “annoying” which is a subjective personal emotion?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

I’m saying it’s ineffective and causes a loss of meaning. Why are you omitting things from what I say?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

No no, you said it was annoying, “it’s just logic. if you keep doing this it becomes more ANNOYING than meaningful” It’s logical to say that a subjective emotion specific to each individual is the only thing this causes after long periods of time?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Why did you void the other half?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Because this was also what you said. Answer.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

If you repeatedly do something, for example poking someone, they will get annoyed. Unless they are completely oblivious to it, that will always be the response from people. In the same way, when you do this repeatedly, it will give someone to some extent annoyance. If you’re getting bitten by mosquitoes and they keep flying around, you will be annoyed to some extent. That is the expected response. Cause and effect.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

As for depletion of value, if people are called na.is consistently and in high quantities it will appear less like an outstanding thing and more common and deliver less shock value and concern.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

This isn’t doing it so a specific person repeatedly. This is doing 1 thing to multiple people generally one time. Great strawman of the actions took here.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

People see things collectively often when it comes to politics. Which is why anything directed towards people like them is considered directed towards them as well.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Matter of fact that’s very common in more than politics.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

According to what, people see things collectively according to? Who is the them, you think is being targeted here? It’s people who don’t support a man who hides the list of kid fuckers and those who do. You tried to equate my one action to one person as “poking” when in reality, that’s nots not logical to claim it’s “annoying” because plenty of republican MAGAs don’t get annoyed. Clearly there’s a disconnect there and you’re attempting to claim logic where there is none.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m sorry, but the solution to that is to stop supporting someone who is dismantling democracy, not to stop talking about the fact that democracy is being dismantled. It’s completely insane to suggest that we shouldn’t talk about Trump’s authoritarian tendencies to avoid offending his supporters

3

Anonymous #2 4w

Yes and you’re not doing this to everyone on that group. You don’t account for the people who do not outwardly say what they feel. “Them” was in general. It is essentially poking. You doing so on the surface without first penetrating the individual, as in regular conversation so you can actually reach the person, is not going to do much.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Nobody is arguing that. I’m just saying the methods to bring up that stuff that I see here are ineffective. About as effective as if you were a Christian trying to convert someone and you just sat there repeating lines and verses on the get-go. There are ways to go about doing what you do, and this isn’t the best way, albeit the easiest.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

“essentially” poking according to what? To who, you? That’s not very logical either, you’re essentially defending pedophilia. See how baseless that sounds? Because it’s dependent on what I consider to be what’s happening and not what’s actually happening. One action isn’t poking repeatedly lol. Good false dichotomy.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Poking is a continuous action, I’m not referring to you specifically, but the general of those who do, and it compounds. Also, if your end conclusion is that I’m defending pdf you really need to rethink. Because why is my criticism over a method of bringing the subject to conversations me defending the actions of Epstein?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

No moron, my end conclusion is that you’re not actually adhering to logic when you complain that it’s annoying. Answer the questions I asked.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I asked according to who or what?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Observation

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Your perception of observation?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

No, literal observation.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Prove it then. If other people are reaching different conclusions how is it objective observation?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

But plenty of people are reaching the same conclusion. #1 for example had a similar complaint. Otherwise you should be able to see the pattern and how little traction it getd

1

Anonymous #3 4w

So how many people need to get offended in order for your point to be valid?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

If it’s observable which it is and not speculation, generalization, or theory, the more people mention it the more it should be looked at.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Not what I asked.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Your question is not applicable here. I never mentioned being offended as a requirement nor the quantity of individuals offended as a requirement for the validity of an observation. Nor is annoyance always a precursor or symptom of offense. You can notice and observe a pattern without being overly annoyed by it. Have you never seen the occurrence of the photo being used in the same way here?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Yeah I have. So who is correct if I observe people not being bothered by it vs you seeing people being bothered by it?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

You observing people not being bothered by it does not equate to that nobody is being bothered by it. If I see that something exists, as is this, it is impossible to argue that it does not.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Then it’s equally as valid to say it’s not annoying or demeaning by observation lol

1

Anonymous #2 4w

You don’t observe a negative. How would you tell whether something isn’t?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

By seeing positive or neutral reactions to the same thing lol. You can claim it’s annoying by observation, and it’s equally as valid if I claim it’s helping and people like seeing it brought up by observation

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Have you seen positive reactions?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Even if so, it isn’t relevant to how it’s being used to the group that def will not give a positive reaction

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I have yeah, it’s absolutely relevant if you’re claiming objectively it’s one thing by observation, and I’m using that exact same logic to justify why it’s equally as positive as you view it as negative

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Again, you don’t know what I’ve seen. So that’s an argument based off a lack of info.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

But you’re not directing it towards people who are in agreement and will therefore yield a positive response

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Do you have data of all the people I’ve directed it towards?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Inherently the only people who would give a positive reaction are compliant with it

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’ve observed otherwise

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Good for you, that doesn’t conflict

1

Anonymous #3 4w

It validates MY counter point

1

Anonymous #2 4w

And yet my point remains, because the existence of your scenario does not mean my scenario has not taken place. Still there is clearly a depletion of positive engagement from the targeted audience when it comes to the image.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Great so your point is equally as valid as mine then, by the simple fact of observation

1

Anonymous #2 4w

But still, reusing the image has not been effective whether you like it or not, at least on this platform, although I have seen it used elsewhere with similar reaction.

-1

Anonymous #3 4w

Do you really think that will cause the “list” in whatever form it takes to be released?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

But still what? Your point is equally as valid as mine, if you’re claiming observation. If you concede our points our equal by the simple fact of observation I don’t care if you personally take offense. My point stands. As does yours.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

I mean you are literally yelling to the deaf in many cases. They won’t listen, nor will there be a release until the people holding it feel the least bit vulnerable. Yes, people will be slightly irked, but you are pouring into a vacuum atp. You aren’t going to go far reposting the same image to people whose voices will not reach the White House, at least not from here.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

You should directly pressure officials, whether through lobbying or grassroots, not pressure people to pressure. That end will be the result of the former.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Half the time DC is the source of the opinion, therefore what comes of it will reach them.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

In many cases. I again urge you to back that up by showing the total amount of cases

1

Anonymous #3 4w

You keep making these baseless claims and then ignoring it when I prompt you for your evidence.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

It’s very blatantly obvious. All I’ve had to do was reason through the scenario, after having noticed this.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

“obvious” isn’t a logical argument. It’s obvious to me that you’re letting your feelings skew your perception of my actions. See how that statement dismisses the need for actual logical thinking?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Did you arrive at that from going through the scenario logically?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

When I mean obvious I mean it is a logical statement, that doing this to people who will not listen is not effective.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I did actually, I didn’t make a baseless claim of other things I haven’t observed you do like you chose to do to me. You claiming it to be logical isn’t when the conclusion is dependent on your subjective view of obvious

1

Anonymous #3 4w

It’s obvious you’re confused

1

Anonymous #2 4w

easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent ; there is the objective obvious

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m aware there is an objective version. I’m contesting that yours is that.

1