Anonymous #1 9w

100% yes

5

Anonymous OP 9w

Nah. I’m not complacent with it. I don’t support it obviously. Just bc I support him doesn’t mean I support everything he does. You can’t reframe the argument to make that the case.

-2

Anonymous #1 9w

“Just because I support the guy who’s credibly accused of fucking children doesn’t mean I support fucking children” Great logic buddy

5

Anonymous #1 8w

So why do you support him then… cause I guarantee you that if one of your friends was committing sex crimes against children or even accused of doing it you would stop talking to them

10

Anonymous OP 8w

The implication being most politicians aren’t suspect of fucking children. Do you support any politician at all? You must support fucking children. This isn’t even me trying to defend Trump. There’s plenty of reasons to hate the guy and you’re attacking followers for something most democrats are also guilty of like give me a fucking break dude. Let’s apply standards consistently, please, and shame all pedophile supporters equally, if you would. At bare minimum.

1

Anonymous #3 8w

Oh wow I wonder why Id only bring up one politician that the right always defends inside of a right wing channel. Hmmm, let’s think…can you do that?

2

Anonymous OP 8w

Let’s not get cute homie. You came here to dunk on right wingers. Let’s see the screenshots of you applying the same standards to left wingers and I will happily eat my words.

0

Anonymous OP 8w

Oh and just to be clear. The standard you are imposing here is “if you support child fuckers that means you support child fucking.” Not general critiques on the Democratic Party. I’ll be here all night 👍

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

Here you go. Go ahead and “eat your words” Say you were wrong!

2

Anonymous OP 8w

You called Clinton bad in order to dunk on right wingers. That is not the same as holding left wingers to the same standard you are holding Trump supporters to. I’m just going to go ahead and tell you my actual grievance, as even if the implication is that you would attack Clinton supporters or whoever, your standard accuses well over half the country of supporting pedophilia. That is absurd.

-2

Anonymous #3 8w

So let me get this straight. You want me to show you when I held leftists to the same standard. I do that exactly where I refuse to show bias of having dems be in the files and that’s not enough for you? Where’s the “I’ll eat my words”? Go ahead. You said you would. Hurry up.

3

Anonymous #3 8w

vv #3

1

Anonymous #3 8w

“I will happily eat my words”

3

Anonymous OP 8w

You posted a screen shot of you using Clinton to once again shit on right wingers lmao. It does not prove you hold left wing supporters to the same standard. I was giving you a massive benefit of the doubt to continue an actual dialogue but if you want to die on this hill then let’s see the actual proof mate. That screenshot only proves you condemn Clinton. Alternatively, since you only shit on right wingers, we can progress the discussion like adults. I’m fine with either

-2

Anonymous OP 8w

Or you can keep spamming the comments like a lunatic with shit that proves my point. I’m indifferent really. It’s your post, do as you please

-2

Anonymous #3 8w

“I condemn all pedophilia regardless of who it’s from” Isn’t holding consistent standards?

2

Anonymous #3 8w

Anyone who supports trump is complacent or pro pedophile. Anyone who supports any dem implicated in the files is complacent or pro pedophile. I’m showing that I don’t care who is committing the pedophilic act, it’s bad regardless You’re just crying that I’m telling it to people who do actively support pedophiles

3

Anonymous OP 8w

Not the standard. The standard is that you are condemning team red voters for supporting a pedophile. I would like to see some proof that you condemn left wing voters by the same standard. Right now you have shown no proof that you apply that standard to left wing voters. Only that you are willing to concede that one democrat is bad to continue dunking on right wingers, which is not the same thing. I don’t know how to be any more clear.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

The distinction matters because again, you are currently accusing well over half the country of supporting pedophilia, assuming the standard is actually consistent, which is a non-serious claim and can be easily dismissed.

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

What Im doing is telling people that if they support someone credibly implicated of pedophilia, they support pedophilia through complacency or active participation. I’ve yet to encounter a left winger who has died on the hill that they defend any dems in the files. The second you can show me one who does, or even the second I see one, I will happily say what I just said to you. Show me a screenshot of someone on YY who has defended Clinton’s or any dems involvement in the files.

3

Anonymous #3 8w

Or any credible accusations of pedophilia. Show me any lefties on YY who have defended any politician in the face of credible allegations of pedophilia.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

Okay great. If you haven’t seen any left wing voters supporting what you are calling credible evidence of pedophilia, then i suppose you have no reason to attack ghosts. I’ll take your word for it and eat my words on that specific accusation. I won’t accuse you of anything else, but I am still going to challenge you on this sweeping claim you are making. Because the logic goes like this:

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

Hold on, before you start crying more. Show me what I asked for. You were persistent on me doing what you asked. Be consistent in the expectations you set.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

No I think I’ll continue, as you’ve shown you’re capable of adult discussion but you are giving me second thoughts. Basically, anyone who supports someone, by your definition of credibly, accused of pedophile is as minimum complicit with pedophilia. That would encompass likely anyone whose mention in Epstein related record frequently enough as suspect. So, millions of Trump supporters, Clinton supporters, Musk fans, Hawking fans, Jackson fans.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

You’d be accusing well over half the country of being complicit with pedophilia. Again, not a serious claim. It is too broad and can be easily dismissed by bringing up the quality of the evidence, what we are defining as “support,” and by just acknowledging that accusing over half the country of being complicit with pedophilia is far more likely than not a massive overreach. This is not a useful standard

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

So you refuse to show any leftists defending politicians who have credible accusations of child rape?

3

Anonymous OP 8w

On Yik Yak? I do not have screen shots stored of YikYakers defending Clinton or any other people you might think is a pedophile, no. But I didn’t really say anything that demanded evidence. I conceded the point. I gave you a full victory on the fact that you may, in fact, not be a hypocrite. So refuse is probably a bit too forceful of a word. It would imply that I’m withholding something from you. For example: you are refusing to engage with substance despite clearly being capable.

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

Neither did I and you demanded evidence of the same thing happening with a group I never mentioned that I also never showed bias towards.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

Indeed. That is why I conceded the point that you may not be a hypocrite and am moving forward with the discussion. If you’d like an elaborate causal explanation for my motives it is this: Either you admit to being a hypocrite and just wanting to dunk on right wingers and I can attack your methodology there. Or you either prove or I make charitable assumptions that you aren’t a hypocrite and we can actually make progress in the discourse. Where I believe you have a flawed claim worth exploring.

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

Basically I either hit you in motive or principal. But I can’t hit your principal without hitting the motive first. Now we are here.

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

As long as we’re on the same page about demanding evidence. Your next point what is it?

3

Anonymous OP 8w

You can scroll up. The grievance is that that standard you are upholding, if applied consistently and evenly as you say, accuses well over half the country of at minimum minimizing pedophilia. A standard that accuses that many people of something so morally condemnable is unserious and dismissible. I allude to the reasons why above.

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

Yeah. I can qualify it by adding the word knowingly but I stand by it.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

What do you qualify as knowingly and what do you qualify as support? Someone can give Trump a vote for his immigration policies or whatever and still think he ought to be investigated and then still get defensive about it when some loudmouth from team left presses them. I would definitely not consider that person minimizing pedophilia. And those kinds of people are not uncommon in the world of Trump supporters.

0

Anonymous #3 8w

If you are aware of the credible accusations of pedophilia against him, and still support him. Then yes you are complacent with the aforementioned claims above. I don’t think it’s necessary to type out that entire speech again if you know what I mean by the aforementioned claims.

3

Anonymous OP 8w

Knowingly is also a huge quantifier. Knowingly to what extent? Not everyone has probably looking into the Epstein relationship as rigorously as us, and even *if* they did, the Epstein stuff is not yet concrete proof. It is not a court case. It is not a testimony. The biggest claim you can make with epistemic rigor is that Trump was close with a pedophile. Still questionable. Very worth investigating. Not yet a real verdict.

-1

Anonymous #3 8w

And that’s on them. People who are supporting him are generally adults. The world exists in their hands and is freely accessible at most public libraries. We’re also not going to discuss legality because that’s not a serious argument in this context.

2

Anonymous OP 8w

And as for the millions and millions of people who didn’t actually read the files, their sense of knowing is likely whatever they are being told on the internet. They see propaganda, not the same as minimizing. They get defensive when the other team provides their evidence in a condescending way. Not minimizing. You can say they are insecure or stupid or whatever insult you like best, but it is not anything close to as severe as minimizing pedophilia.

0

Anonymous #3 8w

I assume you’re typing out these massive paragraphs before you read mine so I’ll actually need an indication that you’re done speaking before I start.

2

Anonymous OP 8w

You already conceded “knowingly.” That puts a massive restraint on your initial claim. The information being available does not mean millions of people are knowingly minimizing pedophilia. Lots of people have only seen partisan summaries, headlines, or propaganda, and plenty of them think the claims should still be investigated. You can call that ignorance, bad judgment, or tribal defensiveness. Fine. But it is not the same accusation as minimizing pedophilia.

0

Anonymous #3 8w

I’ll need an indication that this isn’t a continuation of a thought you had prior to me typing the responses

2

Anonymous OP 8w

It’s a response to you falling back on “they have the information tho.” You may proceed

0

Anonymous #3 8w

What about the other one, the “aforementioned” paragraph?

2

Anonymous OP 8w

To steelman your position: if someone genuinely believes Trump is a pedophile, believes the evidence is strong, and still supports him anyway because they do not care, then yes, I can see calling that complacent with pedophilia. Most supporters are not operating from that mental state. Many think the allegations are unproven, exaggerated, partisan, or still worth investigating. You can criticize that. But it is not the same as minimizing pedophilia.

0

Anonymous #3 8w

That’s exactly what it’s doing if you’re choosing to stand on the belief that they’re not true. It’s the exact same way that people think the 2020 election is stolen. It’s not true, you, general, choosing to believe it because of the right wing talking heads that enforce it is a minimization of the election process

2

Anonymous OP 8w

Sure, in the abstract, choosing a false narrative over strong evidence can be minimization. But that only works once the evidence is strong enough that disbelief becomes culpable denial. You are treating “does not accept your conclusion from the evidence” as minimization of pedophilia. That is still the overreach.

0

Anonymous #3 8w

Explain how it’s an overreach.

2

Anonymous #1 7w

You support him, that means you’re complacent.

2

Anonymous #4 7w

It doesn’t. That’s the dumbest logic ever. Bc you’re on somebody’s side means you’re agree with everything they do? He’s the president, obviously I want him to do well bc he’s the leader of my country.

-2

Anonymous #1 7w

That’s exactly what it means. You know he’s a convicted felon. You don’t care that a convicted felon is controlling our country.

5