Anonymous #1 5w

I feel like they have a very corporate bias that often means they don’t include the poor

9

Anonymous #2 5w

Lol a statement you believe to be factual you were going to argue against. Because of other beliefs you thought he might have but doesn’t. Says a lot about you

-1

Anonymous #6 5w

It says a lot about MAGA because they’re normalized bad faith discourse

1

Anonymous #4 5w

How does a conversation that includes no mention of MAGA, and no member of MAGA, say anything about MAGA?

-1

Anonymous #4 5w

A leftist choosing to engage in bad faith discourse is somehow MAGA’s fault?

-1

Anonymous #6 5w

Because they’ve normalized bad faith discourse, I just said that. When millions of people (MAG) normalize the behavior of engaging in discourse while intentionally being dense, it causes an innate reaction years later to every external group around them.

1

Anonymous #6 5w

Think for 3 seconds so I don’t have to spend 10 typing out your education.

2

Anonymous #4 5w

That’s insanely stupid logic and absolves people who claim to be morally and intellectually superior of any accountability of their thoughts or actions. Be better

-2

Anonymous #6 5w

There is a difference between the reasons leftists criticize democrats, which are valid, and why republicans don’t support democrats which usually aren’t. Because the primary reasons to critique democrats are all either worse in the republican party or stem from a lack of sufficient opposition to the Republican Party.

6

Anonymous #2 5w

That changes nothing about the question that OP asked, nor the response admitting you were ready to square up over a statement you agreed upon

0

Anonymous #6 5w

No it doesn’t. Your rejection of the explanation doesn’t invalidate the logic within that explanation. Try again moron.

0

Anonymous #4 5w

lol

0

Anonymous #6 5w

That’s what I thought lol

1

Anonymous #6 5w

I will construct a simple and over the top analogy. If the most common criticism of mute swans was that they were satanic, if someone said they were anti-swan you might initially assume it was for the stupid reason and disagree. But then if someone clarified it’s because mute swans are a mildly harmful invasive species, you might then agree with them.

2

Anonymous #2 5w

Like the people who are anti-iPhone because they think it gives you cancer are stupid and I disagree. But if someone is anti-iPhone because of labor abuses or the harms of social media, that’s for good reasons and understandable.

6

Anonymous #2 5w

The point was you were ready to assume what other beliefs the OP had. And you were going to use that assumption to make your argument for or against the statement you already agreed with. All based on assumptions. And then someone else came and blamed that impulsiveness on a group of people not even involved in said conversation. I understand why you would argue with a MAGA asking the question, my point is to have accountability that assumptions were made and detracted from shared common ground.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

A lot of poor people actually support trump. In rural areas mainly

1

Anonymous #5 5w

Yeah but if you had a Mamdani-like president working class people would choose him over Trump-like president

1