the-real-seebs: rairii: social-darwin-awards: blonde-swanson: cryingmoreanti-sjtears: blonde-swanson
the-real-seebs:rairii:social-darwin-awards:blonde-swanson:cryingmoreanti-sjtears:blonde-swanson:scandinavianrogue:blonde-swanson:WHY IS THERE SO MUCH TRUTHINESS IN THIS?! PERFECTThere isn’t. It’s a human thing. Not a liberal thing. Well when I think liberal I think pundit college regurgitator liberal, not left-leaning individuals. I hope that’ll clear it up.I hope you realize by calling it full of truthiness you stated it has no actual facts.…..dude….……..really dudeSeriously, blonde-swanson? I expected better from you.1. This is a SJW thing, not a liberal thing. I’d love to see you cite Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews saying white people are evil and racist. Also, the way the first part is worded makes the accusation sound vaguely racist.2. So this is made by a Christian, then? It’s complete bullshit, evolution has absolutely nothing to with equality. Why would you call this accurate? Are you drunk?3. “ACAB” is a radical anarchist saying, not a mainstream liberal mantra. So again, bullshit. You think cops are fascist assholes and you’re not a liberal.4. This is most definitely racist. It’s the exact same shit as the “welfare queen” crap. It’s implying that minorities do more poorly on tests so liberals want to lower the standards because minorities are not as smart as the White Master Race. Holy shit, are you drunk?5. What the fuck does the “gingers have no souls” thing have to do with liberalism? Did a butthurt ginger write this?6. I should think we have far more of a problem with obesity than drug abuse. Also, I doubt you would see a War on Happy Meals spawning a prison-industrial complex. Operation Fat and Furious.7. Again, that’s communism, not liberalism. I’m sure plenty of Marxists would be very angry with you. Also, Che isn’t a dictator, I’m pretty sure.8. Well, when they take over states and suspend democracy, what else can you really call them?9. “Obama is Hitler,” etc.10. Do ho ho, hipster liberals. Oh wait, liberalism still isn’t communism. Are you drunk???11. This is far too long a debate to get into right now but it’s wrong too. Also war is bad.12. 13. I thought liberals were supposed to be pro-Palestine? What the fuck does it have to do with women anyway?14. You are stupid.15. Wow! Anarchism is liberalism again!16. All liberals are smug atheists.17. Same as #1.18. The flat tax isn’t fair because it disproportionately affects the lower class, who have less money to pay.19. Wow sure is a can of worms. I thought you were pro-choice?20. Holy lack of understanding of carbon tax, Batman. Which some Republicans endorsed at some point.21. I’d just like to point out that Muslims take the street to protest radical Islamist terrorism, and rightists mildly publicly condone right-wing terrorism while continuing to peddle violent rhetoric.22. Fire in a crowded theater, etc.23. Lol.Anyway this is complete bullshit on basically every count and I’m confused if you genuinely endorse it or were being sarcastic? I hope the latter because I have more respect for you than that.Reblogging for the commentary. Things that could be phrased better but also this chart is like… wow not what liberals are? I don’t… I’m too tired to coherently put an argument but basically bluuuh whatAs is often the case, the things people say are “contradictory” are frequently very insightful into their nature. I’d have to say, I’ve seen lots of people say some of the individual things here, but I’m not sure I’ve seen many people who hold to the allegedly “contradictory” ones. That said… Sometimes, it is quite possible to legitimately hold two positions which are in conflict. Because “in conflict” isn’t the same as “contradictory”.If your set of moral values doesn’t ever run into conflicts, you probably don’t have enough of them. We live in a world where it is beyond our means to arrange that all the people be safe and well-cared-for. We live in a world where people have very powerful desires which are in conflict. If you don’t have any conflicts in resolving this, it is because you are not paying attention, or because you are sorely lacking in basic moral values.I would point out that I’ve never met anyone who would deny that MSNBC is biased. It’s just that Fox News is in an entirely different category of bias. Headlines like “OBAMA FLIP-FLOPS, DECLARES WAR ON MARRIAGE” really do sort of stand out. Although… Strictly speaking, I think “bias” is the wrong word. It’s entertainment; it has an audience, it caters to that audience. Calling Fox News biased is like calling “the heavy metal station” biased for playing more Zeppelin than Dead.It’s particularly amusing to me to see the death penalty/abortion one, because I have known very few anti-abortion people who were also opposed to the death penalty. I am not sure I would consider either of those apparently-contradictory stances to be genuinely contradictory, though. People who support the death penalty and oppose abortion generally feel that innocents have a right to life, but other people may have waived theirs. People who oppose the death penalty and support access to abortion (many of whom will go to great lengths to make individual abortions less likely, by helping people get access to resources, health care, and so on) likely place a higher weight on living humans and a lower weight on what they consider potential human lives. Neither is really contradictory.In general, if you think something someone says is false, it is likely useful to assume that it is true, and try to consider what it might be true of. The writer of the quoted image is clearly unable to comprehend competing viewpoints. In general, I regard inability to comprehend competing viewpoints a more severe sign of immaturity. And that’s not a liberal/conservative thing; I can find you plenty of left-wing idiots who are incapable of comprehending competing viewpoints as well. -- source link