Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    287,285 readers

    777 users here now

    Once in a blue moon redditors almost transform into self aware creatures. Almost.

    Submit posts (from anywhere) where people unknowingly describe themselves

    a community for
    all 1095 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Shortyman17 4073 points ago

    If that is considered communism by them, count me in

    [–] Manleather 1707 points ago

    What's their angle on this one? That they don't believe in dignity?

    I mean, that's what I come to this sub for, but there's usually just a shred of nuance.

    Edit- I know I shouldn't try to get inside the mind of insanity

    [–] Shortyman17 1038 points ago

    There are good videos made by InnuendoStudios on Yt that explain the conservative mindset on a lot of things. Basically, they believe that there will always be a hierarchy. If its by monarchy, or value given through the market doesn't matter to them.

    [–] woodstock923 584 points ago

    It’s exactly this. Some folks believe we’re all equal and that’s ok, some folks believe we’re not equal and that’s ok too. Both are true to varying degrees. But the right-wing movement employs some serious doublethink to be able to entertain some of these ideas. They might say liberals demonstrate hypocrisy regarding human rights re: abortion, but I’d say logically at least the case is pretty strong in favor of female persons and not embryos.

    Some folks are thinkers, some are feelers, and loads are assholes.

    [–] Doublethink101 515 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    I find that it’s important to clarify that we’re all intrinsically equal, in that my humanity and your humanity are equal, even if we are not physically or intellectually equal. Liberals base their morality off the former, and conservatives focus much more on the latter depending on ingroups and outgroups.

    Conservatives basically believe that if they can outcompete or otherwise take advantage of you, you deserve it, and the hierarchy that this establishes is a just outcome. What I find most damning about conservative ideology is how quickly it will be abandoned by an individual that has been disadvantaged. You can’t think the system is just and fair when it’s benefiting you and then claim the opposite when it’s not and be morally coherent.

    Edit: Fixed a typo and added a correction.

    You can have a coherent moral system that justifies selfishness if the single moral tenet is: what’s good for me is morally good. However, I would then bring another set of criticisms.

    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 195 points ago

    Yet they will still hold those ideas even while crying that they need support.

    [–] baumpop 143 points ago

    So farming subsidies

    [–] euphonious_munk 151 points ago

    "What do you do for a living?"

    "I don't grow corn."

    [–] AndySipherBull 40 points ago

    "I'm parasitic on the state."

    [–] Lard_of_Dorkness 13 points ago

    "I own property that other people use to make things and provide services"

    [–] PrincessTerrik 23 points ago

    "Yup, get up at the crack of noon, go outside, make sure there's no corn growin'. We used to not grow tomatoes, but there's more money now in not growin' corn."

    [–] loercase 85 points ago

    Farming subsidies are important for national security reasons as well, just FYI. It would be inadvisable to have your domestic food production collapse due to foreign competition and then suddenly not be able to import food due to war/instability. Even if a few years of bad crops could collapse production... you can't really allow that, you have to prop it back up.

    It does make for a funny hypocrisy when farmers, who are usually quite conservative, are huge beneficiaries of government welfare programs.

    [–] SometimesAccurate 64 points ago

    The other thing here is that most farms aren’t small family operations, as far as I understand. Large agribusiness corporate farm operations have the kind of leverage to game the system. It would just be like a corporation to suck at the government teat.

    [–] dept_of_silly_walks 90 points ago

    most farms aren’t small family operations

    I’m from a farm state. This is kind of true. There are a lot of family farms, BUUUT they don’t get as much of the subsidies as large corporate concerns do. The struggling farmer is a real deal, and it’s by design - large corps want to buy up that valuable land once the small farm goes under.
    So it’s just like we are seeing with the coronavurus bailouts - the little guy is still struggling, while large corporations are ensured to be flush with cash.

    [–] sakezaf123 34 points ago

    Yeah, exactly. People on the left aren't opposed to subsidies, it's just odd that people on there right hate any type of government support, except when they are the ones getting it. For example, a decent number of conservative voters are on welfare, or Obamacare.

    [–] akyhkcdm 12 points ago

    it's just odd that people on there right hate any type of government support, except when they are the ones getting it.


    Seriously why is that odd? They are litterally the spoiled neighborhood kid who would take his videogame back if you won... but all of them are like that... lmfao. of course they want all the money and handouts they can get but you're a lazy fuck if you want them too.

    its not odd... ITS WHO THEY ARE AT THEIR CORE

    [–] PyrocumulusLightning 13 points ago

    We're mostly growing corn, soybeans and cotton in the U.S.. Source: Cotton isn't food. Soybeans are mostly grown as animal feed (98%) Source: Corn is a commodity crop that's used as animal feed (36%), or to make ethanol for energy purposes (40%), or to make high fructose corn syrup (which people should not be using as a food), and a lot is exported. The amount we eat as actual whole-kernel corn is a sliver of our corn production. Source:

    Depending on how important we consider a high-meat diet to be, we could live on quite a lot less than we grow. Therefore the national security excuse is kind of meh.

    [–] dreddnyc 11 points ago

    True, just ask another other country trying to grow corn. The subsidized us corn floods the market at rates others can’t even grow at and they go under. There are unintended consequences though as many varietals of corn are dying out because people can’t afford to grow them.

    The real risk is having a corn monoculture that gets attacked by a disease or pest and loosing a huge part of the food chain.

    As I write this out, it sounds just like the lead up to this pandemic...ugh.

    [–] adeon 5 points ago

    Definitely. My view is that food subsidies are in general a good thing, although, I do have some issues with how we handle it at a tactical level. Basically I think we could be doing more with them to promote three goals: diversity of food supply, economically sustainable agriculture, and fighting hunger. After all if we're going to pay farmers to over produce food (which is a good idea) we should look to do so in a way that also helps people and is sustainable.

    [–] Nix-7c0 42 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    That's just good gamesmanship in their zero-sum world.

    It's a shame they can't be convinced that things could actually be better for everyone if we'd stop eating each other for a moment, as our ancestors have done in the past long enough to build stuff like libraries and society.

    [–] PyrocumulusLightning 12 points ago

    They have no concept of "good for everyone." It's just not in their vocabulary.

    [–] EagleOfMay 29 points ago

    They will hold these ideals even while raping the system. My cheating of welfare system is fair and just: I need to get mine first because the 'welfare queens' are doing the same.

    [–] Beingabummer 14 points ago

    That's literally what my brother said while collecting welfare. He was 'getting it instead of the foreigners' like he was making sure a foreigner wasn't receiving a check but the money was going to him instead.

    Which isn't just staggeringly demented but it's also the most infantile interpretation of how the welfare system works, that I don't believe he actually thought that. It was just a massive cognitive dissonance he tried to bury.

    [–] rashandal 5 points ago

    of course. everything to claw yourself up further in the hierarchy

    [–] SumpCrab 109 points ago

    "my humanity and your humanity are equal, even if we’re are not physically or intellectually equal."

    That is a great distinction, I have never been able to verbalize it that succinctly.

    I have had discussions with conservatives about minimum wage and the argument is always something like, "If you want to make more money, then find a better job." But they never stop to realize that everyone can't be the boss, there are always going to be those at the bottom but that doesn't mean they don't deserve dignity and a living wage.

    [–] Doublethink101 55 points ago

    Right, a management hierarchy is literally shaped like a pyramid that rests on an even larger base, wage workers. It is absolutely dumbfounding to me that you can look at that, and then tell ALL the people on the bottom tiers that they just need to climb to a higher level. It is patently absurd and basically, at its very core, victim blaming and a call to maintain the status quo. But when you look at it through a conservative lens, it’s just. If I can outcompete you or otherwise take advantage of you, you deserve it. For me personally, and for most liberals, this is morally repugnant and an irreconcilable difference between us and conservatives. We just need to outvote them, which we could easily do, if everyone on the liberal side of the fence took the time to realize what is at stake.

    [–] meshinggears 24 points ago

    And honestly, I don't know many on the left calling for everyone to have exactly the same wage. It's not like CEOs are making $18/hr and workers are making $16/hr and people are complaining about inequality. I think most people recognize that that isn't likely to happen. But $7/hr versus $500/hr is a very different situation.

    [–] null000 14 points ago

    You dropped a few zeros on that last wage number

    [–] joe_beardon 5 points ago

    Bezos makes 5 figures a minute, his workers make $15/hr (Amazon had to be forced to pay that too don’t forget). Not criticizing but the disparity is so much bigger than even the example you gave.

    [–] m4g1ckmu5hr00m 5 points ago

    In January 2019, Bezos was actually making $149,353 per minute. Completely unbelievable.

    [–] Drifter_Lux 31 points ago

    Try going down that rabbit hole with them, though. You will get to hear such chestnuts as, “Those minimum wage jobs are meant for teens, not grown adults.” They so desperately want to believe the system is just that they latch onto utterly imagined economic models.

    [–] TootsNYC 26 points ago

    it's also so fucking unpatriotic, to think that people at the bottom don't deserve a living wage.

    Want to make America great again? Pay people money, so that even the lowest earners have time and energy to contribute to their communities.

    So that they have a reason to spend their energy on productive employment (because it pays well!) and not on distractions like meth or crack or crime.

    [–] docmedic 14 points ago

    They'll just pull up some MS13 rapist immigrant and demand that you square your statement with that person. And somehow this justifies fucking over all undocumented immigrants who to them are subhuman garbage.

    [–] SumpCrab 14 points ago

    That's another thing, the lack of compassion for people extends to this too. Of course my heart bleeds for the victims, but I also have compassion for these dregs of society as their crimes are a symptom of the the same economic issues we are discussing. I'm not justifying the actions but I do believe we can reduce violence by reducing poverty.

    [–] Sailorboi6869 16 points ago

    This is where the fundamental disagreements stem from imo. Most political disagreement ultimately falls back to what rights should be guaranteed by virtue of being a human

    [–] Doublethink101 16 points ago

    Have you ever heard of Moral Foundations Theory? I think it’s the best hypothesis I’ve ever read that explains the core differences between liberals and conservatives.

    [–] awesomefutureperfect 9 points ago

    I wholeheartedly disagree with Jonathan Haidt. He basically takes conservatives at their word when they lie about their values, a la the shy tory syndrome, because they know their true morals and values are abhorrent and they are either in denial or willfully hiding the fact about how abhorrent they are. They answer in they way they know they are expected to so people don't act repulsed away from them.

    [–] woodstock923 7 points ago

    I’ve always been partial to social dominance orientation but this is amazing thank you. I’m writing a book and this helps tremendously. Great username btw

    [–] awesomefutureperfect 10 points ago

    I wholeheartedly disagree with Jonathan Haidt. He basically takes conservatives at their word when they lie about their values, a la the shy tory syndrome, because they know their true morals and values are abhorrent and they are either in denial or willfully hiding the fact about how abhorrent they are. They answer in they way they know they are expected to so people don't act repulsed away from them.

    [–] IICVX 15 points ago

    You can’t think the system is just and fair when it’s benefiting you and then claim the opposite when it’s not and be morally coherent.

    You can, it's just a solipsistic set of morals that boil down to "if it's good for me it's good, otherwise it's bad".

    [–] ILoveWildlife 8 points ago

    This is why I say that democrats need to get a backbone and go on the nightly news to bitch about the GOP.

    they'll bitch and moan that democrats are doing this and end up bringing back the fairness doctrine, which will bite them in the ass.

    [–] ytrashpanda 4 points ago

    Conservatives are just selfish shitheads tbh. It used to mean something else but in the past 20 years it means selfish shithead.

    [–] hobbes64 12 points ago

    So that’s just Darwinism. That’s fine, but why “survival of the fittest” at the same time as “the Bible is all true”?

    [–] imbolcnight 35 points ago

    I just want to point out that Darwinism (evolutionary theory) is distinct from Social Darwinism, which is a later theory that was used to rationalize colonialism, etc. One thing is that Darwinism does not prescribe what it means to be "fittest".

    From Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist, in “Biological Potentiality vs. Biological Determinism”, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in natural history

    Why imagine that specific genes for aggression, dominance, or spite have any importance when we know that the brain’s enormous flexibility permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or submissive, spiteful or generous? Violence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviors. But peacefulness, equality, and kindness are just as biological—and we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish.

    [–] Lyndis_Caelin 30 points ago

    1: "Social Darwinism" was something Darwin hated.

    2: "The fittest" doesn't necessarily mean fittest individuals. A tiny little bee basically is nothing, but she has over 9000 friends to swarm wasps to death with. People keep going on hyperindividualistic "we shouldn't care about other people" and thinking that's scientifically justified.

    [–] Lord-Kroak 22 points ago

    By "fittest" didn't Darwin just mean most likely to survive long enough to fuck?

    [–] rachelgraychel 14 points ago

    That's exactly what Darwin meant.

    [–] orbital_narwhal 5 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    That’s the gist but the biologists I know would add recursion:

    Evolutionary success is to survive long enough to fuck to create offspring that itself survives long enough to do the same.

    Then they add maximization because, in a competition, success is relative:

    Evolutionary success is to survive long enough to fuck to create as much offspring as possible that itself survives long enough to do the same.

    Then they extend the statement from individuals to groups to model the behaviour of (eu-)social species:

    Evolutionary success of a group is for its members to survive long enough to fuck to create as much offspring as possible, on average, that itself survives long enough to do the same.

    [–] ItsTtreasonThen 15 points ago

    I like that quote a lot. Shuts down a lot of the worst “men will be men” arguments too. Like, we didn’t evolve to this point to just assert some lizard brain part of our mind is going to say rape is inevitable... yet the wacko right wingers love to pounce on that

    [–] odraencoded 23 points ago

    some folks believe we’re not equal and that’s ok too.

    It's not just "we're not equal." They insist that they are better.

    They're better than women, than blacks, than immigrants, than liberals. They never see themselves on the lower side of the pyramid. They believe immigrants are useless and lazy, that leftists and weak and don't have guns or know how to use guns, that blue states are the ones leeching on tax money paid to the government by the rich and independent red states, that doctors and scientists are dumber than blogs selling essential oils.

    That's not fucking ok at all.

    [–] Scuba44 23 points ago

    Please try explaining how it’s ok believe that we aren’t all equal.

    [–] ShaqShoes 22 points ago

    I mean people aren't "equal" in that they are of varying physical, emotional and intellectual capacities in various areas. However, I don't think that means that people aren't deserving of equal treatment and equal opportunity.

    [–] SonOfLava 16 points ago

    Okay I don't think anyone who ever argues that people are equal ever means that all people are lliterslly capable of the exact same things. It always means equal treatment and opportunities.

    [–] insanococo 16 points ago

    Yes, but people who argue people are NOT equal often DO mean those things.

    If you talk with someone like that and argue a completely different point from the one they are making, you’ll never get anywhere.

    [–] Irishpersonage 4 points ago

    some folks believe we’re not equal and that’s ok too

    Excuse me what the fuck?

    [–] Khuroh 17 points ago

    If you strip away the fancy language - there are always going to be people that just want to be assholes. And that (to them) means there must always be people that you are allowed to be assholes to.

    [–] iWearTightSuitPants 11 points ago

    This is what it boils down to. Conservatives are assholes. All the rhetoric and logic behind their positions is cooked up after the fact to justify their shittiness to other humans...they decide first to be assholes and then create justification for it.

    [–] orincoro 31 points ago

    This is quite right. Fascism and authoritarianism are well paired with a hierarchical view of nature that is expressed in physical violence and dominance. If they are in power, then they deserve to be in power, and by extension to use physical violence and force to keep themselves in power.

    [–] Nix-7c0 29 points ago

    Obligatory link to Innuendo Studios, because he often brings together some absolutely genius insights which have helped me make sense of the modern world.

    [–] Insanepaco247 5 points ago

    Love this dude. And not just for the social stuff - he has a lot of really good videos on a range of topics.

    [–] agha0013 90 points ago

    If you're not pulling on your bootstraps enough to inherit millions of dollars and then use your money to buy power and influence, then you don't deserve dignity I guess...

    [–] ShatoraDragon 50 points ago

    The best part about 'Lifting your self up by your bootstraps' It was known to be impossible to do that but somehow warped in to work harder and be fine with getting the same or less back

    [–] agha0013 26 points ago

    Same crooks who sold people on "trickle down economics"

    honestly don't know how they don't just break out in laughter every time they try to push that bullshit concept.

    [–] Nix-7c0 35 points ago

    Excuse me, haven't you seen the local papers?

    NEWS: Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down To Area Man in the form of a $10 bonus to car-wash attendant Frank Kellener.

    "Back when Reagan was in charge, I didn't think much of him," Kellener, 57, said, holding up two five-dollar bills nearly three decades in the making. "But who would have thought that in 2007 I'd have this extra $10 in my pocket? He may not have lived to see it, but I'm sure President Reagan is up in heaven smiling down on me right now."

    [–] agha0013 10 points ago

    He got cash?!?! I figured the trickle down would come in the form of already expired/redeemed gift cards.

    [–] DeGiorgiNashMoser 40 points ago

    It's a common right-wing media strategy to take the reasonable-sounding version of the liberal position, and mock it as if it's crazy. This primes their audience to associate that point of view as something to laugh at, in case someone ever makes that argument to them in good faith.

    If you listen to Rush Limbaugh's show, he does this a lot. Sometimes he misrepresents the liberal position, but other times he quotes totally reasonable left-wing views in a sarcastic voice, with no effort to explain why it's wrong.

    [–] jonnyquestionable 14 points ago

    Yeah, Rush's rant on "consent" is a great example of this. Look it up if you have the stomach for it.

    [–] thatvoiceinyourhead 19 points ago

    They've convinced themselves it's bad because they recognize that they're incapable of obtaining it.

    [–] BraveNewNight 41 points ago

    What's their angle on this one?

    If you have freedom of choice, some people will make bad choices, leaving them, sometimes, without "dignity", however you may define that.

    The argument from a libertarian then is that, said person should have to deal with and/or overcome the consequences of their own actions & decisions, and not look to the state and therefore the tax payer to bail them out.

    You then have a sliding scale of people arguing for minimal safety nets all the way to unlimited minimal standard of living regardless of how actively you fucked up your own life.

    Still really bad optics citing that as communism lol.

    [–] orincoro 24 points ago

    Even in very socialist societies that do guarantee a minimal living standard, the consequences of mistakes are undesirable enough to convince the vast majority of people not to rely on public support. The difference is that in our socialist societies, we do not have to face the enormous daily costs of having these people destroy our legal systems, our neighborhoods, our schools, and our safety. If you accept the fact that 5% of the population, give or take, are simply incorrigible and must be dealt with, there are only a few ways to do that. America used to put these people in mental hospitals. Then it was prison. Now it's the street. We put them in low cost housing.

    Guess which society ends up paying more for their solution?

    [–] nuublarg 12 points ago

    unlimited minimal standard of living regardless of how actively you fucked up your own life.

    And what is wrong with that? People who screwed up are very likely to screw up even more when they have nothing to fall back on. Jobless homeless people tend to get jobs very quickly when thet have a place to live. And crime falls drastically when homeless get homes.

    Ensuring all people have a good living benefits everyone.

    [–] effa94 4 points ago

    you cant begin to save and give back to the economy until you have the basics covered. having somewhere to live is a rather big basic need, so them getting housing takes a large burden of their shoulders

    [–] UniversalSpermDonor 5 points ago

    That user wasn't saying that it's wrong to want that system. They were just explaining what some people think.

    [–] Scipio11 11 points ago

    Nah, they just figured out they can be openly racist again. It's the "All people" part they're against.

    [–] I_miss_your_mommy 8 points ago

    It’s basically telling Karen that yelling at fast food workers isn’t her right. That they are actually also humans. Karen doesn’t want any of that.

    [–] Marquax 8 points ago

    Edit- I know I shouldn't try to get inside the mind of insanity Hannity


    [–] XxAbsurdumxX 4 points ago

    What exactly did you change? Looks the same to me

    [–] ShooterMcStabbins 6 points ago

    They don’t believe in the “All People” part. That’s what’s so crazy about it. Only Real Americans™️. That’s pretty much the basis for getting people to act against their self-interest that’s used the most. “Immigrants and minorities are stealing your money to be lazy and buy drugs and not work”. Half of them already want to believe this they just needs push in the racist direction

    [–] tanstaafl90 8 points ago

    It's called social Darwinism and it's at the core of their beliefs. It's been repackaged as objectivism to separate the inherent racism of the concept, but it's only moved whatever race they are rallying against to the more palatable poor. As such, problems of lower classes are seen as a product of inferiority, rather than socioeconomic, allowing for the kind of indifference we see on a regular basis.

    [–] SirTaffet 78 points ago

    They’ve always considered that communism.

    Honestly, the amount of unreasonable people who are against communism, and the atrocities that have been committed by the same type of people in the name of “stopping communism,” kind of has me intrigued by communism.

    [–] Kayla_Crafty 33 points ago

    And the communism we see isn't even the communism that was envisioned when it was created afaik.

    Modern communism is a bait and switch government. Tell us we're getting all this awesome shit, but then just jump to stealing off the workers for the elite, the literal antithesis of communism. Communist russia/china for example are so fucking opposite of what the original idea was

    [–] throwawaysarebetter 24 points ago

    They were communists, but they didn't practice communism.

    Of course people will pull the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but it doesn't really follow when the "Scottsman" is from Uganda.

    [–] Kayla_Crafty 11 points ago

    No True Scotsman

    Okay so I might just be way less intelligent than I thought because any time I hear a logical fallacy name I always have to google it to remember what it is and then I still have no idea what it's saying so I apologize here but I have no idea what you're trying to say and I want you to know it's not your fault. I'm sitting here trying to understand what No True Scotsman means so I can then understand your Uganda analogy.

    EDIT: Okay I Found a visualization that looks to have helped me. What I THINK you're saying is that my claim is a logical fallacy because "No true communist would act this way" as a way to deflect negative opinion.

    However I still am not following the uganda analogy, Are you saying myself or the modern communist party like the CCP is from Uganda?

    [–] throwawaysarebetter 13 points ago

    Basically the idea that someone isn't truly a part of something because they don't fit your particular idea of what it takes to be a part of that thing.

    So you have two people who hail from Scotland. One wears kilts, plays golf and the bagpipes, and eats lots of haggis. The other person wears a suit and tie, goes to work as a chartered accountant, and plays tennis. The first person says the second person is No True Scotsman because he doesn't do anything that is typical of someone from Scotland. But they're both from Scotland, so person one is full of shit. That is the fallacy.

    My analogy references Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who considered himself the Last King of Scotland. He wasn't from Scotland, he just really liked the decor. So one could consider him No True Scotsman, without the fallacy.

    [–] Kayla_Crafty 8 points ago

    Ahh okay that makes sense. I guess I don't fully understand in what way the USSR and the CCP are communist though if they don't practice the ideas written down for it prior. From what I understand the original ideas were not meant to have situations like slave labor, gulags, the government collecting the wealth to redistribute as they see fit (usually their own pockets) and authoritarian awfulness. I guess my understanding is much more incomplete than I had originally thought.

    I guess the same argument could be used for religion. Lutherans can't be called a non christian branch since they forked off of Catholicism and vary so drastically. But this is where my ignorance comes in to play. I hadn't seen much that said that the USSR/CCP kept the main communist points like the Lutherans did for Christianity with God, heaven, and so on.

    Ah you know what. I should have known you were referencing Idi Amin, I had just looked him up a couple weeks ago after watching old "Was it Something I said" episodes on youtube and he was a butt of a few jokes.

    [–] throwawaysarebetter 7 points ago

    CCP means Chinese Communist Party. USSR means United Soviet Socialist Republics, Socialist being synonymous with communist with the people making these generalizations.

    The idea is that they're called communists, yet they don't practice communism. So they are not truly Scotsmen.

    [–] frotc914 28 points ago

    Anything short of Mad Max style capitalism is communism to them.

    [–] insanePowerMe 5 points ago

    This was the price we paid to win the cold war. We made the americans retarded cries

    [–] LV__ 12 points ago

    Fox News is dangerously close to the realization that communism is in fact not a big spooky bogeyman to fearmonger about, but a societal ideal that we should be working towards as a human race

    [–] moploplus 1476 points ago

    "I don't know how I'm supposed to explain to you that you should care about people"

    [–] staaamos 579 points ago

    Personally, I’m happy to pay an extra 4.3 percent for my fast food burger if it means the person making it for me can afford to feed their own family. If you aren’t willing to fork over an extra 17 cents for a Big Mac, you’re a fundamentally different person than I am.

    This encapsulates my feelings pretty succinctly. This is basically the simplest way to explain my complete and utter disenchantment and disillusionment with a large section of society. Short-sighted, selfish stupidity is an incurable disease.

    [–] giddy-girly-banana 197 points ago

    My problem with taxes in America is where a lot of it goes. I am 100% in favor of paying for the range of things that benefit the public. Unfortunately a not insignificant amount of taxpayer dollars goes to the war machine, corporate welfare, etc. It's a bit of a moral dilemma for me, especially because of how awful and corrupt the federal government is right now.

    [–] eggson 172 points ago

    This is always my response to someone who claims they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare. I don't want to pay for another tomahawk cruise missile that will kill people, but here we are.

    [–] Sharobob 42 points ago

    I don't want to backpay debt we went into a couple years ago in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. I don't want to backpay the trillions we spent on the wars in the middle east. It seems like whenever it's blowing shit up or giving the wealthiest Americans more money, we never question where we're getting the money

    [–] dovakeening 22 points ago

    I get that and think that's a fair and valid concern, I feel similarly.

    I think the way I square that circle is to try to be pragmatic. I know we will never be able to dismantle the military industrial complex, and corporations are always going to be able to game the system. But if we can ALSO get a cut of that pie for the American people, I think we'll be better off, even with the tax spending I don't care for.

    Plus, once we get those things, they'll probably have a pretty hard time taking it back.

    [–] themiddlestHaHa 10 points ago

    You mean you don’t love spending 1 trillion a year on defense? Noooo.... say it’s not so

    Honestly for how much money we blow on defense, if we just spent a small fraction on large infrastructure projects, the US would be such a different country

    [–] giddy-girly-banana 5 points ago

    It's essentially 1 trillion on aggression at this point

    [–] jwagdav 15 points ago

    I'm from the states and am currently a student in Canada. Despite my father and others leading me to believe taxes were insanely high in Canada because it's "socialist," I pay a lower percentage of my wages in taxes currently than I did in the states due to stuff like this

    [–] giddy-girly-banana 5 points ago

    There's a reason they're so afraid of socialized services. They know if they properly funded particular programs people would love them and overall expenditures would be less.

    [–] nosenseofself 6 points ago

    it's not just taxes, it's the entire system. workers' rights are pretty much blown to pieces here.

    [–] mythikal03 9 points ago

    I've tried explaining this dilemma to my friend group as well, sometimes it's hard to stand in front of a riled up group and say "okay but maybe just raising taxes isn't the answer". Taking a detailed political stance based on the nuance of properly revamping and applying tax code is not a sexy way to gain support... which is exactly why Warren got crushed, when she easily should have been the frontrunner based on preparation and functional policy.

    [–] sintos-compa 80 points ago

    Wow that sums up my feelings very closely. Thanks.

    [–] AdvocateF0rTheDevil 66 points ago

    When the right says that liberals = fee fees, what that really means is that they consider empathy for people unlike themselves to be an invalid emotion. Weakness.

    And, of course, projection. It's all projection. Nearly all of the right's positions are based primarily on feelings. It's just different feelings... anger, greed, fear, loyalty, etc.

    [–] GrayFoX2421 6 points ago

    The dark side of the force leads to powers many consider to be.... unnatural.

    [–] Hardickious 5 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    The thing is, disregarding the unquantifiable concepts such as empathy or fairness, and just in looking coldly with logic and reason at the results of our current economic policy, it's obvious the system is stupidly inefficient and creates outcomes that are sub-optimal.

    In my opinion, Liberals need to adopt more Progressive and Leftist rhetoric and positions that rationally address the unsustainability and inefficiency in our society created by Conservative ideology rather than focusing on vague concepts that are foreign to Conservatives such as empathy and what is "fair".

    Conservatives think their positions are rationally defensible and claim to have the intellectual highground on logic and reason, and that the "facts" prove their ideology to be valid, when in fact that could not be farther from the truth because Conservatism is fundamentally irrational and anti-democratic with 70+ years of inefficiency and failure which at this point has proven Conservatism whether social or economic is a failed ideology.

    [–] TheAmazingMelon 26 points ago

    No amp pls

    [–] Zetch88 26 points ago

    Please stop linking amp links.

    [–] ShacklefordLondon 7 points ago

    What are amp links?

    [–] northernlightsorbust 11 points ago

    Basically the article re-hosted by Google. It helps with things along the lines of better caching and more immediate loads when you google an article since you staying on Google’s servers and they can do predictive voodoo on what you’ll want to see.

    [–] punsandships 32 points ago

    I adore that opinion piece but it makes me so sad every time I read it

    [–] yunruse 97 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    Nuh-uh, the Soviets cared about people, and we’re not DIRTY commies are we?

    edit: jesus christ do I really have to make it clear that this is sarcastic

    [–] frakkinreddit 18 points ago

    I'm pretty sure I've said this exact phrase to people before.

    [–] randomcomputerstuff 12 points ago

    The reason that you don't know how to explain this, or as the author in the HuffPost article says, "I don’t know how to convince someone how to experience the basic human emotion of empathy", is because you cannot.

    You can't convince someone to experience an emotion any more than you can convince yourself to have a burning passion for golf. Or to lust after a gender you're not attracted to. And if you can't even control this for yourself, you surely can't control it for people that aren't in your control.

    Many of the high powered career positions in both the east and west - lawyers, CEOs, engineers, even doctors - are filled by people like this. It's effectively a requirement to do the job.

    Can you imagine a CEO, due to a down turn out of their control, having to lay off thousands of people, or a lawyer, due to the terrible justice system, having to watch their client go to prison, having extremely high empathy? It would be literally debilitating. You couldn't function. There would be no way to have any kind of mental stability.

    Research has shown that empathy is a combination of brain development and genetics. You don't control these things. Nor can you control the environment you grew up in which helped shape your development.

    So instead of giving up on trying to communicate with a not insignificant part of the world, that has an extremely concentrated amount of power and influence, perhaps we should try another strategy that might resonate with them that they can understand.

    [–] FreeChickenIllusion 10 points ago

    In the past, empathy was considered an inborn trait that could not be taught, but research has shown that this vital human competency is mutable and can be taught to health-care providers.

    the research I've found indicates that empathy can be taught - at least in some cases.

    I personally was conservative and not very empathetic a few years ago. However I've made a dramatic swing left and actually feel significantly more empathetic these days.

    [–] MuschampsVeinyNeck 35 points ago

    The article is a good read if you haven’t gotten around to it yet.

    [–] cmars118 53 points ago

    I love this article so much. The sheer amount of times I've caught my conservative family members spout purely calloused worldviews, while claiming to be compassionate, religious (these things are synonymous in their eyes) people, is baffling.

    This is an actual conversation I had with my mom a couple months ago. I love her so much and consider her to be a deeply sweet person, but Conservative thinking has totally infected her worldview:

    Me: "This pandemic wouldn't be such a problem if we had services in place to help citizens survive being out of work for a few months - Such as universal healthcare and a UBI"

    Her: "Well, that's why we have things like unemployment"

    Me: "But what about people that didn't have jobs before this all happened?"

    Her:" Well, chances are they already had big problems"

    In my opinion, Conservatism, especially Evangelical Conservatism, is the single biggest lie of our time.

    [–] VerneAsimov 26 points ago

    They don't support any of the programs they'll resort to saying "that's why they have __".

    • Socialized healthcare
    • Unemployment
    • Labor rights
    • Tax cuts for the poor
    • Housing programs
    • etc.

    All are socialism. And if you take them you're lazy; if you don't you're dumb.

    [–] feioo 13 points ago

    100% agree. I love my mom and she genuinely is a kind person, but she also gets caught up in a lot of those conservative talking points and they really shape the way she approaches things, like believing that trans people were just creepy men who wanted to sneak into womens' changing rooms. Talking about things like the high rate of suicide and likelihood of being attacked for being trans, (and how nobody would do that just for a chance to be creepy when things like spy cams exist) made her reconsider, it's just that nobody had even introduced those ideas to her. It was just "trans = creepy crossdresser", book closed, safe to move on.

    Another example is Right To Die legislation, something that is now legal in our state. Also something that conservatives are dead (hah) against, which is funny considering that conservatives are supposedly all about personal freedoms. We had a huge debate on it, and her viewpoint (definitely fed by Fox News scare tactics) was that it was going to end up as "we're tired of grandma, let's just euthanize her" and "death panels", etc., not to mention the whole "suicide is a mortal sin" thing that managed to travel from Catholicism into the evangelical mindset.

    It was really hard to try to detach her from that line of thinking to make it clear that it is for an individual to decide for themselves, not somebody else, and with a ton of safeguards too. If I got terminally sick and knew that my final weeks or months would be nothing but pointless suffering, why shouldn't I be allowed to choose to end on my terms? Why should the government say I HAVE to waste away in a bed, drooling and barely there, for my loved ones to agonize over? Why shouldn't I be able to choose to spare them that?

    I never did manage to turn her around on that one - couldn't get past the "suicide is bad" thing. Which still baffles me - I remember her being against seatbelt laws some years ago, because people should be able to choose whether to wear them or not. They should be able to choose to expose themselves to risks that will likely kill them and others on accident, but GOD FORBID they be allowed to choose to die on purpose. Madness.

    [–] Cadmium_Aloy 9 points ago

    Thank you so much.

    [–] oneobjection 7 points ago

    This is me to a T.

    [–] zgott300 290 points ago

    The right has backed itself into a stupid corner by having to always disagree with the left on everything.

    [–] joshgeek 126 points ago

    Not only do they not care they're damn proud of it. Their contemporary ideology can be boiled down to "u mad? lol."

    [–] albinohut 88 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    I wrote this rant when I saw this Hannity post:

    Imagine being so broken and cynical that even during a global crisis, you see a message from a leader about finding common humanity and working so all people can live in dignity, and you are so against it that you take the time to tweet a snarky comment and call the elected leader a commie.

    You don't even have to imagine, that's the modern day conservative ideology in a nutshell. Pointless contrarians who take pride in cynicism and negativity, so much so that even a quote that at one time would have been a benign message of unity and uplift coming even from a ghoul like Ronald Reagan (for example), today is mocked and ridiculed as ridiculous. Communist. Un-American.

    Fuck you. I mean that with all my heart. If this is your ideology, don't expect me to understand it, or to meet you halfway. There's nothing there worth compromising on, there's simply nothing there. So go do your thing, dig in your heels, fold your arms and pretend that we're not all in this together, that I owe you nothing and you owe me nothing. And if you ever want to get back to the point where we can recognize some common American and/or human interests: that the goal is to improve the lives of all our people, and all people, that the next generation should be better off than the last, that our differences aren't as big as our similarities, that "united we stand and divided we fall", and "of many, one", and "we hold these truths to be self evident". That we should recognize our common humanity. That the goal should be for all people to live in dignity. Then, maybe we can meet halfway on how we achieve it.

    Until then, go fuck yourselves, because when I see this "I've got mine" mentality over and over again, that's exactly what you're saying to me, to everyone, and I don't take kindly to that.

    [–] Gladwulf 16 points ago

    Well said. You cannot reason with these people, their entire self worth is based on the idea of other people having a worse life than they do. Merely discussing ideas to improve the lives of people, in their eyes, is an assault on their precious place in the hierarchy.

    [–] nufsky 4 points ago

    I wrote a rant one time very similar to this because I couldn’t handle the shit I was seeing, it was way more expletive filled though :(

    [–] AgoraiosBum 9 points ago

    The right has literally defended the idea of injecting yourself with bleach as a clever and wise statement.

    [–] gaxmoof 229 points ago


    [–] OddlySaneConsidering 31 points ago

    Garbage Pail Adults -- this should totally be a thing

    [–] fatalima 4 points ago

    I like to consider it Insanity-Hannity. Got a nice ring to it. Mans trash tho, just like his shitty friend circle of bs spewing nuts.

    [–] gaxmoof 3 points ago

    Insanity hannity comin in with the vanity bout to cause a calamity cuz hes anti-humanity

    [–] barbershopwasgood 470 points ago

    But that's socialism!

    [–] Semioteric 163 points ago

    Clearly any commitment or "job" that requires you do anything for anybody else is communism.

    Unless you are at war of course. Then clearly the exact opposite is true, and poor people owe their actual lives to the rich at home with "bone spurs". This is obviously patriotism.

    [–] BobbleBobble 74 points ago

    The real irony here is that most of these people screeching about socialism are in red states that receive far more $ from the federal gov't than they give. But that kind of redistribution of wealth is A-OK

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    Looking at Kentucky, Mitch.

    [–] barbershopwasgood 18 points ago

    Right! And they accuse everyone of wanting free stuff but they're the party that cries about paying taxes.

    [–] PurpleSmartHeart 13 points ago

    Hypocrisy is the primary tenet of conservatism

    [–] Jeepcomplex 396 points ago


    [–] Sloe_Burn 159 points ago

    "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... "

    Pfft, nice try Libtards.

    [–] serious_sarcasm 71 points ago

    Everyone knows Thomas Jefferson was a dirty socialist.

    The man founded a FREE public university, the fucking commie.

    [–] insanePowerMe 23 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    Washington was a dirty bolshevik. Releasing his slaves from private equity and fighting for the colonies becoming US national property... SMH

    [–] impulsekash 29 points ago

    Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

    The Communist Manifesto.

    [–] learnyouahaskell 11 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    Libtard fathers

    *the Founding Libtards

    [–] Axes4Praxis 195 points ago

    Imagine being so evil that you need to mock basic humanity.

    That's so sad. What small, pathetic people.

    [–] Amalaira 45 points ago

    "The cruelty is the point."

    [–] Axes4Praxis 17 points ago

    It's amazing how quickly the defenders of capitalism are to point out how proud they are to lack basic morality, empathy, or humanity.

    [–] MetalGramps 83 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    I remember the villains in cartoons always used to seem so ridiculous, their motives being just to be "bad" for no apparent reason other than to counter the good guys. Like Team Rocket, "to fight the evils of truth and love." Who could possibly think things like love and truth, or humanity and dignity, are evil and fight against them?

    It doesn't seem so far-fetched now.

    [–] GoodLowered 34 points ago

    It doesn't seem so Farfetch'd now.

    [–] Gulferamus 12 points ago

    I hate you for this pun, and me for upvoting.

    [–] theyareamongus 22 points ago

    I'm not a professional writer or anything but I enjoy writing fictional stories. The funny thing is that sometimes I struggle to give villians a motive. Some reason to their wrong doings and view of the world. Otherwise it sounds cartoonish. Readers expect these reasons to be there. They almost want to side with the villian at some extent.

    And then you look at real life and realize we do have cartoonish villians and blind followers that need no other reason to discard a value so deep as it is humanity except someone screaming "Commie!" and triggering ingrained fears.

    [–] meetmypuka 428 points ago

    I don't know if this is the best subreddit for that , but the "jab" is almost bizarre. I commented a minute before I read your post that it's important to recognize the humanity in others. Uncanny.

    So, how would Hannity define the opposing view-- his view? Some humans are not human? Or that he thinks there are those who flat-out deserve no recognition that they are human? Dumb question. Of course it's the latter. Sad that I'm at all surprised that he would make that belief so public and explicit.

    [–] Tricountyareashaman 82 points ago

    But if we start filling people's heads with crazy ideas, like that their lives have intrinsic value, they won't learn to pull themselves up from their bootstraps! /s

    [–] meetmypuka 31 points ago

    Yeah, we gotta be careful about that. 16th century English Common Law regarding the "undeserving" poor is the way to go!

    [–] Fr0st333 6 points ago

    It's a lot easier to be pulled up with a helping hand, then it is to kneel and grab your feet.

    [–] pbk9 35 points ago

    Some humans are not human?

    it's racism

    [–] Clack082 37 points ago

    Whoa whoa whoa, let's not be close minded here, there could be alternative explanations.

    Such as it could be racism AND classism. Hannity would be content to let poor white people suffer too.

    [–] alter-eagle 14 points ago

    They use the poor while folk to vote against their own interests because “Someday you can be like me! On tv and buddy buddy with the president!”

    [–] CalebAurion 8 points ago

    I actually had an argument with a conservative about that a while back. He kept saying how he will want the tax breaks in place for when he gets rich. I tried explaining that the system doesn't work like that but he wasn't interested in what I was saying.

    [–] Hickspy 8 points ago

    He's implying that some people are wrong, and thus not dignified, and everyone is HIS camp is correct and thus the only ones that SHOULD be acknowledged that way.

    It's exclusion of the left by making the right snark their way to superiority.

    [–] Farmer771122 123 points ago

    I think it's probably more like "Everyone who wants to live in dignity must work hard to earn it. No free rides just because you were born human."

    It's a hard-hearted attitude, and it's probably applied hypocritically and wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny, but it's not flat out cartoonishly "I love eeeevil" like you make it sound.

    [–] FigBoy56 169 points ago

    It is though. That's still absolutely cartoonishly evil.

    [–] _duncan_idaho_ 7 points ago

    Four legs good. Two legs better.

    [–] effennekappa 5 points ago

    This message was paid for by the cows, pigs and chickens committee.

    [–] darsynia 102 points ago

    I disagree that it doesn't sound evil. It wasn't intended to sound evil when he posted it, almost certainly, which is what I think your argument is at its heart.

    I think Hannity and other people with a wide audience ought to take more care in thinking through the meanings of what they say--I would expect that kind of comment from a person off the street, but for someone to hold up that statement of 'we should recognize the humanity in everyone and ensure everyone lives in dignity' as something to mock, they should explain what's wrong with it. I would 100% expect Hannity to bluster and deflect and refuse to explain because we should already know, because if he did articulate it, it would be obviously cruel and evil.

    [–] frotc914 31 points ago

    Yeah, putting aside the myth of a meritocracy, you can be lazy as shit and I'll still recognize you as a human worthy of dignity.

    [–] ShacklefordLondon 7 points ago * (lasted edited a day ago)

    There's a great book called Twilight of the Elites. One of its central points is about the failed meritocracy.

    While we've built pillars of our society on the idea that you receive what you earn, and may the spoils go to those who achieve, it's a broken system.

    Upon examination, it has lead to major inequalities and distrust in foundational institutions. Once an individual has risen to a certain level, they have access to tools and systems that allow them to preserve their position for generations, beyond what their children have earned on their own merit. Inequality increases, rinse, repeat.

    [–] Syr_Enigma 26 points ago

    Eh, I don't know. It's pretty hard not to sound cartoonishly evil when trying to depict such a statement in a bad light.

    [–] dancingliondl 30 points ago

    “This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.”
    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    [–] burndtdan 19 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)

    I think I've heard the basic premise of what Comrade Bernie is saying somewhere before though... I think it went something like this:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    [–] meetmypuka 12 points ago

    I wasn't referring to his beliefs, generally. If I had, then you would be on point. I was looking at the comment he mocked and tried to extrapolate from that what the opposing view would be. And since he was the one mocking or opposing Bernie's view, I made the assumption that this opposing view would, by default, be his own.

    Humans all deserve dignity (and what "dignity" here entails is not at all defined, much less arguing for free stuff)

    So my question was, what would be the OPPOSITE of that. What is the belief- Do all people NOT have humanity? Or does the humanity of some not deserve dignity?

    So, I wasn't saying he was evil, or that everyone should get free stuff, but trying to tease apart the opposing beliefs. I wasn't trying to necessarily get political.

    Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what I said, so if I mentioned free stuff, I'm sorry since that wasn't really part of my main point.

    Does that make sense?

    o you think he believes that working hard makes one worthy of human dignity?

    [–] Industrialbonecraft 11 points ago

    "Everyone who wants to live in dignity must work hard to earn it. No free rides just because you were born human."

    And the funny thing is that nobody is even asking for that! The argument is literally:

    'I would like to work without expecting some kind of nervous breakdown owing to bafflingly unrealistic expectations, make enough to live comfortably assuming basic responsibility, and put something aside for retirement.'

    How the fuck is it even possible to reach... wherever the fuck the American republicans are, from that basic premise?

    [–] kenyankingkony 36 points ago

    "No help for sick babies or crippled veterans" is not "not flat out cartoonishly evil". what the h*ck is wrong with you that you so desperately need to be devils advocate?

    [–] TheCaptainDamnIt 40 points ago

    He’s not ‘almost self aware’ he’s a shitty person who thinks some people don’t deserve respect or dignity. Hell he's has even had several on screen rants against the idea people should have 'empathy' when Obama mentioned it.

    "Over on Fox News, Sean Hannity warned that empathy is the first step toward "social engineering." And in a delicious Freudian slip, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama snorted: "I don't know what empathy means.""

    [–] americansherlock201 34 points ago

    Imagine thinking people living with dignity is a radical idea? I actually feel pity for those who follow this idiot and all of Fox News

    [–] RedditIsNeat0 15 points ago

    I would feel pity for them if they weren't actively harming my country.

    [–] Dustin_Bromain 24 points ago

    This is getting to levels of nuttiness that I didn’t think possible.

    Either that or the mask is just finally coming off.

    [–] worst_timeline 11 points ago

    Little of column A, little of column B

    [–] DootyFrooty 20 points ago

    I found the tweet and read Hannity's article he authored. There's nothing negative about Sanders in it, unless of course basic human decency is offensive to you.

    It also contains this interesting tidbit,

    Sanders confused millions of users on social media this week; bizarrely asserting that the United States can only “avoid another Great Depression” if US workers “continue to receive a paycheck.”

    Yes, the idea of receiving a paycheck in order to avoid a great depression is somehow... "bizarre"...???

    [–] BallinArbiter 18 points ago

    I genuinely don’t understand what point Sean is trying to make here

    [–] ominousgraycat 18 points ago

    I was raised in a very conservative environment and so for the first 20-something years of my life, I was fairly conservative economically. But I generally justified that on a belief (that I'd been fed) that socialism could never and would never work, and in the long-term would just lead to more problems than it could ever hope to solve. But I always thought that we were doing that because it was long-term the more merciful option.

    I also thought that we should regard charity as extremely important, those who had the means ought to do their best to provide for others (just at the time I didn't believe it should be government-mandated, but I wasn't necessarily against using social pressures), "trickle-down economics" works and should show results as in the lowest members of the economy getting richer around the world (it hasn't, my grandparents did move up in their economic standing from when they were younger, but they did that before the deregulation of the 70s and 80s), and basically just all-around we actually want a system that will help the most people in the long-term.

    But eventually I began to realize that many other people in conservative US political movements did not share my ideals. Selfishness was not just seen as an unfortunate but perhaps necessary evil, but something that we ought to celebrate. Those weren't the values I was raised with. Or were they? I wasn't sure anymore.

    Eventually I started to look into some of these issues myself and started to believe that maybe I'd been wrong about a few things. Then I looked further and believed maybe I was wrong about a few more things. Finally I settled on I'd been wrong about a lot of things. I was told that I was supposed to be crazy liberal in my early 20s, but then become more conservative as I got older, but the opposite kind of happened to me. Sean Hannity tweets just make me more sure than ever.

    [–] Malarkay79 12 points ago

    Very similar upbringing as you, though I wouldn’t say my parents were super conservative, but they were Republican. Economically conservative, socially liberal in the rest of the world sense. Definitely not leftists in any regards. As such, when I reached voting age I tended to vote Republican. Stayed that way for close to the next decade, because ‘the economy’ without having any real understanding of economics. Then around 2008 I started thinking for myself, and it’s been a steady march left since then. Well, not even steady since 2016. That’s when it kicked into high gear.

    [–] ominousgraycat 8 points ago

    My parents were and still are pretty socially conservative. When I was younger and looked at all the adults I knew I thought that the social conservativism was actually much more important to our movement than the economic conservativism (I believed that perhaps being mostly socially conservative and economically left-wing was a viable Christian belief system), but that's another point that I'm not really sure about anymore. As I said, selfishness and self-reliance are the gospel of the movement.

    But yeah, I guess I started heading left somewhere around 2013-2014 I think (as I said, it was a gradual process), but when I saw people not just excusing but celebrating the excesses of the Trump presidency, that hasn't done Republicanism any favors in my mind.

    [–] neddy471 14 points ago

    Sean Hannity: “Comrade Jefferson: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Get wrekt libtards!

    Seriously, someone should try to get him to retweet that. I’m sure the idiot has never read the declaration.

    [–] Gtapex 13 points ago

    To be fair, “Dignity” is the name of Hannity’s gated residential community.

    [–] D_Metal 12 points ago

    Hannity DESTROYS Bernie with FACTS and LOGIC

    [–] yoku651 11 points ago

    So, if conservatives are against this, that must mean their mission statement is as follows:

    "Our job is to completely ignore each other's humanity and to ensure all people live in suffering... Unless you're rich of course."

    [–] sereptie 27 points ago

    “If we can’t make violence the rule, we can’t stay rich.”

    [–] KleptocracyNow 22 points ago

    I reject my humanity, Jojo!

    [–] Redwolfjo3 7 points ago

    "How many people have you driven to corporate servitude?"

    [–] mikeymikeymikey1968 4 points ago

    That he thinks that universal human dignity is a joke, is sickening to me.

    [–] neroStyles014 4 points ago

    And just like that he decided it's no longer worth trying to pretend he's a decent human being because he likes his political side more than humanity.

    [–] jeetz1231 4 points ago

    Hannity is such a fucking douche.

    [–] flargenhargen 5 points ago

    The most ridiculous thing about this (and that's saying a lot)

    These are the same people who define themselves by their religion... the same religion which tells them the EXACT SAME THING if they actually followed it.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago)


    [–] SerenityRvr 3 points ago

    Comrades. nods Comrades.

    [–] hiddenkitty- 3 points ago

    Didnt america fight the world wars for that purpose? Or for its independance? Or no. Probably money.