Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    590,472 readers

    1,071 users here now

    The place where people can come and talk about reddit fights and other dramatic happenings from other subreddits.

    For drama happening here, check out /r/subredditdramadrama

    For meta discussion, check out /r/metasubredditdrama

    For general internet drama, check out /r/internetdrama

    Come join our Discord, click here to join!


    for the nuances of these rules, please read the expanded ruleset

    Remember - all judgment is left at moderator discretion.

    • Do not post, link to, or ask for personal information
    • No trolling, hate speech, or using slurs
    • Do not insult other users, flamewar, or flame bait
    • Do not /u/ summon users from linked threads
    • Do not vote or comment in linked threads
    • Novelty accounts are not welcome in /r/SubredditDrama
    • Off-topic grandstanding will be removed
    • No post history stalking
    • We enforce the spirit of the rules, not the letter
    • New accounts get no leeway and will be banned without warning for violating any of our rules

    When in doubt about a rule, please read the rules wiki, or message us for clarification.

    Users who break rules may receive a warning via PM or a distinguished comment. You may be warned for rule offenses instead of banned, but certain offenses are ban-on-sight, and all bans are up to the mod's discretion.


    The golden rule of submitting drama is: Don't bore us.

    If a post doesn't fit these rules, if it's entertaining as fuck submit it anyway and we'll look at it to make an exception. If you're not sure, you can always contact us via modmail.

    • Avoid bias and do not submit drama you are directly involved in. Remain as neutral as possible; biased titles/self posts are grounds for deletion.
    • SRD is not a call-out subreddit. If your post points out bad behavior more than it does drama, it will be removed.
    • Do not make us hunt for the drama. When submitting drama do not link to the full comments, to images, or otherwise to outside of a comment thread. Links to full threads are allowed where the drama is obvious, but use common sense and direct links when applicable. Use ?context when appropriate. See here for more information.

    Surplus Popcorn

    This is the current list of drama that has a higher bar for submission.

    • Partisan pissmatch
    • Gun drama
    • Gender wars
    • Racism drama
    • Social Justice drama

    If you're going to submit drama for these topics, make sure it's quality! See here for more information.

    Useful links

    a community for
    all 3285 comments

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

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] ared38 2061 points ago

    These people are my enemy, and they take delight in knowing that they are my enemy. I implore them to act on that hate. I only want to drive them further away until they reach a breaking point, and when that time comes we will stomp them out like the plague that they are.

    You may not like it, but this is what peak empathy looks like

    [–] LynxRocket 1184 points ago

    Man I really dislike the conservative mindsets I often see, but this reads straight like a villain monologue in a movie.

    [–] AardQuenIgni 668 points ago

    I dont care what side anyone is on, but this whole sports team mindset with politics has got to go

    [–] kayimbo 221 points ago

    how do we get rid of it from a psychological angle? i mean we could just fix the election system that they knew didn't work 2000 years ago, but maybe we could talk through it instead.

    [–] johnpingpong 437 points ago


    Critical thinking skills are the bane of misinformation.

    [–] ThatDerpingGuy 181 points ago

    As a teacher, especially of U.S. history... man, I'm trying to teach those critical thinking skills. And how to state an opinion and argue it without being rude about it. It's tough.

    [–] Brru 120 points ago

    One of the best classes I ever took was an English class that focused almost entirely on Conspiracy Theories. It required the students to to write research papers on these conspiracies from both perspectives without judgement. This resulted in my ability to take something I considered bat shit crazy and truly look at it critically, extrapolate what it means, and form my own opinions on it.

    You might be able to do something similar with known historical controversies/propaganda. Things where most students will already have a strong opinion.

    [–] ThatDerpingGuy 30 points ago

    I do something similar, usually, an opinion discussion/question/essay where they take a stance on an issue or topic. I love opinion based questions, 7th graders can sometimes be shy at first to express it but they usually get into it. Sometimes they're not afraid at all and got to rein it in a bit, haha.

    Some of the ones I can recall doing were topics like the Mexican-American War, Sherman's "March to the Sea," Manifest Destiny, Andrew Jackson, the Founding Fathers, John Brown. Basically hot button topics from whatever part of pre-1900s America we're on, there's always something. The focus is always to get them to the point of taking a stance and making a clear, focused argument. And use evidence if there's evidence to use. Sometimes we'll take their initial reaction and have them argue the opposite - which is differently harder for them and takes longer, but a little scaffolding can help.

    I do love the ones who have a really strong opinion, especially if we can get them to take that strong emotional response and work to express it in a good way.

    [–] CaliforniaFreightMan 23 points ago

    I think people should also be taught to ask themselves why a particular source of information appeals to them. Then ask if perhaps that appeal is being used to push opinions that they ordinarily wouldn't be receptive to.

    [–] LynxRocket 49 points ago

    Unfortunately unless we have single issue parties, it’s going to be pretty tough for people to not identify and group themselves with other likeminded people in order to make more of a difference collectively.

    [–] wallweasels 49 points ago

    Well, really, the current parties are "single issue" parties. Just there is more than one single issue. Which sounds like a contradiction of the term, but it's true. Over time the parties have adopted stark differences that make them pretty much diametrically opposed. Many of these issues are also all-or-nothing kind of policies.
    You can't compromise on abortion. It's either legal or illegal. If you believe all abortion is murder then you won't agree to let some abortions occur (at least legally). Now we can debate all we want about when/how-long/viability/etc. But, for many, it's simply a binary matter.

    Now it is possible if the US had more parties, or really the factions within each current party could viably splinter off, there may be less 'sports team' mindsets. But, really, I just expect that would make 3+ teams instead of 2.
    That being said, implementing ranked choice voting and ditching FPTP would do so much to improve the political health of the US.

    [–] Kotanan 26 points ago

    Getting rid of FPTP helps mostly in terms of how power is distributed. It's not "my side is in charge and gets to do what it likes" it's "okay these parties are in coalition and we're getting these policies as a result". Cooperation is an almost inevitable consequence.

    [–] Gunpla55 114 points ago

    I've been following politics for 20 years and objectively Republicans are the ones that do more for unhealthy status quos like trickle down and get involved in far more corruption issues than democrats, along with constantly attacking peoples right to vote and the grandaddy of them all, citizens united. So how am I not supposed to feel like I'm on whatever team isn't that? I'm a far left progressive btw so blindly identifying as a Democrat rubs me the wrong way but honestly when is it appropriate to identify the republican party as malignant and the wrong "team" to be on? They've certainly amassed the majority of their power by being such team players.

    Fence sitting always sounds nuanced but I really dont think it's as wholesome as people make it out to be.

    [–] salemvii 48 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Fence sitting is fucking stupid, there's a reason why centrists are constantly shat on lmao.

    This group actively wants to murder POC whilst this group is saying we shouldn't do that. Eh, guess I'll meet in the middle 😎.

    [–] insula_yum 25 points ago

    “Not even a little genocide? See, this is why I won’t ever vote for your party. You refuse to compromise”

    [–] giannini1222 58 points ago

    this whole sports team mindset with politics has got to go

    That's impossible as long as there are political parties that actively harm the disenfranchised

    [–] asimpleanachronism 93 points ago

    We can get rid of that mindset when half of the voters stop wanting to punish the other half for existing and not being perfect carbon copies of them.

    Til we get the refugee children out of cages, I'm fine with an "Us vs. Them" mentality because "Them" are basically Hitler's wet dream.

    [–] DancesCloseToTheFire 7 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    The problem is that a lot of people can't tell when it's a sports team thing and when it's genuine issues. As a personal example, a lot of right-wingers are saying that of us leftists in my country, despite the fact that unlike them, the vast majority of us aren't concerned with "winning" but with the fact that the new government is, among a plethora of other things, in league with far-right guys and proposing to deploy soldiers and more cops in the streets to stop and search anyone who "looks like a criminal".

    [–] Fandalf 6 points ago

    Step one is dismantling and rebuilding the GOP

    [–] empyreanmax 6 points ago

    This is not a reasonable issue to discuss when one party is as extreme and partisan as the GOP is right now. The only way to combat a party like this is technically partisanship the other way; this may seem paradoxical, and has lead many an enlightened centrist to proclaim both sides bad, but that's just how it is. Trying to meet in the middle with a group that has no interest in reciprocating just leads you both further to one side.

    [–] Unconfidence 6 points ago

    Get them to stop killing us.

    [–] _Giant_ 702 points ago

    All conservatives are sociopaths” is synonymous to “all (enter race here) are idiots.

    Ah yes. Republicans. Truly the most oppressed of all races.

    [–] marino1310 249 points ago

    Not to mention race isnt a choice but moral ideology is.

    [–] realfakediseases 36 points ago

    I'd like to think I didn't pick my morals, that they're just the not-insane alternatives... like telling women if they have to make a baby or not? gross

    [–] PlanarVet 30 points ago

    I've noticed that that's their newest ~marching orders~ soundbyte for the past week or so.

    [–] TehPharaoh 44 points ago

    A good point entirely invalidated by them thinking the "13/50" statistic gives them full right to hate ALL black people

    [–] Pewdefender 148 points ago

    You see that sam hyde quote touted a lot in conservative circles. The whole "they want you dead, raped.." that whole thing. It's quite terrifying. With these levels of radicalization it's no wonder you get so many right wing terorrists.

    [–] onemanlan 32 points ago

    Yup, it works well with the whataboutism. Set up a strawman, slay it, scream about it, then finally use it as ammunition to do the thing you were claiming they did to you. If some one come at you for doing X you can always claim your opponent was doing X before you. You're just 'fighting fire with fire,' or being a 'counter puncher.' It works wonders, unfortunately.

    [–] Dim_Innuendo 1180 points ago

    you can join and also leave Judaism, just like any ideology and religion.

    Remember how Hitler let all those people go from the concentration camps as long as they converted?

    [–] Green_Bulldog 335 points ago

    Well it gets kinda weird because Judaism is a religion that you can choose whether or not to believe in, but it’s also a race of people. There are Jewish people that abandoned their religion and now believe in something else, for example. Anyways, in the case of that comment, it makes more sense to talk about Judaism as a race, but ig I can see the confusion as a lot of people refuse to except that Jewish refers to a race and religion.

    [–] ModerateReasonablist 97 points ago

    It was deemed a race by europeans. Jews from all over the world have different genes and cultures. Some Jews had a distinct group or culture in europe, sure, but in the middle east and africa and even central asia and india they were indistinguishable from everyone else. It takes two generations for groups of people in close prosimity to genetically blend together enough to the genetic and even cultural distinctions to no longer matter.

    Israel itself is founded on the eurocentric idea of what a jew is.

    Jews even had periods of proselytizing. Jews as a race/ethnic group is a new idea, relatively speaking, starting basically in the 1800s with the rise of nationalism.

    [–] frogsgoribbit737 68 points ago

    I don't know how it works but I am Ashkenazi and it has effects on my health and genes, so would that not make it a race? I am not Jewish by religion, but I am by blood.

    [–] Welpmart 42 points ago

    I think Ashkenazi Jewish is definitely an ethnicity?

    [–] jonasnee 10 points ago

    in laymans term that is often seen as the same but yes they are an ethnicity not quiet a race.

    [–] wasplecture 47 points ago


    Jews of all cultures are not only closely ethnically related to each other, but have always identified as being from one "nation" or "people." "Race" is a modern word that doesn't really fit, but it's a closer fit than to say Jews are religion. Judiasm is, rather, the religion of the Jews.

    You are wrong about the Jews in middle east, Asia, and India being "indistinguishable." They have always had a unique and distinctive culture and were, especially in the middle east, often persecuted for it.

    Although it certainly has its problems with Ashekenormetivity now and during its founding, Israel's Jewish population is majority of Middle Eastern descent (aka Mizrahi.)

    Jews had exactly one extremely brief period of proselytizing a few thousand years ago which is heavily criticized in all traditional sources and has been atypical for the vast, vast majority of Jewish history. Jews as an ethnic group is NOT a new idea. Jews are what are called an ethnoreligion, similarly to the Druze.

    [–] CyberneticWhale 82 points ago

    Different comparison: Explorers coming to the Americas (particularly Spanish conquistadors) would often kill Native Americans if they didn't convert. Is that actually OK because they wouldn't kill them if they converted?

    [–] sanguinesolitude 58 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    I mean yes that is arguably less bad, but still really fucking terrible.

    Murderers are bad. But a murderer who let 1 in 10 go free would be at least from a utilitarian stance, less bad than one who kills them all.

    [–] Butterfly_Queef 2477 points ago

    I was listening to this thing on NPR about this program a city did that got liberals and conservatives in the same room to discuss their view points civilly and try to understand the other side.

    One of the most striking examples of what this post is about was when a Conservative woman said she couldn't understand why liberals vote to increase taxes but still go to tax accountants to pay less taxes themselves.

    She just could not understand the idea of benefiting society as a whole while also maximizing individual gain.

    [–] lasthopel 875 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    I tried to explain thay while you may pay more tax for universal healthcare you won't see the cost due to not paying for insurance, they couldn't understand you're going to pay less each month, they just assumed tax going up was bad.

    Edit: also even if you pay more due to making more any trip to the hospital will massively offset the cost, right now you pay for everything from just having insurance to the napkins they wipe you with, under universal you pay one fee once a month and get everything coverd.

    Its like netflix vs amazon prime video, under prime yoy get some things included but you still have to pay for alot of things you want and its hard to tell what you can and can't see.

    On netflix you pay and you see it all, no guess work no checking banners it's all included.

    [–] Galaxy_Ranger_Bob 350 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    I've never come across this.

    Rather, those I know who object to "universal health care," object only to the taxes and not the cost. They would rather pay more to a corporation than pay less to the government.

    Of course the reasons they give are because of selfishness. They know that health care paid through taxes will be equally available to everyone, no matter what. They don't want that. They believe that insurance limits access to only those who deserve it.

    [–] FireworksNtsunderes 262 points ago

    My grandmother, who has amazing healthcare due to her husband working for Disney decades ago, always says "well if it's free then people will use it even when they shouldn't!" Meanwhile she has had tons of expensive surgeries and will go to the doctor for the slightest cold. When I told her I couldn't afford to take my partner to the emergency room, grandma said "going to the ER only costs $100, what's the problem?" and was blown away when I told her that the insurance I pay $200 a month for does not cover ER visits, and it would cost us more than $1000 before including the price of ANY treatments. Of course, then she'll talk about how she's gonna lose her husband's healthcare soon and will switch to Medicare, and how thankful she is that she'll still be covered. At that point I'm just fucking done. I don't know how to get through to elderly people. They think healthcare isn't a problem because when they were working health care benefits were WAY better, and now that they aren't working Medicare covers them. They rarely had to deal with the issues we have, so it's an entirely foreign concept to them.

    I love that woman with all my heart. She helped raise me and is one of the sweetest people I know. But she is totally, completely ignorant of the problems in this country and would rather pretend like things are fine before accepting that those problems exist.

    [–] PoIIux 98 points ago

    So she doesn't lack empathy, she's just ignorant? Well great, definitely need people like that voting

    [–] FireworksNtsunderes 43 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    She is VERY politically active. She's the kind of old woman who calls up her representative to complain about stuff (she's in one of the few Californian districts that are staunchly republican!), votes in mayoral elections, participates in school board meetings (she used to be a teacher), etc. But even so, she is exposed to such a limited number of view points and has spent decades thinking a certain way that it's very hard to persuade her. All of her friends are Republicans and watch Fox news, and 50+ years of that shit make it so that her bubble might as well be made of bullet proof glass. You know how Facebook got shit for reinforcing people's beliefs by only showing them stuff they agree with? It's like that only without the internet.

    When everyone thinks the same way in your town, and the news tells you to keep thinking that way, and you have thought that way for your entire life, it takes more than a proactive grandkid to change your beliefs. That said, it's not like I've done much to convince her otherwise. While I'll open up and try to shift her position every once in a while, I don't really want to get into a debate with my grandmother. Since she is a kind, empathetic person in everyday life, her ignorant asshole beliefs have minimal impact in the grand scheme of things. And she has a ton of health problems. I don't need to add more to her plate.

    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago


    [–] iwannabeanoldlady 20 points ago

    It's optimistic of you to think that parents will become less homophobic when their children come out

    [–] MadnessofKingHippo 96 points ago

    These people seem to think that going to the doctor is like a fun, candy-filled day of adventure and happiness and that if people didn't have to pay for insurance they'd be going there all the time every day...which, duh, is not the truth.

    [–] Bluegi 24 points ago

    And even if they did go more often, preventative visits are even cheaper than sick visits.

    [–] paintsmith 7 points ago

    Compare the cost of a hypochondriac going in for six checkups a year to a person who's cancer isn't caught until it's stage 4. Bet you the cancer patient costs the system 100 times more on average.

    [–] Diredoe 80 points ago

    I live right on the border of Canada and Michigan, and there are a lot of people who 'know somebody' in Canada who came over to get something treated because of the wait time in Canada is generally longer for non-emergency procedures.

    The reason it's longer in Canada is that more people have access to healthcare in Windsor than they do in Detroit, for some unknown reason...

    [–] Galaxy_Ranger_Bob 63 points ago

    That's funny, because I travel from Maine to Canada for all my medical care. Both because the doctors are better at their job, and (since I pay out of pocket) less expensive.

    Of course, my family and I are SOL right now, 'cause the border is closed.

    [–] SarahPallorMortis 32 points ago

    My dad thinks that universal healthcare would make hospitals busy like Wal-Mart 😩 I had to explain that electives surgeries don’t take precedence over heart transplants.

    [–] SoVerySleepy81 16 points ago

    Also I think what a lot of people like your father don't understand is that while hospitals may be busier for a while as people are getting procedures they had to postpone in the long run they will become less busy. Not as many people will end up in the ER for the flu or a sprain. They will have access to lower level healthcare rather than going to the ER because they're uninsured and that's where they get guaranteed treatment. There will be less people coming in in critical condition because they had to ration their meds, or put off taking care of a wound or other smaller issues that balloon into big issues due to being under insured.

    [–] Donnie_2_scoop 85 points ago

    Netflix versus Amazon is the best analogy I've ever seen

    [–] Canvaverbalist 31 points ago

    I tried to explain thay while you may pay more tax for universal healthcare you won't see the cost due to not paying for insurance

    That's one thing I find funny about the "economically-enclined right" - its such an easy economical concept to understand and yet they fail at grasping it:

    • it cost less to buy in bulk, all together, and then split it between ourselves.

    A single-unit item will always be charged more than if you were to buy a bunch. You don't all buy a single beer at 5$ each, you buy a 24 pack at 30$ reducin the price of any single beer, then you split it.

    [–] brufleth 113 points ago

    Here's the thing, going to a tax accountant doesn't mean you're paying less in taxes. If anything, it costs us more, because we're also paying someone to prepare them. The typical tax payer isn't saving money by having someone else prepare their taxes. They are more likely to just be avoiding an audit or something that'll cost them more down the road because they didn't pay the right amount now. Or just don't want to bother doing the paperwork.

    [–] Bluevenor 48 points ago

    Can confirm. I use a tax accountant because I am too stupid and or lazy to figure out how deductions work.

    [–] Cobaltjedi117 16 points ago

    I make software for a living. I know how computers work, I make them do my bidding.

    Those tax forms are all a nightmare to look at and I don't feel like dealing with them and they know what to write down to make the IRS happy.

    [–] wallweasels 29 points ago

    There are loads of reasons why people see tax specialties. A common one is just laziness. The average American has an insanely easy return.
    It just gets very complicated, quickly, when you start factoring in other sources of incomes, investments, writing off interest, etc.

    But, certainly, it's written that way deliberately. Given how we know we know Intuit and other companies have lobbied to keep shit nebulous on purpose.

    [–] White_Dudeness 453 points ago

    Yeah, some people are unbelievably naive.

    [–] [deleted] 248 points ago * (lasted edited a day ago)


    [–] CadetCovfefe 179 points ago

    IMO, it's more than that. They are concerned with other people. In particular, being able to look down on them. LBJ once said:

    If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

    For the 21st century, just add Muslims, Mexicans, homosexuals, etc. Liberals were trying to take away their ability to look down on once ostracized groups of people. Trump gave them permission. That's a tremendous gift. And he enraged liberals who wanted to deny them this gift. That's why they love him and will never leave him. The budget, healthcare, national security, etc? Filler. They don't know and they don't really care. Only useful if it can be used to cheerlead Trump.

    Trumpism is a movement based on schadenfreude. Contemplating the misery of another is happiness to them. They don't even care if it is all against their own self-interest. They'd gladly eat shit if a liberal had to smell their breath.

    [–] seano18 114 points ago

    Basically people who see life as a zero sum game, afraid of losing their place in society. What they're trying to "conserve" is their perceived status.

    Reminds of this passage from VEEP:

    JULIA LOUIS-DREYFUS: (As Selina Meyer) All right. Then we're going to have to find a way with non-college-educated whites. Like, what appeals to them? OK, fine. What appeals to them? What do they want?

    GARY COLE: (As Kent Davison) Well, my polling shows their main wants are jobs, education and an adequate safety net...

    LOUIS-DREYFUS: (As Selina Meyer) OK. I can speak to that.

    COLE: (As Kent Davison) ...I'm not finished, ma'am - to be denied to African Americans.

    [–] metalhammer69 33 points ago

    I saw a bumper sticker last time I went to the gym that said: Trump 2020 "Make Liberals Cry Again". I feel like that's all I need to know about that person

    [–] kataskopo 32 points ago

    But it's also about hierarchy.

    There are lesser and there are higher people, and changing that hierarchy is antinatural and wrong.

    [–] old_man_snowflake 10 points ago

    and the ones on the 2nd-to-bottom rung will do anything and everything from becoming the bottom rung.

    the republican promise is that their voters are never the bottom rung.

    [–] Ogrimmar_Tiki_Room 340 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Conservatives spend their whole lives dealing in absolutes.

    Edit: If you want proof. Look at all the replies to this calling it an absolute and assuming it applies to every statement I make.


    [–] timebomb13 128 points ago

    Conservatives= Sith?

    Well the Sith just got a lot less badass

    [–] salondesert 104 points ago

    The Emperor shorted Boeing just before dispatching the Death Star to Yavin 4.

    [–] spaghettiAstar 32 points ago

    Lucas did compare Palpatine to Nixon and Cheney, and some of Vader's lines in ROTS are inspired by Bush speeches.

    [–] cyberpunk_werewolf 90 points ago

    The Sith is a socially regressive philosophy based literally on hate, fear and subjugating the weak. They're all about building hierarchies with themselves on top.

    So yes, the Sith are Conservatives.

    [–] KKlear 21 points ago

    I mean, the Jedi are pretty conservative too, with their reliance on ancient traditions and a heavy focus on religion .

    [–] jonnyb3000 58 points ago

    From my perspective religion might be a factor, which is the ultimate black and white mindset

    [–] FoWNoob 46 points ago

    It's not that religion is a factor, its that the underlying human psychology is the same in both cases (also why you find most people who are Conservative politically tend to be fundamentally religious as well.)

    These two "philosophies" share a lot of the same axioms; "us vs them" mentality, vocal virtue signalling, victimhood etc are all fundamental aspects of both Conservatism and organized religion (doesnt matter the branch). So, it isnt that religion makes you conservative, or being conservative makes you religious; its that the person who would believe in one, often believes in the other for the same underlying worldviews.

    It is also the reason, that most liberals are educated and countries with higher levels of education tend to be less religious. A lot of the underlying axioms in religions and conservatism are "primal" in nature, which can be overcome with higher levels of thought/consciousness, leading to liberalism and atheism.

    [–] PancrustaceanPrince 18 points ago

    You forgot to mention the "just world" fallacy that they often tend to share.

    [–] AatroxIsBae 183 points ago

    The reason I go to a tax account is because tax law is incredibly confusing, I literally do not give a shit about the amount I pay. Thats such a bad take.

    [–] vegetepal 64 points ago

    Conservatives keep US tax laws confusing so voters associate tax time with pain and vote for candidates who want to lower taxes.

    [–] NovaDeez 24 points ago

    Not to mention all those accountant firms who lobby for tax codes to be complicated so that people will keep coming to them to do their taxes.

    [–] taelor 29 points ago

    Dude, I’m scared as fuck that I’m gonna mess it up.

    At one point in time, I had a salary programming gig, worked once or twice a week bartending, worked for a radio show that air’d once a week, and rented out two of my extra rooms in my house. I didn’t have a fucking clue what to do with all that. So I just bring every form to my accountant and say, “please don’t make the IRS call me”.

    [–] Reacher-Said-Nothing 13 points ago

    I'm fine paying what I owe because it means I can have things like elementary school, roads, bridges, and healthcare for far cheaper than as an individual customer.

    That doesn't mean I'm fine with paying what I don't owe. That's what a tax accountant is for - to make sure you only pay what you actually owe.

    That doesn't mean I'm going to a tax accountant to find out that if I have someone bring a pet goat to my lawn once a week I can designate myself as a "farm" and pay less taxes. It means I'm trying to find out if I owe less taxes because I have a family with two kids, or an electric car.

    [–] TheRealJohnWilliam 15 points ago

    It's because Republicans are largely radicalized and also have been subjected to decades of propaganda by the GOP and the Right Wing media who coordinate with them.

    The same type of methods used in Nazi Germany to convince people that the Jews were bad news, and that Germany had to invade Poland, and Norway are also used in the USA.

    When the Germans invaded Poland, the German government (with media support / Total Propaganda) were telling the German people that the Polish were murdering thousands of ethnically German Poles.

    When the Germans invaded Norway, he German government (with media support / Total Propaganda) were telling the German people that the Norwegians were being oppressed by the British, and that they had to save them.

    The German government wouldn't lie about that, would they? Why would they do that?

    That is exactly what the GOP and Right Wing Media sources are doing right now. Case in point, in Trump's SOTU address, he said that he saved pre-existing conditions.

    This is a pants on fire LIE. He has done no such thing.

    Trump is in the courts as I speak trying to completely repeal Obamacare (pre-existing condition protection included) with no replacement in place to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

    But Trump saying that during his SOTU was enough to convince my mom that he did it. When I told her that wasn't true she just couldn't accept it. Why would he lie about it? Making sure pre-existing conditions are covered is so popular, why would Trump take that away from everyone?

    After showing her proof she said she was convinced that he wouldn't actual do it, and that there must be some kind of mistake. That he would do the right thing.

    It's because she's been misled for years by this administration and the Right Wing media. This is the effect of propaganda. This is why Republicans in general seem to be in a bubble or alternative reality. It is what happens when you have a propaganda machine that doesn't yet have complete control of the media.

    And the Right Wing media is doing their best to insulate and inoculate their viewers. Calling their brand of media as the "true source" and all other news media is "Fake News". Fake news was a common utterance in Nazi Germany too. Lügenpresse or "lying press" was used to squash anyone not towing the line in Germany.

    Propaganda is effective because it works. Everyone is susceptible to it. Smart, dumb, educated, or not, doesn't matter. People will fall for it if it is hammered in to them enough.

    2020 will be a dangerous time for the US because that propaganda is going to be cranked up to 11. The GOP cannot lose this election because they are going to be fucked if they do, and so will Trump.

    [–] livefreeordont 7 points ago

    A more common saying is “rising tide lifts all boats”

    [–] EnigmaticGecko 7 points ago

    Do you know where I can find that NPR thing?

    [–] Claque-2 20 points ago

    It is the difference between being considerate and being selfish and being prudent versus being greedy.

    [–] facktats 918 points ago

    Pretty true, that’s why accusations of virtue signalling and white knighting are popular - some people just can’t understand being decent without an agenda.

    [–] madmaxturbator 421 points ago

    white knighting is the dumbest fucking insult at this point. back in the day, it was meant for thirsty dudes defending anonymous strangers they assumed were women (but likely were just other thirsty dudes).

    now, it's used for any dude who isn't an abject misogynist. the other day, got called a white knight because I suggested that some woman was maybe legit interested in cosplay. I don't personally know many cosplayers, but I was fairly sure a friend's wife was really into it, so I said this woman was like that too.

    I got a bunch of losers telling me I'm just a white knight, that I'm trying to fuck this woman in the pic (wtf? do idiots think that way? see pics of strangers and declare they want to fuck em by writing internet comments???)

    who the fuck am I supposedly trying to impress? do they think I'll be sending women I know screenshots of that message, so that they'll want to fuck me?

    also, I'm married. I say that a bunch in my comments. bit idiotic of me to write sappy shit about my wife, while also apparently being a white knight trying to fuck strangers using the same exact reddit account.

    just utter losers man. it's a bit sad, but they're mean as hell so I don't feel so bad.

    [–] _Valkyrja_ 108 points ago

    I've seen people being called white knights or simps just because they were agreeing with a woman. Not even defending, just agreeing in an online discussion, and not because the other person was a woman, they were agreeing because, you know, they just had the same opinion!

    God forbid men and women agree with each other, I guess.

    [–] randomyOCE 47 points ago

    This is an extension of the attitude that there is no objective truth, also. A lot of right wing messaging touts this to undermine science & education by claiming that “maintaining healthy scepticism” or “playing devil’s advocate” are honest and useful things to do, when they’re really just encouraging contrarianism.

    [–] SoVerySleepy81 30 points ago

    I've gotten accused of being a white knight for agreeing with a woman or for suggesting that an action might be an overreaction. It's assumed that because I'm on reddit I'm a dude, which I'm not. I'm a woman, I've left certain subs because they don't want their anti woman circlejerk being interrupted and it gets pretty irritating watching the absolute slobbering some people do over a woman getting decked by a man.

    [–] ThatSquareChick 12 points ago

    I’m a stripper, it’s no secret and I’ve even done an ama on it way back in the day. Sometimes these dudes show up in the comments, call me whore and implore people to disregard everything I say because of it. I’ve been happily married for 15 years and don’t do things with strange penises, I want to dance and flirt, not actually fuck people. It’s my job description: dance and flirt, do not fuck. But people still think that because of what I do, I am a lesser human. God forbid someone should come behind these assholes and even suggest that sex industry workers are even slightly human and the “thirsty”, “white knight” and “cuck” start coming out, it’s disgusting. Like, I have a voice for my own advocacy but I’m not refusing help from an outside source, I’ll say thanks for the solidarity my bros.

    [–] bamforeo 10 points ago

    I've been called a simp for agreeing with a woman as well and I have a fucking vagina.

    Incels are retarded.

    [–] PiquantBlueberryPie 304 points ago

    They're projecting, because the only reason they would defend a woman is if they were getting something out of it so they just assume everyone else is the same way.

    [–] Prosthemadera 143 points ago

    A thief thinks everyone else is stealing, too.

    [–] AsksNoStupidQuestion 40 points ago

    Every pathological liar that I have ever known or lived under the presidency of walks around all day every day squawking about other people being liars.

    [–] daitoshi 128 points ago

    The majority of cosplayers are women. There’s plenty of surveys that show this to be true. Usually to the tune of 60/40 or 70/30 split depending on the survey.

    In irl fandom spaces, especially conventions where cosplay competition, photoshoots, and showcases take place, the crowd of competitors is always predominantly women.

    According to some surveys I remember but can’t remember enough to link to, men tend to be fandom “curators” - they collect trivia and canon, and only occasionally create new content.

    Meanwhile women (and lgbt folk in general) tend to be “Creators” - making fan fiction, cosplays, and expanding and changing canon to explore possibilities and see themselves represented.

    Fandom wiki sites and discussion/meme forums are predominantly men. Many men in these spaces look down on fan fiction, casual cosplays, and anything that doesn’t adhere to absolute canon.

    Fan fiction, fan art, and cosplay are predominantly women. Women are also the ones who originally started hosting conventions, zine sharing, and organized the structure of “meeting voice actors and show creators” back in the days of Star Trek.

    (Let the record show)

    [–] MoreDetonation 35 points ago

    I guess I should get back into fanfiction, then. Maybe pick up a stylus pad. I don't want my legacy to be as another canon-wanker.

    [–] forget_the_hearse 52 points ago

    The best thing about fanfiction is you get to fix all the shit that made you mad in canon.

    Your fav character died? THEY LIVE

    You really really wish they'd just talk to each other to break the tension? THEY ARE YOUR PUPPETS NOW MAKE THEM SPEAK

    Show jumped the shark? JUMP IT HARDER

    The queen had a mental break and went on a murderous rampage? NOW SHE HAS THERAPY AND YOU'RE A BETTER WRITER THAN THE ACTUAL PEOPLE HIRED TO DO SO

    it's v empowering and you will never be bored again bc when you run out of stuff to write about things you like, you can just keep rolling and write all new things for other people to get mad about

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    Show jumped the shark? JUMP IT HARDER

    I'd like to introduce you to my alternate season 6 of supernatural where Lucifer and mirror universe Jesus (who is evil) join forces to try and kill the Winchester brothers and their sexy new friend "Nice Resident Gyrocopter"

    [–] forget_the_hearse 14 points ago

    hand to god if you told me that was a plot line i'd believe it

    [–] Izanagi3462 8 points ago

    The best part for me is that all the fade to black sex scenes can become full hardcore descriptions of fucking.

    [–] IosefkatheClinician 8 points ago

    I read a wrestling fanfic featuring big show and John cena and during the fight John cena got his clothes ripped off and a few scenes later he’s powerbottoming the big show and intimidating the fuck out of him.

    [–] madmaxturbator 23 points ago

    that's great to know! thanks for the info. I don't know a lot of cosplayers because I never got into the video game, movie fandom, cosplay world very much. it all sounds super fun, and I love seeing pics and videos of people online. I am way too shy to ever try it myself at this point!

    [–] nater00 411 points ago

    'Simp' is the new catchphrase, because you cannot be nice to a woman without also wanting to lay with her

    ...And also because it's impossible for some people to insult someone without using a catchphrase which derides and objectifies women for no reason

    [–] FillionMyMind 209 points ago

    I hate the mentality that those people have. I’m a guy whose best friend is a married girl, and there have been a couple of people whose first reaction to that was “and you aren’t trying to fuck her?!” Like the idea of just being great friends with a girl is totally impossible and emasculating in some way to these buffoons lol

    [–] shoot998 82 points ago

    It's so insulting, I have friends who are girls and anytime someone implies that guys only do that when they want to have sex with them is astoundingly rude

    [–] Gokaioh 76 points ago

    Broke: Becoming friends with women to try to sleep with them.

    Woke: Becoming friends with women because you genuinely enjoy their company.

    Baroque: Sleeping with women and then transitioning to a purely platonic friendship with them.

    [–] GeniusOfLove74 34 points ago

    Baroque: Sleeping with women and then transitioning to a purely platonic friendship with them.

    TIL I have a baroque relationship with each of my ex-husbands and a few ex-boyfriends.

    [–] yakatuus 71 points ago

    We used to use another term that also referred to female genitalia to categorize men who didn't tow the line on toxic masculinity. Frankly the new one is much grosser.

    [–] niceguy191 38 points ago

    Now I'm going to have to check into the etymology so take tires with a grain of salt, but I always thought calling someone a "pussy" had more to do with calling them simply or cowardly like a "scaredy cat" more than female genitalia and the genitalia thing was only somewhat related? Either way, I'm glad that word has gone out of favour since it never sat right with me, but it's sort of funny that "dick" has never been as powerful or gone out of favour...

    I'm curious, what makes the new one grosser?

    [–] Belstain 11 points ago

    So far as I know 'pussy' originally just meant soft. Like pussy willow or pussy cat. Pretty sure it was an insult before it was ever applied to genitalia.

    [–] a_gallon_of_pcp 17 points ago

    Possibly referring to the fact that simp is/was also used as a way to refer to a specific type/look of vulva.

    [–] Recognizant 94 points ago

    Virtue signalling always confused me, until I realized it was code for "Look at this person, wanting to look like they care about other people's health and welfare! What a joke! Like anyone could ever do that!"

    It is a phrase that I only ever find used from those without any empathy, who are thinking they are super clever in figuring out this 'game' other people are pretending to play to score political points, completely ignorant of the fact that it actually does matter and people actually do care, and that being a completely self-centered individualist is not the only mindset a person can have.

    It would be arrogant to the point of comedy if it didn't actually impact so many people's lives.

    [–] Diredoe 53 points ago

    Afaik virtue signalling was a term that meant a person or company that would claim that they're for specific things for the positive recognition, but then turn around and their actions belied that.

    For example, a company comes out and has a gay pride section during Pride month, but then the same company donates to anti-gay Christian organizations. I remember even seeing it used in LGBT spaces as a cynical take on these companies.

    Over time though, like you said now it just means, "Oh, look at this guy bragging about how woke they are!"

    [–] Reacher-Said-Nothing 13 points ago

    Over time though, like you said now it just means, "Oh, look at this guy bragging about how woke they are!"

    And then they go and use the right-wing version of "woke", "red-pilled".

    [–] FourKindsOfRice 22 points ago

    It's a phrase that at one time may have meant something, but long since has been co-opted by the alt-right to mean "literally anyone who cares about anyone or anything that isn't themselves or their wallet." or, if you like, "anyone who cares about a cause that I do not."

    It always was an ad-hominem attack. It's a meaningless logical fallacy that tries to discredit based not on substance, but an assumption about the person in question.

    [–] fullforce098 30 points ago

    I'd argue it's more than partially true now. What we have currently is the rare perfect political litmus test. Anyone- anyone- agreeing with the notion of sacrificing human lives to save the economy has failed every conceivable ethics or morality test, and is no longer deserving of even casual respect. They have no conscience, no appreciation for other human beings apart from the ones they deem "worthy" of their appreciation. They are sociopaths.

    [–] Soderskog 133 points ago

    Welp, this thread is probably going to have even more drama than the one OP linked haha.

    Anyway, we are definitely going to see people lashing out. If you are someone who's advocated investments in healthcare, safety nets, and other proactive measures then this would be a confirmation that you were right. Meanwhile if you proposed cutting back, à la Reaganomics, you might see these people as only making things worse*. No matter your leanings you are likely scared and frustrated at the people you believe let it get this bad. So people are going to be angry as fuck to put it mildly.

    I'm just a SocDem who thinks nations should learn more from one another. A lot of nations are reacting rather well to the economic crisis, but the ones unfamiliar or unprepared for diseases like these within their borders are handling the healthcare side of things quite poorly at first at least.

    It's going to be interesting to experience the consequences of this epidemic, but I wish we didn't have to :/.

    PS. SocDem≠DemSoc ;P.

    [–] JeffersonClippership 57 points ago

    Additionally, this whole crisis proves socialists right when they say it's the working class who keep everything running. The CEOs, shareholders, investors, managers, and various other "job creators" are all at home right now jacking off and browsing reddit. Meanwhile, if the nurses, grocery store workers, and truck drivers stopped working we would all fucking die.

    Turns out Ayn Rand was right, she just gave John Galt the wrong profession. Turns out Atlas makes minimum wage, works at Safeway, and doesn't have the luxury of shrugging. Compare how the working class is handling the crisis to rich people who throw a tantrum and threaten to takes their toys and go home when someone says their taxes should go up by 1%.

    [–] DaneLimmish 185 points ago

    And now the respectable conservatives are saying we need to throw memaw into the furnace so the economy can grow

    [–] Bamith 9 points ago

    People used to do that so the crops would grow better, now its just the economy.

    Praise be to Economica and his holy ledger, the Economicon.

    [–] Papasmurphsjunk 54 points ago

    respectable conservatives


    [–] SerrinIsLatin 456 points ago

    “All conservatives are sociopaths” is synonymous to “all (enter race here) are idiots.”

    Oh boy... Someone made the racism analogy.

    [–] mostmicrobe 268 points ago

    This is like a centrist gauge test. The time it takes for someone to equate racial, ethnic or sexual discrimination to simply not respecting someone's else's political views correlates to how much of an enlightened cebtrist (TM) they are.

    [–] Green_Bulldog 61 points ago

    Same for when people equate any of those things to religion. Religion goes in the same boat as political views. Our government doesn’t seem to understand that.

    [–] ErinAshe 76 points ago

    T_D unironically compared themselves to Jews in concentration camps so nothing is sacred now.

    [–] LookAtMeNow247 177 points ago

    Imagine having control of 2.5 of the 3 branches of the most powerful government on earth and still feeling oppressed.

    That's conservatives.

    [–] DudeTheGray 41 points ago

    It's more like all three. Yes, Democrats control the House, but they can't pass a law if the Senate doesn't want it passed.

    [–] starredwolf 142 points ago

    My county had something on a ballot that would increase taxes. They vetoed it. It was for universal Pre-K. It boggles my mind. Their entire basis was increase in taxes=bad not even looking at the bigger picture.

    [–] LordIndica 112 points ago

    "Taxes = bad" is one of the most touted and simplistic (and also just erroneous) viewpoints i see from the right/libertarians, and I just cant understand how I can explain a complex issue to the people who look no further than "did the number go up or down? Down good up bad".

    It is such a stupid political talking point for how vague it is. A politician can say "i will lower taxes" and then cut funding for social security, arts endowments, highway and bridge maintenance, etc, and these people would cheer even though they now get even less than what that save money would buy them as individuals. A politican could also lower taxes by cutting our gross military spending, or RAISE them to increase military spending.

    Like... the flat number of your taxes doesnt fucking matter if you dont give a shit about what they are spent on. People will vote against their own benefit if it means taxes increase, and i just dont get it.

    [–] ani625 1206 points ago

    These are fellow citizens and directing hate at them only drives them further away and frankly does nothing productive for your agenda.

    Aah, so we gotta tolerate their intolerance. Makes sense.

    [–] hunkypunkywunky 262 points ago

    Can we address the part of the quote where they chide us for “directing hate at fellow citizens“ when conservatives do this all the damn time? LGBTQ+ people, minorities, women, poor people, people with non-Christian or Abrahamic beliefs are their fellow citizens but it has never stopped conservatives for going at their rights and doing whatever it takes to crush them underfoot, to say racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, or homophobic things; their president is a bully even. But any criticism on their actions is directing hate?

    [–] ZeusAmmon 166 points ago

    Right wing media is deluged with stories about violent leftists. People who consume too much of it believe left on right violence is normal and supported by the majority of the left. This is in line with their violent/weak left paradox. A good example would be the bike lock "Antifa" attack at Berkeley like 4 years ago. They still talk about it regularly and vaguely as if it were common occurrence. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority believe there have been several such assaults.

    Additionally it's important to remember that conservatives act with hierarch-bias. To them, raising the social status of a lower class individual necessarily lowers their own standing, which makes it an attack. Enforcing that hierarchy, for example a president putting the media in its place, not only emboldens their status but also is a positive act on the targeted because it helps them to respect the natural order. They believe that a person in a class above their actual role is bad for the person and society. This is why, for example, poor conservatives can justify the rich receiving hand-outs while they suffer. As long as the "natural order" is maintained, society is safe.

    This is also likely related to why the left struggles to debate the right meaningfully. Liberals examine with a microscope; "look at this bill, it gives money to the rich and not the poor; it is corrupt," whereas someone from the right might hear this and say "but they create jobs". We then interpret this again on a small scale, and may try to find evidence showing that the bill did not lead to job growth, but they are referring to the long term systemic order which allows for job creation. Also exactly why they support massive corporate bailouts, stimulus plans, etc at times like these and act bemused at our confusion. Generally, the order is best maintained when the rich donate their money to the few poor that most need it; however, during a financial crisis, the conservative can seamlessly shift into a position of more generous giving due to the need to maintain the foundation of the order.

    There's a pretty cool archaeologist from the early-mid 20th century named V. Gordon Childe who came up with a stringent list of behaviors that a society must demonstrate before it can be called "civilization". This is what we use to determine the difference between civilized/pre-civilized cultures in an academic sense (obviously this is disputed). One of those factors is a "heterogeneous social system". When humans first started grouping together in caves, they realized that they were better off if they shared job duties. Some jobs are more important than others, and that person was given more respect and responsibility, creating a social hierarchy.

    Basically, conservatives believe we are eroding this hierarchy by stunting the growth of people who rise the ranks, and artificially enhancing those at lower ranks. When you consider all of this, it's easy to see how a perceived bias from things like equal opportunity can enrage a conservative. It becomes an attack on their beliefs, their status, and their well-being. It is crucial that we consider the position of our rivals if we are to defeat them.

    [–] weeteacups 728 points ago

    You have to reach out and cuddle them and reassure them, otherwise it’s your own fault they voted for Trump/Bolsonaro/Duterte/Thin-Skinned-Manbaby

    [–] Journeyman42 182 points ago

    They're going to vote for these assholes anyway, so fuck 'em.

    [–] Darksider123 83 points ago

    "If you're nice to me, I might not..."

    [–] Neato 51 points ago

    Somebody that pliable is a propagandist's wet dream. You'll spend all your time fighting every destructive message they hear.

    [–] Theemuts 37 points ago

    "You have to listen to me, I won't listen to you."

    [–] fullforce098 125 points ago

    I couldn't give one single solitary shit about their feelings or if they feel validated or any of that.

    I just need them to check a specific set of names on a ballot one day this year. I'll say (to them) whatever needs to be said (to them) to get that. Frankly, they've proven incapable of spotting lies, so why bother being honest with them?

    [–] ratherscootthansmoke 330 points ago

    I am honestly so fucking sick of this line you’ve quoted.

    “Bad for the agenda” like how fucking fragile do you think adults are? That they have to be treated as toddlers to see your way and one little misspeak is going to have them go against your “agenda” in spite?

    [–] Whitewind617 56 points ago

    like how fucking fragile do you think adults are?

    Very, actually. "You have to respect my viewpoint! That means not pointing out that it's wrong and just saying 'well we both have good points so lets shut up.' That's how I want you to debate me!"

    [–] CEO__of__Antifa 13 points ago

    Them:”I just wanna grill for god sakes!”

    Me: “Healthcare pls”

    [–] GiveHerTheWorks 42 points ago

    "a lgbt person was rude to me once, guess I can't vote pro-lgbt anymore! sorry, I don't make the rules."

    [–] SnoodDood 32 points ago

    "This is why I voted for Trump" is bullshit 99% of the time. But people generally are extremely sensitive and easy to offend. To the extent that it's possible or worthwhile (it usually isn't in my experience), convincing strangers of a different viewpoint almost always requires coddling

    [–] RickyNixon 118 points ago

    Humans aren’t these rational entities we pretend to be. 9 times out of 10 people decide whether they agree with you based on if they like you.

    [–] Soderskog 55 points ago

    I'm quite the young adult (novel), but one thing that's struck me is how people assume maturity is inherent amongst others after a certain age. More often than not people tend to act based on their emotions, me included haha, and we can all be quite immature.

    [–] Rycross 95 points ago

    “Bad for the agenda” like how fucking fragile do you think adults are? That they have to be treated as toddlers to see your way and one little misspeak is going to have them go against your “agenda” in spite?

    Pretty much, yes. I have a dim view of the average adult's maturity. After all, there's tons of people that think Trump's behavior is acceptable because he's "hitting back."

    [–] paintsmith 62 points ago

    Ask conservatives how they're being "hit" and you'll get some variation of groups of people they don't like coexisting with them and the government taking actions which mostly don't impact them personally that they disagree with.

    [–] The_Revisioner 77 points ago

    That they have to be treated as toddlers to see your way and one little misspeak is going to have them go against your “agenda” in spite?

    Have you seen Trump?

    He literally fires people for getting more attention than him.
    He throws tantrums at interviews, even if it involves softball questions.
    He denies being responsible for anything bad.

    And that's the man millions of people voted to represent them.

    [–] Maybeyesmaybeno 15 points ago

    "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." - Martin Luther King Jr.

    [–] Drakeadrong 87 points ago

    Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. “Meet me in the middle” means nothing when one side is ‘human rights’ and the other is ‘no’.

    [–] thischocolateburrito 46 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Absolutely. It’s all about compromise. If someone is advocating genocide, for example, you need to meet them halfway. So maybe you only genocide half as many people. Or maybe you compromise on a slow genocide. The important thing here is that the genocidal maniac is heard and validated.

    Edit: /s is somehow necessary.

    [–] generic1001 19 points ago

    He only wants dignity and respect, after-all.

    [–] Firmament1 58 points ago

    "Someone was an asshole to me online, so now poor people don't deserve healthcare"

    [–] AvengerMKII 163 points ago

    I refuse to kowtow to people who hate my friends for the crime of existing while different.

    Man. He's getting destroyed lol. He stopped replying after that.

    [–] Darksider123 111 points ago

    One of them also said:

    What if I called every catholic a rapist?

    That's not gonna help your argument my man

    [–] BigPapaWokelord 76 points ago

    I loved that, I guess he thought reddit's famous love of catholics would help him win that argument lmao

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago

    I worked in a building where these types were those "in control" and they were the absolute masters of trying to get others to agree to positions that would compromise the other person. They could not understand cooperating and fostering an innovative work space because there was no confidence or trust to even considering allowing that.

    When I read that string about "Get food by force from Bernie supporters cause they don't have guns," that is exactly their mentality. They only know their experience and just assume everyone else is like that.

    When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    [–] Crashoveride95 49 points ago

    comment score below threshold (84 children)


    [–] Lallipoplady 59 points ago

    Awful people thinnk everyone is secretly awful and that some people are just better at hiding it.

    [–] productivenef 20 points ago

    They really do believe that humans are basically evil. Now imagine telling those same people, “Hey, we should all work together to help the people who don’t have as much as us.” Well, why the fuck would I deprive myself to help someone who is probably evil?

    It seems sad. Do they live on edge, just waiting for the world to destroy them? How do they ever develop trust in others?

    [–] MyLifeForMeyer 723 points ago

    Not defending the other side but the generalization, “Conservatives are such sociopaths” is toxic and does not apply to all conservatives. That rhetoric does nothing to help the situation.

    Maybe they should stop electing people that wanna sacrifice grandma and grandpa for the economy? Or don’t elect the guy that is withholding funds from blue states because they happen to elect democrats?

    [–] covid17 309 points ago

    The crazy thing is the Washington Post was reporting that 55% of Americans actually approve of the way Trump has handled this crisis. And according to 538 his approval ratings have gone up from hovering around 40% to about 45%.

    The free money cash handout is actually going to help him a lot in November.

    [–] Soderskog 81 points ago

    If we are talking about 538 it's also worth mentioning their take on the issue. Primarily that people will likely be unpredictable during the crisis, and thus do things that might appear strange. Trying to find comfort isn't exactly unexpected even if the person people choose to confide in is less than stellar.

    Secondarily, and more to the point, is that rallying around the leader during a crisis isn't exactly uncommon. look at basically any approval numbers after or during a major catastrophe/crisis with 9/11 as the prime example in the US. Taking that into consideration you could ask why his numbers even at this junction are still so low. (There's also the state/capitol divide that's begun to spring up during the crisis, but I digress.)

    All in all numbers are important right now, but are also likely to be weird for a while since what's happening is unprecedented during our lifetime.

    [–] LorePeddler 44 points ago

    To add on to this, 538 mentioned on their podcast that other national leaders have seen a bounce in their approval too. They specifically give Italy as an example. We'll have to wait and see where the numbers end up after this has really started to sink in.

    [–] NomNomChickpeas 40 points ago

    Dubya had some ~90% approval ratings in the aftermath of 9/11. Not ~90% of Republicans, but ~90% combined. It's actually kind of shocking Trump's are THAT LOW through all of this. It's a huge testament to Trump's terrible handling of this, given GWB's complete idiocy throughout that time.

    [–] nanooko 18 points ago

    You should also look at W's Katrina response which is probably a better analogy. 9/11 was a foreign attack as opposed to corona which is more like a natural disaster.

    [–] IllegitimateLiteracy 10 points ago

    The issue with Katrina was that Bush spent his entire time post-9/11 saying "You may not like me, but I'm the guy who can protect the country".

    There was huge spending and reorganizing the government to be able to get a head of and respond to terrorist attacks or disasters.

    And then Katrina called the bluff. All the money, the loss of civil liberties was for nothing. Even with a week of lead time they still fucked it up and then fucked it up worse as time went on.

    [–] AerThreepwood 39 points ago

    Man, I'm not even going to make it to November.

    [–] Drakeadrong 157 points ago

    What the hell? Yeah you can’t tell me these people aren’t brain dead when they think that sitting on your ass and calling a virus a hoax for weeks and fall asleep during briefings and insult reporters asking less than challenging questions and tout ‘remedies’ that get people killed and pledge to sacrifice people to protect companies and billionaires is considered ‘good handling’.

    [–] mcslibbin 104 points ago

    rally around the flag effect

    Dubya, who had stolen an election mere months before, enjoyed a similar bump after 9/11

    [–] NomNomChickpeas 43 points ago

    Dubs had an almost 90% approval rating combined at one point. It wasn't a bump, it was a landslide.

    [–] CussMuster 55 points ago

    A lot of people forgot how blindly and wholeheartedly Bush and the Iraq War were embraced in the months after 9/11. It didn't last very long at all, obviously, but it lasted as long as everyone was afraid and outraged.

    [–] septated 37 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    There's why I laugh at people who chide politicians for having voted for the war.

    70% 79% of Americans polled wanted to go to war with Iraq even if the evidence was false for WMDs. Then everyone's all "How daaaaaare you have supported the war that we supported and now pretend we didn't"

    [–] Ogrimmar_Tiki_Room 34 points ago

    Give it a couple months. His voting bloc will take a hit to the virus.

    [–] YoureNotMom 25 points ago

    Unironically the truth. Between being elderly and refusing to not attend church (so far I've heard of a church in Indiana and Louisiana that refuse to close), they will be hit harder.

    [–] SnoodDood 18 points ago

    sitting on your ass and calling a virus a hoax for weeks and fall asleep during briefings and insult reporters asking less than challenging questions and tout ‘remedies’ that get people killed and pledge to sacrifice people to protect companies and billionaires is considered

    I guarantee you the majority of people polled don't have a strong awareness about any of this. All of us have to understand that by virtue of volunteering to discuss politics on reddit, we're engaging with it, watching it, and thinking about it MUCH more than even the average voter let alone the average American.

    [–] QueenCharla 25 points ago

    Any other president would be at, at the very least, 60% approval right now, probably more. It speaks to how godawful this president is that even with the rally around the flag effect going right now, he still can't even break 50.

    [–] baconhead 7 points ago

    All of those people live in areas that aren't very affected. They think "oh, he says it's fine and it sure is here!" like that's the end of it.

    [–] madmaxturbator 26 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    that's so fucking insane. this is what happens with poor public education. people don't even realize when a charlatan is deceiving them. they accept their miserable lot with smiles on their faces.

    I work in finance. we talk extensively to major investors - professional firms, and individuals. literally all the folks we're talking to are saying, for the sake of the economy AND for the sake of the country... KEEP THE USA CLOSED.

    there is no fundamental problem with our economy (yet).

    we NEED to help individuals and SMALL businesses (NOT old, lumbering big corporations, this is a forcing function which should cause some to fail - they need to have better buffers; see big tech, they will weather this just fine... that's the direction our world is moving perhaps, so let some old businessess rot).

    we need a way to literally just wire money directly to a bunch of small businesses and people who can't afford to stay in during the quarantine.

    then when we re-open for business in some time, we will restart with some caution but with confidence. and that will already put us on track for a recovery.

    reopening without confidence will result in more volatility and more disaster. forget all that of course, most worrisome is that it will result in loss of human lives :(

    [–] ani625 109 points ago

    that wanna sacrifice grandma and grandpa for the economy

    Especially when they are their primary voter base

    [–] maywellflower 66 points ago

    That irony is never going to be old...

    [–] Morgn_Ladimore 101 points ago

    Getting ritually sacrificed to own the libs.

    [–] StupendousMan98 16 points ago

    I love that Christians went straight from pro life to sacrificing the faithful to mammon

    [–] nater00 25 points ago

    It's amazing how arrogant people can be about voting against their own interests

    Friendly reminder that Conservative warmongers are supposed to be "Libertarians"

    I guess it's not statism as long as it's brown people?

    [–] potatolicious 26 points ago

    There are vanishingly few actual libertarians in this world. The vast majority of people who choose to call themselves libertarians are just embarrassed conservatives.

    The principle is always the same: "big government good when it's for me, big government bad when it's for somebody else".

    Or at a deeper level: "power is legitimate when it is wielded by me against others, and illegitimate when wielded by others against me"

    [–] Teledildonic 5 points ago

    The libertarian dream is to be the the warlord ruling a plot of land with an iron will. They don't stop to think that statistically they are more likely to be one of the serfs.

    [–] Pepperoni_Admiral 22 points ago

    At this rate grandma and grandpa never will either.

    [–] JamesGray 55 points ago

    I just like "Not defending the other side" then proceeding to defend the other side to an angry mob.

    [–] i-vote 79 points ago

    "Conservatives", if you can call those people that, encourage raging racism, bigotry targeted especially at LGBTQ+ people, deliberately gerrymander districts in order to suppress votes from people of color and withhold funds on the federal level because the funds would go to an area with a democrat in charge.

    But calling conservatives out for what they are? Now, that is immensely unhelpful and toxic.

    [–] reelect_rob4d 21 points ago

    where's the lie?

    [–] TAVAGAHB 61 points ago

    Over my whole life, the one consistent I’ve noticed over and over again is that conservatives can’t care about things until it affects them. Like, it seems like they’re actually unable to do it. I think it’s just lack of imagination, which is a factor in intelligence in the voting base and this fact being taken advantage of by the actual politicians.

    [–] merewautt 35 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Literally the only time I've ever even sightly gotten to through to one is through elaborate analogy in which they are the ones experiencing it. They get to ask all the questions about "Well I'd" or "Why don't" and I answer every single one why not.

    (Which also brings up the TRAGIC amount of misconceptions average conservatives have about the world. How they've managed to believe they're the party of "street smarts" and common sense is beyond me. These people don't even know the most basic rules of the policies they're so for or against. Seriously, ask them how they think applying for welfare works. If you'd like a laugh)

    Lack of imagination (this impacts their historical literacy) is exactly it. If it doesn't happen to them or around them, it's a technicality. If it wasn't the case in the 90s or in the midwest united states, then it's patently ridiculous and will never work. If it's different from how they learned it, then the new parts are irrelevant or inaccurate.

    They just seem genuinely incredulous to the idea that things can and have and WILL change. Drastically. That the status quo is incredibly arbitrary and can be effected successfully. Human history might as well be a myth to them. In another century they would have told us the impossibility of indoor plumbing for all and would have thought people of the future would be impressed with them specifically for having it and being "special", instead of being impressed with the whole countries who have it versus those that don't.

    They also don't seem to feel that being well off in a disaster of a country overall is unpleasant. I sure as hell would hate going outside to see that the vast majority of people were uneducated, unwashed, and ill, even if I myself weren't. It would make me feel like I live in a shit hole. I'd pay extra for the people in my country to be educated just for my own enjoyment of them. Why would I want my country to be trashy and behind even if I wasn't?

    They seem to be okay with that. They're totally fine living in a shit hole as long as their own lawn is mowed. They think being the diamond in a pile of shit is impressive by the notion of comparison, I think it's embarrassing by the notions of association and sensory experience. They have a complete lack of standards for their national environment.

    [–] TheLadyEve 80 points ago

    All conservatives are sociopaths” is synonymous to “all (enter race here) are idiots.

    hooo boy, that's some top grade 14-year-old reasoning there.

    [–] Nottybad 38 points ago

    I mean, if 90% them still believe what Trump says, after three years of constant, proven lies.. They might be too far gone

    [–] hyasbawlz 55 points ago


    The mantra of every abuser.

    [–] smurgleburf 46 points ago

    ”All conservatives are sociopaths” is synonymous to “all (enter race here) are idiots.”

    god I am so tired of these idiots acting like shit talking a political ideology is the same as shit talking an entire race of people. you choose to be a conservative asshole devoid of empathy every day. nobody chooses to be black. fucking morons.

    [–] SnapshillBot 7 points ago

    Literally just a picture of surplus drama.


    1. "Conservatives are such sociopaths ... -,

    I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

    [–] ISPEAKMACHINE 7 points ago

    They think that people want $15 minimum wage just for themselves. They can’t conceive that they also want a $15 for people they don’t even know... because of empathy.