Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    OVdose

    + friends - friends
    65,704 link karma
    42,129 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Found on r/wholesomememes OVdose 4 points ago in 4PanelCringe

    Yeah, 14/88 heil Hitler, it's time to stop submitting to (((their))) agenda, something something Jews rule the world. But hey, dont call me antisemitic.

    [–] Found on r/wholesomememes OVdose 6 points ago in 4PanelCringe

    Also you:

    Keep worshipping your shecklemasters you shill

    We never fail to promote {{{their}}} agenda

    Just be a good goy and stop looking into these conspiracies, there’s nothing to see goyim

    r/fragilejewishredditor • 7d • That can’t be. They’re just another one of our allies, there isn’t anything special about {{{them}}} goy

    [–] Found on r/wholesomememes OVdose 6 points ago in 4PanelCringe

    Yeah they are definitely antisemitic. Not just cringeanarchy, but fragilejewishredditor and conservative as well. They use some pretty blatantly antisemitic language in more than a few comments.

    [–] 2012 called, they want their memes back OVdose 41 points ago in TheRightCantMeme

    This would be a decent argument if it were made in good faith. Unfortunately, conservatives also want to limit access to contraceptives by cutting funds to the clinics that provide the most help to low-income families. Look at the results of defunding planned parenthood across the country, for example. The rate of teen and unplanned pregnancies skyrocketed. If you guys really cared about babies being aborted, you would want to increase the funds to places like planned parenthood so people who can't afford it dont get pregnant in the first place.

    Conservatives want to punish poor people for having sex by defunding their pregnancy prevention options and forcing them to have babies they can't afford.

    [–] Oh god, they are actually *this* close to seeing why the electoral college is a problem OVdose 1 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    My argument works either way, so this little rant you're going on is moot. Replace "schizophrenia" in my comment with "mental instability" and it is just as valid. Your claim is wrong either way.

    The majority of the country is not in major metropolitan areas.

    No, but they are in urban areas and probably have more in common with people in major population centers than they do with people from Bumfuck, Wyoming. 80% of the country lives in urban areas, and 12% of the country lives in the metro areas of LA, NYC and Chicago alone. I doubt they are evidence for what you think they are.

    My opinion? No, not quite. It is the opinion of the majority of the citizens of the country, though.

    Are you able to read the minds of everyone in the country? Or is it more likely that you're projecting your opinion onto the majority of the country? Like I said, 80% of the country has more in common with the people in LA and NYC than they do with people from Bumfuck, Wyoming. You're just randomly claiming that the majority agrees with you. That's not evidence of anything but your own underlying mental instability.

    My argument stands up to all scrutiny.

    In fact, it doesn't. You haven't provided evidence that the majority of people in major population centers are mentally unstable. You just said they seem that way, and claim people agree with you without evidence. You also haven't provided evidence that they deserve less representation, even if your first argument is correct.

    They don't have less representation now because people think they are crazy. Their representation is the result of antiquated electoral processes that were created when fewer people lived in more densely populated urban areas. None of this supports your claim.

    [–] Might get hate but IMO killing puppies is bad OVdose 5 points ago in coaxedintoasnafu

    I dont think it happens in the way that many opponents of affirmative action think it happens. Employers complying with affirmative action cannot base hiring decisions solely on race or gender. That's just not how it works.

    [–] Oh god, they are actually *this* close to seeing why the electoral college is a problem OVdose 1 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    It doesn't matter whether you said mental illness or schizophrenia. You implied people in large cities are more likely to have schizophrenia, and you said the majority of large city dwellers are mentally unstable and therefore do not deserve representation.

    The evidence is the majority of the country, including the vast majority of all of the blue colored states in the infographic.

    What the hell is this even supposed to mean? How are they evidence, and what do you think they are evidence of? By the way, the majority of the country are in urban areas.

    Not only are they weird, they are highly weird.

    Oh okay, so your opinion is that these people are weird and "seem mentally unstable," so it justifies them having less representation than some redneck living in Kansas. Gotcha.

    They don’t deserve equal representation, which is why they have it neither by the electoral process for the president of the U.S.A., nor by Congress.

    Here you are stating your opinion as if it were fact again. The fact that they dont currently have equal representation is not evidence for the claim that they are nuts and therefore dont deserve it. It is your opinion that they are weird and seem mentally unstable, and you use that opinion to justify a system that gives them less representation. Neither of those things stand up to independent scrutiny. The point many people in these comments are trying to make is that people in large urban areas deserve the same representation as people in more rural areas. Then you come bumbling in with your, "hurr if they deserved it they would already have it, so they dont deserve it hurr"

    [–] Oh god, they are actually *this* close to seeing why the electoral college is a problem OVdose 1 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    Mental illness, schizophrenia, either way you claimed the majority have a major mental health issue that would interfere with their ability to govern. Which is not the case.

    And I see now that you have the ability to diagnose the majority of people in large cities with mental illness. I mean, the fact that they haven't been diagnosed yet doesn't mean they're not mentally I'll, so let's just assume with no evidence whatsoever that the majority are mentally ill. That seems totally reasonable.

    You made the distinction yourself in another comment that you are talking about large, major cities and not just urban areas. So I am referring to large cities.

    You were being nice by saying, "it seems," but it is still more of an emotional and impulsive argument than a rational one. You "seem" like a total lunatic but that doesn't meet my burden of evidence to support taking your representation away.

    I'm not moving goal posts. Everything I have said is a direct response to your original argument that the majority of people in large cities are mentally unstable and therefore do not deserve equal representation.

    [–] Oh god, they are actually *this* close to seeing why the electoral college is a problem OVdose 1 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    Yes, you said that people in big cities have mental illnesses at a higher rate. Then in your next comment you asked how they can make rational decisions if the majority of them are mentally unsound. So you're inferring that if large cities increase the risk of mental illness (which is still up for debate), then the majority of their citizens are not mentally sound. That simply does not follow.

    Then when you're told that the majority are mentally sound, your response is just, "well they seem mentally unsound."

    Great argument you've got there, bud.

    And it wouldn't justify giving rural voters more weight. Even if a larger percentage of citizens living in big cities have mental illness, there would still be a much larger number of big city dwellers without mental illness than there are people in rural areas. Take out everyone in LA who has schizophrenia and you still have a population several times the size of Wyoming. Your point cannot be defended logically. That's why you say things like, "it seems like the majority are mentally unsound," to support your argument.

    [–] Oh god, they are actually *this* close to seeing why the electoral college is a problem OVdose 1 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    You're coming off as more insane than the "majority" of people in LA who you allege have schizophrenia. You have this unreasonable delusion that the majority of people in large cities have schizophrenia. Maybe you should get yourself checked, because it sounds like you're having an episode.

    Studies have shown no increased risk for major mental illnesses for people living in urban vs rural environments.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24857610/

    Other studies show that an increase in exposure to risk factors in major cities, like poverty, social discrimination, etc., can increase the risk of developing mental illness, but that the benefits of living in a large city (better access to mental health services, better employment opportunity, increased social activity, etc.) can balance the risk factors. None of this is definitive. And even if it were, it wouldn't justify giving rural votes more weight in our election process. My guess is you're just a troll so I probably just wasted a bunch of time trying to educate you.

    [–] How can I believe that humans have free will and are defined by the choices they make and can justify their life through sensory pleasures? OVdose 1 points ago in Existentialism

    Again, you haven't established that free will does not exist. You're taking a stance and defending it by repeating your stance.

    People assign meaning by being alive and acting in the world. You can't escape it, even if you try to put the responsibility of your actions on something else, like biology. If you stay hunkered down in a basement to escape the inevitability of choice, you are saying that doing nothing while being hunkered down in a basement has value. If you argue on the internet with people, you are saying that arguing on the internet with people has value. If you dont think your actions reflect your values and you do them anyway, you are acting in bad faith. But either way, you are affirming your values right now with your actions, even if you think you have absolutely no control over your body. Existentialists are not like evangelicals in the sense that meaning for evangelicals is "objective" and derived from a supreme arbiter of truth. For existentialists, meaning does not mean the same thing. You are most likely misinterpreting the core tenets of existentialist philosophy. Many people have a romanticized idea of existentialism and the creation of meaning.

    [–] Reddit was born in a library OVdose 10 points ago in Libraries

    Bringing this up the next time a redditor tells me libraries are a waste of money.

    [–] Itachi > Billie Eilish any day OVdose 1 points ago in BlackPeopleTwitter

    How brave of you to admit to holding such a controversial opinion.

    [–] Ben Garrison comes THIS close to realising Dems are not trying to implement Sharia law OVdose 18 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    Replying so I can find this and use it whenever someone says we need to focus on our homeless vets before letting in refugees.

    [–] Ben Garrison comes THIS close to realising Dems are not trying to implement Sharia law OVdose 37 points ago in SelfAwarewolves

    Yes, because Christian's have historically been much nicer to LGBT folk than Muslims. That is definitely an argument you want to make.

    [–] How can I believe that humans have free will and are defined by the choices they make and can justify their life through sensory pleasures? OVdose 2 points ago in Existentialism

    Humans don’t have free will lmao

    You haven't really established this in either the body of your post or the comments you have made. You're just saying it as if it's a truism that everyone has already accepted as fact.

    I dont think you understand the philosophy you're trying to criticize. One assigns one's values and meaning by acting and making decisions in the world. You can't escape the creation of your own value system. You can't escape the creation of your own "meaning" in life. You are constantly creating it, even now by posting this and continuing to comment.