and when the average Joe Fuckhead goes to vote, that will be the first and probably the only thing he thinks about.
So what you're saying is you would rather have the average Joe ******** to use his uneducated, alternative-fact-driven, knee-jerk vote to influence something that actually matters?
I'm sure that'll end well...
No. It hasn't ended well, has it.
It doesn't matter what you or I want. It's about what is
. It's not something that can be changed. Joe Fuc
khead represents the vast majority of people, and you don't influence Joe Fuc
khead by being baited into a conversation and acknowledging something as ridiculous as Trump's wall-- which is never going happen, and never was-- which only became a topic to begin with for no purpose other than to influence Joe Fuc
It is not surprising how there is so much confusion over this. It's just like whenever we talk about Feminism, and every time the response is "Well, Men's Rights activists are bad." No shi
t? It's like the two things are exactly the same just with genders reversed. --or with lolgaxe's comment from earlier:
You could start with explaining why it was okay for the vanilla to try to convert the other flavors but somehow the other flavors doing it is undermining it's religion.
-as if the two entities performing the same misdeed somehow negate each other. -- or that vanilla's transgression somehow absolves the others of theirs.
I am not trying to make some argument where someone is wrong and someone is right. I am saying they are all
wrong. "Wrong" being just the most monumental of understatements.
Up until a week or two ago, I thought of Bill Nye as something of a reputable representation of my own views. Now he is a joke.(the obvious reply to this would be: "Oh well looks like he fits your views just fine then hyukyukyuk") Who on Earth is considered progressive or liberal can still be taken seriously? No one comes to mind.
Conservatives have a long list of public figures-- all of which are equally moronic. The difference is: Conservatives stand on a platform of anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance, so it works
for them. No one is going think twice about Sean Hannity if he says something equivalent to "I hate black people." Sean Hannity loses nothing here, because nearly everyone he is speaking to will agree with him. I'm using this as an example here: If you represent something like BLM and say something equivalent to "I hate white people"-- then you have lost. You have lowered yourself to the same standard as the people you are speaking out against, and effectively alienated a very large portion of people who would otherwise be on your side.
Is this starting to paint some kind of picture yet? Or am I wasting my time still?