I’ll be honest, I think Trump is enough of a sociopath to not hesitate sending any of his children.

Though that may conflict with his “legacy” and keeping his line alive. Idk.

Presidential war-time bump traditionally called the, “rally round the flag effect.”

When poll numbers are down and you need a distraction, just start a war!

Surely Rittenhouse will say this is hypocritical, right…!?

Babbitt was also repeatedly warned to back down.

Haha!

Okay, tankie. Thanks for the chuckle.

Shame I can’t tag multiple comments.

lol if you think that’s insane then you should see the comment I tagged you with! ;)

Well, they kind of have but that’s also relative. Were it not for AIPAC’s grip in the party, I wonder how much further they would’ve gone.

It’s going to have the opposite effect in time. If center-right moderates are called radical Marxists, then they might as well at least be social democrats or democratic socialists anyway and at least have some sound policies instead of watered-down right-wing garbage.

Students and Junior devs alike also contributing to pad their resume and document experience.

MLK was great but not immune to fuck-up. Granted he knew how to pressure the weak link, but it’s worth noting those liberals became the gateway to legislative action. Certainly wasn’t the southern Confederates.

What they’ll (well, some) never admit is that they’re okay with Taliban law if it conforms to their narrow definition of acceptability. So long as they’re the in-group, then to hell with everyone else.

Wait, what? Definitely not unrelated. In fact, there’s a huge inverse relationship between educated scientists and belief in flat-earth, pseudoscience, anti-vaxx crap. They’re even less likely to be religious.

There’s a reason education attainment predicted better than nearly anything whom someone voted for in 2024, too.

In fact I’d say this extends far beyond mere correlation and the causal relationship is pretty obvious.

Sounds like a weak hit-and-run but I suppose nothing of value was lost. Adios.

I refuse to argue with people this lazy, having critical-thinking deficits, and/or stoned.

Good day.

No, I’m saying that the utilization the slur midget against people who ARE short is still derogatory toward a person’s characteristics that are outside of their control, whether they are subject to dwarfism or simply below-average in height.

But let’s pause here for a moment. I wanna make sure you’re hyper-focusing on what I think you’re hyper-focusing on because I refuse to believe someone can be this ignorant as to ignore what I’m actually saying. Are you actually, truly being transfixed on whether we can insult people based on height versus dwarfism while ignoring the broader argument I am making? In your own words, can you please describe what that broader argument is so that I understand you get it? Consider this a “read-back.”

Your fallacy is: Ad Populum. Go to a conservative sub, and you’ll be in the minority and many users will say the same to you. Does that mean you’re wrong? If all I get are mostly low-hanging fruit responses, that’s not very convincing.

Sorry, are you victim-blaming here?

Sure sounds like that’s not for you to decide; that is of course, if you’re taking the opposing position to mine in this thread.

Interesting for you to decide, oh great arbiter. How convenient.

In a thread whose comment section is full of opinions, I stated my own. I offered an open invitation to change my view. You clearly disagreed and intended to change my view. However, I am not obligated to change it if I remain unconvinced. That’s not “funny,” that was just what you signed up for when you responded and accepted my invitation.

You then reassert a Circular Reasoning / Begging The Question fallacy because you are asserting a premise that has yet to be established in our argument — that is your belief that I apparently am being hurtful, but has not been established in the domain of discourse. Of course you are free to believe that. But how dare one presumes on my intentions to harm the vulnerable. Are you putting words in my mouth, too?

I will cede on one aspect: It’s not necessarily your “failure,” insofar as the invitation to change my view. It could be one side or both side’s failure to have a productive discussion in the mutual pursuit of truth. However, I am open to accepting that it is my failure to have fully understood your argument. It wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong; nor last.

No? I was obviously referring to other derogatory terms like midget, napoleon complex, etc.

Then I suppose we’re at an impasse because I “outright reject” the unsubstantiated accusation claim that this is victim-blaming — both by definition of the verb, “to blame,” and given my unchallenged aforementioned argument that the target is what matters, and now finally by the admission that one is choosing to blindly reject without merit the notion that, “Words only have power if you let them.”

I offered you the opportunity to change my view; you failed to make a compelling case.

Have a great day.