Will do, buddy
Caption for the visually disabled: A pair of kids arguing, with a woman saying: "now, kids / if ya cant say / somethin that reinforces my paper thin understanding of the world around me / then dont say anything at all" over US patrotic imagery
Weak ass pansies.
Thanks for naming and shaming. Unlike that other place
This is fucking hilarious.
Mod abuse! Mod abuse!
I can't believe this made me laugh.
Hypocrite's are going to ... uh... be hypocritical.
They would say something like the definition changed recently and they dispute what the word means.
They would say anything they think helps them get power.
This is the first of this template that made me chuckle too. It's so on point.
Before the maga moron movement was there any cool red baseball caps? I feel bad for people, never being able to wear a red hat anymore because it's basically a sign "I'm a racist moron" 😕
I swear I saw a photo of a red hat that said something like, "made you look, black lives matter."
But yeah in general certainly cannot wear that shade of red for the same reason men can no longer sport that kind of mustache.
I have an old red cap from Banff, I do feel weird wearing it :(
I often wonder what the gangs in LA wear (bloods?)now that Trump basically stole their colors.
Do they now pick a different shade of red?
My college has red as one of its colors, and so my red college cap now mostly collects dust. It's not worth the hassle.
The phillies
turns up rage against the machine and punches the dishwasher
Well, the essence of Fascist "logic" is Psychological Projection (i.e. accuse others of doing what you yourself do), so it makes sense that what Fascists accuse anti-Fascists of turns out to all be the kind of actions and motivations Fascists do and have.
The funny bit is that they genuinelly believe every individual accusation they put forward and don't put 2 and 2 together and figure out they're accusing others of acting like Fascists.
IMHO, it's because people imagine that others in their heads have motivations and reason like they themselves do. So if for example somebody puts forward a criticism of a racist statement or act, coming from the point of view of "passing judgment over a group of people entirelly based on their race is a prejudiced generalisation and hence unfair and wrong", the Fascists (and other kinds of Racist) will read it as "that other person is against this race and in favour of a different race" because in they imagine the other person has similar motivations and reasons like themselves and hence the "different race preference" seems to a Fascist/Racist to be the most logic explanation for the criticism of that other person.
You presented a lot of reasons why this or that person might believe this or that thing, but what about people who believe things because they match what they’ve observed?
Aren’t there maybe some people whose basis for knowledge is that they’ve seen things?
Like, a given accusation of the form “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” can be analyzed in terms of motivations, and it can be seen as a reflection of your enemy’s active projection processes. But … the accusation can also be evaluated as true or false, based on evidence.
Let’s not forget that “claims of fact are either true or false” angle alongside all the others we consider the accusations from.
Ask any criminal lawyer, police officer or psychologist if what multiple people say they saw of the same event ever matches to the detail.
Anybody who ever dealth with witnesses knows that what people "see" is to a great extent what they expect to see.
(In your example - “The antifas burnt a guy’s car with a molotov!” - what exactly led that observer to believe the perpetrator was antifa? That small and simple sentence of yours is not objective and already includes drawing conclusions based on the observer's own assumptions)
People are already interpreting things when they see something and usually store into memory their interpretation of things, unless we're talking about one of the rare individuals with perfect photographic memory.
There is a big long running discussion about Subjectivity and Objectivity in Phylosophy and so far most people think Human Beings are incapable of being completely Objective.
Checking up on the definition of antifa it would appear these guys are not just "not fascist", they are strongly left-wing. So it's entirely possible for someone with a centrist view to be simultaneously anti-fascist and anti-antifa without paradox.
The definition of antifa is "anybody who is against fascism".
"The Antifa" does not exist.Well that's what I thought but I thought I'd better look it up to be sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
which is littered with words like violence, doxing, harassment, property damage, anticapitalist, antistate, anarchists, communists, revolutionaries.
It's kind of funny because antifa is, by their actions, fascist.
No they're not
+5 Soros bucks.
They'll never figure out the secret Antifa agenda to dismantle democracy and establish a theocratic ethnostate now!
By which actions?
They're very shout-y and uhhh one propagandist got hit with a coconut milkshake. [Uncontrollable sobbing] oh how it hurts to think of an organization so evil.
