1046
Pardon me for not finding “vulnerable people need to die for my ideology” very convincing.
(mbin.grits.dev)
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
1046 points (95.2% liked)
People Twitter
5295 readers
343 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're an odd one. Twice now you've said that words on a screen are pointless, yet you're trying to convince others with words on their screens, thus showing that you believe words on a screen can be used to sway others, otherwise why would you bother debating at all if you believed words useless. But bad arguments seems to be all you have, so I guess that's just another example of it.
That's entirely true, but the difference between my words and their words are that I want people to turn their attention to the people actually doing the bad things instead of the distraction they're giving everyone as a pacifier. At the very least I want people to stop blaming themselves for not doing enough with things that are far outside their control. I can't fix the world's problems and don't think any of you can either. I'd rather you all be at peace with that than flail around under the water.
At the very least, I'm just a dude with a phone and not one of those bots going around trying to sway the population into wasting their time.
At most, maybe someone can come along and actually prove that voting isn't a black box. I don't have a lot of hope for that one. They'd have to practically take me on a physical tour of the political system, show me the source code of voting systems and prove to me that particular source code is what's actually being used.
You can actually do this.
It's way more complex than a tour -- it's a whole process; among other things, they have average Joe Schmoes from both major parties overseeing everything (i.e. not like the DNC's agents, more like Betty who's been doing it since the 1970s), and they do things like hand recounts of randomly selected portions of the ballots that got fed into the machines, to give warning signs if someone has tried to rig the machines. It's definitely not perfect; in the early 2000s there were very, very strong indications that the Republicans were rigging election machines on a pretty big scale. But I think asserting that just because you personally don't understand how it works it means it must be untrustworthy is also not really airtight either.
My strongest argument for saying that it's not rigged is that, if it was rigged, I think it's highly unlikely that the establishment powers would have picked Trump. But yes, by signing up as an election worker, you can literally see for yourself a lot of the safeguards that are in place (at least in your area) and decide for yourself whether you think they're overall trustworthy.
apparently, he doesn't believe that Trump actually exists, so it's more than a little likely he's either completely insane and detached from reality, or, more likely, is just acting in bad faith / is disingenuous / an intelligent troll.
Yeah who knows dude
Most of the time I try to respond to people as if they were real and sincere unless they give me a specific reason to think they're not, even if internally I have some doubts.