Mine is when a lib says that a socialist leader is filthy rich because le ebil dictator owns literally everything in the country.
Calling you a “single issue voter” when that issue is genocide.
Calling third party voters “single issue voters” when their main objection to third party voting is that they are extremely unlikely to win. “Likelihood to win” isn’t an issue I care about but that seems to be the biggest issue to them. A singular issue, one might say.
You can pressure democrats left after voting for them unconditionally
I mean you can but it’s just not effective.
What is their incentive to listen to you if you make it clear you’ll vote for them unconditionally
Most are terrified of their constituents. If there are mass protests and people pressuring constantly they will listen even if this vote was unconditional.
But this is why they work so hard to keep us just poor enough we can’t afford to revolt but not so poor that we have nothing left to lose.
Like I said ineffective but not impossible.
I feel like the systemic response to BLM completely negates your assertion. If mass riots don’t get even token police reform as a result, then it’s pretty clear that our leaders don’t give a shit about anything short of someone putting a gun to their head.
Hey the NYPD created that discipline matrix in response to it to hold cops accountable. Why yes it is in the news recently because that corrupt police chief just weakened it, why yes he has already weakened it before and yes Garcetti had whined about how unfair it was and weakened it already before that, and yes both of them are alleged to have ignored it and let cops get away with things on the matrix.
Oh Hrm forget I said anything
Compare the civil rights movement vs BLM movement. That was not sustained protesting, it was not constant and real pressure. It was a flash in the pan, and worse, it showed that the citizens of the US dont have the stomach to do it for real again.
Until we are willing to disrupt the whole economy, and shut down suburban white America, approximately jack all will be done.
I think if anything BLM proves my point because the fascists actually had to show up and use violence and false flags to try to subvert the success that was happening. If BLM had gone on longer and wider I really think congress would have shit a collective brick because o shit were they terrified.
They’re terrified of their electorate not voting for them. If everyone has already committed to voting for them regardless there’s no leverage to exert pressure
“The fact that you can criticize the government proves that we live in a democracy!” (especially funny when it happens on self-hosted fedi platforms deliberately operated in third-party jurisdictions due to censorship on Silicon Valley platforms).
I like pointing out that calling Mitch McConnell a turtle ten billion times hasn’t removed him from power.
It’s especially funny because they can turn around and make the “CIA excellence in journalism award” joke to refer to journalists said government killed, all without a trace of awareness
If it were a democracy wouldn’t those criticisms be able to amount to more than nothing in terms of policy?
Reminds me of that joke where the CIA agent says to the KGB agent “Here in America we’re free to criticize our leaders. I can call Ronald Reagan a bastard and face no state persecution.” And the KGB agent says “In the USSR we can also call Ronald Reagan a bastard without state persecution.”
It was worded a lot better when I saw it, but I forget the exact joke.
a socialist leader is filthy rich because le ebil dictator owns literally everything in the country.
I like to hit em with this graph when they try to suggest socialist governments are new boss same as the old boss.
Liberals will trot out decades old propaganda as gospel, not realizing that their unwavering, unshakeable belief in this dogma is precisely the reason why they are incapable of changing the system in which they live, and in which they, their friends and their families suffer.
They are fundamentally incapable of identifying the sources of their problems because of this. If you base your logical calculus on contradictory axioms, nothing will make sense as a result.
Anytime they bring up “culture” to explain why the global south struggles
Something something corruption and warlords
these people would 100% have said something racist if the conversation climate was different. using “culture” as a blanket term, and dividing the world into big cultural groups, is almost always a dogwhistle
Always press these people on what aspects of culture and within 3 replies you’ll have them showing their entire ass.
It’s worse with claims about how you can’t trust anything out of China. What makes the Chinese less trustworthy? Tell me, honkey.
Opposing genocide is “privilege”
They hate to hear from militant trans poc who say “don’t use us to justify your support of genocide!”
This one really puts me in a corner because I’m a highly paid cishet computer toucher cracker man who never suffered financial hardship or persecution, so I feel like I have no leg to stand on when a Black person or a Queer person or what have you tells me I’m a bigot for not supporting Kopmala.
My current favorite is their weird presidential calculus where anything you do other than voting for Kamala is a vote for Trump. In their math even 0 equals 1 because not voting is somehow also a vote for Trump
any rambling paranoia about russia tbh
its just stupid and im sick of it
There is a Russian propaganda in my closet
That openly-fascist people can be reasoned with to abandon fascism.
I feel like words are the only non-monetary thing that liberals truly value. They don’t value action, they value discussion. And sure, in most situations, starting with diplomacy is the sane thing to do. But sometimes words aren’t gonna work. Dealing with Hitler would have ended up with gunfire no matter the specifics. He wasn’t gonna be talked out.
They don’t seem to have any problem not using diplomacy with Russia though, even though the Russian government is now the exact kind of liberalism they were hoping to install in Russia.
It’s almost like the hatred there is racially motivated, and not ideologically.
Power concedes nothing without a five-paragraph essay
The pen is mightier than the sword.
The liberal in my head gets very depressed when I’m trapped in a conversation where this is the case.
“Look, I’m as left as they come, but…” proceeds to deliver a take that Reagan would’ve thought was a little much
Cut them off and say they absolutely aren’t.
it’s especially funny because it happens a lot on sites w/ a public post history. like, i think
libs are largely why looking at someone’s history was perceived as such a grave offense. like, you wouldn’t know a leftist if there were a dozen squatting at your place, the only person you’re deceiving is yourself 
But the business owner takes THE RISK. FUCKING WHAT RISK? The risk of having to liquidate your assets and have to work a normal job like your employees do for you? You don’t get to take that kind of risk unless you already have a fuckload of money or enough that a bank thinks it can get a steady return on investment, no one is taking any risk here.
That is the risk. The risk for the worker is that we become homeless. The risk for the business owner is that they become a worker; their worst nightmare.
But the business owner takes THE RISK
I know, it’s terrible, right? Shouldn’t we strive for a society where individuals don’t have to go through the stress of that kind of risk just to feed their families? Couldn’t we socialize the risks as well as the benefits?
I’m a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine.
Co-opting of pacifism is peak liberalism, it’s such a blatant example of liberals trying to paint themselves as “peace-loving” while being imperialists and accepting none of the flak that actual pacifists receive, and even readily engaging in that flak. “Oh, but I only support defensive wars,” motherfucker, it’s called the “department of defense” because every fucking side in every fucking war post-Ghengis Khan always frames themselves as “defending.” If you accept that you can still be a pacifist while saying war is acceptable if you believe it furthers the aim of peace, then you could be a full blown neocon and still call yourself a pacifist.
Actual pacifists may be cranks, but I have some respect for them for having actual principles that they will stand by even if it means incurring a personal cost. Liberals want to steal valor(?) for their own self-aggrandizement while believing in nothing and sacrificing nothing. And that’s not even getting into, “I’m a pacifist, so I just got out of the situation and called the cops.”
While we are at it you aren’t a pacifist if you don’t support police abolition. You aren’t opposing violence if you are too cowardly to do it yourself but support the state doing it on your behalf.
Wow. That lib is an expert in cognitive dissonance.
“You’re one of them gays aintcha? [insert resistance movement/socialist state/ect here] would kill you for that dontcha know?”
It feels like the people who say things like that are deeply queerphobic and they would be would be utterly delighted to see LGBT+ people dealt with of in such a way. I don’t think they would bring it up otherwise.
Obamas tan suit
deleted by creator
Where did the pics of those libs in the emoji come from? I’ve seen it used a lot but don’t recognize the people in it.
deleted by creator
the guy on the left is lin manuel miranda and given the cringe he posts i imagine its taken straight from his twitter account, but idk who the other guy is
