Mine is when a lib says that a socialist leader is filthy rich because le ebil dictator owns literally everything in the country.
“I’m not against immigrants, I’m against ILLEGAL immigrants.”
“Okay, I would make ALL IMMIGRATION LEGAL. No more illegal immigrants ever again. Problem solved, right?”
Backpedaling should be an Olympic sport.
Your answer made me think of this dweeb.
“It’s complicated”. But only on the things that clearly aren’t.
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.
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.
Anytime they bring up “culture” to explain why the global south struggles
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.
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
Something something corruption and warlords
“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.
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.
Mine is a statement that takes many forms but usually boils down to the exact same mindset – namely that the current “villain of the week” is always assumed to be the most primitive simpleton imaginable.
It’s not even limited to leaders of foreign countries. Somehow, liberals are incapable of attributing any strategic ability to their enemies.
For example, they will see a corporation get into a legal fight, where it is quite clear that the corporation is morally in the wrong, and they will immediately claim the corporation is going to lose because of some supposed foolishness by the corporation.
If you ask them about their reasoning, it usually becomes clear that they are actually completely clueless about the topic. Confusing patent, copyright and trademark law is a classic in this area.
But they just can’t imagine that these corporations, who regularly exploit the system to their advantage, and have highly paid teams of lawyers doing this for them, might know what they are doing, and might very well succeed.
Maybe it’s because even the acknowledgement of this possibility is already interpreted as support for the villain. You can’t claim that the Russians aren’t losing, because if you do, you must obviously support Russia.
Liberals would rather delude themselves with boundless hubris than correctly assess the situation.
“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).
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.
If it were a democracy wouldn’t those criticisms be able to amount to more than nothing in terms of policy?
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
I like pointing out that calling Mitch McConnell a turtle ten billion times hasn’t removed him from power.
“the system just needs some better rules!”
Rules-reformism is the final stage of liberal cognitive dissonance to the horrors-of-the-empire bargaining stage in my experience.
They either recognize that these reforms are intentional structural impossibilities then logically actually move towards some form of anticapitalist thought or disengage entirely if they’re privileged enough to shrug it off. I’ve struggled helping friends at this point make the final step. It’s extremely difficult to achieve in the imperial core which can be incredibly disheartening.
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.
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.
The liberal in my head gets very depressed when I’m trapped in a conversation where this is the case.
Power concedes nothing without a five-paragraph essay
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Obamas tan suit
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
