I said something along the lines of:
“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”
Along with
“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
…
Good ole’ civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
I’m not really sure what you think is ideological about it. Is it ideological to say that people are being denied coverage? Is is ideological to say that some of the people denied coverage will die because of it? Is it ideological to say that when one group of people causes a second group of people to die, the second group tends to fight back? Because all three of those statements seem like pretty objective facts to me.
You can try to be reductive about your own ideology to be disingneous but it’s still an ideology.
Well, if acknowledging objectively correct things means that you subscribe to a particular ideology, then what does that say about that ideology? 🤔
That’s the problem though isn’t it? It’s only objectively correct to people who believe in that ideology.
Is it? Which of the three things I said is not objectively correct?