Whats the best way to argue with left-liberals who constantly spout le orange man meme and rage at you "for being pro trump" with every argument you spout?
Whats the best way to argue with left-liberals who constantly spout le orange man meme and rage at you "for being pro...
Left-liberal is an oxymoron.
Dealing with idpollers shouldn't be that hard. Focus on economics and discredit their neoliberal shit, also taking a shit on Trumponomics; aka Reaganomics on steroids.
You are better off talking to reactionaries than idpol libs tbh. The reactionaries at least know something is wrong. They just need someone to give them a better theory for why than "we gotta restore the golden age" shit.
Libs aren't going to change. They'll support whomever is in power. That's why they turn fascist when the fascists take charge.
What is that OP pic even supposed to convey?
How liberals play team sports with their american political parties and generally have no idea what they're supporting or insulting
It's making fun of people who think Trump is comparable to Hitler.
You have to be retarded not to see how Trump is comparable to Hitler. The only reason this is such a problem for people to accept is because they think Hitler was some evil genius or something. Trump coming to power when American supremacy is questioned and declining is a very similar response to the decline of Germany and German supremacy in Europe.
Trump’s just a crypto-fash – he’s not Hitler-like in the slightest
Is this a false-flag?
Nope, reactionaries view something as being taken from them and want to return to a capitalism where they secure a better position, they are completely fine with capitalism so long as they can look down on someone from a perch of relative comfort. You're better off not talking to either and instead chatting up the niggas you work with or are around your residence.
Admitting that Trump is a sign of reaction would mean doing something besides shitposting on image boards or arguing on social media. Probably at least half of this board leave their radicalism at their keyboard and will never be involved in any organization involved in the real movement.
What Trump is has literally nothing to do with where I post.
So indistinguishable it doesn't matter, kill em all, let Athe sort em out.
Yet you still judge yourself to judge fit to evaluate Trump’s character. Kill yourself
So mad you can't even type anymore.
Kill yourself fascist
A trained golden retriever could judge Trump's character.
That fourth pic is unironically true though
It is, but it offers a rare glimpse at Trump's real personal philosophy which is pure pragmatism, I think he's more feudal than fascist, the state is just a tool to accumulate personal power (while I feel many liberal politicians are motivated by 'legacy' and so on).
Just pay everyone in labour vouchers, ooops, I ended all capitalist interactions, that was easy.
HAND OVER YOUR FLESH, AND A NEW WORLD AWAITS YOU.
=WE DEMAND IT.=
Stop misusing terminology. Trump isn’t a supporter of a medieval mode of production. He’s prime porky
One could even say that Trump has absolutely no idea what he believes. The mans a retard
The second statement doesn't invalidate his statement. Unless he sees himself as thin and he's looking at a mirror. There is worst tweets.
They both seem like dystopia, and they both seem to exist in the same universe. Conservatives are really retarded.
All you gotta do is barrage when with the evil shit that Clinton and Obama did and ask them if Trump really is so much worse.
I do and I get told that Trump is worse because he likes to say dirty things on twitter and during press conferences
The "m-m-m-muh chillunz in cages" incident was the most cringeworthy instance for me. Every single time I challenge a shitlib to name something most Democrat presidents and every Republican hasn't already done, it comes down to saying meany poopoo head things on Twatter.
Trump still hasn't managed to deport as many immigrants as Obama's first couple years in office. And the "muslim ban" (really just a ban on all the countries Obama's administration attacked militarily) was cooked up by Obama's administration and about to be implemented before he left office.
I just don't understand why twitter shitposting bothers radlibs so much.
I just don't understand why people want to dismiss the things the president says just because he said it on Twitter.
Dismissing it as "twitter shitposting" is fucking retarded beyond belief.
Obama repeatedly promised single-payer during his campaign, I don't see how that's any less shitposting than Trump's.
Because about 90% of the things he says and threatens on twitter are ludicrus and he essentially does it to troll the shitlibs.
I don't see what that has to do with shitposting or anything, really.
Yes, the man is insane. This is serious.
Do you really believe that?
I don’t understand how you can’t realize that the most powerful man in the world “shitposting” on Twitter could have real consequences
Wake me up the first time Trump does something Obama/Dubya hasn't, faglord.
Look, I'm not saying we should just lose our shit over Trump, I'm just saying if you're talking to liberals then why the fuck not just concede that Trump is a massive piece of shit? Why even defend him at all?
1. The outsize panic against le drumpf versus his more passive aggressive competition in both parties is hurting actual efforts at improvement in primary elections and activist efforts, in favor of stagnation and a continued "rational centrist" drift to the right.
2. Many things Trump has (mostly dishonestly) associated himself with opposition to, such as military adventurism, free trade, mass immigration, mass surveillance, censorship, and corporate media, are now being supported by shitlibs on the specific basis of sticking it to Trump.
As a self-professed reactionary, I would say your language over-emphasizes any supposed love of Capitalism on Zig Forums.
For the most part, the free market loving libertarians have been driven off, and ancaps have basically become more sociopathic versions of fascists with Pinochet as their fuhrer. Most "reactionaries" are apathetic towards economics, with the trend being to see modern capitalism as degenerate or, at the very least, harmful.
Sure, you'll get the odd one out like The Golden One, who professes to be a "NatCap", an ideology of which seems to boil down to "Capitalism but I'll pay lip service to a warrior/spiritual ethos" and even that is hardly something he's proselytized beyond a single video.
In many cases, most of us have a negative view of global capitalism, but similarly we're extremely cynical about the left's ability to destroy it and usher in some "peaceful new world"–in fact I'd say most of us have accepted that IdPol is something that isn't going away anytime soon, and we're suspicious that any attempt to "end Capitalism" will most likely fail, and even if it doesn't initially it would probably mean nothing good for "the white race".
To give a personal example, even if I had faith that the modern left would be capable of overthrowing Capitalism (I don't) I'm certain that any revolution will come with a bunch of hangers on, and even if the modern "SJWs" don't achieve positions of leadership (of which I'm almost certain they WOULD) there's just national and transnational problems I doubt the left would be able to solve.
Take the Trayvon Martin case–if the left wants to uphold each individual's right to protect their community and bare arms, the fragile alliance between vastly different interest groups would likely dissolve the next time another "Trayvon" comes along. Of course from my side's perspective it was obvious that Zimmerman was completely innocent of any supposed "murder" of Trayvon, yet the left was absolutely howling for blood–specifically because the narrative goes that blacks are always "oppressed" and that white men (though I doubt Zimmerman would even be white passing) are always the "oppressor", the actual facts of the case didn't matter, only the identities of those involved.
So let's say Zimmerman shot Trayvon in a society that achieved Socialism, the case proceeds as normal, yet in any kind of non-Stalinist, decentralized Socialism without a powerful governing body, such a thing could quickly spiral into a race war.
Imprison Zimmerman for murder? All you have to go on is a phone call, and some evidence leaning towards the story that Martin went to confront him rather than being "stalked" or "chased" and murdered. You're saying that Whites have to think twice while they're getting beaten if the perp is black.
Declare Zimmerman innocent? Congratulations, you're saying you "don't care about black people" or that it's okay to "murder innocent black children". No one wins in that situation. There isn't any equitable solution to identity politics.
You are doing it wrong just like Hortler.
None of that is any reason to defend Trump. We should not waste our efforts in support of any bourgeois politician.
…while having absolutely no idea what capitalism is. It is the one unifying quality of the non-bourgeois right.
Why? Who even cares? That is not some grand social problem that requires political involvement.
Of course there is: don't play. It really is that simple. People may want to play identity shit with you, but they are going to do the same amount of screeching regardless of how you respond. See: this faggot here . The only response such individuals ever warrant is "fuck off."
See, you say that now, but all your heroes have been shills for industry and bankers.
That happens to people who do not know capitalism when they see it.
The problem is that everyone else uses the actual definition of capitalism, and unsurprisingly, support the right for a person to own their own business.
You're using some Marxist definition filled with unfounded assumptions.
The problem is that because we wish to engage in coherent debates we use a definition of capitalism that actually manages to differentiate it from previous economic systems.
Nah, you're no different from the idpol's who redine shit like "racism=power+privilege".
Are you sure you're not in fact the one who is redefining shit, user?
right, by censoring opposing thoughts and attacking people for not knowing marxism inside and out.
Yes, because I literally posted the definition.
Stop relying on retarded wordgames to make your arguments. It's just you trying to intellectually masturbate while saying nothing.
I'm the one who posted the definition of capitalism. I'm not the one playing word games, I'm the one clearly defining terms.
It's not complicated.
If you believe people should be able to own their own businesses, then you're a "capitalist".
If you don't, then nobody cares about your dumb commie opinion anyway, since everyone from business owners, to the working class, to even the homeless recognize the incredibly fundamental right for a person to own their own business.
Oh, you're being quite spooky there, buddy
Why do you think Zig Forums exists? You get banned for disagreeing on leftypol. Try saying that schools should focus on empowering the working class and not LGBTPQIBBQRAAAPPFF politics, and get banned by the transgender janny.
Now that you mention it, I did get a short ban there once for saying what's up to a fellow ex-military dude. He wasn't even American.
lel, spooky mang, can't wait to grab those rights in my hand like the tangible non-abstractions they are !
Which capitalism, as the ideology of thieving rentier parasites, is diametrically opposed to.
Thats some next level retardation.
Aside from "owning" them, so as to steal profits from workers, what relationship do capitalists have to "their" businesses?
If you had ever worked a job before, you would realize how entirely retarded that thought process is.
Read Marx my man
Well, the first use of capitalism to refer to an economic system was by Louis Blanc, a socialist, who defined it as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". Proudhon in 1860 referred to it as an "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour"
Now, "capitalist" was used before, but not as a system or to refer to partisans for such a system. Instead, it referred to people who made a living through capital or owners of capital.
So actually, the original definition is the 'Marxist' definition, which was taken from socialists (Well, one of the two mentioned, Proudhon, was in favor of a market economy.) before Marx.
I guess you just got BTFO'd.
If "your" job is directly dependent in some way on "your" lawn being mowed, such as charging people to picnic on it? Yes, you owe them more money.
If it's just your lawn that you and your familial acquaintances enjoy, and not being exploited as a commodity, then no.
This is obviously a lie, but leftpol will believe it because of confirmation bias.
You get banned for disagreeing with BO on conflicts thousands of miles removed. If I slapped on a tankie flag and praised Iran for fighting US imperialism by clamping down on bourgeois homosexuality then I'd be fine.
Tell them to stop watching CNN I guess?