/r/drama was part of my shift rightward. There are a lot of rightoids in there doing the lords work, showing people to the light. Ironic rightoid posting can still red-pill people. And good drama is still good drama, whether it's chapotards sperging out over ableism in the revolution or the Donald Defense Force sperging out about NPCs. Drama is one of the few places where actual fascists and actual leftists clash on a daily basis, and it's pretty entertaining.

I'm currently banned for circumventing the custom subreddit style at /r/drama though.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, removeddit.com, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Oh this is a pretty thing - what genetic dead end was responsible for writing this gem?

I’m going to assert this was Pizza and see if anyone challenges that.

So cute !

Cutest baby I've ever seen.

T_D doesn't even pretend to be non r-slurred anymore.

Yeah honestly it’s jusr sad lol

I agree.

When T_D comments become indistinguishable from middle-boomer housewife Facebook comments.

T_D comments become indistinguishable from boomer housewife Facebook comments.

😂

Based AF.

!Attention! : Stop digging around hospital trash cans for miscarriages and posting them on your Snapchat

At a recent dinner event, a woman was expressing her support for second trimester abortions. Across the table, my brother-in-law, also born in the second trimester, sat quietly. Everyone at the table who knew his story just waited for him to drop the bomb on her.

/r/thathappened

Everyone at the table who knew his story just waited for him to drop the bomb on her.

With bated breaths I tell you !

The breath's name? Claprick Bateman

Look at all those chiselled faces, that subtle off white nose hair, my God one them even has his mouth open !

And then everyone clapped.

A study of 241 children born between 22 and 25 weeks who were currently of school age found that 46 percent had severe or moderate disabilities such as cerebral palsy, vision or hearing loss and learning problems. Thirty-four percent were mildly disabled and 20 percent had no disabilities, while 12 percent had disabling cerebral palsy.

I love my retarded preemie brother in law

Not sure that the people of this sub should be making fun of retards.

It's ironic self deprecation

I think it takes one to know one

He may be part of the 20 percent?

Notice OP said ALSO born 2nd Trimester... methinks he's tipped his hand.

He decided to be polite and not say anything because we were having an otherwise pleasant evening. Someone mentioned Game of Thrones and the conversation shifted away to less heated topics.

So he soyed out, what was the point in bringing up this anecdote about his heroic MAGApede brother who avoids serious political conversations in favour of le popular media?

Also, what a pathetic power fantasy.

Every person ever was once a 4 month old fetus. How is this "dropping a bomb"?

He probably did not even think of making this discussion about himself and so did nobody else. The nerve of some redditors thinking they can read the minds of all people on the table....

Imagine bragging about being an underdeveloped fetus that grew in to a MAGAtard

It never even began

We don't even know if he is a MAGAtard. The OP MAGAtard was just on the same table and just thought that the underdeveloped fetus man would be "dropping the bomb" any second.

Also, the level of cope thinking men are allowed to have an opinion on abortion despite not getting pregnant, but at the same time thinking you have to be an underdeveloped fetus to be allowed to have an opinion.

It doesn’t matter. We can label them any type of tardness with impunity.

Your second sentence is unintelligible to me, so I’ll assume it’s as meaningless as the rest of your existence

Gross, I would want that thing out of my body as well

Actual image of my two-week old premie

Life's greatest blessing? Life.

Pelosi RESIGNED

These people really are THAT stupid

Literally not even worth mocking them. People on that sub are basically inanimate objects. If anyone is interested in the reasoning for why it is completely pointless to even engage these people:

https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/

In his paper “Party Over Policy,” Geoffrey Cohen describes manipulating which party supposedly advocates for either a stringent or a generous welfare policy. He describes how people who identify as partisans will switch their own policy preference in order to match their party’s. And then Cohen’s findings get a bit alarming when he asks these people whether party identification has influenced their policy position. People say no. They don’t believe party ties influenced their policy position, even though Cohen literally just manipulated his presentation so that this type of influence could happen. And then he actually asks them to write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. He emphasizes that their local representative reads these sometimes, so their letter might have an influence on changing the policy, so they should really think through why they hold this position and what good supporting arguments they can give. And people come up with reasons and write these very thoughtful letters on behalf of a policy that they just embraced on the spot.

And so a lot of us probably consider other voters irrational and hopelessly biased, but think that we’re not. But we also should keep in mind, from Cohen’s experiment, that biased voters don’t necessarily recognize it. And even worse, some research into motivated reasoning has found that people with the most political knowledge actually are the most prone to this type of thinking. They have the intellectual ammunition. They have enough political knowledge to offer what feels like a coherent explanation, and to undermine the opposing argument. So again, if our folk theory presumes that the most informed voters will make the smartest and most sober choices, contemporary social science tells us that these engaged people might behave less like bankers, and more like sports fans.

This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

YOU'RE BACK!!!

It’s not about telling r-slurs how wrong they are - it’s about showing everyone else. Demonstrating how devoid of thought they are is good and holy work.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/drama] Pizzashill couldn't maintain his self imposed exile for more than a few months.

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Welcome home.

This is bad but not as problematic as it seems. Most people don’t have the knowledge to have coherent ideas about most policy, but they do have general values that align with one political party or the other. Therefore, they assume the political party must be acting with those general values in mind, and thus the policy reflects the best way to implement those values, even if they don’t coherently understand the policy itself. This is basically the entire point of representative democracy to begin with, these biases are a feature, not a flaw.

Yeah, but if you keep reading, most people have left-wing policy views but still identify as conservative/vote republican.

Again my own related work uses the term “constrained.” If you have a “constrained” set of issue positions, then all of your policy preferences consistently swing to the left or to the right. The people with well-constrained issue positions often have more extreme issue positions also. But for many voters, an identification with an ideological label means something different than holding a constrained set of issue positions. You might call yourself a conservative, and feel very, very strongly identified as a conservative, and still not actually hold consistently conservative policy positions. In fact, a number of political scientists have found that the American electorate, as a whole, prefers on average left-leaning policy positions. But on average, this same electorate calls itself conservative. And because we do have these generally left-leaning policy preferences as an electorate, conservative politicians feel the need to double down on conservative social identification. Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins published a book called Asymmetric Politics about this difference between Democrats and Republicans. So we might anachronistically think of Democrats as the “identity politics” party, but it actually makes much more sense for Republicans to campaign on identity.

You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

Fascinating.

hi pizza. here at r/ZweiRama we respect you and will have no retarded political parties there x

Just another example of why political parties are the worst mistake we've ever made.

How do you propose to carry out organized activism in the absence of a party-like organisation?

I have no idea, even if parties were banned you'd still have factions within the government.

Humans are just flawed.

A party is just an organization created by people to advance their political ideals by attaining political power, not a "faction within a government".

This isn't a flaw, just a fact of life. You can't advance your political views without getting other like-minded people to cooperate and support you. To do this on any significant scale in a coordinated manner you're going to need some kind of formal organisation, in this case a party.

A party is an organization created by people to advance their political ideals by attaining political power, not a "faction within a government".

This isn't a flaw, just a fact of life. You can't advance your political views without getting other like-minded people to cooperate and support you. To do this on any significant scale in a coordinated manner you're going to need some kind of formal organisation, in this case a party.

A party is an organization created by people to advance their political ideals by attaining political power, not a "faction within a government".

That's neat, work on the illiteracy. I said even if you banned parties you'd still have factions.

For example, there is one party in China, but many factions within said party.

This isn't a flaw, just a fact of life. You can't advance your political views without getting other like-minded people to cooperate and support you. To do this on any significant scale in a coordinated manner you're going to need some kind of formal organisation, in this case a party.

Again, it is a flaw. Tribalism is, in fact, a cognitive foible in the human brain that has caused an absurd amount of suffering over the course of human history.

You can argue this foible serves some evolutionary purpose, and it probably does, but that doesn't mean how it manifests in modern times is good.

Washington himself said it best:

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Wow, you must be a JP fan

I am a bot. Contact for questions

I am going to have to ask you again; how do you effectively coordinate large-scale political activism on the absence of a party-like organisation?

Until you can answer with something other than "I don't know", saying you are against political parties is tantamount to saying you are against large-scale political activsm, and by extension meaningful political change.

I said even if you banned parties you'd still have factions.

For example, there is one party in China, but many factions within said party.

Apologies, I misread your statement.

It is interesting to note that countries which ban political parties, like China, trend towards havng much less substantial political change over time.

Tribalism is, in fact, a cognitive foible in the human brain that has caused an absurd amount of suffering over the course of human history.

You can argue this foible serves some evolutionary purpose, and it probably does, but that doesn't mean how it manifests in modern times is good.

Why do you equate the existence of a political party with tribalism that comes close to outweighing the benefits of a party?

Your real issue appears to be with the specific political party system that exists in America, for which the criticisms you make are meaningful.

In conclusion, political parties aren't perfect. The alternative, however, is a lack of substantial political change. Unless you consider the latter to be categorically better than having political parties, being against the concept of a political party is nonsensical.

Washington quote.

In Washington's America it was possible to carry out meaningful political change without a party structure. This is very far from being the general case.

I don't know what you said, because I've seen another human naked.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

I don't give a shit about "large scale political activism" even slightly. I don't care if you do, I don't care if anyone does. The objective fact, the absolute truth is that political parties in the US are out of control. The way they currently operate will not keep working.

This type of political gridlock, this type of sports-team politics leads to one thing and one thing only: literal fascism. This is how fascism is born, literally every single precursor to fascism is present in the current US political climate. You can keep saying stupid shit like "but what is the alternative" til you're blue in the face and that will not change the fact that the US is in trouble, and it is directly due to tribalism.

In conclusion, political parties aren't perfect. The alternative, however, is a lack of substantial political change. Unless you consider the latter to be categorically better than having political parties, being against the concept of a political party is nonsensical.

This right here? There is no substantial political change in the united states. The political gridlock is so extreme that literally nothing can be done. Some 30% of the population has captured nearly the entire federal government and are attempting to hold the majority hostage.

People in this country seem to lack any awareness at all of how bad the situation is. The founders never intended for parties to be this powerful or operate like this. They never intended that, for example, one party could capture the senate and the white house and the senate would then refuse to hold the white house accountable or apply any checks or balances.

The system does not function with this brand of tribalism in place and it never will. The options here aren't "party or no party" they're "functioning country or non-functioning country."

That was a mistake. You're about to find out the hard way why.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

I don't give a shit about "large scale political activism" even slightly.

So you don't give a shit about political change? I thought your issue was the (false and retarded) idea that the existence of political parties naturally leads to political gridlock? Decide one.

words words words

So you are saying that your actual issue is the specific political party system in the USA and the circumstances that lead to it's existence? Next time make that apparent from the beginning instead of wasting both of our time.

This is not caused merely by the existence of political parties, it is caused by the specific political structure of the United States that incentives the formation of two monolithic parties that refuse to give way on any issue.

Any association of like-minded people working towards a political goal is a political party. How do you propose to coordinate people for political change without such organisations, nevermind get rid of them without a fundamental trampling of the right to free association?

There is absolutely no reason why laws can't be written to seriously limit and restrain political parties.

Any organisation or association of people for gathering and exercising political power is a political party. Restricting the ability of people to form and act in parties would be a gross violation of freedom of association.

Or do you mean that you want to remove the incentives that lead to the US two-party system, i.e. by instituting ranked choice voting? If so, state so from the beginning instead of making hyperbolic statements that the existence of political parties in the general case is desirable to get rid of.

K

I am a bot. Contact for questions

So you don't give a shit about political change? I thought your issue was the (false and retarded) idea that the existence of political parties naturally leads to political gridlock? Decide one.

Political parties absolutely lead to gridlock and a lack of effective change. This has been invariably the case in most countries at one point or another. I had to stop reading here, anyone defending the concept of political parties isn't someone I'd consider I'd consider worth speaking to.

I had to stop reading here, anyone defending the concept of political parties isn't someone I'd consider worth speaking to.

You had to stop reading there because you could not argue against what I said.

This has been invariably the case in most countries at one point or another.

Since when?

How do you organize people for political hangs without a party-like organisation? Answer this.

I had to stop reading here, anyone defending the concept of political parties isn't someone I'd consider worth speaking to.

You had to stop reading there because you could not argue against what I said and wanted to reply as if you had not read it.

I'm not interested in attempting to argue with a person that has a room temp IQ and is defending political parties.

If a guy walks up to me on the street and says "jews have a base on the moon" and I dismiss him, that doesn't mean I can't argue against the idea that jews have a base on the moon, it just means I realize he's a lost cause and can not be reasoned with.

I'm not interested in attempting to argue with a person that has a room temp IQ and is defending political parties.

All I'm hearing is "I couldn't argue against your points".

I argued against your points and explained in detail why you're dumb and also wrong.

If you can't comprehend that, it isn't my problem. I do not take you seriously enough to invest any more of my time in this.

I doubt you can even tie your own shoes, let alone formulate coherent views. If your argument in support of party is "how else will we organize??" you've already revealed you're clueless.

words words words

I addressed all of this in the text you refuse to read.

“Parties are good.”

“No they are bad, in fact if anyone says otherwise then they’re so stupid I don’t have to debate the point.”

Lazy.

You do the exact same thing as those retards, just with the Neo liberal spin. Don’t act superior.

My family member brought a premie back at 23 weeks with meningitis, that’s the earliest they had personally seen.

Dropper, you have no idea what you're talking about.

While pro choice, the 23 weeks claim I am making is fact. Just saying your sperging is the exact same as those that you ridicule, only from the left. Take the centrist pill already ffs

all their views, but not our views.

I don't identify with any party. But nice try.

your Pulitzer's in the mail

It's good to have you back, sweetie. We missed you

pizza, I love you

weren't they pro choice at some point?

After CisWhiteMaelstrom was ousted and a bunch of centrist and pro-Israel puppet mods were instilled, most likely yes. Abortion is legal is various cases in Israel.

However given recent political discourse in the US I guess they're gone back to being anti-abortion in accordance with Trump's current stance.

centrist

ree about abortion

daddy supporters

sounds like regular boomerologists to me

Most Donald fans don't have a coherent ideology other than "triggering the libs". Remember during the election when Trump changed his stand on abortion like 3 times in a week and they just followed wherever he went.

Whiplash after whiplash.

I miss it, you could ping in those days.

I'm pretty sure that OP meant that the baby was 18 weeks premature, not that the baby was born after 18 weeks of pregnancy. However, T_D is pretty fucking stupid, so I could be wrong.

Trump 2020! I need four more years of this.

Maybe that dead preemie identifies as a living baby. Way to erase its unlived experiences, bigot.

I doubt that child will still be alive by the third trimester