leave that place it isn't worth it

a lot of them are the alt-right mirror images of our tankie edgelord teens, and a lot of people there are broken, toxic people and their parasites who exploit and humiliate them for sociopathic fun

just a really bad community all around

Snapshots:

1. The old face of C O P E - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

unironically can't believe a word politifact says after some of the more egregious examples of their bias came out

Like what

Anything that doesn't agree with my beliefs

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/mar/02/jason-isaac/jason-isaac-makes-mostly-false-claim-abortion-lead/

711 per day. That's a lotta dead kids.

Yeah 😄

LMAO ̶�̶̶�̶̶�̶̶�̶

That's some very advanced moon runes.

\u0336\ufffd\u0336\u0336\ufffd\u0336\u0336\ufffd\u0336\u0336\ufffd\u0336 for anyone wondering.

I was hoping it'd be a black baby emoji with a 🚫 on top. Some random website told me it would work even though my browser didn't render it. 🤷‍♂️

Well, that \ufffd thing is literally the code for the "unknown unicode symbol" (which is a bit of a mindfuck if you think about it) so I guess somewhere along the way some computer program aggressively misunderstood something. Computer programs are written by programmers so that's to be expected.

A programmer is going to the grocery store and his wife tells him, "Buy a gallon of milk, and if there are eggs, buy a dozen." So the programmer goes, buys everything, and drives back to his house. Upon arrival, his wife angrily asks him, "Why did you get 13 gallons of milk?" The programmer says, "There were eggs!"

cope

Most of what they post is completely accurate. They're also just very literal which is why you see things like this.

If I were to go on that website right now I'm willing to bet most of what I find is accurate and you'd be unable to refute any of it.

They're also just very literal

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/cover32.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&strip=all

Go read what Trump said lmao. He seems to have thought she literally acid washed the servers:

Trump, Sept. 6, North Carolina: But why do you acid wash, or bleach, the emails? Nobody even heard of it before. Very expensive. Just ask yours

That's why he got laughed at.

Pizza stop. You’re generally fairly good at lefty shit. Don’t die on politicfacts hill.

I stated objective reality.

Pizza. Politifact is the king of using “mostly” as a cope to convey whatever thing they are shilling for or against lol

Let's play a game. I'll link you 10 politifact articles. If you can refute them I'll say you're right.

10 is a lot. Can I just point out that most of them who wrote them are Jews and we call it even?

Sure.

Day of the cope indeed

I remember you from your awful fag parade photos. Sup man?

I don’t remember you at all lmao, but you have awful taste because my fag photo is tits.

Doing all right tho, catching up on my drama after a night of beers in NZ.

Nice man. See any pewdiepie fans?

Doubt it, most of them stay inside jerking off.

Really? The last 1 I saw in nz seemed like he did alright

That one’s going to be staying inside jerking off for the rest of his life

Honestly though that cell is nicer than your average urban American apt

They're also just very literal which is why you see things like this.

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/mar/02/jason-isaac/jason-isaac-makes-mostly-false-claim-abortion-lead/

That goes above and beyond "very literal". "Were abortion considered a cause of death, it would be the #1 cause by far" is literally true, "but abortion is not considered a cause of death" is not a valid rebuttal.

Nobody sane, nobody with an above room temp IQ counts abortion as a "cause of death."

Nobody sane, nobody with an above room temp IQ counts abortion as a "cause of death."

Well, the dude's platform is that abortion should be accounted for as a human death. You might disagree with that, but you can't pretend that "well it isn't currently so you're Mostly Wrong" is anything but retardedly dishonest.

Furthermore, he claimed 1000 a day, he was wrong

Even politifact agreed that his estimates were in the same ballpark as their estimates, is your goal to outretard them even?

Have you suffered a stroke or something recently, or have you always been this stupid and I just never tried to bait you properly?

I think you should read my edit. My point is, his argument wasn't valid, he didn't seem to say "were" it seems.

He can run on whatever platform he'd like, he's still wrong, rationally. That mostly false was generous, it should have been "pants on fire."

It doesn't seem he said "were" he said "is." That is false, because abortion is not a valid cause of death. If anything, mostly false is generous.

Do you think that he or his potential voter base were confused about whether the current laws recognize abortion as a valid cause of death?

If a Democrat politician said "We are currently imprisoning so and so many immigrants whose only crime was that they came here "illegally", this is wrong", would politifact say that numbers are correct but what they did is considered a crime so they are not wrongfully imprisoned so they rate this claim Mostly False?

Jesus Christ, I feel exactly like when my senile grandma asks why it is she who should go to the toilet, why not me instead for example. Except I love my grandma and she has neurological reasons for this kind of obstinate stupidity.

I'm sure they aren't confused. That doesn't mean they have a valid point, on any level.

The objective fact is: abortion is not and will never be considered a cause of death.

So if he makes the claim "abortion *is the leading cause of death" he factually incorrect, no matter what.

If that's exactly what he meant and none of the people he addressed could've possibly thought otherwise, then in what sense is he "factually incorrect"?

Again, when a person running on a weed legalization program says that it's wrong to imprison people whose only crime is smoking weed, and look how many prisoners we have because of that, would you or politifact rate that claim as Mostly Wrong?

He's incorrect because abortion is not considered a cause of death.

Walk through this.

A) Abortion is not a cause of death.

B) Person claims abortion is a cause of death.

Is he right or wrong?

Again, when a person running on a weed legalization program says that it's wrong to imprison people whose only crime is smoking weed, and look how many prisoners we have because of that, would you or politifact rate that claim as Mostly Wrong?

Depends. Weed is completely safe, less harmful than alcohol or smoking, and likely should be legal. Jailing people for non-violent, trivial crimes is morally wrong.

Claiming abortion is a cause of death when it isn't on the other hand is objectively wrong.

A) Abortion is not a cause of death.

That's where you disagree with that person. If you want to argue that abortion is not a cause of death, argue that, don't argue that the claim that more black fetuses are aborted than black people die from any other cause is "mostly false".

Again, when a person running on a weed legalization program says that it's wrong to imprison people whose only crime is smoking weed, and look how many prisoners we have because of that, would you or politifact rate that claim as Mostly Wrong?

Depends. Weed is completely safe, less harmful than alcohol or smoking, and likely should be legal. Jailing people for non-violent, trivial crimes is morally wrong.

But the person in this hypothetical situation didn't say "were weed decriminalized this huge number of people would not be imprisoned". He didn't say the word! Mostly False!

Claiming abortion is a cause of death when it isn't on the other hand is objectively wrong. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If one believes that fetuses are people then abortion is a cause of death of a person.

That's where you disagree with that person. If you want to argue that abortion is not a cause of death, argue that, don't argue that the claim that more black fetuses are aborted than black people die from any other cause is "mostly false".

Ok, but this is not a disagreement. It's an objective fact: Abortion is not considered a valid cause of death by any medical org or relevant authority. So if you show up claiming "abortion is the leading cause of death" then you are factually incorrect.

There is no spinning out of this.

But the person in this hypothetical situation didn't say "were weed decriminalized this huge number of people would not be imprisoned". He didn't say the word! Mostly False!

You're completely incoherent, which I already knew, but this takes the cake.

If one believes that fetuses are people then abortion is a cause of death of a person.

What one believes has no relevance to what reality is. I can believe 2+2+10, that doesn't mean 2+2=10.

If one's argument is that abortion should be considered a valid cause of death legally and policy-wise then pointing out that it is not currently considered a valid cause of death is not a valid argument.

In an argument for what legal reality should be appealing to what legal reality currently is as a way to claim that this is what it should be is not a valid argument.

This discussion is not interesting, I'm not learning anything useful like how to counter valid arguments, if I show it to anyone else whose opinion I care about they would agree that you're either pretending to be retarded (as a compensation for discovering that you're actually an intellectual midget) or started huffing glue recently.

Friend, his argument was not that if abortion was considered a cause of death it'd be #1. It was that abortion IS the number one cause of death.

This is objectively false. No matter what, it is false.

Also, literally just a day ago you tried to claim nazies were socialist, rejected some of the most credible academic work on the subject, and then claimed the opposite of what they said was true.

You, and I am not saying this to be mean to you, are a literal moron. As in you are not a person worth taking seriously, ever.

Friend, his argument was not that if abortion was considered a cause of death it'd be #1. It was that abortion IS the number one cause of death.

Every single person hearing that argument understood that this is what he meant. "He didn't add the word 'were' therefore his argument was invalid" is super autistically retarded.

Also, literally just a day ago you tried to claim nazies were socialist, rejected some of the most credible academic work on the subject, and then claimed the opposite of what they said was true.

Yep, yesterday I thoroughly trounced you in a battle of wits as well.

Though given your present state I'm quite humbled about the magnitude of my achievement there.

Anyways, as I said this is not intellectually stimulating at all, so fuck off.

Every single person hearing that argument understood that this is what he meant. "He didn't add the word 'were' therefore his argument was invalid" is super autistically retarded.

It doesn't matter what his flock of retards thought. Is this some weird twisted "what was in his heart" argument, like the ones people use to explain away Trump lies?

Yep, yesterday I thoroughly trounced you in a battle of wits as well.

Yeah, often winning a battle of wits entails dismissing overwhelming expert consensus on a subject.

It doesn't matter what his flock of retards thought. Is this some weird twisted "what was in his heart" argument, like the ones people use to explain away Trump lies?

No, it's the exact opposite in fact. Here literally everyone understood what was claimed, with no dogwhistling or other equivocation. There was not a single person who was, like, "oh, so our government does consider abortion a cause of death, nice to know".

Yeah, often winning a battle of wits entails dismissing overwhelming expert consensus on a subject.

That was not an expert consensus, that was one expert, whose expertise I acknowledged, going on and on about the ways in which Nazi rhetoric was the same as socialist rhetoric, but then saying that Nazis weren't really socialists because of other reasons, so nothing to worry about. I told you to try to express the same "historical fact" without using the word "socialist" and you GTFO. You didn't even try.

Are you doing a bit where you decide that seriousposting was for losers all along and you provoke me into seriousposting by "pretending" to be my senile grandma?

No, it's the exact opposite in fact. Here literally everyone understood what was claimed, with no dogwhistling or other equivocation. There was not a single person who was, like, "oh, so our government does consider abortion a cause of death, nice to know".

I see, so if I say 2+2=10 to a crowd of people, as long as they think I mean it's = 4, it's not a lie.

Great logic.

That was not an expert consensus, that was one expert, whose expertise I acknowledged, going on and on about the ways in which Nazi rhetoric was the same as socialist rhetoric, but then saying that Nazis weren't really socialists because of other reasons, so nothing to worry about.

I've got news for you bud, that's the opinion of pretty much every relevant expert on the subject. From Neil Gregor to Robert Paxton. No shit the rhetoric was similar, because fascism was a whole was a right-wing response to a growing left. the conservatives of old couldn't compete with the socialists in the streets. From the anatomy of fascism:

Fascism was the major political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain. The other major currents of modern Western political culture—conservatism, liberalism, socialism—all reached mature form between the late eighteenth century and the mid-nineteenth century. Fascism, however, was still unimagined as late as the 1890s. Friedrich Engels, writing a preface in 1895 for his new edition of Karl Marx’s  The Class Struggles in France,  clearly believed that wider suffrage would inexorably deliver more votes to the Left. Both time and numbers, Engels was certain, were on the socialists’ side. “If it [the growing socialist vote] continues in this fashion, by the end of this [nineteenth] century we [socialists] shall conquer the major part of the middle strata of society, petty bourgeois and peasants, and grow into the decisive power in the land.” Conservatives, Engels wrote, had noticed that legality was working against them. By contrast, “we [socialists], under this legality, get firm muscles and rosy cheeks and look like life eternal. There is nothing for them [the conservatives] to do but break through this legality themselves.”1 While Engels thus expected that the Left’s enemies would launch a preemptive attack, he could not imagine in 1895 that this might win mass approval. Dictatorship against the Left amidst popular enthusiasm—that was the unexpected combination that fascism would manage to put together one short generation later.

1

Another premonition came at the eleventh hour from a French engineer turned social commentator, Georges Sorel. In 1908 Sorel criticized Marx for failing to notice that “a revolution accomplished in times of decadence” could “take a return to the past or even social conservation as its ideal.”

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

I am a bot. Contact for questions

I see, so if I say 2+2=10 to a crowd of people, as long as they think I mean it's = 4, it's not a lie.

No, it's more like someone says "2 and 2 = 4" and everyone agrees really, but some obstinate retard points out that bitwise-and of 2 and 2 equals to zero, so the claim is Mostly False.

And that obstinate retard is one of the two websites dedicated to "unbiased truth-seeking", the other isn't much better. Like I'm beginning to think that politifacts, snopes, and you personally are funded by Russians to make Americans distrust everything except Russian-run Facebook propaganda.

What other purpose claiming that "2 and 2 = 0 akshylli" could possibly have?

Dude, just stop lol. This is embarrassing to watch.

The guy was outright wrong, even if his flock of retards knew what he meant, the claim was still incorrect and it still lines up with me saying "they're very literal."

They take your claims at face value, they don't consider what your dumb ass followers believe or think.

They take your claims at face value, they don't consider what your dumb ass followers believe or think.

If a Democrat politician said "We are currently imprisoning so and so many immigrants whose only crime was that they came here "illegally", this is wrong", would politifact say that the numbers are correct but what they did is considered a crime so they are not wrongfully imprisoned so they rate this claim Mostly False?

Again, when a person running on a weed legalization program says that it's wrong to imprison people whose only crime is smoking weed, and look how many prisoners we have because of that, would you or politifact rate that claim as Mostly Wrong?

I have no idea what Politifact would rate that claim. I don't deal in hypotheticals if you have some evidence that PolitiFact ruled in a different way on something that was the same, by all means, provide it.

What would you rate those claims?

On the second thought fuck off, I'm not interested, you've devolved into a boring retard.

How I'd rate them is not relevant. You're making the claim they're biased, you've yet to present any evidence of that.

Also, you can cope all you'd like, maybe read a book next time before you start making unhinged arguments about how nazis were socialists.

Every normal person and even retards like you realize that if politifact used a structurally the same argument against a similar democrat claim they'd call it bullshit, because it is.

Unfortunately I can't provide you with an example of them doing that because they don't do that. They don't rate democrat claims as mostly false using the same bullshit arguments. What evidence do you want me to give you, you imbecile, you absolute fucking moron?

Every normal person and even retards like you realize that if politifact used a structurally the same argument against a similar democrat claim they'd call it bullshit, because it is.

Then provide it.

Unfortunately I can't provide you with an example of them doing that because they don't do that. They don't rate democrat claims as mostly false using the same bullshit arguments. What evidence do you want me to give you, you imbecile, you absolute fucking moron?

So you have no example of them rating a similar argument, from a democrat, as accurate?

Dude, just stop lol. This is embarrassing to watch.

When Pizzashill uses this line, he's given up.

any relevant authority

You need Islam, brother.

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

• [/r/drama] Titans of drama, pizzashill and spergling_molester get into a huge slapfight

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

Member when they claimed mommy didn’t smash all her work cell phones and PCs, and that it was a completely false claim because her aids had smashed all her state electronics?

Or that she didn't 'bleach' the emails because she actually had a staffer use a program called 'bleach it'

Yup lmao, that’s the reality ps lives in Unironically

imagine living in such a state of denial

Imagine being a Neo liberal, aren’t neet incels supposed to be alt right anyway 🤔

alt right rejected pizzashill -- even we have limits

Oof Lmbo

they're owned by the Florida equivalent of WaPo so imagine my surprise

Even if the pictures were real, why would she post them?

"Line of gaze"? What the fuck?

She was obviously protesting unjust quarantine of innocent people.

My inner photoshop wants to do things to that face.

Do it

Ewww

You can almost make out the "Arbeit Macht Frei" of the detention center if you zoom in enough.