Scott Adams couldn’t even write the best Dilbert comic.
What I’m reading here is “I have the memory of someone with frontal lobe dementia, therefore Trump won.”
It helps to realize while reading anything from Scott Adams, he tweets this shit while sitting on a toliet shaped like Dogbert.
This screenshotted post is bullshit. But arguably, everyone is talking about Trump and the animals now. While that was of course all made up, they got the media to focus on their talking points.
I can see this opinion being justifiable to someone who doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with racism.
Yeah he calls (racism) directionally correct in terms of immigration risk.
Some people are citing the 15,000-20,000 Haitian Immigrant influx to Springfield Ohio (formerly 60,000 total population) as a cause for crimerate increase when the city actually had 146% higher crimerate than the US Average BEFORE the immigration influx and city officials have said there has been NO INCREASE (it might have even gone down but we won’t know until the 2024 index is published).
The woman who first shared the pet-eating hoax has apologized and said she was mistaken. Another user who posted a bodycam footage has been debunked as a completely different location.
But they don’t care. They think Racism was correct. They don’t care about pets or children or crime statistics, they care about Racism.
Did you say the population if the town grew by 30%ish and it was entirely Haitians? That’s odd. Why that small town out of all the other options?
QAA did a look into it, apparently they tried to open a bunch of new factories there and were only able to fill positions by pulling in immigrants.
I’m also pretty intrigued by that.
Mango Mussolini’s fucked up playbook originates from the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s Fascists and Bolsheviks.
Jumping to conclusions better than my wife
“Wife bad”
everybody needs a jump to conclusions mat
🎣
Trump ALSO Won the Debate because all I can Remember is he has a Concept Of A Plan! JENIUS! Very well Done!
I hate how debates have been bastardized into simplistic “Argument Box fight s” instead of being the spaces for sharing and discussing ideas to reach a common ground that they were in the first place.
Wtf does “directionally correct” even mean?
It means he is a racist, he agrees with Repub leadership that Hatian people are inherently evil, and he wants to do mass deportations which will turn into progroms.
"Directionally " does the same job as the “alternative” in alternative medicine (or alternative facts) - it just means “not”.
Even a good number of MAGAts can spot this lie - but when the pronouns of the rest are Trump/Nazi-sympathiser, why would you expect them to care?
That statement made me soooo mad I fucking hate people like that.
“It was false, but I believed it so that says something.”
I think what he’s saying is that “eating dogs” is bad and “unchecked immigration risk” is also bad. Therefore, it’s okay to lie about one in order to warn about the other. I see extremists do this all the time. By the same token, it’s okay to lie about post-birth abortions, because abortion is bad, and if lying about it helps to prevent abortions, then it’s for a good cause.
These assholes use this logic to lie about all kinds of things. They know that they’re lying. At least, the smart ones do. They just see it as justified.
I think what he’s saying is that “eating dogs” is bad and “unchecked immigration risk” is also bad.
I think it’s even simpler. We always way overestimate these guys.
Their agenda, their direction: white nationalist ethnostate, mass deportation/genocide.
Anything that helps create division and tension between races and ethnicities is towards this goal. They want full-on race riots and angry backlash, escalating and escalating. Anything the clown says that makes anyone angry is part of that direction. We all need to remember that as long as we’re giving open racism airtime and saying inflammatory nonsense they are moving towards their direction.
In my youth, I had always worried about the people who would use our freedom against us, but I was always reassured that the people would see through all but the cleverest and most beguiling of sinister bad-actors. I guess it was a different time and people had grown accustomed to the nationalized broadcasting stations. It would have been unimaginable that an overt cartoon caricature of a criminal politician, with a gaggle of criminal henchmen spouting open racism and hate would become the figureheads and seeds of our eventual doom, but memories are short and attention spans have been whittled to nothing.
He’s implying immigrants commit crimes, even if they didn’t commit this specific crime, so it’s OK to make up a batshit scenario that never happened because other things do happen.
Of course, every fucking statistic out there proves that immigrants, per capita, commit less crimes than citizens. Which makes sense - why the fuck would you spend all that time and money getting here, just to commit a crime and immediately be kicked out? Are there a small percentage of immigrants involved in narcotics and gangs? Sure. Are there citizens involved in narcotics and gangs? Yes. A lot more.
Yeah and undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a way lower rate than citizens and legal immigrants. Like half. Because if they get arrested for anything they’re probably getting deported. Pretty big incentive to stay out of trouble.
Yeah it’s a form of (for lack of a better term) virtue signalling within extremist groups. “I’m so dedicated to the cause I’m willing to lie to further it!”
I still dont understand how you can win a debate…
Because it’s America. And there are winners and losers. One can’t win without someone else losing. Capitalism teaches you this.
But for reals this is why right?
deleted by creator
In real debates, you logically disprove the other person while proving your own point
Yeah but i mean if you think about it someone is wrong then. Which means there wouldnt be a reason to debate because you can just compare the two claims and choose the true one. And if what they are debating is subjective then there is no winner.
You convince the audience that your position is better and the path forward for whatever reasons. Doesn’t have to be correct/incorrect.
You also win by appearing presidential.
In a real debate the judges actually keep score based on logical arguments and good examples, typically what’s called matter, manner, and method. This was political theater or maybe a skills test, but not a debate. And pretty much always was for as long as I can remember.
Strong copium vibes from Adams…
I guess Howard Dean won because all anyone can remember is his scream.
I guess Romney won because all anyone can remember is “binders full of women”.
People laughing at and being disgusted with the convicted felon / village idiot is not a win.
Really? Because I remember him getting body slammed by the moderators. There were EMTs on the set and everything.
“Directionally correct,” the fuck does that mean? “Yes, it is an absolute lie. But actually they are all inherently like that.” This is a guy who wants pogroms.
