283
Why would I be mad at corporations stealing trillions when there are poor people getting dozens of dollars!
(hexbear.net)
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
283 points (99.3% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15997 readers
3 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The people in charge don't like welfare. They want welfare cut or gone. They don't care what you think of them because they have the political power. So when you but into every discussion and tell everyone they can be mad at two things, you're aligning yourself with the grievances of an out-of-touch class and doing absolutely nothing by being disgruntled with them too. You're doing a little bit of the propaganda footwork for them.
You can be mad at anything you want. It would be silly to be mad at the wrong thing and bring it into focus everytime someone talks about being mad at something else. It's not more nuanced to be a devils advocate. You have to be a devils advocate in the right way. The more nuanced position is that the bigger problem and conversation should be about abuse of wealth than abuse of social programs. We shouldn't have to stop and genuflect to an imaginary audience of moderates when discussing their scope.
They're not imaginary; there's a number of them in the federated online space. They're smug insufferable bootlicking assholes, but they exist.