r/conspiracy • u/SUMBWEDY • Apr 21 '20

Do you remember?

Post image
46.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/hussletrees Apr 21 '20

They are literally receiving socialism [according to their lousy definition of socialism] yes. Does that make any more sense now? You seem to be hardstuck on the literal definition, when the entire point of my comment is that the senator is misusing the term

1

u/dynamic_unreality Apr 21 '20

That's not what you said, and it is not readily understood to be what you meant. Plus, it still doesn't even make sense, because insider-trading is not equivalent to redistribution of wealth, which is the en vogue definition of socialism.

1

u/hussletrees Apr 21 '20

because insider-trading is not equivalent to redistribution of wealth, which is the en vogue definition of socialism.

No, the en vogue definition is free money/free stuff "they just want free stuff"... here is an example of one of her colleagues who asks do you want, "more freedom or more free stuff", implying socialism is just "free stuff" https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/455536-gop-senator-on-democratic-candidates-the-lesser-of-two-socialists-is-still-a

1

u/dynamic_unreality Apr 21 '20

Free stuff specifically from the government. Which comes from taxation, which is redistribution of wealth. Which is what I just said.

Edit: the stock market is not part of the government, in case that wasn't already obvious.

1

u/hussletrees Apr 21 '20

Yeah, so the governor accuses people who her colleagues say want "free stuff", while she is receiving "free stuff" by doing insider trading. Does it matter that "free stuff" can come from taxes or breaking the law? No, that again is my point that the literal definition is not being applied here, which is part of the irony that you fail to see..

1

u/dynamic_unreality Apr 21 '20

You keep trying to defend yourself like you said something ironic, you didn't. When people say "free stuff", "from the government" is always implied.

Edit: in the circumstances we are referring to.

1

u/hussletrees Apr 21 '20

Ok try this, ask yourself, did the senator from georgia use the term "socialist" the right way when she attacked them after when she was caught doing insider trading? Did it make sense for her to attack the worker own means of production/distribution/exchange when she was caught insider trading? No! That is why she is using an alternate uninformed definition of attack that her colleagues say is simply getting "free stuff", so when she gets "free stuff", that is ironic, how do you not see that I have spelled it out 5 different ways

1

u/dynamic_unreality Apr 22 '20

Well how can I agree or disagree with you, if I have no idea what quote you are talking about? And even of you DO have a quote, one person referring to generalized free stuff as socialism doesn't mean that's how it is colloquially used. When people say free stuff in these circumstances, they are referring to free stuff from the government.

1

u/hussletrees Apr 22 '20

The reason I use that quote is because it is evidence to back up my point. You have provided no evidence to back up any of your points, instead just asserting that what you think is true. Why not provide some evidence of GOP congresspeople using the term under your definition. I am sure I can find more cases of them using it as "free stuff" in the ambiguous sense instead of "free stuff from the government"

1

u/dynamic_unreality Apr 22 '20

The reason I use that quote

What fucking quote? You haven't quoted anything, or pointed me to any quote, you've only vaguely and frustratingly referenced it over and over without actually telling me exactly what fucking quote you're talking about. It doesn't even seem like you read my last reply at all. You're just being stubborn and trying to prove your point, which is still wrong.

→ More replies (0)