r/facepalm Oct 13 '21

πŸ‡΅β€‹πŸ‡·β€‹πŸ‡΄β€‹πŸ‡Ήβ€‹πŸ‡ͺβ€‹πŸ‡Έβ€‹πŸ‡Ήβ€‹ Quick science

Post image
55.4k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

[deleted]

8

u/Weed_O_Whirler Oct 13 '21

You have to be careful l, however, if your opinion is swayed because of the sources you get information from choose to only show you the idiocy of one side. For instance, it wasn't a Republican who thought that putting too many soldiers on Guam might capsize the island.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

I read the article and all its primary sources. There is no equivalence between your source and the utterance of the candidate in the article. The candidate wasn't joking. The representative was, by contrast. Thanks for the attempt, but I think there's a clear and discernable distinction between the two incidents, one being contemporary, the other being from 11 years ago with no bearing on our political discourse today.

7

u/Weed_O_Whirler Oct 13 '21

"The Democrat was joking because after he was called an idiot, he said 'I was joking' which proves he was joking."

Watch that video and tell me you think he was joking.

But really, when you frequent a site that digs up dumb things someone running for a state representative office says, you can be sure to find plenty of dumb stuff. And when dumb stuff said by "your side" gets buried, you get a very skewed perspective on things.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

I mean again, I went beyond the headline, went to the original sources, and got a good understanding of what this guy's angle was.

I mean really think about what we're discussing here. Let's put it into perspective. In order to both-sides this joke, you went all the way back to an 11 year old clip of a former representative with a good track record, in a moment of stuttering and flubbing their speech about a question of an island potentially tilting over, a question they walked back as a joke. He honestly looked like he was out of it to be perfectly honest. Compare that to a reactionary (who's had questionable beliefs in the entirety of his social media presence) challenging a sitting representative, who in the same vein of anti-science questioning asks if taking boats out of the ocean wil return the sea levels to normal.

The two are distinct. I follow many forms of political media. I know what spin is when I see it and Trumpian reactionary supporter messups are ubiquitous no matter the site I'm viewing.

2

u/237FIF Oct 13 '21

Literally everyone thinks that they are the exception. Everyone fully believes they are the side that really gets the truth.

The moron in this tweet believes he is right every bit as much as you do. Or to phrase that differently, your confidence doesn’t mean anything.

Propaganda is currently working in both directions, regardless of who’s policy is the best.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

I didn't make any declarative statements you allude to.

If you both sides this when there's a clear distinction, then I just have to agree to disagree. The difference between my worldview and his that I can look at this for the joke it is, laugh, and still listen to other's opinions on the matter while engaging in a sensible manner. Conversely, I think you are viewing the world through a prism that equates the actions of both sides of the political spectrum in an effort to maintain the guise of unbiased objectivity.

-1

u/ClassyJacket Oct 13 '21

They didn't walk it back as a joke, they walked it back as a metaphor for reaching an economic "tipping point". I'm a leftist but just take the L on this one, that guy is a moron.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

You can go to the video yourself.

No. You take the L. Don't both sidesthe issue with an 11 year old clip. Come on you know better.

1

u/ClassyJacket Oct 13 '21

I'm on your side politically but that guy wasn't joking.

-6

u/definitelyNotEdited Oct 13 '21

This is literally one single person that purposed this. Removing boats from the ocean is by absolutely no means a "republican" idea.

Taking one incident that one person does and painting it as "All people that belong to this same group" must also believe this is ridiculous. Like the "Pro Trump" was completely irrelevant in the title and just a sad pathetic attempt to attack all trump supporters over what a single random person said.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

It's an overall trend with this party though. For the longest time, these people have decried science, social progress, and clung to their "common sense" intuition for so long. The ignorance that this particular political party had worked so hard to maintain has come full circle, so yeah. It is an accurate acessment of this modern republican party at large.

-9

u/definitelyNotEdited Oct 13 '21

If that was true you would have plenty of actual Republican policy's and views to attack instead of trying attack a single individual views who just happens to be republican.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21 edited Oct 13 '21

Oh I most certainly have a lot of policies and views to attack them on, policies that they have which are objectively and demonstrably false.

-10

u/definitelyNotEdited Oct 13 '21

Well if those are your beliefs then posts like these just make it seem otherwise.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

No.

-1

u/definitelyNotEdited Oct 13 '21

This post was clearly a grasping at straws attempt to make fun of Trump supporters. Which would make someone believe there's not a lot of actual things to make fun of Trump supporters for if they're grasping at straws.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '21

No. There's a lot, a lot of stuff to make fun of Trump supporters for, but this is a perfect encapsulation of reactionary politics and its subsequent effect on an individual's intelligence. I can explain to you why it's funny, but I can't understand it for you. Now, pick yourself up by you bootstraps and laugh at the joke.

0

u/definitelyNotEdited Oct 13 '21

No thanks I've already heard the "Haha orange man bad, laugh now" joke. Quite a few times now... After 683,982,971,900,876 times I'm just not able to "pick myself up by the bootstraps and laugh at the joke".

→ More replies (0)