Honestly, if right-wingers were honest and forward about their intent they wouldn't be so annoying...

nooooo why don't they say and do things IRL I can use to destroy them with a digital lynch mob for virtue signaling points?!?

Reminder me which side of the political spectrum coined the phrase "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" to justify how they treat people who say anything even slightly controversial?

Brother, no one is going to take you seriously. This is the entire point of the post. You're going to waste hours trying to justify yourself and make up excuses. Just be honest that all of your opinions and beliefs are rooted in hating other people. I have absolutely no reason to entertain your made up arguments. No matter how hard you try I will not join in on your flowchart arguing technique that you learned from reddit. Stop trying to act like you're some sort of intellectual when you have the knowledge and experience of a fifth grader.

right-wingers

their imaginary facade of moral superiority and normalcy

Ironic

Guys

It's just you. You're not part of a group. It's just you losing whatever emotionally heated argument you just provoked.

Pathetic baiting trolling tranny. No one agrees with you. No one cares about you. No one loves you. You're here because you have no where else to be because no one wants you anywhere else.

This reads like projection.

Forsooth. Powerless people can only pretend to be part of a larger group to try and peer pressure into submission.

No one cares about your lonely bait, Zoe.

The dishonesty you're complaining about is a direct result of leftoid thought control behavior where they have to ban disagreeing beliefs and ruin anyone who publicly expresses them. There'd be more honesty if your side didn't cancel people when they get too honest. You can seethe and dilate all you want, doesn't change the accuracy of what I'm saying.

It's easy to be ignorant when you do not engage with anything that challenges your worldview. You cannot explain why you have the inherently unbiased and unprejudiced position because you do not. This is why you lose elections and have to ask

why why why would anyone's opinion ever differ from my own

Their side wants total control of other humans, to make their own lives and as easy as possible. They use gaslighting, shaming, peer pressure, baiting, trolling, etc to try and direct behavioral outcomes to maximize their own resource gains.

How does helping "uneducated morons" from a foreign country maximize their own resource gains.

You guys are like robots lol you truly cannot help yourselves from perpetuating the stereotype.

Just engage with the argument in a genuine way. I'm willing to entertain whatever point you have without insults.

How does helping "uneducated morons" from a foreign country maximize their own resource gains.

Well, they put themselves in the middle of the resource hand-offs so they can grift and skim off the top. Like charities that spend 90% of the donations on administrative costs. They can appear altruistic and act like they are "helping people" and thus entitle themselves to more resources as a reward for "helping people.".... And they'll use those foreigners for cheap labor, so someone else is cleaning up after them, building for them, doing the heavy lifting for them.,

The thing you don't get, or do get and are ignoring it, is that your argument isn't "genuine" in the first place so there's no reason to engage with it. You're operating with a flowchart that I must engage with for your "arguments" to seem legitimate. Everything you know depends on me participating and cooperating in the way you demand. If I don't follow your rules, your argument does not work. That's the whole point of my post. Everything you believe and every thing you try to present depends on a false sense of legitimacy. I have to suspend disbelief to engage with your argument. I am required to follow your flowchart and do things your way. The problem for you is that I simply will not do this your way. I am aware that your entire argument requires me to follow your guidelines and rules, which are based entirely around falsehoods and misinformation. I will not engage because there is no real argument to engage with, just your fantasy land.
I refuse.

, is that your argument isn't "genuine" in the first place so there's no reason to engage with it.

That sounds like projecting.

Everything you know depends on me participating and cooperating in the way you demand.

Projection.

No, it's not. It's the point of my entire post. The modern right-wing school of thought requires people to engage in your "arguments" the way you require. I must suspend disbelief and act within the imaginary world you believe to have an "argument" with you. I am aware of this and I refuse to engage. Your entire worldview is based entirely in imaginary beliefs.

81248652

everything I don't personally agree with is falsehoods and misinformation

I am required to follow your flowchart and do things your way.

Projection. Especially when the liberals do this all the time. They demand you use their terms, their frames, cite only sources they deem appropriate.

This is all just backwards admission of guilt.

Do you think the majority of right wingers that want to help the Boers are skimming that money? They are not. But it does seem like you're baiting, just because your argument includes all leftist support inherently. But if it doesn't the majority of right wingers' support for Boers matches the definition of altruism:

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness.

Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness.

The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

Even in a racialist perspective (whites helping other whites) this is still altruistic under the defintion of altruism, it's just not the kind you want. This is because of your biases and prejudices--ones you are not cognitively aware of. Example:

"intersectionality or the way the diaspora of Europeans has impacted humanity."

Which is a subjective value judgement.

The thing you don't get, or do get and are ignoring it, is that your argument isn't "genuine" in the first place so there's no reason to engage with it.

That's an assumption on your part, and really an ad hominem. And if my arguments are weak and my information is false, you can easily disprove and destroy me rhetorically, which I openly invite you to do.

Everything you believe was spoonfed to you by Russian posters on Anon Babble.

Nope, sorry that you're having to face reality now. Stop pretending to be an intellectual and be honest about what you believe.

You're still not understanding it. Nothing you say is genuine, nothing I present to you will be taken seriously. This is how you and all other right-wingers operate. I could present piles upon piles of legitimate evidence, study, and reason for anything and you will ultimately just say "fake news" and slam your original take again and again and again and again until I stop responding.
That's just how the right-wing brain operates. Not my fault you were born like that.

The modern right-wing school of thought requires people to engage in your "arguments" the way you require.

This sentence has no substance. Again, you're the political side that demands we use your terms, cite sources you agree, wants us to go through great lengths to prove something to you, just so you can waste our times and disengage when you're literally proven wrong.

You're never genuine or sincere or honest about anything. You always fail to establish objective metrics. You double down on whatever lie you're emotionally attached too and attempt to use language models that hide your own confirmation bias and selective prejudices to avoid being disagreed with.

You're "refusing to engage" but you're on the edge of your seat waiting for (you)s. Like I said, you're just baiting and trolling to waste people's time. You get off on controlling other people.

You're a powerless individual trying desperately to gain power over others anyway you can.

You're still not understanding it. Nothing you say is genuine, nothing I present to you will be taken seriously. This is how you and all other right-wingers operate. I could present piles upon piles of legitimate evidence, study, and reason for anything and you will ultimately just say "fake news" and slam your original take again and again and again and again until I stop responding.

That's just how the right-wing brain operates. Not my fault you were born like that.

Write the terms of whatever argument you want and I'll argue purely in your terms. You only refuse to engage because you are--strictly speaking--objectively wrong.

. Stop pretending to be an intellectual and be honest about what you believe.

Projection.

Sum up your beliefs in 3 sentences.
You won't. You'll try assigning homework to someone else though but you'll never reveal anything about yourself.

Stop pretending to be an intellectual and not a time-waster.

Anons are obviously infinitely more bigoted than normal conservatives, and the republicans could very well decide to protect workers from being fired for wrongthink, but they won't. They want to have the same power to fire anyone for any opinion they deem incorrect. For liberals that might mean they don't want you spamming Nazi propaganda with your real name on Facebook, for conservatives that might mean you're thinking about joining a union.

Do you think the majority of right wingers that want to help the Boers are skimming that money?

I was not talking about that in my post. That post you're responding to is talking about leftists.

Are you confusing me with OP? I am not OP.

Trump didn't even get 50% of the vote. Anon Babble is an irrelevant hugbox for conservatives.

Oh yeah, I saw a post that was seemingly shockingly unself-aware and assumed it was OP, not satire making fun of OP. I suspected it was bait from him because it seemed so flagrant but you never can te

It was funny to see the left get their first taste of wrongthink cancellations for muh anti-Semitism when they protested Israel

Yep. Conservatives only cry about free speech when it's their side getting banned on social media or fired but now they love people getting deported for non-kosher opinions. Capitalism just favors kosher opinions.

Ok now reciprocate and admit you just hate white people and you won't let any facts or figures get in your way.

Trump didn't even get 50% of the vote

He got the popular vote. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Nobody that believes in trannies will ever have any room to convince non-leftists that you're the rational smart people. Your lauded DEI court justice can't define what a woman is. You act pro-female but you let guys into women's spaces. Do you know that Joe Biden has a rape allegation? Probably not, the media hid that well for you. You say you're for racial justice but you've been caught purposely discriminating against asians. You give money to a guy who got attention for stabbing a white man to death, just because the killer was black. And you still think you lost because right-wing voters are the ignorant ones.

You can't say "nobody agrees with you" when not even half the voters voted for Trump who's maybe casually racist at best. Far-right racists are still a tiny minority, vastly more relevant on the botted website Twitter.

first it was

he doesn't have the popular vote

now it's

akshually he got 49.8% of the vote (2.2m more than Kamala) but that doesn't matter anymore he has to have fifty percent magic number you see

and if in 2028 Vance gets the popular vote and 51%, you will move the goalposts somewhere else

Correct, I don't have a problem with lefties getting a taste of their own shitty medicine for once

here's random irrelevant strawman you never said, look at how wrong they are

lole

I have no principles whatsoever

OP's point made

you have to stand up for my rights after I shit all over yours

lolno

i'm not the one coping and seething about losing the election fair and square by inventing arbitrary hurdles that don't exist (hence you losing)

OP's point made

The only point that OP made ITT is that he's a blubbering retard with nothing of substance to say.

Source of OP's image? Nice artstyle, I wanna find some vanilla art from the artost

Here's a summary of my point because you clearly can't into basic reading comprehension:
B argues that the far-right, including Trump supporters and racists, represent a minority of the population. They point out that Trump did not win a majority of the vote and criticize Anon Babble as an echo chamber for conservatives. B disputes A's claim that "nobody agrees with you," highlighting that political support is more nuanced and that far-right views are not as widespread as some suggest, especially compared to platforms like Twitter where bots amplify certain voices.

Hekopllllp

Anon... I'm not him, but you may have an intellectual disability. I'm going to ignore the fact that you need GPT to understand a post and address the fact that "A's" argument is that YOU do not have a tranny audience in this thread from which you can draw support and attempt to use peer pressure; Here, you are a minority so arguments like "LOoK GuYs" is worthless.
His second argument is different and purely in response to your statement that trump didn't get >50% of the vote, he's saying that even on the societal level, people don't agree with you. They do not need to be in lockstep with his beliefs.

ChatGPT is ruining your critical thinking, especially when you heavily simplify and paraphrase for a bot that is already deficient in the ability to understand unusual topics.

I'm obviously not OP, but obviously the point is that your side is an absurdly tiny minority. Trump barely won the election, he himself is barely racist at best, the far-right racists are an irrelevant fraction of the right-wing. Almost every conservative does agree that black people aren't inferior.
I know conservatives are unbelievably stupid at default, but this is some insane inability to read lmao.

Holy shit, you're retarded. That's why I never associate myself with atheists despite not believing in God myself

God is obviously not real but you can't heckin' be mean about it!!! nooo :''(((

I never understood this meme.

I don't know where to even begin with this. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but I know I'm dealing with something much bigger than just what you've said in the post, and it almost seems not worth bothering with, because the real object of argument would have to not be these individual subjects mentioned but the legetimimacy of your whole position. You might have some kind of a valid logic underlying some of it, and perhaps no ill will, but I will illustrate to you the faults, related, relevants historical contexts, illegitimacy of terms, etc. It's just such a can of worms I don't think anything could be done, because it relates to things so broad I'd have to explain the world. I could give you particular examples, I could give you my own arguments for things, but you'd fall right back onto the reddit kyle kulinski worldview you've had painted for you in due time. What point would there be in arguing?

It's not about that you dolt. Read who he was referencing:

leftoids create an environment where anyone who expresses far more mild beliefs than "I don't like gay people/black people/whatever victim group and I don't want to be around them" gets canceled, fired from their job and excommunicated from society for wrongthink

*shocked Pikachu face* when this also leads to dishonesty and people hiding how they really feel

It's in the context of OP's claim against ANY rightism. He is not implying nazis or far-right extremists are a majority. Not once did he ever say that or imply it.

You are so ignorant you can't even begin to understand your own argument. You even use chatgpt to summarize a small part of rhetoric in a post without its context. Embarrassing.

Read:

far more mild

The point is in reference to OP's post even then, and continues to be so. The function of this post:
is solely to attack you and dispute the idea that you have a majority to appeal to on Anon Babble. His second post: is a rhetorical diversion when you change the topic to be about society as a whole, which he agrees to argue on as well because in this argument he is talking about "the right" as a whole: this post being a criticism of the leftists who wonder why rightists don't openly speak their beliefs when even simple ideas like, ironically, not wanting "uneducated morons" may result in being fired.

Now summarize the thread with ChatGPT you lobotomite.

The cope was so thick I couldn't get past the first sentence.
Want some cheese with that whine?

Again, I'm not OP. OP's point is pertinent about far-right wingers, I assumed that's who he meant since obviously most conservatives aren't racist. This guy saying "no one agrees with you" is obviously false because of everything I said. He literally said "no one wants you anywhere else" lol, not just that this Anon Babble hugbox doesn't like anyone who doesn't worship Trump's cock.

this thread

I already failed at the OP. Get a life, nerds.

Far right is not exclusive to OP's description. For example, the right supports Boer's and both Trump and his party officials do. This definitionally means that OP's argument includes normal right-wing conservative talking points.
His initial post here: again is a response to who seeks to appeal to an imagined peer group, this itself being an fallacious argument against:
(two links)
Who are pointing out OP's unwillingness to engage and other non-far right ideas, and, again ironically, the claims about ALL right wingers basing their beliefs on racism and prejudice:

They act like they have piles of facts and explanations for everything. In reality, they just feel the way they do because of prejudice.

and

I just cannot fucking stand how they can't just be racist. They have to be prejudiced AND pretend that they're logical. It's literally the people of facebook articles trying to gather together and force their made up shit on everyone else.

Explicitly not about Anon Babble far right, but includes facebook.

Get real. Maybe you aren't retarded--I'm willing to say that this one instance was you shitting the bed because you hate that anon, but it's time to pick it up and move on because you are plainly wrong.

(bot thought this was spam so I removed some post quotes)

Thinking you're smarter than billions of people and some of the smartest people in history just because you believe in something else is above being narcissistic, it's just being plain dumb

Not gonna read your blog, faggot

"the imagined peer group" are left-leaning people who clearly recognize that right-wingers are dumb as rocks with no principles. Idk how large of a group that is on Anon Babble, but he said that even on other spaces that wasn't acceptable ("no one wants you anywhere else"). That's obviously false and you've given no counter-arguments. Whether or not OP meant far-right wingers has no relevance.
Newton believed in alchemy in his day, but if you believe in alchemy nowadays, you're insane. Same principle with creationist beliefs.

Where is "we" at? Why are you preaching to your leftist peer group instead of creating actual arguments?

("no one wants you anywhere else").

This is part of invectives, and they are naturally hyperbolic. He is obviously not saying all conservatives are nazis; You can even tell:

leftoids create an environment where anyone who expresses far more mild beliefs than "I don't like gay people/black people/whatever victim group and I don't want to be around them" gets canceled, fired from their job and excommunicated from society for wrongthink

Not about far right racists, his post defends anyone who (by implication) is not a leftist.

You would retarded to believe that an invective like

no one loves you

literally means there are no humans on earth who love you, and by extension "no one wants you." Your continued focus on insults shows why you can't form any rational arguments; You are hurt, upset, angry, and unable to be rational because of it. Why? It's just an imageboard and you were retarded in 1 thread. You can take a break, calm down, and log on when you aren't literally shaking.

Yeah it's pretty sad how far astray some people's lives have been lead.

Checked, forsooth, that's my you with the bait image. Other anon jumping in the thread and wants to invalidate saying it's a group now...

You got the point, it's just an argumentative tactic. Bait isn't to be taken super seriously, no one here's arguments would last in a court room or something. We can say nigger here.

Only leftists on Anon Babble are troons anyways so...

One of the biggest issues with this thread is that it's really just posting your worldview straight up, as if it means anything, no arguments present, no particular opinions on which to engage. At best it would serve to be a case study.

One thing I will say is this, you speak of particular examples, your own experience of arguing with people of a particular sort and make and then you reach a blanket conclusion about a little group people, for whom you attach a label, and suddenly you are regarding all you blanket under the label as the same and act like whatever conclusion you've reached on those few examples therefor acts as a justfication for a much more broadly applied regard, and suddenly you now demonize entire groups, that might not even be related. That's one of the problems of labeling. There's also no regard here for the nature of trends, how they come about, memetic adoption, etc.

One thing that often comes downstream from this is when certain discussions come about you then pull your worldview into the room, start spouting, and then people included in the broad category your formed an opinion of based on the few, will call you disingenuous. You, in what to them appears to be utterly boneheaded fashion will deny, you will think you aren't being disingenuous at all, you'll feel full confidence in what you are saying despite being completely wrong. They won't know what brought you to your point of view, but what they do know is you are reffering to THEM, you demonize THEM, you've now made people that need not be an enemy, your enemy, what comes of that? More people oppose you, and then, down the line, you wonder why? These people didn't share your presuppositions, you've come into their world with your baggage and your worldview that effectively is to them, formed in a literal different world.

It appears I've forgotten to attach my image file. Silly me.

g with people of a particular sort and make and then yo

Pretend I backspaced "and make", I made some alterations in what I typed after doing so, so there might be some little mistakes like that.

Here's an actual argument given to OP: it engages with the content of OP's post without any overt worldview or political position.

I understand what you're saying, if anyone tries to actually argue a real point, the other will avoid it entirely. These discussions are sad.

people would probably take you at least slightly more seriously if you didn't save and repost cartoon interracial cuck porn

I ain't reading all that
Congrats, or sorry that happened

These discussions are sad.

The point of them appear to be psychological attack for manipulation or fun trolling people the OP assumes he hates, for disagreeing with them.

I wish we could have more effort post discussion like we used. It's too much time and energy to play defensive and convince. Everyone is playing aggressive fuck you.

Without identity permeance and free speech protections, a lot of debates online are moot.

That's a point too, sits a tone for dicussion.

lust provoking image

I've been hearing this excuse to shut down political discourse with right wingers, and it's intellectually lazy. You literally just try to reduce anyone who disagrees with your political views as believing in a right-wing mythic truth and that they are arguing in bad faith.

It' ad-hominum plain and simple. You're attacking their character and assuming bad intentions rather than their argument. You're invalidating vaguely right-wing arguments and saying that they all boil down to "I'm just racist" or "I'm just sexist" because you came to Anon Babble and fucking thinking that that's what anyone who disagrees with you is like. But if I go to the leftist "containment boards" like r/feminism and point out how they literally just hate men, I'm not allowed to reduce all feminist rhetoric down to misandry. Like, you posture yourself as this intellectual, but if you fucking base what you believe about the opposing party because of what people say Anon Babble and twitter/x, you're really fucking stupid.

In some ways, I'm glad this argument has become more common among leftists. Just don't engage with rightoids and presume they're all literally fucking Hitler. It's far more honest and reveals the lefty authoritarian pseudo-intellectual roots which drove me to the right in the first place during covid and then reluctantly away from the right because none of them actually care about bigfoot or flat earth or aliens or anything thought provoking or artistic and are far too reactionary to the left.

The left can not handle people who think and judge for themselves(you gatekept intersectionality vaguely). The right cannot handle people who care about epistemic responsibility. We need people to do both for democracy to function.

I think people would agree with you if OP wasn't entirely correct though. I know I would. The problem is that OP is right, because righties really do put up a front because they're scared of being honest about their beliefs. Modern righties are intellectually and morally dishonest as a whole.

But OP is strictly wrong and wasn't willing to argue why he wasn't went confronted. OP says a lot of things that are either false or meaningless, e.g.,:

They always pretend to have reason and logic behind their positions.

Which is the assumption that no right winger has a position that uses logic or reason when they do; OP just doesn't like it because he has a subjective feeling that those reasons are bad:

In reality, they just feel the way they do because of prejudice.

Yes, prejudice is how OP misconstrues a value he doesn't like. Prejudice itself is:

The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts.

"a boy with a prejudice against unfamiliar foods."

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular social group, such as a race or the adherents of a religion.

When right wingers do use knowledge that they have and facts do back up an argument. Here is one example he uses:

Yet every single right-wing moron is melting down about how people don't want literal active nazis immigrated into the US.

Equating all Boers to nazis because of a few, identical to rightists equating all muslims to terrorists because of a few.

Yet they all pretend that there's so many reasons, they lie about a genocide, they act like they're the reasonable ones.

Discounts all information a rightisr provides as excuses, or claims that a genocide is happening when mainstream political candidates like Malema cheer

Kill the boer!

Malema himself achieved more than 10% of the vote, fairly significant in a parliamentary where he has sympathies from Zuma, who received

In January 2012, Zuma gave a speech at the ANC Centennial 2012 celebrations in Bloemfontein and, afterwards, sang the controversial song "Dubul' ibhunu" ("Shoot the Boer").[349][350]

Over 25% of the total vote between candidates who overtly cheer the extermination of Boers.

No, his point is that righties are intellectually dishonest. He's barely even talking about the things you're talking about. His point is that righties intentionally bullshit during any and all forms of discussion because their goal isn't to be correct or do the right thing, it's to win. He's just saying that righties would be less problematic if they weren't so shady and morally gray.

Continued
Whether you personally consider it genocide isn't relevant. Rightists have reasonable concerns, and much like leftists are concerned about tension in Turkey and the near east that might lead to genocide of Kurds or any of the ethnic tensions in the middle east, rightists are concerned about this too; These concerns are reasonable, rational, and backed with information. People like OP disregard it because, like OP says,

[he] always pretends to have reason and logic behind his positions. [He] acts like [he] has piles of facts and explanations for everything. In reality, [he] just feels the way [he] does because of prejudice.

Learn from the best,

You're stupid, it's okay. Be stupid openly.

You're kinda doing what he's saying right now, anyway. Instead of talking about the point, which is that righties are dishonest, you're trying to force the discussion into a specific topic because you know you can't address OP's post at face value. You have to twist it into this discussion about south africa instead of addressing the accusation that righties are just shady liars.

Intellectual dishonesty is not exclusive of or especially prevalent in the right. This thread is almost exclusively two or three leftists engaging in intellectual dishonesty, creating a list of strawmen and other fallacies to back up their flawed point.

I'm not addressing it directly because it's nonsense. I'm showing how he bases this exclusively on his own lies and judgements. His very first claim:

Honestly, if right-wingers were honest and forward about their intent they wouldn't be so annoying.

About honesty uses the other strawmen to back the point up. His fallacious assumption is what I refute. I refute it and every piece of evidence he uses to back it up.

To put it simply, I refute his claims

imaginary facade of moral superiority

They always pretend to have reason and logic behind their positions. They act like they have piles of facts and explanations for everything. In reality, they just feel the way they do because of prejudice.

pretend to actually have legitimate justification that send me

All of these claims and the specific evidence he uses to back the claims, like the Boers. I demonstrate that he makes assumptions and normative statements about right wing beliefs and values that are false.

I feel like you're just proving OP's point by stunting like this. Like you're behavior is identical to what OP described originally like it's a script.

That's because of your own bias and prejudice. You don't have a rational reason to believe this, which is ironically what OP is talking about.

Are you sure, though, or are you doing every thing you can to seem intellectually adept? OP's whole point is that righties behave the way you are right now because they know that their actual core beliefs are immoral and weird. That's why you're stunting so hard right now, because you know you're a shitty person so you have to appear intellectual for people to listen to you at all.

Which is the assumption that no right winger has a position that uses logic or reason when they do; OP just doesn't like it because he has a subjective feeling that those reasons are bad:

Correct

OP is just hurling insults essentially, ones that sound smart but being condescending is still being rude.

Are you sure, though,

Yes, now engage with the argument instead of making prejudiced moral judgements.
I'm not stunting, I'm providing a refutation. If I'm a pseudointellectual, disprove me. It should be easy.

they dont have a facade of moral superiority
they simply have morals
you project your own inferiority because you have no morals
it is a pretty simple concept

You're literally just repeating the way you engaged with OP post for post. You realize that, right? He's 100% correct. Someone else will come along in ~20 minutes and you'll do the same thing again.