Firestorm17

Centrists Read Down To The Parts That Say Despite Wage Improvement At The Lowest Levels Said Levels Are Still Not At A Living Wage And It Is Imperative To Raise The Minimum Wage Before Using An Article To Crow About Their Preferred Candidate's Economic Policy Challenge. https://www.epi.org/publication/strong-wage-growth-for-low-wage-workers-bucks-the-historic-trend/

If you find yourself about to call a human being a liar because what they're saying conflicts with information you got from some computer, please think for a minute why you're giving that kind of credence to something that will confidently tell you that there are four "r" s in "strawberry" and that Patrick Roy is a genius for pulling the goaltender for ten minutes and then don't fucking do that.

A hit counter is a mindless computer program that counts how many times other equally mindless computer programs have loaded a given webpage. It is in no way equipped to determine either how many human beings have read said webpage or how many times a human being has read said webpage, and anyone claiming it does is full of shit.

No, other people being very angry at you over your claims about them is not evidence that they secretly know you're in the right and are angry at your greater virtue. People are very frequently very angry about palpably false claims being made about them.

If you're going to complain about people who want a higher minimum wage being unhappy with your candidate's economic bona fides, you should probably check whether your candidate actually raised the minimum wage before you make the argument. Also, if you do not understand the difference between the minimum wage and the average wage of the lowest quintile, people should stop listening to you on economics.

When the ownership of a store is embezzling so much that it's going out of business, it's fucking rich of anyone affiliated with the store to expect anyone who's isn't utterly stupid to trust them with their belongings for even a minute.

If I wanted to see a "sola gratia" redemption arc, I'd go read one of those counterfeit $20 bills that total fucking assholes keep leaving on restaurant tables. The writing quality's the same anyway

I really wish people trying to use poll results to demonstrate their points would remember that corporations have been training people for decades to consider rating a given subject below "excellent" an equivalent statement to "[Subject] delenda est."

One of the primary differences between being a Nice Guy™ and an actual good person is that a Nice Guy™ expects to be disproportionately rewarded for not doing the bad things they still openly want to do.

I wish all the people who erroneously conflate lots of people paying attention to your ad with lots of people paying attention to the intended message of your ad a very spicy meatball.

Or how about like this:

The actual text:

"If love be blind, love cannot hit the mark.

Now will he sit under a medlar-tree, And wish his mistress were that kind of fruit As maids call medlars when they laugh alone. O, Romeo, that she were, O, that she were An open et cetera, thou a poperin pear!"

English teacher interpretation: "These fruits were symbolic of shallow attraction and limerance."

Big Bill Shakespeare: "If thou dost not understand the jest about anal sex, thou canst just say so."

I wonder if the debate about the whole blue curtains thing would be different if it were phrased like this:

Actual text: "Susan liked waffles."

English professor interpretation: "Susan's hatred for pancakes symbolizes a bourgeois rejection of simplicity."

Author: No, Susan liked waffles. All of that would be several whole other sentences.

It's really fucking annoying when centrists take arguments that the variable they're claiming is driving a specific phenomenon is not doing so in the specific case they're talking about or worse requests for actual evidence that the variable is actually driving the specific case as a statement that said variable can never drive said phenomenon in any case and upon successfully defending their bailey claim that they won the motte as well. "X can cause Y" and "This Y is definitely caused by X and complaining about it means you hate X" are totally different statements.

"Friendly" reminder that Ronald Reagan richly deserves for his grave to be a gender neutral bathroom, his economic policies were just as much hot garbage as any of the others, and his blatant and virulent bigotry was baked into said economic policies. So if you want to argue that your candidate is good for poor and working class people, comparing them to the union-busting, welfare-cutting champion of trickle-down economics is a huge own goal.

Periodic reminder that unless the person in question has said in so many words that they want you to do it, taking something someone else uses constantly and throwing it away because you personally don't like it is NOT you helping that person in any way but rather an utterly despicable and selfish form of theft.