the_dunk_tank

They're saying you can be nuanced and think two things are bad

while this is correct in a vacuum, it's like saying "You can be mad at somebody who accidentally walked into you while looking somewhere else, and you can be mad at somebody who shat on your rug, kidnapped your pets, and burned your house down."

clearly there's very, very different levels of anger involved here, and they're very, very different problems. so much so that if somebody came to you complaining about both of those things, like "God fucking damn it, a guy walked into me in the train station today, he said sorry but he should have been more aware of his surroundings. Like, holy shit, people are just so inconsiderate these days. I was having a bad day at work as well, so that just made it ten times worse. Also, somebody burned my house down and my pets are gone and there's a big turd on my rug, that also kinda sucks." then you would also be very confused at their reaction. I, personally, wouldn't be like "Yeah dude, both of those problems suck, I feel you" I would instead be like "...what? Holy fucking shit dude, we've gotta get you a new place and call some people! Why do you give a shit about the guy who walked into you? Come on, let's go!"

people doing whatever with whatever money they can scrounge up is infinitely less of a problem than an entire class of obscenely, just absurdly rich people stealing all our surplus value, enforcing a system of harsh labor for billions, refusing to redistribute sufficient resources to even allow people to have their basic needs met (which would still leave them billionaires), destroying the world's ecosystems for profit, etc etc, and so using your time and potentially effort to campaign against both these problems (the former being caused by the latter, even!) is just deeply silly and worthy of a dunk.

If my home is on fire, you're damned right I'm going to literally ignore someone telling me that my window decorations violate HOA regulations.

Nuance is when you don't distinguish between inconsequential, petty crime committed by desperate people and crimes against humanity committed by the rulers of the universe.

They're not being nuanced. The fairy tales they believe makes public policy more difficult by making the standard in order to increase public confidence in welfare so high that it's actually impossible to enforce. The goal of that nonsense is to dismiss actual statistics over the frequency of genuine fraud in order to ultimate destroy the entire welfare sysrem, which is in no sense "nuanced" or "centrist" or whatever you want to call it. It's just a means to throw innocent people to the wolves in order to please a bunch of reactionaries who will never be happy with systems used to help those in need.

No you don't understand the point, the fact he thinks both are bad is why we're making fun of him, poor people finding ways to survive (even tho in this case he just made it up) is not wrong ethically, morally or otherwise and definitely not a fuckin equivalence for billionaires exploiting the working class, nuance is not comparing a grape to a rotten apple and then asserting the grape is also rotten

Pretending otherwise is legalistic anti-working class rhetoric straight out of the Reagan play book

If the premise is bad the nuance is meaningless. In this case the premise means that if you agree with their example that two things can be bad you are forced to agree with their premise based on anecdotes and falsehoods.

People aren't being drawn into agreeing with a bad take just the logic of argumentation is sound. I am also astonished this is lost on you.

Because the only class conflict is between the working class and the capitalist class. Statements like these are intended to drive wedges between members of the working class and disrupt our ability to organize and promote class solidarity. Similar to the relatively recent invention of the "middle class."

Edit: good seeing you around by the way

People using the state's pittance to survive with food or purchase some social balm to make life more bearable is not a justifiable grievance or lamentation. They should have more of it. They should have the fruits of society's labor. They should have homes, food, clothes, heating and air conditioning, healthcare, education, job training, job programs, drug rehabilitation. The list goes on.

Financial speculators and rent seekers ruining the lives of millions of people is a justifiable grievance and lamentation of society. They should be given equality too. Their power and financial capital stripped from them, and privileges and control over society revoked.

: DAE Hexbear being unfair to the bad faith false equivalency

I can be mad that this person is making up obvious lies and I can be mad they want poor people to die.

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.

LES HOMELESS LIVE IN CONSTANT AGONY AND HAVE ADDICTIONS SO THAT MAKES THEM AS LE BAD AND LE EBIL JUST AS DEMONIC WARMONGERING PEDOPHILE ELITES WHO LIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF 99% OF ALL HUMANITY ND ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FORMERS PREDICAMENT11!!111!!!

I am constantly fucking astonished at the utter inhumanity the liberal mind can display, truly a bunch of barbaric, wretched beasts you are.

but you are literally ignoring what they're saying

They're saying a false equivalency and a blaringly glaringly smug assholish one.

I am also astonished at how many comments there are and no one has corrected you on this.

No one here congratulated the smug asshole about their smug assholishness until you came along.

a nuanced view: real things and fake things are equally bad

Homeless as a (dehumanizing) noun = opinion disregarded.

Also post hog liberal.

You lack nuance? Well, then provide some of that nuance for us. Tell us why poor people allegedly trying to bend a set of sadistic and humiliating rules in order to live in the tiniest bit of decency is on par with oligarchs, who already has more undeserved wealth than anyone could use in a dozen lifetimes, fleecing the public for astronomical sums.