The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This is in Capuano's Wikipedia article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm assuming Pressley is Protestant. If so I might have to retroactively change my support.

The wink emoji should've made it obvious.

"Ironic" bigotry isn't much better.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Pretty easy to determine.
From what I gathered on this forum, if you're a woman and/or a person of color and/or from the coast, you're a smug, liberal, elitist.

tbf while it's mostly false here, its quite true on some quarters of the internet.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

age (16), citizenship (in federal elections), residency (in state & local elections), and property ownership (homeowners shouldn't get to vote)

No, this is a different opinion, not a bad post.(also s**tposting)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Ghost of Ruin is going to be disappointed when he realizes the average age of /pol/ posters on 4chan, the average age of people who watch political videos on YouTube, and the politics of underclass high school students. Kids these days don't remember George W. Bush, the Iraq war, or even the 2008 economic crisis.

Their political memory begins with 2015-- they associate the Republican Party with a fun, subversive rebel who overcame all the odds and knows how to entertain with memes. And the Democratic party with a corrupt, dishonest establishment politician who isn't charismatic at all and lost.

If they're white-- which most of them are, in the conservative movement they see an ideology that doesn't attack them for their race, while in the liberal movement they see an ideology where they're supposed to debase themselves and have no social standing to speak about anything if accused of the magic R word. If they're 18 and live in West Virginia, they'll vote for Miller, not Ojeda.

Now, they are growing up under a Republican president who is overseeing peace and prosperity for all. They are getting wise to the adults who claim to know the truth, but aren't acting in good faith themselves. The kids are smarter than you think. They can see what's really going on. I only worry about the mental health of some adults if Trump succeeds. It seems to them, the president's success can only mean the country's failure.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes, and a war against modern-day soft serfdom (property taxes) would also be justified.

Jesus f**king Christ.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Only a child's parents family members or legal guardians should be allowed to spank them.

How very PC of you to make note of that.

Nothing wrong with an aunt/uncle or grandparent being allowed. Or even an adult sibling.

Yes, we wouldn't want to deny extended family the right to physically abuse children, would we.

Ah look, the case in point for why it should be acceptable for responsible adults to spank their children.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Only a child's parents family members or legal guardians should be allowed to spank them.

How very PC of you to make note of that.

Nothing wrong with an aunt/uncle or grandparent being allowed. Or even an adult sibling.

Yes, we wouldn't want to deny extended family the right to physically abuse children, would we.

Ah look, the case in point for why it should be acceptable for responsible adults to spank their children.

The amount of butthurt here is hilarious tbh

Yes, being pissed that someone said I should've been physically abused is clearly just being "butthurt".

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I never said you should have been physically abused. Not everything that makes you upset is abuse. The sooner you learn that, the less whiny you'd be. I guarantee that.

How about not blatantly lying and low key gaslighting?

Yes, we wouldn't want to deny extended family the right to physically abuse children, would we.

Ah look, the case in point for why it should be acceptable for responsible adults to spank their children.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I never said you should have been physically abused. Not everything that makes you upset is abuse. The sooner you learn that, the less whiny you'd be. I guarantee that.

How about not blatantly lying and low key gaslighting?

Yes, we wouldn't want to deny extended family the right to physically abuse children, would we.

Ah look, the case in point for why it should be acceptable for responsible adults to spank their children.

Spanking isn't physical abuse. As I already said, just because something upsets you, doesn't make it abuse. Get over yourself, Scarlet.

Yeah, a lot of things that upset people aren't abuse. Being hit by one's parents isn't one of them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I never said you should have been physically abused. Not everything that makes you upset is abuse. The sooner you learn that, the less whiny you'd be. I guarantee that.

How about not blatantly lying and low key gaslighting?

Yes, we wouldn't want to deny extended family the right to physically abuse children, would we.

Ah look, the case in point for why it should be acceptable for responsible adults to spank their children.

Spanking isn't physical abuse. As I already said, just because something upsets you, doesn't make it abuse. Get over yourself, Scarlet.

Yeah, a lot of things that upset people aren't abuse. Being hit by one's parents isn't one of them.

Take your omg abuse sob stories to some other snowflakey place. Just because you got spanked a few times and got called a "little sh*t" once doesn't mean you were abused. That's just being an average kid. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201802/the-spanking-debate-is-over
Can you give any actual reasons that spanking isn't like hitting, or are you just going to keep saying "its not abuse" like a robot.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I never said you should have been physically abused. Not everything that makes you upset is abuse. The sooner you learn that, the less whiny you'd be. I guarantee that.

How about not blatantly lying and low key gaslighting?

Yes, we wouldn't want to deny extended family the right to physically abuse children, would we.

Ah look, the case in point for why it should be acceptable for responsible adults to spank their children.

Spanking isn't physical abuse. As I already said, just because something upsets you, doesn't make it abuse. Get over yourself, Scarlet.

Yeah, a lot of things that upset people aren't abuse. Being hit by one's parents isn't one of them.

Take your omg abuse sob stories to some other snowflakey place. Just because you got spanked a few times and got called a "little sh*t" once doesn't mean you were abused. That's just being an average kid. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201802/the-spanking-debate-is-over
Can you give any actual reasons that spanking isn't like hitting, or are you just going to keep saying "its not abuse" like a robot.

Little problems that your source even acknowledges:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Its not quite 100% proven to be bad therefore its definitely totally fine".
Also three more sources
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids
https://www.sciencealert.com/science-why-you-should-never-spank-children
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

5. I was about to name Brian Schatz for Sarah Jeong support, but he's not up for re-election, so... Phil Scott because it would be advantageous to have someone like him lose to Christine Hallquist.

Yay transphobic dogwhistles.

I honestly can't see the dogwhistle in this. Am I missing something painfully obvious?(not that the post isn't vile of course).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

5. I was about to name Brian Schatz for Sarah Jeong support, but he's not up for re-election, so... Phil Scott because it would be advantageous to have someone like him lose to Christine Hallquist.

Yay transphobic dogwhistles.

I honestly can't see the dogwhistle in this. Am I missing something painfully obvious?(not that the post isn't vile of course).

Why would it be "advantageous" for Scott to lose to "someone like her"? In light of the rest of the post, it just smelled really bad.

Good point.