Someone actually responded to me by sending pic related.My lord! Leftists are the political equivalent to a 5 year old plugging their ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you!"
For self proclaimed "open minded " people they seem to be pretty closed minded!!
Other urls found in this thread:
ancientliberty.blogspot.com
epochconverter.com
twitter.com
Call him a bigot and offer to suck his cock.
That's how liberals function.
Seeing as all their views form a mishmash of wholly hypocritical positions, if they were forced to think about their positions logically they would find them untenable. But if they simply discount any information that runs contrary to their views as "bad information", they don't have to argue with it.
There's an unwritten rule enforced by social pressures that there are some things you just cannot say or they will use it to publically shame you or even try to get you fired. So nobody can disprove their views because any argument that doesn't fit into their worldview gets processed emotionally, allowing them to discount it, and any other argument you might make. Added to that is that they believe in quasi religious explanations for their views which are borderline impossible to prove or disprove which allow them to settle the matter in their head. For example, any underachieving by blacks can be explained by the nebulous metrics of oppression and low socioeconomic status, the socio- aspect being a "God works in mysterious ways" excuse that explains anything unexplainable through other metrics. You actually cannot argue with one, it's like arguing with a Christian that God isn't real. The two of you are arguing from completely different positions.
tl;dr: Trump can run a business without relying on welfare, and the precedent is scary.
Ignorance is strength
> if I talk like the architect from teh matrix it means im smart
...
So true.The left relies solely on emotion to make decisions & is entirely based on identity politics.
They are absolutists and free speech can never survive in that environment.
Underrated
The original preface to Animal Farm discusses this concept of the left using social pressure to censure media.
ancientliberty.blogspot.com
The same thing happens on this board if anyone even criticizes Trump
You'll get a discussion of any criticism of Trump. Obamaleaf's troll threads always hit 350-400 posts, and idiots like this will get replies until the end of time, even though he's clearly trolling.
The left can only thrive behind down votes, shadow bans, and social pressure.
These people talk about verified truths and reality, and then will tell you with a straight face that gender and race are social constructs.
It sounds like a child trying to sound intelligent
Why are they so wordy? Is this how Anglos measure intelligence?
You are very clearly fresh off the bot from Reddit. Please return to your faggy Trump worshipping website. I support Trump, but you cult of personality faggots need to oven yourselves and stop coming here.
You're just now realizing this? It's why I don't bother engaging them. They're not worth it.
With liberals, it is. Using as many words as possible to convey as little information as possible is the primary way of displaying intelligence, followed by a measured speech pattern and an affected "intellectual" stutter, it's no coincidence how they all talk like Jeff Goldblum.
I guarantee I've been here longer than you, m8.
>I will ignore your argument so I win
>I guarantee I've been here longer than you
>posts a picture that's barely a year old
These newfag slapfights would be hilarious if I didn't want you all to fuck off.
You're not old because you know about poo in loo.
>hello fellow Trump supporters
Hello r/politics.
This is the only rare Ronnie I'm wasting on you.
>implying Jaffe makes you an oldfag
You cunts weren't even here through pol harbor and you're telling me I'm a new fag?
Nice projecting, newfag.
Yeah, move along /leftypol/.
>posting on reddit
What did you expect?
Ignorance is strength goy.
Argumentation and defending your positions is for the weak. Dont fight reality. Obey the status quo consensus. Fuck galileo.
But seriously, shit like this scares me. We really are in a post-fact world, and the left are at the helm of it.
Sounds like you're pretty asspained OP. It's okay, the big mean wrongthinkers (shills) can't get you here.
You seriously don't think it's obvious? Post a picture with an old timestamp if you're for real, though we all know you're just going to wimp out like a faggot.
Your comment applies more to the OP image than OP himself,mate. You tried.
...
>post a picture with an old timestamp
wut? Please explain how a picture I've downloaded could have a timestamp.
I started out on Sup Forums in 2007. You may have been here before me, but I doubt it, considering you haven't even attempted to post evidence to the contrary.
>implying he isn't right
>Please explain how a picture I've downloaded could have a timestamp
>dodging an argument with a pre-prepared meme image
>"I've argued with people like you before therefore you lose I win"
Imagine doing that at a debate. You'd get laughed out of the room.
>he doesn't know what a timestamp is
>Post a picture with an old timestamp
what did he mean by this?
Either you're so incredibly new that you think those automatically assigned numbers are random, or you truly are the dumbest motherfucker to ever post on this website, I'm leaning towards both. It's not really surprising, Sup Forums has long since supplanted Sup Forums as newfag central, but you need to realize that people can tell this sort of thing.
I fail to understand what does it prove that you can post a picture from 10 years ago? The only way to prove the pic existed is to find a copy in the archives, enabling one to repost it here and claim it as their own.
>he thinks filenames are timestamps
>Yours respectfully, a logical person.
Gotten this twice so far. It's basically their best "meme" and it sounds like something an adult with the mind of a five year old would produce.
There's no real way to authentic a user as being an oldfag. There are subtle tells like when a user thinks filenames are timestamps, or if he thinks a 3 year old meme qualifies him as an oldfag.
Look, I saved the 2nd post that ever appeared on this website. I'm such a fucking oldfag, unlike you, you fucking newfag.
did he say "you lose I win" or is that something you just made up out of nothing?
That's exactly what it is, unless you want to be a pedantic little shit about phrasing.
The default ones are, however there is nothing stopping someone from just renaming it
are you autistic? Do you not understand the concept of context clues and reading between the lines?
What an odd reply.
>CAPTCHA: Road ROAD
Guess someone ran out of Harry Pottet analogies
I criticize trump all the time.
lol
m8, you made up somethign that he didn't say and then criticized him for it.
what he actually said is essentially "it's not worth my time; have a nice day"
that is a far cry from whatever you were crying about
There are other ways to tell beyond that, only an idiot would believe that a high res picture was posted when the average gif looked like this.
That's not a timestamp, you dumbass. Not only that, but anyone with a decent sized folder isn't keeping the default file name.
>unironically renaming images
I seriously hope you only post in "filename threads"
Sup Forums filenames are unix timestamps.
>when you want to sound smart, but fail to realize what is being said is equates to "you're a stupid doodoo head and I don't like you"
nobody does this btw
How else do you search through your collection? Sorting into folders only goes so far.
>not knowing the approximate order of your Sup Forums folder
It's not a timestamp if it can easily be altered. The whole point of a filename is to authentic the photo.
All of this is a simple diversion from some r/politics faggot who is desperately trying to find an old picture on Google to prove he isn't a newfriend.
>not renaming an image every time you post it so you can't be tracked through the archives
>remembering the order of 8 years of pictures
u wot?
Are you mentally impaired?
>someone defends Trump
>instead of engaging their specific points you reply with:
>"you're not worth my time. Your side already lost. stop fighting reality"
it's called dodging. what i said applies. If you think there's an essential difference then point it out.
What an odd position.
>unironically posting images on Sup Forums
Actually, some do.
At around 500 reaction pics it becomes impractical.
epochconverter.com
Well look at that. The current epoch time, more commonly known as Unix Time, lines ups suspiciously well with our current automatic filenames. Weird.
When you've been around a few years, you start remembering roughly when things happened, as well as the general vicinity in a given folder and the files around it.
The essential difference is between "I win you lose" and "I can't even be bothered with talkign to you"
If you can't see the essential difference there, then basic english and meaning eludes you entirely
Actually, the argument is "you have a clear confirmation bias and therefore there is little point in arguing with you."
It is a completely true statement. Just look at all the retards who scream "44D chess" every time Trump does something pants-on-head retarded.
>implying I can remember whether I downloaded a particular merchant picture in 2014 or 2012
Are you retarded?
>muh filename is a timestamp
OK, newfriend. Next time someone asks for a timestamp, just change the filename of the photo when you upload it.
Kek (down)underrated
Look, you guys are going to have to come to grips with the fact that nobody respects you at all anymore, intellectually or otherwise
I know that doesn't feel good, but they aren't saying you lose. They're saying that you aren't worth their time, and that's totally fine on their part. They don't owe you their time
nah, im just not autistic enough to have a photographic memory of my 6,000 file maymay collection
Again, unless it's an incredibly common picture people can usually tell. For someone who says he's been on this site since he was in kindergarten you don't seem to have a lot of evidence to back it up.
>I can't even be bothered with talking to you
Is actually worse than
>I win you lose
The latter claims victory by default, whereas the former denounces the existence of a race between the two, as they deem the other party to be literally incapable of thinking rationally let alone forming rational arguments.
I've posted more of my collection than you have. Keep dodging, newfriend.
Whether it's worse or not is irrelevant. I'm certainly not arguing that it was a show of any sort of respect - it was specifically the opposite.
What I"m saying is that he didn't say "I'm not talking to you; therefore I win" which would be fallacious. He said, "fuck you" which is a perfectly fine thing to say.
Here's one of the first pictures I ever saved on Sup Forums. It's small and completely idiotic, common for 2006.
Mid 2007, Sup Forums.
Yeah that's embarrassing but don't act like you weren't posting cringy Trump memes as well.
i was about to say that actually. Utter dismal in face of a dissenting viewpoint is even worse.
saying "fuck you" in response to an argument makes YOU look bad, m8.
Again, it's not about who looks bad (and that point is debatable). He didn't want to engage someone he deemed not worth engaging. Of course that person, and those who agree with him, will have a problem with that.
Still, it's okay to not want to engage someone you don't deem worth engaging.
Clearly after Obama, I seem to recall I lost a computer around this time and most of the earlier pictures were saved on a 256mb thumb drive.
poor ol perth copping second hand poop spray
Epic 2007 Sup Forumstards like yourself should remember this.
>He said, "fuck you" which is a perfectly fine thing to say.
But that's not a personal "fuck you". That is a "fuck you" against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them on Trump. These are two very different things, and given that you're obviously here to be autistically obtuse, that's a strangely profound distinction for you to miss.
Congrats. You're still a moron for thinking the current swarm of newfriends is any different than the other swarms. Everytime this shit happens everyone cries about the sky falling and then we move on.
Ultimately, that distinction is pretty inconsequential to my point.
He can classify a whole group of people as people he deems not worth engaging. And doing so isn't fallacious in any way. It's a time saving mechanism. Again, totally fine.
>He didn't want to engage someone he deemed not worth engaging.
i.e. a dodge as an excuse for laziness and not wanting to defend your points that you claim you can so comfortably rely on.
>it's okay to not want to engage someone you don't deem worth engaging
Not in response to an argument that directly challenges your perceptions. It's the equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears saying "la la la I dont wanna hear it". It makes you look weak. Which was my original point and why i thought "i lose you win" is an essential summation of those actions.
yeah he doesn't need welfare
he just needs mob money to launder and everything works out for him
Those people were right though, there's been a marked drop in quality in my time here and I'm not even a oldfag.
look, you invent whtaever understanding of his actions you need to make yourself feel better. That's fine.
And it is literally always okay to not talk to someone. It's nothing like "you lose I win." That's just semantically true - there can be no arguing that.
Point to where I said otherwise, all I said was that it's glaringly obvious and digging yourself deeper only makes it more so. You started it all by thinking that saying you've been here for 10 years means anyone will believe you.
It's the election. I like it here on Sup Forums, but killing this board for a year or two would do nothing but improve this site, it's not like these retards don't already shitpost everywhere.
>He can classify a whole group of people as people he deems not worth engaging. And doing so isn't fallacious in any way. It's a time saving mechanism. Again, totally fine.
>thinking it is fine to deem half the population of your country as not worth engaging
Found the leftypol. All we're missing is a deplorables reference.
That's wonderful and all, but it doesn't really address anything I said there. Of course, what I said there is unassailably true, so that's not a surprise at all.
Every user for the last decade has said the same thing. Nothing ever changes.
Didn't he get like seven-figure tax breaks on the Manhattan development projects?
And they've never been wrong, newfag.
What is glaringly obvious? I've on various boards since 2007/2008.