A population density map of WashingtonSubmitted by Pecners t3_zuajkb in Washington
andthedevilissix t1_j1j9s8q wrote
Reply to comment by Yuvneas in A population density map of Washington by Pecners
This is a bit of a caricature, and about as accurate as people who think Seattle is full of Antifa Super Soldiers who want to mandate dildo education for 3 year olds
banjokazooie23 t1_j1jfl0y wrote
While they could have been more tactful it's sort of disingenuous to argue a "both sides" thing here when one side is actually trying to make laws about banning books/forbidding genuine medical care/etc. and the other side is not actually trying to show toddlers how to use sex toys.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jj4i7 wrote
>actually trying to make laws about banning books
Which states are making laws banning books? If you're referring to individual school districts, you should know that many leftwing districts have banned books as well...books like Huckleberry Fin and To Kill a Mockingbird (the first because of the n word, the second because of "white saviorism")
It seems to me that you inhabit a media bubble, and that's ok it's your life, but it's probably good to check outside of it once in a while.
banjokazooie23 t1_j1jr47v wrote
Eh, honestly, it became too difficult to get news sources that weren't sensationalized so I stopped consuming news. Been a lot happier since lol. But back when I used to see news the right-wing sources were far worse as far as misleading info goes and I've never found myself agreeing with Republicans on their policies from what I've seen from them. Not to say I always agree with the Dems either--because I don't--but unfortunately with our system there are only two options, and the Dems are less uh...objectively evil and cruel than the Republicans.
andthedevilissix t1_j1k88ef wrote
If you decide to look at news again in the future I'd recommend something with an obvious, but minimal, bias. So, for instance, The Economist is obviously pro-business as is The Financial Times - but their reporting is factual and reliable. They may point out the downsides to a unionization drive they cover, but you already know going in that they're coming from that perspective.
Captian_Kenai t1_j1jce5h wrote
Bingo. This clown is part of the problem. This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself. But in reality both sides are valid and have good points and both have their negatives. Nobody is 100% perfect and neither are political parties.
After all, The only true enemy is the government itself.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jjdk8 wrote
>This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself.
I just don't understand why people don't see how cringe it is to base their personalities around politicians. It would be so much better if we could all go back to understanding that politicians are all pieces of shit.
JustNilt t1_j1kcrcy wrote
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a pretty shit take on anything. The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians. They support politicians who support things they also support.
andthedevilissix t1_j1np9ui wrote
> The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians.
Yea, there's definitely not a cult of personality around Trump. You're right and very smart.
JustNilt t1_j1ntl36 wrote
Yeah but that's not the vast majority of people, now is it?
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j1kcsiz wrote
>Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments