Leftist Memes - Or lack thereof...

[Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth]

As to Pol Pot, the US wanted fuck all to do with helping commies because of domino theory. Khmer Rouge spent years begging Vietnam for funds and training until, iirc, staging an attack or something and then Vietnam offered light support and training camps on the viet border.

Then the US carpet bombed the literal fuck out of miles of Vietnam in response so that relationship ended rather quickly. The fact that the Khmer even managed to get control is such a comedy of errors. At least Vietnamese intrigue is logical and pretty deep really.

 

[DoomsdayElite]

using a torpedo against a tugboat is just retarded. Here comes Joe the Pedo.

 

[Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth]

What's the joepedo do, surface and then start making inappropriate comments about underage girls and statemen's daughters?

 

[Whatevermancer]

There’s even a 50% chance that they actually think the corporations are sincere about the gender/race shit.

Dimwits are everywhere. Remember how people were destroying their razors after Gillette's "toxic masculinity" commercial?

 

[Radola Gajda]

View attachment 2322797

using a torpedo against a tugboat is just retarded. Here comes Joe the Pedo.

This one is good but I doubt in way autor intended

 

[Kabuki Actor]

This was an ironic advertisement.

 

[Fentanyl Floyd]

I present leftist memes, if they were made by boomers:

 

[LurkNoMore]

God, the left can't meme.

@Fentanyl Floyd where the hell did you find this cancer?

 

[Fentanyl Floyd]

God, the left can't meme.

@Fentanyl Floyd where the hell did you find this cancer?

This account on trump's twitter clone. I made an account and it started following me almost immedately. That place is full of bots, probably more than twitter.

CommieAshleighMarran

GETTR is a brand new social media platform founded on the principles of free speech, independent thought and rejecting political censorship and “cancel culture.” With best in class technology, our goal is to create a marketplace of ideas in order to share freedom and democracy around the world.

gettr.com

 

[Adolphin]

Actually funny.

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

Actually funny.
View attachment 2329970

Mostly due to it being completely true.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It never ceases to amaze me that their argument is literally "hungry babies who are born exist, therefore kill babies before they're born because they might end up hungry if allowed to live."

I mean, it's better than the "it's not a human life until it exits the woman" assertion, but still less "respectable" than "I know they're babies and don't care", which is rare but refreshing despite how morbid it is.

 

[The Last Stand]

View attachment 2331989

It never ceases to amaze me that their argument is literally "hungry babies who are born exist, therefore kill babies before they're born because they might end up hungry if allowed to live."

I mean, it's better than the "it's not a human life until it exits the woman" assertion, but still less "respectable" than "I know they're babies and don't care", which is rare but refreshing despite how morbid it is.

The argument is that anti-abortion folks are protective of a pregnancy, but as soon as they're born it's on them. The status quo then was that you could raise a family and only have one parent support the household. It's not like that anymore.

 

[Troonologist PhD]

The argument is that anti-abortion folks are protective of a pregnancy, but as soon as they're born it's on them. The status quo then was that you could raise a family and only have one parent support the household. It's not like that anymore.

Abortion true believers are narcissistic or cult members so when a pro-lifer tells them they don't want babies being killed the anti-lifer subconsciously twists it into something more convenient.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The argument is that anti-abortion folks are protective of a pregnancy, but as soon as they're born it's on them. The status quo then was that you could raise a family and only have one parent support the household. It's not like that anymore.

It's logically inconsistent and/or blatantly disingenuous from every angle though. Take the way you phrased it for example; the implication is that pro-abortionists care about born babies who starve to death. However, that can't be true for obvious reasons (why would they care about them starving if they advocated for killing them a moment ago just prior to birth).

Even IF pro-lifers didn't care about babies starving to death after birth (not true of every pro-lifer) that'd still make them better than pro-abortionists. Not a single abortion ends without a death of a baby, which they all obviously support.

Well, not every abortion has ended in the death of a baby. There were (are?) survivors. The intention is still there anyway, and that's what counts here.

 

[Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth]

It's logically inconsistent and/or blatantly disingenuous from every angle though. Take the way you phrased it for example; the implication is that pro-abortionists care about born babies who starve to death. However, that can't be true for obvious reasons (why would they care about them starving if they advocated for killing them a moment ago just prior to birth).

Even IF pro-lifers didn't care about babies starving to death after birth (not true of every pro-lifer) that'd still make them better than pro-abortionists. Not a single abortion ends without a death of a baby, which they all obviously support.

Well, not every abortion has ended in the death of a baby. There were (are?) survivors. The intention is still there anyway, and that's what counts here.

Ok, but like, why do you care? Not to be edgy, but why does it matter, abortion?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Ok, but like, why do you care? Not to be edgy, but why does it matter, abortion?

We can get into the semantics of what you mean by "care" exactly, but I don't think we even need a good reason to justify not supporting mass infanticide. If you really want I can draft up a long post nobody will give a shit about but I mean, how about for the sake of simplicity we chalk it up to there needing to be a line drawn somewhere.

 

[Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth]

We can get into the semantics of what you mean by "care" exactly, but I don't think we even need a good reason to justify not supporting mass infanticide. If you really want I can draft up a long post nobody will give a shit about but I mean, how about for the sake of simplicity we chalk it up to there needing to be a line drawn somewhere.

I don't know, it's just not that concerning to me in reality. "Abortion" has existed since human beings figured out some plants do things. It's not some modern world horror, and to treat it as such seems disingenuous and ahistorical. Let's not forget that a favored way of "abortion" in centuries past to have the baby and then just carry it in off into the woods and forget it there. Seems infanticide is pretty standard behavior for humans when you look at it.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I don't know, it's just not that concerning to me in reality. "Abortion" has existed since human beings figured out some plants do things. It's not some modern world horror, and to treat it as such seems disingenuous and ahistorical. Let's not forget that a favored way of "abortion" in centuries past to have the baby and then just carry it in off into the woods and forget it there. Seems infanticide is pretty standard behavior for humans when you look at it.

I'm honestly not sure what kind of position you're trying to drum up. People have been killing babies throughout history so now we should think it's fine in modern day America? Maybe even good because at least our methods are "better", at least we're not leaving them in forests? It's not the worst argument, "never civilize completely" is an idea you'd find lots of support for from rapists. Men would beat women down and rape them violently back in the day, but now we drug them and are gentle.

I mean, rape is pretty standard behavior for humans (and all animals actually). Seems legit...?

 

[Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth]

I'm honestly not sure what kind of position you're trying to drum up. People have been killing babies throughout history so now we should think it's fine in modern day America? Maybe even good because at least our methods are "better", at least we're not leaving them in forests? It's not the worst argument, "never civilize completely" is an idea you'd find lots of support for from rapists. Men would beat women down and rape them violently back in the day, but now we drug them and are gentle.

I mean, rape is pretty standard behavior for humans (and all animals actually). Seems legit...?

I just like hearing people's reasons. It's a bit dramatic to compare control of reproduction to rape but hey, it's your beliefs.