We will fight for their right to be stupid... goddammit.
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
601 points (99.7% liked)
Political Memes
12614 readers
1185 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What really sucks is when the people who claim to be unhappy with conservatism defend conservatives as if they are the victims of their own evil nature or idiocy.
Conservatives are not the victims of conservatism. They are the perpetrators of conservatism and should be treated as such.
For everyone on Earth minus a slight statistical anomoly, I agree!
Like, you know how cleaning wipes say they kill 99.99% of germs? Well I want the needs of 99.99% of the population met.
who do you think doesnt deserve to have their needs met?
Billionaires knowingly perpetuating a harmful economic system for their own gain. Politicians and high-level government officials knowingly perpetuating a harmful political and legal system for their own gain.
How I define harmful in this context: neglecting the needs of the many for the benefit of the few.
Knowingly: repeating an action despite clear evidence or representation from the majority under their control. Or restricting public access to something that is harming them with the intent to continue the harmful behaviour.
Obviously its a little more nuanced than that, but that's the jist.
are you talking about these people's access to food being restricted or about murder? if it's the former, then i think that removing their power to harm would be more effective. if it's the latter i think that's kind of different from what the post is talking about.
Any method that permanently stops them from continuing the harm.
I will be 100% aligned with this post when that's achieved.
i agree, but i don't think that that contradicts the post. the path to a better world from this one is necessarily messy and in this situation nothing can be achieved cleanly. in this context i feel like you'd have to add a caveat to every single universal human right we're working towards because there are people in the way. you aren't arguing that they should denied food and shelter, youre arguing that they should be stopped from hurting people. i think you belong fully in the 'everyone deserves to have their basic needs met' camp
You make a compelling point.
Conservatives are so hateful, I've actually heard them try to use as a gotcha "what if someone you hate is transgender, would you still affirm their gender identity?"
Yes. Why wouldn't I? Even people I hate get to identify as whatever gender they want. Why is that such a hard thing for them to wrap their heads around?
"What if someone you hate is alive and not hurting anyone, would you want to impact their lives negatively?" Some people are rough.
Yeah, we still use Caitlyn Jenner's preferred name and pronouns in spite of her being a raging Trump supporter. Same with Blaire White.
*Offer does not apply to anyone who committed war crimes or billionaires
It does actually. That's the radical part, it has to.
I think we should give individuals the option to opt out of social services. They need to be allowed to make mistakes or else they will never learn
If I understand right, this was the original meaning of the term “outlaw”. You don’t abide by the law, but you’re also not protected by it.
Someone stole your TV? Good luck getting it back!
Wouldn't you also be able to go take it back though
Yes, but if anybody saw you (on your way to get the TV), they could kill you without impunity. It might not be worth the risk.
With impunity.
I bet they would be nicer individuals if they didn't have to worry about having their basic needs met
-
They'd take everything you give them
-
They'd insult you for being stupid enough to give shit away for nothing
-
they'd fight and steal amongst themselves for whatever they can get from each other
-
they'd do everything they can to stop you
-
they'd complain and demonize you for stopping.
but MAYBE the kids they have that you're feeding will grow up to be slightly less shitty.
I want to believe. Deep down I'm scared that some people's nastiness comes from having too many of their needs met too quickly. And it deprives them of ever developing any empathy for others whose needs are not met.
I think an uncomfortable percentage would gladly sacrifice their own needs being met to prevent certain others' needs being met.
It's just about the basic needs here. Its actively damaging to develop without those being met. And even if it does make a few more assholes, this is still the point - here are some stupid assholes that deserve to be given the guarantee of survival
This is what I don't understand about anybody who disagrees with you. What is the point of the entire concept of society, of civilization, of government, of organizing people into any sort of group if not to raise the basic quality of living? If you don't believe in the concept of a society, then fuck off and stop influencing and benefitting from the very thing that you're trying to dismantle.
Furthermore, not only is it the moral and ethical thing to do to take care of all of us, but it's an investment that pays dividends because healthy and safe people become productive people who will in turn raise a generation of productive people and so on and so forth. So even if you're a ghoul who lacks empathy and only looks at the bottom line, it still just makes sense to feed and educate and clothe and house the people. And even if you're able to easily provide those basics for yourself and your family, that just means more expendable income to juice the economy when you buy the goods and services that you want instead of just spending it on needs.
"Oh no, but then we'd get a ton of immigrants!" Okay? And what, we get a population boom of productive people just in time for boomers to retire and die? And that's supposed to be bad? Kinda seems like an ideal solution.
The only explanation that I can find is that these people are either too dumb to think that far ahead or they're too cruel to want to end suffering for anybody that isn't them. In both cases, I don't know what the solution is, but they're so plentiful that it's hard to imagine a Star Trek utopian society ever coming to fruition. It's hard to have hope for the future with so many bastards insisting that humanity has already peaked and we need to regress to improve.
you see the immigrants have scary values that differ from the nice white folk of america. they have a strong work ethic, prioritize family, speak english, and most importantly, have a slightly different skin tone which assaults the delicate anglo sensibilities upon which this great eugenicist experiment was founded
I really hope so, chief. That would feel like the Curb effect but for people on the spectrum of prosocial/antisocial.
That's probably a factor. But we can deal with that in ways that don't need their needs to be unfulfilled.
Those are the people who have their needs met.
And they call you a leftists radical for this
It's important to continue to want the best for even those who disagree with us on that matter, lest we become another one of them.
If everyone has their needs met, who will they be better than? They need a hierarchy. They're already poor and powerless, so they have to lord it over the destitute.
I think people should have what they wish on others.
I get the impression you think you're being clever but you're just saying "I don't" in a different font
I want to say yes, but it's hard to reconcile with people who not only want to have their security, but wish for others to suffer. What's the line for republicans? "I don't care what happens to you until it happens to me!" Especially for the well-off and powerful who have several lifetimes worth of their needs met and actively work against societal needs.
In a nutshell, it kinda boils down to the same aspect as the tolerance paradox.
I mean if your express goal is to violate the social contract I don't believe you should be covered by it.
Hungry desperate people tend to cause problems. If someone decides to violate the social contract and ends up destitute they will become even more disruptive. These folk need educated, not starved
My basic need is to watch people I disagree with suffer.
Just because I like a little pineapple on my pizza?!
view more: next ›