this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
1613 points (97.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
5872 readers
2936 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's purposefully hyperbolic to illustrate a point. You think that Finland is seriously making all ice cream free?
I would not be the least bit surprised if all the Abbotts and Thomases and Trumps and Desantises (Desanti?) announced tomorrow that they would no longer be supporting the ADA's immoral drain on ~~commercial profits~~ governmental budgets.
And before someone points it out, gutting a system that he has personally benefited from to fuck over Texans is exactly the kind of thing Abbott would do.
They would never make the fish flavored ice cream free. The economy would collapse.
We don't have fish flavored one, but we got ice cream that tastes like ammonium chloride
Wut.
It's like eating a cat turd from a snow bank.
I'm gonna need an ingredients list..
Not would, he has. After the tree crippled him, he sued for his wealth. Then he outlawed the same type of payouts for the exact type of lawsuits he benefited from. Definition of pulling the ladder up behind you.
My point is that it's not a good illustration.
Just read through some of the responses I've gotten. Some people think it's a good illustration because it's very plausible. Some because it's not at all plausible.
I'm saying it's not a good illustration because it's not at all plausible.
Other than all the conservative efforts to destroy the ADA I guess.
I don't think it makes much difference whether or not it is plausible. It's just trying to communicate a message. I guess it has to be plausible enough that a reader can understand what it is even talking about; but not so plausible that the reader is led to believe this specific case is actually happening.
That's just one more interpretation to add to the ones I mentioned.
Which is fundamentally my point. Had the OP used something that is actually happening then it would be harder to interpret the message in unintended ways. And it would be much more readily accepted by Americans like myself who do not see themselves as evil, stupid, malicious, or any of the other insults that necessarily follow from any interpretation the OP.