Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
In reality:
You asked what good ideas to which he responded limiting government spending. Then you rebuke the notion that limiting wasteful spending is a fundamental good idea by criticizing politicians for not doing it in military boondoggles or with corporate welfare. Those are critiques of politicians not the ideas, as those negative examples are when the idea isn't applied.
I agree that we should curtail wasteful military spending and corporate welfare. But in advocating for those you yourself advocate for the idea of limiting government spending.
By your logic someone can say they're voting for trump.to.make America great again, and you'd expect people to take that on face value and pretend it's an honest position.
Like, I don't know how to break this to you, but fascists lie about a lot shit, most of what they say are lies.
So demanding people pretend they're not lying, won't get you honest discussion, because that's not what you're doing.
If you don't think there's trump stans out there who believe trump will do just that you need to touch grass.
What is the lie there? That they actually picking a candidate who they want to make the country worse? The blunt truth is that to them the policies you don't like are good ones.
Insisting otherwise simply fuels polarization which furthers radicalization.
And I could say I started smoking crack to make my workday as a pilot more productive, and it's safer because I'm more alert....
And anyone that agreed with me would be as stupid as I would be for saying that.
We don't have to treat every crazy thing someone says as valid because they believe it. Opinions aren't facts, and lots of opinions are very very stupid that doesn't make them magically viable. The real world doesn't work off Tinkerbell logic homie.