this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
1126 points (99.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

6532 readers
3944 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:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 87 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don't necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. "Can't trust the government" in this context really means "can't trust liberals/progressives". You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She's not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.

Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:

the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.

If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that "Culver City enforces the law" has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the "law" of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

if LA has no law

They didn't claim their was no law, they said they decriminalized it. Which means it's still illegal but unenforced, just like weed is decriminalized in many states but still federally illegal.

I don't disagree with you that people put out bullshit but... Can we not put out bullshit to prove it?

[–] vithigar 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're largely correct, "decriminalized" doesn't mean it's legal, but I just wanted to point out that it doesn't necessarily mean unenforced. Just that it's no longer a criminal charge. Something can be decriminalized and still be in violation of the law and enforced with fines or other deterrents, e.g. traffic violations. You're not a criminal for speeding, it's still illegal and enforced.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

Thank you for that correction!