@memtams.bsky.social
"Poor people are just too lazy to get real jobs."
These people like to talk as if they're a fundamentally different biological species from MAGA people, despite the fact they have far more in common than they would like to admit (even to themselves).
These people like to talk as if they're a fundamentally different biological species from MAGA people, despite the fact they have far more in common than they would like to admit (even to themselves).
February 10, 2026 at 1:12 PM
"Poor people are just too lazy to get real jobs."
These people like to talk as if they're a fundamentally different biological species from MAGA people, despite the fact they have far more in common than they would like to admit (even to themselves).
These people like to talk as if they're a fundamentally different biological species from MAGA people, despite the fact they have far more in common than they would like to admit (even to themselves).
Along the same lines as that time he denied the Constitution legalizes prison slavery. Even when presented the specific passage where it explicitly does that, his only response was to plug his ears and shout "Nuh uh!"
Making "his group" look better is more important than telling the truth.
Making "his group" look better is more important than telling the truth.
February 10, 2026 at 1:01 PM
Along the same lines as that time he denied the Constitution legalizes prison slavery. Even when presented the specific passage where it explicitly does that, his only response was to plug his ears and shout "Nuh uh!"
Making "his group" look better is more important than telling the truth.
Making "his group" look better is more important than telling the truth.
The goal is itself to downplay that genocide.
Because he's a nationalist, one who wants to believe being born in America makes him fundamentally superior to foreigners. Thus he has a vested interest in sanitizing its founding myth, smoothing over "inconvenient blemishes".
Because he's a nationalist, one who wants to believe being born in America makes him fundamentally superior to foreigners. Thus he has a vested interest in sanitizing its founding myth, smoothing over "inconvenient blemishes".
February 10, 2026 at 1:01 PM
The goal is itself to downplay that genocide.
Because he's a nationalist, one who wants to believe being born in America makes him fundamentally superior to foreigners. Thus he has a vested interest in sanitizing its founding myth, smoothing over "inconvenient blemishes".
Because he's a nationalist, one who wants to believe being born in America makes him fundamentally superior to foreigners. Thus he has a vested interest in sanitizing its founding myth, smoothing over "inconvenient blemishes".
The difference is that Trump would be able to use it as an ego boost, and that makes liberals infinitely more angry than any amount of murdered non-white foreigners ever could.
February 7, 2026 at 8:00 AM
The difference is that Trump would be able to use it as an ego boost, and that makes liberals infinitely more angry than any amount of murdered non-white foreigners ever could.
Hot take: The actual reason these people are so fixated on the "resort" shit is because it would have Trump's name on it, and that makes them so much more angry than any amount of murdered non-white people ever could.
They talk about it as if it's the worst thing that's ever happened in the region.
They talk about it as if it's the worst thing that's ever happened in the region.
February 7, 2026 at 7:56 AM
Hot take: The actual reason these people are so fixated on the "resort" shit is because it would have Trump's name on it, and that makes them so much more angry than any amount of murdered non-white people ever could.
They talk about it as if it's the worst thing that's ever happened in the region.
They talk about it as if it's the worst thing that's ever happened in the region.
What did he think he was accomplishing by posting this
What made him think this was a good idea to share with the world
What made him think this was a good idea to share with the world
February 3, 2026 at 10:31 PM
What did he think he was accomplishing by posting this
What made him think this was a good idea to share with the world
What made him think this was a good idea to share with the world
You're saying this as if it disproves what's being said in these posts, despite the fact it doesn't actually disprove what's being said here.
Will Stancil defenders only ever have one defense: Accuse the other person of mischaracterizing him, even when they're directly quoting his own words.
Will Stancil defenders only ever have one defense: Accuse the other person of mischaracterizing him, even when they're directly quoting his own words.
February 3, 2026 at 1:23 PM
You're saying this as if it disproves what's being said in these posts, despite the fact it doesn't actually disprove what's being said here.
Will Stancil defenders only ever have one defense: Accuse the other person of mischaracterizing him, even when they're directly quoting his own words.
Will Stancil defenders only ever have one defense: Accuse the other person of mischaracterizing him, even when they're directly quoting his own words.
In my experience, people like this don't actually care whether or not they're telling the truth.
Even if you show them a direct quote of their group PROUDLY doing the thing they're insisting never happened, their only response will be to go "Nuh uh!"
Even if you show them a direct quote of their group PROUDLY doing the thing they're insisting never happened, their only response will be to go "Nuh uh!"
February 1, 2026 at 3:36 PM
In my experience, people like this don't actually care whether or not they're telling the truth.
Even if you show them a direct quote of their group PROUDLY doing the thing they're insisting never happened, their only response will be to go "Nuh uh!"
Even if you show them a direct quote of their group PROUDLY doing the thing they're insisting never happened, their only response will be to go "Nuh uh!"
Imagine a doctor watching your cancer cells destroy everything in their vicinity, and then that doctor telling you those cancer cells are a good sign, actually. After all, it must take a strong body to produce such long lived cells, you're clearly superior to people who don't have cancer.
January 31, 2026 at 11:33 PM
Imagine a doctor watching your cancer cells destroy everything in their vicinity, and then that doctor telling you those cancer cells are a good sign, actually. After all, it must take a strong body to produce such long lived cells, you're clearly superior to people who don't have cancer.
Not that most of them are even particularly charismatic. Lord knows what it is that so many gullible lemmings see in fossils like Chuck, because it sure isn't his and his ilk's ability to inspire people.
January 31, 2026 at 5:58 AM
Not that most of them are even particularly charismatic. Lord knows what it is that so many gullible lemmings see in fossils like Chuck, because it sure isn't his and his ilk's ability to inspire people.
Aren't these the same people who love pulling the "our politicians are the ones doing the work, so you don't get to whine about how they do it" card?
And yet they're now the ones whining at the protestors doing the work, because the security rules lightly impeded Stencil's Brand Building©?
And yet they're now the ones whining at the protestors doing the work, because the security rules lightly impeded Stencil's Brand Building©?
January 30, 2026 at 8:35 PM
Aren't these the same people who love pulling the "our politicians are the ones doing the work, so you don't get to whine about how they do it" card?
And yet they're now the ones whining at the protestors doing the work, because the security rules lightly impeded Stencil's Brand Building©?
And yet they're now the ones whining at the protestors doing the work, because the security rules lightly impeded Stencil's Brand Building©?
They'll lay claim to the spot of "lesser evil" purely as a way to get you to stop criticizing them.
But then, once you start digging into the specifics of it with that person, it quickly becomes clear they don't really view it as any kind of evil, and are actually entirely on board with the evil.
But then, once you start digging into the specifics of it with that person, it quickly becomes clear they don't really view it as any kind of evil, and are actually entirely on board with the evil.
January 29, 2026 at 6:08 PM
They'll lay claim to the spot of "lesser evil" purely as a way to get you to stop criticizing them.
But then, once you start digging into the specifics of it with that person, it quickly becomes clear they don't really view it as any kind of evil, and are actually entirely on board with the evil.
But then, once you start digging into the specifics of it with that person, it quickly becomes clear they don't really view it as any kind of evil, and are actually entirely on board with the evil.
I've noticed that unpaid propagandists have a habit of putting words in the Dem's mouths.
For example: Insisting that those politicians are trying their hardest to make Abolish ICE happen. Despite the fact that, in reality, those politicians have given zero indication that they actually want that.
For example: Insisting that those politicians are trying their hardest to make Abolish ICE happen. Despite the fact that, in reality, those politicians have given zero indication that they actually want that.
January 29, 2026 at 4:21 AM
I've noticed that unpaid propagandists have a habit of putting words in the Dem's mouths.
For example: Insisting that those politicians are trying their hardest to make Abolish ICE happen. Despite the fact that, in reality, those politicians have given zero indication that they actually want that.
For example: Insisting that those politicians are trying their hardest to make Abolish ICE happen. Despite the fact that, in reality, those politicians have given zero indication that they actually want that.
"To win, we need to start doing things our way. You have no right to complain, we get results."
"But we've already been doing things your way for decades, and yet your results have gotten noticeably worse over time?"
"I don't see how that's relevant. Doesn't change the fact we get results."
"But we've already been doing things your way for decades, and yet your results have gotten noticeably worse over time?"
"I don't see how that's relevant. Doesn't change the fact we get results."
a brick with the number 3 on it sits on a table
Alt: A machine that repeatedly slams a wooden head against a brick wall.
media.tenor.com
January 28, 2026 at 9:14 PM
"To win, we need to start doing things our way. You have no right to complain, we get results."
"But we've already been doing things your way for decades, and yet your results have gotten noticeably worse over time?"
"I don't see how that's relevant. Doesn't change the fact we get results."
"But we've already been doing things your way for decades, and yet your results have gotten noticeably worse over time?"
"I don't see how that's relevant. Doesn't change the fact we get results."
Genuinely irritating how, whenever you point out that *they already tried that in 2024*, their response is always to bring up the fact that it didn't work, as if that disproves what you just said.
When centrism spectacularly fails, they simply retroactively declare that it wasn't "true" centrism.
When centrism spectacularly fails, they simply retroactively declare that it wasn't "true" centrism.
January 28, 2026 at 8:19 PM
Genuinely irritating how, whenever you point out that *they already tried that in 2024*, their response is always to bring up the fact that it didn't work, as if that disproves what you just said.
When centrism spectacularly fails, they simply retroactively declare that it wasn't "true" centrism.
When centrism spectacularly fails, they simply retroactively declare that it wasn't "true" centrism.
It reads an awful lot like those conservatives who are like "people are mean to me because they can't handle different opinions", and then try to avoid elaborating on what exactly those "opinions" are.
If you were actually confident you were right, you wouldn't feel the need to obfuscate it.
If you were actually confident you were right, you wouldn't feel the need to obfuscate it.
January 28, 2026 at 7:59 PM
It reads an awful lot like those conservatives who are like "people are mean to me because they can't handle different opinions", and then try to avoid elaborating on what exactly those "opinions" are.
If you were actually confident you were right, you wouldn't feel the need to obfuscate it.
If you were actually confident you were right, you wouldn't feel the need to obfuscate it.
The "pony" being "stop helping an apartheid state murder shit tons of innocent civilians by illegally fast tracking weapons shipments, whilst also acting as propagandists on behalf of that state".
Feel like it says more about them than it does about us, that they consider that to be an absurd ask.
Feel like it says more about them than it does about us, that they consider that to be an absurd ask.
January 28, 2026 at 4:17 PM
The "pony" being "stop helping an apartheid state murder shit tons of innocent civilians by illegally fast tracking weapons shipments, whilst also acting as propagandists on behalf of that state".
Feel like it says more about them than it does about us, that they consider that to be an absurd ask.
Feel like it says more about them than it does about us, that they consider that to be an absurd ask.
They talk about it as if it's the single worst thing that's ever happened in the area. The murdered civilians are always relegated to a distant afterthought.
Especially warped considering the hotels would happen either way, but one wouldn't have the "eyesore" name on them, so that makes it "fine".
Especially warped considering the hotels would happen either way, but one wouldn't have the "eyesore" name on them, so that makes it "fine".
January 28, 2026 at 2:04 PM
They talk about it as if it's the single worst thing that's ever happened in the area. The murdered civilians are always relegated to a distant afterthought.
Especially warped considering the hotels would happen either way, but one wouldn't have the "eyesore" name on them, so that makes it "fine".
Especially warped considering the hotels would happen either way, but one wouldn't have the "eyesore" name on them, so that makes it "fine".
Dead Middle Easterners? "Eh, whatever. People over there die all the time, it's the natural way of the world. No need to get all worked up about it."
Trump using it to boost his ego? "HOLY SHIT! This is an atrocity! His name on the hotels is the worst thing that could have possibly happened!"
Trump using it to boost his ego? "HOLY SHIT! This is an atrocity! His name on the hotels is the worst thing that could have possibly happened!"
January 28, 2026 at 1:54 PM
Dead Middle Easterners? "Eh, whatever. People over there die all the time, it's the natural way of the world. No need to get all worked up about it."
Trump using it to boost his ego? "HOLY SHIT! This is an atrocity! His name on the hotels is the worst thing that could have possibly happened!"
Trump using it to boost his ego? "HOLY SHIT! This is an atrocity! His name on the hotels is the worst thing that could have possibly happened!"
The fact that they've repeatedly signalled that they don't WANT abolishment to happen is purely coincidental.
I'm sure that had zero bearing on their decision to go with "preemptively compromise to near-meaninglessness to signal good faith", which any negotiator will agree is the optimal strategy.
I'm sure that had zero bearing on their decision to go with "preemptively compromise to near-meaninglessness to signal good faith", which any negotiator will agree is the optimal strategy.
January 27, 2026 at 3:09 PM
The fact that they've repeatedly signalled that they don't WANT abolishment to happen is purely coincidental.
I'm sure that had zero bearing on their decision to go with "preemptively compromise to near-meaninglessness to signal good faith", which any negotiator will agree is the optimal strategy.
I'm sure that had zero bearing on their decision to go with "preemptively compromise to near-meaninglessness to signal good faith", which any negotiator will agree is the optimal strategy.
"You think children should be removed from their homes (at gunpoint!) if their parents make the personal decision not to provide them with food? Where does the slippery slope END???????"
January 23, 2026 at 10:16 PM
"You think children should be removed from their homes (at gunpoint!) if their parents make the personal decision not to provide them with food? Where does the slippery slope END???????"
"We NEED to run on invading Europe and purging anyone who isn't white. It's clearly what the voters want, and we need to win them over to get Carlson out of office. It's called PRAGMATISM, you whiny baby!"
They then proceed to lose the election, because the voters were not won over by that.
They then proceed to lose the election, because the voters were not won over by that.
January 20, 2026 at 1:52 AM
"We NEED to run on invading Europe and purging anyone who isn't white. It's clearly what the voters want, and we need to win them over to get Carlson out of office. It's called PRAGMATISM, you whiny baby!"
They then proceed to lose the election, because the voters were not won over by that.
They then proceed to lose the election, because the voters were not won over by that.
Not that this is even the full story. The party rigs primaries to ensure left candidates don't win. The bootlickers help, rationalizing it as "electability". Then, when they turn out to be shit, they turn right around and act like they had nothing to do with making that suit Dem the candidate.
January 20, 2026 at 12:33 AM
Not that this is even the full story. The party rigs primaries to ensure left candidates don't win. The bootlickers help, rationalizing it as "electability". Then, when they turn out to be shit, they turn right around and act like they had nothing to do with making that suit Dem the candidate.
So when a shitty RW Dem fails to get elected, it's the voter's fault because VBNMW. But if that shit Dem does get elected and then does shit things, it's ALSO the voter's fault because you shouldn't have voted for them??? It seems like the only coherent throughline here is "power is never at fault".
January 20, 2026 at 12:27 AM
So when a shitty RW Dem fails to get elected, it's the voter's fault because VBNMW. But if that shit Dem does get elected and then does shit things, it's ALSO the voter's fault because you shouldn't have voted for them??? It seems like the only coherent throughline here is "power is never at fault".
What a thread.
"They never said that." "Here's a press release where they said that." "It's not specifically about the protests." "Here's the part where they specify it's about the protests." "They mean online bots, they don't mean in-person." "Here's where they specify they also meant in-person."
"They never said that." "Here's a press release where they said that." "It's not specifically about the protests." "Here's the part where they specify it's about the protests." "They mean online bots, they don't mean in-person." "Here's where they specify they also meant in-person."
January 19, 2026 at 6:07 PM
What a thread.
"They never said that." "Here's a press release where they said that." "It's not specifically about the protests." "Here's the part where they specify it's about the protests." "They mean online bots, they don't mean in-person." "Here's where they specify they also meant in-person."
"They never said that." "Here's a press release where they said that." "It's not specifically about the protests." "Here's the part where they specify it's about the protests." "They mean online bots, they don't mean in-person." "Here's where they specify they also meant in-person."