• Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    “The exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment, coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions…"

    Please excuse my ignorance but, which of the constitutional amendments guarantees US citizens access to loans?

      • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Deep cut but so very representative of right wing people. They have two modes of supporting their arguments:

        1. Rare: drown you in bs arguments (here are 350 made up examples of how the election was stolen) knowing you won’t refute each one. You give up, they think they “won”. This can come in the form of a 2 hour youtube.

        2. Common: “I don’t need evidence, I just know”, “I’m telling you that most regulations are bad, but can’t give you a single example”, or "I am ignoring your obvious question because I have never thought deeply about this and can’t face that reality ".

        My personal favorite is when they link a article that completely contradicts their point and refuse to discuss that.

        /rant

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The way they share facts that contradict their arguments, but somehow interpret them to mean the exact opposite, has been one of the hardest things to deal with in personal conversations. Just makes me want to shake them while yelling “no, that’s not how that works! That’s not how any of that works!”

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Tide goes in, tide goes out. Nobody can explain that.
              -Bill O’Reilly

              Argument from ignorance