this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
587 points (95.8% liked)
Political humor
178 readers
2 users here now
A community focused on US politics, and the ridiculousness surrounding them.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You forgot about being neutral my guy. You've chosen extreme examples where people are much more likely to have a strong opinion, but that doesn't make you right.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is either pro-swimming or doesn't care about swimming so long as you don't try and stop other people.
By your logic every ally is gay. If John (straight man in this example) is anti-anti-gay then he must be gay. You've reached a contradiction, thus you are wrong.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is pro-swimming. Clearly he cares enough to think that people should not be prevented from swimming. Therefore he is pro-swimming. He supports and enables swimming. If he was neutral, he would not be anti-anti-swimming or have any other for-against opinion on the matter.
This is not difficult logic to grasp.
Let me try again because you haven't gotten it yet. Pro-swimming means he actively wants people to swim. If you are just against stopping people from swimming, that doesn't mean you want to force everyone to swim.
I mean there isn't, but also if you want to show other people are wrong (the racists) then you need to know what being wrong is and how to show that. This person doesn't know and so would be detrimental in an actual debate as their points could be disproven and the racists would then believe themselves right. You have to make your arguments unasailable because the other side only want to prove you wrong, they don't think they have to prove themselves right.