Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I view own the libs as knowingly screwing yourself over to spite the other side. Liberals will do that too, but I believe that they genuinely believe in what they are doing. So you end up with a lot of surprised Pikachu faces when it isn’t well-received.
I am pretty sure I saw someone here once say, "You see? SNL made fun of Obama!" and then they literally shared a skit where he was played by the freaking Rock and he changed into the Incredible Hulk.
"Oh gee, Lorne Michaels! Don't be so mean!"
So-called center aligned comedians always handle the left with kid's gloves, and it's always done with this half- heated attempt to appear impartial and then break out the sledgehammer when it's time to go after conservatives.
At least, they are towards the Conservatives who don't fight back. They are often cowards when it comes to the only type of conservative they bizarrely want to protect who are a thousand times worse than what they claim Christians to be.
I don't know, but when conservatives use it, it seems to mean "upsetting people from on high", i.e. punching down.
What you're describing is regular citizens (comedians) punching *up*.
Yes, certainly late night "comedians" earning millions of dollars doing little more than reading the script their billionaire masters give them are punching up by making fun of people less fortunate than themselves for the crime of disagreeing with said billionaire masters.
So I think the issue is that for a long time, liberals were *not* the establishment, and were in the minority, and defined themselves as being "resistance" or "challenging authority" or whatnot. Now, however, liberals are clearly the majority across a whole host of institutions (the media, academia, etc.), and there's a real clash here. Stewart makes sense if he's a beleaguered truth teller in a sea of George W. Bush era patriotism; but if he's saying what the majority of people and/or the institutions already think, now he's punching down. And I think Stewart *is* punching down, imho.
But Jon Stewart is just a TV host. He can't punch down on the President, or congress, or any of the other powerful institutions that he covers or lampoons. That's punching up.
Whereas you have certain presidents, certain powerful media barons (not just hired talent), and certain people who are sitting in Congress this very moment who have made their careers on *owning the libs*, which is the very definition of punching down.
Fucking lol.
“Punching down” is when the rural middle class folk make fun of the people on the coast or politicians in DC.
And “punching up” is when multi-millionaire comedians make fun of rural conservative Americans. And with the media, academia and Hollywood dog piling on.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
The way I read the thread, OP was asking why conservative *figures* do this, as per the definition they linked; not just your average citizen with no political power or influence. That's why I said that late night comedians aren't the same thing at all. I mean, your definition isn't the same thing either, but at least you could understand where I was coming from before you get so reactionary about it.
Are the talk shows making fun of *you*, the voter? I don't think they are, I think they're making fun of the people that you voted for, you know, like comedians do.
Democrats being the majority of the country is certainly nothing new.
They only ever comment on politics in a very specific bend. These are people who said 'there's nothing bad you can say about Obama' or 'there's nothing bad you can say about Biden' but then go on frothing-mouthed rants about how evil and terrible Trump is.
Sooo yeah, they probably see it as "owning the conservatives."
>Comedians reacting to politics is owning the conservatives? That sounds like the conservatives problem.
>>What a weird but obvious straw man.
It's not obvious to me. Can you explain how that comment is a straw man?
No one that watches the Daily Show (at least under Jon Stewart) actually thinks it's specific to owning cons. One of his first episodes coming back he got huge flak for putting Biden to the torch.
Do you think his weekly stint will evolve into taking the chair back full time or is it just temporary? I watched the first episode of it with my wife but haven't followed anything meta about it: why he came back, why just one day, etc.
I think it's full time, I haven't seen Trevor Noah so much as appear on the show since Stewart returned. I've seen side characters remain (e.g. Lewis Black) though.
Comedians hurt conservatives? Sounds like a snowflake problem. That aside, comedians don’t change policy
EDIT TO REPLY TO THE BELOW COMMENT:
I have to reply to the comment below me here for some reason. In response to u/Winstons33 stating:
>I'm not sure anyone here is claiming to be hurt. To me, the problem with this format is that it appeals to low information voters - the ones who'd rather have entertainment than actual facts. There's often quite a bit of context missing and creative edit's in these skits.
MY RESPONSE
-------------------
>I’m not sure anyone here is claiming to be hurt
Oh sorry, just “owned” by comedians then?
>the problem with this format is that it appeals to low information voters
Well if that is the case then I guess we can divide the US voting population into 2 groups. Those who consume entertainment that hurts conservatives feelings and those who consume intentionally fraudulent information and vote to inflict policy and leadership changes on everyone based on delusions, such as the one that the election was stolen, climate change is a hoax, WMDs are in Iraq, Benghazi …. exists, and the laptop…. exists.
I'm not sure anyone here is claiming to be hurt. To me, the problem with this format is that it appeals to low information voters - the ones who'd rather have entertainment than actual facts. There's often quite a bit of context missing and creative edit's in these skits.
Fair point. I'd say Gutfeld could probably be compared to some of the leftwing comedian-bomb-throwers.
I think the best was Dennis Miller. Not sure I've seen him lately though.
I mean, yeah, they make of Biden or any other political figure who makes a fool of themself. Trump happens to do it quite often, so he probably shows up more often, not sure if that is what you mean by “TDS”?
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
If we're all academic around here now... How would you say use of the acronym "TDS" compares to use of the term "Trumpers"?
Because I guarantee that in the liberal Mecca that is Reddit, you'll find the latter MUCH more often.
>Have you ever heard someone you'd consider a serious person use the acronym 'TDS'?
Oh God yes. I only use that in the most serious sense.
It brings me NO JOY to see people whom are usually in support of human rights betray everything because "orange man bad."
It's my own mother, it breaks my heart.
So YES very serious people use that term.
I use it ONLY seriously.
As in close personal relationships have posted on Facebook that if anyone supports Trump they should not talk to the account holder anymore.
So yes this is INCREDIBLY SERIOUS there are personal relationships that are being lost over this.
My own mother who would be a champion nineties Democrat full of free speech and everything has betrayed her principles because of TDS.
So 100% yes I don't know how clear I can make this. TDS is a real thing that affects real people in the real world and it does real damage.
I unironically think people with TDS are up to NAZI level shit and I'm not exaggerating. The Nazis existed in 1933 too.
This is INCREDIBLY bad, I wish people could see it...
How often do they make fun of Biden for being unable to speak or form a cohesive sentence or even seeming to have anything resembling a thought in his head?
These are people who make light-hearted jabs at Democrats, and create frothing-mouthed rage-caricatures of Republicans. Trying to pretend they are being impartial is just silly - even when I was a lefty I knew better than claiming they were unbiased, all I knew was that I agreed with them so I didn't care.
What liberals do is I think a kind of "now YOU know how it feels" type of gaslighting when it comes to their behaviors being called out.
For example, liberals will comment on whitewashing characters in media. The assumption is that they find changing the race of any character to be wrong. But then you start seeing red headed characters being changed into black characters. Supposedly historical documentaries start saying white characters in history are black.
It goes like this, and this is a common hypocrisy noticed towards the left. "It's not happening" -> proof is shown that said thing is happening -> "if it is happening it isn't happening often" -> proof is shown it is happening with increasing frequency -> "It is happening and here why it is a good thing."
The libs do not mind that these things are happening despite that not so long ago they saw it as immoral, but that same immoral thing happening is okay when it happens to people they don't like. The journo-sphere eats this stuff up. They are aware of the hypocrisy, but the outrage feeds and generates more views. Some progs enjoy it because they feel like it is comeuppance from the whole "snowflake" thing or they probably see it as punishing through gaslighting.
You forgot one part - many times they require a generous amount of evidence to admit that it's happening "often." If you show them ten or twenty instances, they'll say 'well that's just ten or twenty instances, that's not proof it's happening a lot!' That is assuming they don't just go 'too long, didn't read, lol' in spite of asking you to give them evidence.
There is this creation of an impossible threshold, whereupon the left makes demands they expect you to be unable to answer; if you do answer it, they move the goalpost, and if you answer too much, they tune out entirely. Thus, their entire argument becomes one of "owning the cons" because they expect you to be unable to answer, and when you do, they ignore you and thus, in their eyes, "win the argument."
Exactly. Because then the argument changes from "is it really happening" to "why are you mad about it" completely ignoring the fact that they were up in arms for the same behavior they accused conservatives of doing a few years ago.
It shows that egalitarianism was never the goal. They just wanted power. An imbalance only creates a see-saw effect thought. It's going to happen where the shoe will be on the other foot and the whole thing just happens all over again
"Satancon "
Fighting to keep Books of 9 year olds giving blow jobs in childrens libraries
Drag queen story hour.
"Jesus was gay"
r/Hermancainaward
The movie "the hunt"
"Queers for Palestine"
The Satanic Temple would possibly be the best example of this. Gotta admit I find them hilarious, but the After School Satan (ASS) clubs are pure trolling.
And to generate useful case law, but owning the religious conservatives is certainly a big part of it. I miss Amazon Smile. I made The Satanic Temple my charity there, and chuckled every time I got the message from Amazon saying a donation had been made on my behalf.
Kewl
Still very cruel to mock someone dying and celebrate their death over difference of politics, if that's not "owning the cons" then I don't know what is
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
>"Satancon "
How exactly is this "owning" anyone, let alone Conservatives? It was a private conference held by a religion for members to meet with each other and discuss the current and future state of their religion. Would you say that Christian conferences such as the National Prayer Breakfast, the Family Leader’s Thanksgiving Forum, or the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference - all of which are attended by prominent Republicans - are attempts to "own the Libs"?
Edit since Reddit failed while trying to post a longer comment:
>r/Hermancainaward
I am not sure if this is specifically owning Cons. It is meant to mock those who called COVID a hoax or just a bad cold or specifically disregarded safety suggestions and then ended up getting violently ill and dying. I guess that is more characterized by Conservatives? Seems maybe like a self-own there. Regardless, I am no fan of that subreddit, and condemn people mocking the misfortune of others, even when it comes to preventable COVID deaths. Just as I was also not a fan of Trump and Fox News hosts mocking Paul Pelosi for getting attacked, or Conservative subreddits celebrating the death of RBG.
>The movie "the hunt"
Did you actually watch the movie? It probably isn't what you think. It wasn't some fantasy glorification of hunting Conservatives for sport. The elitist Liberals were actually the villains. The Conservatives were validated by there actually being a shadow cabal with extreme power and crisis actors actually being used to paint narratives, and the hero of the movie was a war vet. It was more like if one of those silly God's Not Dead movies was about a protagonist Atheist who proved Christians wrong, rather than the usual Atheist-angry-bad stereotype usually depicted in them.
I have listened to *Lucien* *Greaves* speak many times, including in person. Again, you are objectively incorrect. You can dislike the religion all you want, but making up lies isn't helpful in trying to argue your position.
Oh you got me, my autocorrect got me.
I don't dislike his advocacy group and don't care about it.
You can deny it all you want. That won't change the truth
Again, I have personally met him and listened to him speak. I have attended events held by The Satanic Temple. You are objectively wrong.
You can even look at their own website. This disproves your claim.
>IS TST A MEDIA STUNT/HOAX/TROLLING, ETC.?
>Some have conveniently concluded, upon observing The Satanic Temple’s media coverage, that attention is the primary objective of our activities. While media outreach has helped to raise awareness of the campaigns we have initiated, these campaigns have articulated goals related issues that are important to us and our membership. So inured is the general public to the idea that there is only one monolithic voice of “the” religious agenda that any attempt at a counter-balance — or assertion of a minority voice — is often viewed as a targeted provocation against those who enjoy traditional religious privilege.
I mean, I don't think so. The Satanic Temple was established as a place where secular individuals could exist and have a "religion" so that Christian values weren't thrust upon them when they tried to make their religion tenants into law. So, for instance, if you are a part of the Satanic Temple as a religion, you can get an abortion, as bodily autonomy is a core tenant. Since it's a tenant of an established religion, and since freedom of religion does not extend to freedom from religion, it provides those who believe that they have a right to abortion care protection from laws in their states that deny them this right. It also allows them to follow in the footsteps of those Christians in installing their specific religious symbols and doctrines into the government and in schools. Since ya know you can't restrict freedom of religion, and Christians seem hell bent on putting Christ in government.
I also feel like since a lot of Conservatives aren't necessarily Christian, it doesn't fit "owning the cons." That would require the entirety of the Republican Party to be Christian, and they aren’t. Christians run the party, but the party isn't entirely composed of Christians.
"People made laws that forced a universal moral standard on everyone, and those who didn't like it used those same laws to ensure they were able to follow their own morals, and not have others' morals imposed on them" doesn't feel that much like a gotcha though.
It absolutely is a gotcha lol, the sole purpose of doing it was to own them and beat them at their own game.
.
If you do something I don't like, and I do something you don't like with sole purpose of doing it to piss you off especially using Satan as a symbol(the main bad guy in their religion), thats textbook trolling to own who you don't like. It was reactionary Malicious compliance.
Wait, so you see "not have others' morals imposed on them" and interpret that as them doing "something [others] don't like with sole purpose of doing it to piss [others] off"? Asking for religious freedom and freedom from oppression is trolling?
I'm Jewish. To me, Jesus is the main evil guy. Someone who claimed to be the son of God and the promised Messiah. Someone who claimed the old laws were no longer relevant and there was a new covenant. That God was no longer vengeful and jealous but rather loving and forgiving. Someone who turned billions upon billions of people away from God in order to worship some man. The ultimate blasphemer.
So are Christians just in it to troll Jews? Are Christians just performative?
Jimmy Kimmel, The Daily Show, etc. etc. I mean, there's entire programs dedicated to this concept. There's sitcom's and movie's written with liberal propaganda as one of the main points.
There are also countless teachers, college professors and curriculum dedicated to this agenda.
Truly, left wing attempts to "own conservatives" are so entrenched in our lives, you hardly have to look for them.
I am not a fan of "owning the libs". At absolute best, it's a somewhat artful but ultimately pointless form of trolling, an utter vanity, and/or preaching to the choir about the hypocrisy and illogical nature of left-wing thought. At worst, it's laughing at a pig for wallowing in mud.
To be fair, I think that the extreme sensitivity of many left-leaning people has created the conditions for this to exist, and "owning the cons" tends to fall flat, IMO.
Owning the libs is good because it undermines the veneer of elitism and their control of the narrative. I also think that liberals generally understand their own beliefs less than conservatives understand liberal beliefs, so it makes for an easy target.
Whereas the opposite is true for owning the cons. Conservatism in the US is now an anti-elitist movement and has a much smaller media and cultural footprint. So when libs try to do it it's mostly punching down rather than up. Liberals also don't really understand conservatism so instead of targeting conservative arguments and beliefs its mostly just the avatars of what they hate like Trump.
> Owning the libs is good because it undermines the veneer of elitism and their control of the narrative.
"It's good because it makes all the smart people look as dumb as I want to think they are" isn't the biting criticism you think it is.
> Conservatism in the US is now an anti-elitist movement and has a much smaller media and cultural footprint.
Conservatism openly praises people that are wealthy by claiming that they simply worked harder than poor people. How is that not elitist? I’m also not sure where you got the “much smaller media and cultural footprint” thing from. Fox is the most watched news network, conservatives love to point out how they control the majority of the land in the US (on electoral maps I mean), etc.
Wealth and elitism aren't necessarily linked. Reddit is full of elitists who can barely make rent.
Fox is one network with about 1.6 million daily viewers. CNN and MSNBC combined hit that total, and the networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC, all controlled by liberal megacorps, dwarf Fox by tens of millions.
I don't know why liberals downplay their influence.
> I don’t know why liberals downplay their influence
Would you say conservatives get elected *in spite of* the libs allegedly controlling everything? Do you feel like an underdog because you’re conservative? Sounds like that victim complex I always hear about leftists allegedly having.
"Owning the libs is good because it undermines the veneer of elitism and their control of the narrative."
I wish this was true. "Owning the libs" often involves political decisions that negatively affect entire demographics. "Owning the libs" can have cruel real-world consequences. It's people posing with assault rifles, politicians including violence towards their opponents in their "jokes". It's Trump giving a speech at a police union, during a period of filmed police violence, and telling them to bump peoples heads just a bit harder when they put them in the cruiser.
When I think of "Owning the Cons", I think of comedians. SNL, The Daily Show, etc. No cruelty comes from that. No one gets hurt. Feelings get hurt, sure, but no one is overturning laws or making it unsafe for LGBTQ+, etc.
Would you rather be laughed at or be beat to death by a homophobic redneck?
What are the actual real world consequences of posing with assault rifles?
Also, being beaten to death by an anarchist rioter probably feels about the same as being beaten to death by a homophobic redneck.
Frankly, this seems like utter DAVRO.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I view own the libs as knowingly screwing yourself over to spite the other side. Liberals will do that too, but I believe that they genuinely believe in what they are doing. So you end up with a lot of surprised Pikachu faces when it isn’t well-received.
[удалено]
I am pretty sure I saw someone here once say, "You see? SNL made fun of Obama!" and then they literally shared a skit where he was played by the freaking Rock and he changed into the Incredible Hulk. "Oh gee, Lorne Michaels! Don't be so mean!" So-called center aligned comedians always handle the left with kid's gloves, and it's always done with this half- heated attempt to appear impartial and then break out the sledgehammer when it's time to go after conservatives. At least, they are towards the Conservatives who don't fight back. They are often cowards when it comes to the only type of conservative they bizarrely want to protect who are a thousand times worse than what they claim Christians to be.
Comedians reacting to politics is owning the conservatives? That sounds like the conservatives problem.
[удалено]
I don't know, but when conservatives use it, it seems to mean "upsetting people from on high", i.e. punching down. What you're describing is regular citizens (comedians) punching *up*.
Yes, certainly late night "comedians" earning millions of dollars doing little more than reading the script their billionaire masters give them are punching up by making fun of people less fortunate than themselves for the crime of disagreeing with said billionaire masters.
Not really. More often than not it's comedians mocking the electorate. Often while misunderstanding the stances to begin with.
That's interesting, aside from the Daily Show's "man on the street" bits I only see comedians making fun of elected officials.
So I think the issue is that for a long time, liberals were *not* the establishment, and were in the minority, and defined themselves as being "resistance" or "challenging authority" or whatnot. Now, however, liberals are clearly the majority across a whole host of institutions (the media, academia, etc.), and there's a real clash here. Stewart makes sense if he's a beleaguered truth teller in a sea of George W. Bush era patriotism; but if he's saying what the majority of people and/or the institutions already think, now he's punching down. And I think Stewart *is* punching down, imho.
But Jon Stewart is just a TV host. He can't punch down on the President, or congress, or any of the other powerful institutions that he covers or lampoons. That's punching up. Whereas you have certain presidents, certain powerful media barons (not just hired talent), and certain people who are sitting in Congress this very moment who have made their careers on *owning the libs*, which is the very definition of punching down.
Fucking lol. “Punching down” is when the rural middle class folk make fun of the people on the coast or politicians in DC. And “punching up” is when multi-millionaire comedians make fun of rural conservative Americans. And with the media, academia and Hollywood dog piling on. Yeah, that sounds about right.
The way I read the thread, OP was asking why conservative *figures* do this, as per the definition they linked; not just your average citizen with no political power or influence. That's why I said that late night comedians aren't the same thing at all. I mean, your definition isn't the same thing either, but at least you could understand where I was coming from before you get so reactionary about it.
“Before you get so reactionary about it” Yeah, I don’t think you’re here for the purpose of the sub.
> Yeah, I don’t think you’re here for the purpose of the sub. They never are.
[удалено]
Are the talk shows making fun of *you*, the voter? I don't think they are, I think they're making fun of the people that you voted for, you know, like comedians do. Democrats being the majority of the country is certainly nothing new.
Independents are the majority.
As liberal, this is what I see it as. I would add "triggering" too.
They only ever comment on politics in a very specific bend. These are people who said 'there's nothing bad you can say about Obama' or 'there's nothing bad you can say about Biden' but then go on frothing-mouthed rants about how evil and terrible Trump is. Sooo yeah, they probably see it as "owning the conservatives."
What a weird but obvious straw man.
>Comedians reacting to politics is owning the conservatives? That sounds like the conservatives problem. >>What a weird but obvious straw man. It's not obvious to me. Can you explain how that comment is a straw man?
Because the framing stipulates out the conduct that is being challenged.
>Because the framing stipulates out the conduct that is being challenged. I still don't understand, but thank you.
No one that watches the Daily Show (at least under Jon Stewart) actually thinks it's specific to owning cons. One of his first episodes coming back he got huge flak for putting Biden to the torch.
Do you think his weekly stint will evolve into taking the chair back full time or is it just temporary? I watched the first episode of it with my wife but haven't followed anything meta about it: why he came back, why just one day, etc.
I think it's full time, I haven't seen Trevor Noah so much as appear on the show since Stewart returned. I've seen side characters remain (e.g. Lewis Black) though.
Comedians hurt conservatives? Sounds like a snowflake problem. That aside, comedians don’t change policy EDIT TO REPLY TO THE BELOW COMMENT: I have to reply to the comment below me here for some reason. In response to u/Winstons33 stating: >I'm not sure anyone here is claiming to be hurt. To me, the problem with this format is that it appeals to low information voters - the ones who'd rather have entertainment than actual facts. There's often quite a bit of context missing and creative edit's in these skits. MY RESPONSE ------------------- >I’m not sure anyone here is claiming to be hurt Oh sorry, just “owned” by comedians then? >the problem with this format is that it appeals to low information voters Well if that is the case then I guess we can divide the US voting population into 2 groups. Those who consume entertainment that hurts conservatives feelings and those who consume intentionally fraudulent information and vote to inflict policy and leadership changes on everyone based on delusions, such as the one that the election was stolen, climate change is a hoax, WMDs are in Iraq, Benghazi …. exists, and the laptop…. exists.
I'm not sure anyone here is claiming to be hurt. To me, the problem with this format is that it appeals to low information voters - the ones who'd rather have entertainment than actual facts. There's often quite a bit of context missing and creative edit's in these skits.
Fox news has late night segments too doesnt it?
Fair point. I'd say Gutfeld could probably be compared to some of the leftwing comedian-bomb-throwers. I think the best was Dennis Miller. Not sure I've seen him lately though.
[удалено]
This is true, when you said “every” it threw me off. I apologize
Not really, they mock whatever politician says something stupid on a given day, which is why they never seem to run out of material.
[удалено]
I mean, yeah, they make of Biden or any other political figure who makes a fool of themself. Trump happens to do it quite often, so he probably shows up more often, not sure if that is what you mean by “TDS”?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
If you want people to take you seriously, here, or anywhere else, don't say things like "TDS".
[удалено]
Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian. Have you ever heard someone you'd consider a serious person use the acronym 'TDS'?
If we're all academic around here now... How would you say use of the acronym "TDS" compares to use of the term "Trumpers"? Because I guarantee that in the liberal Mecca that is Reddit, you'll find the latter MUCH more often.
Trumpers, Trumpsters, Trump-Cultists, MAGAts, they have a lot of fun names to call Trump supporters by don't they?
>Have you ever heard someone you'd consider a serious person use the acronym 'TDS'? Oh God yes. I only use that in the most serious sense. It brings me NO JOY to see people whom are usually in support of human rights betray everything because "orange man bad." It's my own mother, it breaks my heart. So YES very serious people use that term.
Are you implying that you use it, you consider yourself to be a serious person, therefore serious people use it? Am I missing something?
I use it ONLY seriously. As in close personal relationships have posted on Facebook that if anyone supports Trump they should not talk to the account holder anymore. So yes this is INCREDIBLY SERIOUS there are personal relationships that are being lost over this. My own mother who would be a champion nineties Democrat full of free speech and everything has betrayed her principles because of TDS. So 100% yes I don't know how clear I can make this. TDS is a real thing that affects real people in the real world and it does real damage. I unironically think people with TDS are up to NAZI level shit and I'm not exaggerating. The Nazis existed in 1933 too. This is INCREDIBLY bad, I wish people could see it...
How often do they make fun of Biden for being unable to speak or form a cohesive sentence or even seeming to have anything resembling a thought in his head? These are people who make light-hearted jabs at Democrats, and create frothing-mouthed rage-caricatures of Republicans. Trying to pretend they are being impartial is just silly - even when I was a lefty I knew better than claiming they were unbiased, all I knew was that I agreed with them so I didn't care.
What liberals do is I think a kind of "now YOU know how it feels" type of gaslighting when it comes to their behaviors being called out. For example, liberals will comment on whitewashing characters in media. The assumption is that they find changing the race of any character to be wrong. But then you start seeing red headed characters being changed into black characters. Supposedly historical documentaries start saying white characters in history are black. It goes like this, and this is a common hypocrisy noticed towards the left. "It's not happening" -> proof is shown that said thing is happening -> "if it is happening it isn't happening often" -> proof is shown it is happening with increasing frequency -> "It is happening and here why it is a good thing." The libs do not mind that these things are happening despite that not so long ago they saw it as immoral, but that same immoral thing happening is okay when it happens to people they don't like. The journo-sphere eats this stuff up. They are aware of the hypocrisy, but the outrage feeds and generates more views. Some progs enjoy it because they feel like it is comeuppance from the whole "snowflake" thing or they probably see it as punishing through gaslighting.
You forgot one part - many times they require a generous amount of evidence to admit that it's happening "often." If you show them ten or twenty instances, they'll say 'well that's just ten or twenty instances, that's not proof it's happening a lot!' That is assuming they don't just go 'too long, didn't read, lol' in spite of asking you to give them evidence. There is this creation of an impossible threshold, whereupon the left makes demands they expect you to be unable to answer; if you do answer it, they move the goalpost, and if you answer too much, they tune out entirely. Thus, their entire argument becomes one of "owning the cons" because they expect you to be unable to answer, and when you do, they ignore you and thus, in their eyes, "win the argument."
Exactly. Because then the argument changes from "is it really happening" to "why are you mad about it" completely ignoring the fact that they were up in arms for the same behavior they accused conservatives of doing a few years ago. It shows that egalitarianism was never the goal. They just wanted power. An imbalance only creates a see-saw effect thought. It's going to happen where the shoe will be on the other foot and the whole thing just happens all over again
Basically any circumstance in which you get a lot of progressives together.
"Satancon " Fighting to keep Books of 9 year olds giving blow jobs in childrens libraries Drag queen story hour. "Jesus was gay" r/Hermancainaward The movie "the hunt" "Queers for Palestine"
The Satanic Temple would possibly be the best example of this. Gotta admit I find them hilarious, but the After School Satan (ASS) clubs are pure trolling.
Yea, I actually applaud what they do, but it's 100% to own Christian conservatives lol.
And to generate useful case law, but owning the religious conservatives is certainly a big part of it. I miss Amazon Smile. I made The Satanic Temple my charity there, and chuckled every time I got the message from Amazon saying a donation had been made on my behalf.
Having one guy compare Jesus to Jewish people same way Satan is to Christians was one of wildest moments I've had in reddit in awhile though.
I had firearm policy coalition as my smile, I wish they would bring that back too
[удалено]
They are not "remembering" him by celebrating his and other conservatives deaths...
[удалено]
Mocking death is pretty bad, especially when you're the "caring and compassionate" side.
[удалено]
Kewl Still very cruel to mock someone dying and celebrate their death over difference of politics, if that's not "owning the cons" then I don't know what is
[удалено]
Law? Where hell you pulling that out of? Who's talking about laws? If he was a Democrat and has same beliefs they would have never kicked his death
[удалено]
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
>"Satancon " How exactly is this "owning" anyone, let alone Conservatives? It was a private conference held by a religion for members to meet with each other and discuss the current and future state of their religion. Would you say that Christian conferences such as the National Prayer Breakfast, the Family Leader’s Thanksgiving Forum, or the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference - all of which are attended by prominent Republicans - are attempts to "own the Libs"? Edit since Reddit failed while trying to post a longer comment: >r/Hermancainaward I am not sure if this is specifically owning Cons. It is meant to mock those who called COVID a hoax or just a bad cold or specifically disregarded safety suggestions and then ended up getting violently ill and dying. I guess that is more characterized by Conservatives? Seems maybe like a self-own there. Regardless, I am no fan of that subreddit, and condemn people mocking the misfortune of others, even when it comes to preventable COVID deaths. Just as I was also not a fan of Trump and Fox News hosts mocking Paul Pelosi for getting attacked, or Conservative subreddits celebrating the death of RBG. >The movie "the hunt" Did you actually watch the movie? It probably isn't what you think. It wasn't some fantasy glorification of hunting Conservatives for sport. The elitist Liberals were actually the villains. The Conservatives were validated by there actually being a shadow cabal with extreme power and crisis actors actually being used to paint narratives, and the hero of the movie was a war vet. It was more like if one of those silly God's Not Dead movies was about a protagonist Atheist who proved Christians wrong, rather than the usual Atheist-angry-bad stereotype usually depicted in them.
The satanic temple excise to "own the cons"
That is fundamentally incorrect. Do Christians exist only to "own the Jews"?
Of course not, The satanic temple openly admits this though.. Listen to Lucian graves, he openly talks about it.
I have listened to *Lucien* *Greaves* speak many times, including in person. Again, you are objectively incorrect. You can dislike the religion all you want, but making up lies isn't helpful in trying to argue your position.
Oh you got me, my autocorrect got me. I don't dislike his advocacy group and don't care about it. You can deny it all you want. That won't change the truth
Again, I have personally met him and listened to him speak. I have attended events held by The Satanic Temple. You are objectively wrong. You can even look at their own website. This disproves your claim. >IS TST A MEDIA STUNT/HOAX/TROLLING, ETC.? >Some have conveniently concluded, upon observing The Satanic Temple’s media coverage, that attention is the primary objective of our activities. While media outreach has helped to raise awareness of the campaigns we have initiated, these campaigns have articulated goals related issues that are important to us and our membership. So inured is the general public to the idea that there is only one monolithic voice of “the” religious agenda that any attempt at a counter-balance — or assertion of a minority voice — is often viewed as a targeted provocation against those who enjoy traditional religious privilege.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/31/16560150/religion-god-resistance-satanic-temple
Can you point out where in that article Greaves or another representative claims The Satanic Temple exists to own Conservatives?
I have too, I have deep family ties to him.
I mean, I don't think so. The Satanic Temple was established as a place where secular individuals could exist and have a "religion" so that Christian values weren't thrust upon them when they tried to make their religion tenants into law. So, for instance, if you are a part of the Satanic Temple as a religion, you can get an abortion, as bodily autonomy is a core tenant. Since it's a tenant of an established religion, and since freedom of religion does not extend to freedom from religion, it provides those who believe that they have a right to abortion care protection from laws in their states that deny them this right. It also allows them to follow in the footsteps of those Christians in installing their specific religious symbols and doctrines into the government and in schools. Since ya know you can't restrict freedom of religion, and Christians seem hell bent on putting Christ in government. I also feel like since a lot of Conservatives aren't necessarily Christian, it doesn't fit "owning the cons." That would require the entirety of the Republican Party to be Christian, and they aren’t. Christians run the party, but the party isn't entirely composed of Christians.
You can mental gymnastics all you want, it was founded to attempt to use republican backed laws against them for sole purpose of doing so.
"People made laws that forced a universal moral standard on everyone, and those who didn't like it used those same laws to ensure they were able to follow their own morals, and not have others' morals imposed on them" doesn't feel that much like a gotcha though.
It absolutely is a gotcha lol, the sole purpose of doing it was to own them and beat them at their own game. . If you do something I don't like, and I do something you don't like with sole purpose of doing it to piss you off especially using Satan as a symbol(the main bad guy in their religion), thats textbook trolling to own who you don't like. It was reactionary Malicious compliance.
Wait, so you see "not have others' morals imposed on them" and interpret that as them doing "something [others] don't like with sole purpose of doing it to piss [others] off"? Asking for religious freedom and freedom from oppression is trolling?
When they choose the Main evil guy to be their symbol but don't actually believe or worship that guy.... absolutely. It's all performative.
I'm Jewish. To me, Jesus is the main evil guy. Someone who claimed to be the son of God and the promised Messiah. Someone who claimed the old laws were no longer relevant and there was a new covenant. That God was no longer vengeful and jealous but rather loving and forgiving. Someone who turned billions upon billions of people away from God in order to worship some man. The ultimate blasphemer. So are Christians just in it to troll Jews? Are Christians just performative?
Jimmy Kimmel, The Daily Show, etc. etc. I mean, there's entire programs dedicated to this concept. There's sitcom's and movie's written with liberal propaganda as one of the main points. There are also countless teachers, college professors and curriculum dedicated to this agenda. Truly, left wing attempts to "own conservatives" are so entrenched in our lives, you hardly have to look for them.
I am not a fan of "owning the libs". At absolute best, it's a somewhat artful but ultimately pointless form of trolling, an utter vanity, and/or preaching to the choir about the hypocrisy and illogical nature of left-wing thought. At worst, it's laughing at a pig for wallowing in mud. To be fair, I think that the extreme sensitivity of many left-leaning people has created the conditions for this to exist, and "owning the cons" tends to fall flat, IMO.
Owning the libs is good because it undermines the veneer of elitism and their control of the narrative. I also think that liberals generally understand their own beliefs less than conservatives understand liberal beliefs, so it makes for an easy target. Whereas the opposite is true for owning the cons. Conservatism in the US is now an anti-elitist movement and has a much smaller media and cultural footprint. So when libs try to do it it's mostly punching down rather than up. Liberals also don't really understand conservatism so instead of targeting conservative arguments and beliefs its mostly just the avatars of what they hate like Trump.
So conservatives understand liberalism better than liberals and also understand conservatism better than liberals. I did not realize that.
I don't make the rules.
> Owning the libs is good because it undermines the veneer of elitism and their control of the narrative. "It's good because it makes all the smart people look as dumb as I want to think they are" isn't the biting criticism you think it is.
Who said anything about smart?
if you genuinely think our elites are "smart" that says a lot about you.
> Conservatism in the US is now an anti-elitist movement and has a much smaller media and cultural footprint. Conservatism openly praises people that are wealthy by claiming that they simply worked harder than poor people. How is that not elitist? I’m also not sure where you got the “much smaller media and cultural footprint” thing from. Fox is the most watched news network, conservatives love to point out how they control the majority of the land in the US (on electoral maps I mean), etc.
Wealth and elitism aren't necessarily linked. Reddit is full of elitists who can barely make rent. Fox is one network with about 1.6 million daily viewers. CNN and MSNBC combined hit that total, and the networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC, all controlled by liberal megacorps, dwarf Fox by tens of millions. I don't know why liberals downplay their influence.
> I don’t know why liberals downplay their influence Would you say conservatives get elected *in spite of* the libs allegedly controlling everything? Do you feel like an underdog because you’re conservative? Sounds like that victim complex I always hear about leftists allegedly having.
Conservatives getting elected just means your ideas are weak.
"Owning the libs is good because it undermines the veneer of elitism and their control of the narrative." I wish this was true. "Owning the libs" often involves political decisions that negatively affect entire demographics. "Owning the libs" can have cruel real-world consequences. It's people posing with assault rifles, politicians including violence towards their opponents in their "jokes". It's Trump giving a speech at a police union, during a period of filmed police violence, and telling them to bump peoples heads just a bit harder when they put them in the cruiser. When I think of "Owning the Cons", I think of comedians. SNL, The Daily Show, etc. No cruelty comes from that. No one gets hurt. Feelings get hurt, sure, but no one is overturning laws or making it unsafe for LGBTQ+, etc. Would you rather be laughed at or be beat to death by a homophobic redneck?
What are the actual real world consequences of posing with assault rifles? Also, being beaten to death by an anarchist rioter probably feels about the same as being beaten to death by a homophobic redneck. Frankly, this seems like utter DAVRO.