"Ah, so even though my original intent regarding these posts was to parody them, I shouldn't be able to mock these juvenile idiots with their own words because you believe that appropriating these same words makes me as bad as them. Even though these words are used by alt-right types as buzzwords in place of actual…

You want to believe thay what you're doing is parody, but it's actually the same exact thing you are criticizing.

Two things: 1) having no idea what to do in politics isn't the worst thing in the world, especially when you compare it to having a very specific and terrible plan; and 2) I think you are reading between the lines and finding things that aren'the actually there. Pointing out that one candidate is utterly ridiculous…

That episode did nothing of the sort. You didn’t even bother to provide an example of why you have that take. I think it is wishful thinking on your behalf. Since you enjoy their work, you don't want to believe that Parker and Stone really, REALLY hate both sides equally (albeit for slightly differing reasons). They…

What part is eluding you?

Very true, but that doesn't factor into what I was critiquing. George was suggesting that comparing two unequal negatives somehow made one into a positive. That is faulty reasoning.

No, it isn't reconsidering that.

Very true, but that doesn't factor into what I was critiquing. George was suggesting that comparing two unequal negatives somehow made one into a positive. That is faulty reasoning.

Family Guy is reviled at this point, because it has been terrible for years. South Park is discussed ad nauseam in social media. And people pray for a merciful death for The Simpsons. Are you posting from 1999?

Is "edgy" an insult? It isn't where I come from. And there is nothing cynical about it.

Great response, buddy. FYI:

Not when there are more than two options, including not choosing anyone.

A better analogy would be one violent rape vs. ten violent rapes. The second is "worse," but only in the scope of what occurred, not in the nature.

But please continue to try to explain how 0 is between -3 and -1.

You are incorrect, and it is very obvious. Last I checked: -3 < -1 < 0 < 1. Since there are four options (at least) if you include a third party candidate and not voting, your assertion that the difference being "positive" has no bearing on the proper outcome. It is a false dichotomy. Also, the decision as to whether…

You are in no position to call anyone "intellectually lazy." And he holds a coherent position, so he isn't a nihilist. You don't even know what the words you're using mean. Pathetic.

No, it is inherently comparative.

Doesn't work that way. Something that is evil doesn't become good in the presence of greater evil. You too are falling victim to faulty binary thinking. Things can be unalloyed negatives, but of varying degrees.

The sentiment is right. It just has a strong whiff of "I got woke because of Ron Paul in 2007-08."

Again, you are incorrect. You are conflating the likely end result of tens of millions of decisions with the process of an individual making a decision that little-to-no effect on that result. You're too caught up in the binary to see that. Abstaining (or voting for someone with value equal to or greater than 0) would…