Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

254

Going southpaw means adopting the opposite stance of the orthodox stance essentially

https://pic8.co/sh/jbpkqr.jpg

As you can see there are pros and cons for both stances (sword or shield, first? And what stance did your opponent just pick to begin with?)

https://pic8.co/sh/KivwX4.png This is theoretical discussions and examples, don't focus too much on details, you get the overall idea

For those interested in further details https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/which-is-more-difficult-to-fight-agasnt-orthodox-or-southpaw.2785951/

...

So where am I getting at with this?

A full shitlib presidency. What's the stance? I mean for us mere shitposting mortals, not for stratospherical politicians and supreme court judges.

"Resist"? For what? And how? By spending 4 years crying about how the election was rigged on biased mainstream platforms? Because that's the orthodox stance and while it isn't invalid in itself, it's totally inapropriate. Not only we are expected to adopt that factually losing stance, but that's also going to lead nowhere ultimately

So, what's the alternative? That's an open question, I don't claim to have the ultimate answer

From my point of view, since kamalabiden isn't totally prone on going full shitlib https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/13/biden-advisor-dr-gounder-says-covid-advisory-panel-doesnt-support-full-us-lockdown.html I suspect his base is going to be a tad disappointed, and not just about kamalabiden giving up on the idea of a full lockdown... But also about kamalabiden not delivering on a wide range of stuffs they took for granted with a kamalabiden presidency

...

Maybe just maybe, the right stance, strategically speaking, is to support the most extreme trending shitlib demands on social media, the crazier the better, even go as far as manufacturing some eventually and try to make them fly, so in the end the shitlib admin ends up caught between a rock and a hard place; On one hand they just can't afford to go full AOC Omar for obvious reasons, as we already know, on the other hand if they refuse to go full progressive, they'll angry their own loons which constitute the majority of their base now... Rioters and shit...

That's just an idea on top of my head

Going southpaw means adopting the opposite stance of the orthodox stance essentially https://pic8.co/sh/jbpkqr.jpg As you can see there are pros and cons for both stances (sword or shield, first? And what stance did your opponent just pick to begin with?) https://pic8.co/sh/KivwX4.png This is theoretical discussions and examples, don't focus too much on details, you get the overall idea For those interested in further details https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/which-is-more-difficult-to-fight-agasnt-orthodox-or-southpaw.2785951/ ... So where am I getting at with this? A full shitlib presidency. What's the stance? I mean for us mere shitposting mortals, not for stratospherical politicians and supreme court judges. "Resist"? For what? And how? By spending 4 years crying about how the election was rigged on biased mainstream platforms? Because that's the orthodox stance and while it isn't invalid in itself, it's totally inapropriate. Not only we are expected to adopt that factually losing stance, but that's also going to lead nowhere ultimately So, what's the alternative? That's an open question, I don't claim to have the ultimate answer From my point of view, since kamalabiden isn't totally prone on going full shitlib https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/13/biden-advisor-dr-gounder-says-covid-advisory-panel-doesnt-support-full-us-lockdown.html I suspect his base is going to be a tad disappointed, and not just about kamalabiden giving up on the idea of a full lockdown... But also about kamalabiden not delivering on a wide range of stuffs they took for granted with a kamalabiden presidency ... Maybe just maybe, the right stance, strategically speaking, is to support the most extreme trending shitlib demands on social media, the crazier the better, even go as far as manufacturing some eventually and try to make them fly, so in the end the shitlib admin ends up caught between a rock and a hard place; On one hand they just can't afford to go full AOC Omar for obvious reasons, as we already know, on the other hand if they refuse to go full progressive, they'll angry their own loons which constitute the majority of their base now... Rioters and shit... That's just an idea on top of my head

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

A real unorthodox stance would be to not adopt a fixed stance at all, and to attack the enemy on all fronts, with all options, whenever there's an opening. Use the fake media. Use RINOs. Encourage the far-left fringe to go full retard and make the Democrats own it. Resist anything they try to do. Impeach. File lawsuits. Go all in.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Absolutely, I'm not advocating for an ideological stance set in stone here, to be clear. If anything that's what the right and also the left to some extent suffer since forever.

However I tend to focus on the part I'm dealing with, the stuff I have to handle personally. Debates mostly, online but not only. I'm not going to spend 4 years trying to prove a shitlib how biden is bad and how trump was better, at least not in an orthodox fashion.... Even if I'm right that's going to score shit in the end. "this is fake news! Bigotted! Orange man bad! Still better than trump! At least it's not trump! Lalalalala I hear nothing I can't hear you! You've been reported for islamophobic racism and transphobic antisemitism! Ban the orange naziiii!!!!" etc

No, nope. That's useless and not even funny. And you know the saying, if you can't fight them, join them... And fucking drive the bus over the cliff

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I'm not going to spend 4 years trying to prove a shitlib how biden is bad and how trump was better.

That's an impossible task.

EDIT: His "submit" too soon.

I don't try to show that someone is bad by comparing them to someone else. If I point out that Biden has done something wrong and the answer I get is along the lines of, "But Trump did the same thing," I counter with "it's not a zero-sum game. Both can be bad. Excusing / justifying your preferred candidate's criminally by claiming others have done the same shows that it's not the behavior that bothers you but the person himself."

If they're OK with Biden being a criminal because they are convinced Trump is, they're OK with criminality. They're just not OK with Trump.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes

I edited that sentence btw

>I'm not going to spend 4 years trying to prove a shitlib how biden is bad and how trump was better, at least not in an orthodox fashion

I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, that there's a point at which, the shitlib lunacy once properly exposed, becomes too scary for the vast majority

And maybe I'm wrong

The shitlib lunacy being fundamentally and literally antichrist in the end, anti human, anti everything that's good