Uploaded by Crimson Prose 
1304x734 PNG 448 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
So, American friends, so far it looks like this will be your choice for election 2016. It’s like being asked to choose the method of your execution. My advice is to write in Canada
Anyway, good luck with that.
Harshwhinny vector by twilightshadowart >>497534
Spoiled vector by xebck >>998842
Background by Getty Images
Anyway, good luck with that.
Harshwhinny vector by twilightshadowart >>497534
Spoiled vector by xebck >>998842
Background by Getty Images
Source
not provided yet
Yes…yes we do
The more I learn the more I hate humanity
All the answers to that are sad ones!
A speech from 1832 about how full of freedom and justice the 20th Century was sure to be
Who?
Edited
Definitely has an Enjolras’s Speech From Atop The Barricade feel to it, dunnit.
@derpykamina
To see this comment 3 years later is both saddening and completely hilarious
You should try looking up weird stuff here too, with no filters. It will be a life-changing experience.
@The Frowning Pony
I want a badge :( Unfortunately, I’m allergic to large blocks of text. It’s sad.
m8, on an ordered list of “toxic users”, you’re higher up than TUA will ever be. You’re just too inconsequential to don a silly badge onto. I’d suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.
New to the internet? No… New to commenting on threads, yes. I mostly lurk around Equestria Daily and look up weird stuff on Wikipedia.
That’s the one.
Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is the logical fallacy of attacking the person’s character instead of their argument. Generally it’s used when a person is too stupid or uncreative to think of actual arguments.
Notably, I wrote this response without bothering to check which side either of you are on. I hate reading blocks of text.
Edited
I’m fairly sure there’s a term for consistently attacking the person making an argument while completely avoiding addressing the argument itself.
So far here I’ve utterly wrecked your position with links to published scientific research and statistics/studies provided by the US federal government, but the closest I’ve come to saying anything about you personally is pointing out the fact that you don’t understand the topic you’re trying to argue about; I even removed a rather mean-spirited commentary on the way you unironically compared someone else to Hitler after going on an anti-immigrant tirade, just to keep things polite. Compare/contrast that with your responses, which consist entirely of increasingly hyperbolic personal insults aimed at me– and now also the entire moderation staff all at once!– and repeated insistance that you totally have one super secret URL that somehow magically refutes decades of peer-reviewed studies and publicly-available government data, and tell me which of us you think a disinterested observer would consider to be more of a “toxic leech”.
You posted an opinion that people are free to disagree with and didn’t expect it to start a childish bitch-fest? You must be new to the Internet.
It’s politics,people are always going to loose their shit about it
>Not categorically wrong
One link. Do you want it? By the way, I received that ban after proving that he was categorically wrong. A couple of people responded to my post and were actually pretty shocked at how utterly I destroyed his argument. And then my post was deleted because we can’t have that, now can we?
TUA is wrong. Constantly. But I’m not allowed to prove it because moderation on this site is completely moronic and, instead of perma-banning users that do nothing but create trouble everywhere they go, you stick a tiny little image next to their name and then ban anyone that doesn’t know the rule that is written nowhere and never discussed. We are talking about a rule that immediately and permanently ends any and all rational discussion at the mere presence of specific users. Do you not realize that this is a rule that only serves to drive away rational human beings for the sake of protecting toxic individuals?
Do you really not have any idea what that does to a site over the long term? Have you really not made that connection with other sites that have done this?
Derpibooru essentially creates hundreds of discussion topics each day (or thousands, I don’t know the exact numbers). This means that this is felt in a small percentage of discussions at first. As time goes on, however, toxic individuals settle down on the site and drive away the kind of users sites should want. As a larger percent of the population of the site becomes toxic, this accelerates the process.
And this is how Derpibooru will die, as so many sites have in the past. Larger sites than this one have fallen to this effect. All Derpibooru has going for it is that it started out with a strong userbase and is fairly new. I’d make a comparison relevant to the discussion, but that might be seen as proving TUA wrong and I’m not allowed. The point is that just because Derpibooru hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean that it isn’t heading down that path.
I really don’t have any faith that you’ll prevent it, though. But at least my conscience will be clear.
“As much as TUA is a cute little pink pony rocking back and forth[…]”
-The Smiling Pony
There’s an “unwritten rule” in not starting / exacerbating debates with duck badgers, particularly those that will hand your ass back to you on a rusty platter and make a grisly scene out oft the whole ordeal. As much as TUA is a ████████████████████, he’s more often than not not categorically in the wrong and his whole game is to bait people into pointless arguments to verbally humiliate them for amusement.
Some days “moderating” this site primarily consists of observing people self-harm.
But the rules say that I can’t argue with you
Well I’m afraid you’re not doing a very good job of that.
I’m passing interested, though, in this “single link” of yours that you seem to sincerely believe will somehow refute… the US Department of Agriculture, the Congressional Budget Office, the US Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the US Census Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the Pew Research Center, the Cato Institute, and ‘’five hundred economists [including five Nobel laureates] to name just a few of the sources cited in the articles I linked– all at once; that’s a pretty tall order for just one URL.