Master Troll Activated!! Trump Wins!

[Bret Ripley]

This may also be helpful -- both the Republican and Democratic Parties would occupy space near the center of this diagram:

Uh oh. Some Leftists are self-loathing.

I saw that. I figured those were the self-aware ones that vote for Democrats.

[Markk]

Okay, I like Whiskey would love you to.

For both you and Whiskey -- I believe this is the idea Molok expressed:



This may also be helpful -- both the Republican and Democratic Parties would occupy space near the center of this diagram:

So were does this say that Progressives hate democrats?

Did you make these diagrams, if not please provide a link.

[Bret Ripley]

You're welcome.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This may also be helpful -- both the Republican and Democratic Parties would occupy space near the center of this diagram:

Uh oh. Some Leftists are self-loathing.

No one hates Leftists more than Leftists, ha.

- Doc

[Hound of Heaven]

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/19 ... 2517040164

Let's take a moment to be serious. The reason Democrats, particularly Marxist progressives, struggle to create memes like Trump is that they lack a sense of humor, it has been stifled, and they also seem disconnected from reality.

I have mentioned this numerous times in the past. Marxism, particularly in its new age and progressive forms, is rooted in a foundation of pure hatred. Individuals who adhere to an ideology founded on such negativity are unlikely to create humorous memes. Their memes fail to resonate, leaving people unimpressed, as they seem to be driven by a narcissistic mindset that views humor as a sign of vulnerability.

This meme features Donald Trump, tossing a 2028 at Hakim Jeffrey's head while sitting in the Oval Office. It's one of the funniest memes I've ever seen. If Trump and the Republicans continue down this path, there's no way the Republicans will lose in 2028

[canpakes]

Let's take a moment to be serious.

Nah.

[Physics Guy]

Venn diagrams can be ambiguous. You can interpret each circle as representing a set of individual items that share a common label but are not necessarily all the same. With this interpretation, intersection regions represent subsets that are part of multiple sets. Some members of one circle may also be part of another circle, but not all members of each circle have to be in both. So for example if one circle is "fruit" and another is "round things" then the intersection includes round fruit like grapefruit, but there are things like bananas and baseballs that are in the "fruit" or "round" circle without being in the intersection.

Or instead you can interpret each circle as a single concept which has multiple features. Intersections then indicate features that two different concepts have in common. In this style of Venn diagram, whatever is marked in the intersection is something that applies to the whole circle, not just some things in the circle. So for example you might have a circle "grapefruit" and another circle "baseballs", and the intersection could be marked, "round things". Every grapefruit is round, not just some grapefruit; every baseball is round, not just some. Labels that might go in the grapefruit circle, but not in the intersection with baseballs, would be features that every grapefruit has, such as "citrus fruit", but that don't apply to any baseballs. And the overlap region of "round things" does not mean, in this kind of Venn diagram, that there exist any objects which are both baseballs and grapefruit. Still less does it imply that everything which is round thereby automatically counts as a baseball-grapefruit.

Formally, suppose we are dealing with two binary categories: everything must be either A or else not-A, and it must also be either B or else not-B. Then in the first kind of Venn diagram we might have a circle defined to be "Everything that is A", and a second circle "Everything that is B". The overlap region is then all the things that are both A and B. In this approach, a circle representing "Everything that is both A and B" and another representing "Everything that is A but not B" will have no overlap, because nothing can simultaneously be both B and not-B.

In the second approach, though, in contrast, the "Both A and B" circle would overlap with the "A but not B" circle. Their overlap would be "A", because it's the thing that their definitions have in common even though on the whole they are different. And this time the circle that was just "A (regardless of B)" and the circle that was "B (regardless of A)" would not overlap, even though some things can indeed be both A and B, because the definition "It's A" has no overlap, as a definition, with "It's B".

The two ways of using intersecting circles are related closely enough that they could be confused. The different versions are actually almost opposite, though. The first approach decides how circles overlap by asking, "What things are in your set?", while the second approach decides by asking, "What concepts are in your definition?" The second asks, "Is there anything that you all have in common?" while the first asks, "Are there any of you that have everything in common?" It's kind of bottom-up versus top-down. I guess both versions could be useful, but I think I prefer the second one. What the first version does seems more obvious, while the second one can express a surprising insight about mutually exclusive things having something in common.

Anyway, the diagram with "Conservatives", "Leftists", and "Liberals" would seem to be one of the second kind, because it includes overlap regions between "Conservatives" and "Liberals", and between "Conservatives" and "Leftists". I don't think that anyone can simultaneously be liberal and conservative, so in the first kind of diagram, the Conservative circle wouldn't overlap with the other two, though Leftist and Liberal might overlap with each other. Conservatives can have some common ground with both Leftists and Liberals, however, such as liking guns or capitalism. And Liberals and Leftists may indeed all agree upon hating Trump even if nobody is Leftist and Liberal at once.

The implication of this, though, is that the diagram is saying that everyone hates Leftists—including not just some, but all Leftists.

[Kishkumen]

Lol, No, I mean I don't know what his definition of progressivism is in the democratic party. If you have one I would love to hear it, if not, that is okay also.

You need my help looking things up on the internet? Really?

[Whiskey]

Lol, No, I mean I don't know what his definition of progressivism is in the democratic party. If you have one I would love to hear it, if not, that is okay also.

You need my help looking things up on the internet? Really?

I looked it up.

LMAO.

I used the internet, and this is what I found.

Progressives: Often described as the far-left flank of the Democratic Party, Progressives are a loosely organized ideological movement devoted to social justice, economic equality, environmental alarmism, and the worship of “diversity” in every imaginable form—racial, sexual, economic, and even ideological. They have no official party, no charter, and no coherent leadership structure, preferring to elevate public figures who embody their values. Heroes of the cause include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Greta Thunberg, and Bernie Sanders, each lionized for their emotional appeals and moral absolutism with indifference to practical governance.

While they claim to fight oppression and promote fairness, Progressives often end up pushing government control, speech policing, and performative outrage as political substitutes for measurable progress. Their ideal world is a bureaucratic utopia managed by committees, hashtags, and people who have never run a business but know exactly how you should run yours.

[Gadianton]

While they claim to fight oppression and promote fairness, Progressives often end up pushing government control, speech policing, and performative outrage as political substitutes for measurable progress.

So MAGA are progressives? Thanks for the clarification.