having
conversations with
an imaginary Dan?
if there is a meme like that
Dan is the subject of it, not necessarily
the creator of it.
thus to think that the meme
represents him is a bit of a stretch.
Dan is no ones puppet and he does, from time to time, scold those who talk shit about him here, even in jest. Or maybe it's not really him because he always does it as an anon.
Dan does lurk, and if he had something to say he'd say it out loud.
never tweet text that is supporting candidates that you don't like to 'ironically' trash them in the graphic. That's a stupid shill idea.
say what you mean and mean waht you say unless your being obviously ironic or sarcastic. and with political speech, it's best to say 'this part is sarcasm' just to make it clear so that the material can't be used against you.
in politics ironic support for the oppostition is a vastly inferior strategy and it will blow up in your face if you try and use it.
muscles pepe would have come accross some worthy cause during his sojournies and donated his really really heavy gold chain to help and invest in other people, and do good things in the world. That's why muscles pepe doesn't have a chain like that hanging around his neck. He would, but he's too generous and doesn't want to be excessive in his outfitting budget.
If hillary uses a word, am I thus prohibited from using the same word? the other anon's point: a 'symbol' is a 'word' in a sense, a hieroglyph.
it's not the word but what is said with that word.
the 'intention' that comes from a 'statement'.
in your view if I use a word and you think I am evil then you can't use that word ever either or you are evil too. Anon , the other anon, is pointing out your rather . . . baby-minded view of langauge, use of words and symbols, and intention of utterance.
in that view you wuold be prohibited from using any words that have ever been used by a bad person.
so you are confused, anon, and also living under a rather pathetic fallacy that even you must know is false logic.