As a queer person, extending the acronym past what is necessary feels like pandering in the best light, and purposely trying to bait ridicule in the worst. The whole point of LGBT was to include anyone on the spectrum that was gay or trans, and the Q was supposed to include anyone who considers themselves queer, even if they don't meed those parameters. I can understand wanting to include I because intersex people are often left out of the conversation, and I even understand A because there is a lot of debate even within the LGBTQ community itself as to whether asexuals are considered queer or not. But when you start incorporating numbers, symbols, or extending past 5 letters within the acronym, you are defeating the purpose of having an acronym, creating confusion, baiting ridicule, and even making people not explicitly represented in the acronym feel excluded.
And there is already a single, all encompassing, inclusive, one syllable word that describes the community and all who occupy it: "Queer." It's easier to say, remember, and hell, even type if you are typing LGBTQ past 5 letters. But because of it being appropriated and used as a slur, there are many even within the community who are even afraid to utter it, let alone identify with it. Which is a god damned shame there is nothing inherently wrong the word, cause even in its original meaning, it meant someone who was outside the norm or otherworldly, and in literature has been used to describe characters like Gandalf, and characters in Shakespeare.
It describes me without having to explain or justify how or why. It describes how I feel as a person, how others see me, how I interact and relate to others. Its an adjective that can be verbed and adverbed. It's sharp and provocative, yet also warm and natural, like a forest green. People who have adopted and embraced the word for themselves feel the love within the word, and can extend it to others. And even for those outside the community, those who are brave enough to use it when talking in our defense come off as more decisive and confrontational, than the person who thinks adding another letter or number to the acronym will make them seem more legitimate.
It's time we stop fearing our word. It's time we recognize the difference between queer as an insult, and queer as a description of who we are, and we need to extend that to people who are willing to talk about us and our struggles or come to our defense. The word is only as evil as we are willing to reject it, and I will be dead in the ground before I let our word be the domain of queerphobes and bigots.
edit: It's late and I'm going to bed. Apparently some people think I'm a self hating queer for thinking the acronym should be dropped for an all inclusive term, and so be it. It's late and I want to get some sleep. And a lot of the people making this argument I know haven't read past the first paragraph, much less to here. Anything clarification they could want can be found here and in my other posts here. Otherwise, if they are not going to put in the effort to read, I'm not going to put in the effort to respond.
edit 2: I wanted to make a separate inclusion because I have had a chance to sleep and cool off, and I wanted to address some of the more combative posts in my replies: I get it. We as a community suffer attacks constantly, even from within the community, so I understand why so many here are on guard and skeptical of my intentions. And I'll admit, my post probably could be better written. I'm not exactly the best at articulating my thoughts. But the point of my post is not to exclude anyone from the community, but rather embrace a word that includes everyone. I would like to hear counterpoints to my argument, because maybe what I need is a different perspective on the issue. I would love to hear from people who prefer the acronym, and why they feel it maybe more inclusive. I am a flawed human being with many faults. I grew up in a conservative background, and my life up to this point has been trying to unlearn a lot of that. But I did not write this with the intention of excluding or singling out anyone. Forgive me I have done so.
Two spirit is a native cultural thing and I think acknowledging it is a good idea. It used to just be LGBT, why should we stop expanding inclusion the moment you find a word you’re personally comfortable with?
Better question: What makes you think they are not included in LGBT or Queer? Also, I know the inclusion of two spirits within the LGBT acronym is contentious with many native Americans as well. It's why the pride flag with the native American feathers is frowned upon at many queer events.
If everyone is included in queer why be anything other than the Q community? What elevates some queerness to a place where it deserves recognition on its own and why is some queerness relegated to a bucket labelled “Miscellaneous”?
In case you missed it, we don't need the acronym at all. We already have one word that describes us all in any form that takes, and making an acronym that is overly long and extends/contracts depending on the whims of the writer is overly complicated and defeats the purpose of having an acronym.
Also, funny how you aren't going to argue the point that the inclusion of two spirits is controversial within the native American community itself, when that was the point you jumped at me with.
Controversial in a community other than my own means that two spirit isn’t my point to argue for or against. I led with it because it was the thing that was there after the Q, which seemed to be where you were drawing the line in the sand. I’ll concede that point.
The only thing I’d say about adopting “queer” as an umbrella term for all of us is that, as a term of abuse, a lot of us have strong negative associations with it and would hesitate to self-apply it. I use it, I like stealing power back from the bullies in that way, but I’m not gonna force someone to self-apply a slur that dredges up memories of being physically beaten, or their friends killed. An umbrella term could work, but maybe not that one as long as that trauma is still present in the community.
I think you and I agree on more than we may think. At the end of the day, I want everyone in the community to feel not only included, but unified as well.
I understand the word still hurts others, but so do so many other words commonly used within queer spaces. Gay is still used as a slur and pejorative and yet is still used universally amongst the gay community. I think part of the reclamation process is not only using the word whenever you can, but taking pride in the word as you do it. I do mean it when I say I feel warmth and love in the word queer, and I try to extend that to anyone I use it to describe. If someone within the community expressed discomfort in the word though, I wouldn't use it for them.
And I think at the end of the day you and I can agree we need an all encompassing term. Something that is inclusive, easy to say, versatile, and if possible, steeped in tradition within the queer community, I personally feel queer is the best candidate for that term, but I would be welcoming to better suggestions.
Queer makes me think of weird. Odd. Not normal. I wish gay meant more than just homosexual lol. I mean I don’t identify with a gender, I don’t have preferences and if I had to label myself that way it would be longer than my name. But I also don’t feel like I’m different or abnormal for not caring if my SO were male, female or whatever they want to be, I’m not abnormal for being part of a spectrum where I don’t see things as feminine or masculine. I don’t feel like I need to be labeled but I also have an easy time blending in with those whose religion and culture is limiting them from who they are. I guess once more people get comfortable with the fact that it’s normal to be who you are then they’ll start being themselves and lgbt+++++ will just be everyone.
I mean going on your second point, I think it demonstrates the difference between a slur and a descriptor is how it’s used as a word.
Like transgender is neutral term but we see it becoming a scare word by fascists recently by changing how its used in speech. Like “transgendered”, “transgenderism” or “transing” (as a note, it’s kinda scary how the first two no longer set off window’s spellcheck). Basically turning trans as a state of being adjective into a verb makes it seem like an act you can do to someone or have happen to you.
I mean, I don’t identify as queer and plenty of my friends don’t. One of my exes did and great for him but this just seems like the wrong argument. There likely just needs to be a technical, non-inflammatory term.
I like it, even tho usually I include a “R” there for romantic minorities(eg people who might not be a sexual minority but are a romantic one) when discussing this with other people, but I guess it could be argued that they still fit into “sexual”.
R or not, I like that it includes everyone without any identity being shoved into a letter or a “+” along with lots of others as if they’re an afterthought, not as important as the ones that get to show up as their own letters.
Literally your entire first paragraph is you trying to explain why you get to decide which parts belong, based only on how YOU feel about it. It’s weird you can’t read what you wrote.
I said I understand why people feel the need to include terms that are already covered by the Q in LGBTQ, but overextending the acronym and including symbols and numbers causes confusion, defeats the purpose of the acronym, and makes people who are not included feel left out.
The whole point of my argument was I think queer should be the go to term cause it covers everyone and leaves nobody out.
I have nothing to hide. I'm a dumb irresponsible formerly conservative queer person who is still learning and who says stupid shit all the time, some of it I even come to regret. It's all there for anyone who wants to judge my character. Happy reading. Hopefully your assessment of me is more forgiving than @Hyperi0n.
You’re like “ I want to hear counterpoints to my argument”.
Okay, well not everyone likes or associates with the general term “queer”.
You say “ I want to support and include people who need it”.
Then act like it my guy, here’s your chance to attempt to understand something separate from yourself that wants to be included and supported. You got this!
Extending the acronym to cover everyone is becoming ridiculous. I think we just need a word that covers all the bases rather than trying to shoe horn one more letter/number/symbol/wingding that’s already becoming difficult to keep track of. It doesn’t bring attention to any one group, nor does it help individual groups as a whole when you’re summed up into a letter.
I hate labels in general. I’m in the Q part (enby) and I’m completely fine with it, I don’t need my own letter, nor do I need to identify with anything.
I had a teacher in highschool (04-08) whose name was B Gay. In his lifetime Gay want from “happy” to a slur. Machine shop was the best because of him too
Can we apply this logic to the flag as well? I thought the rainbow of the pride flag was meant to represent diversity and cover all orientations…like how a rainbow spectrum of light literally covers all colours. Now specific groups are being added and people are finding ways to add another line to represent something. The flag is a mess.
I tend to think of the Progress flag as a product of the times, not as a replacement for the rainbow Pride flag. We added these additional signifiers specifically because those groups were under-represented or under particular attack, not because they aren't included in the Pride rainbow.
How to defeat a slur, take it as your own. It’s simply as easy as that.
Growing up I was fat as fuck, people made fun of me all the time. One day I decided it was enough, I started making fun of myself for being fat, suddenly everyone left me alone because it no longer got the response they were trying to get.
Ignoring / getting angry is what they want, turn around and happily scream yeah I’m queer, ya looking for a good time? (For example) ya know what’s gonna happen? Their gonna start stammering and come up with another way to bother you, and when you don’t give in and don’t show a reaction they will end up storming away angrily. Then you have something to laugh at for the rest of the day.
What the fuck do you think pride parades are for?
My grandfather got caught downtown Toronto in one and spent 2 hours throwing slurs. Ya think a single person in that parade cared?
My biggest qualm is a qualm I have with any acronym/abbreviation. If you’re going to introduce a letter that is unknown to many, then define your term. Otherwise, I’m going to assume it’s a typo, or I going to not recognize it.
All acronyms and abbreviations, or at least those that aren’t commonplace, should be defined somewhere adjacent to their use, or else you are excluding people.
Speech/text is only useful if you’re using it in a way that appropriately conveys a message to it’s intended audience.
I’ve come to realize that whatever it is that causes people to have alternative sexual preferences, I’ve got a little bit of it. However, I’m heterosexual, so I don’t really identify with the community. I could accept the queer label, though.
This does nothing to address NYCs actual housing shortage, and will hurt the market more than it helps.
New York City’s housing stock has only increased 4% since 2010, not nearly enough to keep up with its 22% increase in jobs. And from 2017 to 2021, New York City permitted 13 homes for every 1,000 residents in 2017
Housing stock isn’t just total number of housing units, it’s available housing on the market. This will absolutely free up property that’s been hoarded off for AirBNB rentals
I would be interested to see stats on the impact of this a year down the line. From what I’ve seen, Airbnb has a very tiny percentage of actual housing stock, but (deservedly) disproportionate impact on public perception.
I do actually think it’s a small percentage, but it’s been reported that a lot of realtors/landlords have been running AirBNB’s in empty units fraudulently in order to skirt laws and regulations. Not sure if it’s still happening (I saw this reported maybe 3 years ago now?).
Institutional landlords make up a large chunk of the housing stock though, we need to combat that as well.
Yep. This was what the US government was trying to stop when they made hallucinogens a felony. Turns out you don’t need LSD to realize your chains are fake.
most likely explanation: somebody's uncle owns a tire factory and is a good salesman.. or even more likely, somebody stole a bunch of military tires from the Army, and then sold them to the Air Force as an effective "drone deterrent"..
Maybe if the cops hadn’t spent the past decades eroding public trust something like this wouldn’t happen. There could have been a valid and good reason for the person to be arrested but at this point everyone assumes the cops are in the wrong as the cops are never held accountable for being wrong.
The Davis School District initially removed the Bible from school libraries after a review determined it did include “vulgar” content. But the school board unanimously reversed its decision after a review by an appeal committee determined the text has " significant, serious value for minors which outweighs the violent or vulgar content it contains," the AP reported.
Sort of, but also, Christianity is a death cult that enables child molesters and promotes hate, so there is not much room for subtly. It is also profoundly lacking in any basis of reality and frankly teaches deranged ideas that harm children’s ability to make rational judgments about reality.
No, I’m done with this stupid conversation and closer to believing Lemmy is a cesspool echo chamber than before it started. You people are fucking idiots that detract from reasonable discourse and progress on the left.
And by the way, I’m far from conservative, I hate Trump and all the other extremist authoritarian assholes, and I’m starting to realize you lot are almost as stupid as the MAGA fascists.
I don’t know what you want from other people. You’re not obligated to argue with people on the internet, but you started a disagreement that you weren’t willing to back up. Then you baseslessly called everyone idiots and a danger to the left before storming off. Maybe when you have more distance you can learn some lessons. Maybe you can understand where they’re coming from. Maybe you can better articulate what they did to harm the discourse. At the very least, it would be wise to learn to not pick fights you don’t want to actually participate in, for your sake and everyone else’s.
Dude just shut the fuck up and leave Lemmy then. Clearly you aren’t interested in any actual conversation, so why the fuck would we want you here to begin with? Do us the favor of walking away.
It’s not a broad generalization at all. It’s a widespread pattern of hypocritical and contradictory conservative outrage, statements, and laws.
“I should be able to teach kids about the Bible in school, but you can’t teach them about Yoga”
“we can’t have vulgar language, oh unless it’s from our religious book”
“I can’t make a cake for you because you’re gay and that’s against my religion. What do you mean you won’t make a Christian cake? That’s religious discrimination!”
“Happy holidays!??! Happy holidays??! You monster, how dare you wage war on Christmas! We have religious liberty in this country! What do you mean that protects other religions? There’s only one God and one religion!”
“It’s totally fine that the polling places in large democratic areas have hours long waits so long as my polling places are quick and easy”
“it’s totally fine that a county with 10,000 people has the same number of ballot drop boxes as a country with 3,000,000 people”
“marriage is between a man and woman … and may include 17 divorces; they gays can’t have it”
“we need to teach kids (i.e., indoctrinate them in the ways of) Jesus not this woke (black history, trans, etc)”
“let’s let white kids off with a slap on the wrist while we throw a black kid in jail for smoking a plant”
“I can’t believe a president could have such a scandal in the white house as to have had an affair with an assistant! We need to impeach! No, I don’t think extorting an ally for information about an opponent is worthy of an impeachment! Trying to overthrow a legitimate presidental victor with a procedural trick? Nah that’s not worth an impeachment either! Oh but hey, this Biden guy’s son who lost one of his parents and a sibling in a car crash, that lost his brother to cancer, that has a drug problem, called his dad while he was in business meetings to show off… so you know his dad definitely was up to something! We’ve got to impeach him over that! What do you mean that was before he was even president and that’s completely unprecedented?”
“We should totally lock her up for those emails! What do you mean the guy screaming that’s son and law did the exact same thing?”
“We’re sorry we can’t appoint a supreme court justice just before the election! Psych! We totally can if it’s nominated by OUR president!”
"We need law and order in this country! What do you mean Trump broke the law? Nah, I’m not hearing it; this is clearly a partisan witch hunt and the majority conservative staff of the FBI is out to get conservatives! Oh but we’ll DEFINITELY weaponize the federal government and go after our political rivals full steam if we get the presidency in 2024"
“I believe abortion is amoral, that’s why I hid the fact that my ex/current lovers have had one”
“I believe homosexuality is amoral, that’s why I am one in the closet”
“we’re going to be the party of health care, but don’t watch as we strip you of your federal protections for your health care”
“we’re the party of the little man, but don’t watch as we cut taxes for the rich (and you but make sure that expires under the next term (probably while the Democrats are in power)”
“the national debt is an outage! Oh let’s spend as much as Obama did in half the time! Oh Biden is in power again, spending is out of control!”
“the problem isn’t guns it’s mental health, but we’re not going to do anything about that either! Must be because the kids aren’t in church, the gays, video games, or hey look over there, a squirrel!”
“climate change? Nah. It’s not real. Okay maybe it is, but it doesn’t matter because look at China! Oh we could make a dent and get the ball rolling? Well, it’s too late anyways, we should’ve been building nuclear plants! What do you mean I just made that up? Clearly I’ve been trying to solve this via nuclear the whole time, and it’s not another dog whistle! Oh and btw all of my top presidential candidates say they don’t believe in man made climate change! But yeah, totally serious about this issue!!”
… and that’s just off the top of my head. If you’re a conservative, wake up, your party is a mess.
I don’t need to put any words into your mouth, your reply to the comment was to ignore all the real, objectively true examples and just claim that despite the fact that they’re the actions of real conservative policy makers, that they somehow have nothing to do with real conservative policy
You ignore the faults of real world conservatism, holding up this idealistic version of conservatism you have in your head as “real” conservatism. Ill bet you also hold that conservatism has nothing to do with anti-LGBT+, despite their policy makers constantly making anti-LGBT+ policy decisions
And you’re reinforcing mine by continuing to not actually address any of the actual points.
Pointing out actual, provable examples of selective enforcement by conservatives isn’t an “echo chamber” it’s discussing real world politics
Ultimately it looks from my perspective like you’re falling into the classic trap of just assuming that when a lot of people disagree with you, that they’re just mindlessly repeating talking points - rather than ever considering that your own view might be skewed. Further reinforced by the fact that you steadfastly refuse to actually talk about the issue, and instead just keep deflecting and crying “ECHO CHAMBER”.
And no, I have no idea who you are, why should I care though? This is a discussion about conservative politics, not you or your feelings.
So if you agree that what’s being said is factual, then what exactly is the concern here regarding “echo chambers”?
A echo chamber is dangerous when people are spreading misinformation, a group of people acknowledging a very real negative aspect of a major political party is in no way “echo chamber” type behavior.
Now if we were saying “all conservative voters and politicians are Nazis”, id agree with you that caution should be given about echo chambers, but cautioning about echo chambers when objective facts are being discussed comes across much more as you trying to deflect away from facts you don’t like being discussed.
Would it help you if we also talked some trash about democrats?
Biden is too old for office
Most elected democrats are hypocrites, at least to some extent
Virtually every politician, including the left leaning ones, in the US are corrupt to som extent, and usually to a severe degree
There? Are you satisfied that we’re not an echo chamber?
Not denying that Biden is very old and that any vote for him carries a material probability that it also elects the VP for president, the vast majority of politicians are very old in the USA
The concern is that you said “conservatives”, not “what’s popular amongst conservative politicians”, or “what’s popular amongst conservative media”, or even “most”. You just said conservatives, that is villifying all people by nature of a describing themselves by a very broad term(or even someone else ascribing it to them). Their initial complaint was generalization and you attacked them with evidence of it being true for some conservatives.
Every person who votes conservative is guilty of the behavior I describe because - As pointed out above - they vote in the politicians who do these things
You can’t vote a politician into power and then not take responsibility for their actions
Every person who votes conservative is guilty of the behavior I describe because - As pointed out above - they vote in the politicians who do these things
Then essentially every American who votes is guilty of drone bombing civilians because presidents from Republicans and Democrats did it.
Except that I that example, as you say - they have no actual choice in the matter because as you say it doesn’t matter who they vote for. That being said, I think we all do bear some small share of the responsibility for the atrocities our country has committed, if only because we benefit from them - but that’s a whole other debate.
My point is that every conservative has a very easy choice each election - support the conservative party, or oppose them. If they choose the former, that’s their right, but theyre responsible for having made that decision, and don’t get to pretend that all the terrible shit the GOP is doing, all the way up to it’s ongoing attempts to subvert the election process and undermine the justice system, is somehow not their responsibility, despite voting for it.
And in the interest of fairness, the same goes for the Dems. I bare some sense of responsibility for Biden’s union busting of the railworkers strike last year for having voted for him. That’s how it works. But I think any rational person looking at the two parties from a utilitarian standpoint of ethics can see pretty easily that the evils of the GOP vastly outweighs that of the Democratic party
Except that I that example, as you say - they have no actual choice in the matter because as you say it doesn’t matter who they vote for.
No you can vote for the non-evil, like I do. But I understand that it is a mature decision to vote who you see as the lesser evil with a chance.
That being said, I think we all do bear some small share of the responsibility for the atrocities our country has committed, if only because we benefit from them
No, not at all? If I am one of two plumbers in a town and someone randomly kills the other plumber I profit from that, but I have 0 responsibility for the murder.
the GOP is doing, all the way up to it’s ongoing attempts to subvert the election process and undermine the justice system, is somehow not their responsibility, despite voting for it.
There is some responsibility, but not exactly the same as if you were a perpetrator yourself.
But I think any rational person looking at the two parties from a utilitarian standpoint of ethics can see pretty easily that the evils of the GOP vastly outweighs that of the Democratic party
Most people are not utilitarian, or at least I hope they aren’t.
But I understand that it is a mature decision to vote who you see as the lesser evil with a chance.
Idk if I’m having a stroke, or you are - but this sentence makes no sense to me - though I think I can guess at your point from context, and I broadly agree - at least up until the point that you claim that voting for the “lesser evil” exonerates you of any responsibility for the actions of the party you voted for.
No, not at all? If I am one of two plumbers in a town and someone randomly kills the other plumber I profit from that, but I have 0 responsibility for the murder
Except in that example, you didn’t help give power to the murderer, whereas for the actions of our government, we do.
There is some responsibility, but not exactly the same as if you were a perpetrator yourself.
Not exactly the same, no - I agree. I the same way that if you came across an ongoing hate crime on the street and cheered on the perpetrator you wouldn’t bear the same responsibility as the actual perpetrator, but it still makes you evil in my opinion.
Most people are not utilitarian, or at least I hope they aren’t.
I disagree, I think most people’s natural approach to ethics (when they bother with it at all) is to compare the net harm vs the net good of the action their trying to weigh. That’s literally how we teach children the difference between right and wrong - we ask them to consider the consequences of their actions, and whether those consequences are good or bad).
Either way - I think it’s clear you’re not changing your mind on this, and I’m just repeating myself, so unless you have some novel point to raise I’m done arguing about it. Feel free to continue to distance your decisions with their consequences for others if you prefer (lord knows most people do, unless those consequences are bad for themselves)
No dude, fuck you and your weasel words and moving goalpost. You made a shit comment and got proven wrong. Now’s the time to gracefully take the L; anything else just makes you look like a jackass.
Lol, you prove my point more eloquently than I could have on my own. Well done, and keep getting mad at strangers online it’s probably the best part of your life.
I’ll be honest, the point was less for him and more for lurkers, that might not pay as much attention and might benefit from an outline. I gave up on changing the mind of the person I’m replying to on the internet a long time ago (if it happens great!) … but I want to challenge and cut through the “noise” for the casual observer.
That’s the only single reason I debunk conservatives with some of their tactics thrown back at them. In a forum, I’m pretty much am blocked by nearly every conservatives there.
He didn’t say that, he criticized generalizing conservatives. I know conservatives who don’t care to block books from school libraries, or block trans students from going to bathrooms in their identified gender- or most of the other “culture war” arguments.
Yes but until they start actively opposing those policies and demanding their politicians do the same, they are still complicit with these policies as their votes are what enable them. Whether or not they personally believe these things is entirely irrelevant. All that matters are the actions and policies, and every conservative voter is this complicit.
Unfortunately people have different priorities than you or I, I guarantee a politician you have voted for has done something you oppose, and you may have still supported them. That’s because you care more about their other policies.
Yes but I don’t have to respect those opinions enough to validate them by acknowledging them. If those are your “opinions” then you’re a monster and you can fuck off. Don’t expect any respect from me; we need less kid gloves and more people calling out assholes in the world.
Being very wrong doesn’t make someone evil. If someone genuinely believes something like that and isn’t just saying it be edgy, I’d try to convince them out of it. Just like a flat earther, they believe something that I believe is very wrong.
I never signed up to be the social caretaker of the world. If they’re adults, I assume they’ve had plenty of opportunity to learn. I’ve devoted way to much of my life already to trying to educate the vile sort of people that vote conservative, I’m fucking done with it. They can go get the kid gloves treatment from their imaginary “tolerant left,” this fucking leftist is done with them.
And before you say “but how will things ever change if we don’t educate them?”:
First, again that’s not my job. But more importantly, education is only *one" weapon of change, not the only in our arsenal. We’ve forgotten how powerful rightly-applied shame can be.
I fricking hate how we’re expected to gently explain in soothing voices and educate and be understanding of people who damn well want us dead and who wouldn’t even extend someone on the left the courtesy of even pissing on them if they were on fire. We’re supposed to extend them every grace and courtesy while they’re not expected to do the same to us.
Phillando Castile. All for gun rights until a black man is shot while legally owning a gun. One could run down the list of black people (and children) who have been murdered by the police because they “thought there was a gun”. Guns are legal and they’re quite vocal about supporting the right to bear arms (but only if you look white).
Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want. They lied about the cities in this country being destroyed during the Floyd uprisings as if America was gone.
All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.
Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.
How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?
We could continue but I’ll just boil it down with a pithy quote: there are those who the law must protect but does not bind and there are those that the law must bind but not protect. That is the conservative idea. Go read the only moral abortion is my abortion with that statement in mind and it’ll make sense.
I haven’t heard that case, can you show some examples of “conservative” outrage?
And I feel like it’s probably not race related seeing as conservatives were some of the first people to criticize the police in the Brenna Taylor case(a post about her boyfriends trial is still the top post on r/progun). Some conservatives also defended Andrew Coffee IV.
Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want.
From their perspective(by the way me explaining someone’s perspective doesn’t mean I agree with it at all like most of the people on this site seem to think!!!) their is a coup happening by the elites so they are going in to uphold the law and put in the rightfully elected(again in their mind) president.
All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.
Can you site any they defended recently?
Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.
I don’t see how that’s hypocritical.
How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?
I’d argue it does, conservative lawmaking has consistently operated with a distinct understanding (and execution) that shows “this applies to them not us.” I’d love for conservative law makers to do what they say and say what they mean. However, they won’t and thus can’t build a coalition that gets them elected by being honest about their policy goals.
Conservative law making in the US has become at its core “outrage politics” (and that depends on selectively enforcing ideals, policies, and laws/antagonizing part of the population). I don’t make generalizations lightly, but this is the core and fundamental piece holding the Republican party together, and it’s an awful state of affairs.
This can be further demonstrated by Vivek Ramaswamy climbing in the polls despite, as Chris Christie put it, “sounding like ChatGPT.”
K. When you figure out what discourse you want to have come back without an empty argument.
You’ve just proven everyone else’s point that wrote you off. You’ve made no supportive arguments for your position and resorted to an opaque moral high ground where everyone else is an idiot.
Bruh, you are the literal embodiment of the issue plaguing the USA in this historical period: you say you are ready to have a discussion and then, once somebody engages you with actual facts in his hands, you attack your interlocutor with the most vapid point without replying to his considerations.
Furthermore I’ve been taught that there are two possible sides when tackling a problem: you can either be part of the problem or part of its solution.
As far as I see nowadays republicans are ALL part of a problem called “political extremism”. If you vote for the party which is presenting an autocrat and a crybaby as it’s frontrunner for the past and upcoming elections you don’t get to be offended when someone calls you out for that. If you are not voting democrat you are actively choosing to be ruled by a tiny minority which sees it’s religion as the only viable solution to all the (made up) problems they see in the modern world. Should you vote democrat, on the other hand, the worst which may happen is that you’ll loose some purchasing power when the world has been facing a pandemic and a regional war at the gates of Europe.
If your choice is to actively vote for the first option I’ve news from you: you are an enemy of the people and of democracy, don’t be surprised when people will treat you as such in your future interactions with tem
Why vote democrat though? Supposedly the US does have or allow other political parties to be formed. If they can organize themselves, diversifying the local state political pool should not be a problem at least.
Because due to the system in place at the moment and due to the culture surrounding American politics USA can only operate in the two parties system. Organising, raising and keeping a third party is not a viable option at this time as many different candidates and elections have shown us. The easier way to improve American politics is to get involved in the democratic party and to change it from within as many of the newly elected representatives are trying to do, with quite positive outcomes I might add.
Excellent summary. Maybe add:“That slut next door should not have an abortion, she should have kept her legs closed. My daughter‘s abortion? That‘s totally different, it would have ruined her career“
Well, church leaders have been reporting that the sermon on the mount (or whatever) is being criticized as woke. Maybe there’s something to this idea after all.
We all knew they were gonna figure out a way that the law doesn’t apply to them and the stuff they like. That’s like the fundamental constant of conservatives, it’s different when we do it because we’re not those people.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” –Francis M. Wilhoit
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.