Who is behind them? Um… Conservatives. All of them.
Conservatism is hate. Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in North American history has been committed by conservatives. Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism ever committed in our planet’s history has been committed by conservatives.
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives. Marginalize hate by marginalizing the hate group.
Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one’s stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.
Since some people don’t seem to realize what a bigot actually is:
bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word “you” with generic pronouns.
You are mistaken. I am not espousing “intolerance of those who differ”. I am espousing intolerance of a group of deadly dangerous bigots who demonize anyone who is not in their group. Do not equivocate the haters and their victims who reject them. That is a tactic of the conservatives.
Biden is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are conservatives. They are better dressed and more intelligent, but they are conservatives by all international measures.
Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.
Conservatism is a plague of oppression and death.
You can pretend that you are not an intolerant bigot advocating for mass-murder, but your own words betray you.
Reading through the constant fountain of hate that you spew in your comments makes it clear just how big of a problem Lemmy has right now. The vast majority of you comments are pushing for at least two-thirds of society to be “extinguished”.
I have seen whole instances defederated for having a user say less violent and bigoted things than your comments do.
Is this the centrist part, where some violence is ok?
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.
Idgaf what you think. You’re of the opinion that people who can’t even agree that certain members of our society are human and deserve basic rights should be sat down with and talked to?
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
Look up the tolerance paradox and think hard about that.
There is a far cry between tolerance without limit and hating anyone that doesn’t agree with you. I can give you a hint as to which side you have been arguing for in case you got confused along the way.
Cute. You involved yourself in my dialogue, not the other way around. You could have stopped responding at any point.
It is hard being presented with logical reason that disagrees with our emotional beliefs. Look up cognitive dissonance. It might help you reconcile the pain.
No, it’s hard to have a conversation with someone who refuses to respond to what they are commenting to and instead responding to arguments spacecowboy didn’t make. Funny that.
SC lead with a false dichotomy and then when I gave them a genuine opinion anyways responded with “idgaf what you think”. At which point did you think I should have spent more time giving in-depth answers?
I don’t mind answering a question if you have one and are engaging in good faith. If however you lead with bad faith arguments, then twist and dismiss my opinions, I will have to apologize in advance because in that case I won’t spend much time on the responses either.
Was there something they asked that you wanted to know the answer to?
There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.
I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
I’ve been saying it for a good while now, and almost never get much response -but it’s worth saying anyways.
Please help spread this idea… It’ll never be popular, but it’s important. Far too few people get that, but words that ring true tend to stick with people down the line
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
One person’s nonsense is another person’s importance.
None of these people on either side are going to just magically disappear because the other side doesn’t like them.
If you want them to respect you enough to hear what you’re saying (I’m assuming when you comment you actually want people to read it and consider what you’re saying) you should do the same in reverse, even if you disagree with what they’re saying.
And when their stance is ‘trans people shouldn’t have rights’ what’s the middle ground there exactly?
It should be obvious that I was not advocating for a middle ground between two disparate stances on a single issue. I was advocating for choosing issues that we already mostly agree on.
In general, in a democracy, laws should not be created relating to issues that there is little to no agreement on. Trans rights is obviously one of the issues where there is little agreement amongst the population and laws, particularly national laws, should be avoided until there is a strong consensus among the population.
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
Realize you’re getting a lot more downvotes than upvotes, but I just wanted to let you know you’re not alone, in this way of thinking.
You don’t teach children to recognize hate by pointing at everyone right of middle and saying, those are bad people. That is how you teach hate itself.
It’s acceptable for the same reason we tell our kids to avoid violent and hurtful people. I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights for any reason, teaching kids to do the same promotes building healthy relationships with people who value and support each other.
Teaching kids to avoid violent and hurtful people is reasonable, but claiming the entire right side of the spectrum is equivalent to them is prejudicial bigotry. Teaching kids to do the same is teaching them the same prejudicial bigotry.
I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights
When you redefine a spectrum of beliefs as “removing my rights” then what you are removing is any ability to continue discourse. Without discourse there is no democracy. At best you end up with the tyranny of majority.
That’s a long walk and a slippery slope. Deciding not to involve detrimental people in my life is not removing someone’s right. It’s my right to choose the people I surround myself with, and it’s no one’s right to be coddled by their peers.
I learned at a young age that hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
I feel the same disdain towards someone who would suggest we eradicate people because of their skin color or ethnic background as I do towards someone that would suggest that we eradicate people because of their political views.
The difference being, I have never encountered anyone in real life or on Lemmy who would openly admit to being a nazi, whereas I have never spent an hour on Lemmy without seeing someone who thinks its okay to unironically say, “kill conservatives” or “eat rich people” receive overwhelming positive votes.
I hate anyone who promotes genocide. It’s why I hate nazis.
Conservatism and wealth are neither immutable characteristics nor cultures. You have provided zero examples of leftists calling for genocide.
Then again, your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots. Who knows how bonkers and contrary to reality your definition of “genocide” is?
Then we should be on similar sides of this argument.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics? Or are we just going to pretend that most Western conservatives aren’t Protestants?
your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots
How odd, that doesn’t sound anything like what I posted earlier. Not something I wrote mind you, just the first thing that came up when I web-searched “bigot”. It is almost like you are making up a fake argument, that is easy to defeat, and then pretending I said something like it. If only there was a name for that sort of thing. S…st…straw… I will give you hint, it isn’t strawberry.
Here is the exact quote I posted earlier:
bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
If you are getting something significantly different than that when you look up bigot, you might try using something other than Google; it has a tendency to reinforce one’s own biases.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics?
Conservatism itself is not a religion. There are plenty of conservative atheists and non-conservative religious institutions. Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
The only portion of the definition of “bigot” you care about is the portion you bolded. Which you’re using as a proxy for “people who hold political views that are rooted in bigotry.”
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots. I hope that never changes.
I have no doubt that there are some conservative atheists, but let’s not pretend that they represent anything other than an extreme minority of self-identified conservatives.
Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
I will let Wikipedia do the talking here.
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.
the portion you bolded.
The bolded portion was the portion relevant to the conversation, and relevant to Lemmy in general. Even if what you are saying was true and that was all I cared about, it wouldn’t mean OC wasn’t being bigoted.
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots.
If Lemmy was hostile to all bigots instead of just conservative bigots, someone else would have called out OC as a bigot. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I would have upvoted then moved on.
If we are going to have a conversation can we at least try to have a little intellectual integrity?
You wanted to accuse me of having weird definitions of words. I copied the very first link from a web-search regarding those words to confirm my statements, but I am the one playing semantics games and cherry-picking?
How about you respond to the actual stances laid out since we got all our definitions in order. Or would you rather continue to throw bright colored fish across the room instead?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Advocating for mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Disagree entirely. You choose your political affiliation, and that choice says something about the person who makes it. For example, anyone who is still with the Republican party after January 6 does not consider an attempted coup to be a dealbreaker. They see people marching with swastika flags and shouting “Jews will not replace us” and don’t consider that to be a problem. They cheer when people call for the eradication of trans people.
Advocating for mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree,
Advocating for it is not genocide. It’s advocating for genocide. I oppose genocide.
You point to any criticism of conservatives, up to and including nazis, announce that it’s genocide, and then pretend to oppose genocide in that narrowly defined circumstance only. You would be positively delighted of conservatives’ stated goal of wiping out trans people were accomplished, for example.
You are arguing on behalf of bigots in bad faith. I have better ways to waste a Sunday evening.
If we are going to say that most conservatives are white protestants then yes it sounds like a fair term to use.
Though even if we decide it is the wrong term, calling for the eradication of large parts of the population based on religious, cultural and a political affiliation is still abhorrent.
Like most centrists, many of my views are not really in the center but I think it is necessary in a democracy to find a middle ground between the extremes.
If you’ve never met someone on real life who is openly racist, calls themselves a nazi, openly supports bigoted policies and/or actively works to remove rights from people for who they are - you’re not paying attention. This is on a post about people organizing a march and politically strategizing to strip the rights away from other people.
I did not say that I had never met a racist or someone who supports bigoted policies, just that I had never met anyone that would admit to being a nazi. The difference being most nazis know they should keep their extremist views hidden.
I have met plenty or racists. For most of them it is subtle and they don’t recognize it for what it is. I have never heard any of them advocate for killing everyone on the other side of the political spectrum or eating humans.
remove rights from people for who they are
This is vague and politically loaded. I have definitely met TERFs, pro-lifers, and those that advocate against gender treatments for children, but that is not at all the same as advocating mass murder and cannibalism for those that disagree with their views.
I don’t know anything about the group behind those protests. I was vaguely curious about it when I clicked this post but made the mistake of reading the most upvoted comment in this thread.
In my mind there is a pretty big difference between what the article says is the groups stated viewpoint:
“Our primary concern is indoctrination of children in public schools,” the group says on its website. “This movement is mainly focused on protection of children against LGBTQIA+ ideology in school system and not to fight back against the LGBTQ community.”
and these excerpts from OCs own comment and history:
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives.
Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.
I think you lost track of who you’re arguing with. But yeah, you admit people can be subtle about how they express their views and yet don’t understand why that makes conservatives in north america dangerous.
I paint them with broad strokes because calling yourself a conservative in this times is accepting the broad variety of beliefs that political party supports. People have a choice.
As a marginalized person who had no choice in how I was born and always felt the affects of conservative policies, to the extreme detriment of my health and well-being, I absolutely understand and support anyone who thinks they should be ostracized.
Left leaving people believe that every human is worth the same - right leaning people draw lines and exclude people from that equal group.
The more often they draw the line against a part of the population most people aren’t part of the more likely is it that they manage to convince one of those that it’s actually worth it for them to agree with those divisions
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.
This cleared up any doubts I had in my mind when it came for voting for this guy for president. Yessiree, I absolutely am not gonna vote for Hunter Biden in 2024.
Once you start, you can’t stop. Next thing you know, you’re living as far from society as you can, cooking strange things in large pots, and communing with nature.
That’s because politicians are so far separated from the average American. Some of them are so old and senile and have been in power so long, they don’t even realize how bad it is for the average American, and on top of that, because they don’t think it’s as bad as it is, they don’t care.
Money talks and in this case money specifically asks not to implement any of this. Overworked, stressed out workers that are afraid to lose their healthcare are easier to control.
It’s not even 50% tits our fucked up districts, and also it’s gotten like this because of legislation to defund education. But younger voters are becoming more informed, change can happen. It will take effort and time though.
I have always wished that requiring congressmen work a minimum wage job in their district that they have to look for and apply to like the rest of us while out of session would do anything. Deal with some Karens to humble them properly.
No. It’s because the constitution effective abolishes democracy, by ensuring a two-party system.
In the US democracy is limited to one coin toss worth of decision making once every four years. Add to that that their first-to-the-post system eliminates all election power to non-swing-states, that means ~40 of the states have no democratic input at all, and the rest has up to 15 bit worth of democratic input over their whole life time.
Thus politicians have nothing to fear at all. They mess up, who cares? It’s gonna be their turn after the next term limit anyway.
The Constitution doesn’t employ a 2 party system and actually our founding fathers were against it. It has been put in place since then. I do think the electoral college system does cause issues though. We need a ranked choice system or something else where all votes have some value.
The overwhelming majority of working class adults want these things, but also the overwhelming majority of working class adults also work for large corporations who do not want these things (because it costs them money/profits). Guess who has more money to buy off politicians? Walmart/Amazon/Target would work together to never let these beneficial policies go through congress. It would be worth it to them to spend literal billions to prevent it, because it would cost them billions in the long run.
The sad reality is we don’t really live in a democracy. It’s an oligarchy that allows us to think we are in control.
I have never understood why Americans doesn’t have trade union?
Like in Denmark we have trade unions where a working area is united like the health care area, have “FOA” there is trading “time off” payment and so on, for all in this area.?
There are trade unions in the USA but the cultural difference compared to in a Scandinavian country is very striking, both in terms of American vs Scandinavians unions themselves but also their support. It would surprise many Scandinavians to learn that many Americans don’t even want trade unions because it’s for example commonly seen as that they interfere with career paths, promoting seniority at the cost of new blood or keep the wages low because individual wages can be affected.
I think the culture collision here is that the whole idea behind unions in Scandinavia is to offer a stronger collective voice and bargaining actor to increase wages and other subjects that improves the standards and quality of life / motivation of their employees so that the relationship between the work place and the individual is less asymmetrical.
But it’s been a long journey and it still is even if unionizing in USA has seen an uptick in debates lately, because USA has a radical and capitalistic history where there are loud and influential voices that even asking for basic rights on a job can be seen as “greed” and the company looks for someone being less of a bother and not asking these questions instead. All due to weak unions, of course. Otherwise the company would of course lose too much in employee skills by excluding everyone having these demands (and already being union members) like the situation here in Scandinavia where this by consequence is simply not an option.
This is at least my two cents of this entire situation from the “outside” also in Europe, please correct me if I’m wrong…
Because the American Oligarchy do nothing to actually improve the lives of the average person and deflect, blame, and fear monger against the other party to distract from their own corruption. It’s both sides of the political spectrum in this country and it’s getting pretty old.
98% of the people who vote are voting for repressive corporate culture.
The people who don’t vote can’t afford to miss a day of work, and even if they did, they know the people they have to choose from won’t do anything to change it.
We have to have voting mail in and at the booths as federally mandated. Washington State and quite a few others do this and we get a pamphlet that lists each candidate, their website, a pic and their policies. This should be the bare minimum for every state.
Hawaii is the only state to have implemented near-universal health insurance. The Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act, enacted in 1974, requires most employers to offer employees group health insurance. Hawaii does not have a specific law requiring individuals to have health insurance coverage.
Hawaii is ranked #1 in the country for overall health and public health. According to U.S. News & World Report, Hawaii is the top state for healthcare. The ranking is based on 71 metrics across eight categories, including healthcare, education, and economy.
The average health insurance cost in Hawaii is $421 per month for a 40-year-old across all plan tiers. The cheapest Silver health plan in every county in Hawaii is KP HI Silver 4000/45 from Kaiser Permanente. Individuals can get insurance directly from HMSA or through the federal health insurance marketplace at HealthCare.gov. Depending on your financial situation, you may be eligible for financial help, which is only available through the federal marketplace.
That’s because Americans have no say in these issues. They’re brainwashed (well, 1/2 is) to think those things are sOciAliSm, which apparently is bad despite many voters having socialized medicine that they love. It’s the American way, convincing people that what they want is not in their best interest.
Once it gets to a vote, yes. The way to kill these things is to bury it in procedure and pretend you’re just doing due diligence. Still pretty amazing that it got this far.
Not the only one with a “notable quantity”, but certainly the only one with content which could be regarded as “contextually appropriate”.
If your sexual proclivity errs on the side of old and/or stupid politicians, then I apologise for calling your preferences “contextually inappropriate”
It’s like watching the Teletubbies during an orgy; sure, someone might be into it, but I’m quite sure most people would say the Teletubbies is not something they want to watch while turning your favourite primary school teacher pink.
Bills start in the House before they are passed to the Senate. My guess would be that she championed it through the House, and then passed it off to the Senators mentioned to continue shepherding the legislation to the President’s desk.
Wow, today I learned! Thanks for the info. It turns out a half remembered episode of Schoolhouse Rock seen 30 years ago is not the authoritative source on the legislative info.
Unfortunately, that is not stopping me for hearing, “I’m just a bill, sitting on Capitol Hill” ad nauseum in my head lol
For republicans, aoc is the face of the liberal woke boogeyman. It doesn’t matter what she says or does, it’s automatically terrible. All news media gives her way more attention than is warranted bc they like to capitalize on hype.
Murder was in fact a fairly uncommon event in Ankh-Morpork, but there were a lot of suicides. Walking in the night-time alleyways of The Shades was suicide. Asking for a short in a dwarf bar was suicide. Saying ‘Got rocks in your head?’ to a troll was suicide. You could commit suicide very easily, if you weren’t careful.
Sure, self-inflicted. Having the absolute gall to be black in front of a cop is really just suicide.
Not just black, but suffering mental illness. Not sure which is a bigger crime. Certain people will instantly dislike you because they sense something different about you.
If you decide to not use StickerMule again, as the org I’m part of now has, I’d suggest that rather than simply not using them to login to your SM account, then contact them via their Support interface and ask them to remove your account and all data associated with it or direct them to tell you how you can do it yourself and end by telling them exactly why.
That is an excellent suggestion and sends a very potent and direct message that will be a lot harder to hand wave away. Chances are they’ll still try but it will make it harder on them.
I did this as soon as they posted the tweet. They didn’t even bother telling me they had done it or acknowledge my message and I just had to try logging in to make sure it actually got deleted. The complete lack of communication makes me even more glad to never give them business again.
Isn’t it painfully ironic that right wingers who cried about being told what to do by the state suddenly imposed a non-scientific law imposing what people can’t do to their own body?
They are absolutely trash…the party of small government until they’re in charge, then it’s fine as long as the laws punish other people. (Hint none of the shit they want to impose affects anyone. Like gays getting married. Hasn’t changed my life one but, why should I care about preventing things that don’t impact my life? Shouldn’t I mind my own business?) Also the party of fiscal responsibility until they are in charge, then it’s spend spend spend, for the rich, tax breaks for the rich and less services and higher taxes for us.
Freedom means freedom… for them. For them to do what they want, impose what they want on others, and to do it all without repercussions.
This is a fine example of it. They want the freedom to be free of “burdensome” mandates. but they want the absolute authority to impose mandates on others, without anyone being able to push back against it
That’s because they’re authoritarians. They are protecting a hierarchy that they believe exists in the world. That’s why they don’t mind if rich white men hurt them. Those people are higher in their hierarchy, so it makes sense to them.
They don’t like it if non-white people or women in general try to subvert this hierarchy. They believe if someone else rises in status they might fall in status. To them it’s “not right”; it’s a moral issue that people should “stay in their place” in the hierarchy.
Heart attack, stroke, seizure, bee sting, wasp, spider bite, snakes, malfunction of the vehicle, vehicle unknowingly damaged, avoiding wildlife, avoiding other drivers, spilled hot coffee, incidental choking, heat exhaustion, dehydration, bald tires, poorly maintained road without proper signage, Maybe someone’s cell phone battery blew up and it startled the driver.
There’s 1000 reasons a car accident can happen. We don’t need to assume the worst in people.
I’m all for a little shame if we find out they were hammered listening to bon Jovi with their heads out the window, yeah. But like, chill.
The term “distracted driving” refers specifically to the driver not paying attention when they should have been, and not to them being “distracted” by some event that they have to respond to.
All of those things are possible, but statistically, being distracted is far more likely than any of them… More likely than most of them combined, even.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.