1724
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
1724 points (97.2% liked)
News
37661 readers
1945 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not a broad generalization at all. It's a widespread pattern of hypocritical and contradictory conservative outrage, statements, and laws.
... and that's just off the top of my head. If you're a conservative, wake up, your party is a mess.
Spoiler: he'll completely ignore this comment and just continue to go on saying that all criticisms of conservatives are baseless and unproductive
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.
If they feel that way, then why do they vote politicians into power who do those things?
You don't get to vote evil people into power and then say "oh no, I don't support the evil stuff, I just care about the lower taxes"
Because they at least agree with some of their messaging rather than agree with none of it.
Yeah and my response to that would be the last sentence of my comment.
Why don't you? Can't you say: I support the ACA but not drone bombing schools?
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.
False equivalency.
"We should focus more on corporate taxes rather than individual taxes" is an opinion; "gay people shouldn't have rights" isn't an opinion, it's hate.
Don't try to pretend these are on the same level. Supporting American conservatism requires a level of moral bankruptcy.
Both are opinion, something being abhorrent doesn't make it not an opinion. Opinions can be hateful.
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.
You don't have to do what I do. But that doesn't make their wrong opinions not opinions.
Hey dude, your opinion is wrong.
Yeah, "wrong" when judging someone's opinion is inherently opinionated so it's redundant for me to say "in my opinion your opinion is wrong"
You are a machine!
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“
You definitely win the internet with this comment.
Yeah... I agree. None of that makes selective enforcement the core of conservative laws.
I agree those are bad examples.
Better examples:
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.
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.
Can you site any they defended recently?
I don't see how that's hypocritical.
IIRC not illegal- but against tradition
Love it
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."
I'm done with this conversation, you lot are ignorant, loud, and preventing actual progress and critical discourse.
You want to talk about outrage politics? You morons are outrage politics. Fuck off.
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.