52
Conservatives Are Running Out of Things to Eat (newrepublic.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/politics@beehaw.org
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Farms tend to be rural... Rural communities tend to be conservative. How are "Conservatives" going to run out of things to eat when they literally grow food?

The hell is this article supposing? That Tony the Tiger owns all food? This type of editorialization is stupid. Who cares that ANYBODY boycotted what amount to sugar soup?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Its not literal. Its just poking fun at the fact that culture-war-conservatives are boycotting more and more things for dumb reasons

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    So boycotting (and suing) cake shops for not making gay marriage cakes... this is any different how?

    You can't shit on the other side for something yours is doing too and act holier than thou.

    All this serves is to antagonize them and divides everyone more... And makes people like me hate both of your parties.

    Every day my Polish Citizenship looks better. Everyone looks more childish every day in this country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    So boycotting (and suing) cake shops for not making gay marriage cakes… this is any different how?

    the key difference is it's good for people who refuse to respect basic human rights to be boycotted and socially ostracized for doing so. conservatives, meanwhile, pretty much exclusively do boycotts because they're mad they can't restrict other people's human rights

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    You're attempting to restrict the rights for an artist to choose their art... Somehow that's different? That's very delusional thinking. It is literally the same thing. You're just treating it special because you happen to agree with one and not the other, so you're refusing to look at it from a neutral standpoint.

    If the left can boycott a cake shop for not wanting to generate art that has certain motifs, then the right 100% should be able to boycott companies for depictions that also have certain motifs.

    This is literally equivalent. And if you're mad about the right treating you like shit because you harbor the former belief then you shouldn't be the people push the latter problem on others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Do you really think that's what the article was saying? Their boycotting farms? I guess you also think they are boycotting ranches, and fisheries too? Or many... just maybe... the author was using something so common we have name for it? Hyperbole

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •