1. #1781
    Quote Originally Posted by Santti View Post
    Right, like that has meant so much in the American history. The blacks, the American Japanese, Indians and others.

    Sure seems like some were created more equal than others.
    Hell, even other white people were considered "inferior" and didn't have the same rights if they weren't the right religion. Cities and communities actively passed laws restricting various groups because of that.

  2. #1782
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    The republican platform for the last two decades really hasn't been about solving problems, since solving problems means they have less of a platform to run on, so instead they just go with bullshit.
    Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

    This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

    I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.

  3. #1783
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.
    Or maybe the other side is acting out of malice and evil?

    This is a thread about a particular issue. On one side we have people who want abortion to be legal in all states. The other side does not.

    This is a very, very clear example of how both sides are not the same. Furthermore, one side of the issue also supports related issues that may actually reduce abortion. The other side does not. It’s the latter group who wants make it illegal.

  4. #1784
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,692
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

    This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

    I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.
    There is no legitimate "both sides" concept. It's a fallacious argument. It's a form of false equivalence, if you want the formal name.

    All you're doing here is trying to deflect legitimate blame away from Republicans for views like "denying women their basic rights as a human being" or "intentionally trying to harm and terrorize children for being LGBT, for the sake of inflicting that harm and for no other identifiable reason".


  5. #1785
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

    This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

    I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.
    I mean, yeah you can both sides this with Dems being status quo toting do-nothings who often just pay lip service to social issues until they're forced to act on something. While Republicans channel legitimate - and non legitimate - public anger into absolute nonsense culture war bullshit.

    So, for me, it's much easier to be angry and snarky about Republican (lack of) policy making when everything they've done since I've been politically active has been to the detriment of almost everyone I know and care about. The worst I get at Democrats is annoyed and frustrated because they're too chickenshit to upset the people who already don't vote for them.

  6. #1786
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Rozz View Post
    We're not a monolith and it's a common comparison to make contextually across several different issues in this country. Tbh trying to act offended on behalf of minorities for diminishing 'slavery' in this way makes me feel like you don't talk to enough of us or selectively listen to what you see to weaponize our own words against us when you don't like what we have to say.
    On the reverse, your "contextually common comparisons" look a lot like bringing slavery in to grab extra emotional weight in the debate. Like, in an abortion thread, I might think you're using techniques like abortion eugenicists like Planned Parenthood of old, like straight-up borrowing them, but I'm aware that you might take affront at being implicitly compared to eugenics supporters.

    You brought up the concept of an inbalance in voting power based on which group you're in. Then claimed that it would be the Urban groups trying to overtake and overrule all Rural demographics unfairly if they had their way.
    It's the happy outcome for them, and you, but I really think its the interests of urban groups wanting to win out, and being overly dismissive of other points of view. What works for the cities has to be balanced because of their financial heft and tax base, but you get too much into population=pure power, and you get colonial overseers determining how things are gonna be for the little people. The result is ruling unfairly, but the motivation is purely frustration at not having their will on gun rights, welfare, taxation, and voting made the law of the land everywhere.

    The point of the original post that you didn't seem to understand is:
    1) Several states already function this way but in the reverse because of gerrymandering.
    2) This is intentionally done because of party lines that also follow a very close pattern directly related to racial allegiances and Jim Crow/ the failed Reconstruction era. For instance, Missouri would've been a blue state for several years straight already if they didn't. It's in the Republican's best interest to keep up their tactics and maintain the current voting system.
    3) To maintain the current system mimics a lot of similar sentiments to the 3/5ths Compromise in such states because of their historical context and racial composition of both demographics. A slave group was argued to only be worth 3/5ths of a vote to benefit slave owners. Those slaves were freed and now their not too distant descendants live in a society in which they still feel like their vote is diminished regardless because of gerrymandering to the benefit of the same ideological group. Despite voting with the majority of residents in the state, they aren't seen as a enough of a driving force to convince their representatives to listen to them outside the city. That's why Georgia and Miss Abrams are seen as anomalies and heroes to the Black community because they managed to break through even if just once.
    4) The comment isn't actually about slavery, it's a reminder of how the Republican party functions in a way that mimics racially charged or unethical moments in history because it still benefits them to this day. You don't have to be a racist, like slavery, etc to benefit from the effects it's had on an area. The intent of our voting system on paper is a good one, because it would suck if rural people never had a voice because they tend to be different demographics from urban centers. But it's also because of that situation that leads to the conflict we see today. The comment was a cheeky way to say a lot about the results of both our history and gerrymandering with only a few words.
    I think we understand each other a little better on what you intended with the comment. I really wish there was a switch to flip where communities with diverse interests preserved their individuality and insulation from a dominating political ideology, and it be totally unrelated to systems of the past that "mimic" or draw unpleasant feelings "like their vote is diminished" in the way it was during reconstruction. History has the tendency to drag out change across many years from sheer inertia. Government demands continuity in political compromise and leadership without gaps. But it really would be better if it were possible to shut down the past history to begin again fresh.

    The what-to-do-now-and-what's-feasible issue is fraught. In terms of my preference, Georgia should be a better case. They've made it easier to vote in comparison to states like Delaware and New York, and in comparison to any election year with the exception of the pandemic year. It's a success story. Now, Miss Abrams bathes in the rhetoric that it's not enough, or badly motivated, for political gain. I'd say she's focused on realpolitik and the short term. She might get more turnout ripping at the old wound instead of celebrate the huge increases in voting for all populations and African Americans in particular and calling for even more progress in these areas.

    That's essentially the modern conservative argument. Intentionally scratching at a healing wound can get you pain, and pain you can use to promote political gain. But nothing really progresses in continually reopening wounds to then complain of the hurt. That's my view on the state of play. The political fight isn't precisely directed at promoting healing and a different future as compared to the past. The Republican party has done a poor job recruiting candidates and raising money to promote a message of a bright future for all voters in the state, if you just look at their outreach in blue states and major-blue-areas. I think it would be money well spent to give a real choice for voters, even if winning elections is decades in the future. The message has to include empathy on how history bled into current disparity, and minority candidates from the region.

    I'm kind of all over the place, already 45 minutes into this composition, and I need to make dinner so I'll leave it there. There's a lot of avenues.
    I didn't get into this with you, because from what I understand of your posting you don't believe in or perceive these issues--or maybe your angle is not to say it doesn't happen, but to debate when it does. If neither statement is accurate to you, then that's fine. But if that was true, I don't think you would say what you did, because if you spoke to us instead of ironically speaking over/for us and diminishing my words as somehow offensive to myself, you would've got the point enough to focus on what you actually disagree with in relevance to the conversation.

    The conversation isn't about slavery, it's about how the same concept of voting tyranny(which you brought up) exists today with or without slaves. That was the point. Someone asked you-- now twice-- if you feel all votes should be equalized. You should answer them, because regardless of you saying you do/ don't, that's more in line to what we're getting at than what you chose to focus on. And it's an important conversation to the thread, because federal law may no longer be able to maintain abortion as an option.

    And there are states that don't push social legislation in accordance to most of their actual population. That is the fear. States rights won't actually reflect the desired rights of most residents in the state. A social issue like this is perhaps too important and complex to make a blanket ban on without being more flexible and compromising. That isn't to say abortion is overall favorable or non-controversial (even among 'progressives' and clearly women) but the nature of the topic demands that it be looked at objectively and not used as a cudgel for culture war. A non-nuanced approuch will hurt people, risk shattering an already poorly designed foster/ childcare system, likely worsen child abuse/starvation statistics, etc. And yet here we are, about to see if the 'For the Children' crowd will actually take up the responsibility to care for the children and if the 'Her Body her Choice' crowd are able to still have their choice where it's allowed. See the recent events with a DA wanting to re-jail and re-charge two women who had stillbirths.
    I perceive those issues, and my thinking on them evolves in terms of addressing them in these politically charged time. I think a few of them are stuck with no progress possible until there's a slow disarmament with a new generation rising. The mutual accusations of bad faith are a big problem. Like we were going at earlier, any attempt to dig into the current pain and debt from reconstruction could just be another attempt to brand X policy racist and thus not worth the debate. My earlier response to you drafted my line on what "vote worth" could mean (the real answer is "What do you believe that means?, since even that is more political bumper sticker than actual investigation. If you define every vote being worth the same in a way that means the Senate violates that rule, then I'm against it. I want majority rule being defrayed over checks and balances, and devolvement of power down as far as possible to localities, because the mob often gets it wrong. And it doesn't realize the pain and hurt until much later, if we can go back to problems that mimic the wrong and the harvest from slavery.

    I'll give one more go at being explicit. I don't believe in easy solutions in balancing deep differences in interests, political ideology, and culture & society. I do wish to minimize it in the best workable solution. I don't think there's an easily prescribed system that will keep it at a minimum both now and long into the future. There will always be some form of Republicans in Blue States, and Democrats in Red States. There will always be the pro-lifer seeing legalized infanticide in her neighborhood, and the pro-choicer seeing an oppressive system trying to control her body.

    The other balancing concern is to allow a majority party to be capable of actually making policy changes with a winning campaign message. Change policy to address new situations, or show that things could be different if you allow it to run for 2years or 4years. Splitting too far down to the county or neighborhood doesn't sufficiently allow good policies to show good results, together with chaos and uncertainty for citizens during physical moves and commerce. For my part, I'm committed to showing that post-birth care of children is better handled by the policies of the Right ... so much so that California had to go to lawfare against pregnancy centers in the state to hinder their success. I have a dark view of current political realities, but that doesn't change what I wish were the case and what I think would be a better direction for the country.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  7. #1787
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

    This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

    I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.
    Forcing victims of rape and incest some underage to carry babies to term seems pretty darn fucking evil to me. Feel free to show me the "both sides" of this issue.

  8. #1788
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,692
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    That's essentially the modern conservative argument. Intentionally scratching at a healing wound can get you pain, and pain you can use to promote political gain. But nothing really progresses in continually reopening wounds to then complain of the hurt. That's my view on the state of play. The political fight isn't precisely directed at promoting healing and a different future as compared to the past. The Republican party has done a poor job recruiting candidates and raising money to promote a message of a bright future for all voters in the state, if you just look at their outreach in blue states and major-blue-areas. I think it would be money well spent to give a real choice for voters, even if winning elections is decades in the future. The message has to include empathy on how history bled into current disparity, and minority candidates from the region.
    It's hard to take this argument seriously when Republican rhetoric and policy is so firmly devoted to creating new wounds and finding new ways by which to attack and harm innocent people. See all the anti-trans laws being put in place, like the one in Georgia that will require invasive pelvic exams for girls who want to play sports. Literally any; challenges can be filed by anyone against anyone, requiring the target to either quit or submit. Girls as young as 10 or so.

    See the voter suppression laws which were clearly identified as being racist in their design and intent, and overruled by the courts.

    See the naked attacks on women's basic rights and freedoms that constitute the entire abortion "debate".

    That "bright future" you talk about is a "white, cishet, misogynist future". That's the message being pushed by Republicans, that's the message being communicated.

    I perceive those issues, and my thinking on them evolves in terms of addressing them in these politically charged time. I think a few of them are stuck with no progress possible until there's a slow disarmament with a new generation rising. The mutual accusations of bad faith are a big problem.
    See, but on the one hand, those attacking Republicans can make clear and specific accusations, as I just did above.

    Meanwhile, Republicans can't get specific about supposed "bad faith" across the aisle. It's just empty character attacks, projecting their own malice.

    I want majority rule being defrayed over checks and balances, and devolvement of power down as far as possible to localities, because the mob often gets it wrong.
    That isn't an argument against the mob, it's an argument for the mob. The premise of democracy is that the wide diversity of views will tend to ameliorate the worst impulses, water them down across the wide diversity of the nation. Reducing that down allows for local extremisms to run rampant.

    Your position argues that there should not be hate crime laws, and places like Sundown Towns should be allowed to lynch blacks within their borders because that's, apparently, not "the mob", whereas prosecuting hate crimes like that apparently is. I'm so baffled that you can't see this that it's really hard to take it as a seriously-meant argument, rather than just deflective nonsense used to confuse and distract.

    I'll give one more go at being explicit. I don't believe in easy solutions in balancing deep differences in interests, political ideology, and culture & society. I do wish to minimize it in the best workable solution. I don't think there's an easily prescribed system that will keep it at a minimum both now and long into the future. There will always be some form of Republicans in Blue States, and Democrats in Red States. There will always be the pro-lifer seeing legalized infanticide in her neighborhood, and the pro-choicer seeing an oppressive system trying to control her body.
    You realize in that choice there's a very easy way to distinguish the two, right?

    The pro-lifer is pushing a religious agenda, and religion cannot ever form a basis for forcing what someone else should or should not do; that is religious zealotry/extremism/fascism. Freedom of religion means the religious pro-lifer gets to choose not to get an abortion themselves, and not have any expressed opinion about the procedure for anyone but themselves.

    This isn't a balanced issue where both sides have equal merit to their positions.

    See also Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions, or Muslims who won't eat pork, or Mormons who won't drink alcohol or caffeine. They can make those choices for themselves, not others.

    And there isn't a single pro-life argument that doesn't boil down to religion at some point, both in the personhood of the fetus and the dehumanization of women.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Forcing victims of rape and incest some underage to carry babies to term seems pretty darn fucking evil to me. Feel free to show me the "both sides" of this issue.
    Hell, the basic idea of telling women they don't own and control their own bodies and must serve as brood mares for society is, itself, pretty goddamned dystopian and evil. Not just for cases of rape or incest.


  9. #1789
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Thanks for providing a concrete example of the core dishonesty integral to the American creation myth.

    Yes, they absolutely said that in the Declaration. While some of the drafters (Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston) were, themselves, active slaveowners, at the time. And the country the Founding Fathers established inherently was built upon that institution of slavery. So clearly, they did not mean "All men". They meant "White men". Since they clearly did not consider blacks to be their equals. We can debate whether this was because they thought blacks were subhuman livestock and thus not "men" at all, or just more immediately dishonest about their position, but the end result's the same either way; they clearly did not think all "men", in our modern understanding of the term, were created "equal".

    We can also point out that it refers to "men", and only "men". Now, I think it's unfair to presume this was intentionally gendered, as "man" was commonly used to represent humanity at the time. But we need to recognize that women were also by no means treated equally to men, in general, at the time the Declaration was written. So if they did mean "men" to be interpreted as "human beings", they're also not actually making that case in practice under US law. They were not entitled to vote, federally at least, until 1920, among other legal restrictions.

    Actions and conduct matter a whole lot more than empty words, and that's what statements like the preamble to the Declaration amount to; words that the Founding Fathers in general did not actually believe, or did so only through such an extremely racist and misogynistic point of view that the idea that blacks and women were their "equals" would have been something they found laughably stupid.
    The veneration of the founding fathers is particularly bad and I suspect that even they would hate it had they known they would be.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  10. #1790
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Or maybe the other side is acting out of malice and evil?
    Why do you believe this? Have you ever examined the actual reasons conservative voters say are behind their desire to outlaw abortion? Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be the evil one, allowing and propagating what they see as murder?

    This is a thread about a particular issue. On one side we have people who want abortion to be legal in all states. The other side does not.

    This is a very, very clear example of how both sides are not the same. Furthermore, one side of the issue also supports related issues that may actually reduce abortion. The other side does not. It’s the latter group who wants make it illegal.
    And, again, do you really think that conservative voters are this big bloc of evil people twirling their mustaches at all the harm they are causing? Because every response to my statement seems to be implying that. Your opening statement in this quote is exactly that.

    Sorry, but I know my mother and many other people and I know, categorically, that they are not evil. They just see things from a different perspective than me. They have very valid reasons for believing what they do and none of it comes down to "we want to punish women". And every time someone says that that's what their goal is, you drive them further away from any reasonable compromise and convince them that you are just "baby killers", which in turn pushes you further away from them.

    Yes, there are both sides and both sides are fucking awful. Because they've convinced the lot of you to hate each other because you don't agree on something and push that to the point where "both sides" reflexively work against each and every thing the other party proposes simply because you've all convinced yourselves that everybody else is intentionally evil, and so they must be opposed.

    I don't agree with tehdang, at all, but I don't think he's evil. He has reasons why he believes what he does and none of you have even guessed at those reasons because you won't listen when he tells you and you've already decided in your minds what his reasons are. You constantly tell him, and others like him, why they believe what they believe. And, in fairness, he does the exact same thing to the rest of you. Is it any wonder that nothing improves in this country when all the most invested people, like those found in this thread, are all committed to the demonization of anyone that isn't in lockstep with their thinking? I've voted Democrat for twenty years now and every time I mention that I disagree with even the smallest portion of the orthodoxy people on this forum have accused me of worshipping Trump or providing cover for "evil". ffs, Endus does exactly that in the post right after yours.

  11. #1791
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    For my part, I'm committed to showing that post-birth care of children is better handled by the policies of the Right ... so much so that California had to go to lawfare against pregnancy centers in the state to hinder their success. I have a dark view of current political realities, but that doesn't change what I wish were the case and what I think would be a better direction for the country.
    I'll only adress this bit. As the rest is things that I don't have time to really dive deeply into.
    But post-birth care of children, better handled by the extreme Right? (I say extreme Right, because 90-98% of the Democratic party is rightwing in my view).
    How? What is it that you think they are better with?
    As they are generally against paid parental leave, universal healthcare systems, good and free public pre-school and schools for all, etc.
    While republicans ... aren't.
    - Lars

  12. #1792
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    For my part, I'm committed to showing that post-birth care of children is better handled by the policies of the Right ... so much so that California had to go to lawfare against pregnancy centers in the state to hinder their success.
    Well you're not doing a very good job of showing the right takes care of children better, mostly because you don't have that evidence and your belief being completely wrong if you look at reality for more than two minutes. Pregnancy mortality is higher in those states, abortion tends to be higher, education is in the shitter, and the right only liking children when they know they can fuck them.

    I have a dark view of current political realities, but that doesn't change what I wish were the case and what I think would be a better direction for the country.
    That "dark view" comes more from your view points usually being in the completely wrong category and not because you have a lack of hope.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  13. #1793
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,692
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Why do you believe this? Have you ever examined the actual reasons conservative voters say are behind their desire to outlaw abortion?
    We have. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's full of premises that even they admit they do not actually believe, because they don't remain consistent on those points when the context shifts to any other circumstance. Those premises are falsehoods, used to cover up their truths.

    There isn't another explanation. I guarantee you can't give me one. I welcome you making the effort, and letting me show you how it falls apart.

    Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be the evil one, allowing and propagating what they see as murder?
    This is one of those things they can't honestly argue they believe. This requires a belief that the fetus is a fully-fledged human being from conception (or whatever similar unreasonably-early point that's determined arbitrarily or religiously rather than any justifiable basis). If we assume that premise, then every single miscarriage is a potential homicide, and the woman who miscarried must be investigated for her involvement. If it starts at conception, this even applies to every case where a fertilized ovum fails to implant and is expelled, and no pregnancy even starts.

    Worse, it doesn't even factor into the discussion about abortion in any way whatsoever, which is what makes it so egregious as an argument. Abortion rights are about an individual person's right to control the use of their own body, their bodily autonomy. It's why you can't be forced to donate blood or organs or other tissue, for instance, even after death; you'd need to have pre-signed an organ donor card or have your next of kin make that decision. There is literally no circumstance where the right to life of one human being is considered to overrule another human being's bodily autonomy. Literally, none. Except, in this argument, a pregnant woman who wants an abortion. They don't have an argument as to why this is uniquely special and the same premises that apply to every other instance don't apply here. They try and use the emotional argument you described to short-circuit the actual issue (women's rights to their bodies) to shoehorn in a dishonest half-truth that not even those zealots actually believe the full premises of, if you challenge them.

    The whole argument's a lie. Every single individual making that argument is a liar. They don't believe it. Many of them will get super angry when you point this out to them, but they'll never be able to rationally defend that position. Because there is no rational defense; all they can do is get exasperated and call you names for "supporting murder".

    At best, fetal personhood constitutes an argument about the methods to be used in abortion, to remove the fetus intact, not an argument against abortion rights.

    I don't care if people like this think I'm "evil". Their arguments are inconsistent nonsense and always rooted in religion, not science and reason. And they don't hold up once you examine those premises. Other types of people like this think I'm "evil" for supporting my trans cousin's transition, and they can go fuck themselves with a cactus, to be utterly blunt.

    And, again, do you really think that conservative voters are this big bloc of evil people twirling their mustaches at all the harm they are causing? Because every response to my statement seems to be implying that. Your opening statement in this quote is exactly that.
    They are, at a minimum, stating that these kinds of hurtful and harmful views aren't deal-breakers to them. It's not like incredibly abusive movements can't get wide popular support. See the Nazis, and every fascist movement out there. Pearl-clutching over this is frickin' silly, dude. Why isn't it okay to judge individuals by the causes and ideologies they explicitly choose to endorse and support?

    Sorry, but I know my mother and many other people and I know, categorically, that they are not evil. They just see things from a different perspective than me. They have very valid reasons for believing what they do and none of it comes down to "we want to punish women". And every time someone says that that's what their goal is, you drive them further away from any reasonable compromise and convince them that you are just "baby killers", which in turn pushes you further away from them.
    They don't have "very valid reasons". Categorically reject that, and you'll never be able to explain such reasons, because they don't exist.

    And I don't mean "things they believe". I mean "things that are sensible and reasonable and can be explained objectively in a way that anyone can understand the thinking on." I couldn't give less of a shit what they believe. The moment those beliefs start affecting other people, you'd better be able to justify those beliefs in some objectively determinable or explanatory sense.

    Yes, there are both sides and both sides are fucking awful. Because they've convinced the lot of you to hate each other because you don't agree on something and push that to the point where "both sides" reflexively work against each and every thing the other party proposes simply because you've all convinced yourselves that everybody else is intentionally evil, and so they must be opposed.
    You seem to think there's only two sides.

    The Conservatives here in Canada aren't Republicans, and aren't pushing the same harmful rhetoric (for the most part). I disagree with them ideologically, but they're not evil. I'm ideologically more aligned with the NDP, but I'll vote Liberal or some other party if A> the individual candidate impresses me or B> I feel the need to vote strategically rather than ideologically, and I don't strategically vote for evil.

    There's a hundred sides, a thousand. Picking out one particular viewpoint, like Republicans in America, and pointing out how they have fallen into evil and harmful views, that's just specific analysis, not some "everyone but those like me are evil" bullshit. That's projection, dude.

    Is it any wonder that nothing improves in this country when all the most invested people, like those found in this thread, are all committed to the demonization of anyone that isn't in lockstep with their thinking? I've voted Democrat for twenty years now and every time I mention that I disagree with even the smallest portion of the orthodoxy people on this forum have accused me of worshipping Trump or providing cover for "evil". ffs, Endus does exactly that in the post right after yours.
    "Orthodoxy"? I'm a liberal market socialist who wants to abolish global capitalism and bring about a new post-capitalist system. I'm an agnostic atheist who's nevertheless open to a wide range of supernatural hypothesizing, while holding it to Randi-an standards of proof. What "orthodoxy" do you imagine me to be a part of? And how much do you see me getting viciously attacked by people outside of the Republicans, here, for failing to fall in line with their "orthodoxy"?

    Man, does this ever seem like you're just making shit up, and none of it holds water.

    You directed this post at Ivanstone, originally, and I'm sure if they and I sat down and talked things through, we'd find we disagree on a whole lot of things. Maybe in matters of degree, maybe more directly, but we wouldn't both be cut from the same cloth. This "orthodoxy" you're making up is in your head, not in reality.
    Last edited by Endus; 2022-06-06 at 05:46 AM.


  14. #1794
    From an outside perspective it's pretty clear that the GOP are far worse than the Democrats are. Both sides may have people that hate each other, that lie and contort themselves and reality to fit their world views but the GOP seems to have far more of these people. We regularly see the GOP lie and spread conspiracy theories, or present false analogies and illogical statements - Democrats do it too, but far less.

    I also don't believe in evil people, but I do believe in evil actions. And I believe most people believe that they are doing good, even if they aren't. I think the issue is letting feelings or the "idealogical blinders" stand in the way of reason and logic. People may even have been fooled into believing in a certain thing, and it tends to be far easier to fool someone than to convince someone they have been fooled. It's of course okay to disagree about things, I can understand (even if I disagree) why a rich person wants to pay less taxes. What I can't understand is following and spreading provable lies, which the GOP is very guilty of (and the people seem little interested in holding them accountable for this?). Other than ignorance, the inability (for whatever reason, be it intentional or a matter of capability) to see through the lies seems to be the only reason to me people believe what they believe. But I think that everyone can be taught to do so - to think critically, to be introspective and to be inquisitive. I think the education system has failed these people.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  15. #1795
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    it's only silly if you don't understand that is exactly why the entire US government was created. to enshrine white supremacy.
    I thought it was so they didn't have to keep paying taxes to the british.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  16. #1796
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    From an outside perspective it's pretty clear that the GOP are far worse than the Democrats are. Both sides may have people that hate each other, that lie and contort themselves and reality to fit their world views but the GOP seems to have far more of these people. We regularly see the GOP lie and spread conspiracy theories, or present false analogies and illogical statements - Democrats do it too, but far less.

    I also don't believe in evil people, but I do believe in evil actions. And I believe most people believe that they are doing good, even if they aren't. I think the issue is letting feelings or the "idealogical blinders" stand in the way of reason and logic. People may even have been fooled into believing in a certain thing, and it tends to be far easier to fool someone than to convince someone they have been fooled. It's of course okay to disagree about things, I can understand (even if I disagree) why a rich person wants to pay less taxes. What I can't understand is following and spreading provable lies, which the GOP is very guilty of (and the people seem little interested in holding them accountable for this?). Other than ignorance, the inability (for whatever reason, be it intentional or a matter of capability) to see through the lies seems to be the only reason to me people believe what they believe. But I think that everyone can be taught to do so - to think critically, to be introspective and to be inquisitive. I think the education system has failed these people.
    If your morality qualifies harming others as a good action, you are evil. Many policies of the GOP seem engineered to cause harm to others and are judged by their base on how much harm is caused.

  17. #1797
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Thanks for providing a concrete example of the core dishonesty integral to the American creation myth.

    Yes, they absolutely said that in the Declaration. While some of the drafters (Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston) were, themselves, active slaveowners, at the time. And the country the Founding Fathers established inherently was built upon that institution of slavery. So clearly, they did not mean "All men". They meant "White men". Since they clearly did not consider blacks to be their equals. We can debate whether this was because they thought blacks were subhuman livestock and thus not "men" at all, or just more immediately dishonest about their position, but the end result's the same either way; they clearly did not think all "men", in our modern understanding of the term, were created "equal".

    We can also point out that it refers to "men", and only "men". Now, I think it's unfair to presume this was intentionally gendered, as "man" was commonly used to represent humanity at the time. But we need to recognize that women were also by no means treated equally to men, in general, at the time the Declaration was written. So if they did mean "men" to be interpreted as "human beings", they're also not actually making that case in practice under US law. They were not entitled to vote, federally at least, until 1920, among other legal restrictions.

    Actions and conduct matter a whole lot more than empty words, and that's what statements like the preamble to the Declaration amount to; words that the Founding Fathers in general did not actually believe, or did so only through such an extremely racist and misogynistic point of view that the idea that blacks and women were their "equals" would have been something they found laughably stupid.
    Ok, as always, one liners tend to not get the point across...

    The US Government was not formed to enshrine white supremacy. That's someone's dipshit post-fact gender studies infused LSD dream.

    The US Government was formed to organise colonies that have just ejected themselves from colonial status in a global British Empire.

    Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.

    Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  18. #1798
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Why do you believe this? Have you ever examined the actual reasons conservative voters say are behind their desire to outlaw abortion? Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be the evil one, allowing and propagating what they see as murder?
    And this is where we pivot to the actual evil that they do. First, most of the religious right was actually on board with abortion when RvW happened. What they were really pissed off about was school integration. That as a voting issue wasn't going to work so they moved onto something else.

    Second, the GOP very much stands on the side of greed. Every action they take is to give more money to people who already have lots of it. Every GOP voter is complicit in that whether they realize it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Yes, there are both sides and both sides are fucking awful. Because they've convinced the lot of you to hate each other because you don't agree on something and push that to the point where "both sides" reflexively work against each and every thing the other party proposes simply because you've all convinced yourselves that everybody else is intentionally evil, and so they must be opposed.
    Again they're not the same. The Democrats aren't completely effective at what they do. You'll easily be able to find examples of them being corrupt and/or incompetent. But at least they don't actively pursue policies that are designed to hurt poor or middle class conservatives. And some of those policies reduce abortion rates, not increase them. The GOP on the other hand actively pursues policies that hurt specific groups of people because scaremongering is the only way they can get elected. I guarantee you giving a fat tax cut to the 1% won't give you an election.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.
    Yes it exists to govern the people. And they were still a revolting pack of racist misogynists that were only marginally better than the people they rebelled against. A nicer group of people would've written a better constitution.

  19. #1799
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Ok, as always, one liners tend to not get the point across...

    The US Government was not formed to enshrine white supremacy. That's someone's dipshit post-fact gender studies infused LSD dream.

    The US Government was formed to organise colonies that have just ejected themselves from colonial status in a global British Empire.

    Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.

    Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.
    The United States government was formed so that rich white colonists would not have to pay taxes to the crown. The independence part was the only way to get it so they had to spin it into that. If you look at historical records the founding founders were ridiculed the world over because of the high ideals they pronounced contradicted with a constitution that said only white men with land had rights and that black people were property.

  20. #1800
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Saying the US Governemnt was formed to enshrine white supremacy is akin to saying the US Government was formed to build roads.
    Yes, it does a lot of things, some good, some bad. But that's not exactly the reason why it exists. It exists to govern a group of people. LITERALLY it's in the name.
    I agree with one big qualifier; the assumption that societal attitudes and stratification wouldn't change.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •