66
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 Aug 2024
66 points (68.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1882 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Uhhh...that's the lamest comeback ever The word "queer" literally means "weird".
Republicans: "LGBTQ people are weird!"
LGBTQ people: "Thanks."
I mean, did you forget that the Democrats started it? They launched a campaign to call Republicans weird in a derisive and condescending way. Democrats used it as an attack, as a negative trait, as something gross and repulsive. It doesn't make sense to me, and I still have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with this strategy. Did they forget that a good part of their base takes pride in being weird?
Difference between fun weird and fucks a couch weird. Ironically jd is an example of the exact slippery slope argument used by the bad weird type to fight gay marriage originally.
Well the couch thing is not real of course, but also not sure what you mean about the slippery slope. I guess maybe the bad weird thing kind of makes sense though, but that's open to interpretation and pretty relative to what you consider normal.
I've never seen proof he didn't fuck a couch, any more than I've seen proof Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990 (look it up if you don't know what I'm referring to, is on the wiki).
Re slippery slope, conservatives love them: for trans rights it's "I identify as an attack helicopter", 20 years ago it was "what if people want to marry their pets". No real difference in the sociopathy of those offering up the suggestion, just a new front line.
I do agree there's a line: there's on one part the paradox of acceptance or whatever it's called which is explicit. In this case we are also saying it's weird to hold beliefs that are so out of touch with reality or the people they impact. It's weird to care what restroom people use, especially for those of us in states that have removed the victorian stigma on all-gender shitters. It's weird to care what sports other people play. It's weird to make up lies about Olympic athletes in order to push your agenda of making life worse for a 12 year old in Virginia. It's all weird.
Path to fascism and handmaid's tale are also slippery slopes though. I don't think the right has a monopoly on that kind of rhetoric. The rest of that is kind of weird, though understandably can be hard to get used to for people who struggle with change. But I'm not sure I agree about sports. I think that's a complicated topic and feel bad for women who want to be competitive in their own space. The Olympics thing is even more complicated than the usual transgender debate, but ultimately women's sports is going to have to decide how exclusionary they are going to be. They already exclude men, so they will have to determine who else to exclude in order to protect their competition. Maybe the answer is to be less exclusive, but anyway that's why this is a hard topic.
You can jump to extremist rhetoric and zero sum game thinking, but I don't think it helps anything. It's no better than what the worst of them are doing.
Extremist rhetoric?
You're talking about the bomb threats on schools and the crowds baying for blood at Trump rallies, right?
I'm talking about things like pointing to extreme views and radicals on the other side as though they are examples of the norm, intentionally propagating lies, bad faith arguments etc. The sort of thing that is only about your team winning and the other team losing. Discussing ideas is much more interesting than circle jerking about how evil such and such is or intentionally spreading misinformation because you know it helps your team.
And yes, your examples would be the same type of thing, though I'd have to take your word for it that they happened that way.
Don't take my word for it, even Trump acknowledges it: https://time.com/4605647/donald-trump-vicious-violent-supporters/