Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this essay writing just to confess that you don't believe in universal human rights and yes, LGBTQ+ rights are indeed human rights. The rest of your essay is so laughable and frankly not even worth to continue a discussion cause it's so far from reality (Chinas communist policies such as genocide against Uyghurs, LGBTQ+ persecution etc. are the antithesis of what the "american left" is fighting for for example), other people may continue to reply to you but it's frankly a waste of time.
Right well, this is the issue. You think something is an human right, and half the country disagrees with you. Up until 20 years ago, almost nobody in the country agreed with you. Like I said, unless you think that the country was fascist up until the 2000s, this just doesn't hold water. Like it or not, a large portion of the country does not and has not agreed with your moral views. That's part of living in a democracy, and just calling your opponents fascists is infantile.

The China bit was a joke. I dont care what cherrypicked source you found that says "Actually, foreign experts all think republicans are literal nazis." That is a non argument.
 
No politicians are calling for all trans people to be shot. There are politicians who believe that giving trans children gender affirming care is wrong. There are politicians who are convinced that kids are being brought to drag shows as an excuse to sexually abuse them. This may be hyperbole, it may be a moral scare, but these are issues that many people feel strongly about, and not because they have some burning hatred for trans people. These are just divisive issues being circulated through the media. There are no politicians who want to murder trans people.
I don't think I have the energy to write down how republican policies have hurt my trans siblings for decades to someone who certainly doesn't give a shit about it (also "well it was a popular opinion so it couldn't be facist" is an extremely funny and sad argument. Truly, the real metric to decide if something is facism: popularity. Ignoring what the status quo of the US is and what they wish to preserve and where it comes from that results on what ideologies are popular. Mfw nazi germany isn't facist because it was very popular at the time! Just ignore who it was popular with and what they did to achieve that popularity. That part certainly doesn't matter. Carry on old chap).

So I'm hitting you with the get-a-load of this guy



Thank you for saying I'm cool for being a communist tho. I'll add it to my wall of fame.
 
its all just bullshit moral relativism that im not reading but this was my favorite sentence

like what is this even supposed to mean. the decades of black writing about systemic racism are "pretty much nobody"?
Yes. Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist. It was not a large part of the popular political discourse. It was not a big split issue between the two main political parties.
 
Yes. Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist. It was not a large part of the popular political discourse. It was not a big split issue between the two main political parties.
Correction: Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist among white Americans.

I dont care what cherrypicked source you found that says "Actually, foreign experts all think republicans are literal nazis." That is a non argument.
also very cool how sources that say things you don't like are "cherry picked." Next you'll accuse people of "cherry-picking" opinions across the entire scholarship of authoritarianism studies.
 
Correction: Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist among white Americans.
I don't get this. Are you denying that political focus on systemic racism is a new development in mainstream politics? I hate to be that guy, but where's the proof? In what election prior to say, 2016, did either party focus on the issue of "systemic racism" and identity politics in the US? Where were all the Robin DiAngelos and Ibram X Kendis prior to the mid-2010s? Where was all the discourse on critical race theory? I don't remember that playing any significant part in politics in the 90s and 2000s. In fact, I do remember being told that "color-blindness" was a prominent view of racial politics through those eras, and that's an attitude that the left disagrees with and wants to change. I'm not discrediting those ideas based on their newness. I'm not saying that America had no racial tensions during those eras. (Affirmative action has been contentious for a while). I'm simply stating the plain fact that widespread belief in "systemic racism" and identity politics is a new phenomenon and new outlook on the big stage of racial politics.

The idea that its only white americans who dont accept systemic racism as a concept is laughable. The GOP as whole does not accept it. Centrists as whole either oppose it or are not decided. Its an idea popular in the American left, and it's a newly popular idea. Also, in 2020, 60% of Americans identified as white. In 2000, 75% did. White people comprise the majority of the population in the U.S. So even if we accept the claim that it's only white people who don't believe in racial identity politics in 2020 (which isnt true), that's still a huge portion of the nation that doesn't buy into it, and of course other racial demographics in the U.S. can vary in their acceptance of it. "Systemic racism as an idea has been a popular belief in the U.S. for a long time" is not the hill to die on.

also very cool how sources that say things you don't like are "cherry picked." Next you'll accuse people of "cherry-picking" opinions across the entire scholarship of authoritarianism studies.
It's very cool how you just brought up some random thing that some German think tank said to show that "Republicans are Nazis". I have no idea what study you are referencing, their goals in publishing that statement, their framework for analyzing and arriving to that conclusion, or if they even have a solid grasp of American politics. Some random Germans saying "Republicans are Nazis" when they dont even live here means very little to me. Seems like a loaded statement made to promote a poltical agenda and shut down opposition. Which is pretty much what calling your opponents Nazis is.

And yes, I do think authoritarian studies is bullshit. When you have authoritarian studies "experts" saying things like authoritarianism is a uniquely right-wing phenomena, that leads me to think they are talking out of their asses. Left wing politics can lead to authoritarianism just like right wing politics can. Lastly, I dont form my opinions on whether something is fascist or not based on whether some random professor with an "authoritarian studies" title says they are or not. That would just be dumb.

Edit - you didn't bring up the study Medeia did my bad
 
Last edited:
I for one think we should wait for a second incredibly popular celebrity who cozied up with a former president with a ghoulish friend radicalized by /pol/ memes as a child to declare himself a Nazi to get a better sense of where the authoritarian leanings of the US political parties lie. After all, it’s a pretty low sample size if you choose to ignore everything else the US right wing has done ever.
 

phoopes

I did it again
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Alright I saw the reports from this thread and decided to step in after reading through everything from the past few days.

I didn't delete or edit anyone's posts because to me like that would be too much censorship/the dam had already burst. However, I did infract koista12 and leave a public warning on one of their posts as an example of what will not be tolerated in this thread or anywhere on Smogon.

Please note that these decisions are subject to change at the discretion of the Cong mods. I'm deferring to them because I don't really moderate these kinds of discussions that often, but again, I felt like I should step in.

If you have any questions/comments feel free to PM me (preferably on the forums so I can more easily loop in the Cong mods).

EDIT: okay I did delete one post that was posted literally seconds before this one that was definitely worth deleting. Deciding on what to do with that now.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Post segregation, it was not a widely held opinion that America was systemically racist. It was not a large part of the popular political discourse. It was not a big split issue between the two main political parties.
Oh wow, I didn't know the U.S. solved racism in 1964. Learn something new every day. I should've known getting a degree in history was useless: foolish professors lied to me completely! :psywoke:


Anyways...
  1. Redlining remained(s) a hot-button topic despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. Multiple further attempts at local, state, and federal levels to address the issue continued to be passed well past 1970, such as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Platforms of the Democratic party at various points included variations of "Vigorous enforcement of truth-in-lending, anti-redlining, and fair credit reporting laws (this from the1980 Democratic Platform)." Unfortunately, these attempts did little address continuing covert redlining, despite the political showmanship about the issue.
  2. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, the idea of environmental racism became a more widely known and accepted. Environmental racism largely boils down to putting the crappy-stuff (factories, waste facilities, etc.) where the minorities are. While numerous political protests such as the 1982 Warren County protests pushed against this discrimination, perhaps the most notable legislative piece was Bill Clinton's 1994 executive order mandating agencies in the federal government to curb environmental discrimination specifically titled "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
  3. The relation between minority communities and the U.S. justice system post 1964 is basically impossible to summarize sufficiently. However, "Tough on Crime" rhetoric was (is?) one of the primary platforms of conservatives to differentiate/bash their more liberal opponents. For example, in 1988 then Vice President H.W. Bush used "Willie" Horton to bash Dukakis as being soft on crime and to reinforce the stereotype the black people were criminals, and as one of the significant reasons why there was never a president Dukakis. While the specific language used rarely specified the targeting of minorities (obviously), the effects were clear: disproportionate percentages of minorities were targeted in crackdowns, especially as highlighted in the crack epidemic of the late 1980's and early 1990s. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (which, let's also be clear here, was both a Republican and Dem effort) set minimum sentencing laws which specifically targeted black communities - possession of power cocaine was given a far lighter sentence at 100 - 1 when compared to crack. This was beacuse powder cocaine was primarily used in white communities while crack cocaine was primarily used in black communties (a disparity which did not go unnoticed, but claims of racial injustice fell on deaf ears).

And those are just some of the big examples of institutional racism and it's discourse "post segregation." And, I'm eliminating the 2000-2010 period as that's a bit too contemporary although you seem to be including it? However, some other notable events that highlight "conversations" about institutional racism during the period are:

  1. The 1978 Regents of the University of California v Bakke was a landmark SCOTUS case that upheld affirmative action as a tool to address the legacy of institutional racism (though blocked racial quotas).
  2. The 1992 Los Angles Race Riots which centered on judicial disparity in how police and minorities were treated.
  3. The 1995 Million Man March which was prompted by a politicians doing little to stop or actively supporting the stereotyping of urban black people as the cause of urban blight and systematically culling capital to impoverished schools around the U.S.

I should also specify that this is not my specific historical focus. My general focus in regards to civil rights was the civil rights movement and earlier - a historian more versed in this period would definitely do a better job at iterating all this than I. Also I don't have access to any of my books about this period/subject as they're in storage atm (big sad).

While this clearly won't change anyone's mind on the topic beacuse internet, hopefully this list should provide a good springboard of examples if a similar viewpoint about the period in question starts getting thrown about.
 
Well, this wasn't how I planned on spending my night, but fuck it.

This is the back and forth right here. People on the left say "The GOP are Nazis and fascists." Conservatives say "There are no Nazis currently in our government, there are maybe several thousand nazis in the U.S. on a good day, and your definition of fascism essentially boils down to anyone you don't like". You say "well look at these policies the republican party supports. They're kind of like the Nazi party". I say, "The Nazis had lots of policies. They had laws against Jews, they had laws about corporations, and they had ones against animal abuse." Please be more specific.
I'd be happy to be more specific; you know full well the discussion has nothing to do with Nazi policies on animal abuse or smoking or any of the other non-sequiturs centrists like to trot out, but I guess when you don't have an actual argument, playing dumb and gish-galloping out a bunch of nonsense talking points is apparently the best way to create the illusion of an argument.

The points people use to draw comparisons between the Nazi party and American conservatives include desiring policies outlawing homosexuality and other acts perceived as "sexual degeneracy" (transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming people find themselvese targetted by these laws universally, despite the fact that their existence objectively isn't inherently sexual any more than anyone else's), their use of (slightly) reframed Nazi conspiracy theories (such as Great Replacement theory, pushed by numerous conservative figures including the most popular conservative TV host, which is quite literally a rehashing of the Jewish Question, or the numerous conservative conspiracy theories about how "globalists" [read: Jews], "Zionists" [read: Jews], "Cultural Marxists" [read: Jews], or whatever other dogwhistle they've adopted to refer to Jewish people while retaining some plausible deniability for centrists like yourself to feign ignorance with are attempting to destroy America, turn it into a communist police state, or whatever), the conservative tendency to paint leftists, LGBTQ+ people, and minority advocates as both pathetic and laughable and a dangerous existential threat at the same time (a literal hallmark of fascism), their stated (and acted upon) intentions of overthrowing democratically elected politicians, using violence if necessary (including against other conservatives who refuse to tow the line, Night of the Long Knives-style), and their use of misinformation campaigns to paint BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people as inherently criminal/pedophilic to justify future violence against them, exactly the same way the Nazi party did towards Jews and other "undesirables" leading up to the holocaust.

I do hope you'll understand the moral difference between these things and Nazi policies on animal abuse or whatever other irrelevant bullshit you want to trot out in a futile attempt to muddy what is otherwise a very clear comparison. If you have examples of "leftists" doing any of these things, you should definitely share them, because there's enough examples of conservatives doing it to occupy the rest of your life.

Even in your post, you call them "cryptofascists". What's the definition of cryptofascist?
Oh, that's easy, a cryptofascist is someone who supports fascistic policies and/or has fascistic sociopolitical tendencies, but is either socially aware enough to hide them beneath the language of another ideology or delusional enough to legitimately believe that they aren't supporting fascism by running defense for fascists and (purely coincidentally, I'm sure) siding with fascists on every issue.

I know it's hard to believe, but it turns out not everyone is honest with their positions. I suppose this is why we're even having this conversation in the first place; you seem to think it's only fair to compare people to Nazis or fascists if they come out and literally say "I am a Nazi/fascist" and not a moment before (and even then you don't seem to think people literally being open neo-Nazis is as much of a problem as those evil authoritarian leftists calling them Nazis). So, instead of just going by what people say they believe, we can instead look at how they act, the things they support, and the people they defend for a more accurate representation of what they actually believe.

I don't watch Fox news, and I genuinely believe that the left has authoritarian tendencies in the same way you think the right does. I haven't accused anyone of being Communist for one, so please dont project that onto me. One can be both "communist" and pro-corporate, China is doing an excellent job of that right now. Anarchists and Communists are not significant portions of the left. They are political minorities that do not have a place in the national discussion, in the same way that nobody cares about monarchists. They do not make up a significant block of voters or politicians, and are entirely irrelevant to the national political discussion, except as a scare tactic by the right. So yeah, when I say the left is authoritarian I mean the neoliberals and self proclaimed social democrats are authoritarian.
This is just a really shitty attempt to gatekeep what the left is, from someone who isn't on the left and still wants to lump in these groups that apparently aren't popular enough to be valid leftists with the supposedly authoritarian neolibs and socdems. It's fucking strange to me to acknowledge that the left isn't homogenous but then say it is because only the most popular opinions are valid (ignoring the fact that your average liberal or socdem definitely isn't close to as authoritarian as your average conservative).

You're literally asking to have your cake and eat it too here. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that truth is determined by popular opinion; this is a truly strange sort of moral relativism that seems to be popular amongst centrists and liberals and if I'm being honest with you, I don't even understand how you think that it's a valid point to bring up.

What a coincidence, I think the Overton window is very far to the Left right now.
This is so out of touch only an American can utter it.

Conservatives do not want to live in a theocracy and they don't hate minorities.
What are the non-religious grounds for opposition against homosexuality and transgenderism again? Which party is it that's delusional enough to think that 400 years of systemic oppression disappears overnight simply because we passed a couple laws against racial discrimination as it presents itself in some circumstances?

If you think supporting laissez-faire capitalism is a radical position in American politics than you should read a history book.
And yet again we have more of this popular opinion nonsense. I don't care if it's a radical position or not; the fact that you feel the need to lump in everyone who doesn't support this very specific strain of capitalism into one group as if they're remotely compatible is the problem. They're not, you're building a strawman.



Honestly the most productive thing about this whole conversation is the other people who outed themselves as useful tools to the conservative propaganda machine. Sometimes I get tired of being right.
 
The points people use to draw comparisons between the Nazi party and American conservatives include desiring policies outlawing homosexuality and other acts perceived as "sexual degeneracy" (transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming people find themselvese targetted by these laws universally, despite the fact that their existence objectively isn't inherently sexual any more than anyone else's), their use of (slightly) reframed Nazi conspiracy theories (such as Great Replacement theory, pushed by numerous conservative figures including the most popular conservative TV host, which is quite literally a rehashing of the Jewish Question, or the numerous conservative conspiracy theories about how "globalists" [read: Jews], "Zionists" [read: Jews], "Cultural Marxists" [read: Jews], or whatever other dogwhistle they've adopted to refer to Jewish people while retaining some plausible deniability for centrists like yourself to feign ignorance with are attempting to destroy America, turn it into a communist police state, or whatever), the conservative tendency to paint leftists, LGBTQ+ people, and minority advocates as both pathetic and laughable and a dangerous existential threat at the same time (a literal hallmark of fascism), their stated (and acted upon) intentions of overthrowing democratically elected politicians, using violence if necessary (including against other conservatives who refuse to tow the line, Night of the Long Knives-style), and their use of misinformation campaigns to paint BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people as inherently criminal/pedophilic to justify future violence against them, exactly the same way the Nazi party did towards Jews and other "undesirables" leading up to the holocaust.
Misrepresenting the intentions and beliefs of your opponents has a long and storied history in politics. I agree with you. A portion of the GOP's rhetoric is trumped up, bad faith accusations made towards people they don't like. However, I'm gonna pull a whataboutism here.

The American left does the exact same thing. Frequently the left will accuse pro-life advocates of misogyny. Prolifers, we are told, just hate women and want to control their bodies to keep them down in society. This of course, echoes none of the logic we see from the pro life lobby. Almost all pro life rhetoric is hinged upon the genuine moral belief that killing fetuses is equivalent to murder. Its not a position I agree with, but given the complex ethical issues surrounding personhood, it's an entirely reasonable ethical position for the average person to hold. However, leftists propaganda ignores this and clings tight to the idea that no one could oppose abortion for any other reason than misogyny.

Where I draw the line, and where the left doesn't, is calling the people doing the misrepresenting fascist. The left is not fascist for misrepresenting the intents of the pro life movement. They are wrong, I believe, but being dishonest and wrong doesn't mean we are on the doorstep of fascism. The right is not fascist for misrepresenting their opponent's beliefs either. Wrong, but not fascist.

I'm pulling that whataboutism because I think that both sides engage in bad faith arguments in equal amounts. The right thinks leftists hate white people and men, the left thinks the right hates minorities and women. On the whole neither of these are true. Both sides have genuine issue with the morality and ideas the other side espouses. They simply come down to a difference in worldview. A democracy is healthiest when, rather than assuming that everyone on the other side are evil people, we assume that people just have different worldviews that we just don't agree with. A democracy cannot function if we assume that the other side is illegitimate or arguing solely in bad faith. That's not to say both sides don't argue in both faith at times, but rather that those incidents should be considered the exception to the rule.

Oh, that's easy, a cryptofascist is someone who supports fascistic policies and/or has fascistic sociopolitical tendencies, but is either socially aware enough to hide them beneath the language of another ideology or delusional enough to legitimately believe that they aren't supporting fascism by running defense for fascists and (purely coincidentally, I'm sure) siding with fascists on every issue.
What a wonderfully convenient definition. This definition is vague enough that it can be applied to anyone who you believe to have fascist tendencies. They deny that they are fascists, and yet you know that deep down, even if your opponents deny it, they really are just fascists. Oh, you're enemy may say things that a fascist would disagree with, the policies they support and the words they say may only be considered fascist if looking through a 10 inch lens, but that doesn't matter, because you've discerned the truth of the matter - they ARE fascists. What a wonderfully vague, assumption ridden word.

I know it's hard to believe, but it turns out not everyone is honest with their positions. I suppose this is why we're even having this conversation in the first place; you seem to think it's only fair to compare people to Nazis or fascists if they come out and literally say "I am a Nazi/fascist" and not a moment before (and even then you don't seem to think people literally being open neo-Nazis is as much of a problem as those evil authoritarian leftists calling them Nazis). So, instead of just going by what people say they believe, we can instead look at how they act, the things they support, and the people they defend for a more accurate representation of what they actually believe.
Not everyone argues in good faith, yes. I think the idea that the Republican party as a whole, the party that at any given time represents around half the nation, and their constituents, are all arguing in bad faith as hidden Nazis is pretty absurd. It's far more likely that people actually just disagree with you on core issues, and that people on either political side chaff when they are subject to policies they don't agree with. Living in a place with laws that you disagree with does not make the legal structure fascist, it's merely part of being alive.

This is just a really shitty attempt to gatekeep what the left is, from someone who isn't on the left and still wants to lump in these groups that apparently aren't popular enough to be valid leftists with the supposedly authoritarian neolibs and socdems. It's fucking strange to me to acknowledge that the left isn't homogenous but then say it is because only the most popular opinions are valid (ignoring the fact that your average liberal or socdem definitely isn't close to as authoritarian as your average conservative).
I'm gonna get away from the whole communist/neoliberal thing. It started because we were talking about radicalization, and frankly I don't really know where it was going.

You're literally asking to have your cake and eat it too here. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that truth is determined by popular opinion; this is a truly strange sort of moral relativism that seems to be popular amongst centrists and liberals and if I'm being honest with you, I don't even understand how you think that it's a valid point to bring up.
Yeah, I'm a moral relativist, sue me. I think people have the right to self determination. I think if you disagree with something morally, you should vote to implement laws that encode your moral position. The entire idea of a legal system is that its moral structure that we impose on one another when we can all agree that something is bad. Different people have different ideas of morality, and so we self govern to turn those morals into a legal system. Americans like free speech, so we implemented into our legal system. Germans want to avoid a repeat of Naziism (best example i could think of sorry), so they have much more restrictions around free speech. Different ethics, different laws. A win/win.

This is so out of touch only an American can utter it.
Wow, it's crazy how different people have different political beliefs isn't it?

What are the non-religious grounds for opposition against homosexuality and transgenderism again? Which party is it that's delusional enough to think that 400 years of systemic oppression disappears overnight simply because we passed a couple laws against racial discrimination as it presents itself in some circumstances?
Im not going to answer why an atheist might oppose LGBT rights as I dont think the mods would appreciate it, but I will say this. There is no difference between a sincerely held religious belief and a sincerely held moral belief. It is entirely reasonable to hold a system of morality based on your religion. The law is and should be indifferent to the source of your moral beliefs. Unless you are specifically trying to impose forced worship or beliefs specific to religion/the divine on someone else, it's entirely reasonable for a self governing people to enshrine whatever morality they want into law. We ban polygamy, gambling, and prostitution in the U.S. because we think they are moral evils. Whether that belief springs from religion or not doesn't change the right of the people to legislate those moral beliefs into law.
 

Adeleine

after committing a dangerous crime
is a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
It is entirely reasonable to hold a system of morality based on your religion. The law is and should be indifferent to the source of your moral beliefs.

Unless you are specifically trying to impose forced worship or beliefs specific to religion/the divine on someone else, it's entirely reasonable for a self governing people to enshrine whatever morality they want into law.
Translation: I stand by the people who think gays deserve eternal, unspeakable suffering, including when they make a country and want to torture sodomizers to death. These are my peers and just have a different opinion. (Maybe.)

I'm not shying away from extreme-yet-true language for the benefit of readers. When you're not in a marginalized group, it can be hard to understand how Real things can be for us. And I am among the luckier members of marginalized groups, all things considered. Please be kind to us, and try and understand from where we come.

Readers, are you confused why this poster stands with evil people? Here are some possibilities. They may be true or not.
1) They lack many deeply sincere beliefs. This is common in early life. Perhaps it's true for you, even if you don't spew their vitriol. It was once true for me. Sometimes people grow out of this, and sometimes they don't. Try to be honest with yourself, try new things to understand where you belong, be patient, and internalize the people and things you care deeply about.
2) They do or think they deeply, sincerely believe in peoples' self-determination. Some people believe in this sincerely, and it doesn't automatically reveal any poison. The Welsh, the Kurds, and many others share identities that have received merciless mistreatment. However, there is no reason you can't internalize this belief alongside a belief in human rights. If you only care about the abstract notion of groups making their own choices, with no opinion on how those choices can hurt and bring injustice to people... what is the deeper point, really?
3) They actively support this evil and aren't being honest with us.

EDIT: If you read their response, see the shallowness in their words.

They had no problem when others wish eternal unspeakable suffering upon us. They only claim to have a problem with the torture, as it violates our "human rights." But look and see what they think of human rights, when told that LGBT rights are human rights.

Right well, this is the issue. You think something is an human right, and half the country disagrees with you.... Like it or not, a large portion of the country does not and has not agreed with your moral views.
Even if the majority wants to destroy our love and expression, which would be good and dandy by koista12, it would be too far if they killed us, koista12 says... for now. Human rights are merely opinions on which reasonable people can disagree, they say! What will happen if the majority stops sharing our "moral opinions" on our right to life, and our right to escape the worst depredations of humanity? Then the laws and "self-determination" will change, and then our fate matters little to people like this, for they surely care more about other things.

As for their charge that I was rude to them, yes, I was. Does that bother you, reader? Think hard. Who was truly less kind? The one who openly cares minimally for our fates, or me, who responded to them? Am I justified to be upset? I think so.
 
Last edited:
Oh wow, I didn't know the U.S. solved racism in 1964. Learn something new every day. I should've known getting a degree in history was useless: foolish professors lied to me completely! :psywoke:


Anyways...
  1. Redlining remained(s) a hot-button topic despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. Multiple further attempts at local, state, and federal levels to address the issue continued to be passed well past 1970, such as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Platforms of the Democratic party at various points included variations of "Vigorous enforcement of truth-in-lending, anti-redlining, and fair credit reporting laws (this from the1980 Democratic Platform)." Unfortunately, these attempts did little address continuing covert redlining, despite the political showmanship about the issue.
  2. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, the idea of environmental racism became a more widely known and accepted. Environmental racism largely boils down to putting the crappy-stuff (factories, waste facilities, etc.) where the minorities are. While numerous political protests such as the 1982 Warren County protests pushed against this discrimination, perhaps the most notable legislative piece was Bill Clinton's 1994 executive order mandating agencies in the federal government to curb environmental discrimination specifically titled "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations."
  3. The relation between minority communities and the U.S. justice system post 1964 is basically impossible to summarize sufficiently. However, "Tough on Crime" rhetoric was (is?) one of the primary platforms of conservatives to differentiate/bash their more liberal opponents. For example, in 1988 then Vice President H.W. Bush used "Willie" Horton to bash Dukakis as being soft on crime and to reinforce the stereotype the black people were criminals, and as one of the significant reasons why there was never a president Dukakis. While the specific language used rarely specified the targeting of minorities (obviously), the effects were clear: disproportionate percentages of minorities were targeted in crackdowns, especially as highlighted in the crack epidemic of the late 1980's and early 1990s. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (which, let's also be clear here, was both a Republican and Dem effort) set minimum sentencing laws which specifically targeted black communities - possession of power cocaine was given a far lighter sentence at 100 - 1 when compared to crack. This was beacuse powder cocaine was primarily used in white communities while crack cocaine was primarily used in black communties (a disparity which did not go unnoticed, but claims of racial injustice fell on deaf ears).

And those are just some of the big examples of institutional racism and it's discourse "post segregation." And, I'm eliminating the 2000-2010 period as that's a bit too contemporary although you seem to be including it? However, some other notable events that highlight "conversations" about institutional racism during the period are:

  1. The 1978 Regents of the University of California v Bakke was a landmark SCOTUS case that upheld affirmative action as a tool to address the legacy of institutional racism (though blocked racial quotas).
  2. The 1992 Los Angles Race Riots which centered on judicial disparity in how police and minorities were treated.
  3. The 1995 Million Man March which was prompted by a politicians doing little to stop or actively supporting the stereotyping of urban black people as the cause of urban blight and systematically culling capital to impoverished schools around the U.S.

I should also specify that this is not my specific historical focus. My general focus in regards to civil rights was the civil rights movement and earlier - a historian more versed in this period would definitely do a better job at iterating all this than I. Also I don't have access to any of my books about this period/subject as they're in storage atm (big sad).

While this clearly won't change anyone's mind on the topic beacuse internet, hopefully this list should provide a good springboard of examples if a similar viewpoint about the period in question starts getting thrown about.
I did not say racism was solved in 1964. I said the belief that America is irredeemably and systemically racist, and the increased focus on identity politics is newly popular in our political discourse. This is different than saying that racism does not exist. I'm not an expert on this, I'll admit. But from what I've experienced, there had been a massive shift in the arguments, attitudes, and discussions regarding to racial politics in the U.S. in the last few years. Are you denying that there was a shift in the last few years?
 
Got it. You had nothing to back up your arguments.
If you can't be bothered to read my posts, that's not my problem. Here is what I wrote verbatim:

Why take the most radical politicians? Let's take the mainstream. Both the Trump and the Biden government colluded with Twitter to suppress persons and opinions they did not like. Throughout the later stages of COVID, Democrat lawmakers routinely extended mask mandates and kept schools shut down despite (in my opinion) a lack of real need for this, and opposed to a real need to open up society again. Joe Biden has pushed forth student loan forgiveness using a COVID relief bill, despite being told beforehand that this was unconstitutional. Democrats criticized the Great Barrington delegation despite continually saying "follow the science". And the state I live in, Hawaii, instituted a "vaccine passport" to enter businesses (which was not illegal, but was highly authoritarian in my opinion).
 
Did you know that people can have different moral views and live in peace with one another? It's called living in a democracy. People can think being gay is wrong and also not want to deny them human rights.
Which is just another reason exactly why it's appropriate to compare Republicans to the NSDAP. Only one party's supporters are sending bomb threats to fucking children's hospitals. Only one party's supporters rioted at the Capitol in a bid to overthrow the Constitution. Only one party's supporters are cheerleading murdering their political opposition in the streets. The presumptive House Majority leader is currently campaigning on stripping committee assignments as retaliation for a bipartisan vote stripping a Congresswoman of her assignments because of comments she made supporting murdering Democrats, because the Republican Party leadership wants to make it absolutely clear that it endorses those threats.


If you can't be bothered to read my posts, that's not my problem. Here is what I wrote verbatim:

Why take the most radical politicians? Let's take the mainstream. Both the Trump and the Biden government colluded with Twitter to suppress persons and opinions they did not like. Throughout the later stages of COVID, Democrat lawmakers routinely extended mask mandates and kept schools shut down despite (in my opinion) a lack of real need for this, and opposed to a real need to open up society again. Joe Biden has pushed forth student loan forgiveness using a COVID relief bill, despite being told beforehand that this was unconstitutional. Democrats criticized the Great Barrington delegation despite continually saying "follow the science". And the state I live in, Hawaii, instituted a "vaccine passport" to enter businesses (which was not illegal, but was highly authoritarian in my opinion).

The mainstream Republican currently believes elections don't count so long as Republicans don't win. The mainstream Republican believes that centuries of previously established jurisprudence should be replaced with a partisan rubber stamp. The mainstream Republican believes blood libel narratives about Democrats and gets their updates on said blood libel from literal child pornography sites. You can't separate the "radical" from the "mainstream" because radicalism (specifically, fascism) is the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Also, if you think covid passports are "authoritarianism," then you don't know what authoritarianism is. Literally the only people who think this are far-right lunatics and irrelevant Soviet-era communist assets desperate for their old Russian paymasters to pay them attention *cough*Agamben*cough*

Agreed, centrists aren't good enough. We need progressive democrats
"centrist" and "leftist" are increasingly irrelevant terms in American political discourse. There are as many "leftists" who enable the fascists as there are "centrists" that do. Plenty of the best allies of the Republican Party today are media figures who have long identified as "leftists" (Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, Matt Taibbi, Briahna Gray, Glenn Greenwald, Lee Fang, Ryan Grim, Michael Tracey). Some have outright come out and stopped pretending to be anything other than Republicans (ie Aimee Terese, Sh0eonhead, and the Red Scare twats), even to the detriment of their Patreon funding.

How politicians brand themselves should never be "good enough," the only question that matters right now is whether or not they are going to enable the Republican Party's decade-long assault on democratic institutions in America, and what they intend to do about the violence Republicans are routinely inciting.

Only one party's supporters are sending bomb threats to fucking children's hospitals.
Only one party is mailing ricin to Senators.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/maine-susan-collins-letter-threat/index.html

Only one party's supporters rioted at the Capitol in a bid to overthrow the Constitution.
Only one party is shooting Senators at baseball games
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
Only one party's supporters are cheerleading murdering their political opposition in the streets
Only one party is calling for protestors to harass government officials
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html

The Democratic party spent much of the last two years trying to abolish the filibuster because they couldn't get legislation passed with a majority. The Democratic party has been calling to pack and undermine the legitimacy of the court because they dont agree with the verdicts being handed down.

Both parties are running trucks into people they don't like. Both parties refuse to concede races they don't win. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/georgia-governors-race-stacey-abrams/index.html).

Lots of replies
I'm gonna have to dip out of this yall. Sorry I can't reply to you Wigglytuff. Its been fun, but there's like 7 of yall and 1 of me (which is fine) but that means I'm writing a lot of replies and that takes a lot of time. Which I wont have, because my finals start tomorrow so I gotta shift gears .
Peace.

I'm gonna have to dip out of this yall. Sorry I can't reply to you Wigglytuff. Its been fun, but there's like 7 of yall and 1 of me (which is fine) but that means I'm writing a lot of replies and that takes a lot of time. Which I wont have, because my finals start tomorrow so I gotta shift gears .
Peace.
hope you dont get a true false question on your finals, because boy your teacher/prof is in for a wild ride

Only one party is mailing ricin to Senators.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/maine-susan-collins-letter-threat/index.html



Only one party is shooting Senators at baseball games
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

Only one party is calling for protestors to harass government officials
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html

The Democratic party spent much of the last two years trying to abolish the filibuster because they couldn't get legislation passed with a majority. The Democratic party has been calling to pack and undermine the legitimacy of the court because they dont agree with the verdicts being handed down.

Both parties are running trucks into people they don't like. Both parties refuse to concede races they don't win. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/georgia-governors-race-stacey-abrams/index.html).

Most of these are willful misrepresentations trying to draw false equivalence between a party routinely inciting and engaging in violence, and its opposition. For the ones that actually happened, all the Democratic leaders interviewed or questioned about the Scalise shooting or the ricin scare outright condemned them. AOC didn't fucking well give out speeches saying that she would have made sure Scalise had a bullet in his brain, Stacey Abrams isn't telling people that she's the legitimate governor of Georgia and that her supporters must storm the government, and campus Democrats sure as shit aren't inviting openly fascist parties aligned with America's enemies and telling their supporters to fight everyone who opposes them in the streets.

You're full of shit and doing little more than providing apologia for terrorists. There's no difference between you and "moderate" mullahs in the Taliban trying to tell the world how great women have it in Afghanistan.

Koista 12 said:
The Democratic party spent much of the last two years trying to abolish the filibuster
As they should, cause the Filibuster in 2022/21st century in any shape and form is a undemocratic implementation that allows to block most legislation that needs senate backing, but only gets a simple majority from senators elected by the majority of american people (tho even that isn't necessarily true because of the US election system). So a minority can block even legislation that doesn't change the constitution from representatives of a party/coalition elected by the majority of the people. For such a "concerned anti-authoritarian" you seem to happily accept archaic undemocratic laws & amendments, but that doesn't surprise me in the least anymore considering your fascism apologia and even straight up stochastic terrorism denial (against LGBTQ+ & especially transgender people).

The existence of the Filibuster is one of the big reasons why basically every Democracy Index rates USA only as "Flawed Democracy" btw, some even seeing USA on the edge to become a "Hybrid Regime". A regression fitting into the global trend of weakening democracies, by a huge margin pressured the most by right-wing extremism (including from the republican party).


https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...2/february/democracy-under-pressure-worldwide

If you can't be bothered to read my posts, that's not my problem. Here is what I wrote verbatim:

Why take the most radical politicians? Let's take the mainstream. Both the Trump and the Biden government colluded with Twitter to suppress persons and opinions they did not like. Throughout the later stages of COVID, Democrat lawmakers routinely extended mask mandates and kept schools shut down despite (in my opinion) a lack of real need for this, and opposed to a real need to open up society again. Joe Biden has pushed forth student loan forgiveness using a COVID relief bill, despite being told beforehand that this was unconstitutional. Democrats criticized the Great Barrington delegation despite continually saying "follow the science". And the state I live in, Hawaii, instituted a "vaccine passport" to enter businesses (which was not illegal, but was highly authoritarian in my opinion).
Read it. Confirmed you weren’t able to answer my question because you had nothing.

The existence of the Filibuster is one of the big reasons why basically every Democracy Index rates USA only as "Flawed Democracy" btw, some even seeing USA on the edge to become a "Hybrid Regime". A regression fitting into the global trend of weakening democracies, by a huge margin pressured the most by right-wing extremism (including from the republican party).


https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...2/february/democracy-under-pressure-worldwide
How can we trust you aren't "cherrypicking" these random(!) respected watchdogs on democratic quality around the world?? How can we really be sure that the party that wants to "cross the Rubicon" is actually seeking to destroy democracy?




I don't get this. Are you denying that political focus on systemic racism is a new development in mainstream politics? I hate to be that guy, but where's the proof? In what election prior to say, 2016, did either party focus on the issue of "systemic racism" and identity politics in the US? Where were all the Robin DiAngelos and Ibram X Kendis prior to the mid-2010s? Where was all the discourse on critical race theory? I don't remember that playing any significant part in politics in the 90s and 2000s. In fact, I do remember being told that "color-blindness" was a prominent view of racial politics through those eras, and that's an attitude that the left disagrees with and wants to change. I'm not discrediting those ideas based on their newness. I'm not saying that America had no racial tensions during those eras. (Affirmative action has been contentious for a while). I'm simply stating the plain fact that widespread belief in "systemic racism" and identity politics is a new phenomenon and new outlook on the big stage of racial politics.

The idea that its only white americans who dont accept systemic racism as a concept is laughable. The GOP as whole does not accept it. Centrists as whole either oppose it or are not decided. Its an idea popular in the American left, and it's a newly popular idea. Also, in 2020, 60% of Americans identified as white. In 2000, 75% did. White people comprise the majority of the population in the U.S. So even if we accept the claim that it's only white people who don't believe in racial identity politics in 2020 (which isnt true), that's still a huge portion of the nation that doesn't buy into it, and of course other racial demographics in the U.S. can vary in their acceptance of it. "Systemic racism as an idea has been a popular belief in the U.S. for a long time" is not the hill to die on.
I also forgot to quote this but it's hilarious to ask where racism scholars were for the past three decades when they've been producing immense amounts of research. You only weren't hearing about it because the Republican Party only really started making it into a bogeyman a couple years ago. Your question speaks looooaads about where you get your information.

And no, it's basically white Americans that only think American society isn't systemically racist. Changing the qualifier to "most Republicans" doesn't change the fact that you're still talking about a group that's overwhelmingly white Americans.
 

Wigglytuff

mad @ redacted in redacted
is a Tiering Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
your rhetoric intentionally and rather hamfistedly (yeah i really liked it when you said something transphobic and then said "but i dont personally believe that." reminds me of my girlfriend (who goes to another school)) makes it impossible to actually address your positions and your justifications on them, instead relegating discussion to meta level cockery on how we (citizens) should operate. because you don't commit to anything yourself, you can continuously shift the goalposts on the motivations behind your "ethical system." i hope you realize, through all your talk on how both the left and right are disingenuous on addressing the other, that motivations aren't always (and in politics, rarely) explicitly and honestly stated, and i dont think you're honestly stating yours either.

for example:
I think people have the right to self determination. I think if you disagree with something morally, you should vote to implement laws that encode your moral position. The entire idea of a legal system is that its moral structure that we impose on one another when we can all agree that something is bad. Different people have different ideas of morality, and so we self govern to turn those morals into a legal system
this sounds fucking cool and all, except for that one time a bunch of states didnt like that 5% nicotine bubblegum mint vapes were gonna be outlawed, so they split from the union and then started a war to preserve 5% nicotine bubblegum mint vapes where in the middle of it the federal government wrote a paper outlawing 5% nicotine bubblegum mint vapes and then a couple hundred thousand dead people later, the states were forced back into the union and had to give up 5% nicotine bubblegum mint vapes. sounds "authoritarian" to me. nanny state ass government.

now replace 5% nicotine bubblegum mint vapes with slavery. still sound "authoritarian" to you? if no, why not? the people in the confederacy self determined that slavery was okay according to their moral positions, and implemented that into a legal system that they used to impose on black people. ticks all your boxes.

so maybe "self determined moral positions" aren't reflexively acceptable, and some are not worth even seeing the light of day. maybe you hold some of those positions yourself. we don't know, because beyond vague claims like
The American Left radicalizes towards authoritarianism, suppression of free speech through both government collusion with business and media
that you aren't more specific on (and to be fair, its not like that many people are pressing you that hard on the specifics) and deflections like "I don't personally believe in that," you don't claim any position as your own.

why not commit to something? its not like you use this site for much else, from the looks of it, and maybe you'll learn something. who gives a fuck?

i'll give you some examples:
The American Left radicalizes towards authoritarianism, suppression of free speech through both government collusion with business and media
it's a commonly held view amongst conservatives that their free speech is being infringed upon. however, social media platforms are not government entities, so there is no constitutional right to free speech. social media platforms and companies choose to self censor because it's in their interests, fiscally or otherwise, to not align themselves with some viewpoints (ex, ye (formerly known as kanye west) and adidas or whatever the fuck). this isn't universally slanted to the left, either. companies such as express vpn aren't particularly selective on who they'll sponsor (ben shapiro on the right and i guess philip defranco on the not right) because it's based on their clients. i dont know what kind of sponsors truthsocial gets but id imagine its not the same kind that sponsors the young turks. elon (forum moderator of twitter) refuses to let alex jones on because of a personal distaste for alex jones. just the free market working as it should.

beyond that, this isn't even empirically true, so where's the suppression?

Many people do not think we should present LGB lifestyles as something acceptable to children. (I personally am not one of those people opposing it)
yea i suppose i'll have to talk to the """many people""" then. the charitable reason this belief is held about LGBTQ+ people is on the basis that it's "exposing children to sexual topics" and is usually due to misinformation, such as joe rogan believing and perpetuating the myth that schools have kitty litter boxes for students to piss in or something, in what is being taught at schools. this belief assumes that LGBTQ+ identity is inherently sexual, which is unsubstantiated (one of the identities is quite literally asexuality). i would have a problem with a middle school showing explicit depictions of homosexual intercourse (just as much of a problem as i would have with explicit depictions of heterosexual intercourse), but to the extent that "presenting LGB lifestyles as something acceptable to children" is just having a book that has a character with 2 dads, i don't understand what the issue is. the position of """many people""" is invalid and does not deserve a place at the table, akin (but not to the extent to) to how no one takes anyone advocating for slavery seriously either. either defend it yourself or don't present it as something worth defense.

The American left does the exact same thing. Frequently the left will accuse pro-life advocates of misogyny. Prolifers, we are told, just hate women and want to control their bodies to keep them down in society. This of course, echoes none of the logic we see from the pro life lobby. Almost all pro life rhetoric is hinged upon the genuine moral belief that killing fetuses is equivalent to murder. Its not a position I agree with,
it's a philosophical belief that life begins at conception, not one arrived at with science or rationality. we don't have a scientifically rigorous definition of when life begins, so it's not self evident that killing fetuses is equivalent to murder; certainly not to the point of being encoded into law. either state a case that there is a rigorous definition for when life begins, or don't present it as something worth defense.

on the other side, the impacts of outlawing abortions exclusively affects women. obviously there are the physical, emotional, and mental tolls that pregnancy has on pregnant women, but there are also other complications, such as in the case of
even if we're being generous and your (or i guess not yours because you don't agree with it,,,) primary intention is not to deny women reproductive autonomy, they will be the exclusive ones to suffer the consequences. it should be noted that some of the people closest to the levers of power who are pro life do not even play by their own rules, (edit: so perhaps that should say something about fetuses being real humans...) so in effect a ban on abortions will target lower SES women who don't have the resources to illegally get a safe abortion, the people that most cannot afford a baby. in that sense, being pro-life is intensely misogynistic, even if you (in the royal sense since you dont agree with it) dont admit or even intend it to be.

But calling her evil and smearing her character is just tribalism. Its "If you're not with me, you're against me, and I hate you as a person".
this is something you can actually both sides your way on. if you want to treat these people that would happily crush you under their boot for just a bit more cash as your friends, that's your prerogative.
 
Last edited:
Koista12, this is a forum made up of young gen z / millennial pokemon players, probably the most left leaning demographic around. This is a far left safe space, you have nearly been banned mostly for just saying that Republicans aren't fascist Nazis just because they don't agree with the people here. I don't think you ever said you even agree with Republicans, at best you pointed out some hypocrisy within the Democratic party. This doesn't mean the Republicans are right, you're saying that the issues aren't all blatantly black or white. You haven't said this validates the Republican positions, you simply stated how they feel. The responses you've been given by this community are shameful. You've been met with low effort personal attacks, strawman arguments, and damn near every person in this thread wall of texting you explaining why anything about the Republicans is quite literally Hitler. I think you should stop posting here. Not because you're right or wrong, but because this thread isn't a place for discussion of differing political ideals or to discuss the reasons for why someone should vote anything other than Democrat. It is a small forum topic for like-minded individuals to pat themselves on the back whenever Democrats do good, and make negative comments whenever Republicans do bad.

I'm not sure why you joined Smogon but you probably didn't do it to post in a leftist political bubble. You're outnumbered by people who aren't looking to have a real discussion and the mods apparently aren't even supportive of anything outside of the leftist status quo (even though your comments aren't right leaning or supportive of Republican ideals, you're just matter of fact saying Republicans believe so and so). The rude comments I've read here that mods left alone seem to have made it clear that they aren't going to protect you if you keep trying.

I'm not saying I agree with your comments but I appreciate that you're trying to see both sides in a non-partisan way. However you made your point and I don't think anyone here is looking to make good faith arguments about the other side.

Most people posting here... just like, go outside. Talk to someone who isn't on this website or in your close left leaning friend group. The modern Republican party is garbage for sure, but strawman arguments and false claims taking the minority views of the party and pretending its a majority won't help you make a point. It's better to engage the other side because it helps you develop your own viewpoints without resorting to strawman, whataboutism etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wigglytuff

mad @ redacted in redacted
is a Tiering Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
I don't think you ever said you even agree with Republicans, at best you pointed out some hypocrisy within the Democratic party.
half these ppl happily shit on the democrats too. the issue is the wildly larger amount of charitability being given to the right that has not shown anything to earn it vs the left

The American Left radicalizes towards authoritarianism, suppression of free speech through both government collusion with business and media, characterizing all opposition as either fascist/morally evil, and a tendency to expand the power of the central government without a legal basis.

The American Right radicalizes towards Liberty - allowing people in states the right to self-determination through a federalist system, where the people living there determine their own laws without a central government that consistently breaks the 10th amendment. This way, each state can be its own flavor of America, bound by the laws and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
you're telling me this is a "balanced" view of the political spectrum? the right consistently runs agitprop on trans people, "socialists" (such as joe biden), Black ppl, naming them responsible for the "moral collapse"...but curiously that gets a pass in Liberty USA. gee, wonder why :smogthink:
 
half these ppl happily shit on the democrats too. the issue is the wildly larger amount of charitability being given to the right that has not shown anything to earn it vs the left
Yeah but this is obviously an overwhelmingly left leaning forum. Nothing is wrong with that but factually any opposition to the Left just gets squashed.

you're telling me this is a "balanced" view of the political spectrum? the right consistently runs agitprop on trans people, "socialists" (such as joe biden), Black ppl, naming them responsible for the "moral collapse"...but curiously that gets a pass in Liberty USA. gee, wonder why :smogthink:
I mean yeah, he tried to call out both sides. I don't agree with his analysis but like it or not there's about 100 million Americans who vote for Republicans and if you want change the solution isn't to call them all Nazis any time they voice concerns. Most people "lean" into their party, they don't put on the red hat unless they're pretty deep in their own ideology. There's a lot of time and opportunity to sway people before they get there. When I was younger I was a Republican not because I made an informed choice, just because growing up I heard stuff like "guns don't kill people, people do" and I repeated it because that's what I knew. I gradually shifted to the left because there were people willing to make real good faith discussion with me, and because they were able to so effortlessly chop up my arguments I gradually shifted to the left. If these people instead just called me a Nazi I'd probably be voting for Trump in 2024.

It's important to have good faith arguments with people who have differing views because it really can help sway people. Even on a place like Smogon where it's probably like 95% leftists just practicing engaging the opposition will make you better at it. Put effort into it. Look up facts, polls, research. Educate people, because most of them aren't evil. They're just stuck in a bubble with no opportunity to talk with the other side. Making better arguments helps a person articulate their views in the future, especially when it's you vs the drunk Republican uncle at Thanksgiving. Important battles to win.
 
Most people posting here... just like, go outside. Talk to someone who isn't on this website or in your close left leaning friend group. The modern Republican party is garbage for sure, but strawman arguments and false claims taking the minority views of the party and pretending its a majority won't help you make a point. It's better to engage the other side because it helps you develop your own viewpoints without resorting to strawman, whataboutism etc.
Man, the Republican presidential frontrunner is enforcing menacing laws on queer folks in his state and illegally trafficked people he viewed as others with no repercussion. People in drag are getting stochastic terrorism aimed their way by a social media account hugely popular among right leaning folks as it all but sics militias on them. The big popular right leaning news media company just edited an interview with a self proclaimed nazi to take out the parts where he talked about black isrealite conspiracies and a child in his house being an FBI plant just so the popular right enjoyment of him didn't stink so bad. These are not the minority views of the party. It's the feature getting people on board and shaking few off, and what I have to console the real life queer people in my life about every few weeks. I'll call it out as shitty; it sure helped get me to realize what sort of monstrous shit I was passively letting slide years ago.

Giving all that unfolded a pass as a genuine "both sides" attempt at things is far too generous. Comparing Stacey Abrams holding things open for a little longer in the aftermath of a tight race in 2018 to the giant loud cyber ninja assisted pillow company sponsored clown show trying to overturn democratic elections going on to this day since late 2020 is ridiculous. It's pretty effortless to see he's being a huge homophobe and using the thin mask of "some people are saying" instead of "I am saying" to push things along. Even if it's somehow genuine and just terribly dumb, it's not deserving a self fellating round of "oooh everyone here's a gen z leftist for getting miffed at probably thinly veiled homophoia". C'mon.
 
Last edited:
It's important to have good faith arguments
That's cool and all, but it's a bit hard to do that to someone who's clearly not coming here with good faith and being the usual right wing wank who really thinks hes a centrist because he complains about the right sometimes, but only actually seem to really dislike leftist politics. And in 2022, I've grown tired of defending my own existence and reaffirming that Yes I Am A Targetted Minority And So Is X and Y to people who truly, deeply don't care.

My take is educate who wants to be educated, drag them out the room if they don't. God bless

Also I'm not gen z, I'm brazilian :bat:
 
Hey, crazy fucking take but maybe it wasn't saying all Republicans aren't Nazis that got that guy infracted but rather the blatant transphobia and pushing of racist talking points.

Another crazy fucking take, but throughout this entire conversation I have yet to see anyone actually say "all Republicans are Nazis"; drawing comparisons between the Republican party's talking points and policies and those of the Nazi party is not the same thing as saying every Republican is literally Hitler and should be shot on sight, and yet you feel the need to reframe the discussion that way because if you don't you kind of look like an idiot.

The only people strawmanning and engaging in bad faith here here are you and your buddy Koista; there isn't a single example over the past few pages of either of you engaging honestly and in good faith with a leftist. This is why people often call centrists cryptofascists or a closet conservatives or whatever; you fight tooth and nail to defend these people against perceived dogpiling or censorship or bad faith arguments or unfair comparisons to Nazis or whatever (conveniently without going into specifics) and then you fail to engage with leftists without pulling out the strawmen and cherrypicked arguments. I'm curious how often you talk to conservatives and say something along the lines of "hey, you know not all leftists are evil Stalinist agitators who want to destroy America and let China take it over, right? You know LGBTQ+ people aren't mentally ill pedophiles trying to groom children, right?". You are objectively a useful tool to conservatives and damaging to discourse on the left. That's one thing, but if you still call yourself left-leaning despite that being true, it's time to re-examine your own positions and figure out where you really stand. Nobody likes a snake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top