Assuming someone is evil just because they like Trump is quite literally bigotry. You shouldn’t hate anyone just because of their ideas. Attack actions and ideas, not people.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Just supporting some policies of someone who is a bigot doesn’t mean you support their bigoted policies.
OK. Let me try. Trump espouses bigoted and non-bigoted policies. A person likes the non-bigoted ones. They vote for Trump. Their vote put Trump over the line. Trump enacts both the non-bigoted and bigoted policies. The person in question’s vote was the cause of bigoted policies being deployed. Policies that hurt other people. Does it matter whether the person supported Trump’s bigoted policies? The end result is the same. The person supporting Trump resulted in bigoted policies hurting people. That person bears responsibility in that result, as someone who voted for Trump. So what we’re saying is - you can’t hide your responsibility behind the book definition of a bigot. You could try but we see the results in reality and we will judge you by the results of your actions. We’re saying - look - your actions constitute bigotry in practice whether you realize it or not, and if you really believe that you’re not a bigot and you don’t want to be one, perhaps think about the results of your actions and what they produce in reality. Maybe don’t vote Trump next time. Replace Trump with any GOP bigot and the person in question with any American that’s in a similar position.
With the way our government works, it’s really hard to not vote for candidates that you don’t have at least some problems with. With the way presentational elections seem to be going, you end up having to choose which one is less bad. And in FPTP, voting for a third party is basically useless.
And not every GOP candidate is a bigot. I’m sure most, if not all of them, genuinely wish for the country to be better (same thing applies for any politician). It’s just that disagreement over how to make the country better had devolved into name calling, which is a terrible way to get people to change their opinions.
I don’t change my opinion because someone calls me a bigot. I’ll change my opinion if they can show me how my view is flawed, and why their view is better.
With the way our government works, it’s really hard to not vote for candidates that you don’t have at least some problems with. With the way presentational elections seem to be going, you end up having to choose which one is less bad. And in FPTP, voting for a third party is basically useless.
And yet that doesn’t change the dynamics of what I described. This is why every voter who has problems with whoever they’re considering voting for should be weighing the bad parts. We know how GOP voters weigh the bigotry that comes with voting for its reps. That’s all we need to know. The truth is literally laid bare.
I’m sure most, if not all of them, genuinely wish for the country to be better (same thing applies for any politician).
That’s a nice thought. I see you still haven’t run out of benefit of the doubt to give.
I don’t change my opinion because someone calls me a bigot. I’ll change my opinion if they can show me how my view is flawed, and why their view is better.
That’s your prerogative. We’ve ran out of arguments to give. “We” is the many people I know who are of this opinion. I’ve yet to meet a conservative that’s arguing in good faith and is willing to change their view when presented with a sound argument. That’s where we’re at and it ain’t our fault. We’ve spent years of our lives trying and gotten nowhere. The radicalization is just getting started.
We know how GOP voters weigh the bigotry that comes with voting for its reps. That’s all we need to know. The truth is literally laid bare.
Bigotry is a 2 way street. Candidates from both sides are clearly bigoted at each other. I try to vote for candidates who’s beliefs match with mine, but sometimes that’s hard. Everyone deserves to be respected, even if you don’t agree with them. But so much politics has just turned into calling names.
That’s a nice thought. I see you still haven’t run out of benefit of the doubt to give.
I think the issues are systemic, not individual. It doesn’t make sense that so many people would be evil. Look at the Milgram experiment. It shows that the average person will literally commit murder in the correct environment. So does that mean the average person is evil?
I’ve yet to meet a conservative that’s arguing in good faith and is willing to change their view when presented with a sound argument.
I am. Although I’m not just conservative. It really depends on the subject, sometimes I’m conservative, and sometimes I’m liberal. I really want to avoid just picking one side, and saying the other side is evil.
It’s easier to ignore when it’s not your loved ones at risk. I’ll stop giving a shit when people finally just live and let live. I’ll chill out when people can live their own lives in peace, without worrying about unprovoked violence. I’ll cool down about it when the murder rates go down. I’ll relax when people stop forcing women to bear rapists children. I’ll calm when people stop trying to remove human rights.
It’s simple, really. If you are against human rights, I want nothing to do with you. If you encourage or support people losing human rights, I want nothing to do with you. If you don’t care about these things because it isn’t you, we certainly won’t get along. I’m over “Wait and see”, because it ends with innocent people dead.
Abortion isn’t a simple human rights issue. Every human has a right to choose what happens to their body, and every human has a right to live.
But with pregnancy, these rights are at odds with each other. Who’s right is more important, the right of the baby to be born, or the right of the mother to not give birth? And at exactly what moment does this change?
Her body, her choice. The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb, and it is entirely up to her what she wants to do with it. The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person.
Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else who needs it if you didn’t. So why should a woman have to carry around an unwanted parasite that does permanent, often harmful changes to her body and can sometimes kill her?
The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb
An embryo is a clump of cells. A fetus is an incomplete human body.
The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person.
Almost everyone agrees that sperm or unfertilized eggs don’t have rights, but they do agree that a newborn baby has rights. At exactly what moment does it switch?
the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else
There’s a difference between mandating and banning a medical procedure. (Birth is different, that will happen without any intervention).
can sometimes kill her?
If the mothers life is in danger, then an abortion makes sense.
This is not an easy ethical question with a right and wrong answer. Just because you feel strongly about your answer, doesn’t mean it is correct.
As I said it’s because the extreme right wing is allowed to dictate what happens, while the rest is just sitting there silently and voting in line with the party.
You can’t tell the difference between silence and agreement.
How can we tell the difference?
When the conservatives that’s not bigots keep silent and let qanon do what they want.
Until then we we need more proof when people say “TFG was the best president, but I’m not a bigot”.
Assuming someone is evil just because they like Trump is quite literally bigotry. You shouldn’t hate anyone just because of their ideas. Attack actions and ideas, not people.
Supporting a bigot is bigotry.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Just supporting some policies of someone who is a bigot doesn’t mean you support their bigoted policies.
OK. Let me try. Trump espouses bigoted and non-bigoted policies. A person likes the non-bigoted ones. They vote for Trump. Their vote put Trump over the line. Trump enacts both the non-bigoted and bigoted policies. The person in question’s vote was the cause of bigoted policies being deployed. Policies that hurt other people. Does it matter whether the person supported Trump’s bigoted policies? The end result is the same. The person supporting Trump resulted in bigoted policies hurting people. That person bears responsibility in that result, as someone who voted for Trump. So what we’re saying is - you can’t hide your responsibility behind the book definition of a bigot. You could try but we see the results in reality and we will judge you by the results of your actions. We’re saying - look - your actions constitute bigotry in practice whether you realize it or not, and if you really believe that you’re not a bigot and you don’t want to be one, perhaps think about the results of your actions and what they produce in reality. Maybe don’t vote Trump next time. Replace Trump with any GOP bigot and the person in question with any American that’s in a similar position.
With the way our government works, it’s really hard to not vote for candidates that you don’t have at least some problems with. With the way presentational elections seem to be going, you end up having to choose which one is less bad. And in FPTP, voting for a third party is basically useless.
And not every GOP candidate is a bigot. I’m sure most, if not all of them, genuinely wish for the country to be better (same thing applies for any politician). It’s just that disagreement over how to make the country better had devolved into name calling, which is a terrible way to get people to change their opinions.
I don’t change my opinion because someone calls me a bigot. I’ll change my opinion if they can show me how my view is flawed, and why their view is better.
And yet that doesn’t change the dynamics of what I described. This is why every voter who has problems with whoever they’re considering voting for should be weighing the bad parts. We know how GOP voters weigh the bigotry that comes with voting for its reps. That’s all we need to know. The truth is literally laid bare.
That’s a nice thought. I see you still haven’t run out of benefit of the doubt to give.
That’s your prerogative. We’ve ran out of arguments to give. “We” is the many people I know who are of this opinion. I’ve yet to meet a conservative that’s arguing in good faith and is willing to change their view when presented with a sound argument. That’s where we’re at and it ain’t our fault. We’ve spent years of our lives trying and gotten nowhere. The radicalization is just getting started.
See you at the ballot box!
Bigotry is a 2 way street. Candidates from both sides are clearly bigoted at each other. I try to vote for candidates who’s beliefs match with mine, but sometimes that’s hard. Everyone deserves to be respected, even if you don’t agree with them. But so much politics has just turned into calling names.
I think the issues are systemic, not individual. It doesn’t make sense that so many people would be evil. Look at the Milgram experiment. It shows that the average person will literally commit murder in the correct environment. So does that mean the average person is evil?
I am. Although I’m not just conservative. It really depends on the subject, sometimes I’m conservative, and sometimes I’m liberal. I really want to avoid just picking one side, and saying the other side is evil.
I’m not sure you agree with this, but here goes:
Call me a bigot all you want while you stand at the rally with your red cape talking to your chums.
I can ask you another question is Big Brother the enemy?
I’m not calling you a bigot. I’m just saying that everyone here seems to have really extreme opinions, and hates anyone who even slightly disagrees.
It’s easier to ignore when it’s not your loved ones at risk. I’ll stop giving a shit when people finally just live and let live. I’ll chill out when people can live their own lives in peace, without worrying about unprovoked violence. I’ll cool down about it when the murder rates go down. I’ll relax when people stop forcing women to bear rapists children. I’ll calm when people stop trying to remove human rights.
It’s simple, really. If you are against human rights, I want nothing to do with you. If you encourage or support people losing human rights, I want nothing to do with you. If you don’t care about these things because it isn’t you, we certainly won’t get along. I’m over “Wait and see”, because it ends with innocent people dead.
Abortion isn’t a simple human rights issue. Every human has a right to choose what happens to their body, and every human has a right to live.
But with pregnancy, these rights are at odds with each other. Who’s right is more important, the right of the baby to be born, or the right of the mother to not give birth? And at exactly what moment does this change?
Her body, her choice. The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb, and it is entirely up to her what she wants to do with it. The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else who needs it if you didn’t. So why should a woman have to carry around an unwanted parasite that does permanent, often harmful changes to her body and can sometimes kill her?
An embryo is a clump of cells. A fetus is an incomplete human body.
Almost everyone agrees that sperm or unfertilized eggs don’t have rights, but they do agree that a newborn baby has rights. At exactly what moment does it switch?
There’s a difference between mandating and banning a medical procedure. (Birth is different, that will happen without any intervention).
If the mothers life is in danger, then an abortion makes sense.
This is not an easy ethical question with a right and wrong answer. Just because you feel strongly about your answer, doesn’t mean it is correct.
As I said it’s because the extreme right wing is allowed to dictate what happens, while the rest is just sitting there silently and voting in line with the party.
You can’t tell the difference between silence and agreement.