As more and more states pass laws targeting “pornographic material” in books and online, they are repeatedly running up against a problem: The Bible has not just a few passages that could be considered indecent
As more and more states pass laws targeting “pornographic material” in books and online, they are repeatedly running up against a problem: The Bible has not just a few passages that could be considered indecent
Broad generalizations like this do nothing but reinforce echochambers.
It’s not a broad generalization at all. It’s a widespread pattern of hypocritical and contradictory conservative outrage, statements, and laws.
… and that’s just off the top of my head. If you’re a conservative, wake up, your party is a mess.
Spoiler: he’ll completely ignore this comment and just continue to go on saying that all criticisms of conservatives are baseless and unproductive
I’ll be honest, the point was less for him and more for lurkers, that might not pay as much attention and might benefit from an outline. I gave up on changing the mind of the person I’m replying to on the internet a long time ago (if it happens great!) … but I want to challenge and cut through the “noise” for the casual observer.
That’s the only single reason I debunk conservatives with some of their tactics thrown back at them. In a forum, I’m pretty much am blocked by nearly every conservatives there.
He didn’t say that, he criticized generalizing conservatives. I know conservatives who don’t care to block books from school libraries, or block trans students from going to bathrooms in their identified gender- or most of the other “culture war” arguments.
If they feel that way, then why do they vote politicians into power who do those things?
You don’t get to vote evil people into power and then say “oh no, I don’t support the evil stuff, I just care about the lower taxes”
Because they at least agree with some of their messaging rather than agree with none of it.
Yeah and my response to that would be the last sentence of my comment.
Why don’t you? Can’t you say: I support the ACA but not drone bombing schools?
Yes but until they start actively opposing those policies and demanding their politicians do the same, they are still complicit with these policies as their votes are what enable them. Whether or not they personally believe these things is entirely irrelevant. All that matters are the actions and policies, and every conservative voter is this complicit.
Unfortunately people have different priorities than you or I, I guarantee a politician you have voted for has done something you oppose, and you may have still supported them. That’s because you care more about their other policies.
False equivalency.
“We should focus more on corporate taxes rather than individual taxes” is an opinion; “gay people shouldn’t have rights” isn’t an opinion, it’s hate.
Don’t try to pretend these are on the same level. Supporting American conservatism requires a level of moral bankruptcy.
Both are opinion, something being abhorrent doesn’t make it not an opinion. Opinions can be hateful.
Yes but I don’t have to respect those opinions enough to validate them by acknowledging them. If those are your “opinions” then you’re a monster and you can fuck off. Don’t expect any respect from me; we need less kid gloves and more people calling out assholes in the world.
Don’t put words in my mouth or accuse my of something you made up in your mind.
I don’t need to put any words into your mouth, your reply to the comment was to ignore all the real, objectively true examples and just claim that despite the fact that they’re the actions of real conservative policy makers, that they somehow have nothing to do with real conservative policy
You ignore the faults of real world conservatism, holding up this idealistic version of conservatism you have in your head as “real” conservatism. Ill bet you also hold that conservatism has nothing to do with anti-LGBT+, despite their policy makers constantly making anti-LGBT+ policy decisions
You’re completely ignorant of who I am and you’re reinforcing my initial point that we should be careful about creating an echochamber.
And you’re reinforcing mine by continuing to not actually address any of the actual points.
Pointing out actual, provable examples of selective enforcement by conservatives isn’t an “echo chamber” it’s discussing real world politics
Ultimately it looks from my perspective like you’re falling into the classic trap of just assuming that when a lot of people disagree with you, that they’re just mindlessly repeating talking points - rather than ever considering that your own view might be skewed. Further reinforced by the fact that you steadfastly refuse to actually talk about the issue, and instead just keep deflecting and crying “ECHO CHAMBER”.
And no, I have no idea who you are, why should I care though? This is a discussion about conservative politics, not you or your feelings.
You’re trying to say “there are many examples of selective enforcement in conservative laws” and I’m saying “yeah, no shit, I agree with you”
Meanwhile I’m being attacked for saying it’s important to be reasonable, demonstrating the echo chamber I’m talking about.
So if you agree that what’s being said is factual, then what exactly is the concern here regarding “echo chambers”?
A echo chamber is dangerous when people are spreading misinformation, a group of people acknowledging a very real negative aspect of a major political party is in no way “echo chamber” type behavior.
Now if we were saying “all conservative voters and politicians are Nazis”, id agree with you that caution should be given about echo chambers, but cautioning about echo chambers when objective facts are being discussed comes across much more as you trying to deflect away from facts you don’t like being discussed.
Would it help you if we also talked some trash about democrats?
Biden is too old for office
Most elected democrats are hypocrites, at least to some extent
Virtually every politician, including the left leaning ones, in the US are corrupt to som extent, and usually to a severe degree
There? Are you satisfied that we’re not an echo chamber?
Translation: I don’t have an argument for any of the things posted so I’m going to accuse a random person of something instead
I mean they just said don’t generalize, not that there isn’t widespread hypocrisy.
Ok fuck you too ignorant jackass.
No dude, fuck you and your weasel words and moving goalpost. You made a shit comment and got proven wrong. Now’s the time to gracefully take the L; anything else just makes you look like a jackass.
Lol, you prove my point more eloquently than I could have on my own. Well done, and keep getting mad at strangers online it’s probably the best part of your life.
You are a machine!
Excellent summary. Maybe add:“That slut next door should not have an abortion, she should have kept her legs closed. My daughter‘s abortion? That‘s totally different, it would have ruined her career“
You definitely win the internet with this comment.
Yeah… I agree. None of that makes selective enforcement the core of conservative laws.
I agree those are bad examples.
Better examples:
Phillando Castile. All for gun rights until a black man is shot while legally owning a gun. One could run down the list of black people (and children) who have been murdered by the police because they “thought there was a gun”. Guns are legal and they’re quite vocal about supporting the right to bear arms (but only if you look white).
Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want. They lied about the cities in this country being destroyed during the Floyd uprisings as if America was gone.
All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.
Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.
How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?
We could continue but I’ll just boil it down with a pithy quote: there are those who the law must protect but does not bind and there are those that the law must bind but not protect. That is the conservative idea. Go read the only moral abortion is my abortion with that statement in mind and it’ll make sense.
I haven’t heard that case, can you show some examples of “conservative” outrage?
And I feel like it’s probably not race related seeing as conservatives were some of the first people to criticize the police in the Brenna Taylor case(a post about her boyfriends trial is still the top post on r/progun). Some conservatives also defended Andrew Coffee IV.
From their perspective(by the way me explaining someone’s perspective doesn’t mean I agree with it at all like most of the people on this site seem to think!!!) their is a coup happening by the elites so they are going in to uphold the law and put in the rightfully elected(again in their mind) president.
Can you site any they defended recently?
I don’t see how that’s hypocritical.
IIRC not illegal- but against tradition
Love it
I’d argue it does, conservative lawmaking has consistently operated with a distinct understanding (and execution) that shows “this applies to them not us.” I’d love for conservative law makers to do what they say and say what they mean. However, they won’t and thus can’t build a coalition that gets them elected by being honest about their policy goals.
Conservative law making in the US has become at its core “outrage politics” (and that depends on selectively enforcing ideals, policies, and laws/antagonizing part of the population). I don’t make generalizations lightly, but this is the core and fundamental piece holding the Republican party together, and it’s an awful state of affairs.
This can be further demonstrated by Vivek Ramaswamy climbing in the polls despite, as Chris Christie put it, “sounding like ChatGPT.”
I’m done with this conversation, you lot are ignorant, loud, and preventing actual progress and critical discourse.
You want to talk about outrage politics? You morons are outrage politics. Fuck off.
K. When you figure out what discourse you want to have come back without an empty argument.
You’ve just proven everyone else’s point that wrote you off. You’ve made no supportive arguments for your position and resorted to an opaque moral high ground where everyone else is an idiot.
Bruh, you are the literal embodiment of the issue plaguing the USA in this historical period: you say you are ready to have a discussion and then, once somebody engages you with actual facts in his hands, you attack your interlocutor with the most vapid point without replying to his considerations.
Furthermore I’ve been taught that there are two possible sides when tackling a problem: you can either be part of the problem or part of its solution.
As far as I see nowadays republicans are ALL part of a problem called “political extremism”. If you vote for the party which is presenting an autocrat and a crybaby as it’s frontrunner for the past and upcoming elections you don’t get to be offended when someone calls you out for that. If you are not voting democrat you are actively choosing to be ruled by a tiny minority which sees it’s religion as the only viable solution to all the (made up) problems they see in the modern world. Should you vote democrat, on the other hand, the worst which may happen is that you’ll loose some purchasing power when the world has been facing a pandemic and a regional war at the gates of Europe.
If your choice is to actively vote for the first option I’ve news from you: you are an enemy of the people and of democracy, don’t be surprised when people will treat you as such in your future interactions with tem
Why vote democrat though? Supposedly the US does have or allow other political parties to be formed. If they can organize themselves, diversifying the local state political pool should not be a problem at least.
I think you just proved their point…
Sort of, but also, Christianity is a death cult that enables child molesters and promotes hate, so there is not much room for subtly. It is also profoundly lacking in any basis of reality and frankly teaches deranged ideas that harm children’s ability to make rational judgments about reality.
Also a church is the worst kind of echo chamber.
Broadly speaking though, it’s true. Do you have counter examples to offer?
A counter example of what? A conservative law that doesn’t have selective enforcement at its core?
Have you got one?
No, I’m done with this stupid conversation and closer to believing Lemmy is a cesspool echo chamber than before it started. You people are fucking idiots that detract from reasonable discourse and progress on the left.
And by the way, I’m far from conservative, I hate Trump and all the other extremist authoritarian assholes, and I’m starting to realize you lot are almost as stupid as the MAGA fascists.
Downvote me and fuck off.
I don’t know what you want from other people. You’re not obligated to argue with people on the internet, but you started a disagreement that you weren’t willing to back up. Then you baseslessly called everyone idiots and a danger to the left before storming off. Maybe when you have more distance you can learn some lessons. Maybe you can understand where they’re coming from. Maybe you can better articulate what they did to harm the discourse. At the very least, it would be wise to learn to not pick fights you don’t want to actually participate in, for your sake and everyone else’s.
Dude just shut the fuck up and leave Lemmy then. Clearly you aren’t interested in any actual conversation, so why the fuck would we want you here to begin with? Do us the favor of walking away.
Could have just stopped there…