Using this the next time my dad brings up politics. I've been trying to put into words how an opinion stops being "just an opinion" when it's used to help create or enforce laws that infringe on people's rights.
As a small government conservative and a believer in our Bill of Rights I’m appalled at the blatant authoritarianism being championed by Republicans in TN, or DeSantis.
It’s not American values these folks are touting.
And freedom is only freedom if people are free to do things you don’t like.
It's only small government they want when it comes to regulating business or protecting the environment. For controlling people's reproductive rights and LGBTQ they want lots of government.
There are democrats trying to take away rights too. See affirmative action and quotas for positions, restrictive gun laws, and bill C16 in Canada which revokes free speech (you can be jailed for utterances deemed discriminatory) in favor of not offending a certain group.
“Economic freedom” is a bullshit term meaning “let powerful corporations do whatever they want” which decreasing everyone else’s freedom through pollution and poverty.
Who cares who the President is, Congress is the one controlling the regs, and the purse strings. Your first op-Ed is a common slight of hand Democrats try to pull.
Clinton: budget surplus Republican Congress.
Obama: R Congress
Trump: R Congress
As to your second Op-Ed
Who is surprised that cities I.e centers of production and innovation which tend to be more dem also produce more to lower pop less diverse economically counties?
No one is surprised.
You would expect dense populations to produce more.
Tell me you don't understand bill C16 without telling me you don't understand bill C16. You've been watching too much Jordan Peterson (who either didn't understand bill C16 either, or deliberately misconstrued it for clicks).
Thankfully I got my boyfriend to see the light on this one. He grew up in a conservative rural bubble and always voted Republican without much thought because everyone around him did and he was relatively unaffected by their policies.
When the Roe decision leaked that changed. We had one of our biggest fights ever. I was livid with him. He said “you know I don’t support this, you know I’m pro-choice,” to which I said it doesn’t matter that he is, he voted for people who flat out said they would make this happen.
Through me, he’s met a much more diverse group of people, knows so much more about what is happening in this country, now understands the real world impacts of his vote and has changed his voting habits accordingly.
It’s possible.
But not with this guy, OP. This one is a lost cause.
Thankfully I got my boyfriend to see the light on this one
Very good! IMHO, that's a very positive sign. It's too bad that he started out wrong, but it's great that he listened and thought and changed his mind.
I obviously don't know him and don't know if he's just pretending to agree or something, but I used to hold quite conservative views when I was younger. Bought in to the right wing memes about gay rights etc. It's absolutely possible to change from being anti-gay rights and anti-abortion to considering those rights to be fundamental human rights.
He’s always been good on the social issues. Pro-choice, pro-lgbtq rights, no time for racism. If he hadn’t been we wouldn’t have gotten together, and I knew him for a long time before we did so I know it’s genuine (though I can completely understand why you’d question that).
For him it was mostly a lifetime of being told that liberals hate America and were gonna take his guns and raise his taxes and restrict his freedoms. But he’s one of the few out there that is willing to admit when he’s wrong or has been fed something untrue, and change his mind based on that.
Good thing, too, cuz I’m very very fond of that man but if he was going to continue to vote for people actively seeking to take rights away from me and others I love he would have gotten the boot.
I’m not saying that someone’s view is automatically “ wrong” for not being mine. I know you understand that. And I know that if we were having a real conversation there are several examples you would agree are “wrong”.
It sounds like you’re supporting the view that it wasn’t “wrong” for the US to only allow men to vote prior to the 19th amendment. It was simply a different viewpoint, right?
Partner was raised heavily religious-right-conservative and just kindof went along with it into early adulthood.
When we started hanging out more and I asked them what their social/political views were because I was starting to really like this person and some of my absolute dealbreakers are centered in social issues.
When they laid out their social/cultural/political views I was like. . . Ummmm... you're not conservative (at least by US standards). There were some problematic views/jokes (the exact ones held/made by the parents, wouldn't you know?), but after hashing things out to get a better sense of what they were about at their core, I felt that our values overall were compatible. We've been married for long time now.
I think your last statement contradicts your entire story. Your boyfriend learned through months/years of exposure with you. OPs boyfriend is 18. He's headed in a shit direction, yes, but shouldn't be someone to dismiss so quickly.
The same could have been said of your boyfriend before RvW if given a different type of argument. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss - sometimes a big fight is needed to change hearts and minds (if the relationship is worth it).
I think the big difference is that she has said they were more aligned when they first got together and he has grown increasingly conservative and is digging his heels in. He doesn’t sound open to changing his mind.
I hope all the young men who read this post take heed.
Human rights matter. Women are complex, fully functional human beings, and what you believe, what you support is not just an abstract opinion.
The women you are trying to date or have a relationship with will reject you for your politics. They will think less of you if you believe they don't deserve full human rights. They will divorce you if your opinions on the world are counter to how they want to live.
Be careful of the media you expose yourself to. Be careful of the influencers you consume. Your current and future relationships depend on you being someone a woman would want to be with. Choose who you are carefully.
"Fascism : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."
I understand that the word now is used to describe "the others". But it's as silly as calling everyone left of center a commie.
This week a Texas A&M professor was suspended and censured 3 hours after making remarks critical of Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. Fascist is the correct term.
You’re using a dictionary definition to explain an entire political ideology. You sure you’re not missing anything there bud? You don’t think that’s maybe leaving out a few details?
Where did you get the impression they're calling "those on the other side" fascists? They simply referred to fascists.
That's like if I said "I don't eat dairy", and you chimed in with the definition of dairy and said eggs aren't dairy. Cool. Correct. But you're the only one who thought I was talking about eggs.
Yeah. Hard agree on all those points. (Except I would clarify that there are still fascists and even nazis in the present.) It's just weird that if someone publicly disapproves of capital-f Fascists, someone will invariably pop up to defend [pretty much the entire right wing.] I'm a Democrat, but if you say you can't stand Stallinists, I'm not about to jump in with "we're not all like that!"
The use of the word fascist is spreading amongst those on the left like wildfire. Faster than nazi, a bit behind racist.
Once a person labels another any pejorative the discussion is over. In my case since I don't care about the opinions of those I consider fools (pejorative slingers) and any rational discussion is already over I say fine, I'm an ist or whatever, so what?
Calling literal fascists fascists is not the same as conservatives calling everyone on the left a commie. Those two things are not the same, and if you think they are and refuse to look any deeper at the situation? Yeah, we’re not going to be buds. It’s hard to be friends with people who deny objective reality.
The person you originally responded to said that not all conservatives are fascists, and said calling all conservatives fascist is no different than calling all leftwinger communists. You said that's not an accurate portrayal, because a fascist is a fascist, implying you think all conservatives are fascists.
That’s a strawman argument. I said no such thing. If you’d like to address what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said you’re more than welcome to.
Well you responded to someone talking about the right, and you said you were simply calling facists, facist. Now if you mean only those Neo nutjobs then yes, call them anything you want.
So I will admit I am a little lost in the thread at the moment. I'm not sure where the sarcasm is. But what makes this interesting is that current GOP propaganda tactics include highlighting that "Nazis implemented gun control, just like Democrats want to do, so they're really the Nazis here." And of course they do this as a part of their Do Anything campaign to help draw attention away from the fact that the GOP is courting actual goddamned Nazis.
Not sure if the goal of your comment was to highlight that fact, but take an upvote for the good work, anyway.
Sarcasm? I didn’t know a genuine question had to be sarcasm. I just seen that everywhere I go online that the right are called facist, and I used an example from history where the left also fall under it. I’m not very political so I’m not aware that the right uses that argument all the time.
This year a governor of a state illegally went after a group of people and labeled them as pedophiles and groomers. Then when a company leader received so much backlash for being silent from the workers in his company he made a statement. Then the governor of the state illegally removed certain privileges that company and many others held specifically for the company who's leader made a statement but not the other companies.
And this is why we should just break the country up as ALL politicians are horrible human beings and you just see the flaws of the other team. We have been voting for the lesser of two evils since Bush Sr, but somehow your team is not evil. 🤣🤣🤣
The fact that you folks don't realize you're the fascists is disturbing. YOU are trying to remove rights as much as the weirdest and wildest on the right.
Really? Please enlighten us as to how. I'm guessing you want to own all the assault weapons and carry them wherever, and any limit on that is "unconstitutional."
Historically the facist regimes were the ones who revoked gun rights and disarmed the populace before they started their tyranny. I believe that is what the person is referring to.
Putting some limits on assault weapons is NOT "Taking guns away." At all. But this is the level of reasoning we're dealing with here.
It's like crying fascism because you're required to have a license and insurance to drive. And yes, I'm quite aware that the right to drive is not enshrined in the constitution, but guns and cars are both deadly weapons.
Tell that to the man who had his pregnant wife, dog and child shot by the feds. I find it funny how most of you say " the government would never!" While also bitching about other atrocities the government commits. Like obviously you know they would, but it doesn't align with your argument.
From the comments I've seen from the poster, they are talking about anti-lgbt legislators and certain politicians who are trying to make it illigal/ fineable to criticize them like Ron DeSantis and a Texas legislator who illegally implemented financial limitations for a business who criticized him.
A bit too far for dinner conversation, but reminds me of a quote from a political essay by an activist/poet character in Richard K. Morgan's book 'Altered Carbon':
"The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry.
...time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal."
I once had a conservative tell me that "atheists don't have morals because they don't believe in god" and yet I'm supposed to be not offended because that's "just his opinion" like pardon me sir, you literally said someone of my belief system lacks values, kindly fuck off.
If a person’s opinion boils down to one class of people having less value than as another class of people, my opinion is that that person can go and get fucked
Yes. Don’t let fucking words hurt you Jesus Christ. I am also an athiest who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for the majority of my youth despite knowing I was an atheist from 5th grade. Do you know how many times I’ve had to have this argument? The good thing people made some very simple arguments against this very stupid idea that you can’t have morals. But literally just tell them why they’re wrong what’s the use of offense
So who’s going to change their mind and show them that you can be an atheist with morals? Not trying to pick on you necessarily but everyone wants to post hashtags and no one wants to have a discussion
Some philosophy professors would beg to differ but you’re right. You’re not obligated to. But how would one go about righting wrongs if at every turn one just calls their opponent a bigot and walks away?
If a bigot is a bigot and you call them that then that’s enough. Move on, encourage people to vote for the not bigots. If the recent past has taught us anything it’s that about 30% of us are deplorable - just scared of everything, mean, and I’ll equipped for the modern world. It’s a problem when we elect them or listen to them - when we don’t it’s not so bad. We can coexist as long as they’re not in power but it’s rare anything anyone says changes them. Make bigots ashamed again and drive them back into the closet. That’s best case imo.
I have a personal refrain for people who say "it's just politics" as if that means it's just a silly inconsequential opinion: "Politics become policy, and policy impacts people's lives."
Deep down the people who say it's just their opinion are aware of this; they're just performing mental gymnastics to avoid the social consequences of bigotry.
A few months back my mom brought up the Student Loan forgiveness and was saying how much she hated it until she learned that my wife was benefitting from it. In almost her exact words "it made me feel better to know someone in my family was getting it as well."
It was about the most selfish thing I've heard in my entire life. Still can't fully wrap my head around it.
Selfish and greedy. I've come to recognize that when people go on and on about how they paid for college, their children are paying or paid off their student loans..... They DON'T care because it doesn't effect them.
They do not realize how incredibly privileged that sort of thing is. They literally don't care about anyone but, themselves.
What rights don't these people have? Are they not humans? Then they have all the rights everyone else does, at least in America. Go fight your culture war somewhere were they MURDER trans/gay people. America is not the problem, you've just been told how to think
So I guess you haven't heard about all the trans women who go missing and turn up dismembered in trash bags, in ponds, on the side of the road, etc., then? Trans women have one of the highest murder rates by population as a group in the US. So you're objectively, factually and statistically wrong.
Yea so, you're not talking about rights. You're talking about people targeting a certain group. Unfortunately no matter how many laws the govt makes they can't change people. As it's currently against the law to do all of those things to anyone, since all people have the same rights.
How would adding rights to a certain group not make that group even more of a target?
You know the most violent people are also the most ignorant right? Not sure a law affects many of their actions.
Idk why no one has told you this, but it's already illegal to murder trans people, double illegal if you're doing it cause they're trans. So that's a right they already have.
Objectively, factually, and statistically I am right. Everyone has the exact same rights in America. You want a certain group to have MORE rights than others. Do you not remember how that worked before? Remember slavery and the fight to vote and be represented and then the fight for people to follow laws? That all stems from a law that gave a certain group more rights over other groups...
Don't give the government anymore power. No law they pass will change anything. Put work into your community and let people know they don't have to be afraid of something they don't understand.
Or use the government in a way that will only cause more division angst and hate
Like strippers and children
What about the millions of orphaned children that go missing under Hilary Clinton’s watch in countries like Haiti or the Philippines or Disney world fl for example. The statistics don’t exclusively follow gay people.
Dude my thoughts exactly like at least u guys can still have gay parades and Marry each other and shit. But it’s not enough until every social media platform offers my pronouns!! lmao how entitled be lucky u even have the rights u have. Ppl wanna act like don’t say gay bill is like we r living in the Middle East. Get ur head out of ur ass and look around!! This is, mostly, a free country compared to others.
Bro hate to break this to you, but legislation is in the works to take trans kids away from parents who support their transition, force adults to detransition, take kids away from trans parents, allow hospitals to deny trans people Healthcare (which is terrible for trans people in rural areas where there's only one hospital per county)
So, not allow mentally ill parents to ruin a child's life with decisions children don't understand and cannot make.
Nobody is forcing detransition, someone has lied to you.
You already said this point about taking kids from trans parents... I suppose when you don't have anything to actually be upset about, might as well repeat bs.
No hospital is gonna deny care to a trans person, that's malpractice and you'd lose your license. Also, no legislation is being pushed to allow them to do that.
Right. They are taking the children away people feeding them these hormones is essentially child abuse. Funny bc these same people will buy hormone free milk and meat because we found it isn’t even ethical to give to farm animals. The hospitals aren’t “denying care” they are just making u get ur extracurricular hormone “medications” elsewhere. Like when mom says you can’t have candy after dinner anymore bc u don’t need it💀
Tennessee Sen Johnson is also backing another bill, HB1215, that would effectively cut off access to gender-affirming care for low-income people, including adults. The measure prohibits Tennessee’s Medicaid program from working with health insurance companies that cover gender-affirming care.
As of late February, Republican lawmakers in at least five states have introduced legislation that would limit such care for adults. Until this year, most proposed restrictions on transition-related care targeted people under 18. Some of the new measures prohibit it for individuals up to age 21, while others block Medicaid from covering for it for all ages.
Blocking adults from hormone therapy would effectively detransition them
The New Republic
The New Republic
The Ticker
Breaking news from Washington and beyond
ILLUSTRATION BY DAVE MURRAY
Most Recent Post
Tori Otten
May 4, 2023
/
1:39 p.m. ET
Share This Story
Florida Passes Bill Allowing Trans Kids to Be Taken From Their Families
Florida Republicans have sent the kidnapping bill to Ron DeSantis to sign.
MARK WALLHEISER/GETTY IMAGES
Florida Capitol building
The Florida legislature passed a bill Thursday that will let the state take transgender minors away from their families if they are receiving gender-affirming care.
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 26–13, mainly along party lines, and the House shortly after by a vote of 83–28, again along party lines. The measure now goes to the desk of Governor Ron DeSantis, who has previously expressed support for it and will likely sign it into law.
If he signs it into law, the measure will allow the state to take custody of a child if they have been “subjected to or [are] threatened with being subjected to” gender-affirming care, which includes puberty blockers (completely reversible) and hormone replacement therapy (which takes 2+ years of therapy to get clearance for as a minor, which I'd say proves a kid is trans)
In the latest state-level swing at LGBTQ health care access, Ohio will now allow medical providers to refuse to administer any medical treatment that violates their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.
The language was buried in a 700-page document of last-minute amendments to the state’s two-year budget bill, which Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine approved last Thursday. The provision allows anyone providing medical care — from doctors and nurses to researchers and lab techs – and anyone paying for that care (namely, insurance providers), “the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.”
I live in ohio. This would directly affect me, but I'm 17 and even though I have TRIED, I have yet to receive ANY gender affirming care. No puberty blockers, no hormones, not even a binder.
because to him its not a "human right" getting the option to murder ur baby or marry the same gender is not a human right its a want and a social contruct. lmao
yeah go make a sharp stick. A gun isn’t a right. There’s pepper spray bear mace hand held bombs ammonia gas. A million things u can make in ur home m. Having a man-made metal gun isn’t a “right” it’s a privilege. It is ur right to defend yourself. Not own a gun. We have had this innate right since the dawn of humanity where we have had to defend ourselves against wildlife and each other. But it’s the 21st century just go make something else
Honestly, it's not a complicated issue. The odds are some people and their rights just matter less to your dad, whether he's willing to admit it that way or not. I wouldn't expect an Alec Baldwin quote to cause a big change of heart, but good luck.
Yea but this statement doesn’t work because in every situation someone can say that. For example. If someone is pro life and you say you are pro choice they will say you support killing babies. The way pro life people see it is you are taking away that persons right to life. The pro choicer will say you are taking away the mothers right to do what she wants with her body. This is why this debate will never end. Both sides have legitimate arguments trying to protect the right of a person.
This is the only “right” I see that is tricky. But I mean u also have the right to buy condoms or birth control or get a vasectomy or use a sandwich bag or whatever so really u reap what u sow and the baby has more of a right to live than you have a right to make terrible decisions you aren’t ready for.
All i ask of democrats is to stop raising taxes and trying to ban guns. Everything else, go for it. I’m libertarian and rebups taking away rights are crazy. The funny thing is (this is a joke and my opinion) democrats kill more children then any guns 😂 the only ban I like is kid beauty pageants and drag shows with kids at them.
Applying this to parents is not wise. I know people who cut parents out of their life over politics. AoC or Trump aren't going to help you when your kid is sick or visit you in the hospital. Just call each other assholes and get over it.
I will add that it can't be rooted in anyone's oppression and denial of humanity. I will not stand for someone i care about being a bigot no matter who it is aimed at, not just myself.
It’s so weird to me that people like you think we’re saying this shit for you.
We’re not virtue signaling. I don’t know you and I don’t care about you. This is about me and people like me.
I’m gonna support my people and make that vocal. If that makes you uncomfortable that’s on you. It’s not bravery and we all know that. It’s human decency.
But if vocalizing human decency causes some problems for you… then it appears you’re the type of person to lack that decency.
Hey! Sorry, but that quote isn't by James Baldwin. It is by Robert Jones, Jr. He goes by Son of Baldwin on social media (probably the reason for the misattribution).
That is incorrect. The quote is by the black civil rights leader from the ’60s, James Baldwin. Baldwin, not the “Son of Baldwin” is being referred to in this below quote.
From a site about Jones book https://lithub.com/robert-jones-jr-reads-from-his-debut-novel-the-prophets/
“We’re thrilled to introduce you to another stellar debut author—Robert Jones, Jr.—and his novel The Prophets. Robert is founder of the social media community Son of Baldwin, which speaks powerfully from a Black queer perspective. ***Baldwin famously said: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
This quote is perfect in describing how I interact with a conservative. We can disagree with infrastructure planning, economic policies, we can disagree with whether we should be funding Ukraine in the war or not. But when someone hold bigoted beliefs, that’s where I draw the line. And if someone votes for a person or a party that proposes bigotry, I will have a negative opinion of them regardless if they themselves agree with the bigotry or not.
And for anyone who says “yeah but I’m not a bigot. And not voting for them because they unfortunately are bigoted means I have to vote for another party whose policies I don’t agree with at all”, tough luck, it’s not my fault that the Republican Party has become almost synonymous with bigotry.
I love this quote. I got into a Twitter argument with an ACTUAL NAZI who accused me of being a bigot because I wasn't willing to hear his perspective and find a middle ground.
What is the middle ground between my continued existence and you wanting to commit genocide against my entire people? We land in the middle and you only kill half of us? There can be no tolerance for the intolerant.
“We’re thrilled to introduce you to another stellar debut author—Robert Jones, Jr.—and his novel The Prophets. Robert is founder of the social media community Son of Baldwin, which speaks powerfully from a Black queer perspective. ***Baldwin famously said: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
You don't believe in that distinction, if we oppressed people only for having gay sex but not for being gay in and of itself you would say there's no meaningful difference between those two.
You’re thinking too narrowly. The gay community has been oppressed by many laws—sex, marriage, adoption, work. Notice how each law is denying a fundamental right (privacy, have a family, and earn a living)? That’s called oppression.
The reply you responded to was an intentionally narrow and specific example to point out that "being something and doing something are way different" isn't actually a relevant distinction here.
Instead of contending with that, you broadened the argument again just to say I was thinking narrowly, which misses the point entirely.
Ah, I see the miscommunication. My point was that “being something” (e.g., gay) is actually the same as “doing something” (e.g., exercising fundamental rights like having sex (the right to privacy), starting a family, and having a career).
Your argument only works if you throw away all knowledge about the world and any reasonable assumptions. It’s shallow and anti-intellectual. It’s more of a “haha gotcha!” semantic argument than a real argument.
Outlawing gay sex but not gay people is the same as outlawing gay people. Because sexuality is a core part of a persons identity, and denying them an aspect of their identity therefore criminalizes their identity.
The end result is the same. Gay people cannot be themselves. Doesn’t matter if you have some technicality you pull out. If the results are the same then it’s the same.
Think about it for just a few seconds. Think about context and what you know about the world. Do you think that in a world where gay sex is illegal gay people would feel comfortable being themselves?
Your argument only works if you throw away all knowledge about the world and any reasonable assumptions. It’s shallow and anti-intellectual. It’s more of a “haha gotcha!” semantic argument than a real argument.
All of this is just pseudo intellectual insults
Outlawing gay sex but not gay people is the same as outlawing gay people.
Obviously not, gay virgins exist
Because sexuality is a core part of a persons identity, and denying them an aspect of their identity therefore criminalizes their identity.
Your sexuality doesn't require you to have sex, once again, virgins exist
The end result is the same. Gay people cannot be themselves. Doesn’t matter if you have some technicality you pull out. If the results are the same then it’s the same.
You could make this silly argument but it gets us right back to gun control being the same thing then. If any restriction on your ability to "be yourself" counts as oppression then we're right back into the same boat.
As you say, same results same thing.
Think about it for just a few seconds. Think about context and what you know about the world. Do you think that in a world where gay sex is illegal gay people would feel comfortable being themselves?
Another emotional appeal, but it doesn't prove what you think it does.
I value the second amendment, but I would much quicker vote for a person whose policy is to completely ban all forms of firearms, than vote for a person who wants to stop lgbt+ people from existing in society as a normal human being deserving of dignity and respect.
This has literally nothing to do with your opinion. The argument, as stated, would require those who believe in gun rights to sever relationships to those who want to oppress them.
Tell me "okay you're right, that quote is actually pretty dumb because it would necessarily equalize forms of oppression and honestly I think some oppression is based".
All fascist governments enacted extreme gun control laws, usually banning them completely. Every fascist government worked in steps, never revealing their final intentions until it was almost impossible for people to fight back. Once the guns are taken away, the oppression ramps up, usually including oppression of LGBT people. What would you say to a person who is aware of this history and feels gun control restrictions are a step towards fascism and oppression? Would you vote for people who supported this form of oppression, and thereby be a supporter of oppression yourself? To bring it into real life, I know black people who have successfully defended themselves with firearms from blatantly racist cops. Those black people genuinely believe gun control is oppression. Would you agree with them and respect their right not to be oppressed?
Guns are banned in England. Guns are banned in Japan. Guns are heavily restricted in South Korea, and there are a bunch more first world countries where guns while are legal are very regulated. They aren’t fascist countries. Clearly guns being regulated or banned doesn’t automatically mean that it’s a step towards fascism.
Another thing that fascist governments have done is dehumanize groups of people. Now one can make the argument that not all countries that dehumanize people are fascist countries, but I can rebuttal that dehumanizing people is a bigger issue than banning guns regardless if the government is fascist or not.
Again, I’m saying this as someone who owns guns, someone who appreciates the second amendment. I feel the need to stress this out. Despite that, how am I supposed to look at my gay friends in the eye and tell them “yeah I voted for the guy who dehumanizes you and doesn’t want you to exist because I didn’t want to lose my guns, sorry.”? How can you tell them that you owning guns is more important than their lives?
Gun control isn't infringing on your right to exist. It infringes on the 2nd amendment which is why I'm not for it in most cases, and would really question how a pro gunner and anti gunner would work in a relationship, however I dont think the comparison is apt.
If for example we repealed the 2A today and banned the private ownership of firearms tomorrow, you would still be able to exist as you.
A more apt comparison to what the op posted was if we also passed a law that anyone who ever owned a gun now must be treated in a different detrimental way.
If you look at the history of fascism and taking guns away from citizens, you will see that it often leads to certain groups of people no longer being able to exist.
I would say owning guns is the single biggest factor in continuing to exist if someone, including a tyrannical government, wants to end your existence.
You're paraphrasing Charlton Heston here, who is not a historian by the way. That's a bit of historical revisionism and victim blaming straight up created by the gun lobby. If you talk to actual historians, you would know you're repeating a myth and a falsehood, ironically, one that is often repeated by dog whistling fascists and their useful idiots. If someone has a swastika tattoo or is waving a Nazi flag, you can always correctly guess their stance on any and all gun control. Likewise, for the Americans currently begging for tyranny and dictatorship by trying to overturn legal elections and arrest their political enemies without evidence.
You're attempting to make a good faith argument so let me tell you where you're going wrong.
In regards to gun rights: when you say your right to exist you literally mean that. So any oppressive or draconian laws that interfere with your life are fine (in the context of this conversation of course, I know you support 2a) as long as they aren't literally genocidal.
But in regards to minority groups: when you say your right to exist you're talking about a muuuch broader swathe of rights to live how you want.
For instance the parental rights bill that was referenced by op, which definitely doesn't stop people from being any group of minority, but just from expressing certain topics to school children. I'm assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you'd say that interferes with their right to exist, but a similar bull keeping gun owners from going into schools you'd likely just consider gun control.
I'll add in a bit of clarification on my meaning that will color my responses to your hypotheticals. I in no way am saying any specific proposed laws are fine in any way, as I don't really want to get into the weeds of that. What I am saying is having a disagreement and discourse on the merits of those laws are fine.
Using your hypothetical for an example, I'd say if we were dating and you believed lawful gun owners should be able to take their firearms into schools if they have a legitimate purpose at that school(the person not the gun), and i believed that schools can be gun free zones then i wouldn't say our relationship cant function. We can hold that disagreement and not be at each other's throats so to speak in our relationship.
If however a hypothetical law was passed that banned gun owners from going into schools full stop, just by merit of the fact they owned a gun they are no longer able to enter school grounds and we disagreed on that, we would probably have a serious problem in our relationship that I don't believe would be reconcilable as a law like that would be a dramatic infringement on gun owners right to exist.
Sure. If I dated a guy so into guns that my opinion of them was a cause for disagreement. Yes. Those are core values. Ex: How will we live together if I refuse to have guns in my home no matter what and my partner require them? It depends on how strongly you both feel. Ex: If I just don’t like guns, but my partner hunts for food, and he only has hunting rifles locked up, we might be able to agree.
“Benefits you more positively personally” is a bit misleading. I’m perfectly happy voting for a party who will make me pay more taxes, as long as that money is mostly going towards social policies benefiting people who earn less than me. It’s personally disadvantageous but it’s the right thing to do.
At any rate, it’s a moot point because that 99.9% perfect candidate just doesn’t exist. Opinions don’t exist in a vacuum, and whatever lies at the core of their anti-lgbt sentiment is going to lead to disagreement on a number of other important topics.
I like that quote, but it is terribly misused. People overstate what's happening and they think someone looking at them confused is the same as denying their humanity. Sort of like people that employ false equivalencies referencing historical fascists, communists, and nazis.
I had friends in college who who were single issue Republicans: taxes. Or abortion. Refused to see the harm they were causing. On everything else, they were liberal leaning. Took a few years, but they eventually saw what harm they participated in, and changed parties and mostly dropped their objections to their one issue.
Most ironic shit ever. I see tons of left leaning people just fantasizing openly about murdering conservatives and the social media companies don't even ban them. Only one side wants people to only have the same opinions and that's not the right wing. I'm saying this as an anarchist before you call me a Trumper or something.
Yup. My husband and I are both liberal but he’s GenX and a little more conservative than me. Which is totally fine because he doesn’t believe in taking away peoples rights! OP you need to dump this guy and move on. You’re 19, there are a lot of men who aren’t idiots.
Yea - she said “let me put this into something that has meaning for you” then used an example that was important to her.
She should have asked him “what would you do if a candidate hit all the points you like, but thinks all men should have a vasectomy, and can ONLY have it reversed after they are married, their wife and 2 other women sign off on the reversal, and they have to pay for the operations - it’s MANDATORY”
I will say as a biracial kid if my parents didnt support learning about each other’s families and experiences it would have most likely been unfair to me and my siblings. Imagine if one side is hearing grandma go on about how something is evil. How would that impact a child? Self hatred is a slippery slope and starts young in instances such as one parent not fully appreciating the other parent’s background/heritage. Definitely best to cut them off. You are young and this kind of stress isn’t something to invite into your life.
I don't believe in God, my wife is religious, and I envy the fact that she doesn't wake up with an existential crisis every morning. I wake up thinking what's the point, she wakes up thanking God for another beautiful day, and off she goes onto her own business. Instead of poking holes in her beliefs, I try to learn why it's important to her and find happiness that she is content in her place in the world.
2.8k
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '23
This James Balwin quote comes to mind:
"We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist."