Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.
Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?
You support a platform for many different reasons. For example you really want small government, so what choice do you have? And how do you know that a republican definitely is a pro-lifer? And if he is a prolifer, how do you know he believes government should control woman? You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagined. What you imagined is not your neighbor.
You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine
Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.
Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).
I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?
I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”.
Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.
But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.
So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.
The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.
you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
people are probably amenable if you use the right approach
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:
Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.
Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”
During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women’s ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state’s interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health
In the argument you call out, wasn’t the republican side pushing the decision of abortion legality to state level, putting it more in the hands of the people?
Edit: should clarify, I’m unaffiliated, and just looking for answers.
Yeah they pushed it for state level and when they realized most people even in Republican states didn’t support the ban they went straight to trying to push it federally.
It’s all a grift for the sake of control and power. Acting like it’s anything less when the mask has been removed makes you complicit which is why I say fuck all republicans.
Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.
Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?
You support a platform for many different reasons. For example you really want small government, so what choice do you have? And how do you know that a republican definitely is a pro-lifer? And if he is a prolifer, how do you know he believes government should control woman? You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagined. What you imagined is not your neighbor.
Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.
Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).
Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?
I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.
Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.
But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.
…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.
So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.
The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
deleted by creator
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
This belief depends entirely on the state. Other red states don’t give a shit. Kansas and Florida for example haven’t restricted it at all.
Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:
Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.
Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”
“Not as bad” isn’t really a W.
Every country limits abortion to some extent. The UK limits it at 24 unless medically necessary. Denmark is at 12 weeks.
The US was unique in that you weren’t permitted to limit it at all due to the supreme court decision.
Some limitations are fine, imo.
Wrong again:
In the argument you call out, wasn’t the republican side pushing the decision of abortion legality to state level, putting it more in the hands of the people?
Edit: should clarify, I’m unaffiliated, and just looking for answers.
It used to be up to the individual. The Republicans took it out of the hands of the people.
Yeah they pushed it for state level and when they realized most people even in Republican states didn’t support the ban they went straight to trying to push it federally.
It’s all a grift for the sake of control and power. Acting like it’s anything less when the mask has been removed makes you complicit which is why I say fuck all republicans.
Is the Republicans platform not anti-abortion?
It is, and I don’t know how anyone could disagree with you on that.
We bash the Confederacy for using “states rights” to try and justify slavery. We should bash Republicans for using the same tactics.