this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
2405 points (100.0% liked)

196

16509 readers
2400 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, what we look like is people who've tried to give the benefit of the doubt for ages and gotten fucked for it. We've run out of benefit to give. Conservatives are actively hurting people in North America (probably elsewhere too) and we see ourselves and our children on the chopping block if we keep giving leeway. So we've stopped. You'll keep seeing more of this until conservatives stop hurting people. This meme is just a funny reflection of that. Maybe it's even gonna make some gears spin in some people's heads.

[–] kboy101222@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly! You cannot support that party and be surprised when you get called a bigot. You're playing with pigs and you smell like shit, bud. Conservative values eventually turn into hateful ideology 100% of the time. Conservatism requires someone to blame for everything, and they never blame the people actually at fault, they blame minority groups that are easy to attack and exploit.

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Being conservative doesn't make you a bigot. Being liberal doesn't make you a bigot. What makes you a bigot is hating someone just for disagreeing with you, or being part of a different group.

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.

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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".

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Supporting a bigot is bigotry.

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

See you at the ballot box!

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not sure you agree with this, but here goes:

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

Anybody else hear a dog whistle?

[–] kboy101222@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Do you know what you call an average person who sits silently at a table with 9 bigots? The 10th bigot.

Or "sleep with dogs and get fleas" if you prefer a direct metaphor