Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Saelune:
So you admit you're just a flat out right-winger.

image

This is like the 10th time you somehow extrapolated something I never said. So this is kind of pointless. I'm a liberal People like you make our side look bad. I was hoping to help fix the bullshit, but that's proving to be a lost cause. YOU suggested, if a party is against my values don't support them. I took that to its logical conclusion.

Someone asked me earlier what happens you when the person you're talking to is being dishonest mid-conversation. This is a perfect example. Have a good day.

Before anyone else continues, have we even agreed on at least the tenets of Civility?

Satinavian:
Yes, reporting is a political issue here. But it is complicated as there are both claims of underreporting and of overreporting. And it is not even clear which kind of numbers our politicians want. The reason is our multitude of parties and the various groups they support and their relations to each other. That is less an issue with LGBT but it is an issue with racist or religious hate crimes where people regularly argue about the numbers.

I think our police tries to be accurate most of the time and that their numbers are among the more reliable. But our police is quite different from your police anyway

I try to keep optimism with people. Unfortunately, I see too many body cam, phone footage, and security cam feeds that proves a lot of cops lie when they arrest someone. Of course not all. That would be impossible.

But enough to make me question every stat we get from them. I hope you're right about your land. That you have a good grasp on things. But the fact is, I don't know exactly what we can trust any more. You know that it's reported that it isn't an issue with LGBT. Whether that's a hundred percent true is sadly still up for debate.

A peaceful revolution is nice.

But to be honest, it is also quite scary. When it is happening you can never be actually sure that it stays peaceful. You do your protests (demonstrations, symbolic acts, whatever) from which you are fully aware that those in power really don't like it and would punish you instantly if you were alone or only a few people. And you can only hope that it works, that the gouvernment not suddenly decides you all belong into prison. That your numbers stay high enough that there is no crackdown. That both your comrades and the policemen/guards/soldiers observing you keep their cool. And that it stays peaceful in the other towns too.

But if it works, it is really worth it.

I agree. If anything, I would love to do everything with peace and civility. Again, it's my nature.

But the problem with that is both sides aren't equal. Fake News, Gerrymandering, outright lies to convince one side to back you, then more outright lies to convince you of fears you need to defend against... The situation is that in my country, my political opposition has fostered within its ranks a populous who do not care to listen to anything but what is sanctioned by their side.

That dwindles the capacity for simple discussion and good faith ruling the day.

Yes, it is unfair. And i see how that can be draining.

And i don't think you should just take it and smile. I hope you find a way to change it. I just think you need to uphold civility to do so successfully. Civility does not mean to not complain, it doesn't even really mean to not show your anger.

I'm physically prohibited of truly showing my anger in face to face situations. The whole being considered more threatening than other people thing. I do feel it in my heart, but I lead with civility.

I hope you're right. But it's going to take a complete scrubbing of my opposition's political leaders for that to happen. We need people who are willing to talk and reach a common ground. While I don't have a problem giving to the nation to make it all strong, I do understand people have an attachment to their hard-earned money.

And I do realize if people have less and less opportunities that won't just pop out of nowhere because they worked hard, they'll be more likely to go to crime. So there needs to be some compromise for the benefit of the nation.

And that can only happen with a group of people who are willing to work for a better America for all, not just a better America for their own interests. And every culture needs to do that. Not just us.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:
So you admit you're just a flat out right-winger.

image

This is like the 10th time you somehow extrapolated something I never said. So this is kind of pointless. I'm a liberal People like you make our side look bad. I was hoping to help fix the bullshit, but that's proving to be a lost cause. YOU suggested, if a party is against my values don't support them. I took that to its logical conclusion.

Someone asked me earlier what happens you when the person you're talking to is being dishonest mid-conversation. This is a perfect example. Have a good day.

Just because you never said it flat out, doesn't mean everything else you say doesn't prove otherwise.

People like me? You mean progressive socialists? You are being dishonest by claiming to be left-wing when you only defend and support the right.

Shadowstar38:

Vrex360:
Again the words themselves 'It's okay to be white' are fairly innocuous and innocent and were they by themselves I would agree that liberals are overeacting (though I would argue this is a lose/lose situation, either you challenge them and give them what they want or you don't challenge them and invite fascist rhetoric into your school) but those words 'Context' and 'Implication' that you brought up? The current unstable political environment we are in? THAT'S the damn context! And where it led last time and where it WILL lead again is the 'implication'

Your line of reasoning is solid, so I don't blame you for coming to the conclusion this act had racist intent. But you should aware of a different context that goes along with what you mentioned. Specifically, left wing extremists pushing ideas like "People of color come first", white privilege, white guilt, and female superiority. Also take into account the general fuckery on college campuses and SJW professors who should have lost their jobs but the institution drags their feet because the left are somehow always in the right. Whiteness is under attack. The right oversells it for victim points, but it still exists.

The target of your ire is fascists. That's fine, we all have our priorities. But that can also skew your perspective into thinking racism is more likely. "It's okay to be white" doesn't have enough context for us to call it either way because we don't know the mindset of the person who left it. That forces you to take it at face value. At face value, the words are harmless.

I don't make 'our side' look bad, because you and I are not on the same side, not even close.

Saelune:
You are being dishonest by claiming to be left-wing

Because you're narrow minded on what being left wing actually means.

Ironically enough the way this thread is derailing unlike many other RP threads where people heavily disagree amongst each other is the best counterargument to your initial argument that there could be, even if you can't or purposely won't see it Saelune.

Shadowstar38:

Thaluikhain:

You may have noticed that the GOP runs campaigns on such things, (and puts some effort on delivering on their promises) because they know they'll get their supporters to vote for them if they do. You might possibly glean an insight about GOP voters from that.

Notice how they didn't bother to mention economics. Foreign policy. Illegal-immigration. They're not making some nuanced argument against the actual values and policies, they're attempting to frame the entire group as a whole in particular light. People who want better boarder security don't want children getting tear gassed as just one example. People try to conflate the 2. Saelune is buying way to hard into the us verse them mentality of the 2 party system.

Lol, I will buy that conservatives don't support tear-gassing children when they vote people who support that out of office. And you and I both know that isn't happening because you and I both know that tear-gassing children is exactly what the republican base wants.

BreakfastMan:

Shadowstar38:

Thaluikhain:

You may have noticed that the GOP runs campaigns on such things, (and puts some effort on delivering on their promises) because they know they'll get their supporters to vote for them if they do. You might possibly glean an insight about GOP voters from that.

Notice how they didn't bother to mention economics. Foreign policy. Illegal-immigration. They're not making some nuanced argument against the actual values and policies, they're attempting to frame the entire group as a whole in particular light. People who want better boarder security don't want children getting tear gassed as just one example. People try to conflate the 2. Saelune is buying way to hard into the us verse them mentality of the 2 party system.

Lol, I will buy that conservatives don't support tear-gassing children when they vote people who support that out of office. And you and I both know that isn't happening because you and I both know that tear-gassing children is exactly what the republican base wants.

In other words you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about events.

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

Shadowstar38:

Notice how they didn't bother to mention economics. Foreign policy. Illegal-immigration. They're not making some nuanced argument against the actual values and policies, they're attempting to frame the entire group as a whole in particular light. People who want better boarder security don't want children getting tear gassed as just one example. People try to conflate the 2. Saelune is buying way to hard into the us verse them mentality of the 2 party system.

Lol, I will buy that conservatives don't support tear-gassing children when they vote people who support that out of office. And you and I both know that isn't happening because you and I both know that tear-gassing children is exactly what the republican base wants.

In other words you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about events.

In other words, you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about tear gassing children at the border.

BreakfastMan:

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

Lol, I will buy that conservatives don't support tear-gassing children when they vote people who support that out of office. And you and I both know that isn't happening because you and I both know that tear-gassing children is exactly what the republican base wants.

In other words you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about events.

In other words, you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about tear gassing children at the border.

They're against it. That hasn't stopped people from implicating them in blanket statements for some reason

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

Shadowstar38:

In other words you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about events.

In other words, you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about tear gassing children at the border.

They're against it. That hasn't stopped people from implicating them in blanket statements for some reason

They really aren't. Again, tear gassing children is exactly what they want. They consistently vote for people who are fine with that and worse, in overwhelming numbers. And they have been doing that since the 1960's. And the republicans have been making stuff like this a central part of their platform since the 60's. People know what they are voting for, my dude, they aren't hiding any of this.

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

Shadowstar38:

In other words you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about events.

In other words, you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about tear gassing children at the border.

They're against it. That hasn't stopped people from implicating them in blanket statements for some reason

Funny that doesn't manifest itself in votes against these types of policies, or that Trump was elected on a premise of doing these sorts of things but a'ight.

When the Democrats found that a representative of theirs, Al Franken, sexually harrassed someone, they got up in arms and got him tossed to the sidewalk. Maybe the Republicans should stop being fucking cowards and find their backbone to do the same with THEIR representatives if they're so opposed to it.

The best you can say about most republicans is that they're against it but they don't wanna go against their party since they support most other things. In short, they think that this is bad but supportable. In sum, they're fucking hypocrites considering their prior statements.

Edit.

Actually. Nvm. I'm out

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

They really aren't. Again, tear gassing children is exactly what they want. They consistently vote for people

Does boarder security automatically entail indescriminat bodily harm to any and every foreigner. If not, that's not what's being voted for

"Border security" is a phrase that is so vague as to not mean anything. That isn't what is being voted on.

BreakfastMan:

"Border security" is a phrase that is so vague as to not mean anything. That isn't what is being voted on.

There's no bill mark "H17: Gas kids". So there was no point to your rant to begin with.

I think we need to set some ground rules on stuff like support and being against stuff

like

if you say that macing children in the face is horrible thing that should never happen and that people who do it should be punished then you're against it

if you say that macing children in the face is bad but a necessary evil to support border security you're not against it, you support it for a specific reason

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

"Border security" is a phrase that is so vague as to not mean anything. That isn't what is being voted on.

There's no bill mark "H17: Gas kids". So there was no point to your rant to begin with.

It is called "dogwhistling", dude. Or did anyone think there was any other result when you send 5000 soldiers to the border and tell people that a bunch of widows and orphans are coming to kill them?

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

"Border security" is a phrase that is so vague as to not mean anything. That isn't what is being voted on.

There's no bill mark "H17: Gas kids". So there was no point to your rant to begin with.

Oh I'm sorry I forgot American voters have severe memory issues and immediately forget all relevant information in the voting booth if it's not written down.

It SHOULD be simple: "Is this candidate in favour of gassing kids?". After that it's a Boolean, if: GasKidsGood == True, Vote == False.

I also liked how you answered everyone but me since I gave you a hard ball: If this is so unsupported by Republicans, why exactly don't they pull an Al Franken like the Democrats did, instead of digging their trenches and trying to dogwhistle this issue away (or at least be complicit and silent while their politicians do it)?

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:
You are being dishonest by claiming to be left-wing

Because you're narrow minded on what being left wing actually means.

If 'Has left-wing views = left-wing' makes me 'narrow-minded', then so be it. I mean, I really don't think that just saying you're left-wing means you are, and am more strict with what defines it, so maybe yeah, I am 'narrow-minded' here, but then, I think that's a good thing when it comes to this.

JamesStone:
Ironically enough the way this thread is derailing unlike many other RP threads where people heavily disagree amongst each other is the best counterargument to your initial argument that there could be, even if you can't or purposely won't see it Saelune.

Elaborate.

JamesStone:

Shadowstar38:

BreakfastMan:

In other words, you've never spoken to a Republican in real life and asked them what they thought about tear gassing children at the border.

They're against it. That hasn't stopped people from implicating them in blanket statements for some reason

Funny that doesn't manifest itself in votes against these types of policies, or that Trump was elected on a premise of doing these sorts of things but a'ight.

When the Democrats found that a representative of theirs, Al Franken, sexually harrassed someone, they got up in arms and got him tossed to the sidewalk. Maybe the Republicans should stop being fucking cowards and find their backbone to do the same with THEIR representatives if they're so opposed to it.

The best you can say about most republicans is that they're against it but they don't wanna go against their party since they support most other things. In short, they think that this is bad but supportable. In sum, they're fucking hypocrites considering their prior statements.

I have heavily doubted your 'left-wingedness' often, but unlike Catnip and Shadowstar, you say stuff like this that makes me actually go 'Hm, maybe I am wrong about this person'.

Just putting that out there. Oh and also putting it out there that I do not think JamesStone is a Nazi, since apparently I need to be more blunt about this to put an end to the right-wing propaganda that says I think everyone I disagree with is a Nazi.

JamesStone:

When the Democrats found that a representative of theirs, Al Franken, sexually harrassed someone, they got up in arms and got him tossed to the sidewalk. Maybe the Republicans should stop being fucking cowards and find their backbone to do the same with THEIR representatives if they're so opposed to it.

It's not cowardice, even. Trump campaigned for Moore because better a pedo than a Democrat. Fox was Gleeful when #metoo hit Hollywood, asling why so many liberals were bad actors after bellowing about how the checks they paid to women who accused their staff and owners of sexual misconduct ddidn't mean anything. And we just went throgh this whole ordeal with Christine Ford.

Meanwhile, Franken's career is dead, Weiner went to jail, and Weinstein might be headed there, too. Meanwhile, Republicans continued to vote for Moore, who was only defeated because black people (and specifically black women) voted in Presidential election numbers for a special election. Despite all Trump's policies, he's still enjoying almost lock-step approval ratings among Republicans. We've got Republicans defending gassing kids. We've got Republicans defending baby jails and the sexual abuse of the kids in those jails.

We have every reason to believe they're on board and absolutely zero reason to believe they're not.

BreakfastMan:
It is called "dogwhistling", dude. Or did anyone think there was any other result when you send 5000 soldiers to the border and tell people that a bunch of widows and orphans are coming to kill them?

Don't forget all the rapists who were coming to rape our white women! Or the "stones are as dangerous as rocks" thing.

This is the problem with civility, moderation and both sidesism. For decades, we've had one party making increasingly insane and violent claims, stoking up a war-like rhetoric and then people go "why can't you meet them in the middle?"

Something Amyss:

JamesStone:

When the Democrats found that a representative of theirs, Al Franken, sexually harrassed someone, they got up in arms and got him tossed to the sidewalk. Maybe the Republicans should stop being fucking cowards and find their backbone to do the same with THEIR representatives if they're so opposed to it.

It's not cowardice, even. Trump campaigned for Moore because better a pedo than a Democrat. Fox was Gleeful when #metoo hit Hollywood, asling why so many liberals were bad actors after bellowing about how the checks they paid to women who accused their staff and owners of sexual misconduct ddidn't mean anything. And we just went throgh this whole ordeal with Christine Ford.

Meanwhile, Franken's career is dead, Weiner went to jail, and Weinstein might be headed there, too. Meanwhile, Republicans continued to vote for Moore, who was only defeated because black people (and specifically black women) voted in Presidential election numbers for a special election. Despite all Trump's policies, he's still enjoying almost lock-step approval ratings among Republicans. We've got Republicans defending gassing kids. We've got Republicans defending baby jails and the sexual abuse of the kids in those jails.

We have every reason to believe they're on board and absolutely zero reason to believe they're not.

BreakfastMan:
It is called "dogwhistling", dude. Or did anyone think there was any other result when you send 5000 soldiers to the border and tell people that a bunch of widows and orphans are coming to kill them?

Don't forget all the rapists who were coming to rape our white women! Or the "stones are as dangerous as rocks" thing.

This is the problem with civility, moderation and both sidesism. For decades, we've had one party making increasingly insane and violent claims, stoking up a war-like rhetoric and then people go "why can't you meet them in the middle?"

Its like a person with a messy house who refuses to clean it yelling at the tidy neighbors for cleaning out their garage.

Feels like the wild west in here.

Marik2:
Feels like the wild west in here.

I, for one, can't get enough of it.

Something Amyss:

Meanwhile, Franken's career is dead, Weiner went to jail, and Weinstein might be headed there, too. Meanwhile, Republicans continued to vote for Moore, who was only defeated because black people (and specifically black women) voted in Presidential election numbers for a special election. Despite all Trump's policies, he's still enjoying almost lock-step approval ratings among Republicans. We've got Republicans defending gassing kids. We've got Republicans defending baby jails and the sexual abuse of the kids in those jails.

Don't forget that our president was a good friend of Jeffrey Epstein.

BreakfastMan:
It is called "dogwhistling", dude. Or did anyone think there was any other result when you send 5000 soldiers to the border and tell people that a bunch of widows and orphans are coming to kill them?

Don't forget all the rapists who were coming to rape our white women! Or the "stones are as dangerous as rocks" thing.

Man, our troops must be real weak if they can't take some migrant worker suffering from malnutrition tossing pebbles at them.

This is the problem with civility, moderation and both sidesism. For decades, we've had one party making increasingly insane and violent claims, stoking up a war-like rhetoric and then people go "why can't you meet them in the middle?"

I think we need to be careful with how we talk about civility. Most importantly, we should not confuse incivility with actual activism, which seems to happen a lot (including in this thread, where the OP compares posting rude things on a forum to the Stonewall riots).

BreakfastMan:

Marik2:
Feels like the wild west in here.

I, for one, can't get enough of it.

Same

BreakfastMan:

Something Amyss:
This is the problem with civility, moderation and both sidesism. For decades, we've had one party making increasingly insane and violent claims, stoking up a war-like rhetoric and then people go "why can't you meet them in the middle?"

I think we need to be careful with how we talk about civility. Most importantly, we should not confuse incivility with actual activism, which seems to happen a lot (including in this thread, where the OP compares posting rude things on a forum to the Stonewall riots).

We should also be fair when we talk about civility, we focus on how people actually are. One of Saelune's main critics about how she operates and supposed rudeness hurled insults and rudeness as well. No one called that person out on it, yet the majority is still focused on how Saelune comports herself only.

If anything, that's telling to me.

Saelune:
Its like a person with a messy house who refuses to clean it yelling at the tidy neighbors for cleaning out their garage.

Well, both sides have garbage....

BreakfastMan:
I think we need to be careful with how we talk about civility. Most importantly, we should not confuse incivility with actual activism, which seems to happen a lot (including in this thread, where the OP compares posting rude things on a forum to the Stonewall riots).

There's still a validity issue when it comes to conduct from everything to public conduct to posting on internet forums. Especially when the POTUS whines that people are mean to him while attacking people via Twitter.

I'm not comparing Stonewall to shitposting, so this is probably not where you're going, but what concerns me is that we have this inertia towards the status quo where one party can be as hostile as it wants on any platform and in any venue, and if they get anything that upsets them--whether that was the intent or the inference is reasonable or not--they're like the older sibling running to mommy and daddy because the younger sibling didn't just lie down and take it. and then the self-declared "moderates" rush in to chastise the younger sibling, with the whole "so much for the tolerant left" routine.

Offense (as in the opposite of defense, not as in "screw you jerkface!") is not normally my first response. My first response is to usually attempt to defuse a situation or to act in good faith. The problem is I've been in most o these scenarios before, and I usually end up with something to the tune of this for my trouble:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC91GYEumyA

Except it doesn't even have to be a dirty word. Like Calvinball, the majority gets to dictate conduct. I recently got screamed at by a dude for posting in good faith what the IOC's rules were on transgender competitors. I don't know why, as the original discussion had nothing to do with it, but it came up and I happened to still have a tab open with the rules from last year and from 2002 and I was able to just tab over and post them.

This guy, who had previously called me sick and told me that I was preying on children, flipped the heck out and started in on how hostile and angry I was and how this discussion was over!!!!!!! and that you don't win over people by insulting him. Oh, and that I was a liar, because apparently Olympic rules that can be verified are something I can just...fake on hundreds of sites around the web. I posted some links--tabs still open--for anyone else of interest and got warned by a mod for "antagonising" him.

This is one of the problems that comes up that makes me really sketchy on civility, because on the one hand, I get where people like ObsidianJones are coming from when they talk about civility, because I was put into that environment, told that if I hurt the poor straight/cis boys' feelies, they will never treat me like a real human. And then...well, I lived life and I learned no matter how nice, and kind and sweet and...yeah, civil I am, I will bv attacked by the violent ones and discriminated against by the bigoted ones and then I will be blamed by the middle. People continuously come at me from a place that if I'm hostile, then I brought it on myself, and anything will be justified. But again, the problem is that they canm shift the goalposts. Literally knowing what the rules were was enough for a guy to rant at me...even though p to that point I had done everything "right" by not rising to his "bait" when he accused me of child predation and being insane and whatnot.

Minority groups--and women, who are often treated like a minority--are taught to walk on eggshells. To not give "them" an excuse. To not end up as a "don't" example for your in-group to the out-group. There's a problem, though, in that no matter how softly you tread, it doesn't protect you. Worse, it ends up with a victim-blaming mentality (hey, she was asking for it) when something does go wrong, because the question becomes one of which part of the conduct you violated. My existence is so traumatic that it can be used as an instigating factor. If we stand up, we're screwed.

I don't exactly share Saaelune's opinions on all matters, but I do see parallels here. Stonewall came at the frustration of a community who wasn't doing anything wrong and kept getting targeted--often by illegal and unmerited efforts. I understand the anger and frustration because it doesn't stop by being nice, as we are constantly told to be nice, to be better, that if someone tries to kill you, well, you must have frightened them. It's almost comical, that a minority under attack can be told they're such a threat.

It eats at you, especially since you're likely going to have to affirmatively fight for a semblence of what other people get. I and others like me had to fight the local hospital for equal treatment, even though we had equal protection under the law and their own medical charter in theory. Does that scale to being rude on an internet forum? Sometimes. Some of the comments I've seen around here since I started posting again make me really wish my ignore list actually worked, but because there's a disparity in the way such topics are viewed. Just the Kavanaugh topic is horrifying. It should be horrifying because a blackout drunk may have raped multiple women, but instead it's horrifying because of the responses and justifications that are allowed to stand.

We've normalised dehumanising children who are being molested. We've normalised baby cages. We';ve normalised tear gassing childrenm. We've normalised raping women and then attacking them. You can do all these things and it's considered civil.

Criticise those things, and, well..."so much for the tolerant left!" and even that's frustrating. Civility, even on the internet, can feel like a yolk to a minority group.

Sorry this turned into a rant, but apparently I only have those left in me.

Something Amyss:

Criticise those things, and, well..."so much for the tolerant left!" and even that's frustrating.

I mean, I understand that. My point is isn't so much that civility is good; it is more that civility doesn't matter. Be civil or don't, I don't give a fuck; it doesn't have much of an effect either way. Actual activism does. Civil disobedience, protests, strikes, walkouts, etc; those have an effect, those can instigate change. What I don't want is for people to grow complacent, as the internet does a good job of letting people think they are doing something when they are really just running in place.

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:
You are being dishonest by claiming to be left-wing

Because you're narrow minded on what being left wing actually means.

If 'Has left-wing views = left-wing' makes me 'narrow-minded', then so be it. I mean, I really don't think that just saying you're left-wing means you are, and am more strict with what defines it, so maybe yeah, I am 'narrow-minded' here, but then, I think that's a good thing when it comes to this.

I have left wing views. That makes me left wing by your definition. End of story.

How many left wing views tho

Cause a baby gassing oil lobbyist pocketing Republican can like...not hate gay people and not hating gay people doesn't make him a lefty ya know what I mean Vern

JamesStone:

I also liked how you answered everyone but me since I gave you a hard ball: If this is so unsupported by Republicans, why exactly don't they pull an Al Franken like the Democrats did, instead of digging their trenches and trying to dogwhistle this issue away (or at least be complicit and silent while their politicians do it)?

Just so we're 100% clear here, when we refer Republicans are we referring to the politicians who have already been voted in and have enough control to remove someone from office or are we talking about conservative voters who are voting in the people that align the closest with how they want the country to be run. Because the tone of your posts suggests you confuse the two groups.

Assuming we get to the bottom of that, how does that excuse the dumbassery of calling Jews White Supremacists?

undeadsuitor:
How many left wing views tho

Cause a baby gassing oil lobbyist pocketing Republican can like...not hate gay people and not hating gay people doesn't make him a lefty ya know what I mean Vern

Equal rights regardless of race or sex. Fix the police brutality problem. Legalize weed. Fix whatever the heck is going on with votes being counted.

The only things I lean right on are Gun control and a dislike of socialism(not the socialism Sanders is accused of. His shit actually makes sense).

Also fuck the IDF. I don't know what part of the spectrum that fits on, but there you go.

People sure are obsessed with being called or identifying as left/right or being offended if someone labels them as right/left.

Identity politics in full swing.

I agree that the republican party, as a whole, is bad for the future of the US. But one can not completely ignore some of their tenants when considering US culture.

That said, members of the opposition really need to stop alienating swing voters if they want a chance of winning. Making someone feel spiteful towards you, because you've accused them of being every negative stereotype of the Republicans, is just going to encourage them to be defensive, rather than sympathetic to switching loyalties.

Abomination:
Making someone feel spiteful towards you, because you've accused them of being every negative stereotype of the Republicans, is just going to encourage them to be defensive, rather than sympathetic to switching loyalties.

Honestly, if someone is willing to allow children to be teargassed because someone called them a racist, how "sympathetic" do you think they're capable of being?

Shadowstar38:

undeadsuitor:
How many left wing views tho

Cause a baby gassing oil lobbyist pocketing Republican can like...not hate gay people and not hating gay people doesn't make him a lefty ya know what I mean Vern

Equal rights regardless of race or sex. Fix the police brutality problem. Legalize weed. Fix whatever the heck is going on with votes being counted.

The only things I lean right on are Gun control and a dislike of socialism(not the socialism Sanders is accused of. His shit actually makes sense).

Also fuck the IDF. I don't know what part of the spectrum that fits on, but there you go.

Then your only beef with saelune is pedantic tone policing on your part.

Congrats on caring more about someone hurting your feelings than like

Baby teargassing and molesting kid jails

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here