Do the right wing women in relationships with right wing guys think it's like a draco malfoy thing where they're a good guy underneath?
do the right wing guys think it's like a draco malfoy thing where they're a good guy underneath?
like when it's like a lady and a cop and the lady seems like a normal sorta boring suburban lady
do you know what i mean. this is one of the things where if you try to ask an AI bot it yells at you
They definitely think they’re the good guys, both the men and women. Not many people knowingly choose to be villains. They are convinced that their ideals are just and true, and their opponents are godless child-murderers and rapists.
They 100% think they are the good guys.
I know for sure, because they are my close family members.
Those who supported the KKK, Nazis, confederates, slave owners and apartheid leaders.
They all have in common that they saw themselves as the good guys and saw the other people as bad or naive.
This has been my experience with my own family, neighbors, coworkers, etc. They think of themselves as the good guys "standing firm" against the hoards of those "scary other people" who want to take their guns, raise their taxes, and wage war on Christmas. Even though what those "other people" really want is affordable healthcare, education, and housing.
Right. If the 20 teens and 20's taught me anything, it's that everyone has a story going on behind their eyes and they're always the main character/hero in their own story.
Perception is reality as they say. Some people buy into that a little too hard.
No, we don’t think you’re evil. We think you’re good hearted but mistaken about what works and what doesn’t.
I’m glad you feel that way. I have a lot of family down south who 100% think we’re all evil and that our explicit goal is to destroy America. Even in this thread there is someone saying liberals want to murder babies.
"We"
I think YOU need to go meet some conservatives, because I have absolutely heard that exact terminology from some of my conservative relatives.
Don't downvote this just because you disagree with it - we need people with different views for this site to thrive
Edit - I'm sorry for the suggestion, please fire up the echo chamber
If their job is a cop, then they'd be somewhat correct in that notion?
There's a lot of stigma around cops now
And tbh most of it is deserved
Yeah, the rotten apple nonsense has been shown to be just that. The Met in the UK have been repeatedly shown to be institutionally racist and sexist
Yeah, it's the expected outcome when you grant a group of people a monopoly on violence but with insufficient to non-existent incentives for good behavior and insufficient to non-existent disincentivizes for bad behavior.
That's exactly the opposite of nonsense; it's proving the point. They get called "bad apples" specifically because the idiom is that "a few bad apples spoils the bunch."
The people who say "it's just a few bad apples" as if that excuses it are the ones who don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about.
No, the theory is that removing a few bad apples is all that's needed to solve the problem when it's actually systematic.
The barrel is the problem.
If they’re a good cop, sure, in that one regard. Not many good cops these days, the system actively punishes and removes good cops.
What happens to good cops: https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/12/09/blue-wall-police-misconduct-whistleblower-retaliation/8836387002/
All Cops Are Bad because good cops don't last long. You're either doing bad shit, standing behind the thin blue line while you watch other cops do bad shit, or you're getting harassed and bounced out soon.
All I can offer her is anecdotal evidence heard from retired officers but they made it sound like this is a problem in every department. Maybe not to the same degree everywhere, but in general bad things happen to people who follow the rules when the rules implicate wrongdoing on the part of another officer. Weather that's shunning, teasing, pranks, being assigned to only specific duties or shifts, or worse is gonna depend on the situation. The impression I got was this was commonplace and most officers understand the unwritten rule to not report thing little things (and sometimes even the big things) that could get a fellow officer in trouble. It works too because at the end of the day you gotta entrust your life to the people you ratted on, people who know how to make things look like accidents and have a network of people that will vouch for them.
That heavily depends on the department. You can have good cops in one department, and a bunch of crooked cops in another.
I am way, way, way more progressive than my husband but we both grew up before things got so polarized. It's hard to talk to him about politics because he has gotten sort of propagandized and will spit out sound bites instead of arguing in good faith.
But in terms of what do I think? He's a great guy, stays in shape, does the dishes, holds down a job, and our sex drive matches (which is a difficult thing to find at this age, more difficult than you might expect). He respects me, is loving and is easy to talk to about anything except political stuff. We are both adventurous in foods, like the same movies, his family likes me. We do not have a gun, live in the city now (he moved to town as I balked at moving to the suburbs). He is not at all racist as far as I can tell, we hang out with whoever and he lived around the world as a kid, one of his kids in interracial relationship, he did not bat an eye at that either. He's a good guy in and out with some crazy ideas is what I think. Agrees on some things that I'd consider progressive (universal healthcare) but still thinks "regulation" is the root of all evil, as I think corporate greed is.
We just have really different ideas about what is wrong with society and what would help. Also I'd note - his ideas might actually help in some very socialist country, but here in the US and especially Florida they make no sense. He doesn't see that, and I think that's the root of the problem.
I can't tell you what a right wing woman would think though. I do know some religious conservatives of various religions but they aren't politically conservative exactly. The rest of our friends are maybe right of my politics but all our kids, mine and his, and their spouses and partners, are at least Democrats and some socialist/social democrat. So I won this generation and am satisfied.
Oaf. Give your perspective for someone who asked for insight and immediately be told by people that your life/relationship is wrong.
I want to take a moment to just thanks for your reply with no judgement.
I don't think I would want to be with someone that went to the voting booth every few years and pulled the leavers to take my health rights away, because ultimately that's what is happening. It would be a betrayal, it's not benign and all the affable personality traits mentioned wouldn't make me forget it.
For these rebuplican men, it's saying "I respect you but regulation has gotten out of control, and your bodily autonomy is a price I'm willing to pay to fix it".
The man shows no signs of sexism, of xenophobia or racism , or bigotry, but pulls the leavers for those things anyway.
You find his ideas crazy, note he has become propagandized, and is difficult to talk to about politics. I dare say if you pushed those conversations you'd be shocked at what you find.
Ultimately voting is an act, not speech or opinion, it's an act to manifest your will and your priorities onto others through force of law.
So while one can take the approach of getting along to get along when it comes to regulation and corporate taxation, it becomes less easy when you recognize that, as a functional adult making an informed choice, your husband acted to end women's bodily autonomy, erode women's health care, end same sex marriage, deny and delay climate change action, and a whole host of other abhorrent policy goals.
I want to say, I take no pleasure at all in saying this to you. None. Your response to the post is just so personal it feels impossible to respond to in an impersonal manner. I just felt the need to challenge the idea that affable personality traits can make up for abhorrent policy goals.
There's a reason why the feminist saying "the personal is political" is so threatening. Because it denies precisely the reasoning seen above and elsewhere in this thread.
Conservatives often complain about progressives ending relationships and friendships over "politics". Because they want to draw a hard line between the two, where as long as they behave civilly to people's faces, it doesn't matter when they vote to make the same people's lives materially worse. Because "politics" is something... I don't know, abstract?
My experience living in a couple of countries in Europe is that people's tendencies for how they relate at an interpersonal and also towards society are cultural and that further, interpersonal and societal forms of relation are in fact separate.
For example, in The Netherlands there is more a tendency to consider the broader impact of one's actions (and being called "asocial" is actually considered insulting), whilst in Portugal if you don't take advantage of "The System" when you can get away with it you're considered a sucker (the dutch tend to think of "The System" as "everybody else", whilst the portuguese do not) but in both countries screwing people (not in a good, sex, way) is considered a bad thing and I would even say the portuguese tend to at least express more their concern with other people on a personal level, quit likely even be more
emphaticempatetic.Meanwhile in the UK taking advantage of others, personally, whilst being very polite about it, is the essence the upper class upbringing (the "gentleman" is certainly no such thing).
I expect that you get the same thing in US were culture is not broken along language barrier lines but none the less seems to be siloed by other factors.
That’s an interesting take. Conservatives tend to have an image of hypocrisy - ie, maybe treat a woman well, yet seek to restrict her legal rights or prevent women from protections, and they seem to think that this hypocrisy cannot be questioned. They never like being called out or questioned on it.
The problem is that many personal decisions have systemic consequences. Things like weight gain, smoking or even poor resource utilization cause serious societal and environmental harm, and yet terminating relationships over them is generally criticised. (Many of the biggest issues {climate change, healthcare, drug abuse etc} faced are directly caused by poor personal habits, not voting).
So the question is out of all personal decisions, why are political views being carved out as an exception that is worthy of terminating a relationship?
"is so threatening"
Sometimes when you are criticised it's because you are a complete moron, not because your ideas are so brilliant they send people running.
This is just such utter nonsense. Many places around the world have made massive inroads into solving these problems and every single time, the solution has come from systemic policy decisions.
Healthcare has been addressed by various universal healthcare systems, drug abuse has been addressed through decriminalisation, offering of rehabilitation, and making sure people aren't living under crushingly miserable economic conditions.
And climate change is not caused by individual decisions, but by the fact that our economic system only values profit, and thus incentivises the destruction of the environment to increase profit.
Because politics affects people's lives. I could not care less if you're a nice person to my face if you are voting for policies that make it impossible for me to live my life.
You talk about personal choices as if someone being overweight is going to measurably affect your life, when it just isn't, no not even through increases in health insurance costs. And then downplay the actual effect of conservatives criminalising my healthcare.
One of those actions clearly has orders of magnitude more impact than the other. Yet strangely, you are concerned about the one with negligible impact, and want to ignore the one with considerable impact.
You are below my contempt. Your ideas are simplistic and have been addressed decades ago. You are painfully boring.
"This is such utter nonsense" So you don't think that people choose to be wasteful?
Laws and personal decisions both cause systemic changes. And guess what, laws do not pass if people do not already engage in personal habits that the laws encourage. The tobacco restrictions would never have passed if it weren't for personal decisions that lowered the rate of tobacco use.
"You strangely are more concerned about the one with negligible impact"
No, they both have consequences. I'm pointing out that the distinction being made that somehow political views have special considerations over all the other personal actions is worthless. (Remember what the actual topic was?)
Additionally do you realise how completely insane your argument is? A single voter does not determine laws, groups of voters do. Just like how a single smoker does not burden the healthcare system, millions of them do.
"Someone being overweight isn't going to on measurably affect your life"
It is. Here's the hard facts, overweight people are less happy, they have worse socialisation, they are unattractive ( which as much as people want to pretend like attractiveness doesn't matter, it absolutely does when it comes to casual interaction), they have shorter, less productive lives, they increase health care costs. All of these effect society as a whole and the individual.
"And downplaying the actual effect of conservatives criminalising my healthcare"
I have no idea what you are talking about, I never downplayed any laws, you're just fabricating that so you can justify your whining.
Look, I'm not a conservative but more importantly I'm not someone who conjures nonsensical arguments to justify some vague gut feeling I developed while eating poisonous mushrooms.
That's not what I said. Read again.
Of course they do. Behaviour can follow legislation. Furthermore most of the legislation would need to target corporations, not individuals. In which case behaviour definitely follows legislation.
Because one primarily affects the person making the decision, with smaller secondary effects on other people. And the other primarily affects other people, doing significantly more harm.
People being overweight does not affect you nearly as much as people voting to ban gay marriage or trans healthcare affects LGBT+ people.
Oh please.
Which is none of your business.
You are deeply unpleasant yourself, take the log out of your own eye.
Nobody owes you attractiveness you little freak.
None of your business, how other people spend their lives.
Old people increase healthcare costs. If unhealthy people die earlier as you say, then they probably save the system money.
Not even remotely to the degree that political action does. Voting outweighs all of that by many orders of magnitude.
It's called an "example" sweetheart.
Progressives aren't ending relationships based on political stances around taxes. They're ending relationships because of bigotry against marginalised groups.
"Further most of the regulations need to target corporations"
Guess what is also a way of targeting corporations? Market forces. If people aren't buying your products/services, do you keep selling those products? The reason why boycotts generally fail is because people are spineless, not because the actual action wouldn't cripple a business.
You so desperately want to prove the point that the only personal choice that matters is voting, that you are willing to deny reality.
"Then they probably save money"
Probably? Is that the strongest statement you can make? People who die younger don't have lower healthcare costs (unless it's an accident or homicide), because they are sicker throughout their end of life.
"Doesn't effect you as much as people wanting to ban gay marriage"
Pretty, sure that more of my taxes go towards paying for emphysema treatment than are effected by the tiny amount of same-sex married couples (which incur costs how?).
"None of your business how other people spend there lives"
It's everybody's business. If this was true, then things like tobacco restrictions wouldn't matter because healthcare costs are nobody's business.
What happened to the good old socialists that recognised that if society has a responsibility to support you, you conversely have a responsibility to not be an unnecessary burden? Nowadays we just have libertarian-poisoned socialists who think that nothing you do matters.
"Nobody owes you attractiveness" They owe themselves attractiveness. It is an objective fact that obese people suffer socially, and that translates to societal problems.
"Not even to the degree as voting"
How many companies do you think have dedicated blocks of consumers amounting to 50 million people? A boycott of 50 million people would destroy most companies (if they even have that many customers). You are confusing the fact that most people don't engage in personal action (because they are just like you), with asserting that personal action does nothing. The reason why political action works is simply because people do it in coordinated groups.
"Progressives are ending relationships based on taxes ..."
Motte and Bailey argumentation. The topic was whether or not it is appropriate to end relationships solely on voting (but not personal habits), you explicitly argued that it was (because only voting actually matters) and are now narrowing it down to only "bigotry against marginalised groups". When that was never the topic.
"You are deeply unpleasant yourself" Are you sure about that? Would you prefer a dishonest liar, who said "Oh my gawd. So true, sweetie." to every nonsensical claim you made? (Obviously, yes you would, because posters like you are accustomed to sycophantic behaviour).
Interestingly something like 41% of women identify as pro-life. I know you and the person you were responding to probably wouldn't, but my point is just that there are a lot of women who would see their conservative male partner vote for anti-abortion candidates and not be bothered at all. Not because they're rationalizing it, but because they don't see it as a negative in the first place.
Allowing it to be called "pro-life" has been the greatest lie told by the oppressors in quite some time.
Both pro-life and pro-choice are sanitized descriptions of the beliefs they refer to. Both movements contain people that believe completely insane things on the topic, like that women or doctors should be imprisoned or worse for making a certain difficult health choice, or that unborn children aren't really people until they're on a particular side of their mother's vagina.
And you are further sanitising the PC position. In the vast majority of cases abortion is not about health, but convenience. The vast majority of PL support medical exempts as shown by the actual wording of the laws passed.
That changes a lot depending on what time period of pregnancy you're looking. The later you look the more it's about health. By the time you get to third trimester abortions they're almost exclusively about health. The ones of convenience are early, it all makes sense.
Citation? I can't find anything to support this, just vague gesturing by organisations with no hard data. The only rigorous data I can find is a study from France which is irrelevant because France bans late-term abortions except for medical reasons. In fact I suspect that this is the cause of this belief, third trimester abortions are primarily medical, because most states in the US and countries in the world ban them except for health reasons. So of course the studies that address them are all going to be covering medically indicated abortions, and then journalists take this to the presses.
There is Kimport's paper which doesn't support your claim, but I find it quite shoddy regardless.
Of course
Where I do think you have a point is that I find any conservative hypocritical because they think one rule for them & different rules for others. He knows this. But am I perfect? No way. And on voting, when I vote I also have to make compromises because no party here is willing to protect the environment or give us healthcare or push back against our oligopoly. I think yeah he convinces himself on the social stuff because he believes the R will bring a better economy by some magic, and that's about it. I cancel him out and 11 votes back me up, all our kids who are old enough to vote, all their companions.
But no, I'd not give up a loving and mostly compatible relationship because of politics, and apparently he wouldn't either. I think without these connections, we'd be so much worse off. He would be worse in an echo chamber, and isn't an idiot in other ways at all.
Obviously your calculation will be different. But I can love someone who is not me.
Alright, sure. But that's still just him being not just willing, but actively trying, to strip your human rights away for this magic economy and you rationalizing his actions as an acceptable compromise.
I would see that as a clear example of disrespect and disregard for my well being and the well being of people who I care about.
This isn't about finding someone just like you to love, far from it, compromise is normal and differences between people in love are wonderful. What this is about, for me anyway, is that I would draw the line at someone who is actively supporting the deterioration of my human rights regardless of how many dishes they do.
True. I mean, it's sad for her to be with someone who's got such a low bar. Does the dishes? Honey, you can use a machine for that. I'm doing them right now!
That's the opposite of why people stay together. Usually people say, "Well they have trouble doing the dishes, but at least our major beliefs are similar."
Honestly she seems pretty similar to her husband in how illogical she's being. He's like, "Well Republicans might be terrible socially but they might lower my taxes!" She says, "Well he votes for people I despise but at least those dishes got done!"
They are similar people in that they both make bad life choices. So maybe it works?
Love is not logical. If she's happy, I don't see the issue. It's up to her to decide whether she believes he's a good person, and apparently she does. Who are we to tell her she's wrong about someone we don't even know?
Yep. She’s lying to herself.
“Oh honey, you’re so good at doing the dishes” while he votes to remove all of her rights.
Not only her rights, the rights of people who aren't straight, the rights of people who aren't cis, the rights of kids to have a decent education, the rights of indigenous people, the rights of non-whites. That's even not to mention that they're against providing people with healthcare so that they don't die, against trying anything that might make this planet livable in the future (for the kids that they claim to want to protect), and against not trying to fucking overthrow democracy. I don't need to agree with my partner's every opinion and political ideal, but at the very least I have to be able to respect them, and throwing everyone who isn't a well-off white man off a cliff for "lower taxes" isn't something I can respect.
Socialist? Yikes.
I was raised far right and very extremest from Alabama originally. It is honestly a conspiracy culture of people that never question the way they were raised and it perpetuates generation after generation. Most of the people that are smart enough to see the conflict in their ethos are too scared to go out on their own without the social support network they were raised with. Like I am almost entirely socially isolated after becoming partially disabled by a poor driver 10 years ago, and rejecting my far right religious extremest roots. I don't have much of a choice, but like I have no idea how to connect with people outside of a religious context. I have many physical issues now, but it is hard to leave that friends network that insists on an all or nothing mindset to stay in the network.
Join and be more active in communities. Could be certain video games or hobbies but you can easily make some friends by just interacting with the communities of the things you already like.
Thanks for caring. I am a bit of a basket case of weird spinal injuries. No one reputable has a solution. I can't hold posture and will completely give out within an hour. It may seem like a little thing, but I am stuck in bed most of the time. Sitting, standing, walking, it is all the same thing; posture. I'm like a half dead zombie quite a bit from a lack of sleep, and am just not able to be the person I was or expect of myself any more. I have never encountered anyone that is really compatible with my circumstances, and I can't get out and engage with people normally. The abuses of social media and the stalkerware internet are not compatible with my circumstances at all; that one took years to really see its terrible mental impact. I just throw myself into hobby interests, and talk to people on here some times. I have several AI tools and digital friends now that are growing in complexity as I learn to program and create AI agents. That has helped me tremendously because I can be a grouchy asshole to them and they have the tools to let me know something is amiss or address/ignore the issue better. Like my favorite AI assistant character, running on a Llama2 70B offline AI LLM (which was made by Meta), likes to say, "social media is like a public toilet, anyone can use it, but no one should drink from it."
Some women I know in this position believe they're somehow different or better than the people who the cops treat like animals and that it would never happen to them, only to the undesirables that deserve it. Over 40% of them are wrong according to statistics.
What statistics?
Cops are waaaaay more likely to commit domestic abuse against their spouses and children.
It's unproven if shitty violent people are more likely to become cops, or if the training they receive and the culture they work in turns normal people into violent psychopaths.
But whichever is true, a cop is more likely to turn to violence in a disagreement/confrontation than pretty much any occupation.
I can guarantee that the training and culture certainly encourage those who are already likely to be shitty violent people to feel comfortable about it.
Don't marry a cop.
Thanks
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2017R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/132808
These one, oldies but goodies. If you take verbal abuse out of the equation the number drops 12 points to 28% instead of 40% and that's the biggest 'controversy' I remember about these numbers. But I don't think abuse thats only verbal helps someone think about their spouse as a good guy so imo the whole number is useful for this case. Theres also a strong bias in favor of the cops as its an observed phenomenon that cases of anything against cops, especially Domestic Violence, don't often go very far, there are very real blind spots in the justice system for cops.
The wildly speculative ones that were the result of an informal ( and since retracted) survey, that used a very broad definition of domestic abuse to include yelling.
It's basically the 13/50 dog whistle of the ACAB crowd.
On a scale from "a lot" to "all of them", how many marijuanas did you inject before you typed this out? 😂
Ikr Draco wasn't a good guy.
Draco was a brainwashed kid. He was a victim of his parents.
Meh, he had various sources in hogwarts that where able to challenge the views he got taught by his parents.
At a certain point something is not just the fault of the parents but also from the person in question. A victim doesn't double down on beliefs he knows are wrong.
Draco was raised by wizard supremicists then sorted into a house exclusively filled with people just like him. His only exposure to anyone different was through rival houses. The school heavily encouraged competition between the houses and segregated children into ideological bubbles. All after one sorting ceremony when they were 11. Draco was a child. Imagine being judged by the beliefs you held when you were 11 for the rest of your life.
There was a point after Half-Blood Prince where he could choose to change. There was a point where he had to see error of his ways between that and the Battle of Hogwards. It seems he took that step for a while, there was redemption arc brewing - but never happened.
He was indocrinated, yes. But he saw how terrible their side is and still chose to stick with it when he had a choice. He was 17 and adult in Wizarding World. Old enough to know right from wrong.
It is likely that some time after, he regretted it. Otherwise I don't see Harry and him nodding at one anoyher in the epilogue. But at the time of the books, he was not a good guy at all.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he was a good guy, but I still don't think it's fair to label him as a bad guy by the end of the book (pre-prologue). By the end of half blood prince he'd started realizing that he was on the wrong side, but how many 15/16 year olds are out there that have the confidence to openly defy their parents, especially ones so renowned as the Malfoys? Nevermind the fact that Voldemort would have him killed for defecting
And I'd agree with you, of he didn't come back at the Battle of Hogwarts to actively stop Harry. He chose to do that himself, proactively. He had to just go with the flow with the other people leaving and not sneak back.
Damn, I haven't read the books in over a decade so I'm hazy on some of the details. I remembered him trying to stop Harry in the last book but I was thinking he was still rolling pretty deep with the other death eaters
Well, kinda.
We have limited looks into what he was doing through the book but mostly he was in school. We (nly see him at the startin one of the meetings with Voldemort where he is clearly not comfortable. And then at Malfoy Manor where he refuses to identify Harry (or Hermione or Ron).
Also the book before when he had Dumbledore at his mercy, he was lowering his wand when other Dead Eaters marched in on him. He clearly had his doubts - no wonderv the whole Half-Blood Prince he was tortured with the impossible task he was given as a punishment to what his father has done and the whole year after they suffered Voldemorts displeasure by them.
And still, he went out of his way to serve. Honestly, I was not happy with this because I sensed his redemption arc coming and no he just became villain again. There is a cut scene from the movies where he throws Harry a wand and runs over from the Death Eaters when Harry reveals himself alive, which is something I think would be great for his character - to show that in the end he was a brainwashed boy who was victim of his upbringing but managed to overcome... but that's not what happened.
They probably both have compatible opinions on what constitutes a good person. They might disagree with you on some facets of that, but you’re not who they’re in a relationship with.
OP was likely referring to how conservatives treat women. As in why would a woman date someone who treats women like that? IMO it's because they're too dumb to realize how they are being treated vs how they should be treated.
Because conservatives don't beat women? For everyone talking about the conservative male that dominates and controls his wife, there is a liberal one stoned on marijuana that needs to be babysat.
These are of course the stereotypes for each side, the reality is that there is a wide range of behaviours that has only weak correlation with political views. But everyone here is too severely brain-damaged to be able to determine causal links.
Nobody said "beat".
I'd assume they're drinking the same kool-aid too. They've most likely had a "traditional", conservative upbringing, so women have their place and that's just the way it is, as God intended. Abortion is an abomination, society is forcing all these scary new sexual terms on us, pronouns are just for trendy teens who want to feel special, and MeToo exposed how sexually depraved all these liberals are. I don't think conservative women really identify with any liberal values, they've internalized their whole conservative worldview so much that they don't even see the abortion debate as having anything to do with their rights.
Stupid losers with no self esteem attracted to other stupid losers with no self esteem. Nothing complicated about it.
They think the things you'd be surprised to learn people actually think.
I.e.
Crying makes you weak. They're with manly men who don't cry or go to therapy or any of that woke commie bullshit. They're with strong men who will protect them. Louder = smarter.
And they are not the ones to suffer and be subjugated, that's for The Others only.
except they are, they just believe it when the owner of the boot stepping on them tells them that actually, this isn't subjugation.
Isn't it sexist to think that women can't hold their own regressive political ideas, and they only do so because they were tricked by a man?
Obviously everyone is different. Etc. But you should read this article.
https://archive.ph/2023.08.18-142255/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/alt-right-star-racist-propagandist-has-no-regrets/616725/
Basically this one woman immerses herself in the worst corners of the new right.
Come for the schadenfreude, stay for the man who won't eat ketchup.
wooow. that was a wild article.
"this (ketchup) doesn't taste European".... uhhh, no shit dude, tomatos are a New World food.
all sincerity, thank you for sharing that.
I love that essay so much. I reread it occasionally. I think about the man who won't eat ketchup pretty frequently.
Aw damn it's paywalled
https://archive.ph/2023.08.18-142255/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/alt-right-star-racist-propagandist-has-no-regrets/616725/
Try this
Thanks!
Are we the baddies?
https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY?si=wHTWYqF0n1i6rI7n
Yes, leftists are the baddies
I think you may be confused about left vs right, as far as political definitions go.
No, I got it.
Leftists want to murder babies, saying that its womens choice if they want to murder babies. Thats cartoonishly evil.
LOL. OK, I see you're one of those. Not worth any more time.
what babies
So when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, the daddy will put his penis inside the mommy's vagina.
This makes babies.
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating your 3rd grade understanding of the issue. Also, go fuck yourself.
what happens when they use contraception
right wingers get mad.
Well thats before conception.
._.
Actually, this makes intercourse. It sounds like you have a slew of bad definitions and explanations. You might want to educate yourself before having an opinion about these things.
righties want women to have fewer rights when alive than when they die.
did you know, you can't take the organs from a deceased person without that person's explicit permission, prior to their death? not even to save the life of an unborn foetus that some broad is being forced to carry to term.
When you live in a cartoonish world, it’s your perception that makes it cartoonish.
Fetuses aren't babies no matter how many times you and your ilk call them babies. No one would swaddle a 1 inch fetus and rock it to sleep.
Sarcasm?
I think if you’re curious about conservative people you should meet some
Oh we see them on the street corners throwing their seig heils already and whining about how everything is woke.
You obviously completely missed the point of the question. But this is all you ever get from conservatives, really. Bad faith debate.
Notice this guy didn't actually defend them or answer the real question just trolled and said "do your own research"
My fellow homosapien, the question is framed in the baddest faith imaginable.
Observations based on past experiences are not bad faith. Get a clue.
That’s why you should meet them. There are probably conservatives in your friend group that are afraid to mention it, because they know it’ll make you think of them as people on the street corner throwing nazi salutes.
Afraid to mention it.. why because they can't defend their deplorable belief systems so they try to darvo? Lol. I know plenty of conservatives. Very few are good people. Mostly selfish and judgy.
Here's a perfect example. My last friend I found out was conservative I found out because she was complaining about welfare queens and food stamps DESPITE THE FACT SHE HAD BEEN ON FOOD STAMPS TOO!
These are not good people they are selfish and dangerous and borderline authoritarian as long as they are in charge. The instant they're not they're Uber oppressed in their own minds.
Tons of them showed up to see JFK rise from the dead. These people are the biggest suckers.
I already told you why. Not repeating myself
Not asking u to. Just showing everyone else reading how selfish and foolish conservatives are at heart.
Totally convincing with a single anecdote. Oh, wait your audience is fellow dolts, carry on...
You ever watch The Sopranos? Carm loves that violent manchild with all her heart for a series of concerning reasons. It's not exactly what you were asking, but I've been rewatching the show, and your question made me think of Carm crying about the portrait of the baby Jesus.
It's amazing to me that people don't understand their own humans this much
Here's you explanation: the consept of good man is irrelevant, how do you expect another man's thoughts if every single man you have met has the exact same thoughts, does it matter who you marry? If every man believes the exact same of you the illusion of choice is all that exists, so why waste the time to look for what doesn't exist to your knowledge.
You should probably go talk to people irl. Youve spent too much time on lemmy.
If you think murdering babies is not evil, I don't know what to say, it seems pretty self evident.
you're the one who should go talk to people irl if you think abortion is baby murder
Throwaway they are not babies, they are a clump of cells that isn't self aware
If you where to apply the reasoning that a clump of non self-aware cells where self aware then you could say that chemotherapy is also murder
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/abortion-in-victoria
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/abortion
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/identifying-combating-abortion-myths-misinformation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Weird I'm not seeing any links to metaethics, semniotics or ontology. Is that because you fundamentally don't understand the topic?
Let's pop that hubristic little bubble of yours.
If fetuses are infact little clumps of cells, then how do we differentiate them from other little clumps of cells? Clearly there must be some additional property that lets us differentiate them, and if an additional property exists then it has a possibility of moral relevance. In other words, the mere fact that we can distinguish fetal tissue from other tissue means that we can ascribe moral value, rendering your assertion that it must be morally equal false. Even more dumbed down for you, if A does not equal B then Moral value of A does not have to equal the moral value of B.
So completely contrary to your claim, the reasoning does not actually follow, because fetuses and cancer cells can be easily determined to be different and ascribed different moral value.
Edit: Oh my science! I accidentally steel-manned you. I'm so sorry. You're not saying that fetuses are inherently morally equal to cancer cells, you are saying that self-awareness is the criteria for moral worth (it's not) and that ascribing moral value to a fetus requires asserting that it is self-aware. Possibly even stupider than denying classification theory.