this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
940 points (98.8% liked)
Murdered by Words
1556 readers
1 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most people, conservative or not, could post this image and garner basically no pushback on it whatsoever. Who wants to be the person who's like "hey pedophiles don't deserve that." Like, even if you thought the message was grossly violent, you would scroll past so you don't have to engage in this dumb bullshit.
Not Ted Nugent, though. One of the few people who can post "I hate pedophiles" and get himself buried.
Conservatives equate all of LGBTQ+ with pedophiles though. That's why they use the phrase "grooming children" to describe talking about anything even remotely related to it, including the mere existence of it.
Serious question. What constitutes a conservative?
Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves.
Wouldn't the reps and dems fall under that categorization as well, though? I'm not even being facetious. I'm genuinely wondering how we use the word now.
Can you explain why you believe that?
Sure. But it's not a belief. User jtk said that conservative people are "Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves." Both of the parties I mentioned consistently do that, so I made an inference. Maybe the other parties in the USA will do that, too, but they haven't been given an opportunity to degrade themselves in this manner. By the way, you lot keep downvoting, but I'm legitimately trying to understand. I'm not challenging your beliefs, nor do I take offense to them (though it won't matter if I did take offense, as that won't stop me from respecting your beliefs and fighting so that you can keep having them). While I know many who claim to be conservative, none of them fall under the categorization that user jtk defined, so I'm confused as to what being conservative means. By the way, I do not consider myself conservative. Or, at least, I don't think I am. Again, I honestly don't understand what that means, but by user jtk's definition, I definitely am not. (also I'm not dem or rep). I tried googling it, but there were pages and pages of conflicting information, which left me more confused than before.
Thanks for explaining, I think I can see where you are coming from.
Which harmful laws are voting dems attempting to preserve? There are quite a few bad things the voters are attempting to get politicians to act on, e.g. incarceration rates, drugs, police reform, health reform, gun policy, etc. but they keep getting no action because the competing party is loudly fighting hard for the opposite of all those things and all the dems have to do is say "at least we won't make those problems 1000 times worse."
From how I see that country regressing, it's been one crap law after another. One side is actively trying to strip minority rights, the other is actively trying to strip the middle and lower class rights, sometimes they switch sides. All guised, of course, as protecting the children or protecting women or protecting trans or protecting the minority or protecting the small business owner, but, in reality, they're actively stripping rights away and people seem to not care. So, again, I am confused by your definition of conservative, when every party has done this same thing ("Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves"). Or, are you saying the USA government is conservative, and you're gathering your definition of the term based on the USA government? Sorry if I am offending. I'm genuinely interested in learning this and I don't mean to be offensive.
One side is actively trying to strip minority rights, both are trying to strip the middle and lower class rights, but the voters on only one side are attempting to get through to their politicians to fix that. But again, they can't because they have a huge pile of "your worst nightmares" to point a finger at.
Which harmful laws are in place under the guise of protecting women, protecting trans, protecting the minority? I'm talking physically threatening laws that individuals need to fear just for existing. Ill placed "equality" laws that never do what they're intended to do are a problem, but not dreadfully dangerous.
So, would they be considered as conservative, too? Or are there specific actions that are considered so? I'd say by your original definition, both sides would be considered conservative, but I'm gathering that I'm mistaken by this assumption. The more we talk about it, the more confused I get, but the more excited I get in learning your view, and breaking what I thought I knew to rebuild something more complete. It's quite enlightening!
E: oh, I forgot to answer your question. Without doing any research on your country, COPPA comes to mind, which claims to protect the privacy of minors online, but actually just strips privacy from minors and adults alike. I know there are more laws and acts, but this is the one that comes to mind first, since it's one of the last ones that I read about.
I left off children from that question on purpose though, I can think of hundreds of examples of that, but I can't think of a law that was passed, by the left, in the name of protecting women, trans, or minorities that actually strip rights away from them or anyone else. Since you're saying both sides do the same things, I think my point was that both parties are corporate shills, so they're both stripping rights of the working class, but the right is the only one doing the other stuff to a degree that strips certain people of basic human rights. I guess if I were to rephrase my original definition it would be "Anyone that's OK with laws that oppress only certain people, just for being a different kind of human." There is overreach in other areas of concern on both sides under those guises, and that's a very big problem, but they effect most citizens equally.
By the way, I'm just a ranting, drunk, stoner. Since you seem genuinely interested in analyzing this stuff, there are far better sources than me :)
That's fair haha!
You gave me a lot to go off of, and I'm using that to target my searches better. Politics have never been my strong suit, so this is confusing to me.
not all cons
But the cons at the forefront do. If your one of the ones that doesn't, consider strongly how the conservative mindset leads so many to that conclusion and/or why they vote republican to further that agenda.
Not every con is a child raping traitor, but every con is okay with child raping traitors. Cons love child rape and treason. The Republican party is the child rape and treason party. The conservative movement is the child rape and treason movement. Quite literally every conservative without exception.
But always a cons
Yes, all conservatives support pedophilia or at least don't mind it enough that they keep voting for pedophiles like Matt Gaetz.