American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Tuco

@whynotnow

Let's clear this up—I'm not talking about being afraid of getting assaulted. That's the furthest thing from my mind. What makes me uneasy is having people, pre-op or post-op, sharing the same space as biological males/females. I'm done with this thread.

You should be done with this board. Period. You're a ####ing loser.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I find it far more offensive that these people use children as props and shields than anything they dream up to be offended about.

Children are for two things and two things only and everyone knows this.

Cheap points in political debates and raping on secluded private islands by future Presidents.

[MrButtons]

This might have been one of the wildest portions of this thread i've read in a while. Thanks to everyone who called them on their BS, there is no place for that kind of bigotry anywhere.

[Paulie Walnuts]

He was so scared of dicks, couldn't even use the word Penis.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Apparently the new chosen lines of attack on Walz are "he's left of Bernie Sanders", which is obviously not remotely true; "he let Minneapolis burn to the ground", which might be somewhat effective actually; and "he abandoned his unit in 2005 before they went to Iraq and never served in combat".

... Slight issue with that last one, which is JD Vance's chosen line this morning, because Vance is a former marine: he never served in combat either. And he was a marine for 4 years, while Walz was in the Army national guard for 24.

I get the sense that one's gonna backfire a bit.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Apparently the new chosen lines of attack on Walz are "he's left of Bernie Sanders", which is obviously not remotely true; "he let Minneapolis burn to the ground", which might be somewhat effective actually; and "he abandoned his unit in 2005 before they went to Iraq and never served in combat".

... Slight issue with that last one, which is JD Vance's chosen line this morning, because Vance is a former marine: he never served in combat either. And he was a marine for 4 years, while Walz was in the Army national guard for 24.

I get the sense that one's gonna backfire a bit.

Yeah Mr bone spurs side might want to swallow this one and move on to a different line of attack.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Tuco

Nah man. You're out of touch and quite frankly woke.

I'm so inspired by you, that I'd like to make another $500 donation to the Harris Campaign in your name....

[photon]

Lol..

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Yeah Mr bone spurs side might want to swallow this one and move on to a different line of attack.

That's what I was thinking. The king of draft dodging, Cadet Bone Spurs, may want to be careful about casting stones in glass houses.

[octothorp]

I previously thought that Kelly should have been the VP pick, but I'm so impressed with the Walz pick from my initial impressions. The scary thing for Republicans shouldn't be that he's progressive, it's that he can talk about progressive policies in relatable ways to centrists, and that is something Democrats have struggled with overall on the national level.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by wireframe

It helps the mods to report posts that break the rules. They can't stay current on every thread

Especially, as Whodini so eloquently put it, the freaks come out at night.


I'm personally grateful I went to bed early last night and missed this noise. Thanks to the other mods who handled it on the back end.

[Beninho]

That Shapiro speech was special. The Dems had a great day yesterday. Showed unity behind their candidates and got fantastic press for what may be the leading candidate in the future. I view myself as pretty centrist when it comes to politics and have voted for both sides of the spectrum. I am almost certain that yesterday won over many people in the middle for the dems. Trump is going to have a hard time winning, especially if Pennsylvania goes blue.

The difference in momentum after Walz being picked to Vance is striking. I do not think your VP candidate can win an election but it certainly can lose you one. That Vance pick was a horrific choice but on par for how much of a mess Trumps campaign seems to be.

[Ped]

Now I actually have to read posts that mention "Shapiro." Before you could assume they were about Ben and therefore a waste of time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ped

Now I actually have to read posts that mention "Shapiro." Before you could assume they were about Ben and therefore a waste of time.

Thankfully no serious person has ever said “Great speech by (Ben) Shapiro” so if you ever see something like that you can automatically assume it’s about the other Shapiro and if corrected you know the person is an idiot anyway.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In fairness, fear-based political campaigns aren't exclusively the purview of the far right, or even the right generally. Hell, the Democrats are campaigning in large part on fear in this election, just as they did in 2020. It's just that in this particular case quite a few of those fears are totally justified.

As I always say, spreading fear is not the same thing as warning people about real dangers.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is kind of the crux of the issue, though, and why posts like that one always fall on deaf ears. A lot of people think like that Tuco poster and simply will not accept this. They've convinced themselves that transgenderism IS a danger, not to them (of course not, they're very strong and masculine and not at all threatened) but to children. In those circumstances, to "protect the children", extreme behaviour in response to the threat is excusable, even warranted.

This is, of course, the exact playbook that was run with gays, particularly gay men, 30 years ago, and why one of my third grade teachers had to hide who he was for so many years in parent teacher conferences. Bigots don't want to think of themselves as irrationally hateful or fearful for no good reason so they invent a reason that they can justify to themselves. As a result, no amount of mockery or condescension or even well meaning explanation will convince them otherwise. This is what a moral panic is - that's why it's called a panic. Panicked people aren't just unwilling to think rationally, they're incapable.

The only actual cure for this seems to be exposure; i.e., "I actually met and interacted with a trans person and it turns out they aren't the menace I thought they were." Basically the Daryl Davis method.

You're obviously not wrong there, although I do think the "you're being weird and creepy obsessing over this stuff" does help to at least bring down the heat with a lot of people if nothing else. But yeah, generally it's hard to argue against someone who is in active denial over what they are doing and why.

I don't think it's about the children though. I think this is (in large part at least) about prescriptive worldviews. I think this stuff is very personal to most conservatives, I think they think they are protecting themselves.

One of the core ideas of conservatism is that there is a "right way to live", a (vaguely and confusingly) prescribed desirable life that can be reached with measurable markers. Wealth is not just a financial situation, it's an incredibly important marker of status and being "a hard worker". A marriage is not just a decision two people make between themselves, it's a life achievement, a goal to aim for, a mark of adulthood. Children are not just family, they are status symbols, markers of a good life, signs that you have achieved things in your life and are a good person. (Which is why the wrong kind of children like trans children need to be removed from the family.) Conservatives aren't satisfied with just being men and women, they are freaking obsessed about being Real Men and Good Wives, etc. To them, a good conservative lifestyle isn't just normalcy, it's aspirational.

To them, saying "it's okay to be queer" is not about people being allowed to exist, it's an attack on the definition of normalcy. When they see some tattoeed pink-haired gender-nonconforming person on the internet getting praise for something, they don't see people accepting differences, they see people trying to re-define normalcy by praising things they value, and that's why they lose their minds when that happens.

In their minds, if the progressives win, what happens is not that the idea of normalcy is broadened to accept more people. What would happen is that the current conservative model for The Right Way to live your life will get replaced by a progressive model for a Right Way to live your life, one where gender-nonconformity, queerness, minority status, bright hair colors, and a love for RuPaul's Drag Race will be the new status symbols, and if you don't want to be queer, then you will be othered and marginalized. (After all, the whole point of being in power is the ability to decide who gets marginalized. It's what the conservatives spend their time on when they are in power.)

I don't think they generally give a s*** about childred. These are, after all, people who would often rather abandon their own children than adjust their personal beliefs.

(Edited mostly for lenghth.)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

As I always say, spreading fear is not the same thing as warning people about real dangers.

Well, in most political campaigns, it's a matter of perspective - each side's faithful will say that the things they're concerned about are "real dangers" rather than fearmongering. It's a tough line to draw, most of the time, without being hypocritical.

[KelVarnsen]

Walz has been a supporter of the LGBTQ+ community for a very long time

https://twitter.com/user/status/1027548255238778880

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/08/...iance-advisor/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Makarov wins the internet today.

[Paulie Walnuts]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1821179938906734829