politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
And you're encouraging people to expose themselves to toxicity that is very unhealthy for them.
The toxicity won't disappear on its own. It has to be cleaned up.
Time has a way of dealing with that
Yes, we're seeing it live. Most people here don't seem very much pleased with how time decided to deal with it though.
I'm referring to people with horrible views dying.
Death doesn't care about one's political views.
And?
And either you're expecting the people you hate to die first or for yourself to die before them. Neither of those cases actually solves the problem, so your choice is quite pointless. All you're doing is passing on the torch to the next generation and thus maintaining the cycle of ruination.
Actually, removing the hate from your life does solve the issue. If everyone excommunicated these people, their ideologies will die out.
Not really. Lots of people here excommunicated toxic people out of their lives and yet those toxic people still voted for the wrong ideas. And according to the numbers thrown around, the ideology hasn't died out by way of excommunication.
All excommunication managed to do is create a 2 party system based on hating the other side. And a complete excommunication would mean the end of the United States and the beginning of the Opposing States or something like that.
I don't think you have a clue or care what I'm saying
You're right. I have no idea what you're on about.
Yes because you asked so many questions and made no assumptions
You're making no sense.
Right it wouldn't make sense to someone in your position. What's a question even? Is that like a weird accusation or something?
You seem invested in an idea, but fail to present it. Please take a break and relax your mind. It seems too tense to properly convey your meanings.
Socially ostracizing them is dealing with it. People aren't sticking their heads in the sand here. They're telling these people that their actions have consequences, and one of those consequences is exile. Cutting people out of your life is just one part of dealing with these people.
Let me ask you this, if your kid ends up in a way not acceptable to you, will you "socially ostracize" them? Simply say "there's nothing i can do" and cut them out of your life?
If so, then I am sad for you. Not pity, just sadness.
If not, then why not feel the same for your parents? Because they're old or something like that?
I don't know. It's just.. eh, can't even use 'weird' anymore.. maybe 'lame' works. It's lame to be so decisive in giving up, yet still flower it up as some sort of moral punishment.
Yeh, people are dumb. Yeh, people can be evil. And yeh, some people are irremediable with too much wrongdoing to be forgiven. But it's important to know the difference between these aspects and treat them accordingly. Otherwise, it's just being lazy about it.
Do you not understand the concept of compounding events or something?
This isn't coming from nowhere and it's not the first action people are taking.
This is coming from 10-20 years of dealing with these people. The drunk uncle going on about "the darkies" every Thanksgiving since Reagan was in office. The in-laws making comments about how they respect you as a person, they just can't support your "gay lifestyle." The mother or father asking why you can't just be a feminine gay man instead of trans. People who have had years of their cognitive dissonance pointed out to them as they repeatedly vote for politicians who want to hurt their friends and family.
And now, as the thugs are donning their jackboots and people are saying, "Enough is enough, you're a danger to my life and right to freedom," you're wondering why the abuser doesn't deserve to be in their victims' lives?
The path of least resistance.
We often walk it without even realizing it.
The drunk uncle. Alcohol is called liquid courage for a reason. Has anyone tried since Reagan to teach him throughout the year he's got nothing to fear or was he left to stew with only a propaganda channel as company and then only rebuked at Thanksgiving?
In-laws. Nosy relatives are a staple of large family gatherings. They usually don't really care about your "gay lifestyle", they just want to nag, nitpick and compare. "Look at me and my kids! We're all proper and shit! Nyeh nyeh nyeh!" Even if you shut them down on one thing, they just move on to something else. The cunts. But that's just how some social contracts work.
Parents. The biological urge to reproduce is often times a contest of wills that the urge tends to win. Parents want biological grandchildren. When the possibility of getting one drops to zero, it's a shock to the system. Does not compute. "Feminine gay man" is a fucking win in the face of that.
You want people to make difficult decisions because they're the right thing to do, but you don't care to understand how or why these type of decisions are difficult to them. Because it harms you, it harms others. Well guess what, harm comes in different shapes and forms, often unnoticed and unchallenged.
If you're unwilling to understand the difficulty in changing who you are, who you've been for a large part of your life without a constant impetus to push forward that change, then do you really deserve that type of understanding from others? To clarify further, you're the impetus. Without you there to push them towards acceptance, who exactly are you expecting to do that for them? Fox news?
It's hard, very hard, so hard that many just pack up and run. And that's fine. It's completely fine. But it ain't the right thing to do, it's the left one.
Now you're just justifying the actions of abusers. Your speculated scenarios are as likely to be accurate as they are to be completely off the mark. Just like your assumption that the people cutting extremists out of their lives never put any effort into changing their beliefs.
The same exact words apply to your own argument. You might as well be saying, "Abusive parents deserve to be in their grandchildrens' lives because it's harmful to them to not be allowed to see their grandkids."
Your problem is that you believe their actions aren't supposed to be justified. But that's the wrong approach. "Every action has consequences" is just bullshit on its own. The web of reaction is as old as the universe and us picking which action deserve a certain reaction is nothing more than personal whim.
We're flawed beings, all of us. I can't be right for every situation, but neither can you. And the difference between us is that I want to try and treat each individual as an individual. You may see this as excusing an abuser, I see it as fighting against abuse.
I won't protect everyone and i can't protect everyone, but just like any other kind of death row decision, it has to be earned. Each degree of punishment has to be fair. The chance for redemption has to be given. Punishment should be for the purpose of rehabilitation. And if we can't do it at an individual level, how can we expect it to be done for a better society.
Being just is hard work. And if you can't do it, why expect it of others?