Mosques and synagogues too. The racists will be given free reign by the White House. And if people start shooting back, we could be in a civil war to too long after that.
If Trump wins, he has actually been pretty openly trying to steal the election, that could lead to violence from the Left. If he “wins” a close election, our democracy is probably dead and they may be justified. If his win is legitimate, then they obviously aren’t.
Trump has been gaslighting the idea that the Dems are trying to steal the election since the last election. Don’t expect his cult to believe the results. Meanwhile, Trump has been actively trying to steal the election. No matter what the result of the election is, there will be a lot of people questioning the legitimacy of it. This is not a healthy society. And this can be laid at the feet of Trump, his GOP enablers and Trump’s boss in Russia.
I just don’t think that it is possible to have a democracy when 45% of your populace doesn’t value democracy and I don’t think you can maintain a viable nation in the 21st century when that population also rejects science. None of it is sustainable.
What’s new? When Obama became president, the first thing the Pub Caucus did was declare their highest priority was to make him one-term. They spent the rest of his presidency doing everything they could to obstruct whatever he tried, no matter what it was or whether conservatives had previously proposed something similar. I recall one Pub saying to an admin official, “We can’t afford to let you succeed.” And that was that. I even recall RW boards referring to the Obama Admin as “the usurpation,” as if the Reagan Revolution were once and for all and no Dem after him could legitimately be POTUS. The GOP long ago withdrew from the kind of politics where you recognize the legitimacy of the opposition.
Were they? They were pink hats that don’t look anything like cats. They are at the least double-entendre headwear.
We are in a cultural conflict, but the actual Civil War was incredibly bloody. Rates of violent death in the US are near historic lows. If this is what a modern civil war looks like, strong emphasis on the “low level”.
I agree that the Electoral College isn’t democratic, and neither was Russian interference. But many of these anti-Trumpers were going to protest Trump winning even if he won a clear majority of the popular vote with no cheating or foreign interference at all. To them, Trump meant “gays can’t be married, undocumented immigrants will be kicked out, bye-bye Roe and reproductive rights, toxins will fill the environment, mass shootings will continue.” In other words, they were my-way-or-the-highway voters. Either you give them the LGBT rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights, environmental protection they demand, or else they WILL protest, regardless of how clean or democratic the election vote was.
I said a civil war, not The Civil War. Also, before Fort Sumter, you had bleeding Kansas and harpers Ferry. We simply are not countrymen and we never will be again.
Of course, then people go and call them vagina hats, with either utter ignorance, or a deliberate intent to remove that empowerment and de-stigmatization.
The only way an actual civil war can happen in America is if the armed forces themselves divide. No “militia” would play any significant military role, not even as guerillas.
I think that history is full of people who were unable to grasp the reality of their situation because it is unthinkable. The idea that Chernobyl would suffer a spectacular failure was unimaginable, and so it wasn’t taken seriously. The right wing regularly show up at state houses armed to the teeth screaming like lunatics, they shoot blm protesters and they drive their cars into crowds of people; this is how they behave after winning elections. Imagine if they start to lose control.
I mean, Sure, I guess. I see what looks like a very simple hat shape of a tube closed off with a single seam, which results in two points that are plausibly ear like. They have ears the same way my beer koozie has ears on the bottom.
I guess I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re drawing here. Trump obviously wasn’t referring to cats. The women in the women’s march presumably aren’t there protesting the way that society treats them as second class citizens due to their owning cats. The point is that “pussy” is a somewhat vulgar word for vagina, and they’re taking it back. The same way that homosexuals destigmatized words like “faggot” and “queer” by using them with a sense of ownership and power.
“Vagina hat” while obviously not the term the organizers chose, isn’t inherently ignorant or deliberately divisive. How does it destigmatize the word “pussy” to pretend any of this is about cats?
So, you are saying that you think that it looks like a vagina? I don’t see that.
You don’t think that calling them “vagina hats” is insulting and derogatory? That if nothing else, it is not what those who made and wore them called them?
So yeah, I see it as either ignorance or deliberate insult. Ignorance can be cured, but apparently that is not the problem here.
I think it looks more like a vagina than a cat, in that it’s pink and toplogically congruent to one.
But of course the reason I think it is reasonably accurately termed a “vagina” hat is based on context. Were those women marching for reasons related to cats, or vaginas?
You have been given the resources to figure this out on your own. You have been given the information from the people who made and promoted these hats.
If you still do not understand, then it is not the explanation that is lacking here.
I think it plausibly could be intended that way. I don’t see that in the post you responded to, which I think could more easily be explained by a slightly faulty memory.
Any misspelling or mispronunciation or error could be intended as an insult. In context, I don’t see one here. Nor is this minor slip of memory evidence of “utter ignorance”, because it’s basically a correct mental summary.
Yes, I read the wikipedia article before I responded initially in this thread. Do you think it supports this claim (which is what I originally disputed):
Because I do not think it does. They are called pussy hats, and the idea that it has anything to do with cats is the thinnest veneer of wink-wink nudgery.
As the entire point is to destigmatize it, it’s more than that, I’d say.
As I said, it could be ignorance. But that’s not the case after being informed.
If one wishes to be insulting and derogatory toward those who protested against Trump’s bragging of sexual assault, then calling them vagina hats is perfectly acceptable.
Same as saying that Trump supporters are wearing red Maggots on their heads.
.jpg)