I’m glad you read the rest of his post which made some really good points 
If the second someone calls you “racist” or “sexist” or even says “fuck you” that you shut down completely on the conversation, how do you think people who come on here and hear things like “not all black people are the N word, but some are, and it’s OK to call those that” or “trans people are inherently mentally ill”?
Somewhere along the line we shifted from:
“it’s important to fight ignorance”
to:
“it’s important to fight ignorance without hurting its feelings.”
Just mind-boggling to watch the “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd openly make that shift and pretend that they’ve always held this position.
That was always obvious bullshit. The most popular user of that phrase (not sure if he originated it) is Ben “Feelings don’t matter unless they are my feelings about my religion” Shapiro.
Newt Gingrich is a pretty big proponent of “feelings are more important than facts” crew. I remember this sequence from a few years ago:
I would argue against that premise because the following statements are not facts although many here think they are:
“Conservatives are assholes.”
“Republicans are racist.”
“Transgendered people are wrong.”
“Phil Jackson is an innovative coach.”
etc.
It’s loads of shit like this that gets promulgated around here, that results in the “black and white” nature of this board, that will kill it.
You can pretend these are not positions of leading GOP politicians or you can live in reality.
Actually I went there once. In ATMB I think. Didn’t want to go there, but ended up doing it anyways.
I’ve argued for a lot of stuff that’s been mentioned here as ‘beyond the pale’, whether by BigT sincerely or mikecurtis as hyperbole, or whoever. I have argued in favor of explicit racial quotas. I explicitly argued against banning misogyny/racism from the Pit. I have argued against same-sex marriage. I have argued that one can wish an entire race simply “went away”, without harmful intent. I have argued that religion should be a prominent force in public policy debates. To a limited extent I argued that the pro-life position is consistent. I questioned women in-thread why they thought “that” in “I’d hit that” makes the sentence more offensive. I argued that it isn’t cowardly to support military action when I’m not in the military. I think I argued against some extents of statutory rape statutes. I argued that Trump should be acquitted during his impeachment trial. I also defended (literal) Nazis on more than one occasion.
I only joined in 2019 so this is all recent.
I mean, yeah, the SDMB is pretty left leaning… but it’s clearly not an echo chamber full of snowflakes. If we’re looking at the beginning of the end, there’s a long way to go yet.
~Max
Let’s take one. What politician advocates putting women in prison for having a miscarriage?
Out of curiosity, out of all those reprehensible positions on that list, why did you choose that particular one?
That would be Gov Brian Kemp of Georgia.
Because it is one of the more ridiculous potshots that pass as “facts” these day on the SD.
The main point is that yes there are a few crazy-ass Conservative Republican politicians that hold those views. And guess what, there are a few crazy-ass Liberal Democrat politicians that do as well. And there are people on this board that agree with those politicians on both sides. But now debate is painting ALL conservatives with the same broad brush. There is no civil debate to be had here on the Georgia abortion law. No actual examination of what the law says and doesn’t say. No limiting the discussion to Georgia Republicans (and by the way, some voted against it). No it is “All conservatives/Republicans want to imprison women who miscarry.” with a ton of sycophants agreeing. THAT is was passes as debate on the SD now.
Maybe you should read a more reputable source than Alyssa Milano
Fair, and exactly why I asked; because out of all of those positions listed, it is the most “ridiculous”; as in, mildly hyperbolic.
Remember, though, that the original list was a list of the current Trumpian “conservative” positions; which are very much not actually conservative, but highly reactionary.
Those two words are no longer even CLOSE to being synonymous. At this point, if you want to defend being a Republican, you are not defending being a conservative; I’ve had plenty of respectful, policy-based discussions with conservatives in the past. Most of those with whom I would have had those kind of discussions have moved on from the Republican party.
I read the same exact article you linked. That’s not my characterization, I was just answering who he was referring to with that line.
Excuse me? She’s the boss!
The new Texas law is coming close: it encourages private citizens to report women who may have had an abortion after 6 weeks. They must then prove in court that it was a miscarriage.
Close enough to make the claim that it is a caricature of conservatives a simple lie.
You say this like it’s a bad thing.
There shouldn’t be civil debate about this, or any anti-abortion law.
What should there be civil debate about? On what issue that you feel strongly about would you be willing to have a respectful debate with someone you disagree with? Because Dibble, I have to say, I’ve never seen you give an inch on anything.
Lots of things that aren’t so obviously B&W as bodily autonomy vs patriarchal control of women.
I’ve had perfectly fine debates with people I disagree with on issues relating to economics and religion, both topics I have strong feelings on. That’s skipping right by my participation in CS and GQ.
But I don’t see the need for the fiction that I give bigotry any respect.
You’ve forgotten how I’ve come around on Israel not being an apartheid state, then?