I’ll come right out and call them Nazis. Their party is founded on belief in an authoritarian state. They hate LGBTQ+ people and would gladly load us all onto trains to concentration camps. From an LGBTQ+ perspective, they are nothing but goddamned Nazis.
Agree…I would put it they tolerate the LGB part of LGBTQ. Seems the biggest hatred is certainly reserved for T.
MAGA is pretty warm and inviting towards Scott Presler (gay) and I believe there are a few L and G lawmakers (not many but a few certainly) on the republican side.
The visceral hatred, from what I can see from a distance, is set aside exclusively for the trans people.
Right now, the “T” is where all the hatred is going, or where the vast majority of it is going. It has really triggered the right, this pesky existence of transgender people…
Shocked to see Zuckerberg cave in to Trump. Sad but I expect tougher times for LGBTQ community.
“We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms.”
“If they can be racists and bigots, by gosh, so can we”.
“I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.”
Stranger
What a misleading byline. Unless his “famously undocumented” wife committed some not so famously documented crimes, which the article neither alleged nor substantiated, it’s a flat out lie.
It’s also quite interesting that they pick on him when there was overwhelming support for the motion among Democrats.
That link doesn’t strike me as a particularly reliable source, but if it’s accurate in claiming that the bill permits indefinite detention without trial of people accused of shoplifting, I’m agin it.
I may be wrong but I have a feeling that Fetterman is ever so slowly but surely going the Manchin/Sinema way, if not full MAGA.
This is going too far…sorry to see Fetterman doing such things. It looks like he will visit Mar a Lago to meet Trump.
I think left, left of centre, liberal people have to brace ourselves to the reality that social media will be increasingly biased to RW views and propaganda in the years ahead. Sad to see Zuckerberg go this way…
We are in the same place we were at in November. Republicans are in their ZERO SUM world. Government is only there to take stuff from them and give it to someone else. Like the fire thing. They are getting free Fire Department services! Just like those penniless immigrants are ripping us off.
And Fox viewers are tuned in to see how Democrats caused the CA fire.
There is nothing left. Other than let them suffer from Trump. How long will it take?
Resist. Mike Johnson is doing all this:
Trump met with Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) at Mar-a-Lago - Washington Examiner
TRUMP: “It was a totally fascinating… he’s a fascinating man, and his wife is lovely… I couldn’t be more impressed.”
“He’s a commonsense person. He’s not a liberal or conservative… which is beautiful”
Something seems to be cooking…
This guy has a limited adjective vocabulary among other things.
Late to this thread, but this seems like the place to talk about this thing on my mind.
There needs to be a more robust way to handle truth vs lies. This happened to me just recently, with a person who is not right-wing, but doesn’t necessarily immerse themselves in news stories and is perhaps a little bit innocent and trusting.
The subject of conversation was some item of right-wing bullshit-du-jour that had been a headline; it doesn’t even really matter what that was - the conversation went something like this:
Me: No, that’s just complete fabrication
Them: What do you mean?
Me: It’s like that time Trump said the immigrants are eating the cats and dogs - it’s just an outright lie
Them: What was that? Why were they eating cats and dogs?
Me: They weren’t. It was a lie. He just made it up.
Them: So what was happening to the cats and dogs?
Me: Nothing out of the ordinary. I think a cat went missing, as cats sometimes do, and people just made up a whole story about it that wasn’t true.
Them: But, why didn’t the police look into it?
Me: Look into what? There was nothing to look into. The whole story was made up.
Them: Why did he say they were eating cats and dogs?
Me: Because he’s a liar and a moron and he lied to gain the support of people who hate or distrust immigrants.
Them: So what were the immigrants doing?
Me: Existing. Nothing out of the ordinary. He lied, or repeated a lie, because it was convenient to his narrative, and because it would get him support from people who believe he’s going to fix a problem that he says exists.
The conversation just went around like that. It was a little bit worrying that there are people who are essentially good people that just can’t seem to get a handle on how a world leader could have the gall to tell a transparent lie. It’s like there had to be some story, somewhere at the bottom of it all. No, it’s a lie; it’s fiction.
I think the problem stems from the fact that in trying to dispel a lie, you’re often trying to replace a sensationalist story with [nothing] - because [nothing] is what really happened, but you can’t overwrite an exciting story with [nothing].
From your description of the conversation, I suggest your characterization of the individual is quite generous.
Sure, we could blame the victim, but there’s something a little bit new happening here.
Politicians lie; we have known that all along, but until comparatively recently, by far the most common form of political lies was typically that of exaggeration, credit-stealing, blame-shifting, downplaying, misinterpretation or other forms of distortion of the truth. In most of those cases, if you could be bothered to look, you could find the undistorted version of the truth (as well as maybe some different varieties of distortion from other voices in the argument).
What we’ve got now, is a lot more lies of the type where there is no underlying truth; nothing has been distorted - it’s just been made up out of whole cloth; when the lie is first told, there is no actual truth to be uncovered - there is just a void. You don’t find the alternative, correct and truthful version of the thing, because it isn’t there - nothing is there.
For people who are used to the former state of affairs, the latter state is confusing and exhausting, possibly because in the previous framework, we had (wrongly) assumed some of the burden of proof, and this was OK because the truth could be fairly easily found. Now that this habit is established, it doesn’t work anymore.
What we should be doing is just saying “Show your evidence, or it didn’t happen”, but that is not the habitual expectation, and it doesn’t land as satisfying for people who were expecting the counterpoint to be “Actually, what really happened was…”
Thanks for the explanation. I don’t think I was trying to blame anyone. I was merely getting at the mindset of the person you described. If your conversation went as you describe, I don’t know WHAT could be done to inform such a person. I don’t dispute that many people think (or FAIL to think) that way. I just don’t know what can be done to change them if they don’t want to change.
I guess I also question whether the nature of lies is all that novel. For me, such blatant lies go back AT LEAST to W lying us into Iraq to get those WMDs. So many instances since then - Hillary and Libya, Obama’s birth certificate, Q, alternative facts, etc. Then add in the proven dishonesty of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc. It seems someone would have to have been quite poorly informed - almost intentionally so - to not immediately ask for support for so many public statements.
The only possible exception I could imagine were if the person you were talking with was quite young - maybe voting in their first election. But if they were 22 or older, I wonder how they can be made to care/think about important things.
I’m thinking of all the optimistic movies who relied the hero ferrying a news story through constant dangers to (by the end of the movie) release it to the unknowing public who “see the light” in the face of this irrefutable and damning evidence… I think its quaint now.
Now I would expect if such a scenario happened, nobody would be swayed as they have already been siloed in their alternative media bubbles who feed them sensationalized versions of outrageous and comforting lies to secure their engagement for ad revenue and direct money gifting.