And this is the real reason for not wanting to supply birth control or abortions it is about not wanting to cover anything they can get out of covering. The instant that Christianity enters capitalism in a meaningful and honest way we will see the collapse of the entirety of the western fucking world.
Whenever a business fuck says, “Jesus won’t let me” you should hear, “I’m not fucking paying.”
Wow. Reading the links in this thread, I had no idea migrants were being treated so poorly.
How is this even legal? Saying, “You’re lying” to an asylum seeker is hardly the innocent until proven guilty standard that this administration applies to itself. If imputing motives onto people they don’t like is a good enough reason to lock people up in… concentration camps… where does it stop?
Not going to help with the vitriol problem. It is hard to imagine a more divisive program. I guess that is what Russian agents are for. Jesus.
It’s amazing how conservatives consider it ‘ridiculous’ to have an accurate but unflattering use of a term pointed at them, when they are the ones that decry other people as ‘snowflakes’ for expressing offense, and they’ve been using and endorsing a similar but less grounded analogy for decades. When national leaders who are held up as icons of conservative principles like Ronald Reagan compare aborting fetuses to the Holocaust, the right wing is fine with it. When the term ‘concentration camps’ is applied to actual concentration camps that historians agree parallel historical concentration camps in multiple documented ways (though the Nazis did mostly refrain from separating parents from children), all of a sudden it’s ‘ridiculous’ and ‘improper’ and ‘vitriol’ to make any mention of anything associated with Nazi Germany. (And even more amazing is the objections to the use of the label ‘Nazi’ for people who give Heil Hitler salutes and wear swastikas and their supporters).
Why was an unjustified direct comparison to the Nazis fine for seven decades when well-respected people like Reagan used it, but all of a sudden is now a historically justified use of a term that is associated (but didn’t originate) with the Nazis is a beyond the pale and symptom of the recent breakdown of civil political discourse? And in a more general, why don’t things like protestors shouting racial slurs at five-year-old black kids back when schools were being integrated count as incivility, but even mild opprobrium directed at republicans today does?
Yeah, shit’s gotten bad. Regardless of what you want to call it (it’s a concentration camp, if you want to disagree with the many experts I keep citing, maybe bring more than your own baseless non-expert opinion, octopus), what we’re looking at is the gross violation of human rights, and a level of callous disregard for our fellow man that is just… disgusting. It feels like every day, we hear new horror stories from the camps. Which is kind of surprising, given how hard it is for journalists to gain access to begin with. But the truth comes out eventually. And the truth is beyond disgusting.
Again, it is very telling that some people, when confronted with this horror, respond by complaining that I (and multiple historians, journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera) am using language to describe it that’s too strong.
Do I detect an odor of tu quoque?
Because Republicans are delicate and hypocritical as well as monstrous.
No, that’s rank hypocrisy you’re smelling. Assuming I read pantastic’s post aright, the point is that Republicans have been perfectly happy to use Nazi and Holocaust metaphors when it suits their own purposes, but when used by Democrats such things suddenly become verboten even when the terminology is literally accurate.
Tu quoque would be excusing the Democrats’ [hypothetically incorrect] use of the terms on the basis that the GOP have done so too.
Nope. Tu Quoque is a specific logical fallacy, where one makes an argument stating ‘X person did a bad thing, therefore X’s argument is not true’. What is not a fallacy is pointing out "X group says Y group started doing Z thing and that the addition of Z is a new problem, but X group has been doing Z thing for decades themselves, so Z is not actually new, and if introducing Z is a problem then X is the one who is guilty of it’. Using examples of a group engaging in behavior as examples to show that the behavior is not new is extremely far from a logical fallacy.
This is similar to the fact that insults are not actually examples of argumentum ad hominem; if I say “Fred is a scumbag”, I’m just insulting Fred, not engaging in a fallacious argument, I would have to say “Fred is a scumbag, therefore his argument is invalid” to actually be guilty of the fallacious argument in that case.
Right, it’s not “tu quoque”, it’s just “no u”.
Let me make an analogy to make it clearer:
I say “Joe should not be treasurer, he’s a car thief and that’s not who should be handling our money”.
You say “Whoa, you should not use terms like ‘car thief’, that’s too confrontational.”
I say “But Joe was arrested for and convicted of Grand Theft Auto on three occasions, ‘car thief’ is a perfectly correct description of him. Also you’ve been calling Jose a carjacker for the past three years whenever he ran for treasurer with the only justification that he’s a fan of the Fast and Furious movies.”
You say "It is terrible and inappropriate that you’re injecting all this vitriol into politics, and now you’re just using a ‘no u’ defense!’
This is the kind of thing that makes it so, so hard for me to see those who willingly and knowingly continue to support as other than immoral and dishonorable people:
It’s not a good thing for me to have hateful feelings for other Americans, just for supporting someone politically… but how can any decent person, knowing the above account and the numerous other allegations against him, possibly continue to support Trump?
Because politics, that’s why. People can tolerate almost anything if it means their political team/side/agenda advances, and there is almost nothing they can tolerate if it goes against their team/side/agenda. People are intensely tribal; no amount of “why do you still support such a monster?” will change that fundamental aspect of human nature.
Lots of people overcome this. I think it’s a mark of character, or lack thereof.
Really. It’s not like Democrats didn’t tell Al Franken to take a hike. And they sure as shit didn’t cover for him, ignore it or try to make it go away.
That’s because Franken’s replacement was a Democrat (Tina Smith,) so there was no loss in Senate seats to be had. If the choice was a matter of “Would you rather have Franken, or a Republican?” then it would be very different.
Sure, perhaps people are asking, “Why do Trump supporters support Trump instead of wanting Pence, the VP, to succeed him? Pence is more ethical.” And if so, then yes that makes perfect sense. But that often isn’t what is being asked - the subtext is, “Why won’t Trump’s voters ditch him and vote for an ethical, upright Democrat?”
Republicans have that opportunity, and most of them have failed it, again and again.
Yes, and so, if the argument is “Replace Trump with Pence,” that makes total sense.
But this “why do Republicans support Trump if he is such a monster” argument was already rearing its head during the 2016 election when it was Trump vs. Hillary. In that sort of situation, Republicans had a binary choice: Either a “monster” like Trump, or a Democrat like Hillary. It wasn’t a “good conservative or bad conservative?” choice.
I’m talking about now. Republicans have had the opportunity for more than 2 years now, to have a shred of honor and decency and most of them have refused that chance. Why do you keep defending them with irrelevancies like Hillary?
Here’s a bad argument. “Okay, we’ve consistently backed monsters and terrible people out of tribalism, and you consistently haven’t. But if the conditions were slightly different, you totally would be just as bad as us!”
First of all: prove it. Second of all: no we aren’t. Thirdly: congratulations, IF we were in a position of having to choose between a groper and someone supporting the dude running concentration camps at the border, we may have a serious mental quandry on our hands, well done for pointing out the fucking obvious. What’s your equivalent moral quandry? “Possibly slightly higher taxes and spending on social programs”?
Hell, your side even does it when it’s politically bad for them! How’s generic republican vs. Doug Jones looking? Why are you guys running the pedophile again?
WTF? NO. This is utterly false. In every aspect.
He did not go down any line at all. These are direct policies that were implemented by the President of the United States. Not only did he not have to go down the line to more fringe theories, he didn’t even have to consider policies implemented by other Republicans. And they directly affect our loved ones. We actually know the people being harmed by these (unlike most Republicans who think of them as OTHERS rather than US).
And, no, you absolutely cannot in any way point to analogs from the other side. You clearly couldn’t come up with any in the time you wrote your post. Democrats don’t elect psychopaths.
And the things he describes, while hateful, are in fact political positions. He is not fueled by hate, and you have not established such in any way. You have not alleged any act of his that is fueled by hatred.
And, finally, albeit least importantly, such things are not remotely being respectful.