|
Ice Phisherman posted:So I remember posting something roughly two weeks ago about magical thinking and evangelicals. How people can convince themselves that magic is real and how this can convince them to do violence with the right priming. It wasn't very well received. Remember when you were insanely racist a few pages ago? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:So I remember posting something roughly two weeks ago about magical thinking and evangelicals. How people can convince themselves that magic is real and how this can convince them to do violence with the right priming. It wasn't very well received. I grew up in Florida and the earliest "political" position I remember hearing from my mom was about racism when I was in second grade. I transferred from a Catholic school in a white area to public school with about a 20% black population. I don't remember what spurred the conversation, but I distinctly remember her telling me about slavery, about how people down there will tell you the civil war was about states rights or other things not involving slavery. She told me, before we were even taught about the war, that the violence and hatred imparted on others because they have a different skin color can never, ever be allowed to happen again. This was a formative memory of mine. I still think about it, how she told me probably before I was truly old enough to understand. My mom is also a one issue voter. Abortion. She has a deeply held belief, that I know in her heart is not based in hatred on minorities or women. I'm not excusing her. She voted for Trump, of course. But just this month she told me she's not voting for him again and that she probably won't vote for a republican house rep or senator. I don't think she can bring herself to vote for a Democrat. It's a start. I hope she understands someday that minimizing abortion is about caring for people at risk of becoming pregnant, before it happens and after by providing care and support to poor parents. "Not all Trump voters" is lazy because while most of them are awful, they're not a monolithic entity that shares in the racism and bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Catalyst-proof posted:Remember when you were insanely racist a few pages ago? I don't speak for IP, but I think both of us admitted we used past experiences with bad men to clumsily paint a broad picture. IP is very clearly a thoughtful person, much moreso than myself, and I'd suggest you'd drop this as it accomplishes nothing. I internalized what people wrote to me and realized I need to rethink how I look at the world. If you have any questions or think I'm full of poo poo, please DM me. I'd love to talk about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I don't speak for IP, but I think both of us admitted we used past experiences with bad men to clumsily paint a broad picture. IP is very clearly a thoughtful person, much moreso than myself, and I'd suggest you'd drop this as it accomplishes nothing. I internalized what people wrote to me and realized I need to rethink how I look at the world. If you have any questions or think I'm full of poo poo, please DM me. I'd love to talk about it IP failed the purity test, and thusly must be cast from our midst. I think I will subtitle this post: Stupid Reasons Why the American Left Keeps Getting Punked by the Right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:IP failed the purity test, and thusly must be cast from our midst. If you were going to have a purity test I think the whole not being racist is a pretty reasonable one to have. And judging by some of your posts that are really awful towards women I don't really think you have Much to stand on here either
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Stop
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
When you’re so worried about being primaried you become a republican. https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1205931802340274181?s=21 Trump begging for a narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Fantastic news actually. Allows a non shithead to stand a chance in 2020
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Fantastic news actually. Allows a non shithead to stand a chance in 2020 Sadly NJ-2 seems like an R-leaning district in regards to its representatives. Before Jeff Van Drew it had been held by a Republican since 1995. But obviously enough people were pissed off to unseat that Republican, so I don't get what Drew is so afraid of other than he's a coward and probably corrupt
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Sadly NJ-2 seems like an R-leaning district in regards to its representatives. Before Jeff Van Drew it had been held by a Republican since 1995 Agreed but it's better to have a corporate centrist than a neo nazi. If he switched parties, he's the worst case scenario in 2020 with an outside shot at an actual left of center rep
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
He should be cast out
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
is that the NJ shithole that voted yes to its cops helping ICE on the ballot this Nov a few week ago?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1205948039560650753 https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1205951150522064896 https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1205945675281829888?s=20 quote:But former GOP legislators who have battled with Van Drew in a pro-Trump legislative districts over the last 18 years are hardly anxious to pick him up. dumb guy is dumb, gives up actual talking points he could provide republicans by voting against impeachment as a democrat and ensures he will not be the representative in 2021, regardless of which party wins the seat, because republicans in his district hate him just as much as democrats do
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
This feels like when Arlen Specter was going to lose his Senate GOP primary so he switched to Democrat and still lost the primary
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
eke out posted:https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1205948039560650753 What a stupid douchebag. I point out again that he’s a dentist. I find that very funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I grew up in Florida and the earliest "political" position I remember hearing from my mom was about racism when I was in second grade. I transferred from a Catholic school in a white area to public school with about a 20% black population. I don't remember what spurred the conversation, but I distinctly remember her telling me about slavery, about how people down there will tell you the civil war was about states rights or other things not involving slavery. She told me, before we were even taught about the war, that the violence and hatred imparted on others because they have a different skin color can never, ever be allowed to happen again. This was a formative memory of mine. I still think about it, how she told me probably before I was truly old enough to understand. Abortion as a single issue at its founding was always a way to deliver white supremacy in a palatable way and bind together the forces of white supremacy which had retreated into the church, the only social institution which could not be legally desegregated during the civil rights movement. For years after Roe v Wade, abortion was only seen as a Catholic issue. To protestants it was a personal, moral issue, not a legal one. At the same time, the forces of white supremacy were forced to retreat out of the legal sphere and entered into the religious one due to pressure from the civil rights movement. Not that there wasn't white supremacy in white churches, but that white supremacy, when credibly challenged, found political consciousness and they found religion as their greatest method to spread their hate. That method for binding the moral majority together, because Christians were extremely fractious at the time in a way is hard to imagine now, but that social glue was white supremacy cloaked as the pro-life stance. quote:But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 The article is pretty solid in terms of understanding how the religious right formed around white supremacy, using abortion as the social glue. It wasn't until years after Roe v. Wade that the religious consensus built on abortion. Your mother may very well be old enough to remember the time when abortion was newly legal and the stance of her church was that it was a personal decision. Unless she is Catholic, she would have remembered a period of time where abortion was a personal, moral issue. That lasted for roughly six years post-Roe. Six years of little response unless you were Catholic. I make a distinction between religion and the religious. The culture and the people. There are many well meaning religious people who truly believe in abortion as a moral issue. Those people got conned because if you follow the action of the "pro-life" stance, it is only cruelty writ large. The abortion stance was always meant to be a candy coating around white supremacy, though it extended to misogyny as well. Ironically, it seems like it is first and foremost about misogyny, but that's rhetorical sleight of hand. Incredibly clever, incredibly deft. But it was never about women. It was about binding together the disparate forces of white supremacy that had retreated and entrenched themselves into the church to bind together and seek political power. They'd learned the hard way during the civil rights movement that their power could now be challenged. That white supremacy was no longer just a given. Power needs maintenance. That women are abused serves them, yes, but it was never about babies or women. It was about uniting the factions to preserve their way of life before it was extinguished. Keeping women down was only a single concern among that abusive, authoritarian way of life. It's not even particularly new either. If you go back far enough, women used to occupy the role of good and wholesome and pure and being in need of protection against the forces of well...Brown people, mostly. Then women got the vote, found political power and that narrative evaporated. Not everywhere all at once as some rhetorical pools were deeper than others, but it began to wane after women could finally have a voice. You can hot swap a lot of the existing purity rhetoric around the unborn to women pre-suffrage. Women used to be the excuse for white men to maintain a rigid hierarchy where they are at the top. Now it's the unborn. It's not a perfect swap, but it's extremely close. They fill the same roles. I feel bad for your mother. It sounds like she got hijacked with the right con and sadly, none of us are immune to right con. My own mom was pro-Trump for months and now she hates him. People can change, some for the better, but sadly, some for the worse. It's just about the right con artist finding us, delivering the message and then turning us to act against our own interests and beliefs. Some cons are just better than others. And all of us, every single one, are vulnerable to the right con. The abortion con still endures over fifty years later. A modern religious person can be a single issue voter and feel that they are righteous, that they will hold their nose for the republican party, lovely as it is and vote for them. That is the goal of those in power. To add the activism, both passive and active, voting and street heat, to their own strength. The abortion debate is a rhetorical sword and shield, proved against attack and difficult to defend against, a mix of good and bad faith narratives that is often difficult to really tell if someone believes in or not because it's just so pervasive. And even then, why they believe in what they believe can be for the health and safety of the unborn or it can just be cruelty. There is always an element of cruelty in the "pro-life" stance. That women are to blame, that they should just keep their legs shut, but that's a kind of casual cruelty. The institutional cruelty from law is though comes in the form of ultrasounds, religious doctrine, even letting women die because a clump of cells matters more than an existing person. It comes afterwards in the form of lean to no assistance for mother or child, who are often alone and scorned. This cruelty is designed for people to seek help from the church, which does have resources, which is the end goal. To add their strength as well to the very system which abuses them. I'm pretty sure that without abortion, the religious coalition falls apart. Their coalition collapses and they'll go back to factional squabbling within a few years because that's how Christianity historically operates. It's extremely factional. Even the designers of the attacks on abortion are in bad faith. They'll never get real abolition because the republican party and the religious right will lose most of their power without their so called "pro-life" rhetoric. Maybe not immediately, but within a few years. That doesn't serve power or hate, which is what this was always about. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:IP failed the purity test, and thusly must be cast from our midst. The tea party and the freedom caucus and the existence of the term RINO all handily disprove any claim that the right are a unified bloc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:This notion that the left is uniquely afflicted by internecine conflict and "purity tests" is super prevalent and also completely unsupported by reality. And yet they all show up, vote for a nazi and hold their nose if needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Van Drew switching parties is phenomenally stupid. Dude is torpedoing his political career for at least a few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
It comes down to compassion vs selfishness: A compassionate person will take issue with a candidate with inadequacies because their compassion drives them to want the best possible outcome. For example, any amount of racism is something that needs to be rectified. A selfish person is going to tune out whatever inadequacies their candidate may have as long as they're getting what they want. For example, any amount of racism is acceptable as long as the right people are being hurt or the right things are getting done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/1205957543064944640?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
are they just that dumb or is this some ploy to get the 4-5 GOP holdout senators to cross over? "come on in the water is fine"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Weren’t we talking recently about how lovely Newsweek is? Well, they just hired loving Andy Ngo, aka the guy who does propaganda for fascist groups and also Atomwaffen Hahaha, burn it to the ground https://mobile.twitter.com/ZugzwangDC/status/1205473973653295104
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
If his senate election really is close (and I’m not persuaded it is based on one poll), he may really regret that quote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:are they just that dumb or is this some ploy to get the 4-5 GOP holdout senators to cross over? Because the political environments in Kentucky and South Carolina are exactly the same as in Colorado, Maine and North Carolina!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
WSJ confirmed Van Drew's party swap
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:It's interesting that hypocrisy keeps coming up and people keep trying to use it as an attack. Republicans don't care. They will never care. Why should they care? What do charges of hypocrisy matter? Politics is about winning. Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Hahaha, burn it to the ground Who the gently caress did antifa kill? You know, aside from white pride?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Who the gently caress did antifa kill? You know, aside from white pride? The article itself talks about left wing activists who were killed and doesn’t mention any deaths by them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:03
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Source your Sartre.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Who the gently caress did antifa kill? You know, aside from white pride? Andy Ngo's last remaining brain cell, apparently
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
you can't have a negative count
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Who the gently caress did antifa kill? You know, aside from white pride? To date, the antifa movement has killed zero people, but it has beaten the poo poo out of fascists in street battles where fascists show up. However, when fascists show up, they're going to beat the poo poo out of people or even kill them whether or not antifascist groups show up. Antifascists deny fascists easy targets by presenting a credible threat while also being under threat from police and better armed fascists. But I repeat myself. This is actually pretty impressive, because the antifa movement has no top down hierarchy. They've all independently decided to keep their violence from killing anyone despite being in lots of street battles and lack of official coordination and differing ideologies. Also if you start punching or kicking someone, you're always running the risk that you're going to kill them. Humans are strangely tough and weirdly fragile at the same time. They can fall thirty feet onto pavement and barely survive or get hit in the back of the head and die from an embolism. I'm impressed that antifascists haven't killed anyone by accident when they square off with fascists, who absolutely purposefully murder hundreds of people a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:It's interesting that hypocrisy keeps coming up and people keep trying to use it as an attack. Republicans don't care. They will never care. Why should they care? What do charges of hypocrisy matter? Politics is about winning. There was a paper published a few years ago that talked about how leftists tend to equate correctness and factuality with morality while right wingers don’t. Mummy Xzibit posted:The people saying Bernie is bad for Jews are the same kind of people that said Obama would be bad for Black people. Then try publishing it in an op ed. Ogmius815 posted:What a stupid douchebag. Dentists are the small business tyrants of the medical world. A step above chiropractors in that their discipline is actually fact-based and seriously valuable to human health, but only a small step.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
I don't know why people try to shame Graham as opposed to just laughing at him having to become a pathetic toady because otherwise he'd lose a primary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
it would be awesome if lindsay was disbarred for this. there's no reason for it to happen, but I'd sure enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:it would be awesome if lindsay was disbarred for this. there's no reason for it to happen, but I'd sure enjoy it. It's a constitutional violation. So yes, there is a reason. He's supposed to be impartial, which is explicitly being spelled out. He is not and so he is in violation of the impeachment process by announcing that he will not even pretend to be a fair juror.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:It's a constitutional violation. So yes, there is a reason. He's supposed to be impartial, which is explicitly being spelled out. He is not and so he is in violation of the impeachment process by announcing that he will not even pretend to be a fair juror. in that case, how does one begin the process of disbarring a lawyer in a state across the country? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:It's a constitutional violation. So yes, there is a reason. He's supposed to be impartial, which is explicitly being spelled out. He is not and so he is in violation of the impeachment process by announcing that he will not even pretend to be a fair juror. lol if you think juries need to be impartial in this country
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:in that case, how does one begin the process of disbarring a lawyer in a state across the country? Leaning on the bar and leaning hard and getting a lot of people to do it in a way that threatens their legitimacy. Unoriginal Name posted:lol if you think juries need to be impartial in this country I don't really. But impeachment is different because it is explicitly spelled out in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2019 00:00
|
|