Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’
Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’
Who is behind them? Um… Conservatives. All of them.
Conservatism is hate. Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in North American history has been committed by conservatives. Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism ever committed in our planet’s history has been committed by conservatives.
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives. Marginalize hate by marginalizing the hate group.
Wilhoit’s law -
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Left leaving people believe that every human is worth the same - right leaning people draw lines and exclude people from that equal group.
The more often they draw the line against a part of the population most people aren’t part of the more likely is it that they manage to convince one of those that it’s actually worth it for them to agree with those divisions
I think we all wish that were the case.
Marginalize hate by becoming hate.
Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one’s stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.
Since some people don’t seem to realize what a bigot actually is:
Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word “you” with generic pronouns.
You are mistaken. I am not espousing “intolerance of those who differ”. I am espousing intolerance of a group of deadly dangerous bigots who demonize anyone who is not in their group. Do not equivocate the haters and their victims who reject them. That is a tactic of the conservatives.
When you name yourself @Burn_The_Right, you make it clear whether you are targeting a specific group or everyone in a certain political direction.
When you make statements like:
Or dismiss 40-year democrats as conservatives:
You make it clear whether you mean a single group or everyone who doesn’t share your brand of liberalism.
Combined with:
or this gem: Edit: fixed broken link.
You can pretend that you are not an intolerant bigot advocating for mass-murder, but your own words betray you.
Reading through the constant fountain of hate that you spew in your comments makes it clear just how big of a problem Lemmy has right now. The vast majority of you comments are pushing for at least two-thirds of society to be “extinguished”.
I have seen whole instances defederated for having a user say less violent and bigoted things than your comments do.
Are you conservative or just think being nice will fix the world…?
If I had to guess, I’d say cryptofascist. He demands tolerance towards bigots and only bigots.
Nice false dichotomy.
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.
Idgaf what you think. You’re of the opinion that people who can’t even agree that certain members of our society are human and deserve basic rights should be sat down with and talked to?
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
Look up the tolerance paradox and think hard about that.
One person’s nonsense is another person’s importance.
None of these people on either side are going to just magically disappear because the other side doesn’t like them.
If you want them to respect you enough to hear what you’re saying (I’m assuming when you comment you actually want people to read it and consider what you’re saying) you should do the same in reverse, even if you disagree with what they’re saying.
Ignorance and Hate only leads to War and Death.
Jumping in to say: fuck the tolerance paradox.
There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.
I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
Well said.
Glad to hear someone spell this out. Hopefully more people read it.
There is a far cry between tolerance without limit and hating anyone that doesn’t agree with you. I can give you a hint as to which side you have been arguing for in case you got confused along the way.
I know exactly in which side of the line I stand. You have one foot in both. Stop talking to me.
And when their stance is ‘trans people shouldn’t have rights’ what’s the middle ground there exactly?
It should be obvious that I was not advocating for a middle ground between two disparate stances on a single issue. I was advocating for choosing issues that we already mostly agree on.
In general, in a democracy, laws should not be created relating to issues that there is little to no agreement on. Trans rights is obviously one of the issues where there is little agreement amongst the population and laws, particularly national laws, should be avoided until there is a strong consensus among the population.
Realize you’re getting a lot more downvotes than upvotes, but I just wanted to let you know you’re not alone, in this way of thinking.
I am glad to hear it. Sometimes I wonder what happened to this mindset or if was it an illusion all along.
I hate nazis.
Do you?
I learned at a young age that hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
I feel the same disdain towards someone who would suggest we eradicate people because of their skin color or ethnic background as I do towards someone that would suggest that we eradicate people because of their political views.
The difference being, I have never encountered anyone in real life or on Lemmy who would openly admit to being a nazi, whereas I have never spent an hour on Lemmy without seeing someone who thinks its okay to unironically say, “kill conservatives” or “eat rich people” receive overwhelming positive votes.
You guys never do.
Now for your turn. Do you hate leftists that shame your stance by promoting genocide?
I hate anyone who promotes genocide. It’s why I hate nazis.
Conservatism and wealth are neither immutable characteristics nor cultures. You have provided zero examples of leftists calling for genocide.
Then again, your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots. Who knows how bonkers and contrary to reality your definition of “genocide” is?
Then we should be on similar sides of this argument.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics? Or are we just going to pretend that most Western conservatives aren’t Protestants?
How odd, that doesn’t sound anything like what I posted earlier. Not something I wrote mind you, just the first thing that came up when I web-searched “bigot”. It is almost like you are making up a fake argument, that is easy to defeat, and then pretending I said something like it. If only there was a name for that sort of thing. S…st…straw… I will give you hint, it isn’t strawberry.
Here is the exact quote I posted earlier:
If you are getting something significantly different than that when you look up bigot, you might try using something other than Google; it has a tendency to reinforce one’s own biases.
Conservatism itself is not a religion. There are plenty of conservative atheists and non-conservative religious institutions. Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
The only portion of the definition of “bigot” you care about is the portion you bolded. Which you’re using as a proxy for “people who hold political views that are rooted in bigotry.”
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots. I hope that never changes.
Genocide now?
Genocide is the intent to destroy members of a specific nationality, religion, ethnicity, or race.
Your hyperbole in this thread is a testament to the comments pointing out that conservatives don’t engage with reason.
If we are going to say that most conservatives are white protestants then yes it sounds like a fair term to use.
Though even if we decide it is the wrong term, calling for the eradication of large parts of the population based on religious, cultural and a political affiliation is still abhorrent.
Ah so you’re a centrist!
Guilty as charged or at least close enough.
Like most centrists, many of my views are not really in the center but I think it is necessary in a democracy to find a middle ground between the extremes.
hahahahahaha
If you’ve never met someone on real life who is openly racist, calls themselves a nazi, openly supports bigoted policies and/or actively works to remove rights from people for who they are - you’re not paying attention. This is on a post about people organizing a march and politically strategizing to strip the rights away from other people.
I did not say that I had never met a racist or someone who supports bigoted policies, just that I had never met anyone that would admit to being a nazi. The difference being most nazis know they should keep their extremist views hidden.
I have met plenty or racists. For most of them it is subtle and they don’t recognize it for what it is. I have never heard any of them advocate for killing everyone on the other side of the political spectrum or eating humans.
This is vague and politically loaded. I have definitely met TERFs, pro-lifers, and those that advocate against gender treatments for children, but that is not at all the same as advocating mass murder and cannibalism for those that disagree with their views.
I don’t know anything about the group behind those protests. I was vaguely curious about it when I clicked this post but made the mistake of reading the most upvoted comment in this thread.
In my mind there is a pretty big difference between what the article says is the groups stated viewpoint:
and these excerpts from OCs own comment and history:
or
and
I think you lost track of who you’re arguing with. But yeah, you admit people can be subtle about how they express their views and yet don’t understand why that makes conservatives in north america dangerous.
I paint them with broad strokes because calling yourself a conservative in this times is accepting the broad variety of beliefs that political party supports. People have a choice.
As a marginalized person who had no choice in how I was born and always felt the affects of conservative policies, to the extreme detriment of my health and well-being, I absolutely understand and support anyone who thinks they should be ostracized.
Teaching children to hate? Where did that come from?
This is about teaching children how to recognize hate and avoid making hate part of their lives. It’s education and boundaries. Discretion isn’t hate.
You don’t teach children to recognize hate by pointing at everyone right of middle and saying, those are bad people. That is how you teach hate itself.
It’s acceptable for the same reason we tell our kids to avoid violent and hurtful people. I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights for any reason, teaching kids to do the same promotes building healthy relationships with people who value and support each other.
Teaching kids to avoid violent and hurtful people is reasonable, but claiming the entire right side of the spectrum is equivalent to them is prejudicial bigotry. Teaching kids to do the same is teaching them the same prejudicial bigotry.
When you redefine a spectrum of beliefs as “removing my rights” then what you are removing is any ability to continue discourse. Without discourse there is no democracy. At best you end up with the tyranny of majority.
That’s a long walk and a slippery slope. Deciding not to involve detrimental people in my life is not removing someone’s right. It’s my right to choose the people I surround myself with, and it’s no one’s right to be coddled by their peers.