Never believe right wingers when they claim to be “pro free speech”
They are lying. Right wingers are inherently anti-freedom. Let’s look at the most recent example:
157 House Republicans and 36 Senate Republicans voted against the Respect For Marriage Act. An act that helps codify interracial and same-sex marriage.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
Like genuinely at what point is... y'know, "greasing the wheels," the only option we have that'll do anything? Some of these evil fucks are actually trying to send us back to the 1800's. At what point is patience and playing by the rules and doing it the "right way" not enough? When do we start breaking shit?
Fuck, why are people who are going to be dead in 20 years even ALLOWED to determine the world the rest of us live in? They're not gonna be around for it.
It makes me so fucking angry and so so tired.
...Because taking people's voice away at any stage of their life opens the door for totalitarianism? Man, for people who claim to hate fascism, you sure do seem to really want fascism.
serious water door wise plants makeshift memory practice homeless distinct
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The hypocrisy of the nazis on this matter only further discredits the idea that anything they enacted was "progressive" or in favor of the people. How can any policy benefitting "aryans" be trusted, if your status as "aryan" is so easily removed by associating you with a separate group deemed inferior or dangerous?
Fascist ideology has no end game. Their power is built on the discrimination against and extermination of out-groups. Once all those are gone, the only way to justify themselves is to label more people as "undesirable". The hierarchy grows ever narrower, and someone who used to be "aryan" suddenly finds themselves no longer so.
It's the same reason the concept of "whiteness" keeps changing as groups of people are at times included to grow a larger power base, and then excluded as sufficient power is gained to take action.
Absolutely, but if we were to analyze the policy separately of it’s recipients, we would call social safety nets, infrastructure, and public goods liberal, which is what this person is trying to say. Either way, you aren’t the person I was responding to. The person I was responding to is clearly responding in bad faith by claiming the commenter was likening homosexual death camps to a liberal policy. They clearly weren’t, as denoted by them saying these “liberal policies” only affected the desirable groups, “aryans,” which undoubtedly leaves out homosexuals. They even mention facetiously at the end that the nazis mainly relied on othering by “killing those who disagree with them.”
> if we were to analyze the policy separately of it’s recipients, we would call social safety nets, infrastructure, and public goods liberal
The issue I see is that separating policies whose general purpose is to help those in need from the group they are actually provided to is basically impossible. Would we call a universal income a progressive policy if it's only provided to people earning more than $250.000 a year? What about free public transport, but only for white people? If anything, those policies are more discriminatory than just having nothing instead, as they actively work to increase inequality.
> The person I was responding to is clearly responding in bad faith by claiming the commenter was likening homosexual death camps to a liberal policy.
Oh yeah, they we clearly making a joke, not engaging seriously. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I don't think it's very fruitful to discuss the merits of third reich policy in detail. I'm just here for fun.
longing alive literate erect judicious telephone different yoke icky slim
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah. I know. I agree. What do you think I am saying? My point is that hitler didn’t consider gay people to possibly be “aryans,” which is part of the reason why they were genocided in Nazi germany. Thus when someone says “these were liberal economic policies but only assisted a minority social group” and someone responds “but the gays were genocided,” that’s a non Sequitor, because obviously gay people were not considered part of the Nazis privileged class.
If by “progressive economic and civil rights” you mean shutting down labor unions, banning abortion, not allowing people to marry who they love, and banning opposition.
You are misusing fallacies here. A slippery slope argument can be valid. The fallacy only comes into plays when the slippery slope is unrealistic or unsubstantiated by evidence. A lot of people seem to make this mistake with other fallacies as well, such as anecdotal evidence being referred to as a fallacy when the anecdote is being used to prove an individual experience. Essentially, there are two types of fallacies, formal and informal. Formal fallacies are strictly illogical. Informal fallacies are only illogical when there is an issue with evidence or premises and what conclusions can be made from them. Ultimately, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that one bad thing will lead to a worse thing. That’s just a causal argument.
>Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason
No they're not. That argument is used by fashies to hide their fashy steps into fascism.
Incremental steps towards an end goal are absolutely a thing. Black people having rights (at least in theory, government actually allowing them to exercise those rights is still a bit of a touchy subject) started with ending slavery. Mass corporate exploitation of most of the planet's population started with the founding of the US. Everything starts somewhere.
>Mass corporate exploitation
That one started with the steam engine, by a British inventor, in 1775, 1 yr before USA was free
We could also argue it started with the end of monarchies, or the end of the Dark Ages, or Renaissance, we could be here all week listing things that led to that. This is exactly what the original comment was talking about, slippery slope arguments
Slippery slope is an informal fallacy and is only a fallacy if the slope is slippery. The slope itself can be logical if one can rationally argue that the bottom of the slope is a likely outcome of the top of the slope.
In this case, practically, I think asserting that age limits on politicians necessitates fascism is not a rational argument and therefore is slippery.
Actually, they very clearly said that there should be a cutoff on being allowed to vote. Nice try, though.
Screenshot for proof, when they inevitably edit their comment https://prnt.sc/5v7bEmM4B9kH
They were obviously talking about geriatrics in top tier government positions, not banning old people from voting.
But of course reading comprehension is hard when the ole conservative victim complex is brewing inside.
They have the right to vote. They still have their voice. The point is that senile old men shouldn’t be deciding how a world they won’t live in will be.
The fact this moron thought the original comment was talking about voting is really funny. It was obviously about geriatrics holding government office and making the decisions that govern our lives. The OC said as much, plainly.
Doesn’t stop the bold-italic-caps pants-shitting though.
Well obviously an old man that needs someone to wipe their ass and chew their food for them should hold office. Sure they’ll be dead by the end of next month but that’s no reason to stop them from making changes that can potentially destroy peoples future for generations. And of course I, being a disgusting liberal, want to take away free speech.
Most intelligent libertarian. So is having the right to blow up a school a good thing? Freedom is never bad after all. How about the freedom to hate crime minorities? They’re just expressing their freedom of expression.
>How about the freedom to hate crime minorities?
Sure, and then you can get the absolute dogshit beat out of you. I do believe that's what most people would call "fucking around and finding out". 90% of the nonwhite people I know would rather shoot a racist than have them put in jail, because what's that gonna do? Put them around other racists, so they can sit around throwing racial slurs back and forth, having the times of their lives?
>90% of the nonwhite people I know
They said having never talked to a nonwhite person in their life, also there's a difference between wanting smth and doing smth, I'd like to see a KKK member being publicly beaten up, but they never seem to do they?
Freedom to deny someone else’s freedom is negative freedom you dimwit. That IS bad. Fucking lolbertarians and their half baked ideology founded by wealthy racists.
When they use their voice to try and take away the rights and freedoms of others just to uphold (or reintroduce) a status quo they won't actually benefit from, yeah, I guess I get a little fascist-y by *your* definition.
The question is less "why are old people allowed to vote" and more "why are we letting old people who hold office repeal basic fucking rights like INTERRACIAL AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" like are you FUCKING JOKING that *I'm* calling for fascism?
If we live in a world where not wanting rights and freedoms to be taken away is fascism, then Sieg *fucking* Heil I guess.
They can have a voice, they just shouldn't be able to run for office, simple as. There are already lower limits in place that are well above the voting age.
Lemme just translate a Goebbels quote real quick, one I've never seen in the Anglosphere for some reason.
> *When our Enemies say 'But we granted you freedom of speech in the past!"
Yes. You granted it to us. That doesn't mean we should do the same for you.
Your stupidity needn't be contagious to us.
You granting us that just proves how dumb you are!*
(Original, from [this speech](https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143) in 1935, at 15:05)
> *Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: 'Ja, wir haben euch doch früher die Freiheit der Meinung zugewiesen!'
Ja, Ihr uns. Das ist doch kein Beweis dass wir das euch auch tun sollten.
Eure Dummheit braucht doch nicht auf uns ansteckend zu wirken.
Dass ihr das uns gegeben habt, das ist ja ein Beweis dafür wie dumm ihr seid!*
"Just use the marketplace of ideas, then the best ideas will win"
Say people who don't want to acknowledge how vindictive, dumb, and disgusting many people will be if they are allowed.
Unfortunately there are MANY people that are completely brainwashed. I'm a dentist and was taking an online continuing education course a couple weeks ago. The lecturer mentioned that there's a senator for the one last state that DOESN'T have an opioid monitoring program that is constantly blocking any attempts to get one and he said "you might be surprised what party he is." I immediately thought "I guarantee he's Republican," looked it up and sure enough, Republican. I posted in the chat about how I wasn't at ALL surprised and some fool posted a response about how he's "not surprised that the other party is trying to legalize drugs that are killing people."
Even people that have gone through graduate level education are still fooled by and shill for this BS.
I feel like some people (like op of that post) genuinely believes in letting people do what they want and all that conservative talking points and doesn't want bigotry because that's against their beliefs, but that's not what conservatives actually want
Don't know the origin, but I remember a quote like "I ask you for free speech, because that is your principle. Then, I take your free speech, because that is my principle." Pretty succinct way to describe conservative thinking.
They’re reasoning for voting against the bill is that we have Supreme Court cases that already “protect” those rights.
But… the Supreme Court is going after cases like those that aren’t enumerated in the Constitution… like actively… so that’s why we need a law to protect them…
Slightly unrelated, is this an echo chamber? Like I lose a significant time every day thinking if the leftist/liberal communities I'm part of are also just as much an echo chamber as Fox News. How are we not an echo chamber?
I would really like to have some closure for this, help me. And no I'm not a right wing troll, for anyone who thinks I'm trying to demean this sub, this just stresses me out
I think people can generally be in agreement and not have intense debates over everything without it being an echo chamber.
Like we are generally in favour of trans rights and against bigots here, that doesn't make it an echo chamber. For me it becomes an echo chamber when the opinions start to get more extreme with repetition, like the echoes get louder and more crazy as people encourage each other.
See Qanon and terfs for good examples of this.
There was a post here about a month ago that had half its comments encourage police suicides because of how much ACAB has been echoed. If that's not an echo chamber, I don't know what is.
“an environment in which a person encounters beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.” Are you suggesting that anti-trans or conservative ideas flourish on this sub? The fact is that those who believe in such things aren’t welcome here, as they shouldn’t be.
It's because this sub is. Honestly, most of reddit is. It's just not many people like to admit that, and instead will scream at the right for making an echo chamber for themselves.
I'm not right wing either (obviously...I'm subbed here after all) but I always found "the right is making an echo chamber!" argument extremely hypocritical. Especially when shouted into...another echo chamber.
Difference being that I make this argument based on the fact that the right is the party who first started this pointless name-calling. I do not care for echo chambers, but the right's entire identity is calling out the other side for "facts over feelings" and "look at all these echo chambers and safe spaces."
For people who hate safe spaces and love free speech, they sure do love their safe spaces and restricting free speech.
And for reference, I do not believe in free speech either. For some reason the left is imagined as a polar opposite to the right in everything, when it is actually not. The right makes arguments which they do not truly believe in all the time. Mostly the free speech arguments.
Honestly, the whole "free speech" concept has been bastardized to hell and back. The US right to "Free Speech" just means that the ***government*** isn't able to silence differing opinions. This right allows us to call out the government on their bullshit and allow us to disagree with them.
It shouldn't apply to private businesses. Especially on a social media platform. Getting banned from a social media platform isn't infringing people's right to free speech and the fact thats now an argument is idiotic.
This is very much an echo chamber.
That's not inherently a bad thing, it's good to have a space where one can joke and discuss without constantly engaging with viewpoints you might find distasteful or even abhorrent.
What you should *not* do is use such a place on its own to form a picture of what the world is like. As in, don't assume opinions commonly held here are mainstream, or that only two kinds of people exist, 196 posters and people featured in bigotry showcases.
This is not a news source, much less a reliable one. There is more to the world than what you see here. Keep that in mind, and you should be fine.
You're gonna find a bias in all communities simply due to the fact no one wants to be with a group of people they disagree with. Generally though, ideas aren't shot down the same way they are in something like r conservative, they're allowed to stay up and, as long as they're not hate speech, generally get a discussion going. You aren't gonna be banned for saying the wrong thing
Though you *will* get downvoted to shit if you make a take the hive-mind considers bad. I've learned for sure there are certain nuanced topics you just don't touch on this sub.
I’d say every community Is to certain degrees. For r/196, I think it’s alright, but there are certain “extreme” ideas that are commonly elevated, such as being a “class traitor” if you don’t voice absolute hatred for the police and the apparent necessity for a violent solution for all enemies of the left and lgbtq community. Like yeah, hatred is certainly justified when It come to these topics and it’s understandable that people would feel comfortable with venting to an accepting community, but god damn I’m sick of the level of un questioned hatred and bias in this community sometimes.
Then question it if you please. But people have good reason to hate the people they hate here. Unless of course you are part of a group who does not get affected by these topics, in which case you do not have a reason to care.
Overall, if you want a better grasp on what’s going on in the world, have an account dedicated to following EVERYBODY/every subreddit and then pick apart different sides to the same story yourself. You have to throw aside any reservations or allegiances you might have and learn to accept whatever narrative seems or proves itself to be the most right in the grand scheme of things. Most of all, try to avoid seeing situations as “life or death,” as such a perspective can force you to pick a side and settle for a narrative that you’re “comfortable” with, not one that’s objectively correct. I’m tired, this isn’t the best representation of my ideas, but I’m gonna hit reply anyways because I don’t give a shit. Maybe in a few hours I’ll have more to add, or maybe I’ll just delete it. Actually, I’d appreciate criticism, preferably of the constructive variety to help me clarify my thoughts on this subject.
I would consider any place where opposing views are simply not welcomed or allowed to be an echo chamber, regardless of the topics or politics discussed.
if you present an opposing but fair, well-intentioned, and genuine question or viewpoint, and that is ignored, attacked, or silenced, that's an echo chamber.
this does kind of mean that "echo chamber" isn't necessarily always an insult, even though it is used as a pejorative. for example, if a group's primary concern is "racism is unaacpetable", then I'm fine with being part of _that_ "echo chamber".
are leftist spaces echo chambers, if they behave as described above? yes. but the test remains important: is the opposing view or questioned fair, well-intentioned, and genuine?
a good space can withstand such a challenge, whereas an echo chamber will rush to shut the challenge down rather than respond to it and defeat it using logic.
to test this, figure out the ethos of a space and then question it or part of it respectfully. oh, and not just because you want to or only for the sake of some experiment, but again, genuinely, and for the sake of your own learning.
Idk I wouldn't really agree with it being an echo chamber. Especially considering that everyone here actually engaged with your comment rather than dismissing it for going against the hivemind. Differing opinions and thoughts can exist on this sub for the most part.
conservatives love to LARP as small-government but the second they see something that disagrees with their fundie christian worldview they're the first to ban it
Never trust anything a conservative says about what they believe. Conservatives have always been monarchists, reactionaries, bootlickers and fascist collabarators throught history. Only thing they are really consistent about is protecting/preserving power structures and hierarchies. That's genuinely their only consistent belief. It's the core idea of conservatism.
The most hilarious relatively recent right wing narrative is that conservatives are for free speech. Conservatives! It's fucking bizarre. This is the ideology that fordid girls to wear pants. It's like ever since society started objecting to open racism/ sexism etc conservatives became warriors of the freedom of expression, who the fuck are you kidding lol!
Bonus story, i was a kid in eastern europe and was into Jesus Christ super star for some reason, the musical. Every time the film was scheduled to play on TV (my family didn't have internet) it mysteriously got cancelled. Every single time. Heck, conservatism ideology is the reason our own bodies are considered evil (because they are apparently inherently sexual and that's evil) and can't be depicted anywhere but porn web sites even in 2022, how's that for "cancel culture" you nutjobs. These are the people that lose their minds when non white characters are cast in any film or media, that are against queer couples kissing in public!
100%! It was the first time I was introduced to a Jesus who I could understand, and wasn’t this unknowable deity who gave birth to himself in order to “die for our sins” whatever tf that’s supposed to mean!
I liked the hippie references. It's one of those 70s films that are brimming with a genuine melancholy that the 60s failed. But I haven't seen it in years, but I probably saw it 20 times as a kid ( we eventually got the DVD).
I can think of (the musical) having a few pretty sus lines regarding Jews though, now that you say dated.
I don't know if I'm reaching, these are stuff I think of now thinking about it ( I didn't read it online or anything). It's not something explicit but possibly sus imo.
From the top of my head, pilate says "you Jews pick your Messiahs by the sackful", which you know, the character is antisemitic given that he is Roman so maybe it's fine, but also Caiphas says to Judas "what you have done will be the saving of Israel", again maybe I'm reaching but I was singing it in the shower one day and thought that's odd you know? I thought maybe there was a lot of emphasis on the whole weird "Jews killed christ" nonsense that antisemites use (as if christ wasn't Jewish). But beyond vibes I have nothing concrete to say about the lyrics so I'm not throwing accusations or anything.
Honestly think a lot of time would be saved if all people were forced to learn about the paradox of intolerance.
This "conservatives are promoters of free speech" narrative isn't exactly the same thing but if you understand the paradox you understand that conservatives aren't promoting free speech.
I've always disliked the narrative of "left wing is tolerant"
Tolerating something implies there's something wrong with it. The things progressive people fight for don't have anything inherently wrong with them, such as freedom of expression and LGBTQ rights.
Be intolerant, fuck asswipes that claim there's something wrong with it without any valid proof
Even though Twitter is a worldwide website and Truth Social is US only? I mean, if he only wants to target American people I suppose it works, but wouldn't he get way more traction on Twitter anyway?
Im pretty sure he is either invested in Truth or being paid by them because he is refusing to use Twitter in an attempt to draw more people to Truth.
The answer with Trump almost always comes back to money.
Fair enough. I suppose Trump is now focused on making as much money from his social media accounts as possible instead of trying to run for president again.
1) Ego, 2) he doesn't give a shit about other countries unless they have something tangible to offer, 3) everyone on Truth Social wants to ride his dick.
He signed a contract requiring him to post any messages on Truth Social at least 6 hours before any other social media platform, so there isn’t really any point in him posting on Twitter when anyone who wants to actually read what he has to say will just read it on Truth Social anyway
I like to do it in a way where it kind of sounds Ike I'm agreeing with them, but taking the idea so over board that the see how stupid they are. Takes a couple tries until they notice though.
“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."
Apparently it's from Frank Wilhoit, but a [different Frank Wilhoit than the one people typically assume](https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html).
This is a perfect example of conservatives. Regular conservatives, aren’t crazy. They aren’t against the LGBTQIA or really racist. But the extremely conservative, in this scenario the mods, are 1:1 stereotypes. And it really sucks.
The fact that “regular conservatives” still vote conservative when they’re obviously aware of how shitty the right is makes them just as bad. Doesn’t matter if they personally believe it or not when they vote the same as the extremists that want LGBTQ genocide.
how can people like republicans be reasoned with if they twist reasoning to fit their hatred? how is it fair to put absurd concepts such as giving teachers guns during school or supremacy of organized religion on the same pedestal as rational thinking? i don’t think democracy can exist without the suppression of ideas born of idiocy and baseless hatred, despite flawed concepts of “free speech”.
Only a fraction of them. And when they try to figure out why there are such large insonsistencies in their ideology they ironically get silenced (by subreddit mods in this case lol) or dismissed for being a lib.
because even most of them are smart enough to know that they are Dubble standard idiots who don't actually believe in what they say/their own arguments , and just want verry specific things to happen because they feel like it, and base all their arguments around getting what they want instead of looking at facts , and than making your own unique true argument
the left on a "first reaction is cancelling someone" competiton when conservative comes in (even though the stigma is around the left/liberals, republicans will be the quickest to cancel anything that goes against their incredibly narrow and self centered world view)
Stop voting against my rights please 🏳️🌈🖤
Reminder: 157 House Republicans and 36 Senate Republicans voted against helping codify interracial and same-sex marriage.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
195 House Republicans voted against a right to contraception
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text
Yep, and I don’t support that. I don’t hold 100% of all conservative views, but I hold most. I literally attended my gay sister’s wedding. I have no problem with gay marriage, that’s one of the few views I don’t share.
I know what republican is they're different from conservative if they weren't the same they would have different names right?? Conservative just means trump supporter these days
US Republicans are a party unified under similar beliefs or official positions. Conservatism is a certain political spectrum. In the united states, theyre pretty much used interchangeably due to the nature of our political system.
When someone says "I'm a conservative" there is a high likely hood they vote for the Republican party.
When someone says "I'm a Republican" there is a high likely hood they hold conservative beliefs.
Anime isn't all hentai I watched one called A Silent Voice I really liked it and it wasn't all just big anime boobs. There was another I enjoyed called Spirited Away it was really cool it's kind of like Alice in Wonderland but it's not a crazy drug trip.
>The us has a very toxic lgbt community
No we dont.
>can make gay jokes without having to worry about losing their jobs.
We can do that too. This subreddit is full of gay jokes directed at gay people
>If you mean only gay can makes gay jokes that is not my point
I didnt say that.
I work in a diverse tech company. For example: I have trans co-workers and subordinates. I even crack harmless "trans" jokes with them. An easy joke I make with one coworker is they are a stereotypical "trans programmer" (trans, socks, plushies, anime wallpaper). You know how I know its ok to make those jokes with them? 1) They are open about being trans 2) They have made those same jokes about themselves before. A good joke is as easy as knowing your audience.
>making an offensive joke online should have nothing to do with someone losing their job
Nobody is losing their job for making an offensive joke. People are losing their jobs for being stupid enough to post horrible things on their public social media accounts and make their companies look bad and making a hostile work environment. Screaming "lololol i hate black people" isnt a joke, no matter how much the fired person cries it is.
In the United States, employees have a legal RIGHT to work in a non hostile work environment. Having a coworker that is a person that hates you for an immutable characteristic makes it a **hostile work environment**. Therefore they get fired.
Have you ever heard about the problem of lesbians being extremely sexualized? And if yes then why do you not understand lesbians not likeing being sexualized by you?
This really sounds like you got banned from some lesbian anime sub because you wanted more men in lesbian anime.
Oh yeah and then you went on to say that a man being kicked out of a lesbian community, is the same as a political community banning all gay people.
If you only want to talk about online, gay people still get surpressed. There are a lot of reports of the ways youtube, Facebook, and particular tiktok stop lgbtq content from spreading. Platforms themselves are surpressing lgbtq communities.
Never believe right wingers when they claim to be “pro free speech” They are lying. Right wingers are inherently anti-freedom. Let’s look at the most recent example: 157 House Republicans and 36 Senate Republicans voted against the Respect For Marriage Act. An act that helps codify interracial and same-sex marriage. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
Like genuinely at what point is... y'know, "greasing the wheels," the only option we have that'll do anything? Some of these evil fucks are actually trying to send us back to the 1800's. At what point is patience and playing by the rules and doing it the "right way" not enough? When do we start breaking shit? Fuck, why are people who are going to be dead in 20 years even ALLOWED to determine the world the rest of us live in? They're not gonna be around for it. It makes me so fucking angry and so so tired.
...Because taking people's voice away at any stage of their life opens the door for totalitarianism? Man, for people who claim to hate fascism, you sure do seem to really want fascism.
Nothing they said suggests fascism.
Yes when I think of Nazi Germany I think of strong protections for LGBT rights. /s
[удалено]
serious water door wise plants makeshift memory practice homeless distinct *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Do you think hitler considered any homosexuals “aryans?”
The hypocrisy of the nazis on this matter only further discredits the idea that anything they enacted was "progressive" or in favor of the people. How can any policy benefitting "aryans" be trusted, if your status as "aryan" is so easily removed by associating you with a separate group deemed inferior or dangerous? Fascist ideology has no end game. Their power is built on the discrimination against and extermination of out-groups. Once all those are gone, the only way to justify themselves is to label more people as "undesirable". The hierarchy grows ever narrower, and someone who used to be "aryan" suddenly finds themselves no longer so. It's the same reason the concept of "whiteness" keeps changing as groups of people are at times included to grow a larger power base, and then excluded as sufficient power is gained to take action.
Absolutely, but if we were to analyze the policy separately of it’s recipients, we would call social safety nets, infrastructure, and public goods liberal, which is what this person is trying to say. Either way, you aren’t the person I was responding to. The person I was responding to is clearly responding in bad faith by claiming the commenter was likening homosexual death camps to a liberal policy. They clearly weren’t, as denoted by them saying these “liberal policies” only affected the desirable groups, “aryans,” which undoubtedly leaves out homosexuals. They even mention facetiously at the end that the nazis mainly relied on othering by “killing those who disagree with them.”
> if we were to analyze the policy separately of it’s recipients, we would call social safety nets, infrastructure, and public goods liberal The issue I see is that separating policies whose general purpose is to help those in need from the group they are actually provided to is basically impossible. Would we call a universal income a progressive policy if it's only provided to people earning more than $250.000 a year? What about free public transport, but only for white people? If anything, those policies are more discriminatory than just having nothing instead, as they actively work to increase inequality. > The person I was responding to is clearly responding in bad faith by claiming the commenter was likening homosexual death camps to a liberal policy. Oh yeah, they we clearly making a joke, not engaging seriously. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I don't think it's very fruitful to discuss the merits of third reich policy in detail. I'm just here for fun.
longing alive literate erect judicious telephone different yoke icky slim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Yeah. I know. I agree. What do you think I am saying? My point is that hitler didn’t consider gay people to possibly be “aryans,” which is part of the reason why they were genocided in Nazi germany. Thus when someone says “these were liberal economic policies but only assisted a minority social group” and someone responds “but the gays were genocided,” that’s a non Sequitor, because obviously gay people were not considered part of the Nazis privileged class.
[удалено]
If by “progressive economic and civil rights” you mean shutting down labor unions, banning abortion, not allowing people to marry who they love, and banning opposition.
Fascism is when I don't like what you're saying.
Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason Also totalitarianism isn't fascism, those are two different terms
You are misusing fallacies here. A slippery slope argument can be valid. The fallacy only comes into plays when the slippery slope is unrealistic or unsubstantiated by evidence. A lot of people seem to make this mistake with other fallacies as well, such as anecdotal evidence being referred to as a fallacy when the anecdote is being used to prove an individual experience. Essentially, there are two types of fallacies, formal and informal. Formal fallacies are strictly illogical. Informal fallacies are only illogical when there is an issue with evidence or premises and what conclusions can be made from them. Ultimately, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that one bad thing will lead to a worse thing. That’s just a causal argument.
>Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy for a reason No they're not. That argument is used by fashies to hide their fashy steps into fascism. Incremental steps towards an end goal are absolutely a thing. Black people having rights (at least in theory, government actually allowing them to exercise those rights is still a bit of a touchy subject) started with ending slavery. Mass corporate exploitation of most of the planet's population started with the founding of the US. Everything starts somewhere.
>Mass corporate exploitation That one started with the steam engine, by a British inventor, in 1775, 1 yr before USA was free We could also argue it started with the end of monarchies, or the end of the Dark Ages, or Renaissance, we could be here all week listing things that led to that. This is exactly what the original comment was talking about, slippery slope arguments
Slippery slope is an informal fallacy and is only a fallacy if the slope is slippery. The slope itself can be logical if one can rationally argue that the bottom of the slope is a likely outcome of the top of the slope. In this case, practically, I think asserting that age limits on politicians necessitates fascism is not a rational argument and therefore is slippery.
>at any stage of their life Not letting babies vote is fascistic now I guess
Actually, yeah. No taxation without representation, and there's tons of ways kids can earn money and owe taxes.
"we don't want people being bigots" This fucking guys: "get a load of the fucking fascist over here
Actually, they very clearly said that there should be a cutoff on being allowed to vote. Nice try, though. Screenshot for proof, when they inevitably edit their comment https://prnt.sc/5v7bEmM4B9kH
Comment's still unedited, and by your definition, any cutoff is fascist. "Oh i couldn't get into Oxford because it's run by fascists"
Yeah I ain't clicking that. Good luck or I'm sorry or whatever.
They were obviously talking about geriatrics in top tier government positions, not banning old people from voting. But of course reading comprehension is hard when the ole conservative victim complex is brewing inside.
They have the right to vote. They still have their voice. The point is that senile old men shouldn’t be deciding how a world they won’t live in will be.
That's... ***THAT'S WHAT FUCKING VOTING IS***.
Ok how’s this? Senile old men shouldn’t hold government office. Better?
The fact this moron thought the original comment was talking about voting is really funny. It was obviously about geriatrics holding government office and making the decisions that govern our lives. The OC said as much, plainly. Doesn’t stop the bold-italic-caps pants-shitting though.
Well obviously an old man that needs someone to wipe their ass and chew their food for them should hold office. Sure they’ll be dead by the end of next month but that’s no reason to stop them from making changes that can potentially destroy peoples future for generations. And of course I, being a disgusting liberal, want to take away free speech.
Please google the difference between “positive freedom and negative freedom”
No, because freedom is never bad. Full stop.
Most intelligent libertarian. So is having the right to blow up a school a good thing? Freedom is never bad after all. How about the freedom to hate crime minorities? They’re just expressing their freedom of expression.
FREEDOM FULL STOP!! 🤓
>How about the freedom to hate crime minorities? Sure, and then you can get the absolute dogshit beat out of you. I do believe that's what most people would call "fucking around and finding out". 90% of the nonwhite people I know would rather shoot a racist than have them put in jail, because what's that gonna do? Put them around other racists, so they can sit around throwing racial slurs back and forth, having the times of their lives?
Buddy. We are not going to win this “fuck around and find out” fantasy world.
>90% of the nonwhite people I know They said having never talked to a nonwhite person in their life, also there's a difference between wanting smth and doing smth, I'd like to see a KKK member being publicly beaten up, but they never seem to do they?
Lmao do you really want to go down this road?
Freedom to deny someone else’s freedom is negative freedom you dimwit. That IS bad. Fucking lolbertarians and their half baked ideology founded by wealthy racists.
Okay I'll murder you because it's my freedom. Full stop. Dipshit.
When they use their voice to try and take away the rights and freedoms of others just to uphold (or reintroduce) a status quo they won't actually benefit from, yeah, I guess I get a little fascist-y by *your* definition. The question is less "why are old people allowed to vote" and more "why are we letting old people who hold office repeal basic fucking rights like INTERRACIAL AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" like are you FUCKING JOKING that *I'm* calling for fascism? If we live in a world where not wanting rights and freedoms to be taken away is fascism, then Sieg *fucking* Heil I guess.
They can have a voice, they just shouldn't be able to run for office, simple as. There are already lower limits in place that are well above the voting age.
concern troll
Lemme just translate a Goebbels quote real quick, one I've never seen in the Anglosphere for some reason. > *When our Enemies say 'But we granted you freedom of speech in the past!" Yes. You granted it to us. That doesn't mean we should do the same for you. Your stupidity needn't be contagious to us. You granting us that just proves how dumb you are!* (Original, from [this speech](https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143) in 1935, at 15:05) > *Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: 'Ja, wir haben euch doch früher die Freiheit der Meinung zugewiesen!' Ja, Ihr uns. Das ist doch kein Beweis dass wir das euch auch tun sollten. Eure Dummheit braucht doch nicht auf uns ansteckend zu wirken. Dass ihr das uns gegeben habt, das ist ja ein Beweis dafür wie dumm ihr seid!*
That's exactly the attitude they have. "Haha, those suckers are letting us get away with this!"
"Just use the marketplace of ideas, then the best ideas will win" Say people who don't want to acknowledge how vindictive, dumb, and disgusting many people will be if they are allowed.
Wow, I thought *Dune* was original with an almost identical quote.
Their pro “saying whatever I want with no one being able to say it’s bad, but you can’t say anything cuz you’re all wrong” not “pro free speech”
Freedom for me but not for thee!
Unfortunately there are MANY people that are completely brainwashed. I'm a dentist and was taking an online continuing education course a couple weeks ago. The lecturer mentioned that there's a senator for the one last state that DOESN'T have an opioid monitoring program that is constantly blocking any attempts to get one and he said "you might be surprised what party he is." I immediately thought "I guarantee he's Republican," looked it up and sure enough, Republican. I posted in the chat about how I wasn't at ALL surprised and some fool posted a response about how he's "not surprised that the other party is trying to legalize drugs that are killing people." Even people that have gone through graduate level education are still fooled by and shill for this BS.
Absolutely no one is a “true free speecher” If you are you’d allow ISIS to be on Twitter and promote
I feel like some people (like op of that post) genuinely believes in letting people do what they want and all that conservative talking points and doesn't want bigotry because that's against their beliefs, but that's not what conservatives actually want
Don't know the origin, but I remember a quote like "I ask you for free speech, because that is your principle. Then, I take your free speech, because that is my principle." Pretty succinct way to describe conservative thinking.
They’re pro-free speech of the person speaking is a white, straight, conservative, christian male over the age of 18 and out of school
They’re reasoning for voting against the bill is that we have Supreme Court cases that already “protect” those rights. But… the Supreme Court is going after cases like those that aren’t enumerated in the Constitution… like actively… so that’s why we need a law to protect them…
Free speech is when I can say whatever I want about taking away your rights and then I do it.
They're the ones who kill the idea of Free Speech.
wow, look at those champions of free speech over there! in case any of them wondered if their sub was an echo chamber...
Projection is not just exclusive to Cinemas
Slightly unrelated, is this an echo chamber? Like I lose a significant time every day thinking if the leftist/liberal communities I'm part of are also just as much an echo chamber as Fox News. How are we not an echo chamber? I would really like to have some closure for this, help me. And no I'm not a right wing troll, for anyone who thinks I'm trying to demean this sub, this just stresses me out
This VERY MUCH is an echo chamber. It's good to take everything you see on here with a grain of salt.
I think people can generally be in agreement and not have intense debates over everything without it being an echo chamber. Like we are generally in favour of trans rights and against bigots here, that doesn't make it an echo chamber. For me it becomes an echo chamber when the opinions start to get more extreme with repetition, like the echoes get louder and more crazy as people encourage each other. See Qanon and terfs for good examples of this.
There was a post here about a month ago that had half its comments encourage police suicides because of how much ACAB has been echoed. If that's not an echo chamber, I don't know what is.
To say we “generally favor” trans rights on this sub is a severe understatement, and this very much is an echo chamber, by definition.
Well, not "by definition". People are free to disagree here, in a way that they are not over on the conservatives board.
“an environment in which a person encounters beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.” Are you suggesting that anti-trans or conservative ideas flourish on this sub? The fact is that those who believe in such things aren’t welcome here, as they shouldn’t be.
Oh, my mistake. Thought I was on a different board, haha. (Like, genuinely. Not /s)
Sure np
It's because this sub is. Honestly, most of reddit is. It's just not many people like to admit that, and instead will scream at the right for making an echo chamber for themselves. I'm not right wing either (obviously...I'm subbed here after all) but I always found "the right is making an echo chamber!" argument extremely hypocritical. Especially when shouted into...another echo chamber.
Difference being that I make this argument based on the fact that the right is the party who first started this pointless name-calling. I do not care for echo chambers, but the right's entire identity is calling out the other side for "facts over feelings" and "look at all these echo chambers and safe spaces." For people who hate safe spaces and love free speech, they sure do love their safe spaces and restricting free speech. And for reference, I do not believe in free speech either. For some reason the left is imagined as a polar opposite to the right in everything, when it is actually not. The right makes arguments which they do not truly believe in all the time. Mostly the free speech arguments.
Honestly, the whole "free speech" concept has been bastardized to hell and back. The US right to "Free Speech" just means that the ***government*** isn't able to silence differing opinions. This right allows us to call out the government on their bullshit and allow us to disagree with them. It shouldn't apply to private businesses. Especially on a social media platform. Getting banned from a social media platform isn't infringing people's right to free speech and the fact thats now an argument is idiotic.
This is very much an echo chamber. That's not inherently a bad thing, it's good to have a space where one can joke and discuss without constantly engaging with viewpoints you might find distasteful or even abhorrent. What you should *not* do is use such a place on its own to form a picture of what the world is like. As in, don't assume opinions commonly held here are mainstream, or that only two kinds of people exist, 196 posters and people featured in bigotry showcases. This is not a news source, much less a reliable one. There is more to the world than what you see here. Keep that in mind, and you should be fine.
>that only two kinds of people exist Wait so you're telling me not everyone is a femboy twink or a ripped catgirl? I am so fucked
Wait no I don't want to be a femboy twink, at the very least I want to be a ripped fem catboy
You're gonna find a bias in all communities simply due to the fact no one wants to be with a group of people they disagree with. Generally though, ideas aren't shot down the same way they are in something like r conservative, they're allowed to stay up and, as long as they're not hate speech, generally get a discussion going. You aren't gonna be banned for saying the wrong thing
Though you *will* get downvoted to shit if you make a take the hive-mind considers bad. I've learned for sure there are certain nuanced topics you just don't touch on this sub.
I’d say every community Is to certain degrees. For r/196, I think it’s alright, but there are certain “extreme” ideas that are commonly elevated, such as being a “class traitor” if you don’t voice absolute hatred for the police and the apparent necessity for a violent solution for all enemies of the left and lgbtq community. Like yeah, hatred is certainly justified when It come to these topics and it’s understandable that people would feel comfortable with venting to an accepting community, but god damn I’m sick of the level of un questioned hatred and bias in this community sometimes.
Then question it if you please. But people have good reason to hate the people they hate here. Unless of course you are part of a group who does not get affected by these topics, in which case you do not have a reason to care.
Overall, if you want a better grasp on what’s going on in the world, have an account dedicated to following EVERYBODY/every subreddit and then pick apart different sides to the same story yourself. You have to throw aside any reservations or allegiances you might have and learn to accept whatever narrative seems or proves itself to be the most right in the grand scheme of things. Most of all, try to avoid seeing situations as “life or death,” as such a perspective can force you to pick a side and settle for a narrative that you’re “comfortable” with, not one that’s objectively correct. I’m tired, this isn’t the best representation of my ideas, but I’m gonna hit reply anyways because I don’t give a shit. Maybe in a few hours I’ll have more to add, or maybe I’ll just delete it. Actually, I’d appreciate criticism, preferably of the constructive variety to help me clarify my thoughts on this subject.
I would consider any place where opposing views are simply not welcomed or allowed to be an echo chamber, regardless of the topics or politics discussed. if you present an opposing but fair, well-intentioned, and genuine question or viewpoint, and that is ignored, attacked, or silenced, that's an echo chamber. this does kind of mean that "echo chamber" isn't necessarily always an insult, even though it is used as a pejorative. for example, if a group's primary concern is "racism is unaacpetable", then I'm fine with being part of _that_ "echo chamber". are leftist spaces echo chambers, if they behave as described above? yes. but the test remains important: is the opposing view or questioned fair, well-intentioned, and genuine? a good space can withstand such a challenge, whereas an echo chamber will rush to shut the challenge down rather than respond to it and defeat it using logic. to test this, figure out the ethos of a space and then question it or part of it respectfully. oh, and not just because you want to or only for the sake of some experiment, but again, genuinely, and for the sake of your own learning.
Idk I wouldn't really agree with it being an echo chamber. Especially considering that everyone here actually engaged with your comment rather than dismissing it for going against the hivemind. Differing opinions and thoughts can exist on this sub for the most part.
I mean, pretty much every sub is.
Conservative moment
conservatives love to LARP as small-government but the second they see something that disagrees with their fundie christian worldview they're the first to ban it
Never trust anything a conservative says about what they believe. Conservatives have always been monarchists, reactionaries, bootlickers and fascist collabarators throught history. Only thing they are really consistent about is protecting/preserving power structures and hierarchies. That's genuinely their only consistent belief. It's the core idea of conservatism.
its always – small government for me not for thee (minorities)
🫂
🫂
The most hilarious relatively recent right wing narrative is that conservatives are for free speech. Conservatives! It's fucking bizarre. This is the ideology that fordid girls to wear pants. It's like ever since society started objecting to open racism/ sexism etc conservatives became warriors of the freedom of expression, who the fuck are you kidding lol! Bonus story, i was a kid in eastern europe and was into Jesus Christ super star for some reason, the musical. Every time the film was scheduled to play on TV (my family didn't have internet) it mysteriously got cancelled. Every single time. Heck, conservatism ideology is the reason our own bodies are considered evil (because they are apparently inherently sexual and that's evil) and can't be depicted anywhere but porn web sites even in 2022, how's that for "cancel culture" you nutjobs. These are the people that lose their minds when non white characters are cast in any film or media, that are against queer couples kissing in public!
I agree with everything you said, but especially wanted to reply that Jesus Christ Superstar fucking slaps and I’m not the tiniest bit religious!
I still love the 1973 film but I don't know if I'm nostalgic it its actually good. I think it's very good though.
It's honestly surprisingly respectful of Jesus as an actual human being. Burr from "Hamilton" gave me big Judas from JCSS vibes. Great foils.
100%! It was the first time I was introduced to a Jesus who I could understand, and wasn’t this unknowable deity who gave birth to himself in order to “die for our sins” whatever tf that’s supposed to mean!
The film is dated (wonderfully so, imo) but the music is awesome! The TV version with John Legend was excellent, too!
I liked the hippie references. It's one of those 70s films that are brimming with a genuine melancholy that the 60s failed. But I haven't seen it in years, but I probably saw it 20 times as a kid ( we eventually got the DVD). I can think of (the musical) having a few pretty sus lines regarding Jews though, now that you say dated.
Erm yikes! I may need to reevaluate my opinion of it!
I don't know if I'm reaching, these are stuff I think of now thinking about it ( I didn't read it online or anything). It's not something explicit but possibly sus imo. From the top of my head, pilate says "you Jews pick your Messiahs by the sackful", which you know, the character is antisemitic given that he is Roman so maybe it's fine, but also Caiphas says to Judas "what you have done will be the saving of Israel", again maybe I'm reaching but I was singing it in the shower one day and thought that's odd you know? I thought maybe there was a lot of emphasis on the whole weird "Jews killed christ" nonsense that antisemites use (as if christ wasn't Jewish). But beyond vibes I have nothing concrete to say about the lyrics so I'm not throwing accusations or anything.
Nothing wrong with thinking critically! ❤️
Honestly think a lot of time would be saved if all people were forced to learn about the paradox of intolerance. This "conservatives are promoters of free speech" narrative isn't exactly the same thing but if you understand the paradox you understand that conservatives aren't promoting free speech.
I've always disliked the narrative of "left wing is tolerant" Tolerating something implies there's something wrong with it. The things progressive people fight for don't have anything inherently wrong with them, such as freedom of expression and LGBTQ rights. Be intolerant, fuck asswipes that claim there's something wrong with it without any valid proof
Most lgbt friendly conservative sub
[удалено]
"Hitler was a bad guy who had bad views"
Not the same sub, but I’ve got 5 minutes for some neoconfederate sub
It took me a day of arguing facts and logic along with cutting sources.
Comment “some trans kids need protection from their parents” and watch the fireworks
Oh crap! i forgot to get banned on that subreddit im kinda out of ideas, what should i post?
Literally anything, they're so sensitive it's hilarious
[Just post this ](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/345403235667804163/1049716302245285948/RDT_20221206_0954298725906552912211179.jpg)
That's a weird looking verified badge, was this posted on Truth Social?
yeah thats the truth social verification badge I believe
Indeed. Despite being unbanned on twitter and having his old tweets restored, he has not returned to tweeting and stuck with Truth Social.
Even though Twitter is a worldwide website and Truth Social is US only? I mean, if he only wants to target American people I suppose it works, but wouldn't he get way more traction on Twitter anyway?
Im pretty sure he is either invested in Truth or being paid by them because he is refusing to use Twitter in an attempt to draw more people to Truth. The answer with Trump almost always comes back to money.
Fair enough. I suppose Trump is now focused on making as much money from his social media accounts as possible instead of trying to run for president again.
1) Ego, 2) he doesn't give a shit about other countries unless they have something tangible to offer, 3) everyone on Truth Social wants to ride his dick.
He signed a contract requiring him to post any messages on Truth Social at least 6 hours before any other social media platform, so there isn’t really any point in him posting on Twitter when anyone who wants to actually read what he has to say will just read it on Truth Social anyway
It was designed with inspiration from trumps pink puckering butthole of a mouth.
It is indeed
Thought so. Lol, ever since Trump got banned from Twitter he isn't hiding his dictatorial tendencies anymore, is he?
troth senchal
Literally anything. I mildly called out the homophobes on the post about a Republican gay governor and got banned
I like to do it in a way where it kind of sounds Ike I'm agreeing with them, but taking the idea so over board that the see how stupid they are. Takes a couple tries until they notice though.
Comment “some trans kids need protection from their parents” and watch the fireworks
Certified classic
“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."
that quote goes hard af, where/who is it from?
Apparently it's from Frank Wilhoit, but a [different Frank Wilhoit than the one people typically assume](https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html).
their using free speech wrong they where supposed to say slurs then repeat "it's ironic bro" 30 times
Don't say >!gay!<.
This is a perfect example of conservatives. Regular conservatives, aren’t crazy. They aren’t against the LGBTQIA or really racist. But the extremely conservative, in this scenario the mods, are 1:1 stereotypes. And it really sucks.
The fact that “regular conservatives” still vote conservative when they’re obviously aware of how shitty the right is makes them just as bad. Doesn’t matter if they personally believe it or not when they vote the same as the extremists that want LGBTQ genocide.
“Regular conservatives” are inherently and necessarily anti-LGBTQ. They just don’t realize that they are.
Much better wording than me. Thanks
They're pro free speech as long as it's convenient to them
Holy shit. One of them became self aware. Is that even possible?
Check out r\/Selfawarewolves
[POV: You’re a r/ Conservative mod](https://youtu.be/SjHn5ZcwqyY?t=01m29s)
how can people like republicans be reasoned with if they twist reasoning to fit their hatred? how is it fair to put absurd concepts such as giving teachers guns during school or supremacy of organized religion on the same pedestal as rational thinking? i don’t think democracy can exist without the suppression of ideas born of idiocy and baseless hatred, despite flawed concepts of “free speech”.
Litrealy 1489
Litrealy Animal Farm
They’re becoming self aware
Only a fraction of them. And when they try to figure out why there are such large insonsistencies in their ideology they ironically get silenced (by subreddit mods in this case lol) or dismissed for being a lib.
because even most of them are smart enough to know that they are Dubble standard idiots who don't actually believe in what they say/their own arguments , and just want verry specific things to happen because they feel like it, and base all their arguments around getting what they want instead of looking at facts , and than making your own unique true argument
And they’ll call *our* spaces the real echochambers lmao
i mean, a lot of them are. but they forget that theirs are too.
Why post there in the first place? Conservative is astroturfed garbage anyway. 99% of posts are removed by default.
Unwritten rule of r conservative: do not point out cognitive dissonance.
based king in screenshot gets free speech TAKEN AWAY by 1894 mods not clickbait
Can’t believe someone tried to make the conservative party political by talking about lgbt.
the left on a "first reaction is cancelling someone" competiton when conservative comes in (even though the stigma is around the left/liberals, republicans will be the quickest to cancel anything that goes against their incredibly narrow and self centered world view)
As a conservative, I apologize on their behalf. That sub is idiotic, you are correct, free speech is a two way street.
Stop voting against my rights please 🏳️🌈🖤 Reminder: 157 House Republicans and 36 Senate Republicans voted against helping codify interracial and same-sex marriage. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404 195 House Republicans voted against a right to contraception https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8373/text
Yep, and I don’t support that. I don’t hold 100% of all conservative views, but I hold most. I literally attended my gay sister’s wedding. I have no problem with gay marriage, that’s one of the few views I don’t share.
They said conservative not republican
What do you think a republican is.
I know what republican is they're different from conservative if they weren't the same they would have different names right?? Conservative just means trump supporter these days
If you put "conservative" and "republican" next to each other, they'd just be a single circle. This distinction is entirely in your own head.
Wait then what's the difference???
...there is none. That's my point. I'm not sure you're following your own conversation here.
US Republicans are a party unified under similar beliefs or official positions. Conservatism is a certain political spectrum. In the united states, theyre pretty much used interchangeably due to the nature of our political system. When someone says "I'm a conservative" there is a high likely hood they vote for the Republican party. When someone says "I'm a Republican" there is a high likely hood they hold conservative beliefs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Least insane hentai watcher. Anime communities getting mad at me for my yuri opinion is the same as rightoids exterminating gay people!!!!
Anime isn't all hentai I watched one called A Silent Voice I really liked it and it wasn't all just big anime boobs. There was another I enjoyed called Spirited Away it was really cool it's kind of like Alice in Wonderland but it's not a crazy drug trip.
[удалено]
>The us has a very toxic lgbt community No we dont. >can make gay jokes without having to worry about losing their jobs. We can do that too. This subreddit is full of gay jokes directed at gay people
[удалено]
Because the offensive jokes you lose your job over are things like "we should kill all gay people"
>If you mean only gay can makes gay jokes that is not my point I didnt say that. I work in a diverse tech company. For example: I have trans co-workers and subordinates. I even crack harmless "trans" jokes with them. An easy joke I make with one coworker is they are a stereotypical "trans programmer" (trans, socks, plushies, anime wallpaper). You know how I know its ok to make those jokes with them? 1) They are open about being trans 2) They have made those same jokes about themselves before. A good joke is as easy as knowing your audience. >making an offensive joke online should have nothing to do with someone losing their job Nobody is losing their job for making an offensive joke. People are losing their jobs for being stupid enough to post horrible things on their public social media accounts and make their companies look bad and making a hostile work environment. Screaming "lololol i hate black people" isnt a joke, no matter how much the fired person cries it is. In the United States, employees have a legal RIGHT to work in a non hostile work environment. Having a coworker that is a person that hates you for an immutable characteristic makes it a **hostile work environment**. Therefore they get fired.
[удалено]
Would you mind clarifying
[удалено]
What the hell are you talking about. What does this have to do with anything
lgbt communities never claimed to be tolerant of bigots. Conservatives constantly say they hate censorship, yet they censor the gays
[удалено]
Have you ever heard about the problem of lesbians being extremely sexualized? And if yes then why do you not understand lesbians not likeing being sexualized by you?
[удалено]
This really sounds like you got banned from some lesbian anime sub because you wanted more men in lesbian anime. Oh yeah and then you went on to say that a man being kicked out of a lesbian community, is the same as a political community banning all gay people.
[удалено]
There litterally was a shooting in gay night club last week, and the response from republicans "those pedophiles deserved it"
[удалено]
If you only want to talk about online, gay people still get surpressed. There are a lot of reports of the ways youtube, Facebook, and particular tiktok stop lgbtq content from spreading. Platforms themselves are surpressing lgbtq communities.
You're getting banned from this one, too.