Well, the good news is Mitch McConnell has set the precedent that Supreme Court justices aren't confirmed until non-election years. Since we're a little over 100 days away from the election, I...
Well, the good news is Mitch McConnell has set the precedent that Supreme Court justices aren't confirmed until non-election years. Since we're a little over 100 days away from the election, I don't expect the Senate to vote on a nominee until after the election in November.
I'm also so glad he has so much respect for the Senate rules. Could you imagine what would happen if someone else was the Senate Majority Leader and had reduced the number of required votes for a...
I'm also so glad he has so much respect for the Senate rules. Could you imagine what would happen if someone else was the Senate Majority Leader and had reduced the number of required votes for a Supreme Court nomination from 60 down to 51? I can't possibly imagine a world in which we're making lifetime appointments to the highest judicial position in the country on party-line, simple-majority votes.
This news shatters me. Hard won progress that brought the US into a modern era is now in serious peril. Time for tequila, lots and lots of tequila as I am boycotting Vodka right now.
This news shatters me. Hard won progress that brought the US into a modern era is now in serious peril.
Time for tequila, lots and lots of tequila as I am boycotting Vodka right now.
We really shouldn't rely on the politicization of the Supreme Court to uphold progress. It's about time that we enshrined worker's and women's rights in the Constitution
We really shouldn't rely on the politicization of the Supreme Court to uphold progress. It's about time that we enshrined worker's and women's rights in the Constitution
Indeed, without weasel words leaving openings to 'interpretations' either, extreme specificity is what is required. It isn't happening in this administration to be sure but it is a nice dream. And...
Indeed, without weasel words leaving openings to 'interpretations' either, extreme specificity is what is required.
It isn't happening in this administration to be sure but it is a nice dream. And while we're dreaming, overturning Citizen's United is in my top 5.
Changing Supreme Court appointments from lifetime to twelve/eighteen years would be a good change too while we're up in the Constitution making changes.
Changing Supreme Court appointments from lifetime to twelve/eighteen years would be a good change too while we're up in the Constitution making changes.
It would definitely throw a wrench in the way our political system works and I think it would make both parties take hard stances on what they believe are essential human rights. It may be the...
It would definitely throw a wrench in the way our political system works and I think it would make both parties take hard stances on what they believe are essential human rights. It may be the thing that is most needed to de-partisan our politics.
I couldn't imagine we could ever get to the point of peacefully scrapping our Constitution though. Rewriting states rights would be crazy difficult to get everyone on board.
As if a massacre on the same magnitude and likeness as the Holocaust is "progress"... That attitude is disgusting. It's about time we have a real hope of justice being restored.
As if a massacre on the same magnitude and likeness as the Holocaust is "progress"... That attitude is disgusting.
It's about time we have a real hope of justice being restored.
The presidential thing to do would have been to appoint Merrick Garland, so he'd at least get his vote in the Senate. I have literally zero faith Trump would do anything other than nominate the...
The presidential thing to do would have been to appoint Merrick Garland, so he'd at least get his vote in the Senate. I have literally zero faith Trump would do anything other than nominate the most conservative person possible. Why would he bother nominating a centerist when the GOP has the majority in the Senate? This is the most slam dunk win he could possibly manage. He won't give up this opportunity.
I think the thing that goes understated in all of this, and the reason all this revolution/war talk is dumb as fuck, is that massive cultural movement in any direction is always met with massive...
I think the thing that goes understated in all of this, and the reason all this revolution/war talk is dumb as fuck, is that massive cultural movement in any direction is always met with massive cultural backlash. If Trump replaces Kennedy with a hardcore conservative, he's inviting the massive Democratic wave to crash angrily into Washington and take over the government electorally. Conservatives, happily, will continue voting their guy but they'll be more content. Contentedness is a horrible motivator for engagement. Moderates, the more they're alienated or fatigued, will stay home. That means you'll have one energized subset opposed by another happy subset, with the potential spoiler being kind of "meh."
That's how "landslide" elections happen in the US. The writing is on the wall. All any of the left needs to do is sit on their anger and continue talking only to themselves. Any talk of violence undercuts this whole thing and makes it so conservatives get SCARED and heavens, conservatives know how to fear something. We saw 8 years of that under Obama.
Sorry to post a top-level comment again, but this situation has actually caused me to experience a strange phenomenon... I'm scared. Not because i am unhappy about the President being able to...
Sorry to post a top-level comment again, but this situation has actually caused me to experience a strange phenomenon...
I'm scared. Not because i am unhappy about the President being able to select a new justice, but because this 'win' for my side is just going to add to the pile of things turning the other side rabid. I am already scared for my and others' physical safety as a Trump voter/supporter due to the "civility is overrated" rhetoric maxine waters and co. are pushing on their base. I don't wear MAGA hats specifically for the reason that I don't want to provoke a violent confrontation in public and someone ending up being seriously injured or worse.
Trump said I'd get tired of winning and I didn't think it would be possible, but this might be it.
edit: I should clarify - I'm more scared for the left. Obviously i don't want myself or my family to experience injury, but if this escalation of violent rhetoric continues, one side has all the guns and it isn't going to be pretty. :/
What an immature thing to say. Winning implies that someone is losing, and the president's rhetoric (read: verbal diarrhea) is indisputably divisive because he frames nearly everything as winning...
Trump said I'd get tired of winning and I didn't think it would be possible, but this might be it.
What an immature thing to say. Winning implies that someone is losing, and the president's rhetoric (read: verbal diarrhea) is indisputably divisive because he frames nearly everything as winning or losing. He's supposed to be uniting all Americans, not flaunting the constant pandering to his base and angering more people. He doesn't care about most Americans - he cares about 1/3 of them even though he's the president for all of us.
I never voted for Obama and didn't vote for any Democrat until Hillary when the prospect of a Trump presidency compelled me, but I can say with confidence that Obama cared about the well-being and success of every American even if how he went about it was controversial to some. Trump doesn't give two shits as long as he's seen as the winner.
Yeah, let's strip back all protections we the people have against the people who hold all the power in the economy - the people who own the vast majority of the capital. Let's let how much money...
Yeah, let's strip back all protections we the people have against the people who hold all the power in the economy - the people who own the vast majority of the capital.
Let's let how much money people have pick the winners and losers in the economy!
Sounds like an excellent argument for voting system and campaign finance reform, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Edit as an addendum: We have one of the oldest and frankly, outdated,...
Sounds like an excellent argument for voting system and campaign finance reform, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Edit as an addendum: We have one of the oldest and frankly, outdated, constitutions of any modern democracy. The Founding Fathers essentially formalized one of the worst possible voting systems for preventing this kind of idiocy from going on. I'm willing to give them a pass due to their lack of the last ~2.5 centuries of statistics and political science. We are missing several human rights from our founding documents as well.
People at least have nominal control over the government (it would actually be well more than nominal if half the country wouldn't keep voting in the elite's interests), where money is not...
People at least have nominal control over the government (it would actually be well more than nominal if half the country wouldn't keep voting in the elite's interests), where money is not directly power. You seem to recognize that money has a corrupting influence on that power, but how you can come to a conclusion that would make the underlying problem worse I don't don't understand. What you're advocating would essentially make money equivalent and interchangeable with power. It's bananas.
I'm an ancap but I don't think that this is a productive approach to this discussion. I think it's probably better to see if you can open ANY discussion on regulatory capture. Maybe incrementalism...
I'm an ancap but I don't think that this is a productive approach to this discussion. I think it's probably better to see if you can open ANY discussion on regulatory capture. Maybe incrementalism isn't your thing, but this forum leans pretty left and yet, most people here are relatively open to conversations like this.
I'm saying that I don't think you did that. I think you can easily get people to admit that the government does bad things if you make it into a tradeoff. Your job then is only to prove it's not a...
I'm saying that I don't think you did that. I think you can easily get people to admit that the government does bad things if you make it into a tradeoff. Your job then is only to prove it's not a good tradeoff.
Leading with "taxation is theft" is being politically tone-deaf. That's for stirring up your base, not for converting people to your cause.
Most politicians at least feign that their intentions are to benefit all Americans. Trump can't even be arsed to do that, which is surprising because lying seems to be his favorite hobby.
Most politicians at least feign that their intentions are to benefit all Americans. Trump can't even be arsed to do that, which is surprising because lying seems to be his favorite hobby.
Well, now you know how minorities feel. I also love how you say "the other side [is turning] rabid". As if right wing militias haven't been jerking off to thoughts of race war and governmental...
Well, now you know how minorities feel. I also love how you say "the other side [is turning] rabid". As if right wing militias haven't been jerking off to thoughts of race war and governmental collapse for the last 30 years.
I'm honestly pretty tempted to remove this comment and all of its replies so this overall thread has at least a vague chance of staying on-topic. It's barely relevant, and seems to have been...
I'm honestly pretty tempted to remove this comment and all of its replies so this overall thread has at least a vague chance of staying on-topic. It's barely relevant, and seems to have been written specifically to try to provoke reactions (and your edit certainly isn't making it better).
So I guess I'll just bring it up publicly as a good example—is this the sort of thing that you think I should be moderating, or should I just let the discussions that come off of posts like this happen?
I think you should remove posts like this. It doesn't read like it's intended to provide any sort of thoughtful discussion, merely to provoke reactions from a userbase that skews left. It's...
I think you should remove posts like this. It doesn't read like it's intended to provide any sort of thoughtful discussion, merely to provoke reactions from a userbase that skews left. It's possible to have a constructive and civil dialouge about how Trump voters feel worried in an increasingly divided political landscape, but things like this
but if this escalation of violent rhetoric continues, one side has all the guns and it isn't going to be pretty.
Same here. @Mumberthrax strikes me as the kind of person who likes driving at 9mph over the speed limit, getting away with something without the risk of getting caught.
Same here. @Mumberthrax strikes me as the kind of person who likes driving at 9mph over the speed limit, getting away with something without the risk of getting caught.
I'm uncertain. It and this tree is kind of off-topic, but it's part of the greater political environment and is relevant in that it's a less-often heard from perspective. Some of these comments...
I'm uncertain.
It and this tree is kind of off-topic, but it's part of the greater political environment and is relevant in that it's a less-often heard from perspective. Some of these comments are going a little far, but for the most part it's mostly holding itself together. The edit ticks me off a bit though.
edit: I should clarify - I'm more scared for the left. Obviously i don't want myself or my family to experience injury, but if this escalation of violent rhetoric continues, one side has all the guns and it isn't going to be pretty. :/
Honestly, statements like this one are precisely the kind of thing that bother me. It's not only inflammatory, but seems like a thinly veiled attempt at indirectly bragging. Admittedly I'm seeing...
. . .because this 'win' for my side is just going to add to the pile of things turning the other side rabid. . .
Honestly, statements like this one are precisely the kind of thing that bother me. It's not only inflammatory, but seems like a thinly veiled attempt at indirectly bragging. Admittedly I'm seeing quite a bit of incivility on the opposite side of the political spectrum in some of the comments around here ("here" meaning "on Tildes in general"), but the top-level comment we're discussing now and a lot of the follow-up responses seem to be quite a bit more inflammatory and manipulative to me.
One thing I've noted in particular is a tendency to respond dismissively when confronted about these kinds of comments, often relying on emotional responses with a "defeated" tone to them to deflect responsibility for any inflammatory comments onto others. In other words, rather than a simple "sorry, that was inappropriate, I'll avoid making comments like that in the future", we get responses like "I obviously forgot that i need to speak more delicately here, and pissed everyone off so looks like I screwed up" (actual quote). I've noticed this outside of this thread as well, but it's particularly notable here.
In general, @Mumberthrax does not appear to be engaging in good faith here. I won't speak for any of @Mumberthrax's other comments elsewhere, nor for any specific comments from other users (I've seen comments that I feel are distasteful from both ends of the political spectrum in this thread, for instance), but the comments here in particular should probably be moderated. There's no actual constructive discussion to be had and the nature of the comments only invites further destructive discourse.
I would definitely recommend purging this particular thread of comments. I won't be taking any position beyond that.
What's remarkable to me about it is how willing most of the responses are to discuss why they feel it's inflammatory, as opposed to devolving the conversation into emotional outburst. I didn't see...
What's remarkable to me about it is how willing most of the responses are to discuss why they feel it's inflammatory, as opposed to devolving the conversation into emotional outburst. I didn't see the post before the edit, so the bit about "not being pretty" struck me hardest. My initial reaction was along the lines of, "Oh you wanna throw down?" So I was expecting to see a number of responses along those lines. But instead, I see a lot of people who are upset, but still managing to hold some sort of dialogue.
Avoiding the echo chamber effect also means necessary exposure to rhetoric that might not be too appealing. And I don't think it's because of any kind of intentional "bad faith" practices, but just because it's the kind of rhetoric engendered by the media folks consume. We tend to parrot what we hear to an extent. Personally, it's the kind of stuff that drives me crazy and I'm more than happy in a bubble. My rhetoric has the same polarizing effect to others that their rhetoric has on me.
I think tagging could go a long way toward alleviating the problem, but it seems like a very difficult concept to impliment effectively. The post doesn't seem like trolling to me, despite how much it disturbs and infuriates me, because I hear that sort of thing all the time. It's just another parroted talking point that gets thrown around. The question is how much of that you want to see on your site. But that said, I gotta reiterate that I think the discussion stemming from it is remarkably civil, given the nature of it.
Yeah, it's interesting because it actually makes the decisions harder for me in some ways (and is probably a big factor in why I've done almost no moderation so far). Quite a few times I won't...
Yeah, it's interesting because it actually makes the decisions harder for me in some ways (and is probably a big factor in why I've done almost no moderation so far). Quite a few times I won't look at a thread until it's been going for a while, and there have been a bunch of cases where comments that I consider pretty inflammatory/troll-ish ended up leading to a pretty reasonable discussion anyway.
That makes it a hard call—I probably don't want to remove the original comment at that point, and maybe it wasn't a big deal anyway if people were able to respond decently to it. It's tough though, since I think that kind of thing can have a more subtle negative effect on the site over time. Eventually, even the most patient people can get tired of needing to "talk through" inflammatory situations constantly, and you can end up with them just deciding to silently leave the site and find somewhere else to spend their time where they don't need to do that. People like that are generally some of the best users, and losing them hurts the site a lot.
Mod, or however "trust" is implimented, tagging seems like the way to go. It allows for a variety of filtering options without leaving open the likelyhood of abuse. I think that being able to...
Mod, or however "trust" is implimented, tagging seems like the way to go. It allows for a variety of filtering options without leaving open the likelyhood of abuse. I think that being able to filter out inflammatory commentary (or even just careless thoughts on a controversial subject) would go a long way toward alleviating argument fatigue. It'll be interesting to see how it's utilized when it's ready. Personally, I'm kinda bad at recognizing when I'm starting to get too short until it's too late.
Sure, but that includes things like "don't murder" and "everyone going the same way has to drive on the same side of the road". It's technically true that we're stripping away those 'freedoms',...
Sure, but that includes things like "don't murder" and "everyone going the same way has to drive on the same side of the road". It's technically true that we're stripping away those 'freedoms', but ignore the fact that government and laws allow for functioning society in the first place.
And I see no reason that we can't have Civility Authenticity and Diversity, unless your definition of civility is that people never have to follow laws or do things that they don't personally agree with.
Edit: If government is so bad, what's the alternative? Anarchy? How will that reduce violence?
There's a lot to unpack in that post, but thank you for taking the time to expand. I still don't see why you say you can have at most 2 of those 3 points. (I also don't always consider civility...
There's a lot to unpack in that post, but thank you for taking the time to expand. I still don't see why you say you can have at most 2 of those 3 points. (I also don't always consider civility universally good, but that's a whole different discussion).
Abortion is a great example, but it also represents a false dichotomy. We aren't simply limited to 'abortion legal' and 'abortion illegal'. Even if that's what the talking points turn into. There are a whole range of solutions to reduce abortion such as sex ed., availability of contraceptives, and social policies that help families in need. There is a huge area to work with that could potentially allow compromise and understanding. I've never met a pro-abortion voter who actually wants there to be more abortions.
And, assuming everyone is operating in good faith, we might be able to come to a conclusion where everyone is better off, even if no one is perfectly happy.
But anyway, that still doesn't answer the question of, if not government, then what?
I've given you a lot of benefit of the doubt (more than some people think I should), but it's really hard to believe that you posted something that's basically, "I wish my side wasn't winning so...
I've given you a lot of benefit of the doubt (more than some people think I should), but it's really hard to believe that you posted something that's basically, "I wish my side wasn't winning so much that I have to live in fear of violence (edit: oh, it's really the attackers I'm afraid for because they'll get shot)" without knowing it would cause a mess. You even added that edit after many of the reactions had been posted.
Even if you really did post it without considering the reaction it would get, at some point inadvertent trolling isn't much better than doing it deliberately. The effect it has and the end result are exactly the same, and it's certainly not something that improves the quality of discussions.
I think you put too much faith into the average person. I know plenty of people who say stuff like this and honestly do not expect it to cause a mess. But this is usually because they are...
I think you put too much faith into the average person. I know plenty of people who say stuff like this and honestly do not expect it to cause a mess. But this is usually because they are incredibly unaware of their surroundings and severely underestimate how many people share their same feelings.
My brother, for example, holds many strong opinions that he often voices without thinking. It's a constant struggle to teach him to be civil around others. He means well, he just doesn't have the same filters that you or I do.
Hey, I get it. Maybe a little more than I've let on so far. The problem here is that this issue is a powderkeg. This news item very much touches on a deep wound in the left, much deeper than I...
Hey, I get it. Maybe a little more than I've let on so far.
The problem here is that this issue is a powderkeg. This news item very much touches on a deep wound in the left, much deeper than I think people even realize.
Imagine the last three-plus decades of conservative reaction to roe v. wade packed into one afternoon, just after watching children crying for their mothers and fathers along the boarder, just after a supreme court decision that effectively guts a union's ability to organize for collective bargaining, just after a supreme court decision that upholds the heinous travel ban that the crying children just got done reminding everyone about. Then we're getting close to the explosive potential of this news item. And we have a president who is not politically keen to moderate his behavior and play nice with the, um, devastated people who fear that the legal system that has protected their rights for the past 40 years is about to be destroyed.
You can have whatever feelings you want about the merits of any of the things that I just mentioned, but to almost all lefties, this is basically a perfect storm of bad news for two weeks in June. A slap in the face, however due, saying "also, I fear you right now, and I'm afraid you don't realize who has the guns here," rightfully flooded your inbox. It's pretty tone-deaf, I can't lie.
First, Deimos isn't planning on performing any action than asking the public what their opinion on what the precedence should be. Second, I kind of understand that you're not trying to provoke a...
First, Deimos isn't planning on performing any action than asking the public what their opinion on what the precedence should be.
Second, I kind of understand that you're not trying to provoke a reaction. I used to (and maybe still do...?) make comments that weren't created with the intent of creating a reaction, but the actual content had little value other than getting a reaction/to express my anger and opinion. Unfortunately, what matters isn't the conscious intent of the comment, but the actual consequence and the discussion it creates.
I think it's really hard to make judgments like that. I would never make a moderation call like that based on this one comment--it deserves at least a cursory glance to their profile to see if it...
I think it's really hard to make judgments like that. I would never make a moderation call like that based on this one comment--it deserves at least a cursory glance to their profile to see if it might be in good faith.
I think this tweet covers my feelings on this sort of whinging pretty well. I mean, basically the fear you're expressing is most of the dread I felt immediately after Trump was elected. It was...
I think this tweet covers my feelings on this sort of whinging pretty well.
I mean, basically the fear you're expressing is most of the dread I felt immediately after Trump was elected. It was obvious from the beginning of this ride that Trump is not at all interested in deescalating conflicts with most people who didn't support him. He's always been petty. He's always been much more immediately concerned with the people directly in front of him (who will always be more likely to be his core supporters than people who don't support him).
Now that I've had about 20 months for it all to sink in and live with it, I've found my stoic balance a bit again. These things ebb and flow. No one has talked about instituting terror when they win the next elections. No one is trying to reify The Purge series of movies.
You do have people who feel they have been dealing with something akin to the Northern Irish government, where one party wants to advance any policy, and the other wants to do nothing but make sure the other party doesn't get another term. You have a large group of people who feel that they have been procedurally wronged, and it's hard to reasonably see them as wrong about that, given the weak justification given to delay the vote on the last guy.
I get that you're afraid. I don't envy it. But this is neither the end of the world nor is it a situation that's significantly out of line with previous periods of heightened partisanship. What's more, no one has beaten anyone else to near death with a cane in the Senate yet, so we're still up on that score too.
Have we seen an actual increase in political violence from the left? Has there been anything more than a couple asshole kids in black hoods doing some crimes because they sense an opportunity to be violent assholes? We've seen political violence from the right for a while now and I don't see all that much whining about that. How much fear do we still have about that asshole from Maumee who saw fit to ram his car into counter-protesters in Charlottesville? Oh, but I'm sure it's more important to highlight how good the people on both sides are.
If this climate, and Maxine's words are what scare you, I think you frighten easily and exclusively when your ideological rivals are upset. Do you live in an urban area? If you don't, I can't imagine you're in any serious risk of even confronting a violently angry leftist, let alone being a victim of one.
Have you ever thought about perhaps not supporting things that are vile enough to be provocative? You would not have to be so worried otherwise.
I don't wear MAGA hats specifically for the reason that I don't want to provoke a violent confrontation in public and someone ending up being seriously injured or worse.
Have you ever thought about perhaps not supporting things that are vile enough to be provocative? You would not have to be so worried otherwise.
It sucks that you were shit on by a few people. I think for many, it can be hard to empathize with you. It's easy to point out that what you describe is what millions of others constantly feel as...
It sucks that you were shit on by a few people. I think for many, it can be hard to empathize with you. It's easy to point out that what you describe is what millions of others constantly feel as minorities. And it's easy to dismiss your feelings because the other side believes your side has caused these sort of feelings for millions. I'll say that personally, I internally rolled my eyes reading your comment.
At the same time, I try to separate the "I think your opinions are wrong" thought from the "I think your emotions are invalid" thought. The second thought seems like a pretty easy way to end a conversation. I hope you fears remain unrealized and that the political dialogue improves.
EDIT: Pretty bummed about your edit. It's definitely tougher to give you the benefit of the doubt when you speak about a potential civil war with relative frivolity.
To be fair, that is a common sentiment I have been hearing since Trump was elected. My mother in tears just days after the election told me that she was terrified that a revolution was coming. She...
To be fair, that is a common sentiment I have been hearing since Trump was elected. My mother in tears just days after the election told me that she was terrified that a revolution was coming. She said that she wasn't scared for her, because she has lived long and happily enough. She was scared for my brother and I, and she was resolved to fight for us.
So yeah, I am not sure he meant that line frivolously.
I think the benefits of peace are still too much for most people to stomach (and I am among them). War is never something to be taken lightly, and I'm frankly aghast at anyone who suggests it is...
I think the benefits of peace are still too much for most people to stomach (and I am among them). War is never something to be taken lightly, and I'm frankly aghast at anyone who suggests it is even desirable.
Peaceful revolution isn't a thing. You can't have a revolution without a revolution. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot who knows not what he says.
I didn't mention it with frivolity. It's a legitimate fear, and i don't want it to happen. I obviously forgot that i need to speak more delicately here, and pissed everyone off so looks like I...
Pretty bummed about your edit. It's definitely tougher to give you the benefit of the doubt when you speak about a potential civil war with relative frivolity.
I didn't mention it with frivolity. It's a legitimate fear, and i don't want it to happen. I obviously forgot that i need to speak more delicately here, and pissed everyone off so looks like I screwed up. i don't even care about whether you or anyone gives me the benefit of the doubt, believe whatever you want.
To clarify, I didn't like the "it isn't going to be pretty" part of your comment. Referring to the death of a bunch of Americans at the hands of other Americans as not "pretty" seems egregious to me.
To clarify, I didn't like the "it isn't going to be pretty" part of your comment. Referring to the death of a bunch of Americans at the hands of other Americans as not "pretty" seems egregious to me.
I agree. It would be awful if people on the left fell to the depths of killing or hurting people for their political views. It doesn’t matter if people on the other side of the aisle have killed...
I agree. It would be awful if people on the left fell to the depths of killing or hurting people for their political views. It doesn’t matter if people on the other side of the aisle have killed doctors, religious minorities, and children, it’s just not a depth that any good person would fall to, regardless of the threat to themselves or their communities.
Thankfully, very few people on the left have resorted to that sort of violence. I understand the fear, but it's generally unwarranted. And not to play whataboutism, but I'm far more worried for...
Thankfully, very few people on the left have resorted to that sort of violence. I understand the fear, but it's generally unwarranted.
And not to play whataboutism, but I'm far more worried for the people potentially in danger from a conservative supreme court.
I'm an upper class white male who doesn't act overtly gay. The trump presidency and conservative majority has probably benefited me more than it has damaged me, but that doesn't stop me from being...
I'm an upper class white male who doesn't act overtly gay. The trump presidency and conservative majority has probably benefited me more than it has damaged me, but that doesn't stop me from being disgusted or angry at the direction our country is going.
With that being said, I completely agree. I'm not scared for myself - I'm scared for our future and for my friends.
People will fight for their constitutional rights under the law including women's rights, the rights of minorities for equal eduction, the rights of people who no matter their sexual orientation....
People will fight for their constitutional rights under the law including women's rights, the rights of minorities for equal eduction, the rights of people who no matter their sexual orientation. Yes, they will fight but not you. Just as Martin Luther King advocated nonviolence for change, the vast majority of people who fight for their rights as a whole sentient humans, will honor that. They will be courageous as they have in the past and endure beatings, endure discrimination, endure bullying behavior and worse. History is a teacher.
Honestly, man... seeing this comment from you is incredibly disappointing. IMO there is absolutely no way you couldn't have known the response it would cause. And the more you do this sort of shit...
Honestly, man... seeing this comment from you is incredibly disappointing. IMO there is absolutely no way you couldn't have known the response it would cause. And the more you do this sort of shit the harder it is for me to defend you because even if your intentions are pure, the results (especially caused by your choice of needlessly inflammatory language) are obviously anything but.
this was not intended at all. it doesn't make any sense if adding fuel to the fire was my goal because that is exactly what I was talking about being afraid of in the $$$$ing comment. i obviously...
this was not intended at all. it doesn't make any sense if adding fuel to the fire was my goal because that is exactly what I was talking about being afraid of in the $$$$ing comment. i obviously messed up because people got so angry. I'd delete it but i don't know if that would even help or make things worse at this point.
You don't need to defend me. I don't care. Believe whatever you want. I'll just stop.
Look, I get that it may be how you genuinely feel... but at a certain point that just isn't enough of a justification. Another SCOTUS seat going to the Republicans and Trump when the last one is...
Look, I get that it may be how you genuinely feel... but at a certain point that just isn't enough of a justification. Another SCOTUS seat going to the Republicans and Trump when the last one is largely viewed by Liberals as being unjustly stolen through pure obstructionist tactics is a devastating blow to Liberal minded people in the US especially after the two recent decisions (Immigration ban and Labor unions) went the Conservatives way because of Gorsuch. Under those circumstances, do you honestly not see how inappropriate a comment that essentially amounts to humble bragging is?
No matter how much your coach your language under the pretense of being worried, the only possible outcome to your comment was anger even from moderate Liberals. And you can't even plead total ignorance either since you even acknowledged this situation would likely "[turn] the other side rabid" and yet you still decided to risk throwing fuel on the fire. And the fact you chose to edit in a thinly veiled threat after you had already started getting angry responses certainly doesn't help your case either.
Welcome to how every left-leaning person has felt since November 2016. I really wish I could give you words of comfort, to say this is something you shouldn't worry about, but I don't think that's...
Welcome to how every left-leaning person has felt since November 2016. I really wish I could give you words of comfort, to say this is something you shouldn't worry about, but I don't think that's true. I think if things get worse, that if Trump and the GOP continue shitting all over everything decent and good about this country, that an increasing number of people will feel helpless and resort to extreme measures. That will only escalate Trump supporters, who will feel the need to respond in kind.
It's not that difficult to imagine a Handmaid's Tale-like scenario where a radical group (on either side) coordinates a large-scale attack of some sort. My only hope is that we have some sort of big reset, and soon.
From Margaret Atwood on How She Came to Write The Handmaid’s Tale
I made a rule for myself: I would not include anything that human beings had not already done in some other place or time, or for which the technology did not already exist. I did not wish to be accused of dark, twisted inventions, or of misrepresenting the human potential for deplorable behavior. The group-activated hangings, the tearing apart of human beings, the clothing specific to castes and classes, the forced childbearing and the appropriation of the results, the children stolen by regimes and placed for upbringing with high-ranking officials, the forbidding of literacy, the denial of property rights—all had precedents, and many of these were to be found, not in other cultures and religions, but within Western society, and within the “Christian” tradition itself.
Yeah the demographic selected to seed the community with was overwhelmingly anti-trump. I specifically requested an invitation because i liked the sales pitch of "civil conversations" and...
Yeah the demographic selected to seed the community with was overwhelmingly anti-trump. I specifically requested an invitation because i liked the sales pitch of "civil conversations" and dedication to privacy. It's not a huge deal of course, politics isn't everything - though it's certainly important.
To be fair, the reason some of us were dissatisfied with reddit in the first place is the ambiguous stand on places like T_D, and various other hate oriented groups. There's a difference between...
To be fair, the reason some of us were dissatisfied with reddit in the first place is the ambiguous stand on places like T_D, and various other hate oriented groups. There's a difference between allowing discussion, and outright assholery, doxxing, and brigading. Hopefully Tildes will keep to its message, for your sake and mine.
I feel like you should justify such a provocative statement with a factual basis more than "this is just the way I feel." Quoting "civility is overrated" as the basis for feeling afraid doesn't...
I feel like you should justify such a provocative statement with a factual basis more than "this is just the way I feel."
Quoting "civility is overrated" as the basis for feeling afraid doesn't really qualify, unless you felt more strongly about the "maybe those second amendment people should take care of her"
Violently attacking doctors and clinics that perform abortions? Violently attacking protestors for civil rights? Violently separating children from their parents at the border? 🤔
Seriously, when you literally use violent force on people who don’t hold your position, you may need to rethink your own position.
Violently attacking doctors and clinics that perform abortions?
Violently attacking protestors for civil rights?
Violently separating children from their parents at the border?
So, it's not just a hat anymore. It's an explicit political statement. Anyone who wears one is making a conscious decision to wear it despite the atrocities committed by this administration. It's...
So, it's not just a hat anymore. It's an explicit political statement. Anyone who wears one is making a conscious decision to wear it despite the atrocities committed by this administration. It's saying "Not only am I okay with this, not only do I support this, I'm also not ashamed to let everyone around me know."
A few years ago I'd have called your comment out as Holocaust trivialization, but considering we have actual concentration camps, I think the comparison is warranted.
A few years ago I'd have called your comment out as Holocaust trivialization, but considering we have actual concentration camps, I think the comparison is warranted.
Honestly I felt a bit weird typing it out. Either I've got a tinfoil hat on and reading into the situation far too much or we're slowly slipping into a dystopian corporatocracy. I don't like the...
Honestly I felt a bit weird typing it out.
Either I've got a tinfoil hat on and reading into the situation far too much or we're slowly slipping into a dystopian corporatocracy. I don't like the implications of either of these statements.
Attacking someone for being ignorant is not going to change their minds, only reinforce their victim complex and further grow their hatred. Would you attack a kid with mental disabilities because...
Attacking someone for being ignorant is not going to change their minds, only reinforce their victim complex and further grow their hatred. Would you attack a kid with mental disabilities because they were wearing a MAGA hat? What if it's a swastika or a "Don't Tread On Me" hat? If you can beat up someone for wearing something that upsets you, does that also give them an excuse to attack you if you happen to wear a Pride hat? Back when I was a mod on reddit, the most common excuse bigots gave me for try to justify their hatred was that it was against their morals and ethics so therefore it was okay.
Just to clarify, I do not think it's okay to just sit back and let bigots be bigots and spread hate. But violence is not the way to change someone's value system.
When did I argue that they should be jumped on? I merely pointed out the absurdity of your statement. It's not about the fact that it's a hat, it's about the statement that piece of clothing makes.
When did I argue that they should be jumped on? I merely pointed out the absurdity of your statement. It's not about the fact that it's a hat, it's about the statement that piece of clothing makes.
/u/starchturrets already said he didn't believe in using using violence against people who don't support your position. Are you calling for an eye for an eye? If not this feels like an appeal to...
/u/starchturrets already said he didn't believe in using using violence against people who don't support your position. Are you calling for an eye for an eye? If not this feels like an appeal to hypocrisy to deflect away from the core point.
Whataboutism. Obviously these people are included. When someone calls out the unreasonable people on their own side, that's something to be admired. It is NOT an attack on everyone of that...
Whataboutism. Obviously these people are included. When someone calls out the unreasonable people on their own side, that's something to be admired. It is NOT an attack on everyone of that political persuasion--just the people who are both of a persuasion and who engage in nasty behaviors.
A more productive version of your comment would have admitted to and agreed that attacking MAGA hat-wearers was not ok, and perhaps then added what you said. An even more productive comment would have looked at the similarities between the unreasonables on both sides and noted them as one body, and as a more dangerous enemy than people who simply disagree. Or mentioned horseshoe theory or something like that.
I think so, but as far as I can tell it's never happened just for being a Trump voter. The Trump vote is usually just a part of the negative qualities they exhibited before he even ran for pres.
I think so, but as far as I can tell it's never happened just for being a Trump voter. The Trump vote is usually just a part of the negative qualities they exhibited before he even ran for pres.
This is fairly threatening and patronizing, no? You criticize a view you call "civility is overrated" and then end your comment like this for some reason.
edit: I should clarify - I'm more scared for the left. Obviously i don't want myself or my family to experience injury, but if this escalation of violent rhetoric continues, one side has all the guns and it isn't going to be pretty. :/
This is fairly threatening and patronizing, no? You criticize a view you call "civility is overrated" and then end your comment like this for some reason.
This is patently ridiculous, designed to make yourself a martyr in the event anyone disagrees with you, and buys into some delusional adolescent fantasy of civil war and shooting liberals The...
This is patently ridiculous, designed to make yourself a martyr in the event anyone disagrees with you, and buys into some delusional adolescent fantasy of civil war and shooting liberals The Federalist keeps pumping out.
This is abysmal trolling designed to trigger libs or whatever.
I'm surprised ginsburg isn't retiring first. I know she's said that she doesn't want to give Trump the ability to select a conservative justice, but if that was her plan she should have retired...
I'm surprised ginsburg isn't retiring first. I know she's said that she doesn't want to give Trump the ability to select a conservative justice, but if that was her plan she should have retired during Obama's presidency...
The Supreme Court may be crucial in the Mueller investigation, as it as been in all previous investigations of a sitting US president. I predict that Trump will apply a loyalty oath requirement in...
The Supreme Court may be crucial in the Mueller investigation, as it as been in all previous investigations of a sitting US president. I predict that Trump will apply a loyalty oath requirement in his nomination.
Well, the good news is Mitch McConnell has set the precedent that Supreme Court justices aren't confirmed until non-election years. Since we're a little over 100 days away from the election, I don't expect the Senate to vote on a nominee until after the election in November.
Right?
"Well that doesn't apply to midterm election years."
Good thing we can trust Mitch McConnell to lead consistently and fairly.
I'm also so glad he has so much respect for the Senate rules. Could you imagine what would happen if someone else was the Senate Majority Leader and had reduced the number of required votes for a Supreme Court nomination from 60 down to 51? I can't possibly imagine a world in which we're making lifetime appointments to the highest judicial position in the country on party-line, simple-majority votes.
I'm so thankful for Mitch McConnell.
Truly our democracy is stronger than ever because of his fine example. We should all aspire to have the integrity of Mitch McConnell
Mitch "Filibuster my own bill" McConnell is truly a paragon of good governance.
If Scalia had died a year earlier, McConnell would have found some way to delay the appointment for two years.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-says-the-senate-will-vote-this-fall-on-a-new-justice
Well, I guess Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. State of Connecticut, Brown v. Board of Education, and Obergefell v. Hodges had a good run.
This news shatters me. Hard won progress that brought the US into a modern era is now in serious peril.
Time for tequila, lots and lots of tequila as I am boycotting Vodka right now.
We really shouldn't rely on the politicization of the Supreme Court to uphold progress. It's about time that we enshrined worker's and women's rights in the Constitution
Indeed, without weasel words leaving openings to 'interpretations' either, extreme specificity is what is required.
It isn't happening in this administration to be sure but it is a nice dream. And while we're dreaming, overturning Citizen's United is in my top 5.
Changing Supreme Court appointments from lifetime to twelve/eighteen years would be a good change too while we're up in the Constitution making changes.
Even specific writing can be ignored, just ask the 4th amendment.
It would definitely throw a wrench in the way our political system works and I think it would make both parties take hard stances on what they believe are essential human rights. It may be the thing that is most needed to de-partisan our politics.
I couldn't imagine we could ever get to the point of peacefully scrapping our Constitution though. Rewriting states rights would be crazy difficult to get everyone on board.
Also, given current political climate, I'm not sure I'd want the Constitution that would come out of such an endeavor.
As if a massacre on the same magnitude and likeness as the Holocaust is "progress"... That attitude is disgusting.
It's about time we have a real hope of justice being restored.
The presidential thing to do would have been to appoint Merrick Garland, so he'd at least get his vote in the Senate. I have literally zero faith Trump would do anything other than nominate the most conservative person possible. Why would he bother nominating a centerist when the GOP has the majority in the Senate? This is the most slam dunk win he could possibly manage. He won't give up this opportunity.
I think the thing that goes understated in all of this, and the reason all this revolution/war talk is dumb as fuck, is that massive cultural movement in any direction is always met with massive cultural backlash. If Trump replaces Kennedy with a hardcore conservative, he's inviting the massive Democratic wave to crash angrily into Washington and take over the government electorally. Conservatives, happily, will continue voting their guy but they'll be more content. Contentedness is a horrible motivator for engagement. Moderates, the more they're alienated or fatigued, will stay home. That means you'll have one energized subset opposed by another happy subset, with the potential spoiler being kind of "meh."
That's how "landslide" elections happen in the US. The writing is on the wall. All any of the left needs to do is sit on their anger and continue talking only to themselves. Any talk of violence undercuts this whole thing and makes it so conservatives get SCARED and heavens, conservatives know how to fear something. We saw 8 years of that under Obama.
Funny how after all this time this is still under question.
Sorry to post a top-level comment again, but this situation has actually caused me to experience a strange phenomenon...
I'm scared. Not because i am unhappy about the President being able to select a new justice, but because this 'win' for my side is just going to add to the pile of things turning the other side rabid. I am already scared for my and others' physical safety as a Trump voter/supporter due to the "civility is overrated" rhetoric maxine waters and co. are pushing on their base. I don't wear MAGA hats specifically for the reason that I don't want to provoke a violent confrontation in public and someone ending up being seriously injured or worse.
Trump said I'd get tired of winning and I didn't think it would be possible, but this might be it.
edit: I should clarify - I'm more scared for the left. Obviously i don't want myself or my family to experience injury, but if this escalation of violent rhetoric continues, one side has all the guns and it isn't going to be pretty. :/
What an immature thing to say. Winning implies that someone is losing, and the president's rhetoric (read: verbal diarrhea) is indisputably divisive because he frames nearly everything as winning or losing. He's supposed to be uniting all Americans, not flaunting the constant pandering to his base and angering more people. He doesn't care about most Americans - he cares about 1/3 of them even though he's the president for all of us.
I never voted for Obama and didn't vote for any Democrat until Hillary when the prospect of a Trump presidency compelled me, but I can say with confidence that Obama cared about the well-being and success of every American even if how he went about it was controversial to some. Trump doesn't give two shits as long as he's seen as the winner.
Yes - this rehetoic really gets under my skin. Why must we enrich ourselves at someone else's expense. It's the height of selfishness!
Yeah, let's strip back all protections we the people have against the people who hold all the power in the economy - the people who own the vast majority of the capital.
Let's let how much money people have pick the winners and losers in the economy!
Sounds like an excellent argument for voting system and campaign finance reform, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Edit as an addendum: We have one of the oldest and frankly, outdated, constitutions of any modern democracy. The Founding Fathers essentially formalized one of the worst possible voting systems for preventing this kind of idiocy from going on. I'm willing to give them a pass due to their lack of the last ~2.5 centuries of statistics and political science. We are missing several human rights from our founding documents as well.
People at least have nominal control over the government (it would actually be well more than nominal if half the country wouldn't keep voting in the elite's interests), where money is not directly power. You seem to recognize that money has a corrupting influence on that power, but how you can come to a conclusion that would make the underlying problem worse I don't don't understand. What you're advocating would essentially make money equivalent and interchangeable with power. It's bananas.
Can't connect the dots, huh?
I'm an ancap but I don't think that this is a productive approach to this discussion. I think it's probably better to see if you can open ANY discussion on regulatory capture. Maybe incrementalism isn't your thing, but this forum leans pretty left and yet, most people here are relatively open to conversations like this.
I'd really give it a shot.
I'm saying that I don't think you did that. I think you can easily get people to admit that the government does bad things if you make it into a tradeoff. Your job then is only to prove it's not a good tradeoff.
Leading with "taxation is theft" is being politically tone-deaf. That's for stirring up your base, not for converting people to your cause.
Any news that doesn't declare him winner is fake news anyhow
Most politicians at least feign that their intentions are to benefit all Americans. Trump can't even be arsed to do that, which is surprising because lying seems to be his favorite hobby.
You’re right. Good comment about MAGA and nationalism. The message is very general even if some of his other rhetoric is divisive.
I can do this.
Well, now you know how minorities feel. I also love how you say "the other side [is turning] rabid". As if right wing militias haven't been jerking off to thoughts of race war and governmental collapse for the last 30 years.
I'm honestly pretty tempted to remove this comment and all of its replies so this overall thread has at least a vague chance of staying on-topic. It's barely relevant, and seems to have been written specifically to try to provoke reactions (and your edit certainly isn't making it better).
So I guess I'll just bring it up publicly as a good example—is this the sort of thing that you think I should be moderating, or should I just let the discussions that come off of posts like this happen?
I think you should remove posts like this. It doesn't read like it's intended to provide any sort of thoughtful discussion, merely to provoke reactions from a userbase that skews left. It's possible to have a constructive and civil dialouge about how Trump voters feel worried in an increasingly divided political landscape, but things like this
are not how it's done.
I'm not sure but I know I often find myself questioning if this user's comments/posts are really made in good faith.
Same here. @Mumberthrax strikes me as the kind of person who likes driving at 9mph over the speed limit, getting away with something without the risk of getting caught.
Speaking of off-topic, OMG I love your username!
It really is the best! I know when I first saw it I wished I had thought of it first.
I'm uncertain.
It and this tree is kind of off-topic, but it's part of the greater political environment and is relevant in that it's a less-often heard from perspective. Some of these comments are going a little far, but for the most part it's mostly holding itself together. The edit ticks me off a bit though.
What edit?
Honestly, statements like this one are precisely the kind of thing that bother me. It's not only inflammatory, but seems like a thinly veiled attempt at indirectly bragging. Admittedly I'm seeing quite a bit of incivility on the opposite side of the political spectrum in some of the comments around here ("here" meaning "on Tildes in general"), but the top-level comment we're discussing now and a lot of the follow-up responses seem to be quite a bit more inflammatory and manipulative to me.
One thing I've noted in particular is a tendency to respond dismissively when confronted about these kinds of comments, often relying on emotional responses with a "defeated" tone to them to deflect responsibility for any inflammatory comments onto others. In other words, rather than a simple "sorry, that was inappropriate, I'll avoid making comments like that in the future", we get responses like "I obviously forgot that i need to speak more delicately here, and pissed everyone off so looks like I screwed up" (actual quote). I've noticed this outside of this thread as well, but it's particularly notable here.
In general, @Mumberthrax does not appear to be engaging in good faith here. I won't speak for any of @Mumberthrax's other comments elsewhere, nor for any specific comments from other users (I've seen comments that I feel are distasteful from both ends of the political spectrum in this thread, for instance), but the comments here in particular should probably be moderated. There's no actual constructive discussion to be had and the nature of the comments only invites further destructive discourse.
I would definitely recommend purging this particular thread of comments. I won't be taking any position beyond that.
What's remarkable to me about it is how willing most of the responses are to discuss why they feel it's inflammatory, as opposed to devolving the conversation into emotional outburst. I didn't see the post before the edit, so the bit about "not being pretty" struck me hardest. My initial reaction was along the lines of, "Oh you wanna throw down?" So I was expecting to see a number of responses along those lines. But instead, I see a lot of people who are upset, but still managing to hold some sort of dialogue.
Avoiding the echo chamber effect also means necessary exposure to rhetoric that might not be too appealing. And I don't think it's because of any kind of intentional "bad faith" practices, but just because it's the kind of rhetoric engendered by the media folks consume. We tend to parrot what we hear to an extent. Personally, it's the kind of stuff that drives me crazy and I'm more than happy in a bubble. My rhetoric has the same polarizing effect to others that their rhetoric has on me.
I think tagging could go a long way toward alleviating the problem, but it seems like a very difficult concept to impliment effectively. The post doesn't seem like trolling to me, despite how much it disturbs and infuriates me, because I hear that sort of thing all the time. It's just another parroted talking point that gets thrown around. The question is how much of that you want to see on your site. But that said, I gotta reiterate that I think the discussion stemming from it is remarkably civil, given the nature of it.
Yeah, it's interesting because it actually makes the decisions harder for me in some ways (and is probably a big factor in why I've done almost no moderation so far). Quite a few times I won't look at a thread until it's been going for a while, and there have been a bunch of cases where comments that I consider pretty inflammatory/troll-ish ended up leading to a pretty reasonable discussion anyway.
That makes it a hard call—I probably don't want to remove the original comment at that point, and maybe it wasn't a big deal anyway if people were able to respond decently to it. It's tough though, since I think that kind of thing can have a more subtle negative effect on the site over time. Eventually, even the most patient people can get tired of needing to "talk through" inflammatory situations constantly, and you can end up with them just deciding to silently leave the site and find somewhere else to spend their time where they don't need to do that. People like that are generally some of the best users, and losing them hurts the site a lot.
Mod, or however "trust" is implimented, tagging seems like the way to go. It allows for a variety of filtering options without leaving open the likelyhood of abuse. I think that being able to filter out inflammatory commentary (or even just careless thoughts on a controversial subject) would go a long way toward alleviating argument fatigue. It'll be interesting to see how it's utilized when it's ready. Personally, I'm kinda bad at recognizing when I'm starting to get too short until it's too late.
That's an interesting perspective on political discussion that I haven't heard before. Thanks for sharing it!
Sure, but that includes things like "don't murder" and "everyone going the same way has to drive on the same side of the road". It's technically true that we're stripping away those 'freedoms', but ignore the fact that government and laws allow for functioning society in the first place.
And I see no reason that we can't have Civility Authenticity and Diversity, unless your definition of civility is that people never have to follow laws or do things that they don't personally agree with.
Edit: If government is so bad, what's the alternative? Anarchy? How will that reduce violence?
There's a lot to unpack in that post, but thank you for taking the time to expand. I still don't see why you say you can have at most 2 of those 3 points. (I also don't always consider civility universally good, but that's a whole different discussion).
Abortion is a great example, but it also represents a false dichotomy. We aren't simply limited to 'abortion legal' and 'abortion illegal'. Even if that's what the talking points turn into. There are a whole range of solutions to reduce abortion such as sex ed., availability of contraceptives, and social policies that help families in need. There is a huge area to work with that could potentially allow compromise and understanding. I've never met a pro-abortion voter who actually wants there to be more abortions.
And, assuming everyone is operating in good faith, we might be able to come to a conclusion where everyone is better off, even if no one is perfectly happy.
But anyway, that still doesn't answer the question of, if not government, then what?
Provocative statements should be either backed up with something substantive worth discussing or retracted.
*sigh* do whatever you need to do. it wasn't trying to provoke a reaction. :/
I've given you a lot of benefit of the doubt (more than some people think I should), but it's really hard to believe that you posted something that's basically, "I wish my side wasn't winning so much that I have to live in fear of violence (edit: oh, it's really the attackers I'm afraid for because they'll get shot)" without knowing it would cause a mess. You even added that edit after many of the reactions had been posted.
Even if you really did post it without considering the reaction it would get, at some point inadvertent trolling isn't much better than doing it deliberately. The effect it has and the end result are exactly the same, and it's certainly not something that improves the quality of discussions.
To be fair to @Mumberthrax, a lot of what he is saying is essentially the mainline view of one of America's two major political parties.
I think you put too much faith into the average person. I know plenty of people who say stuff like this and honestly do not expect it to cause a mess. But this is usually because they are incredibly unaware of their surroundings and severely underestimate how many people share their same feelings.
My brother, for example, holds many strong opinions that he often voices without thinking. It's a constant struggle to teach him to be civil around others. He means well, he just doesn't have the same filters that you or I do.
Hey, I get it. Maybe a little more than I've let on so far.
The problem here is that this issue is a powderkeg. This news item very much touches on a deep wound in the left, much deeper than I think people even realize.
Imagine the last three-plus decades of conservative reaction to roe v. wade packed into one afternoon, just after watching children crying for their mothers and fathers along the boarder, just after a supreme court decision that effectively guts a union's ability to organize for collective bargaining, just after a supreme court decision that upholds the heinous travel ban that the crying children just got done reminding everyone about. Then we're getting close to the explosive potential of this news item. And we have a president who is not politically keen to moderate his behavior and play nice with the, um, devastated people who fear that the legal system that has protected their rights for the past 40 years is about to be destroyed.
You can have whatever feelings you want about the merits of any of the things that I just mentioned, but to almost all lefties, this is basically a perfect storm of bad news for two weeks in June. A slap in the face, however due, saying "also, I fear you right now, and I'm afraid you don't realize who has the guns here," rightfully flooded your inbox. It's pretty tone-deaf, I can't lie.
First, Deimos isn't planning on performing any action than asking the public what their opinion on what the precedence should be.
Second, I kind of understand that you're not trying to provoke a reaction. I used to (and maybe still do...?) make comments that weren't created with the intent of creating a reaction, but the actual content had little value other than getting a reaction/to express my anger and opinion. Unfortunately, what matters isn't the conscious intent of the comment, but the actual consequence and the discussion it creates.
I think it's really hard to make judgments like that. I would never make a moderation call like that based on this one comment--it deserves at least a cursory glance to their profile to see if it might be in good faith.
I miss the "flamebait" tag.
I'm hoping user blocking isn't too far off.
in the meantime: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/368530-mumberthrax-blocker
I think this tweet covers my feelings on this sort of whinging pretty well.
I mean, basically the fear you're expressing is most of the dread I felt immediately after Trump was elected. It was obvious from the beginning of this ride that Trump is not at all interested in deescalating conflicts with most people who didn't support him. He's always been petty. He's always been much more immediately concerned with the people directly in front of him (who will always be more likely to be his core supporters than people who don't support him).
Now that I've had about 20 months for it all to sink in and live with it, I've found my stoic balance a bit again. These things ebb and flow. No one has talked about instituting terror when they win the next elections. No one is trying to reify The Purge series of movies.
You do have people who feel they have been dealing with something akin to the Northern Irish government, where one party wants to advance any policy, and the other wants to do nothing but make sure the other party doesn't get another term. You have a large group of people who feel that they have been procedurally wronged, and it's hard to reasonably see them as wrong about that, given the weak justification given to delay the vote on the last guy.
I get that you're afraid. I don't envy it. But this is neither the end of the world nor is it a situation that's significantly out of line with previous periods of heightened partisanship. What's more, no one has beaten anyone else to near death with a cane in the Senate yet, so we're still up on that score too.
Have we seen an actual increase in political violence from the left? Has there been anything more than a couple asshole kids in black hoods doing some crimes because they sense an opportunity to be violent assholes? We've seen political violence from the right for a while now and I don't see all that much whining about that. How much fear do we still have about that asshole from Maumee who saw fit to ram his car into counter-protesters in Charlottesville? Oh, but I'm sure it's more important to highlight how good the people on both sides are.
If this climate, and Maxine's words are what scare you, I think you frighten easily and exclusively when your ideological rivals are upset. Do you live in an urban area? If you don't, I can't imagine you're in any serious risk of even confronting a violently angry leftist, let alone being a victim of one.
Well that's a despicable comment if I ever saw one. Kind of shows your true colors.
Doubling down on the immaturity.
Have you ever thought about perhaps not supporting things that are vile enough to be provocative? You would not have to be so worried otherwise.
It sucks that you were shit on by a few people. I think for many, it can be hard to empathize with you. It's easy to point out that what you describe is what millions of others constantly feel as minorities. And it's easy to dismiss your feelings because the other side believes your side has caused these sort of feelings for millions. I'll say that personally, I internally rolled my eyes reading your comment.
At the same time, I try to separate the "I think your opinions are wrong" thought from the "I think your emotions are invalid" thought. The second thought seems like a pretty easy way to end a conversation. I hope you fears remain unrealized and that the political dialogue improves.
EDIT: Pretty bummed about your edit. It's definitely tougher to give you the benefit of the doubt when you speak about a potential civil war with relative frivolity.
To be fair, that is a common sentiment I have been hearing since Trump was elected. My mother in tears just days after the election told me that she was terrified that a revolution was coming. She said that she wasn't scared for her, because she has lived long and happily enough. She was scared for my brother and I, and she was resolved to fight for us.
So yeah, I am not sure he meant that line frivolously.
I think the benefits of peace are still too much for most people to stomach (and I am among them). War is never something to be taken lightly, and I'm frankly aghast at anyone who suggests it is even desirable.
Peaceful revolution isn't a thing. You can't have a revolution without a revolution. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot who knows not what he says.
That is not a revolution. That is a protest.
I didn't mention it with frivolity. It's a legitimate fear, and i don't want it to happen. I obviously forgot that i need to speak more delicately here, and pissed everyone off so looks like I screwed up. i don't even care about whether you or anyone gives me the benefit of the doubt, believe whatever you want.
To clarify, I didn't like the "it isn't going to be pretty" part of your comment. Referring to the death of a bunch of Americans at the hands of other Americans as not "pretty" seems egregious to me.
I agree. It would be awful if people on the left fell to the depths of killing or hurting people for their political views. It doesn’t matter if people on the other side of the aisle have killed doctors, religious minorities, and children, it’s just not a depth that any good person would fall to, regardless of the threat to themselves or their communities.
Thankfully, very few people on the left have resorted to that sort of violence. I understand the fear, but it's generally unwarranted.
And not to play whataboutism, but I'm far more worried for the people potentially in danger from a conservative supreme court.
I'm an upper class white male who doesn't act overtly gay. The trump presidency and conservative majority has probably benefited me more than it has damaged me, but that doesn't stop me from being disgusted or angry at the direction our country is going.
With that being said, I completely agree. I'm not scared for myself - I'm scared for our future and for my friends.
People will fight for their constitutional rights under the law including women's rights, the rights of minorities for equal eduction, the rights of people who no matter their sexual orientation. Yes, they will fight but not you. Just as Martin Luther King advocated nonviolence for change, the vast majority of people who fight for their rights as a whole sentient humans, will honor that. They will be courageous as they have in the past and endure beatings, endure discrimination, endure bullying behavior and worse. History is a teacher.
Honestly, man... seeing this comment from you is incredibly disappointing. IMO there is absolutely no way you couldn't have known the response it would cause. And the more you do this sort of shit the harder it is for me to defend you because even if your intentions are pure, the results (especially caused by your choice of needlessly inflammatory language) are obviously anything but.
this was not intended at all. it doesn't make any sense if adding fuel to the fire was my goal because that is exactly what I was talking about being afraid of in the $$$$ing comment. i obviously messed up because people got so angry. I'd delete it but i don't know if that would even help or make things worse at this point.
You don't need to defend me. I don't care. Believe whatever you want. I'll just stop.
Look, I get that it may be how you genuinely feel... but at a certain point that just isn't enough of a justification. Another SCOTUS seat going to the Republicans and Trump when the last one is largely viewed by Liberals as being unjustly stolen through pure obstructionist tactics is a devastating blow to Liberal minded people in the US especially after the two recent decisions (Immigration ban and Labor unions) went the Conservatives way because of Gorsuch. Under those circumstances, do you honestly not see how inappropriate a comment that essentially amounts to humble bragging is?
No matter how much your coach your language under the pretense of being worried, the only possible outcome to your comment was anger even from moderate Liberals. And you can't even plead total ignorance either since you even acknowledged this situation would likely "[turn] the other side rabid" and yet you still decided to risk throwing fuel on the fire. And the fact you chose to edit in a thinly veiled threat after you had already started getting angry responses certainly doesn't help your case either.
Welcome to how every left-leaning person has felt since November 2016. I really wish I could give you words of comfort, to say this is something you shouldn't worry about, but I don't think that's true. I think if things get worse, that if Trump and the GOP continue shitting all over everything decent and good about this country, that an increasing number of people will feel helpless and resort to extreme measures. That will only escalate Trump supporters, who will feel the need to respond in kind.
It's not that difficult to imagine a Handmaid's Tale-like scenario where a radical group (on either side) coordinates a large-scale attack of some sort. My only hope is that we have some sort of big reset, and soon.
From Margaret Atwood on How She Came to Write The Handmaid’s Tale
I'm honestly surprised to find a Trump voter on here.
Yeah the demographic selected to seed the community with was overwhelmingly anti-trump. I specifically requested an invitation because i liked the sales pitch of "civil conversations" and dedication to privacy. It's not a huge deal of course, politics isn't everything - though it's certainly important.
To be fair, the reason some of us were dissatisfied with reddit in the first place is the ambiguous stand on places like T_D, and various other hate oriented groups. There's a difference between allowing discussion, and outright assholery, doxxing, and brigading. Hopefully Tildes will keep to its message, for your sake and mine.
I feel like you should justify such a provocative statement with a factual basis more than "this is just the way I feel."
Quoting "civility is overrated" as the basis for feeling afraid doesn't really qualify, unless you felt more strongly about the "maybe those second amendment people should take care of her"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
Violently attacking doctors and clinics that perform abortions?
Violently attacking protestors for civil rights?
Violently separating children from their parents at the border?
🤔
So, it's not just a hat anymore. It's an explicit political statement. Anyone who wears one is making a conscious decision to wear it despite the atrocities committed by this administration. It's saying "Not only am I okay with this, not only do I support this, I'm also not ashamed to let everyone around me know."
Why attack someone over wearing a swastika? It's just a swastika.
A few years ago I'd have called your comment out as Holocaust trivialization, but considering we have actual concentration camps, I think the comparison is warranted.
Honestly I felt a bit weird typing it out.
Either I've got a tinfoil hat on and reading into the situation far too much or we're slowly slipping into a dystopian corporatocracy. I don't like the implications of either of these statements.
Attacking someone for being ignorant is not going to change their minds, only reinforce their victim complex and further grow their hatred. Would you attack a kid with mental disabilities because they were wearing a MAGA hat? What if it's a swastika or a "Don't Tread On Me" hat? If you can beat up someone for wearing something that upsets you, does that also give them an excuse to attack you if you happen to wear a Pride hat? Back when I was a mod on reddit, the most common excuse bigots gave me for try to justify their hatred was that it was against their morals and ethics so therefore it was okay.
Just to clarify, I do not think it's okay to just sit back and let bigots be bigots and spread hate. But violence is not the way to change someone's value system.
Agreed, which is why I never advocated for violence.
I must have misinterpreted your comment.
This is the behavior we need more of: the ability to admit their own fault in an debate.
have some... tildes solarized gold...?
Quit being obtuse. No one owns only one hat and that hat is a MAGA hat and they have to wear it to "protect themselves from a sandstorm."
When did I argue that they should be jumped on? I merely pointed out the absurdity of your statement. It's not about the fact that it's a hat, it's about the statement that piece of clothing makes.
Well then, apologies for the obtuseness. If this was reddit,
∆
(On the hat stuff)
/u/starchturrets already said he didn't believe in using using violence against people who don't support your position. Are you calling for an eye for an eye? If not this feels like an appeal to hypocrisy to deflect away from the core point.
Just pointing out some of the history of violence on the other side.
Whataboutism. Obviously these people are included. When someone calls out the unreasonable people on their own side, that's something to be admired. It is NOT an attack on everyone of that political persuasion--just the people who are both of a persuasion and who engage in nasty behaviors.
A more productive version of your comment would have admitted to and agreed that attacking MAGA hat-wearers was not ok, and perhaps then added what you said. An even more productive comment would have looked at the similarities between the unreasonables on both sides and noted them as one body, and as a more dangerous enemy than people who simply disagree. Or mentioned horseshoe theory or something like that.
Seriously, when you support such vile people that other people literally use violent force on you, you may need to rethink your own position.
This is some weird victim blaming..
Do people actually, physically attack Trump voters?
I think so, but as far as I can tell it's never happened just for being a Trump voter. The Trump vote is usually just a part of the negative qualities they exhibited before he even ran for pres.
Speaking out is violence.
This is fairly threatening and patronizing, no? You criticize a view you call "civility is overrated" and then end your comment like this for some reason.
It's worth it. Just be prepared to protect your family if the liberals are really crazy enough to start a war they can't win.
This is patently ridiculous, designed to make yourself a martyr in the event anyone disagrees with you, and buys into some delusional adolescent fantasy of civil war and shooting liberals The Federalist keeps pumping out.
This is abysmal trolling designed to trigger libs or whatever.
I tried pinching myself, but I can't wake up from this nightmare.
I'm surprised ginsburg isn't retiring first. I know she's said that she doesn't want to give Trump the ability to select a conservative justice, but if that was her plan she should have retired during Obama's presidency...
Like many others, she probably didn't expect Trump to win.
Or waited too long and saw what happened with Scalia's seat.
Very good point. As soon as McConnell's "election year" excuse became known, it was too late for her.
Hubris is such a bane. :/
She didn't retire during Obama's presidency because she didn't expect him to be able to replace her with a liberal enough judge.
The Supreme Court may be crucial in the Mueller investigation, as it as been in all previous investigations of a sitting US president. I predict that Trump will apply a loyalty oath requirement in his nomination.
Bush Lawyer: Trump Will Try To Use SCOTUS Pick To Evade Mueller