Objection

Good. Since we're the deciding factor, we have increased influence and more negotiating power going forward. Now the democrats (whose slogan is also "No rights!") might actually listen to our demands next time if they don't want to eat shit again.

And if they still won't, then it's obviously necessary to replace them and that has to start somewhere.

God, what a shit perspective.

Comparing someone to a category as an insult is also insulting the people in that category regardless of whether the person it's directed at is part of the category or not. Calling a white person the n-word is offensive to black people, calling a straight person the f-slur is offensive to gay people, and calling neurotypical people the r-slur is offensive to the mentally disabled.

If I call you a "pasta eater" it would only work as an insult if there's an unstated assumption that eating pasta is bad. If I call you "gay" it only works an insult with the unstated assumption that being gay is bad. This isn't rocket science.

I like how you completely ignored my arguments.

Is it acceptable for a white person to tell another white person they're "acting like an [n-word]?" Yes or no.

And i mean, you can make that argument if you want, but then like, where do we stop? Is telling people to kill themselves morally unacceptable

Yes. 🤦 Jfc, "asking me not to use a slur against disabled people is a slippery slope to asking me not to tell people to kill themselves." Fucking, good!

Btw, you can make your argument if you want, but then like, where do we stop? If I call a straight person the f-slur, is that acceptable? I'm not actually saying it at a gay person, I'm just insulting someone by suggesting that they're gay. Is it ok for a white person to tell another white person they're acting like an n-word? Exactly how far are you willing to take this bullshit?

Slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallicious.

I guess it depends on how important you view the economic sphere. To me, ending the post-New Deal era economic consensus and ushering in a new era where the power of organized labor was completely crushed with bipartisan support is the defining aspect of his presidency. He marks the beginning of the "culture war" era, when the people would no longer have any real say over how the economy was run so all that's left is fighting over social issues. It seems to me that it's more like he did a few good things here and there but for the most part he was awful, the death knell for any hope of progressive economic policy for generations.

Carter was more progressive than a typical liberal? He's the one who abandoned unions and the working class in favor of neoliberalism.

The main thing is the bigotry and making marginalized people feel unwelcome and unsafe. Having trans people and Nazis existing in the same space isn't really tenable, in practice, most marginalized people would rather be in a space where their existence and basic rights aren't up for debate and where they won't receive slurs and threats of violence. So the question is, who would you rather have in your community, oppressor or oppressed?

Of course, this person applies this standard blindly by including "tankies" as "right-wingers." She's just abusing a valid argument by using it to dismiss any perspective she doesn't like, left or right, bigoted or accepting, bad faith or good faith, as "right-wing."

[stand up comedian voice] Boy, these Republicans are really something, huh? You know, a lot of people just don't understand why the support the things they do, but the thing you gotta understand, whether you agree with them or not, they're a very principled group of people. You know, you might apply different approaches to different issues, but the Republicans, they apply the same principle whether we're talking about women's rights, or about global trade relations. Yeah. [Beat] Oh you all don't know what I'm talking about, lemme explain what the principle is:

FUCK YOU I HATE YOUR FUCKING GUTS I HOPE YOU DIE also, please let me control your eggs.

When you try to use only sticks and no carrots, people don't do what you want, they just avoid the crazy guy waving a stick around at everybody.

The thing to understand about Christianity is that it was originally a reaction against the Roman empire and then got co-opted and integrated into it. As a result, ever since like the 4th century Christianity has been about basically the opposite of what Jesus talked about. It turns out all that stuff about turning the other cheek stops being relevant if the emperor has his soldiers paint crosses on their shields while they're out conquering and enslaving the Gauls. Of course, you can keep all the mythological stuff, who cares, but anything relevant to politics or the material world mysteriously seemed to reverse once they entered the halls of power.

The carrot of being accepted into the empire was matched with the stick that if you didn't go along with the imperial-approved form of Christianity you'd be burned at the stake as a heretic. Any sects still clinging to anti-imperial sentiment get hunted down and exterminated just like when they were being fed to lions, but it's the Christians doing it to each other now, so you don't even have to get your own hands dirty. This approach worked way better at suppressing dissent than just trying to ban Christianity altogether.

Of course, a lot has changed over the centuries. And originally it wasn't perfect or anything either. But imo, it was when Rome Christianized that Christianity Romanized, and ever since its real values have had more to do with Rome than with Jesus. The meme's, "moneyless, classless, stateless" ideal of heaven is a relic of the original teachings that gets shunted off to the purely mythological side, where it not only doesn't matter, but also occupies a place in their brain that could have otherwise been sympathetic to making good things happen in the material world. That's already resolved, there's no need to worry about it, there'll be pie in sky when you die.