politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I shouldn't be surprised Lemmy thinks this is a good thing. It's really a problem for Democrats, and it's a big reason trump won in the first place. You need people that disagree with you on occasion.
There's a time and place for disagreements, but basic human rights ain't it. If this was the 1980s and we were all arguing over whether the wealthy getting yet another tax break would actually benefit the poor you might have a point. At this point the argument is about whether trans people should be allowed to exist and whether birth right citizenship should be removed (to say nothing of the concentration camps). Those are not disagreements anyone needs to hear.
That happens when groups get into purity spirals. When you push people who mostly agree with you away, they might find people that you really don't agree with.
I don't "mostly agree" with anyone who supports the literal concentration camps currently operating in my country.
Ah more of that enlightened centrist bullshit. FO
Purity spirals? How do you find the middle ground between freedom and fascism?
Yeah, those people are the centrist/slight right Democrats. The Republican party can fuck all the way off. Just because an ideology exists doesn't mean it deserves to be respected.
Writing off half the population is part of the problem. Not all of them are terrible, but if you shun them, the only place accepting them is even further right.
It’s weird that this never applies in reverse. It’s always “Democrats need to be more accommodating.”
It's part of Murc's Law. It's just a given that Republicans can and will behave like broken individuals with psychopathy and arrested development and are completely incapable of getting any better or growing up. It is the responsibility of Democrats to reach out and coddle and "compromise" with such types, even if the Republicans' policies have the end game of these people being erased or imprisoned or excommunicated or treated like second-class citizens....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law
I've been noticing this for decades and could not put my finger on what I objected to, and now that it is named and properly described, holy shit, you just cannot unsee it. It's not confined to the press, it is EVERYWHERE, all the time, and those finger-wagging nannies that try to pull this shit look all the stupider for it now that it has a name...
Probably because Republicans are about 20 points more likely to already be accommodating.
This ain't a sign of tolerance among Republicans.
By accommodations are you referring to the concentration camps?
Oh you meant the poll, which is just their point of view of themselves, it's obviously not reality.
They're fucking liars, dude
Yeah, I don't really care at this point. I'm tired of people acting like it's wrong to not be willing to compromise with a group of people that rubber stamp inhumane treatment of other people. This admin is doing fascist Nazi shit and yet I still see Republicans covering for them and supporting them. Until Republicans can stop condoning and supporting evil, they deserve to be ostracized.
I do not give a single fuck if it drives them further right. Trying to compromise with these people has not done anything but drive them to the far right anyway, so why should they be validated by continuing to take them seriously?
Compromising with them leads them to believe they are right.
It just leads to the Overton window getting dragged even further to the right.
Giving people a pass for being intolerant is writing off the people they are being intolerant towards. And if you actually care about those intolerant people you would shun them in the hope they recognize their mistake instead of coddling them like they're incapable of being an adult.
Shunning them doesn't work work though. It just pushes people to further radicals. Friendship can actually keep people from and sometimes bring them back from extremism. Shunning feels a lot better for the shunner though.
Tough shit,. It is our responsibility to protect people, not to fix every broken man. Even Jesus flipped tables and ran out the money collectors from his house.
He also defended a repentant tax collector.
Yes, because he repented! He didn't defend those who thought they did nothing wrong. Jesus and the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus won't defend you unless you're actually sorry. He is the friend that calls you out on your shit, to your face in front of your peers to the point that you either run away or admit your mistake. What would you call that if not shunning?
Sure.
But once someone votes to put me in a concentration camp they are no longer acting like my friend.
So regardless of their feelings, the friendship is dead.
Struggle sessions are one thing.
Inviting the neighbor over, who voted to take away my healthcare and put me in a concentration camp, is another.
I'm for forgiveness and second chances. But I don't call fascist sympathizers friend.
So no, I don't hang out with folks who voted for Trump. Not without them admitting they fucked up first.
A Rebulican that voted for Harris I'd be far more tolerant of, if such unicorns exist.
I don't think it's good, I think it's unavoidable. For decades the right has been a party of, for lack of a better term, evil. However, they'd hidden it under a cloak of libertarianism/freedom and religiosity. This gave them plausible deniability. Sure, some voters were responding to dog whistles or were otherwise drawn in by the undercurrent of evil, but it was forgivable to vote conservative because the cloak gave them plausible deniability.
Trump threw away the cloak. He'll bring out a fragment of it and wave it around when someone points out hypocrisy, but it's so transparently performative that the plausible deniability is gone. Those in power on the right are openly greedy, hateful, petty, dishonest, racist, authoritarian, fascist, etc. Anyone who still supports them has to either be so ignorant and frustrating to deal with that they aren't worth your time or so willfully ignorant that they are difficult to forgive.
I still think they can figure it out, but the leopard will likely need to eat their face and the faces of everyone they love and go on a villainous "This was my plan all along mwahahahah" speech before that happens. Or Trump will just say "AI, Fake News" and they'll find more loved ones' faces to feed them.
https://lemmy.world/post/38823368
This about sums it up.
Compromise doesn't have to mean meeting in the middle. You could agree to allow abortions and require hospitals to provide guns for newborns.
What's the compromise with the neighbors across the street that voted to put half their neighbors in concentration camps and outlaw abortion?
Do we throw brown folks under the bus? Women? Transfolks like myself?
Which out group do we let them hurt in the name of compromise?
What a load of nonsense.
I watched for 30 years as Democrats tried to be nice and tolerant and compromise with Republicans, and Republicans spat in their face and called them communist traitors every single time. Republicans don't want people who disagree with them, just people who will let them walk all over them.
Trump won because people tolerated the racist uncle, the homophobic grandparents and neighbors, and the anti-vaxxers. And they took that tolerance and used it to propagandize the shit out of everything and everyone, telling people that all their problems are the fault of minorities.