My best guess is that something was wrong with her that she hid deep inside until it was let out
Probably. Reminds me a lot of the guys back in HS who would be super women positive and “feminist” when girls were in earshot, but say horrendously awful shit when it was “just us guys”(I wasn’t friends with them either, they just thought it was ok to say around guys in general), up to and including rape apologia in at least one instance. All asshole trump supporters now last I knew.
And they wondered why 90% of my friends in HS were girls.
The last conservative I matched with was immediately bragging about being unvaccinated, was in his late 30’s, openly religious, desperate for kids.
If you’re openly conservative, you’re baring your soul about women’s rights, and if women don’t want to sleep with you as a result, you made your damn bed.
Some women dig that. Not every woman believes the same things you do. There’s even a thing called the quiver full movement where people like the duggars deliberately have as many children as possible to outnumber people like you.
If there’s women who dig it, that’s their bag, but I’ve absolutely experienced an influx of conservative dudes trying to match with me and I’m openly liberal. Wild that these women exist but the dudes don’t seem as into them.
Because these guys don’t want the full trade off of gender roles the conservatives promote. Many conservative women expect dating with the intent of marriage and at some point having the husband be able to support a household where the wife stays home and takes care of the house and children.
Accidentally deleted but yeah I’ve noticed an influx of conservative men matching with me despite clear indications that I’m liberal. Unfortunately I do know these sorts of women exist, but maybe conservative men should seek them out instead of someone clearly liberal who doesn’t want to make their body a baby factory.
Alternately, because she’s attractive and some guys are idiots. For some guys “looks” overrides everything else.
It’s unreal how many guy will date a flat out manipulative, immature, mean asshole because she’s “hot”. Compared to that a decent human being is a catch, regardless of if they’re fundamentally incompatible.
That’s been Catholicism’s playbook since day one. There’s a reason they’re so against any kind of sex that doesn’t lead to procreation.
Course, it also used to be rooted in the fact that medicine was trash for a long time, and a lot of kids died, so you’d want to have as many as you could to give some a shot at living a full life. But that’s not the case anymore, so yeah, the only reasons to have as many kids as possible is as you say, to outnumber the sane people, and to keep the working class populated, so we inch closer and closer to Idiocracy becoming reality every day.
I don’t know why. I’m about as pale as you can get, and it is by far the WEAKEST of skin colors. We literally cannot go out in the sun without protection.
Sure, everyone should wear sunscreen, but I can get burnt walking out to the mailbox!
Ah. Sounds like you have fine genes my friend. The best genes.
Have you considered endless breeding?
Not only is it a lot of fun, but you can pass on those great genes you got there.
For real though, I have a red headed daughter and one that should have been a redhead. She got everything but the hair. The freckles, the pale blue eyes. A beam of light comes through the window and she starts smoking. Someone turns on a 100W lightbulb and she blisters. I get what you’re saying.
Most women (and men) believe the things their parents teach them.
The thing with conservatives is they want to 1) prevent any other information flowing to these women, religious indoctrination only 2) get these women pregnant young so that they don’t have a chance to gain independence
So yeah in those cases you have grown women who believe these things. The Duggars are an example of the ‘quiver full’ movement in action. Letting their son abuse their daughters young so that they get used to it and defend it as normal.
My parents used to fearmonger the everliving shit about LGBTQ+ and abortion, and as a small kid I ate that shit up. But then at some point, my brain probably developed some modicum of critical thinking and thought, wait a minute, why in the world does it matter to me what people do with their own lives, if it doesn’t even affect me or anyone else for that matter? Why are my parents, along with every single bigot, incorrectly think that they are entitled to weigh in on someone else’s life decisions?
Every single argument from them boils down to “because religion”, but as someone who was raised Catholic (agnostic now), one of the things that they taught me was quite literally to “love thy neighbour” and to not shit on people only because of their beliefs. So why are the very same people who taught me that now doing the opposite of what they preach, trying (and fortunately failing) to shit on other people just because they don’t have the same beliefs? “My religion says it’s not OK,” well they don’t believe in the same things you do and could not give less of a shit about what you believe, so why not just leave them alone and let them live their life? It was around that point that I realised they were just hypocrites, and absolutely nothing more.
I grew up extremely conservative christian (homeschooled, no tv, women don’t work outside the house) and was taught that anything other than married man and women was evil.
The thing is we were also taught critical thinking and logic albeit it was to compare “new teachings” against the bible. My parents always said since the bible is true [sic] it would stand up to any scrutiny. They thankfully never learned the lesson most christian leaders have that Christianity needs to be mandated for it to be effective. Obviously the bible did not hold up to logic and I’m now a proud atheist and in the process of healing.
Man, that’s worse than what I experienced growing up. Out of curiosity, why did you decide to go with atheism? Personally, I’m agnostic (I think that’s the right term) because I see no compelling evidence or argument for either side, and I am of the opinion that a human’s finite brain could never even come close to figuring out the answer. And no, the Bible isn’t evidence, not one that’s even close to being the slightest bit rigorous at least. To me, it’s as much evidence for Christianity as the Harry Potter books are for wizardry.
That’s not entirely true, most definitions of Agnosticism frame it as a different position from Atheism.
Plus, you don’t have to prove something to believe it, if you’re convinced that there is no god you can define yourself an Atheist, that’s it. Agnostics are just “on the fence” and have no horse in the race.
the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
It is not related to actual knowledge. No matter the claims one can make, no one can be 100% sure whether a god exists or not. It’s called “faith” because people choose to believe despite the lack of irrefutable evidence.
Belief, on the other hand, is definitely a spectrum and you can be convinced or skeptical of affirmations from both sides. There’s also apatheists that simply don’t care whether it exists or not, or Ignostics that question the question itself. There’s plenty of people “on the fence”. The definition of Nontheism for example encompasses all those three, but not Atheism.
Agnostic Atheism is a position that’s very close to Atheism, but not all Agnostics are Agnostic Atheists.
I relate a lot to this. If asked “does God exist?”, my personal belief is always that we don’t know and that we will never know, and it doesn’t matter anyways so why bother? I do certainly see some value in religion, in that it does bring a lot of people comfort when faced with the concept of mortality, and that religious organisations do a lot of charity (this is true where I come from, at least). However, I do think that said value has been greatly diminished, if not perhaps even eliminated entirely, in the face of the attrocities people have committed in the name of religion, i.e. attempts at restricting women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, etc.
Belief is not a choice, you’re either convinced or you’re not.
Wikipedia can also be wrong on various topics so let’s not get nitpicky. But, if you want to look up Gnosticism on Wikipedia, you’ll see that being a gnostic means having knowledge.
So people can be either theists or atheists and at the same time gnostic or agnostic.
A gnostic theist would mean they believe and also know a god exists.
An angostic atheist doesn’t believe and also doesn’t know a god doesn’t exists. That’s most of us atheists.
So people can’t be on the fence and say I’m agnostic, that doesn’t tell anything about what they believe.
And when it comes to belief, you are either convinced or you’re not. There’s no middle ground.
I think we’re just entering semantics at this point. “Agnostic” has been used plenty of times as a position in itself separate from “Atheist”: even Thomas H. Huxley, who created the term, saw it as a specifically distinct thing from atheism, and so did Darwin and Ross at the time.
You can indeed have middle ground on beliefs, and the term has been invented for that exact reason: Huxley didn’t feel like he fit in any of the definitions that existed at the time.
The journey went: disappointment with God, angry at God, apathetic, agnostic, then atheist. I considered myself agnostic for a long time but it always felt a bit like a compromise for me, like it’s more palatable to think “Oh, I just don’t know one way or another” over seeing god as a stopgap for holes in knowledge.
Rather than the approach of attributing less and less to the divine over time, I decided to attribute nothing and go from there.
Saying that one can’t disprove god’s existence feels the same to me as saying a watermelon is blue inside until it’s observed.
Regarding your last point, we only know that the flesh of a watermelon is indeed red because we’ve seen it before. If, say, an alien would suddenly come to Earth and be presented with a watermelon, they would not know what colour it is without cracking it open or otherwise probing it with various tools (granted of course that they perceive colour like we do)
Attributing nothing to the divine is also the way I go about it. We have scientific explanations for most phenomenon we see on a daily basis, and for those we do not, I do think we will find scientific explanations for them one day. None of the mysteries of the universe that would later be answered have been caused by the supernatural, so I have no reason to think it will be different.
However, I do think that a lack of observable trace of a “divine being” is not necessarily an evidence of nonexistence. To me, my agnosticism is not a form of compromise, but a recognition of the limitations of humans, as well as an acknowledgement relative inconsequence the question of whether a divine being exists or not is to the universe and to my own life. If nothing in my life or in the known universe can be attributed to the divine, why does it matter whether it exists or not? If an extraterrestrial exists in some distant galaxy, surely it would not matter to them whether I exist or not. That’s the way I think of the idea of divine beings.
Anyways, it’s kind of great to be able to ramble about this on the internet, most of the people I know are religious and unfortunately would not be very tolerant of this type of viewpoint.
You seem to have confused Conservative politics with Fundamentalist Christianity. They are separate ideals but hard to find separately currently. Somebody can be a fiscal conservative and not buy into the social fundamental conservative position.
Check again, conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative and have not been for several decades. That facade has entirely fallen away to reveal the real:
fundamentalist christians
racists
filthy rich people who want tax cuts for the rich (do not confuse this with being fiscally conservative)
Those two sentences are unrelated since the GOP is pretty explicitly against freedom of speech given all their book banning and don't say gay bills and the like. Unless you're defining freedom of speech their absolutely brain dead way they use it of 'We're free to openly be as big of a piece of shit as we like with no consequences. If you use your freedom of speech to call us out, or use your freedom of association to kick us off your property you're oppressing us' in which case yeah, that's still a bad policy, naming a bad policy after a good one to trick people doesn't make it a good policy
Freedom of speech means you can’t be arrested for what you say. Any policies that ban certain types of speech are very clearly unconstitutional.
We’re free to openly be as big of a piece of shit as we like with no consequences. If you use your freedom of speech to call us out, or use your freedom of association to kick us off your property you’re oppressing us
Using freedom of speech to defend your opinion is literally saying “my opinion is valid because it’s not illegal”.
So the GOP is by policy against freedom of speech as you've defined it, and is passing laws that are unconstitutional, and thus the initial mention of freedom of speech is a non sequitur not intended as an example of GOP policy that isn't bad, got it, glad we established that. So do you have any examples of policies the GOP does have that aren't bad?
That is exactly what fiscally conservative means. That’s 100% what I expect when a politician has conservative economic views. Conservatives value keeping the status quo, and the status quo is capitalism, with the rich getting richer.
yeah, but people not in the know think it just means ‘prudent government spending’. What it actually means is funnel as much money from the government/taxpayer to the existing rich as possible. I think we are saying the same thing, cheers
That has nothing to do with conservatism. Just because some people who are conservative said that, doesn’t mean that that’s a part of it. Please attack specific ideas, not groups of people.
When you don’t actively kick out the terrible people in your group, you are making a choice to say “this is something I am willing to tolerate.” So I’ll ask, if you are a conservative and recognize that there are bad actors in your conservative party, are you calling out those bad actors? Or just putting your head down and joining rank and file because your party told you to?
I’m not a member of a political party. I vote for candidates, not parties. If you just vote for a specific party, which ever one that may be, that’s lazy. I don’t care if they’re republican or democrat, I care about what they value.
Also, you can’t really actively kick out member from a party, all you can do is just not vote for them.
It doesn’t matter what the political situation is, you should vote for specific candidates, not just blindly vote for your party, whichever one that may be, and then call anyone who doesn’t fully support your party evil.
You seem like an idealist, which I have some respect for, but you also have to account for reality. And the reality is, we don’t really vote for individual candidates anymore. We vote for one party or the other to have an additional vote. Elected politicians hardly ever vote outside of their party anymore. It’s not ideal but it is reality. If you vote for multiple candidates of different political parties, you’re just making noise.
And that’s a bad systematic problem. But voting based on the candidate should help to slowly fix it. While there is a very clear difference between democrat and republican, there are still differences between candidates of the same party.
If you vote only for the candidates that are closest to the center, then candidates will compete to be closer. But if you just vote for a party, then the candidates have to no incentive to compete.
Also, it’s basically impossible to get rid of supreme court justices, and for good reason. It allows them to rule on cases based only on what they legitimately believe to be the correct decision. The supreme court’s job isn’t to decide right from wrong, it’s to decide legal from illegal. If you don’t like their ruling, the way to change it should be through Congress, not though the courts.
ngl, last time some conservative started flirting with me she got pissed of when i said i wasnt interested because they were a tory flag shagger, and then she called me a slur because im queer
to be fair, the idea of voting with money still sucks because it gives some people a lot more votes than others, but when wannabe future billionaire conservatives can’t even get presently rich people to play along with their bootlicker bullshit that’s just funny
Not when they’re the ones boycotting businesses. “go woke go broke!!” is fantastic, according to the same people who are obsessed with opposing “cancel culture”.
It's pure projection. They put up a wall thinking that they're the ones choosing, but they're actually the ones that aren't attractive to others because of the black-and-white way they see the world.
It ain’t a conspiracy if it’s happening in front of your own eyes. Any thoughts on the gay song about ‘coming for your children’? I’m sure you’re going to say it’s just tongue-and-cheek humor.
My answer to that song would be: We live in a multicultural world and if you don’t teach your kids to accept other peoples choices they say that they will.
The more bigoted parents are, and the more parents say “Stay away from them!” the more teenagers are drawn to the LGBT community and will see that its their parents that’s wrong.
Sounds like you're suffering from an acute case of 'feels before reals' to me.
Not particularly surprising or shocking that women are less likely to date men who vote conservative. Ignoring the simple fact that the data suggests America is becoming less tolerant of intolerance, and that conservatives are increasingly out of step with majority opinion, the recent abortion thing is a real lady boner killer, as is making excuses for a convicted sex offender.
Straw man. I never said trans men have no advantage. Keep to the topic at hand, rather than trying to go on a tangent. It's transparent, and many will assume you're doing it because you know you can't win the argument.
Conservative guys complain about women not wanting to date them. People date people they share values with.
Assuming non-conservative women are all 'whores' who sleep around is incel nonsense. If they're choosing not to date conservative men, a large proportion of men, if anything they're being selective. The opposite of being promiscuous. Data also suggests young women have less sex than previous generations. Most sex happens in long term stable relationships.
If you assume the rest of us know what a MAP is, you've likely spent too much time in an echo chamber. It's pretty weird if I'm honest, like if someone mentioned a scientology term and assumed average people knew what they were talking about.
I would be glad
But you're not happy about it, are you? Be honest with yourself. You wouldn't call them whores if you were happy about it. You would live and let live.
Go to any online community full of incels and you’ll see they’re all conservative - and that their conservative ideals have a huge impact on how they treat women.
Incels have less to do with politics and more to do with personal experiences they’ve had. You’re bringing in politics where it doesn’t belong. If they start waving the LGTV flag, that still isn’t going to get them pussy.
I wish the rest of the conservatives would agree with you, but here they are banging on about ‘women shouldn’t be able to divorce their husbands’ and whining online about ‘the great replacement’ because we don’t want to fuck them
Lol, I swear - “you’re taking our rights “ I’m not sure what rights they’re bitching about but I’m assuming it’s abortion this time. To take away your abortion rights someone has to be willing to nut inside you first.
This is why I don’t fuck guys who “don’t pay attention to politics”.
That means one thing, and it isn’t that they are blissfully unaware of the day to day happenings in their town, county, state, region, country, or planet of residence.
I was responding to the previous comment, not OP. OP was saying conservatives get upset when people won’t sleep with them because they’re conservative. From the text of the comment I responded to, it looks like the person is saying “moderates” just don’t care about anyone but themselves. I’m adding that often the people the actual OP is talking about pretend to be the moderates the previous commenter is discussing.
It depends on why they don’t pay attention to politics. Personally, I kind of have to go ostrich-mode and bury my head in the sand when school gets stressful because I just don’t have the mental bandwidth to deal with both. I’m not going to judge someone too harshly for protecting their mental health from the absolute shitshow that is the American political landscape.
PS: This is not to say that any degree of modern conservatism is okay. Bigots can go fuck themselves and I’d be out punching Nazis and being a medic at protests if it didn’t jeopardize my future so significantly. (Felony convictions make it really hard to get a medical license and I have to pay off my student loans somehow. Besides, I’ll be in a much better position to make a meaningful difference as a physician than as a heavily indebted student or EMT.)
this. you can pay little attention to politics without being a “centrist” who isn’t actually a centrist. news can be depressing as fuck, i’m hella glad i strongly limited my consumption of them, but that doesn’t mean i’m gonna start both-sidesing shit. (with the exception of tankies vs nazis, because those two are in fact the same authoritarian, anti-west, bigoted crap under different flags that love to larp against each other)
In my experience, that’s the case 100% of the time. I’ve never once in my 30+ years heard a liberal say the same thing. It’s always Nazis Republicans trying to deflect and sweep their shitty views under the rug because they think it’s some kind of trump card to get around their awful views and have civilized society allow them back in so they can spread their hate.
I think there’s a difference between someone who doesn’t pay attention to politics and someone who just doesn’t want to argue politics. Someone who doesn’t pay attention to politics at all is too sheltered and doesn’t understand the issues that have been going on and affect a lot of people, so a lot of those people don’t want to date someone who won’t be able to understand something vital to them and that has an effect on their lives. Especially since someone who hasn’t been paying attention likely doesn’t have a lot of the same principles and beliefs.
This is my go-to response whenever anyone wants to start talking politics with me. Mainly because whenever someone wants to talk politics it’s usually not because they’re liberal and I really hate talking with people who just want to prove that their opinion is the right one.
I’ll admit I’ve used it for similar reasons. What I really should be saying is “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to talk about this right now.” Maybe I’ll even be brave and say “I don’t want to talk about this with you.” but it’s rare for me to find a person I don’t want to hear at all from. That usually comes up because they’ve already made their arguments, and I’ve already accepted or rebuttal the points to my own satisfaction. At that point they’ll talk themselves into circles looking for justification for parts of their stance, but unable to articulate it themselves. I’ll listen to anyone’s views at least once, given I’m in the right mindset, but I still wouldn’t date someone I don’t morally agree with. Life partners should have higher standards than conversation partners, and aligning values is a bare minimum for relationships.
I bartend. I was working on Easter, and one of our semi regulars came in with a guy that she was obviously on a drink date with. They’d been at at least one other bar before they came in; they’d had a couple drinks, but weren’t past maybe tipsy.
At one point, she mentioned that the reason the last place they’d been to was slow was likely that it happened to be Easter. At the mention of the word the guy interrupted with,
“I REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT ANY POLITICS OR RELIGION!!”
To me this was a sign that this dude cared very much about religion and politics, but just like how scientologists don’t drop the Xenu shit on you right away, he wanted to wait until any prospective partner was in too deep before revealing how abhorrent his views are.
That regular isn’t my favorite person, but I was proud of her for pretty much ending that date after that.
I’ve never had anyone who said politics and religion aren’t good conversation actually be worth having those conversations with. Everyone else from every other walk of life has no problem having a nuanced conversation about that stuff, it’s only ever WASPs that get all indignant and force everyone else to stop talking.
One of my coworkers had asked something about trans people and bathrooms, and I started to say my piece, but mid sentence the owner comes back like “under no circumstances are you allowed to have this conversation here”.
Oh yeah, so threatening to say that I don’t care who is in what bathroom if they don’t do anything that violates another guests bodily autonomy.
So controversial and brave.
We’ve spent plenty of time talking about the different racist inspired restaurants in the area and the deplorable dog whistle specials they offer, never cared about that offending anyone.
The restaurant in question was the MoonCricket Grille, and they were offering $0.49 Bud lights after the outrage about them in honor of the 49 who died at the Pulse nightclub.
That’s literally a bar rule. Lol. Alcohol makes people talk like they are on the internet in real life. Doesn’t make sense to discuss nuance when you’ve been drinking especially with the touchy subjects.
You realise that beliefs are a shifting scale, right? Not everybody with beliefs right of center are alt-right Nazis. I can't stand those people either.
I used to be similar to you, until I met people with a whole host of opinions. I wish you well.
Never said you were, but that doesnt mean the cutoff point has to be all the way "out there" for conservative and problematic in the long run.
Besides, what do you even know about "me" given you say you used to "be like me"? You know, well perhaps not nothing but not much. And i too have met people with lots of different oppinions, yet i didnt leap towards the right, quite the opposite in fact. So... if you "used to be similar to me", well then you're close to falling into the deep end.
Here is some free advice: careful with what you assume you know about someone you never met before.
Yeah, that's a fair point about assumption, was a bit silly of me. I'm responding to a few people of the same stance as you so it all kind of blurs into one. Kbin needs some default profile pic rather than a black square.
Oof. You’ve just said that you either have an inability to process a simple aphorism, or, worse, you think it’s fine to ally with Nazis, effectively proving the truth of the aphorism.
You realise that beliefs are a shifting scale, right?
We’re discussing ideologies of hate, exclusion, and domination. Such ideologies do not tolerate anything less than absolute compliance. So no, there’s no shifting scale here; your side won’t allow there to be one.
.... do you think that conservative positions don't impact other people?
My guy, I can rattle off at least half a dozen conservative bugaboos without which I would be quite literally dead. Don't give me the "Well, it's just their opinion!" bullshit.
I'm a mentally ill cripple with multiple chronic illnesses and severe social anxiety. I've been in spots in my life before where government assistance of multiple kinds has been the difference between life and death. Don't give me the 'You're being dramatic' bullshit unless you've vomited blood to the point of near exsanguination, had to ration life-saving medication, had breakdowns on the side of a freeway, shattered a thigh, went quite literally without food for days for lack of means, etc etc etc etc. In all of those cases, government programs have, at least once and often multiple times, been the difference between life and death for me.
Isn’t it amazing how detached people can be from the real-world effects of their thoughts and beliefs, so long as they don’t get to personally experience their impact?
I've personally experienced a universal healthcare system and its effects. It killed a family member and almost killed me.
Sorry for that guy's experiences, but the sort of things he went through are systems and programmes you'd get in most governments throughout the whole political landscape.
Is the view that this wouldn’t have happened under private healthcare predicated on something in particular? It’s not like private healthcare is somehow fundamentally immune to malpractice.
In the UK where there's universal healthcare, we had Dr. Harold Shipman who murdered a lot, and a current court case with Lucy Letby who killed 8 newborns. Malpractice happens in every system regardless of how it's funded.
Probably not the place for a discussion about healthcare systems on a meme shitpost thread, but I do think there's better alternatives to universal healthcare where standards usually drop for everybody. Obviously, there's some godawful private systems too, just look at America.
I’ll note that it’s extremely hard to vet for that sort of behaviour in doctors and preempt the cases you’ve described from happening - they could have just as easily happened under private healthcare.
nice anecdotes. the data say more socialized systems have better performance overall, time and time again.
i would link you, but being a smart conservative, i’m sure you know the googles and how to separate emotional arguments and facebook memes from reporting on data-driven studies.
Having lived in two countries with universal health care and in the states I can safely say you are full of shit and the American system only works if you have a ton of money.
One of my good friends got fired after being diagnosed with cancer and because she made over the amount for Medicare already she was out of pocket until the next year.
That’s a cruel system where you buy your way into the line.
And how many people in your country have medical debt, which can stretch into hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars? As someone who’s got extensive experience with a decent tier of US healthcare, it blows, and this system is perfectly capable of fucking up and killing people. People with national healthcare who don’t appreciate it) like British Conservatives, which I’d guess from spelling and syntax is what you are) have no fucking idea. You have never seen someone coughing up blood not go to the doctor because of what it would cost, only for you to make her go to the emergency room, which you know coukd ruin her life, because you thought she might die. I have, with a friend in college. She turned out ok, but plenty don’t. Obamacare marginally improved things, but if you haven’t dealt with a for-profit health system, then you should be spending more time listening before assuming it’s better than yours.
my grandpa died because of the inadequacy of my country’s public healthcare system. i’m still not gonna advocate for the privatization of healthcare, because yes, private healthcare exists too, guess what, it doesn’t apply to everyone (and didn’t happen to apply to my grandpa). that’s quite literally the point of making it private and paywalled, if you don’t or can’t pay up, you’re shit out of luck.
universal healthcare isn’t perfect, but it’s still better to provide it than to not do so. especially since if you know how the free market works, you should also know that if either supply or demand is inflexible that leads to market exploitation, and demand is static without a government baseline. if people receive universal healthcare, then private options can still exist, but using them is an option, not an imperative, and therefore the market can actually do its thing.
same goes for other issues like housing. why do you think the prices are skyrocketing? you can say no to, idk, a tv, and just watch shit on your phone instead, so tv prices are sane, but if you say no to housing means you’ll live on the street. some people do try that, which is why van life is so frickin popular lately, but for the most part, the demand for housing is the same no matter what the supply side does, so it will just skyrocket. the invisible hand can’t work if you tie one of the hands.
So they shouldn’t want better life conditions for themselves? You don’t want any improvment for even yourself? Please tell me you are a troll or a bot.
Yeah, I literally could not afford to be alive due to the insanity of the US healthcare system, and multiple chronic diseases which hit me in my 30s and resulted in several ER visits and requirement of very expensive medication. Meanwhile republican politicians pretty much jerk off with glee about taking away my access to healthcare, which would literally kill me. Not sure how “I’m not that conservative! I’m one of the good ones! I just vote for people who want you to die!” folks expect me to feel.
If the beliefs in question are like, banning books, oppressing gender identities, removing reproductive rights, oppressing the needy, undermining elections with baseless conspiraciesand selling out to the highest bidders, then yeah, they and their beliefs can suck a fuck.
My favorite thing is when a conservative finds themselves outside of one their safe-space, echo chambers and are shocked to discover that not only do regular people not agree with them, but they find their views so abhorrent that they actively view all conservatives as complete pieces of shit. And they are not wrong to do so.
i’m the real bigot because i dont want to shag someone who happily advocates for making it as hard as possible for me to get gender affirming healthcare and openly supports the neoliberal privatisation that’s devastated my country?
yes i very openly discriminate against conservatives, i have no plans for stopping or apologising
Hello! You have fallen into the tolerance paradox; how can you be tolerant when you’re intolerant to intolerance? Easy I’m tolerant because I don’t tolerate intolerance. Beliefs aren’t equal, anyone who believes in inferiority or inequal treatment for reasons outside ones control should be called out. It is not a live and let live mindset, it’s a “live the way I tell you to or you’re a bigot” doesn’t sound very liberty loving to me. You can dislike it, you can rant, but once you limit peoples access to equal rights and treatment you’re infringing on their rights. Any freedom loving American can respect that.
Conservatives: “We don’t believe that you should have full control over your body and will happily pass laws to prevent you from exercising that control, including laws that will send you to prison for a life-saving medical procedure.”
Women: “oh fuck. Wow. Uh. Okay, I will not be associating with you.”
You: “WOAHHHHH WOAHHHHHHHH WOW CALM DOWN THERE LITTLE MISS BIGOT HOW ABOUT SOME RESPECT FOR PEOPLE HUH?”
Believe it or not, it’s perfectly normal to only want a relationship with someone who shares your core values. You conservatives (don’t lie) might understand that if you actually tried to have an actual relationship with someone instead of trying to establish ownership over them.
You’ll notice that on the list of things that are illegal to discriminate against, everything is either an immutable part of the person (national origin, race, gender) or is something that is unethical to ask a person to change about themselves (religion).
Political beliefs are nowhere on the list, because they’re not immutable and it’s not unethical to ask somebody to change them.
Discriminating against somebody for their political affiliation or political beliefs is legal and, in some cases, moral/ethical.
(As an aside, this is what makes all the people wanting to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds so egregious; they always had the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people on political grounds, but that wasn’t enough for them. They had to do it “in the name of God.”)
I don’t think that asking someone to change their religion is unethical, at least if asking them to stop being religious. In most cases, religion is not all that different from politics, with religion being central to various modern and historical states. At best, religion to someone is just a set of unsubstantiated beliefs. In less good cases, they’ll proselytize and be pushy about it and make bad personal decisions and use their religion to justify it. At worst, they use it as a political tool, using it as a justification to be discriminatory and exclusionary. Many wars and other atrocities in history have been for religion or catalyzed by it. Encouraging people to step away from delusion that has a historical tendency to cause mass violence shouldn’t be wrong to do. It’s protected legally in much of the west because it’s useful as a political tool. It’s easier to use religious rhetoric as a way to push other political goals than it is to fight against and let others embrace it the same.
I don’t mind their different beliefs, what matters is the fact that they try to force it on everyone else. You think being gay is bad? Then don’t be gay yourseld. You think getting an abortion is bad? Then don’t get an abortion. But the moment you try to force that on anyone else is the moment you’re inviting the world to shit on you. After all, no one is passing laws to discriminate against straight cis people, or forcing everyone to get an abortion.
Gonna have to agree to disagree on that one, barring very different understandings of the word “stupidity.” Cognition and action are different things, and pretending they’re the same doesn’t improve the efficacy of interventions.
Ignorance is a choice, too. I’ve met so many people who are proud of being ignorant. I once met a woman who was in her mid 30s who was explicitly against learning new things because…reasons?
Seriously, conservatives want to pretend like we’re all just regular people so what do our political views matter right? But if The last 8 years have taught me anything it is that every conservative is some level of a bigot, even if you can get along with them, purely based off their political goals. Sorry, you can’t just work your ass off to deny people rights and sequester people you don’t like, then call it a “political view”.
Well, Republicans tend to vote for policies that go against their own self-interests if they get boogeyman’s enough by Tucker and Donald, so it wouldn’t surprise me that there exist Conservative women who date against their own self interests.
Add comment