As if deserving to exist has any bearing on who and what exists and is in control.If the Democrats were to abandon their stance on abortion and guns, they wouldn't deserve to exist.
It would split the party. Bodily autonomy, especially, is such a core issue to the Left that you could not just abandon it. Saying it's about abortion is an oversimplification of the issue. Arguably making "abortion" the label for the issue is the Right making an appeal to emotion, trying to force voters to hyper-focus on the most controversial part of the issue, when the greater scope appeals to a much broader demographic. Bodily autonomy hurts corporate interests; it gives women, the poor, and other minorities more control over their lives; it ties back into consent (which is about more than just sex, e.g. EULAs that try to get you to agree to them before you can read them.)Also, I'm incredibly skeptical of that claim that it'd actually work.
It’s more about how if you’re going to call someone out for doing X because of how terrible it is to do X to other people, you don’t help your cause by then doing X right back at them. That’s how wars start. See also the Knights of Ni.That's awfully close to "The people calling people Nazis are the real Nazis".
Yes, because the White Nationalists calling for genocide are totally comparable to someone calling MAGA hat(-wearer)s trash.It’s more about how if you’re going to call someone out for doing X because of how terrible it is to do X to other people, you don’t help your cause by then doing X right back at them. That’s how wars start. See also the Knights of Ni.
It's still dehumanizing the Other Side. "It's nowhere near as bad" doesn't mean it's OK. The End never justifies the Means. Fighting monsters until you become one. Etc etc. Fill in your platitude of choice.Yes, because the White Nationalists calling for genocide are totally comparable to someone calling MAGA hat(-wearer)s trash.
For the record, I'm calling their beliefs trash, and I think that's what the sign makers intended as well. I will fully admit that it's not 100% clear, and that calling people trash is a dangerous thing. Though I would also argue that, for most people, "white trash" refers to trashy behavior, and not to any dehumanization. It's like "couch potato" where most people don't use it to dehumanize, though it can certainly be used that way. Just because someone doesn't say "like a" before they say "potato" doesn't mean they think the person is literally a vegetable.It's still dehumanizing the Other Side.
I see the seeds, but it's not because of those on the Left using harsh language. If this becomes a full-fledged civil conflict it will be because the President is trying to implement a fascist government, and is using racial hatred as a power-base. Theodore Geisel's cartoons portraying Nazis as wolves, snakes, etc. were not the cause of WW2. The Nazis didn't become violent because someone called them names. They were violent because they were racist, xenophobic bigots. The same is true today. The Alt Right, the White Nationalists, the groups that Trump is courting, will become violent the moment they think it is their best (or only) option to stay in power. This violence will not be the fault of their opposition, or of their victims. The blame will solely lie on those who choose the evils of racism and oppression.As I said before, *I* see the connection, the seeds that could easily grow into a full-fledged civil conflict. Do you?
Yeah, this is how it looks to me, but I think it would have to happen before the midterms (assuming Democrats take the House). If he can be halted in any branch, it won't work.I see the seeds, but it's not because of those on the Left using harsh language. If this becomes a full-fledged civil conflict it will be because the President is trying to implement a fascist government...
Democrats gaining control of the House is one of things I'm most worried about inciting violence. I think there's a very real chance of the Right yelling "fake votes" and attempting to use violence to stay in power.Yeah, this is how it looks to me, but I think it would have to happen before the midterms (assuming Democrats take the House). If he can be halted in any branch, it won't work.
Trump might, but I don't think the Senate will. McConnell likes the status quo. Violence would ruin that.Democrats gaining control of the House is one of things I'm most worried about inciting violence. I think there's a very real chance of the Right yelling "fake votes" and attempting to use violence to stay in power.
As long as there's even a single whisper of civil rights in the platform, the south will stay away.If the Democratic Party would remove the planks on abortion and gun control from their party platform, they would probably turn the entire midwest and southern US Democratic.
Now now, let's not be dehumanizing... there are people just as opposed to civil rights in the north too.As long as there's even a single whisper of civil rights in the platform, the south will stay away.
But "Fuck you, n-word" certainly is. And has been the political creed of the South since forever. Explains the Solid South up until the Civil Rights Act, and the swing right ever since.Sure, but "the south shall rise again" isn't really part of their identity
What about the people caught in the middle?The left hates the right for what they do.
The right hates the left for who they are.
"We should kill the wetbacks."What about the people caught in the middle?
"We should kill nearby brown people!""We should kill the wetbacks."
"We shouldn't kill them."
"I think the answer is somewhere in the middle."
Except that isn't what the posters said."We should kill the wetbacks."
"We shouldn't kill them."
"I think the answer is somewhere in the middle."
Completely fallacious argument. You can not want to kill them, but still not support sanctuary cities, want better border security, and have a stance on illegal immigration other than "just let everyone in no questions asked and don't bother checking up on anyone.""We should kill the wetbacks."
"We shouldn't kill them."
"I think the answer is somewhere in the middle."
You're arguing with a religious zealot. Only slightly less pointless than debating policy with the actual bricks of Trump's wall itself.Except that isn't what the posters said.
And, that isn't what I said.
One side is "kill them." The other side isn't. You can have all the nuance you want on the "not kill them" side, but there is very much that side.There IS a middle between the two sides. You just mischaracterize what the two sides are - your own as often as the one you oppose.
Who is promoting this? Not the leaders of the Democrats."just let everyone in no questions asked and don't bother checking up on anyone."
It's as accurate a portrayal as "kill all brown people" is of the republicans.Who is promoting this? Not the leaders of the Democrats.