Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
As if deserving to exist has any bearing on who and what exists and is in control.
figmentPez
Staff member
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.)
There is no way that Democrats could concede "abortion" without setting themselves up to lose the greater fight for bodily autonomy.
EDIT: Also there's no way to stop gun control from being an issue. Even Republicans back some form of gun control. There's no way for a political party to move into a position where they're more pro-gun than BOTH Republicans and Libertarians. Even if you didn't have a mass exodus from the party by people who demand that increased gun control be a party issue, the Right would still label Democrats as the anti-gun party.
Last edited:
To be fair, it's almost certain we're going to have the Democrats split within our lifetimes... it's just that it can't happen until Moderate Republicans abandon their party and join the Democrats.
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.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, because the White Nationalists calling for genocide are totally comparable to someone calling MAGA hat(-wearer)s trash.
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.
Calling people trash - LITERALLY calling people garbage, waste, left-over crap to be disposed of - dehumanizes them; next you'll say that calling them vermin or pests isn't all that bad. The slippery slope isn't always a fallacious argument - we've seen where calling specific people vermin because of their political stance ended up (hint: most of those places were located in Poland).
And of course that's hyperbole and all that, I'm most definitely not saying you're a Nazi or that you're becoming one or whatever else - but it IS a big signifier that you (a more general you) don't even seem to realize it anymore. The tone of political discourse has veered off very, very far from where it was. It's harsh, it's callous, and it's completely ineffective at ever convincing someone to re-examine their beliefs.
And while I'm obviously very much in favor of both parties splitting in two - with perhaps the two moderate parts regrouping, though they really shouldn't - it's not only very unlikely to happen, it's also something that can cause even more problems. As Steve Bannon (of all people!) pointed out, the last time the USA had four-party elections was in 1860.
figmentPez
Staff member
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.
figmentPez
Staff member
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.
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.
figmentPez
Staff member
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.
Trump might, but I don't think the Senate will. McConnell likes the status quo. Violence would ruin that.
As long as there's even a single whisper of civil rights in the platform, the south will stay away.
Now now, let's not be dehumanizing... there are people just as opposed to civil rights in the north too.
/s
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
There. I've said it. It's not a nice thing to say publicly, but it's probably as close to the truth as anything.
That's the platitude, and while there's most definitely some truth to it, I don't think it necessarily holds up anymore...Also, it eqyuates "those hated by the Right" with "the Left", which most certainly isn't always true. The jews in Germany were, for the most part, fairly conservative. The Muslims in Western Europe are by far the most conservative demographic group.They may be the ones being targeted by the Right, that doesn't necessarily make them left.I'd say the other direction is far more rare, but that, too exists - the Tumblr-feminazi-style "all men are evil" crowd is a completely irrelevant minority compared to the reverse, luckily.
It's more generally true in the case of LGBTQ rights, admittedly, though even there the waters can get a bit muddled with openly gay right-wing figureheads.
Lastly, there have been genetic markers found for conservatism and xenophobia; though the research is still going on. Protecting your own tribe and attacking another tribe, delineating a clear us-vs-them, had its evolutionary benefits. Maybe in 20 years' time we'll come to realize they, too, are victims of "who they are". One can still channel those protective energies in a more positive way than genocide, though - being a really big football fan should be more civil.
It's more generally true in the case of LGBTQ rights, admittedly, though even there the waters can get a bit muddled with openly gay right-wing figureheads.
Lastly, there have been genetic markers found for conservatism and xenophobia; though the research is still going on. Protecting your own tribe and attacking another tribe, delineating a clear us-vs-them, had its evolutionary benefits. Maybe in 20 years' time we'll come to realize they, too, are victims of "who they are". One can still channel those protective energies in a more positive way than genocide, though - being a really big football fan should be more civil.
What about the people caught in the middle?
That's the real problem with the posters that started this discussion -- they're counter productive. They aren't dehumanizing because of the insult they deliver to their intended target. They're dehumanizing because people who aren't the intended target think they might be the intended target. Most people aren't going to spend a couple of days on a message board parsing out the exact meaning of a poster (or, for that matter a geographic designation). They're going to see a couple of similarities with the intended target and think the they are being insulted. That's where the counter productivity comes in. Now, the choice isn't between right and wrong, or even right and left, it's about choosing between a group that you have some similarities with, and a group that thinks you're garbage. And that results in one less vote.
"We should kill the wetbacks."
"We shouldn't kill them."
"I think the answer is somewhere in the middle."
"We should kill nearby brown people!"
"We should kill faraway brown people!"
"Uhhh, guys?"
GasBandit
Staff member
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."
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.
GasBandit
Staff member
You're arguing with a religious zealot. Only slightly less pointless than debating policy with the actual bricks of Trump's wall itself.
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.
And if you're saying that sanctuary cities bother you so much that you think killing them might be an ok alternative, then go to hell.
figmentPez
Staff member
Who is promoting this? Not the leaders of the Democrats.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's as accurate a portrayal as "kill all brown people" is of the republicans.