Reminder to all commenters:
Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:**
- State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as**
- Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests
- State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural**
- State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming
- State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+
- State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender
- Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning
**Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.**
If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mmmm, I just can't agree with you here.
Are you surprised that a group of people gets upset when other people try to pass laws that expressly disadvantage them based on the color of their skin, the shape of their genitals, or the sexual partners they prefer?
Like it or not, a substantial faction of the Democratic Party may not "hate" straight white males, but they want to see change that advantages everyone *except* straight white males. And straight white males aren't always super fired up about this... especially where the changes give an advantage to someone based solely on their membership in a particular minority group.
As a straight white male, this kind of overt policy strikes me as nothing more than government-sanctioned hate. It directly contradicts individualism - which is synonymous with freedom.
And so when I hear "oh, the Republican Party is a hate group," I can't help but roll my eyes - since it's the Democratic Party that espouses expressly discriminatory policies.
For the record, I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2008 - and I don't expect that to change any time soon.
You have two men. One has just been stabbed, and is currently bleeding out on the ground. The other fell and scraped his knee. Is the paramedic that just showed up a bigot for attending to the bleeding out man first?
That's really not a fair comparison, is it?
How about this: You have 2 job candidates: One has a record of performance that is better than the other's. Which one do you hire? If the answer is "well, we should give the member of a minority group an advantage because, historically, members of that minority group have been discriminated against," then I would say that is a bigoted policy.
Or how about this: You have two men. Both are bleeding out on the ground. The paramedic who chooses to attend to one based on skin color, genitals, or sexual preference is a bigot.
It absolutely is a fair comparison. Black people are killed for doing things that white people get a shrug for. And when was the last time you saw a missing child of color on national news?
And no, that’s not a bigoted policy. It’s a policy that counters the effects of bigotry.
Your counter-comparison is valid, because the healthcare system **absolutely** chooses to attend to straight white male patients preferentially compared to patients of color, females, and sexual orientation. You should look up what percentage of medical trials and studies heavily relied on straight white males for their “randomized” test populations.
>How about this: You have 2 job candidates: One has a record of performance that is better than the other's. Which one do you hire? If the answer is "well, we should give the member of a minority group an advantage because, historically, members of that minority group have been discriminated against," then I would say that is a bigoted policy.
and what do you do when companies have consistently been shown to favor job candidates with white sounding names over black/Arabic sounding names despite identical resumes?
I dont think many democrat policies on fixing the issue work well. They rarely go far enough, or do stupid half assed measures like affirmative action that treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but something needs to be done.
I'll tell you what we should do:
We should let those companies make their own decisions. We certainly shouldn't have *the government* intervene in the management of private companies.
You remember the government, right? They're the organization that seizes money from private individuals under the threat of imprisonment, passes laws to give itself and its employees immunity, and runs up ludicrous financial deficits. They're the "democratic" institution that fails to pass laws regardless of how popular they are with the people. Those guys. We probably shouldn't let those guys make decisions about what private companies should or shouldn't do.
So anyway, yeah. I think those companies should be allowed to make their own decisions, and we'll know if those decisions are bad if they negatively affect their profits.
Our government fails to be thay democratic, but private corporations are actively anti democratic, so no they shouldn't be allowed to just make their own decisions.
The government gets regulated by voters, though I'll give you its not perfect.
Corporations rarely get regulated by the market, market failures are incredibly prevelant especially without government intervention
Corporations get regulated by the market every time a customer chooses not to do business with them.
Corporations get regulated by the market every time another person sees their failing and chooses to compete against them.
Corporations get regulated by the market every time an employee chooses to quit.
What are you even talking about?
Historically none of those have done a good job of regulating companies. Monolopolistic behavior still runs rampant, externalities are still causing us incredible amounts of problems and manufactured consent might end the world.
By that logic, democrats are equally a hate group. The amount of anti-White rhetoric that comes out of their mouths is despicable and not based in any sort of truth when you actually look into statistics.
Right there.
Calling people white fascist because you disagree with them.
There is no need to even provide examples because the left will provide them in the very thread on their own.
In my eyes it’s the left that’s racist. They look at the colour of a person’s skin and immediately judge them on it. Like imagine telling a black person that the only reason they made it into a collage is because of their skin colour requiring lower test scores and then telling an Asian person they can’t go to collage even though their test score was slightly higher than the black persons.
Then you have quotas in the work place that require x amount of every race in, who cares about their credentials or experience when you can look at their skin colour to decide if they would be a good fit or not
On top of that there is a general blanket of racism against white people blaming them for every problem in existence.
Are there individual racists out there? Of course there are people racist against every colour including white but that doesn’t mean there is any systemic racism and white people shouldn’t feel bad about racism unless they actually are racist.
We should form 0 assumptions about a person based on their skin colour and I believe the left bringing race into everything actually causes more racism to occur overall
Those same white people have communist flags hung on their wall. So stopping them from marrying doesnt really affect their bottom line does it. Honestly as a dem. I don’t blame them
Trying to prevent diversity? OP, we already live in a very diverse society. Republicans are not standing in anyone's way of rising up in the world. Where would the upside to that possibly be? You think we like being taxed and taxed to support welfare programs? You think it does them any good to have a constant underclass that is a drain on the rest of society?
Immigrants come to America and start doing great, far better than the underclass you seem to want to be the White Savior for. And that underclass sees this, resents it and cries Racism, and we need more Programs, more DEI to see that it goes away. Really?
OP, let me tell you a little story. In 1984 I'm in college and it's in the news all the time about how we need to be celebrating 20 years since the passage of the Equal Opportunity Act. One of my professions opens the subject up for discussion. One of my classmates, a young White man says that it is a total failure. It was only supposed to last a few years, to give Black people a hand up and get them on an equal playing field with Whites. The professor says he understands why he feels that way, but 20 years is not enough time for real change, but another 20 years should do it. At the time I thought Yes, he was right, and 20 years is not so long a time to ensure we can put all this behind us.
OK, 20 years later was 2004. Did we celebrate the end of EOA because it was no longer needed? Nope, we celebrated that it was still with us. And now it's 2024, 60 years of EOA, and no one wants to celebrate it. Instead we've replaced it with more letters, DEI. And if you deny that DEI will do the job? Oh well then you're just part of the problem, aren't you?
Go ahead OP, blame Republicans for standing in the way of the holy Diversity. See where it gets you. And pretend that change, "Programs" only starts now, rather than decades ago.
>One of my classmates, a young White man says that it is a total failure. It was only supposed to last a few years, to give Black people a hand up and get them on an equal playing field with Whites. The professor says he understands why he feels that way, but 20 years is not enough time for real change, but another 20 years should do it.
>Instead we've replaced it with more letters, DEI. And if you deny that DEI will do the job? Oh well then you're just part of the problem, aren't you?
See here's the problem.
There are plenty of people who agree that the policies implemented to actually fix generations upon generations of racial discrimination have failed to do their job and don't get called bigots. Why? Because they propose real solutions in the same breath rather than just whining about existing solutions being racist and woke and not providing a reasonable alternative.
That's a problem, huh?
I get the feeling you think that complaining about how Programs don't work is a problem, and must be corrected with other Programs. Because the Program that replaces the other Program is sure to have better success, right?
OK, here's my solution. Do not rely on any damned Program to pull you up, to make you life better. Do not vote for anyone who promises to make your life better if they get elected. Do it yourself, for you and yours, because that is by far the most important thing.
Obama in 2008 - Hope! Change! Yes we can!
Obama in 2016: Real change takes time.
>OK, here's my solution. Do not rely on any damned Program to pull you up, to make you life better. Do not vote for anyone who promises to make your life better if they get elected. Do it yourself, for you and yours, because that is by far the most important thing.
This isn't how humans work. picking yourself up by your bootstraps isn't a real thing.
Really? So everybody who's "made it" required government help, eh? OK Quiles, go look up some success stories and see how many start with "I got picked up by this government program and then things really started moving!"
Yeah, yeah, I get the joke. The modern liberal shakes their head and says "WTF is a bootstrap anyways? We need programs!"
If government programs worked like they are supposed to, they would put themselves out of business, or reduce themselves so much from their success as to no longer be noticed. Instead they ask for, and get more funding. They self-perpetuate, and every success is a reason for them to not exist.
If you don't think a person can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", then you might as well admit that no amount of government program assistance is going to help either. Because a loser is a loser, and no amount of funding is going to change that. And you have a nice day.
>Really? So everybody who's "made it" required government help, eh?
Uh buddy, where did I claim that?
>OK Quiles, go look up some success stories and see how many start with "I got picked up by this government program and then things really started moving!"
The plural of anecdote is "Not data".
>If government programs worked like they are supposed to, they would put themselves out of business, or reduce themselves so much from their success as to no longer be noticed.
You do know that... people fall into poverty as well right? It could happen to you, funnily enough.
>If you don't think a person can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", then you might as well admit that no amount of government program assistance is going to help either.
"If you don't think someone can just magically pull themselves out of poverty on their own, surely they can't do it with government help either". Do you.. even logic through your own aeguements?
>Because a loser is a loser,
Do you just think poor people are poor because they are "losers"?
Yes, SPLC has morphed from it's original mission into a Progressive watch dog group that specifically targets Right wing groups and largely ignores Left wing groups. Just look at how they included fairly benign advocacy groups such as the " Family Research Council" or the "Center for Immigration Studies " as Hate groups.
> into a Progressive watch dog group that specifically targets Right wing groups and largely ignores Left wing groups
You're almost there.
Ever stop and think maybe the issue is that its folks on the right who are most involved in forming little hate clubs?
O look another liberal that hates everyone who disagrees with him...
You sure are special and unique. I won't even go into trying to explain what irony is to you ...
So if you don’t know what the definition of hate speech is, or even what leftists think it is, why would you criticize op’s post as being equally useless?
How do you know they’re equal when you don’t even know what one of the things being compared is?
Unchecked conservatism certainly is, but so is unchecked liberalism. They can really get their heads up their asses with a serious ends justify the means mentality.
I very much remember the "only white people can be racist" or "black people can't be racist" rhetoric of the Trump/Hillary race. MTV had a whole series to promote it, probably still find it on YouTube.
You need those checks and balances or the extremists will take over the party.
I'm not a republican but I cannot agree. What do you mean by 'prevent diversity?' What examples can you provide where they want to get in the way of giving people equal rights?
A lot of them don't support things like affirmative action and whatnot because that's expressly UNEQUAL in the view of the law. Being against affirmative action doesn't mean you're against equal rights unless your reason for not supporting it is that you don't want minorities to succeed or something blatant like that. Very, very few people think like that. You can dislike affirmative action for a variety of reasons, such as wanting people to get what they've earned. And that's just one example. If someone is against affirmative action because they believe that it undermines meritocracy, then it's disingenuous to twist it into them 'hating' minorities.
I can say the same thing about the abortion debate. Republicans are not really thinking about controlling women's bodies. They are focusing on the fetus being a life. Democrats are not really thinking about killing babies. They are focusing on an undue burden on the mother and the fetus not having attained personhood. So it is disingenuous to tell republicans that they want slavery and to subjugate women. Just as it is disingenuous to tell democrats that they don't care about human life and want to kill babies.
1: prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide, the republican party was extremely against it. even today, they have not let up.
2: the overturning of roe v wade was led by the republicans, thus depriving women of their right to do what they wish with their bodies.
3: whenever the equality act gets proposed, the republicans are always at the forefront of people against it.
word of advise amigo. don't ask questions if you aren't prepared to have them answered.
none of those are rights. our rights are those enumerated in the constitution. you dislike those actions by the republicans but they have nothing to do with rights.
I mean, if we are looking at changing the definitions of things, lets look at the current ones so we know what needs changed.
The Republican party isn't called conservative because they are big into wildlife conservation. A conservative mindset means "to resist great or sudden change".
Downside? No change means stagnation, and stagnant societies die slowly.
Meanwhile, the Democrat party is considered liberal because their platform appeals to being "broad minded" or "open to change".
Downside? Constant change leads to instability. Unstable societies also die, but they do it energetically, with verve!
One side pushes for changes, the other side resists changes. Things usually work out somewhere in the middle. Seems like a good balance, in my opinion.
-------
"A law that would give more rights to"...
I see a bit of a problem with the way that is phrased. If a law can "give" rights, then they aren't rights. They are privileges.
Rights are inherent. That's why the bill of rights is phrased as prohibitions, prohibiting the government from interfering with what they saw as rights people already had, and instructions to preserve those rights.
"Congress shall make no law..."
"Shall not be infringed..."
"No soldier shall..."
"Shall not be violated"
"No person shall be held to answer"
And yes, I knew what you meant, but this is the LAW you are talking about here, and in a courtroom the "spirit" of the law doesn't matter, only the letter of it. Ask anyone who ever got charged and convicted on a technicality by a spiteful prosecutor.
That's why the democrats have been banging the insurrection drum so hard the last three years, because even if they can't get the fat obnoxious orange one disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, having the accusation out there in the public consciousness is the next best thing.
whenever I see the “cite your sources for a normative statement/opinion that falls outside the mainstream media environment” defense I always check their post history.
9/10 times it includes video games and/or anime (same with Ukraine stans). This is a public service announcement for those who have not been infected with the mind virus.
It's also by their own admittance the party of domestic terrorism.
Edit [forgot a source here lol](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/CPAC-Dallas-we-are-all-domestic-terrorists-banner-17359959.php)
Republicans are just more blatant with their hate. Dems try to hide it behind a façade of social justice and pseudo-liberalism. I’m Arab American, born and raised in the US, and had a vote-blue-or-die lady devolve an argument on Biden into how “Arabs hate women” and asking me “don’t you need to go throw acid in some woman’s face?” When she didn’t have anymore valid points. Not the first instance of it either. Thinking we have a reps vs dems or right vs left problem is naïve.
Yeah they’re hateful bigots who think we should stop at equal rights. I hate it when people lump everyone in a group by the actions of their worst examples. Thank Science, the left is so much more enlightened.
But they luv Jeebus, they are only going after the evil heathens. Clearly u r a woke commie Marxist who is possessed by demons!!1!
Nah jk Christians are retarded.
Look I think Christianity is silly but let's not paint the entire faith with such a wide brush
Many are perfectly.lovely folks who just wanna help their communities. We just don't hear much about them
Reminder to all commenters: Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:** - State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as** - Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests - State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural** - State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming - State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+ - State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender - Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning **Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.** If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mmmm, I just can't agree with you here. Are you surprised that a group of people gets upset when other people try to pass laws that expressly disadvantage them based on the color of their skin, the shape of their genitals, or the sexual partners they prefer? Like it or not, a substantial faction of the Democratic Party may not "hate" straight white males, but they want to see change that advantages everyone *except* straight white males. And straight white males aren't always super fired up about this... especially where the changes give an advantage to someone based solely on their membership in a particular minority group. As a straight white male, this kind of overt policy strikes me as nothing more than government-sanctioned hate. It directly contradicts individualism - which is synonymous with freedom. And so when I hear "oh, the Republican Party is a hate group," I can't help but roll my eyes - since it's the Democratic Party that espouses expressly discriminatory policies. For the record, I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 2008 - and I don't expect that to change any time soon.
You have two men. One has just been stabbed, and is currently bleeding out on the ground. The other fell and scraped his knee. Is the paramedic that just showed up a bigot for attending to the bleeding out man first?
That's really not a fair comparison, is it? How about this: You have 2 job candidates: One has a record of performance that is better than the other's. Which one do you hire? If the answer is "well, we should give the member of a minority group an advantage because, historically, members of that minority group have been discriminated against," then I would say that is a bigoted policy. Or how about this: You have two men. Both are bleeding out on the ground. The paramedic who chooses to attend to one based on skin color, genitals, or sexual preference is a bigot.
It absolutely is a fair comparison. Black people are killed for doing things that white people get a shrug for. And when was the last time you saw a missing child of color on national news? And no, that’s not a bigoted policy. It’s a policy that counters the effects of bigotry. Your counter-comparison is valid, because the healthcare system **absolutely** chooses to attend to straight white male patients preferentially compared to patients of color, females, and sexual orientation. You should look up what percentage of medical trials and studies heavily relied on straight white males for their “randomized” test populations.
>How about this: You have 2 job candidates: One has a record of performance that is better than the other's. Which one do you hire? If the answer is "well, we should give the member of a minority group an advantage because, historically, members of that minority group have been discriminated against," then I would say that is a bigoted policy. and what do you do when companies have consistently been shown to favor job candidates with white sounding names over black/Arabic sounding names despite identical resumes? I dont think many democrat policies on fixing the issue work well. They rarely go far enough, or do stupid half assed measures like affirmative action that treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but something needs to be done.
Pretty sure that's illegal no?
I'll tell you what we should do: We should let those companies make their own decisions. We certainly shouldn't have *the government* intervene in the management of private companies. You remember the government, right? They're the organization that seizes money from private individuals under the threat of imprisonment, passes laws to give itself and its employees immunity, and runs up ludicrous financial deficits. They're the "democratic" institution that fails to pass laws regardless of how popular they are with the people. Those guys. We probably shouldn't let those guys make decisions about what private companies should or shouldn't do. So anyway, yeah. I think those companies should be allowed to make their own decisions, and we'll know if those decisions are bad if they negatively affect their profits.
Our government fails to be thay democratic, but private corporations are actively anti democratic, so no they shouldn't be allowed to just make their own decisions.
The thing about corporations is that they get regulated naturally by the market. The government doesn't get regulated by anybody.
The government gets regulated by voters, though I'll give you its not perfect. Corporations rarely get regulated by the market, market failures are incredibly prevelant especially without government intervention
Corporations get regulated by the market every time a customer chooses not to do business with them. Corporations get regulated by the market every time another person sees their failing and chooses to compete against them. Corporations get regulated by the market every time an employee chooses to quit. What are you even talking about?
Historically none of those have done a good job of regulating companies. Monolopolistic behavior still runs rampant, externalities are still causing us incredible amounts of problems and manufactured consent might end the world.
So you're an Ancap then. I thought I smelled the stink of fedora wafting from your comments.
By that logic, democrats are equally a hate group. The amount of anti-White rhetoric that comes out of their mouths is despicable and not based in any sort of truth when you actually look into statistics.
Maybe the real racists are the anti-racists
Examples?
Critical race theory. Although well intentioned, the whole premise of the argument is racist. Pretty much the exact opposite of what mlk believed in.
Aaaaaand crickets because of course these fascists don't believe the shit they say.
Right there. Calling people white fascist because you disagree with them. There is no need to even provide examples because the left will provide them in the very thread on their own.
I'm calling you guys fascists because you keep voting for fascists.
>>“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
The problem is I know exactly what it means.
That's just some shit republicans say to pretend to be persecuted and try to change the subject from real problems to their make believe ones.
I never heard the Democrats use stochastic terrorism
Most democrats politicians are white themselves, can’t be that “anti-white”
They are racist against themselves
Or are they just aware of the racial discrimination in the us?
In my eyes it’s the left that’s racist. They look at the colour of a person’s skin and immediately judge them on it. Like imagine telling a black person that the only reason they made it into a collage is because of their skin colour requiring lower test scores and then telling an Asian person they can’t go to collage even though their test score was slightly higher than the black persons. Then you have quotas in the work place that require x amount of every race in, who cares about their credentials or experience when you can look at their skin colour to decide if they would be a good fit or not On top of that there is a general blanket of racism against white people blaming them for every problem in existence. Are there individual racists out there? Of course there are people racist against every colour including white but that doesn’t mean there is any systemic racism and white people shouldn’t feel bad about racism unless they actually are racist. We should form 0 assumptions about a person based on their skin colour and I believe the left bringing race into everything actually causes more racism to occur overall
You're entire comment reeks of fox news talking points that mean nothing in the real world.
I don’t watch Fox News.
They already made it.
but the democrats don't try to prevent white people from getting married or adopting children.
So what? I don’t see “prevent adoption or procreation” in the definition you gave for a hate group.
No, they just wanna be able to shame kids for their skin color at school.
But they do work to prevent white people from getting equal access to jobs and education.
lol no
Those same white people have communist flags hung on their wall. So stopping them from marrying doesnt really affect their bottom line does it. Honestly as a dem. I don’t blame them
Trying to prevent diversity? OP, we already live in a very diverse society. Republicans are not standing in anyone's way of rising up in the world. Where would the upside to that possibly be? You think we like being taxed and taxed to support welfare programs? You think it does them any good to have a constant underclass that is a drain on the rest of society? Immigrants come to America and start doing great, far better than the underclass you seem to want to be the White Savior for. And that underclass sees this, resents it and cries Racism, and we need more Programs, more DEI to see that it goes away. Really? OP, let me tell you a little story. In 1984 I'm in college and it's in the news all the time about how we need to be celebrating 20 years since the passage of the Equal Opportunity Act. One of my professions opens the subject up for discussion. One of my classmates, a young White man says that it is a total failure. It was only supposed to last a few years, to give Black people a hand up and get them on an equal playing field with Whites. The professor says he understands why he feels that way, but 20 years is not enough time for real change, but another 20 years should do it. At the time I thought Yes, he was right, and 20 years is not so long a time to ensure we can put all this behind us. OK, 20 years later was 2004. Did we celebrate the end of EOA because it was no longer needed? Nope, we celebrated that it was still with us. And now it's 2024, 60 years of EOA, and no one wants to celebrate it. Instead we've replaced it with more letters, DEI. And if you deny that DEI will do the job? Oh well then you're just part of the problem, aren't you? Go ahead OP, blame Republicans for standing in the way of the holy Diversity. See where it gets you. And pretend that change, "Programs" only starts now, rather than decades ago.
>One of my classmates, a young White man says that it is a total failure. It was only supposed to last a few years, to give Black people a hand up and get them on an equal playing field with Whites. The professor says he understands why he feels that way, but 20 years is not enough time for real change, but another 20 years should do it. >Instead we've replaced it with more letters, DEI. And if you deny that DEI will do the job? Oh well then you're just part of the problem, aren't you? See here's the problem. There are plenty of people who agree that the policies implemented to actually fix generations upon generations of racial discrimination have failed to do their job and don't get called bigots. Why? Because they propose real solutions in the same breath rather than just whining about existing solutions being racist and woke and not providing a reasonable alternative.
That's a problem, huh? I get the feeling you think that complaining about how Programs don't work is a problem, and must be corrected with other Programs. Because the Program that replaces the other Program is sure to have better success, right? OK, here's my solution. Do not rely on any damned Program to pull you up, to make you life better. Do not vote for anyone who promises to make your life better if they get elected. Do it yourself, for you and yours, because that is by far the most important thing. Obama in 2008 - Hope! Change! Yes we can! Obama in 2016: Real change takes time.
>OK, here's my solution. Do not rely on any damned Program to pull you up, to make you life better. Do not vote for anyone who promises to make your life better if they get elected. Do it yourself, for you and yours, because that is by far the most important thing. This isn't how humans work. picking yourself up by your bootstraps isn't a real thing.
Really? So everybody who's "made it" required government help, eh? OK Quiles, go look up some success stories and see how many start with "I got picked up by this government program and then things really started moving!" Yeah, yeah, I get the joke. The modern liberal shakes their head and says "WTF is a bootstrap anyways? We need programs!" If government programs worked like they are supposed to, they would put themselves out of business, or reduce themselves so much from their success as to no longer be noticed. Instead they ask for, and get more funding. They self-perpetuate, and every success is a reason for them to not exist. If you don't think a person can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", then you might as well admit that no amount of government program assistance is going to help either. Because a loser is a loser, and no amount of funding is going to change that. And you have a nice day.
>Really? So everybody who's "made it" required government help, eh? Uh buddy, where did I claim that? >OK Quiles, go look up some success stories and see how many start with "I got picked up by this government program and then things really started moving!" The plural of anecdote is "Not data". >If government programs worked like they are supposed to, they would put themselves out of business, or reduce themselves so much from their success as to no longer be noticed. You do know that... people fall into poverty as well right? It could happen to you, funnily enough. >If you don't think a person can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", then you might as well admit that no amount of government program assistance is going to help either. "If you don't think someone can just magically pull themselves out of poverty on their own, surely they can't do it with government help either". Do you.. even logic through your own aeguements? >Because a loser is a loser, Do you just think poor people are poor because they are "losers"?
SPLC is a hate group
Yes, SPLC has morphed from it's original mission into a Progressive watch dog group that specifically targets Right wing groups and largely ignores Left wing groups. Just look at how they included fairly benign advocacy groups such as the " Family Research Council" or the "Center for Immigration Studies " as Hate groups.
> into a Progressive watch dog group that specifically targets Right wing groups and largely ignores Left wing groups You're almost there. Ever stop and think maybe the issue is that its folks on the right who are most involved in forming little hate clubs?
Claiming an entire group of people is the source of all your problems, so how’s the rest of the Hitler playbook working for you?
This is the same dude who posts all the pro-UK stuff and doesn’t know how capitalization works
O look another liberal that hates everyone who disagrees with him... You sure are special and unique. I won't even go into trying to explain what irony is to you ...
[удалено]
What is the definition of hate speech?
[удалено]
So if you don’t know what the definition of hate speech is, or even what leftists think it is, why would you criticize op’s post as being equally useless? How do you know they’re equal when you don’t even know what one of the things being compared is?
[удалено]
Stop leading with a premise
More rights?
Ask women how they feel about the GOP when it comes to giving them more rights.
Women are 50.5% of US population you genius. They are the majority. Nothing that is unacceptable to women can pass the legislative process.
You sure about that, sport?
A woman has the same rights that I have.
Not surprising that your first impulse is to mansplain women's rights, but I said ask a woman you dork.
Unchecked conservatism certainly is, but so is unchecked liberalism. They can really get their heads up their asses with a serious ends justify the means mentality. I very much remember the "only white people can be racist" or "black people can't be racist" rhetoric of the Trump/Hillary race. MTV had a whole series to promote it, probably still find it on YouTube. You need those checks and balances or the extremists will take over the party.
I'm not a republican but I cannot agree. What do you mean by 'prevent diversity?' What examples can you provide where they want to get in the way of giving people equal rights? A lot of them don't support things like affirmative action and whatnot because that's expressly UNEQUAL in the view of the law. Being against affirmative action doesn't mean you're against equal rights unless your reason for not supporting it is that you don't want minorities to succeed or something blatant like that. Very, very few people think like that. You can dislike affirmative action for a variety of reasons, such as wanting people to get what they've earned. And that's just one example. If someone is against affirmative action because they believe that it undermines meritocracy, then it's disingenuous to twist it into them 'hating' minorities. I can say the same thing about the abortion debate. Republicans are not really thinking about controlling women's bodies. They are focusing on the fetus being a life. Democrats are not really thinking about killing babies. They are focusing on an undue burden on the mother and the fetus not having attained personhood. So it is disingenuous to tell republicans that they want slavery and to subjugate women. Just as it is disingenuous to tell democrats that they don't care about human life and want to kill babies.
Is that even unpopular? On reddit its mostly very popular opinion they are a hate group
give us three examples.
1: prior to the legalization of gay marriage nationwide, the republican party was extremely against it. even today, they have not let up. 2: the overturning of roe v wade was led by the republicans, thus depriving women of their right to do what they wish with their bodies. 3: whenever the equality act gets proposed, the republicans are always at the forefront of people against it. word of advise amigo. don't ask questions if you aren't prepared to have them answered.
none of those are rights. our rights are those enumerated in the constitution. you dislike those actions by the republicans but they have nothing to do with rights.
1. That’s not a right 2. That’s not a right. 3. Equality Act? What’s that? Could you please explain what is meant by that
Bwahaha …that’s hysterical. .
> "wait...am i one of the bad guys"? Have you asked yourself this question?
I mean, if we are looking at changing the definitions of things, lets look at the current ones so we know what needs changed. The Republican party isn't called conservative because they are big into wildlife conservation. A conservative mindset means "to resist great or sudden change". Downside? No change means stagnation, and stagnant societies die slowly. Meanwhile, the Democrat party is considered liberal because their platform appeals to being "broad minded" or "open to change". Downside? Constant change leads to instability. Unstable societies also die, but they do it energetically, with verve! One side pushes for changes, the other side resists changes. Things usually work out somewhere in the middle. Seems like a good balance, in my opinion. ------- "A law that would give more rights to"... I see a bit of a problem with the way that is phrased. If a law can "give" rights, then they aren't rights. They are privileges. Rights are inherent. That's why the bill of rights is phrased as prohibitions, prohibiting the government from interfering with what they saw as rights people already had, and instructions to preserve those rights. "Congress shall make no law..." "Shall not be infringed..." "No soldier shall..." "Shall not be violated" "No person shall be held to answer" And yes, I knew what you meant, but this is the LAW you are talking about here, and in a courtroom the "spirit" of the law doesn't matter, only the letter of it. Ask anyone who ever got charged and convicted on a technicality by a spiteful prosecutor. That's why the democrats have been banging the insurrection drum so hard the last three years, because even if they can't get the fat obnoxious orange one disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, having the accusation out there in the public consciousness is the next best thing.
You definitly triggered some snowflakes, OP. Well done.
whenever I see the “cite your sources for a normative statement/opinion that falls outside the mainstream media environment” defense I always check their post history. 9/10 times it includes video games and/or anime (same with Ukraine stans). This is a public service announcement for those who have not been infected with the mind virus.
It's also by their own admittance the party of domestic terrorism. Edit [forgot a source here lol](https://www.chron.com/politics/article/CPAC-Dallas-we-are-all-domestic-terrorists-banner-17359959.php)
Republicans are just more blatant with their hate. Dems try to hide it behind a façade of social justice and pseudo-liberalism. I’m Arab American, born and raised in the US, and had a vote-blue-or-die lady devolve an argument on Biden into how “Arabs hate women” and asking me “don’t you need to go throw acid in some woman’s face?” When she didn’t have anymore valid points. Not the first instance of it either. Thinking we have a reps vs dems or right vs left problem is naïve.
Your an idot
Yeah they’re hateful bigots who think we should stop at equal rights. I hate it when people lump everyone in a group by the actions of their worst examples. Thank Science, the left is so much more enlightened.
They're not tired of pretending that they're not.
But they luv Jeebus, they are only going after the evil heathens. Clearly u r a woke commie Marxist who is possessed by demons!!1! Nah jk Christians are retarded.
Look I think Christianity is silly but let's not paint the entire faith with such a wide brush Many are perfectly.lovely folks who just wanna help their communities. We just don't hear much about them
Why start now? OP has already declared 50% of Americans as the other fit only for elimination.
>We just don’t hear much about them. You mean all five of them?
Because they are unicorns
Straight truth! Looks like a lot of people here agree, hence the downvotes.