Mr. President, PLEASE STOP.
Chris Wallace, 2020 Presidential Debate moderator
(also me, all the time, every day, constantly)
1K notes · View notes
okay, one political topic (that’s EXTREMELY important to me as an individual) i wanna go into: Religion (and a bit on race, but that’s for like one second)
Before i start, i realize that i’m more than likely gonna lose a few really good friends i’ve made on here because of what i believe. so, if you’re one of the people i’m referring to, (which, that is completely up to you guys to decide.) i’ll miss you, and i’m sorry we couldn’t stay friends because of this. But i will not apologize for my opinion.
So, in America, we live with the freedom of speech. We’re allowed to voice our own opinions and have civil disagreements, because that’s what freedom of speech is.
I understand that with the whole boycotting/cancel culture we’ve developed is for what we believe is good for everyone else. Bad people deserve to be cancelled because of their actions, so we boycott them from our lives. Again, that’s okay for YOU as an individual to do, because it’s your life and you are entitled to your freedom of speech.
For instance, i personally cannot stand One Direction or any of the members as individuals. I was never a fan of their music, never will be. Therefore, i technically have removed them from my social media, my music, and my life in general. And that’s okay because it’s my right to choose what i listen to.
In the same perspective, i’d like to address the way people speak about religion. Over the past few years, we’ve widened our lenses and become so much more accepting of each religion and people group and that’s really great. Now we can be friends, right? Wrong.
I’m not saying Christians are saints and that you don’t stumble upon a bad one every once in a while, but the media accepts and praises every religion and belief except for Christianity. Does that seem fair to you? After so many of you fought so hard for your own acceptance?
I don’t care if my neighbor/coworker/friend/anything is Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Confucian, Christian, or Jewish. I don’t care if my neighbor is black, white, asian, or hispanic. I don’t care if they’re a part of the LBGT+ community. The only difference between us is the color of our skin. Why would i care about that? We’re both different people and we both have different religious beliefs, and that’s perfectly fine with me.
But why isn’t this same respect reciprocated towards Christians?
At the mere mention of someone who’s Christian, people automatically think of a disgusting, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, soulless, trash person who shouldn’t even be alive. That’s a bold stance to take. Not only is it unfair to the people you’re judging, it’s just wrong to think that way after how hard you’ve fought for your own rights.
You can’t have it both ways, folks.
If you want equality, then don’t treat people who disagree with you like they’re beneath you. That’s not justice or fairness and you should know that.
My problem is that when someone has a bad encounter with a Christian (one (1) individual), they think all Christians are the exact same and decide to judge Christians as a whole instead of judging each individual person by their character and how they behave. It’s like a mother punishing all of her children for a crime that only one of the children committed.
Do you see my problem? I get that there are bad Christians out there, and i understand that no one should be treated the way some Christians/Conservatives treat anyone who differs from their beliefs, and I’m sorry you personally experienced that. But is it fair for you to try and come at me for something someone else did? Or even further more judge an entire group of people for a crime that one person committed against you?
No. It’s not.
My point is don’t stand there and get pissed off about your religion not being accepted in America, then call the one it was founded on garbage.
If you don’t like it, leave.
I am entitled to my opinions ^^ and if you disagree with them, i’m okay with that. you are entitled to have your opinion and to make your voice heard just like i do. If you don’t like my opinions then just leave. Again, to the friends I might lose to this, i’m sorry that this came between our friendship.
20 notes · View notes
I think the main thing I am noticing in a difference between their arguments is the specifics. Harris is a lot more specific with her numbers and specific policies. Her diction is also more clear when speaking in general. Pence doesn't speak in specifics. He uses broad concepts to fear monger.
142 notes · View notes
As a moderate liberal who grew up in a small conservative town, I believe I have an advantage over many liberals in that I understand many of the unspoken assumptions behind the seemingly nonsensical arguments conservatives make (yes, we liberals have our own hidden assumptions about the world that name conservatives side-eye us too, but that's a different story). If you're interested, I'm going to try to highlight some of these and bring them out into the open in order to help liberals make more convincing arguments to their conservative friends/enemies/frenemies.
Also, to the few "genuine" conservatives out there, those who hold to the principled worldviews defined by the Goldwater and Reagan movements, or even the older Eisenhower ideals, an apology, this isn't about you. You've unfortunately lost control of what "conservative" means and I'm only addressing the majority of those who call themselves conservative today. Maybe that will be you again in the future, but the Trump movement owns the term "conservative" today and we just live in that reality.
How to Speak Conservative
Recently we've seen huge numbers of conservatives, agitated by right-wing media, take to the internet and public meetings, outraged that children are being indoctrinated by teachers who are teaching critical race theory. Many liberals respond to this argument by pointing out that teachers are not indoctrinating at all, but just teaching children to seek out differing views and think critically about issues. Needless to say, this argument tends to have as much effect as firing a nerf gun at a wall.
The key is in the unspoken assumption of the modern conservative worldview. You see, in this understanding of the world, truth isn't something an individual finds, it's something that is handed to them. A heritage, if you will. It's not something someone ever had to think about, it's something someone has to defend.
I know the liberals are probably thinking this sounds familiar, you might even be saying "yeah, that's what I've been arguing against". But you haven't, not really.
You see, liberal's unspoken assumption is that the point of education is to teach critical thinking. We take it so for granted that it doesn't even occur to us that it wouldn't be the basis of an argument about education. But it isn't, not for conservatives.
You see, when conservatives think of education, they are thinking of something that looks very much like what liberals would think of as indoctrination. That's what happens in conservative schools and religious houses of worship all across the nation: truth is received and alternative thoughts are rejected without consideration. This is what they think happens in schools, this is what they think we mean when we say "education" and that "critical thinking" is just fancy talk for "thinking my way".
The unspoken word in the complaints about "woke indoctrination" is "wrong", as in "wrong indoctrination".
Conservatives don't have a problem with schools indoctrinating children, they have a problem with schools indoctrinating them in the wrong beliefs. To a liberal, indoctrination is the opposite of education, but, to a conservative, indoctrination is just the wrong type of education because THAT'S WHAT THEY THINK EDUCATION IS.
That's why we have huge swaths of people who think that science is just facts to be memorized and history is just a list of names, dates, and places. That's genuinely what what they think expertise in those subjects consists of.
So the next time you're talking with a conservative about critical race theory (or really any educational topic), resist the urge to respond directly to the accusations they make. I can't promise there's a way to reach them, but here are some directions you can go instead that might change the way they think about the issue:
"What do you think they teach in critical race theory and how do they teach it?" Get them off vague tribal statements and into some detail. By getting into specifics you can point out details that are wrong and maybe even start to explain to them how critical thinking actually works.
"You say you know about critical race theory and you don't hate white people." This turns the conversation to the supposed goal of the indoctrination. By turning to this, you can steer the discussion to what is actually being taught or you can turn it to how they don't actually know what critical race theory is to begin with.
"Why are your kids going to be indoctrinated, didn't you raise them right?" This one is much more aggressive and is much more likely to start a fight than a reasoned debate. Still, I recognize the value of aggressive tactics in political debate to make people uncomfortable and force them to engage when they otherwise might not. Use carefully, though, you probably won't be friends after this one.
As I said, none of these will "work" quickly (work in the sense of changing someone's position), but these directions of conversation are designed to approach the topic in a way that a conservative will understand and, hopefully, be able to engage with.
Hope this helps and let me know if there are any other fruitless arguments you've been beating your head against a wall on that I might be able to help with.
5 notes · View notes
Me: Fine, you can kill me, but you better vote out Orange next!
Everyone else at the political debate:
39 notes · View notes
Moderator: So what is your stance on Gay rights?
Republicans: Lmao you mean Gay WRONGS!
20 notes · View notes
Should straight pride even be a thing? a dumb diplomatic debate production
Attention straights, gays, and everything in between: why does straight pride even exist? I’ll try to be as diplomatic as possible here to explain why it is a thing, and why it probably shouldn’t be. Feel free to comment your side of the debate, as this is coming from a Gay.
I assume that the reason straight pride started was out of pure and simple FOMO. For many of the more sheltered members of that community, none of them have seen homophobia in action, and they see the LGBTQ+ community as a heterophobic Furry cult.
Really, all they want is a seat at the table, when most gay communities seemingly close their borders to anyone besides ‘their own kind.’ (There are more straight pride advocates who just think being gay is wrong and that they’re going to ‘take over society’ or make sure the human race dies out, which is 1. homophobic and 2. stupid, so I will not be making a legal case for them.)
Now, from the gay perspective, we ourselves and everyone we know like us have been bullied, assaulted, ostracized, kicked out, excluded, and even killed. We have shed blood for our rights and cut ties just to share a joint bank account with our partners. We have never, ever been given a seat at the straight table for so many years, so we made our own table. And you boo-hoo about being told that No, Sheryl, you may not be Jonathan’s best friend and you cannot jokingly call Brenda your dyke. Though this is not to say that every straight person, including straight pride activists and people who believe in heterophobia are homophobic or bigoted, but straight pride still comes off as disrespectful.
So by all means, love yourself and be proud of who you are. It’s a free country; announce who you’re dating and stand up for yourself, no matter who you are, how you identify, and who you’re attracted to. But please, stop writing ‘born this way’ over a straight flag. You were born this way, but you were never told to stay out the locker room and accused of being a pervert.
Everyone deserves to be unapologetic about who they are, but not everyone has to be.
1 note · View note
hold on do conservatives think like massive loan shark companies are a good replacement for higher taxes on the wealthy and big corporations? just asking for a friend
2 notes · View notes
I don’t know that I’ll offer any other anarchist takes on the ‘rainmaker’ debate tonight. I noticed the extreme centrist mentioned competition to bring down prescription and other healthcare prices. I’m sure that doesn’t mean that he understands how any laws he previously championed also prevented competition and accelerated inflation. He, like his constituents, don’t realize he empowered economic monopolies, and the anarchists are correct that maximum competition would deflate prices to cost (LTV), eliminating capitalist profit margins over time. As Kevin Carson wrote:
“One can charge for the use-value of the water itself only if one controls the supply. Otherwise a competitor, seeing an opportunity, will enter the market and charge a price closer to his actual effort, until the marginal price is just enough to compensate for the effort of drawing and carrying water. A producer will be able, in the long run, to pass on only that which is really a cost: the effort entailed in direct production, and that entailed in the purchase of means of production.”
I wonder which laws Joe thinks prevent inflation through competition, and which laws he thinks prevent inflation through monopoly regulation, and when he thinks inflation or deflation are preferred? I wonder, because I’d love to see the blank look on his face if he actually tried to debate political-economy and history with someone who knew what they were talking about. Trump would be equally entertaining.
Neither of them tonight endorsed ending the political or legal barriers that prevent all of us from immediately owning our own home, business, or becoming self employed. Instead, the debate focused on minimum wage laws. What a joke that is! Joe’s idea of altering our behavior to save the planet and end poverty is more industrial capitalism, but putting a “green-sustainable” aesthetic on it, but at least paying us a living wage, you know...so we can pay for a pharmaceutical and insurance company’s profit margin. He may say the stock market doesn’t matter, but his history and words show he cares more about Wall Street markets than he does the poor’s markets.
But imagine all of us sitting around during the 6th mass extinction event, and debating over which king is going to offer us better crumbs and more sustainably monopolize our fossil fuels, while we continue to live a life of “commute to work, pay rent and bills, and consume their junk.”
Go ahead and vote Blue if you vote, but don’t look to electoral politics as anything more than a small tool in our revolutionary arsenal, and historically the cause of our plight. Capitalist Biden vs. capitalist Trump is ultimately a distraction from the real adaptations or actions we need to reflect to survive this.
11 notes · View notes
I don’t get this. A regular therapist says to you, ‘hey, I’m going to present you an analysis and tell me if it squares with what you know of yourself.’ You nod and proceed to listen. What they say is totally off the mark. So they backtrack and try something else.
That is exactly what I do. If you say something is incorrect, I say the equivalent of, all right, how bout this?
And if that’s wrong too, then ok. Whatever.
Psychoanalysis is guesswork.
Educated guesswork, but nonetheless.
If you go onto a blog that describes some issue you are having but *isn’t accurate to your life, you also do this process of, ‘nope, doesn’t sound like me.’
Pretty mundane, right?
However, one thing that holds pretty true, is that in many cases, if someone gets super pissed off and defensive, it is probable you have hit upon some psychological issue they don’t want to acknowledge.
I’ve observed this in my own life, in my own brain, even.
It’s not always the case, of course.
And true, of someone says something inaccurate about you, it can also sting. Been there, done that.
But it doesn’t seem to set off this rage reaction.
It’s no longer a ‘debate’ because they’ve been set off. They want an all out flame war (or IRL, shouting match)
This is one thing couples therapists￼ say to watch out for. Ask *why this particular topic sets someone off. (I’m not talking about trauma, because that is usually easily identifiable what and why it sets someone off) More often than not, it is because an ego defense mechanism has kicked in and whatever the less reactive of the two said, it hurt the target the very most because ... truth hurts.
They will try to deflect.
They will manipulate your words.
They will call you names.
(If it’s the right setting, they will attempt the shaming tactic including sexist and racist and ableist and whatever other -ist they can think to tar you with to ‘poison the well’ of the discussion and think they can silence you. You maybe want to discuss the very same issues they do! You may agree on a lot of things! But they try to force you to agree with their particular perspective and viewpoint rather than talk things out)
Maybe you’ve met toxic people like this.
(And yes, I think this would qualify as a vaguepost? If I understand that correctly. And the one about body positivity. But, also just some general observations.)
Anyway, once the rage response is in swing, you can pretty much forget about having anything resembling a conversation.
You will be hard pressed to even eek out an ‘agree to disagree’, although you can sometimes manage it.
You are supposed to immediately submit. In a friendship, or a romo relationship, this toxic behavoir would be called an ‘ultimatum.’
But oh no, them even entertaining a possibility (supposedly ‘the mark of a well-educated man’, forgive the historical gender default) is out of the question.
6 notes · View notes
He said that the president doesn't support neo-nazi's because he has Jewish family members....
Does he know what a Neo-Nazi is????? ITS THE FRIGGING KKK MIKE. ITS YOU MIKE.
101 notes · View notes
I was full of rage for a moment about metal music and, well, bigotry things, but to short and make it not graphic I wanna say something after this moment.
Don't matter your music taste, your aesthetic, your fandom and whatever, the political topic need to be discussed, cuz if it isn't it can come up to make some "apolitical" individuals, or even yourself can be/become one.
It isn't good to be like this cuz, I can't believe I gonna say this thing genuinely but, we live in a society, and by that I mean that we deal with minorities being hated daily and if you/we aren't aware of it and how to not perpetuate those things that make the hate seem legit you will continuing sharing those hateful things and, as along, continuing the hate that brings harm to minorities groups.
1 note · View note
When lefty talks ear plugs sales go up!
1 note · View note
Never though me posting a Destructo Disk lyric on my wattpad message board would start a debate, but whatever I guess.
4 notes · View notes
Stephen Colbert: You landed haymakers against Joe Biden for what was for you bedrock principles. (Busing which Kamala Harris benefit from in her life and something Joe Biden in his career in the Senate voted against 19 times.) And I believe that you fully support Joe Biden now. How do you make that transaction?
Kamala Harris: It was a Debate. *laughter*
Stephen Colbert: Not everyone landed punches though.
Kamala Harris: IT WAS A DEBATE. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Stephen Colbert: So you don't mean it.
Kamala Harris: It was a Debate. Literally, the whole reason was it was a debate. It was called a "debate."
So, my take away is Kamala Harris just admitted that those debates were political theatre. It is just for show. And kind of just shows how disingenuous she is. Or how much of a politician she is. Kamala has flip flop so much on the campaign trail, I don't know what she actually believes. More and more, it is just clear that she will say what will get her points and elected.
7 notes · View notes
One of the biggest gen z moods is watching a political debate and knowing that something will become a meme
11 notes · View notes