this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
503 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2670 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

anyone who likes logical consistency

That's the neat part, they don't.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

... An "in group" that is protected by laws but not bound by them and an "out group" that is bound by the laws but not protected by them.

This is a (paraphrased) description of the conservative world-view that I saw the other day (sorry I don't remember who to attribute) here on Lemmy. Anyway it sure seems to track with their hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wilhoit's Law

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

Francis M. Wilhoit

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your service

[–] ericisshort 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can anyone explain what “to wit” means in this instance?

[–] Octavio 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s the same as saying “namely”, or “that is to say”. In this instance it means, “and that one proposition is..”

[–] ericisshort 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you kindly

[–] BeautifulMind 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The missing bit of context to make it logically consistent is that they think we all live in a hierarchy (social, class, gender, race etc) in which the rules apply differently to folks lower in it than they do to folks above them.

If you accept that as your premise, everything about their behavior is logically consistent- except for the part about inventing a magical hierarchy that only exists in their agreement that it does, in which they are your superiors and it is their right to tell you what to do but never vice-versa.

If you look at it in this light, when they howl at democrats for breaking rules they don't think apply to republicans, they aren't invoking anything like a set of shared rules applying to everyone, they're invoking the hierarchy and they think they're putting people in their rightful places (never mind that it's colossally arrogant and entitled to assume you're here to rule over your inferiors when there's no agreement that anyone here is anyone's superior)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

There always has to be a bigger fish

I recommend the youtube series "The Alt-Right Playbook"

It suddenly makes Conservative Ideology make sense, not in that it's a good ideology mind you, but it makes it easy to understand why they are the way they are... What goes through their heads...

They see the world very differently from the rest of us.

I hate having to resort to "Us/Them", but they made the game that way, not us..... Yes I'm aware of the irony of that statement.

[–] Serinus 2 points 1 year ago

To add to this, the GOP are the smart ones who know how to acquire power. The capability to gain the office is what qualifies them for it.

Do you want the smart people to lead, or do you want the ones who wring their hands about the rules?

My response to this would be the Douglas Adams idea, anyone who wants to lead that badly should in no way be allowed to do so.