this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
613 points (97.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
5909 readers
6138 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I will never understand why this πis such a bad thing. Personally, I find it complimentary. But then again, I believe in facts and truth, and the betterment of society as a whole.
The meaning of a word doesn't matter to them. They're told it's a bad thing and that they're to oppose it, like the attack command for a dog that's been trained to be racist.
It's why everytime they have a new trigger word like "woke" or "CRT", there is always a stream of clips of supporters and pundits who can't articulate what the word means but are staunchly opposed to it anyway.
Within that, there's probably people who do know what it means, they just can't say things like "I oppose anyone being empathetic or fair to minorities" out loud, even though that's exactly their view.
Alt right playbook: find a word the left uses, then say it with disgust in frequent rants about the left. Followers associate negative feelings and connotations with the word without ever having to learn its meaning.
Just as a perfect example of this is being liberal
Being a liberal is literally being for liberty
Liberty is basically defined by The Bill of Rights. Basically what the US Constitution is based in.
So the right has to make it a bad word because if people actually realized that, well yeah who doesn't support that shit?! They won't get anyone to vote against their best interests. Instead they require people vote to benefit social hierarchy that creates in groups that the law defends and out groups that the law binds.
Worth noting that "liberal" also has other connotations. You appear to be referring to social liberalism, which is a great thing for the majority of humanity. Frequently, the term is used to refer to economic liberalism, which is a right-wing ideology. This is why you have leftists speaking negatively about (neo)liberalism. It's an ideology focused primarily on unfettered capitalism and devalues everything that is not directly related to profit. It is also the ideology followed by nearly all western governments' ruling parties (including the Dems in the US).
yet, a large percentage of "liberals" are against said liberty.
Articulate an example...
2A for starters. 1A when it doesn't suit them. As much as most don't like it, hate speech is expressly protected speech. It's morally repugnant, but still protected. Much like burning the flag. A ton seem to be ok with nixing the 4th in an attempt to nullify the 2nd.
Nearly everyone is guilty of what you're saying about 1A. And I'd argue the right is making a far more concerted effort and progress in banning books and speech they disagree with.
You have something on the 2A, but I'd argue again that some people on the right believe they have a right "or need" for rocket launchers and miniguns. Which, maybe per the 2A they do. But the problem is that the people who think those weapons are necessary to protect them from a tyrannical government accidentally allowed those things to get used on schools. And, all of those people and the NRA love to ignore the well regulated part. So there's extremists on both sides.
And I'd argue no one assaulted 4A like the patriot act which was definitely not liberals (but I'm sure some were involved).
Extremists on both sides are guilty and one of "our" tasks as rational citizens is to not generalize "those we disagree with more" as said extremists.
Thanks for answering tho.
p.s. if you want to see some fascinating history about hate speech and 1A watch the recent American Experience episode called Nazi Town USA. It will only be available to watch online for another week or so (at least at the source).
The language of 2A has always been a troublesome comprehension issue. "Well Regulated" does not mean what you are insinuating. It's two separate phrases. It's saying in order to have a free state, there needs to be a well organized, trained, militia. in order to have a militia the people need to be able to bear arms, therefore, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty sure james madison even expressly stated in a letter that, yes, even cannons were covered by this. It's why we are allowed to have the same stuff the military does, albeit heavily taxed. We had a whole war about being taxed, but i digress... The term "well regulated" at the time was more of a "well organized" not what gun grabbers think it means today in Rules, regulations, and restrictions on owning certain things. The language is pretty clear. Shall not be infringed.
So why would our government be trying to introduce a bill to not let people train and be "well regulated"? Look into House Bill s3589.
I agree that the Patriot act is anything BUT patriotic, but your claim that liberals had nothing to do with it is misguided. While it's true it was sponsored and co-sponsored by republicans, Joe Biden was a staunch supporter of it and even claimed it was based on previous bills he wrote. Both sides suck in this one I'm afraid. The patriot act is one of the worst things to ever happen to our 'liberty' in this country.
I do appreciate your well tempered response though. rare to see intelligence on these forums and not just people spouting hate because you feel a different way about something. thank you.
Yeah, I accept that explanation for 2A. And, arguably by definition the well regulated would not be regulated by the government, otherwise the spirit of the whole amendment is meaningless. I'm definitely not ignorant enough to say guns should be banned, if at least for the simple fact we'll be able to 3D print our own in a very short amount of time. Not to excuse the "liberals" (going back to your original comment and my question), being primarily Democrats and as politicians trying to do something about mass shootings for sure they go to gun regulation. And it absolutely doesn't help that Republicans seemingly don't have any solutions to the problem, including making access to healthcare overly complicated. If we go back to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then people with mental struggles who turn to gun violence as an answer, they deserve the opportunity to get the easiest and free access to mental healthcare. So if we're not going to regulate guns (which I'm not even condoning per my 3D printer point) then the alternative course must be healthcare, and the "opposite of liberals" don't seem to even discuss this beyond "no." So I'd say both sides suck on this one too haha
I did acquiesce that some liberals were involved in the patriot act... :)
And yeah, thanks for answering the question. I try to have a meaningful conversation here, otherwise I may as well just look at cat pics.
Same with "SJW" -- "Social Justice Warrior." Sounds great to me!
literally Batman
Nah, warriors kill people. Batman is like the Hall Monitor of justice.
I don't know how to tell you this but... Batman kills the shit out of some people
Always the wrong ones, as far as actually putting a stop to things. Kind of like Democrats always doing something, but it's never universal healthcare or raising the minumum wage, or raising taxes on the rich, nooo... We cannot do impactful things, because then maybe the world would change! and change is scary...
I don't know, but I always thought grok was a fairly progressive idea. Outside of the genocidal implications, of course. To seek understanding so deep that you become a part of what you're trying to understand and it becomes a part of you, sounds pretty good to me.
because it's been coined by the Black community.
That's not the definition conservatives are using, obviously. And they don't have a consistent definition between them either. Making a movie with a black person? Woke. Passing legislation to save the environment? Woke. Being gay? Woke. Disliking racists? Woke.
That's why I hate it. If it was something solid, even with a negative connotation, we could use it for political discussion.