democracy1984

joined 1 year ago
[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I agree that we should push for things to be better. But we need to be careful about how we do so. I'm mixed between conservative and liberal.

Can you give some examples of people who are suffering from oppression? Preferably statistics and not sensationalized news. I'm fine with being corrected, all I ask is that it's done respectfully. (Which you are, thank you)

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago

Intentional malicious misinformation shouldn't be allowed. But it does need to be held to high standard.

I think of LGBT+ shouldn't be a part of elementary/middle school curriculums. But if the students bring it up, that's fine. Kids are very impressionable, and I worry about LGBT+ just becoming something that is cool. (Also, I think enforcing gender roles is dumb. If a boy wants to play with dolls or have long hair, that's fine. Same thing for girls.)

And I don't think people should be canceled for speaking their mind. That's a great way to stop debate, which leads to people just trying to fit in, and stops people from making their own conclusions. Just because it's your right, doesn't mean I can't argue over how you exercise it.

Defending a position by citing free speech is the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express. https://xkcd.com/1357/

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm conservative, but I'm also liberal. I have hard time supporting either party.

Also, I don't think the issues are malice. I have a hard time believing that so many people are intentionally malicious. I believe the issues are systemic, not individual.

[–] democracy1984 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's pretty bad. But It's also not proof he said that. The law clerk could've just hated him for some reason. I don't like to trust these types of accusations, since they're so easy to make.

But still, it's best for the supreme court to be permanent, in order for there to be as little political influence on the justices as possible after their appointment. And I would say the same thing even if the parties were reversed.

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We know how GOP voters weigh the bigotry that comes with voting for its reps. That's all we need to know. The truth is literally laid bare.

Bigotry is a 2 way street. Candidates from both sides are clearly bigoted at each other. I try to vote for candidates who's beliefs match with mine, but sometimes that's hard. Everyone deserves to be respected, even if you don't agree with them. But so much politics has just turned into calling names.

That's a nice thought. I see you still haven't run out of benefit of the doubt to give.

I think the issues are systemic, not individual. It doesn't make sense that so many people would be evil. Look at the Milgram experiment. It shows that the average person will literally commit murder in the correct environment. So does that mean the average person is evil?

I've yet to meet a conservative that's arguing in good faith and is willing to change their view when presented with a sound argument.

I am. Although I'm not just conservative. It really depends on the subject, sometimes I'm conservative, and sometimes I'm liberal. I really want to avoid just picking one side, and saying the other side is evil.

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And that's a bad systematic problem. But voting based on the candidate should help to slowly fix it. While there is a very clear difference between democrat and republican, there are still differences between candidates of the same party.

If you vote only for the candidates that are closest to the center, then candidates will compete to be closer. But if you just vote for a party, then the candidates have to no incentive to compete.

[–] democracy1984 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What exactly is the GOP doing that is racist? Isn't racism explicitly unconstitutional? If a candidate was racist, I wouldn't vote for them.

But I haven't seen explanations for what they do that is racist. It's just people who are calling them racist, and saying you're dumb if you don't think they're racist.

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

With the way our government works, it's really hard to not vote for candidates that you don't have at least some problems with. With the way presentational elections seem to be going, you end up having to choose which one is less bad. And in FPTP, voting for a third party is basically useless.

And not every GOP candidate is a bigot. I'm sure most, if not all of them, genuinely wish for the country to be better (same thing applies for any politician). It's just that disagreement over how to make the country better had devolved into name calling, which is a terrible way to get people to change their opinions.

I don't change my opinion because someone calls me a bigot. I'll change my opinion if they can show me how my view is flawed, and why their view is better.

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago

If they're uninterested in respectful discussion, then you should just leave them alone.

Would you like to know my opinion on those things?

We should definitely make the legal immigration process easier. But we shouldn't just allow people to immigrate illegally. And you shouldn't be separating families without a good reason, and it shouldn't be for very long. A few hours is okay, but if you need go longer than 24 hours, you should give them chances to see their family.

Your skin color doesn't matter, it should be irrelevant to basically everything. (Also, what was the last law passed that was racist? Because isn't that completely unconstitutional?)

And no one should suffer. But that's a really hard goal to reach, and so we do end up with a lot of compromises.

I'd be happy to have a civil discussion over these subjects. All I ask is we don't call anyone evil, just for being in a particular group.

[–] democracy1984 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The news will only show what makes you the most angry. Here is an unbiased list of republican bills that were passed. Just because you see the extremes of a group more, doesn't mean that everyone in that group is extreme.

[–] democracy1984 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't support any party. But I do support not attacking people based on their opinions.

[–] democracy1984 -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's bad to under-represnt issues. But it's also bad to over-represent issues. The right answer is almost always in the middle.

The stuff you see in the news is carefully selected to show what makes people the most upset, that way it gets the most clicks.

In the past, women were subservient to men, black people were slaves, and being queer wasn't even allowed. Nowadays, things have improved a huge amount. There are still problems, but nothing like the past.

view more: ‹ prev next ›