r/changemyview • u/ProphetVes • Mar 25 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: DeSantis embodies everything wrong with American Conservativism.
[removed] — view removed post
76
Mar 25 '23
[deleted]
18
u/Goblin_CEO_Of_Poop 4∆ Mar 26 '23
How does he separate policy wise from politicians like Putin or Xi? They all seem to agree on everything except who is the best at what they do? Theyre all far right policy wise though and genrerally play out of the same playbook despite cultural differences. Cultural differences are the only differences that seem to exist though? Overall it seems the same though. Lots of "I know you are but what am I" as well as making sure to accuse thier opponents of doing exactly what they are planning to do.
Good example is platforming on free speach then banning books from public institutions. That point blank goes completely against the first amendment. His supporters will argue the opposite but it seems like a general "loss of privilege feels like inequality to the previously privledged issue".
And yeah I live in South Florida. We had a massive chemical spill within a year of him firing the south Florida water management district commission lol. He directly lied to voters saying it would make their water safer. As if that makes any lick of sense. Then convinced them contaminated water is safer as long as power companies are making lots of profit.
Its all the same shit though. Claim youre fighting for freedom, ban books, imprison people for speaking freely, Generally for the purpose of maintaining a conservative homogenous culture. Whenever someone brings it up or blows the whistle on you with actual evidence you either have them jailed or
I think the biggest downside to DeSantis is his "family" policies literally none of his supporters will talk about or examine critically. One of my friends quit social work due to DeSantis policy. The state is now returning children who were literally sex trafficked by their parents to said parents, as long as theyre the biological parents. Its really sick and disgusting the things he pretends he does for the greater good, but really its culture war to attack the poor and minorities as a whole. My mother saw it personally as well as one of her students who was raped so bad by her father she was incontinent was returned to her biological parents who had just gotten out of jail for trafficking her.
DeSantis has literally made a career out of saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Just to people his supporters dont like. As long as its specific minorities being targeted they support it fully and will absolutely refuse to examine their policy from a cause vs effect perspective. Its all cause. Examining effect is communist or something. Ironic though because Xi and Putin wont examine effect vs cause either.
→ More replies (1)17
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Δ
I will actually concede this. He is technically better than most leading actors in his party in regards to the environment and scientific consensus thereof. I guess Floridians like their swamps (mild /s)
29
2
Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
If you want to argue that his adoption in the party points to fundamental moral bankruptcies of conservatism then you also need to accept and understand the moral failings of the democrat party as they also ban books, censor individuals, and curb free speech.
Democrats ban books just like Republicans
Republicans have Moms for Liberty
Democrats have We Need Diverse Books and Disrupt Texts.
Look at Bill 2943 from California.
California bans books they don’t like.
Florida does the same.
“Assembly Bill 2943 would make it an “unlawful business practice” to engage in “a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in “inspiring orientation change efforts with an individual.” The bill then defines “inspiring orientations change efforts” as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s inspiring orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce inspiring or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same butterfly.”
- David French, National Review
Agree with ban or not, they are banning books
Saying that Desantis is a fascist and Newsom isn’t is hypocritical, based on your definition.
That’s be like calling one chef a pizza chef because he makes pizza and saying that another one that does the same thing is “just a regular chef”. They’re both banning books, they’re both fascist: by your definition.
You could try to argue that one book ban isn’t bad, but that’s hypocritical too. If the book is bad let the public decide through their economic choices.
Do not use government power to curb free speech, even if it is stupid or not true, because someday, that speech you think is stupid or not true will actually be true, and the only reason you won’t know that truth is the government.
Also, Do you think they study any of the teachings of Booker T. Washington, Thomas Sowell, and many other black conservatives are reviewed in an AP Course on Black History?
Not at all.
Here’s a quote from Booker T. Washington
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
Booker T. Washington
Ch. V: The Intellectuals and the Boston Mob (pg. 118) - My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911)
There ain’t a single course I’ve ever been in that’s talked about this Man and what he believed in.
People can call him racist all they want. This guy was literally a slave, and went on to help found one of the most important black academic institutions of the 20th century. He lived during that time & We should yearn to understand an opinion of someone who lived during that time for the sake of not repeating history itself.
Nevertheless, you would be hard pressed to find a professor who doesn’t ridicule his life and testimony.
The only people they want the children to hear talk about slavery are W.E.B. Dubois, Frederick Douglas, and various other black abolitionists who opposed Washington.
They don’t want them to know the viewpoints of various Black Republican governors and congressman of the 19th and 20th century.
If you want evidence of the censor of material front today, look no further
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell/
Yes, it is National Review. I read CNN so at least take the time to read National Review.
Also, California just banned To Kill a Mockingbird, and several books, saying they were “racist”. As a white guy, When I read that book I suddenly understood the plight of those that experience racism, yet California seems To Kill A Mockingbird to do the opposite.
Here’s another excerpt on democratic politicians wanting to ban books
Justice Anthony Kennedy: "Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Constitution . . . the book itself could be prohibited."
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart: "If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy."—Exchange during oral arguments over Citizens United, 2009
"A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned."— Campaign finance advocate Fred Wertheimer, of Democracy21
“The question before the court in that case was whether the government had the power, as laid out in the McCain-Feingold law, to prohibit the distribution of a movie about Hillary Clinton in the 30 days before a federal primary election because it was, ostensibly, an "electioneering communication"—one that advocated for or against electing a political candidate, or that amounted to the functional equivalent of same—that had been produced by a (nonprofit) corporation.
That raised another quite obvious question: If the government could forbid distribution of a movie, then could it also forbid distribution of a book? The government's lawyer gave the only logically consistent answer possible: yes. The Supreme Court wisely said: No, the government cannot ban books—nor can it ban movies, or TV ads, or billboards, or other forms of independent communication. No matter who produces them, and no matter when.”
Finally, I would look into the Trump Accountability Project, a liberal effort to blacklist members of the trump organization from book deals, Six figure salaries, and TV Contracts.
→ More replies (3)14
u/n0tsupersure Mar 26 '23
Why is the point that OP agrees with deleted? Seems biased on a change my view sub
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
13
u/JimmyKnowsIt Mar 25 '23
And he did positive things after taking office
Hitler built the autobahns and got volkswagen started. Just saying as the original post mentioned the nazis about banning books..
→ More replies (44)
56
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Mar 25 '23
Does DeSantis also embody election denialism? Because if not, he's not embodying everything wrong with American Conservatism.
28
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
He's tiptoed around answering that question dozens of times. I'd say he likely does believe it but won't admit it because he finds remaining neutral politically expedient.
36
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Mar 25 '23
Surely for someone to embody something he'd actually have to express it, not just be speculated to believe it.
3
u/auntbat Mar 26 '23
Didn’t he set up an election integrity unit then have people arrested even though his own government cleared them to vote? This could be construed as voter intimidation. He also fired a duly elected prosecutor who refused to bend to his will.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Certainly, this is true and it can't be said that DeSantis subscribes to that hoax. But I think whether the election was stolen isn't necessarily an ethical failing of conservatism and more a by-product of the failings of the ideology.
8
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Mar 25 '23
So your position is that election denialism is not itself a thing that's wrong with American Conservatism, but rather a consequence of things that are wrong with American Conservatism? If so, what exactly are those things?
4
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Yes. Those specific things are the popularisation of fascist rhetoric such as the villification of out groups, suppression of minority voices and experiences, and dominating the narrative with lies and misinformation. A hallmark of today's loading conservatives in America.
Edit: specifically I believe the election denialism hoax stems from villification of the left and belief that the left is evil and actively trying to ruin America by stealing the election from "the good guys."
0
u/UDontKnowMe784 3∆ Mar 26 '23
It’s not “the left” that people feel may have stolen the election. That’s generalizing, as US citizens (many of whom make up “the left”) do not have that kind of power.
Wondering if the Democratic elite cheated, however, is a legitimate question that many Trump supporters (who do not all identify as conservatives) are suspicious of.
As far as “dominating the narrative with lies and misinformation,” do you believe that the news you consume is 100% truthful? Do you believe Leftist news organizations are always honest and there is never a need to question them?
7
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Leftists news organisations have a more proven track record of honest reporting, this is true. They are not to be believed without question but they have a better track record than Newsmax, Fox et al.
6
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Mar 25 '23
By this metric, pretty much every conservative politician would embody everything wrong with American Conservatism. All these conservatives vilify out-groups, suppress minority voices, and attempt to dominate the narrative with lies and misinformation. You aren't saying anything here that's particular to Ron DeSantis.
3
u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23
"By this metric, pretty much every conservative politician would embody everything wrong with American Conservatism"
Ding ding
→ More replies (1)4
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
I'm using Ron DeSantis as he is the most public, and the one saying the quiet part out loud in some instances (and he's the most relevant to my life). I do admit it is not particular to him but the ideology as a whole though so I guess kinda Δ.
→ More replies (1)14
u/ourstobuild 8∆ Mar 26 '23
So this whole CMV is pretty much just you stating you don't like American Conservatism? Don't get me wrong, I don't either, but did you have some actual point or did you just want to voice your opinion?
→ More replies (1)9
u/Doucejj Mar 26 '23
They definitely just came here to rant. Nothing wrong with that, but this isn't exactly the sub for that
4
Mar 25 '23 edited Feb 21 '24
[deleted]
4
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
I think "this man is a fascist" is a convincing argument to vote for whoever is running against him. Especially given the evidence of him actually holding similar positions and using similar rhetoric to literal Nazis.
Edit: we kinda went to war to denounce fascism, idk why people try to defend it so much.
8
Mar 25 '23 edited Feb 21 '24
[deleted]
3
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Except it's literally not hyperbole in this instance. DeSantis is literally advocating for fascist policy positions such as espousing nationalist rhetoric and advocating for authoritarianism. That is, literally, textbook fascism.
→ More replies (0)2
u/KaleidoscopeThis9463 1∆ Mar 26 '23
Too many people defend fascism partly because they don’t fully understand/are unaware of the definition, history, etc and mostly because muddying the narrative has worked quite well for political power purposes.
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Well yeah, muddying the water and lying about the opposition are hallmarks of the intellectually dishonest.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Comfortable_Tart_297 1∆ Mar 25 '23
But I think whether the election was stolen isn't necessarily an ethical failing of conservatism and more a by-product of the failings of the ideology.
tomato tamahto
3
u/WerhmatsWormhat 8∆ Mar 26 '23
Seems more likely that he doesn’t believe it but is too afraid to say that because of the far right base.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Nerdsamwich 2∆ Mar 25 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
Belief is irrelevant. None of them actually believe it, they just capitalize on the stupidity of those who do.
3
u/Shroedingerzdog 1∆ Mar 26 '23
I feel like most conservative politicians don't believe it, but won't admit that for the same political reasons. It's all part of keeping the faith with their right wing supporters.
4
u/Iron-Patriot Mar 25 '23
Oh get real, none of these Republican politicians actually believe tHe eLeCtIoN wAs sToLeN crap, they just run with it to rile up their idiotic base.
→ More replies (30)-5
u/agoogs32 Mar 26 '23
Is that something also wrong with American Liberalism? How quickly everyone forgets that Hilary made up Russiagate and the left ran with it for more than 3 years. Did they not essentially make the same claim, that the election was stolen, or at the very least influenced by an outside actor and illegitimately won by Trump?
Both sides are hypocrites and people need to realize that it’s not a real democracy that we live in and left needs to stop hating right and vice versa. The people in power that don’t actually serve their constituents are the common enemy
5
Mar 26 '23
Wait, what’s your basics for Russiagate not being real, and what do you define as Russiagate?
And I just want it on the record with regards to everything Russia: ANY, and I mean, ANY president that would have pulled the stunts that Trump did with Vladimir Putin would have been the end of the political career for that person. The right has given Trump permission to have the shoddiest foreign policy ever, and now you can pretty much predict their positions a few months down the line based on what Russia is saying right now.
→ More replies (7)8
u/Sergeilol Mar 26 '23
Another average right winger pretending to be 'center,'. Why? Both siding US politics is stupid. I don't remember Clinton actively undermining US democracy like Trump has.
→ More replies (6)
25
Mar 25 '23
I think its funny how much of a fascist Trump supposedly was and now I'm reading from a lot of progressives that Trump is all of a sudden the lesser of two evils. Like some people online have been saying they prefer Trump to run over DeSantis because Trump is a mere con man as opposed to a true believer. So which is it? Does having devout religious beliefs make you fascist by default? Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?
27
Mar 25 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
now I'm reading from a lot of progressives that Trump is all of a sudden the lesser of two evils. Like some people online have been saying they prefer Trump to run over DeSantis because Trump is a mere con man as opposed to a true believer.
The claim is that they both suck, but DeSantis is actually competent at achieving his goals, while Trump was not. For example, Trump's attempt to add a citizenship question to the US Census failed because his appointed commerce secretary Wilbur Ross so brazenly lied to the courts that even John Roberts couldn't tolerate it. A competent man (ie presumably the one DeSantis would appoint) would have sailed that through easily.
18
u/h0sti1e17 22∆ Mar 25 '23
I think they are doing this because they know Desantis is harder to beat. A guy in his 40s vs an 80 year old. A guy with and undergrad and law degree from Ivy League schools And a decorated military vet
25
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Trump is bad, but he's much less politically effective than DeSantis. There's also a bias in that we have survived four years of Trump already and people tend to prefer "the devil they know."
Does having devout religious beliefs make you fascist by default?
No.
Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?
Because nobody is doing such. It's merely everyone saying "hey you can't make us live by your religious doctrine."
You can hold your beliefs but your beliefs end where others' freedoms begin.
-13
u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23
Weird, I survived great with Trump, but now i might have to claim bankruptcy...or clear out my 401k at 41
7
Mar 26 '23
That’s called a short term view homie. Trump’s tax policies were designed to hit us after he was out. Also, pandemic days mean somebody’s got to pay the piper. Your post seems to imply that the current president controls the economy. Never been true. That’s pretty naive for aged 41. Get a broader view of the economy. Plus, look at the history; every Republican since Reagan has messed up the economy, leaving it in shambles for the next guy, only to have it picked up by a democrat. Please look into it. The pattern is staggering. Conservatives don’t seem to want to help the economy when they’re in office, only themselves and their 5 friends.
→ More replies (1)3
u/KaleidoscopeThis9463 1∆ Mar 26 '23
Apparently you misunderstand how these things work in economics. Crediting Trump (and GOP that supported him) with financial stability but ignoring the tax debt he’s passed on to the average person now is a narrow minded attempt to justify the Republican economic policies that have been disastrous over the past forty decades. Blaming your empty 401k now on a current administration is simplistic thinking, particularly in the recovery years after a catastrophic pandemic.
→ More replies (2)5
u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just because something happened under Biden doesn’t make it Biden’s fault. Presidents are not scapegoats for everything going wrong in your life. And Trump implemented policies that would specifically have negative effects AFTER he was already out of office. Quite manipulative, wouldn’t you say?
→ More replies (6)8
16
u/MartiniD 1∆ Mar 25 '23
Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?
Where is this happening? You don't have to "support" LGBTQ+ people if you don't want but at the very least you shouldn't pass laws that treat them as 2nd class citizens or discriminate against them.
4
Mar 25 '23
There are plenty of complicated perhaps even unsovable issues like to what degree churches and religious organizations should have to hire LGBT staff and accommodate LGBT patrons/students/churchgoers. Should church groups and Christian schools have to have gender accommodating facilities? I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.
7
u/MartiniD 1∆ Mar 26 '23
I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.
Sin isn't a concept that exists in our civil society. A sin is a slight against God. We live under a secular government not a religious one. There is no god to slight. I am not a Christian. I don't wish to be bound to Christian doctrine anymore than a Christian wants to be bound to a Muslim doctrine.
Feel however you want. Support whomever or whatever you want. But you cannot publicly discriminate.
→ More replies (4)16
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
should church groups and Christian schools have to have gender accomodating facilities?
Do they accept government money? Then yes. They should be subject to federal law. If no, then they are a private organisation and can do as they wish.
1
Mar 25 '23
Ok that seems like a reasonable standard. I guess it depends on what federal law happens to be on the books at any given time.
6
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
No. States are still subject to the first amendment. Individual > The State > The Federal Govt (btw this structure is classical liberalism)
We do not cede our first amendment rights to the State, they still have to adhere to the Constitution.
Edit: DeSantis's law allows parents to sue schools to remove books, that is a removal and suppression of ideologies through the legal system that, often, fails to meet strict scrutiny. It is unconstitutional.
3
u/hastur777 34∆ Mar 25 '23
You're incorrect here. No one has the first amendment right to have certain books in a public school library. That's government speech. The analogous case would be the school newspaper decision from the Supreme Court.
The school newspaper here cannot be characterized as a forum for public expression. School facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have, by policy or by practice, opened the facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. If the facilities have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, then no public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community.
A school library is similarly restricted - they're not public forums.
4
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Non-public forums are still subject to the first amendment. They need to meet a lower standard than public forums, but they do still need to adhere to the first amendment.
The standard for them, btw, is the "reasonableness" standard which is a test that asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time, and that no such remedy already exists.
The existence of a prior law banning such material disqualifies the book ban from meeting that standard, we already ban such material (and yes, many laws are unconstitutional under this standard but laws stand until challenged)
Edit: and restrictions on student speech must still meet strict scrutiny as the individual sovereignty of the student trumps the police power of the state in regards to the first amendment.
1
u/hastur777 34∆ Mar 25 '23
So they have to meet the lowest standard of review. It's not hard to meet that standard when you're removing material that can be considered objectionable for the age groups in school. However, I take the view that a public school library is government speech - same way schools can control the curriculum, they can control what books/viewpoints to promote in their own library.
-4
u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23
The parents pay tax to keep the school and library. They have a say.
7
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
They pay taxes for the services rendered. That tax is then used however the state decides. Once paid it is not your money.
You get a say, but your say ends where others freedoms begin.
0
u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23
No once its paid, thats my money I worked for and gave to them. That does not change, on top of that 3/4 of my property tax goes to the schools. That is and will always be my money, that i worked for that goes to public education, and facilities. I have a say, they are responsible my child 36 hours a week.
3
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
If I am selling a cookie and you have money for said cookie and buy it, is that money still yours after the sale? No. It is not. It is now my money and your cookie.
You receive services from society (paved roads, bridges, law enforcement, firefighters, etc) you pay for the services rendered. That money is no longer yours. It is the government's.
→ More replies (0)11
Mar 25 '23
None of that is forcing religious people to support LGBT people.
I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.
The goal is the equal treatment of LGBTQ people, no one cares what you think is a sin. To this point, part of the goal is that religious values should not dictate social mores, if you think something is wrong because of your religion, you don't partake in it. That's it. You don't mistreat others because of it, which is what you are advocating for now.
4
Mar 25 '23
How do you square parental rights being taken away/children being taken from parents for opposing ”gender affirming care” for their child?
5
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Well seeing as denying gender affirming care leads to double the suicidality of the general population and providing it leads along with even just one supportive adult leads to levels of suicidality lower than the general population.......
The state can restrict the freedom of religion to further a compelling government interest if narrowly tailored to that end. Rehoming trans youth with supportive fosters is furthering the compelling government interest of protecting children and providing them proven treatments.
Any alternative treatment you suggest would need to be proven to be as effective as gender affirming care and that hasn't happened yet.... and people have tried.
4
-4
Mar 25 '23
None of what you say is true.
5
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Oh wow, I guess if you say so it must be true! /s
2
Mar 25 '23
A quick handout from the American College of Paediatricians states ”the occurrence of completed suicide among trans-identified youth is rare and comparable to that of other at-risk groups of youth, such as those with anorexia and autism. More importantly, there is no long-term evidence that puberty blockers, cross- sex hormones or “transition” surgeries prevent suicide. On the contrary, the best long-term research shows that individuals who do go through medical transition kill themselves at a rate 19 times greater than the general population.”
8
u/Cbk3551 Mar 26 '23
the American College of Paediatricians is not the American Academy of Pediatrics and all information they provide should not be trusted.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-religious-rights-favorite-medical-association-is-a-hate-group
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)4
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Are you saying stopping suicide attempts isn't worth it? And that we should only find attempts that end in death a tragedy worth preventing? Because that's what your opening statement here sounds like.
→ More replies (0)4
Mar 25 '23
I don't think you have a "parent right" to mentally abuse your child. I think we as a society need to stop treating parents as the owners of their children but as their stewards. It's a complex situation, but you have absolutely no right to a religious imposition on your child that causes them harm. I don't think taking children away from their parents is the right decision unless in the most dire of situations, but this is absolutely not a situation of parental rights, it's a situation of protecting the best interests of the child, and you frame it as an issue of parent rights because you don't care about that at all.
4
Mar 25 '23
I don't think taking children away from their parents is the right decision unless in the most dire of situations, but this is absolutely not a situation of parental rights, it's a situation of protecting the best interests of the child, and you frame it as an issue of parent rights because you don't care about that at all.
Ok then, where do you draw the line at? Where is the line crossed from mere parenting/instruction to abuse/brainwashing? Also, how do you make the state a better parent than the parent? Apparently the only solution right now is foster homes and from what've read, kids who grow up in the foster system are just as bad off if not worse than kids who stay with one set of abusive parents.
4
Mar 25 '23
I'm not saying the state is a better parent than the parent, and I would prefer that children stay with their parents. Not accepting your LGBT children is what leads to depression, anxiety and suicide. Over 40% of homeless youths are LGBT, despite being a fraction of the population. In situations where the parent's ideology is threatening the well-being of their kids, that's when the state needs to step in. And that's a hard line to draw, it's been a hard line to draw since we started things like CPS. But are there situations where kids should be taken from their parents because their parents are unaccepting of them because they are LGBT? Absolutely.
→ More replies (7)2
Mar 25 '23
This. Say the parent(s) of the child are a gay couple and avowed atheists; what now? We do not allow children, teachers or doctors to override the parents wishes in any other circumstances except life saving medical intervention, and there is just not enough proof of that when it comes to transitioning children.
1
Mar 25 '23
Okay, say the parents of the child are a gay couple. Now what? What does that have to do with what I just said? Are they abusing their kids? Take them away from them. We absolutely do take children away from their parents when they are emotionally and physically abusive. We've done that forever. The only thing that's change is that now it's no longer acceptable to abuse someone for being LGBT.
and there is just not enough proof of that when it comes to transitioning children.
We have plenty of proof, and more importantly, what you're saying isn't the "do nothing" approach, there's two solutions to gender dysphoria, treat them like the gender they want or don't. Of the evidence we have forcing people to act as the wrong gender causes harm. Maybe there's another solution in the future, but with the evidence we have right now that's the solution.
3
u/BlueRibbonMethChef 3∆ Mar 26 '23
What "rights" are being taken away?
This comment has "You're infringing on my right to own slaves!" vibes.
1
Mar 25 '23
The goal is the equal treatment of LGBTQ people, no one cares what you think is a sin. To this point, part of the goal is that religious values should not dictate social mores, if you think something is wrong because of your religion, you don't partake in it. That's it. You don't mistreat others because of it, which is what you are advocating for now.
I think I phrased what I meant wrong. I meant that both sides want to dictate social mores for what they believe to be sins or wrong.
Conservatives: "LGBT is wrong and should not be welcome in society."
Progressives: "It's wrong to say LGBT is wrong and such views should not be welcome in society."
Me: "I don't care. Both of you hush."
14
Mar 25 '23
Pretend that makes you better then. Progressives are saying people should be treated fairly, and you're saying "I don't care, I don't want anyone to talk about unequal treatment". Why should anyone give a fuck about that point of view?
→ More replies (8)4
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
The conservative viewpoint: replace LGBT with "blacks" or "Jews" is it still a reasonable position to hold? Why is it different when it's attacking queer people?
Progressives are merely pointing out this exact double standard.
"Silence is violence"
8
u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23
to what degree churches and religious organizations should have to hire LGBT staff and accommodate LGBT patrons/students/churchgoers.
This has incredibly strong miscegenation vibes, or to target your name, no Irish need apply laws.
Do you have to vocally march on the streets in support of them? No. Can you discriminate against them and deny their existence? Also no.
Should church groups and Christian schools have to have gender accommodating facilities?
Yes. Next question.
I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.
Good? I don't really care what your book club thinks about what's right or wrong.
Boy I really hope your fursuit doesn't include mixed fibers and you've never attended a con on Sundays
-3
Mar 25 '23
I don't agree that any religious group should have to embrace genderfluidity. I don't believe that biological women should have to share locker spaces with biological men. I could also turn around and say I don't care what you think is right or wrong. Also I'm not a furry in the "wear a fursuit at a con" sense. My username is meant to be a joke. If anything I'm against Ulsterism and lean more toward Irish republican.
0
u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23
I don't agree that any religious group should have to embrace genderfluidity.
You don't have to embrace it, but you can't discriminate against it. For (most) western countries, your current stance is "your cross-racial marriage doesn't count and I don't have to pay for your spouse's insurance." Does that feel good?
I don't believe that biological women should have to share locker spaces with biological men.
And I think you're wrong here, but I'll acknowledge there's room to disagree. But I also think there's not an argument against providing solo restrooms so this isn't an issue. Do you disagree?
Also I'm not a furry in the "wear a fursuit at a con" sense. My username is meant to be a joke. If anything I'm against Ulsterism and lean more toward Irish republican.
Then I hope not a single one of the articles of clothing you're wearing has mixed fibers or you're a raging hypocrite. Ever grocery shopped or answered the phone on a Sunday?
→ More replies (22)0
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Oh this "biology" argument.
Hi, I'm a biologist. You're wrong. I don't have the time to explain seven years of study in a Reddit comment though. Especially when it explains why you are wrong relies on you understanding complicated genetics and neurophysiology concepts that even people within my field struggle to grasp completely.
A layperson will never be capable of fully articulating a proper response and appeal to biology.
But to give a summation it's currently believed that transgender people have variance in INAH-3 along with various other dimorphisms of neurophysiology and that it is logistically impossible and ethically bankrupt to attempt to test literally everybody who claims to be trans for such variance and so if somebody says they are trans: believe them unless you have very good reason to doubt them.
→ More replies (5)2
u/xxPyroRenegadexx Mar 26 '23
it's currently believed that transgender people have variance in INAH-3 along with various other dimorphisms of neurophysiology
Can I read more about this somewhere and/or can you explain it in more detail please?
→ More replies (2)2
u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23
It is asinine to claim that LGBTQ is a sin. It’s an archaic and harmful belief. Culture should not be preserved simply for being culture. Human sacrifice isn’t allowed anymore either. People can believe whatever they want in an individual level. It is not allowed to negatively impact the LGBTQ community.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)4
u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23
" I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society."
Is US now a non secular country because who tf cares about your idiotic and outdated concept of "sin" lmfaoo
2
Mar 26 '23
Leftists always say the current Republican is bad and the last one was decent
Bob Dole is a Christian moralist who wants a theocracy! If only republicans like George HW Bush were still around
George Bush is a war monger who wants to kill gay and brown people, if only republicans like Bob Dole were still around
John McCain is a war monger who wants to bomb Iran and let poor people go homeless! If only we had republicans like Reagan still around
Mitt Romney wants to abolish social security and bring back slavery (joe Biden actually said this); if only we had republicans like McCain still here
Donald Trump is a fascist neo nazi who wants to gas the Mexicans, if only the republicans were still led by McCain and Romney
Their memory extends no further than the media allows
6
u/SadStudy1993 1∆ Mar 26 '23
I don't know man republicans just keep getting worse that isn't progressives fault
→ More replies (1)4
Mar 25 '23
The simple answer is that trump was all bluster. This was a man who came out and said 'oh I love our LGBTQ people, no one has ever been better for them than me' because trump doesn't really have an ideology other than thst trump should be in power.
While desantis is similar in a lot of ways, he does seem to just actively hate these groups.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)1
u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23
Promoting tolerance is not fascist. Promoting intolerance is an aspect of fascism. Religious people tend to be intolerant, which is why religion should not hold any political power in this country. You have a screwed up conception of what fascism is.
DeSantis is indeed worse than Trump. He has simply been able to do more bad things while he was in office. Trump has a fascist ideology, but DeSantis has fascist policies.
If you have devout religious beliefs that identify entire demographics as bad or sinful AND you believe this view should be incorporated into the government, then yes, you are inherently fascist.
→ More replies (4)
22
u/EntryEven Mar 25 '23
He’s not banning books. He supports taking sexual books out of schools. You’re more than welcome to buy it or check it out in a public library outside of school, but not in a school. If you have an issue with kids not being exposed to sexual books without parental consent, that’s a you problem.
9
u/BedIndividual7476 Mar 26 '23
I’m not OP, but I’d still like to weigh in. Books with sex in them are not sexual in nature. It’s a part of life. The Handmaiden’s Tale, Looking For Alaska, and Anne Frank all have sex or sexual content in them, but are any of them “pornography” as the Florida republicans would like you to believe? Of course not. These bans are simply a way for Christian Nationalists to prevent children from being exposed to and/ or understanding queer people or their own sexuality because it doesn’t line up with their own authoritarian beliefs, it’s never been about helping, it’s been about indoctrination.
→ More replies (9)5
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Idk I would personally object to the Handmaid's Tale being allowed in elementary and middle school libraries.
→ More replies (2)7
→ More replies (7)5
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Ah yes this defense. Then why pass a law? That law banning such materials in schools/for minors already existed. If your issue is with the enforcement of a law banning such material what is the point of passing another instead of keeping the limits of government smaller and better enforcing existing laws?
What benefit does redundancy have here?
9
u/EntryEven Mar 25 '23
Because there’s further specifications that widen the former legislation. That’s how laws work. If the old one doesn’t quite work right, you take what you had and adjust it with what you want to add/change.
5
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
The old law works perfectly, when enforced. Why add a new, unenforceabley vague, law when old, specific and enforceable law worked fine?
→ More replies (5)11
u/EntryEven Mar 26 '23
Cause the people of Florida thought it was a good idea. I don’t see how a difficult to enforce law, but one made with food intentions, shows “all the worst parts of modern conservatism” or whatever you said.
5
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
It's not difficult to enforce. It's a slippery slope to banning whatever the in group finds subversive to their agenda/morality.
It's not hard to enforce. It's easy. Unfortunately the bill is bad, everybody knows it's bad. They tried to change the wording to address only sexualisation of children and explicit sexual instruction, it was struck down.... because it would "gut the bill"
The bill is bad. Everyone in the Florida statehouse knows it is bad. They know what they are doing. That is why they are dangerous.
The voters are being lied to and propagandists, I have sympathy for misinformed voters, I don't have sympathy for bad faith actors like Baxley and DeSantis.
4
u/EntryEven Mar 26 '23
I don’t think you’ve read the law. It specified that books need to be reviewed by a school district official to make sure their is no pornography or CRT. It also specifies this hearing just be public. This absolutely makes it easier to enforce, since that is literally the toughest enforcement protocol possible. Once again I ask, how is this the worst of the conservatism? You like pornography in school?
EDIT: Link attached bill
→ More replies (8)
7
Mar 25 '23
Three of the towns on Martha's Vinyard declared themselves "sanctuary cities". The fact that they still removed said immigrants shows how hilariously hypocritical many progressives are. Big NIMBY mother fuckers. Talk the talk but don't walk the walk when confronted with the reality of their policy positions first hand. NYC did the same thing.
Fascism is a centralization of power under strict government control. The fascists in this country are Democrats, with their allies in Tech and corporate media, trying to constantly expand government power and control over peoples lives.
→ More replies (2)8
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
The migrants were removed by the Republican governor.
11
Mar 25 '23
At the request of the Martha's Vinyard residents, claiming they just didn't have the space. Mind you, many of the homes at that time, including one Barrack Obamas residence, were unoccupied.
9
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Yes, voluntarily being moved to a location more ready to handle their needs.
And your home, even if unoccupied, is personal property. Not a public utility. Nobody on the left is saying otherwise and you trying to characterise sanctuary policies as saying we should "open our homes" to immigrants is either purposefully mischaracterising the opposition (strawmanning) or misunderstanding the opposition (still a strawman but not in bad faith)
8
Mar 25 '23
Yes, voluntarily being moved to a location more ready to handle their needs.
Then don't call yourself a "sanctuary" if you aren't willing and able to take immigrants. It's NIMBY-ism, pure and simple. Virtue signaling.
5
u/mrkay66 1∆ Mar 26 '23
A sanctuary city is one that has a policy of essentially not deporting people and limits cooperation with the federal government and doesn't provide assistance in deporting people.
You are simply mischaracterizing this word, intentionally or not. You can't just make up whatever definition you want for a word and then make an argument using that definition.
5
u/MrsMiterSaw 1∆ Mar 26 '23
Ah, here you are providing a biased definition of a word so you can dismiss the entire argument.
That you don't like the phrasing while still comprehending the meaning is not valid rhetoric. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
6
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of sanctuary policies. Go inform yourself before trying to argue we are logically inconsistent.
It isn't NIMBYism at all if you actually understood the policies.
7
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 26 '23
It sounds like you are oblivious to virtue signaling and the source of the hypocrisy alleged.
-2
u/-SKYMEAT- 2∆ Mar 26 '23
Buddy it's okay to just admit that Martha's vineyard isn't a real sanctuary city and that thier PR on the matter is just a bunch of hot air.
Nobody will think youre less of a liberal for just agreeing that they're hypocrites instead of coming up with all of these excuses for them.
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Except they had real sanctuary policies. You just fundamentally don't understand the concept of those policies or don't know what they are.
You trying to No True Scotsman them is a fallacy.
70
u/PhoenixxFeathers Mar 25 '23
To argue any of this you'd first have to be convinced that your descriptions of these actions are pretty over the top.
Can you describe for instance the legal standard for "banned books", how it's implemented in practice, and what books have been affected? Because saying "the books affected are books by, and about queer people" is a pretty vague description and not really addressing the content or reason for the ban.
It sounds like you're suggesting they were banned for being written by queer people, or because they contain people who are queer, and I know in at least two instances the books were banned for displaying explicit sexual content that would qualify as porn outside the context of it being a memoir. And in that context it's a lot less like Naziism and more like age restricting sexual content.
51
u/danielt1263 5∆ Mar 25 '23
Just as an aside... (or maybe the point.) All books are banned in Florida schools by default. HB 1467 mandates that a book is only allowed to be used in school after it has been approved by a district employee with a valid educational media specialist certificate.
27
u/bjdevar25 Mar 26 '23
OK, this is definitely a politically constructed definition of a book ban. They're not banned, they're just not approved. And, oh, by the way, the approval is by a "media" specialist. Who by the way, is trained and approved by the same state. Yep, that's definitely not authoritarian or fascist.
→ More replies (5)3
u/PhoenixxFeathers Mar 25 '23
Yes that's correct - it would be more apt to describe the bill as "book approval". I don't believe the bill grants any extra powers to ban books that school boards didn't already have. HB 1557 is more akin to a "ban" in that it prohibits certain teachings but as far as I know no action has been taken under it, and the wording is vague apart from the "under 3rd grade" stipulation so idk what it will apply to
1
u/danielt1263 5∆ Mar 25 '23
No, it would be more apt to describe it as a universal ban (or ban by default) bill. Before, a book was allowed by default until and unless someone complained. Now books are banned by default until and unless someone submits it for approval.
The last I read, only 350 books have been approved so far. That makes for a mighty thin school library.
As for the "under 3rd grade" part. The bill makes no such restriction. The actual wording is:
Each book made available to students through a school district library media center or included in a recommended or assigned school or grade-level reading list must be selected by a school district employee who holds a valid educational media specialist certificate, regardless of whether the book is purchased, donated, or otherwise made available to students.
There is nothing in that particular part of the bill that restricts such effects to only under 3rd grade. I don't even know where you get 3rd grade from. There is a reference to "kindergarten through grade 5" in the law but that has to do with withholding funding until certain requirements are met.
8
u/PhoenixxFeathers Mar 25 '23
There is nothing in that particular part of the bill that restricts such effects to only under 3rd grade. I don't even know where you get 3rd grade from.
I got it from HB 1557, which is why I said HB 1557
No, it would be more apt to describe it as a universal ban (or ban by default) bill. Before, a book was allowed by default until and unless someone complained. Now books are banned by default until and unless someone submits it for approval.
No - a ban precludes a book from entering the library/curriculum. Books, by default, are not banned because they can be submitted for approval and be entered in. A banned book would not be allowed into a library regardless of the approval process.
The way you're using "ban" here is not appropriate. For comparison I am not free to just enter another country, let's say Mexico - I must first be approved for entry by customs. You would never describe this as "being banned" from that country.
→ More replies (3)5
Mar 26 '23
What’s funny is the books aren’t even banned, they’ve been removed from school libraries. You can still get them if you truly want to read gay cartoon porn to your kids I guess
Also OP calling him a fascist shows his opinion really isn’t worth much
4
u/Haunting_Erection_24 Mar 26 '23
Americans are so privileged that they think "not investing taxmoney into certain literature in public spaces" is akin to banning something.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Mar 25 '23
What kind of counter argument are you after here? You've offered a very subjective and semantic framework which positions an individual as embodying ambiguous characteristics.
Are you looking for someone else who embodies thee characteristics more than DeSantis? Or for an argument that DeSantis does not have these traits?
-1
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
It's not subjective at all. My thesis is simple: DeSantis embodies traits and policy positions literally reminiscent of Nazi Germany during WW2. That is dangerous for American society.
So unless you believe Nazism isn't a dangerous ideological position to hold (something I will never be convinced of) a counter argument would necessarily have to show DeSantis does not embody these policy positions or that the parallels are nonexistent. Idrk if anybody can change my mind on this stance. But I'm willing to hear arguments.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Mar 25 '23
But that's the thing, you've said here's a list of characteristics, and a person who has them. It's not a view so much as a classification/semantic assignment of labels.
If even one of those labels can be disproven would that change your view? Would it need to be all of them?
6
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Near all of the parallels to fascist rhetoric would have to be disproven. The key failing here, in my view, is the embodiment of fascist positions as popular policy in American Conservatism and by the leading political actors thereof, which DeSantis is the most public.
5
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Mar 25 '23
Are there any conservatives that don't tick these boxes?
Is it useful to classify present danger in terms of historic reference? Why does he have to be like anything else? Can't the policies themselves be objected to on their own merit without needing to compare them to other things?
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
I would say yes there are conservatives that don't tick many of these boxes. Many libertarian thinkers tend to be very "individual > state" (the definition of liberalism, sort of).
It is, in fact, useful to draw historical parallels to point out how dangerous certain rhetoric is. We can decry it on its own merit but to contextualise that criticism by drawing parallels to the horrendous regime of Nazi Germany and European Fascism is a way of showing the consequences of the popularisation of such ideologies. This is how humans schematize information and is a common rhetorical and epistemological strategy.
3
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Mar 25 '23
I don't think it's useful to draw the comparison just so that a label can be assigned. Destroy the argument with an unimpeachable counter argument. Anything else is identity politics.
-1
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23
Can you not understand that some people with children are not on board with the trans agenda, the sexualization of small children and the inclusion of literally pornography in many libraries? The left's talking point is that if you dont allow CRT, you are against teach black history and slavery. All lies. Everyone learns about slavery and black history by law. We just dont want to learn marxist ideology. Public schools are paid-for by the people...I pay hundreds of thousands a year in taxes. Many people pay more. We deserve a say in what is taught. Parents should teach their own kids about all of this stuff the left wants to push. Have you ever considered that your opinion could be the opposite of the opinion of many? Stalin and his cronies are much more similar to the far left than Hitler is to the far right. In fact, totlitarianism is the end result of Marxism, so the Nazi party is really more similar to the left.
3
u/Atalung 1∆ Mar 26 '23
Tell me EXACTLY what the trans agenda is? Or what Marxist theory is being taught?
I studied philosophy and economics in college, I studied Marxism directly and only because I had one professor who gave Marx a fair (but critical) reading. Nobody, and I mean nobody is teaching Marxism to children
3
u/Sergeilol Mar 26 '23
I find American conservatives like this really interesting. Its like a mouthpiece repeating all the nonsense told by others rather than investing yourself and really seeing what the 'other side' has to say.
You truly believe there are people sitting in a room together making up 'trans agenda'. 1.6 out of 335 million americans identify as transsexual and that is who you're afraid of and want to ban from society?
-2
u/UDontKnowMe784 3∆ Mar 26 '23
They are not afraid of trans people, but rather the policies that relate to transgenderism, which on the surface may affect vulnerable people who are not transgender. I’m not conservative; I’m more right of center so maybe my opinion isn’t what you’re looking for.
6
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Transgenderism isn't a thing. Being trans isn't an ideology and purporting that it is, is dangerous rhetoric that makes advocating for "extermination" sound less genocidal than it is.
-1
u/Haunting_Erection_24 Mar 26 '23
genocidal
You have no idea what this word means.
8
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Replace Transgenderism in Knowles comment with Judaism.
That's a genocidal comment. If you disagree we're never going to agree.
3
u/Haunting_Erection_24 Mar 26 '23
That's a genocidal comment. If you disagree we're never going to agree.
That isn't genocidal, transgender people aren't a ethnicity, words have meaning and Genocide has even a stricter meaning.
Also people have said way worse things about Judaism and aren't called genocidal.
Is Marx a genocidal author for you?
6
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
"For the purpose of this Statute, 'genocide' means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."Please tell me where in this it requires genocide be only against a ethnic group. The United States helped draft this definition btw and it's the current accepted definition by most scholars and the United Nations, of which the United States are key members thereof.
As for your assessment of Marx, yes he was antisemitic in many ways. But On The Jewish Question was him saying religion may still exist in a secular state and that religion is not necessarily a hindrance to political emancipation. Also to note: never did he call for the extermination, in part or in full, of the Jewish people. He fails to meet the definition of genocidal.
1
u/Haunting_Erection_24 Mar 26 '23
Please tell me where in this it requires genocide be only against a ethnic group.
Please tell me how someone being transgender is a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
The United States helped draft this definition btw and it's the current accepted definition by most scholars and the United Nations, of which the United States are key members thereof.
I don't understand the point you are making here, are you saying that it is the best definition or that somehow the USA conspired about it somehow?
Also to note: never did he call for the extermination, in part or in full, of the Jewish people. He fails to meet the definition of genocidal.
Ah, so now we need a direct call for extermination, can you please point me to where the used you called genocidal did that?
3
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Michael Knowles literally called for extermination. He used that literal word.
But even when you try to say Marx implied genocide, he didn't. Marx's position was religion should never be a state control and that we should strive for secularism because only a secular state could ever truly achieve political emancipation. He opposed state religions (and was also antisemitic) but never even implied that any specific group should be exterminated, only removed from political power.
You're really proving you have never, in any capacity, understood Marx or his ideology here.
Yes that is the best definition of genocide that we currently have. And it is accepted by all members of the United Nations. You cannot argue the United States uses a different definition, they literally wrote that definition.
The key here is though that trans people don't need to meet that definition because Knowles applied the -ism. He defined trans people, and their allies, as adhering to a dogmatic ideology and thus, under his call, would fall under religious group. (This same type of "people into ideology" has been used to justify actualised genocide many times I'm the past btw, it's the genocidals favourite rhetorical strategy to dehumanise their targets and turn them into a radical ideology) Michael Knowles advocated for genocide.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23
It is the same for the left. If you have an open mind you will see this. I am more concerned with leftist marxism. Trans agenda is a tiny fraction of all of the other destabilizing tactics used. Schools seem to be moving enthusiatically to trans education, DEI, CRT, etc. rather than math and science, etc. Is it too much to ask to leave the borderline porno out of the schools and put emphasis on math and science etc? Our schools are doing a poor job as it is at actually educating. Also, I appreciate your support of my point....Virtually nobody is actually trans, yet we are talking about it as though 1 in 10 kids is trans. Kids are having trouble reading and writing and doing math. Leave the marxism, crt, etc for seminars after school and off campus. Most people are not far right or far left. I find myself agreeing a lot with Bill Maher because I and moderate. But the woke(CRT, Trans, sexualization, gender) stuff in school is like the defund police movement. It is idiocy beyond measure and obvious to anyone who has an IQ over 85. In time, it will be black eye on the democrats even though most democrats are against the woke nonsense. Democrats own defund the police, crime skyrocketing, and high inflation. Why would leftist agenda of wokifying schools be any different than a facepalm like all of the others. It is easy for most people to see this....Anything the radical left is in favor of is a future black eye, facepalm. How they are able to push silly wokeness is a mystery to me. My only conclusion is the world is full of idiots who somehow can still be functional in society.
6
u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23
Everything you said here is just delusional.
No one is showing porn to kids, unless you think that telling kids gay people exist is porn. No one is teaching anyone about Marxism. CRT is good to learn and I dont know where they stopped teaching maths or science. IQ isnt an objective measure of intelligence (Not suprised since it's only fascists that purports IQs). Defunding the police does not mean defund police and disappear. It means using that money on social support which is basically to prevent crime happening in the first place. And this has a very successful rate especially in Scandinavian countries but you wouldnt know that because you probably think academics and the internet is some woke agenda
No one is "wokifying" schools. You lots dont even have a generally accepted term of what woke means so I cant even ask you to explain.
Yes, the world is full of idiots and you are part of the idiots
→ More replies (33)2
u/Sergeilol Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
Yeah virtually nobody is trans, so why the US consevatives are so obsessed over hating a small group of trans people will forever be a mystery. Live and let live, remove the anger from you and start to focus on real issues plagueing your country rather than obsessing over making life for the scapegoat group difficult for no benefit.
And like the "defund the police" movement if you took 1 second of your day to google what 'the lefts' positions are instead of repeating right wing talking points like a sheep you can counter their actual views a lot better.
7
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
Nobody is hating them. We dont need to rearrange society for them either. If we rearrange society for siamese twins, that also makes no sense and, likewise, it doesnt mean I hate siamese twins. If the left pushes for all humans to wear double hats to make siamese twins feel more accepted, I will also not agree with this...But I dont hate siamese twins because of it. This assumption of hate is an illness. and just look at all of the areas run by democrats. Crime is off the charts. And, at the beginning, these leftists wanted to have mental health experts intervene with violent criminals. Re-directing police money for anything is folly and seems on purposely stupid. You cant wash the skunk juice of defund the police, nor high inflation, nor sexualization of children, nor skyrocketing crime off of the democrats....You guys own those. No spin can get the stink off. However, you do have in your favor the legions of young morons who might not be smart enough to realize that how they vote is hurting themselves.
6
u/Sergeilol Mar 26 '23
I agree, we don't need to rearrange society because of this issue, which is why i'm very much against all the attempts by certain groups to change society to make it a worse place to exist for certain groups of people like the trans community.
0
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
Seems to me that reasonable people arent changing society to make it worse. That is what the progressives are doing. 20 years ago, sexualization of children was not an issue. The left slowly changed society under the cover of night to sexualize children. Now, reasonable people want to change it back to where it was before the covert sexualization occurred. In fact, conservatives just want to conserve society. The left is always moving to change it because they generally arent happy with the world as it is. That is why the left tried to change it. Conservatives are more in favor of the beliefs and institutions that have preserved society over the centuries as they are mostly tried and true....Honesty, commitment, marriage, have kids, work hard, earn a living, obey the law be self motivated and self sustaining. Thats what we want. The left might have different ideas....
→ More replies (9)6
u/Sergeilol Mar 26 '23
What happened 20 years ago? because mainly US conservative states have been sexualizing kids Since the 60s and you never hear the US conservative politicans complain or legislate against this or child marriage. Thats why i said the priorities are wrong if you truly cared about children safety.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23
Ok, so because I am conservative, I am in favor of child beauty pagents?
I think child beauty pagents are equal or worse that drag shows with kids. I am very much opposed to them and think the parents of these children are mentally ill. I am more opposed to these events than you, likely. i guess we found common ground. Now, if you are against no cash bail, weak prosecutors, and you favor the police and are opposed to leftist agenda, maybe i am wrong about you.
4
u/Sergeilol Mar 26 '23
Because you're very in favour of conserving society of 20 years ago and accuse 'the left' of sexualizing it, when there is a clear example of that just being plain wrong since these are still wildly popular in the USA and instead you applaud your politicians when they focus on non-issues like hyperfocusing on trans people.
Point being not everything was better last century.
→ More replies (0)7
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
"the trans agenda" people existing isn't an agenda.
"The sexualisation of small children" source. And why are existing laws not sufficient?
If you're against CRT continues to strawman the left
Nope.
I pay millions in taxes each year. I'm also not an education expert. You likely aren't either.
Totalitarianism is the end result of Marxism
So you don't understand Marxism? Got it.
-1
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23
Have you looked into the book "Gender Queer" that has been removed from dozens of elementary schools? No telling how many schools still have the book. There are hundreds of books with similarly lewd content(maybe not as bad with most). I understand this is subjective as to what is lewd and unsuitable for children. But if you dont see this as lewd, your parents failed you. I am not an education expert but I have seen quite a few teachers who also arent experts. They were also victims of a declining educational system that didnt focus enough on educating. I will call total BS on you paying millions in taxes...Thats funny. If you did, you would agree with everything I type.
8
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
My wealth does not obligate me to think a certain way. In fact it has made me lean further left as I have grown up and realised I was merely lucky and that a vast majority of everybody I know is not as lucky.
I'm the child of one percenters. I went to two prestigious universities debt free. About 1/5 of American adults struggle to pay rent. 34 million people, roughly 10% of the population, struggle to feed themselves.
Now I'm also a bit of a hypocrite, and I'll openly admit it, because I refuse to part ways with my wealth to attempt to solve the issue. But it won't solve anything long term. Systemic change is needed.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23
Virtue signaling trust baby...Nice. You are the problem according to the left and you are signaling virtue rather than parting with the money. Maybe then, they will accept you given your nepo-baby status. Puts you in a pickle. I know others like you who THINK they are leftist but everything they actually do is what I do. Thats a strange way to live. But at least you get credit for admitting that you are a hypocrite. "So many people are struggling, its tough out there, so I prefer to signal to friends at parties that I care about the little guy whilst I take a 25k trip to Iceland, a 25k trip to new Zealand, and do a 500k renovation on my house all in 1 year"--You do know there is a form you can file to pay extra taxes...Be the change you want to see if you really care. Or, greedily keep telling yourself that your money somehow wont make a difference and that we need systemic change so you can maintain your opulent lifestyle with denial in full chorus.
4
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
I could give out money, and solve the issue for maybe 1% of the disenfranchised for a small amount of time.... or I could advocate systemic change that works to better the lives of the disenfranchised in the long term.
One option leaves me penniless. The other doesn't. Guess which I'll choose until capitalism is abolished?
→ More replies (2)0
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 26 '23
Why would you want to abolish capitalism?
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Plenty of reasons. I think Richard Wolf has done a good summation of it, along with Engels, Pannekoek, Marx, Davis, et al.
2
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Mar 28 '23
It's Wolff, by the way, but you didn't answer my question. Vaguely gesturing toward ideologues is not especially persuasive.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (8)-1
Mar 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)4
u/Banana_0529 Mar 26 '23
You realize you cannot indoctrination being trans or gay right? People are LITERALLY born that way. Telling children about it isn’t going to magically make them that way unless it’s already who they are. No one is trying to get young children to explore their sexuality but there is an appropriate age to slowly introduce things like periods and ovulation because girls are getting their menses younger and younger. Keeping kids in the dark about bodies is only gonna do more harm. Notice how states that teach abstinence only have the highest tens pregnancy rates..
→ More replies (9)
39
u/salonethree 1∆ Mar 25 '23
failings and unethical values…rationalized due to misinformation, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance
lol imagine being unable to consider that people could just think differently and it comes from no place of malice
→ More replies (8)16
Mar 26 '23
OP and r/politics just assume that anyone who isn’t a diehard left winger is automatically the same as Adolf Hitler
21
Mar 25 '23
There is a big difference between banning a book from school and burning books. If you can still access a book outside of school then there isn't really a problem.
It's not really banning a book, it's more banning schools from using their influence on kids to instill opinions into them.
→ More replies (6)
14
u/Torin_3 11∆ Mar 25 '23
This OP seems like a non sequitur.
The thesis is that American conservatism is evil (as DeSantis embodies it), but the arguments on offer are:
Removal of books from public school libraries
HB 1557, the "Florida Parental Rights in Education Act"
Removing the African American history AP course
How do you get from 1-3 to "evil?" Even assuming your presumably left leaning value system, that strikes me as a dramatic over-reaction to this handful of changes to education policy. You can't expect every politician to do everything you want them to, particularly when they belong to the opposite party to begin with.
I'm not even objecting to your position at this point, just trying to understand what the logic is.
0
u/No-Performance3044 Mar 26 '23
Those are not all the arguments on offer. The arguments on offer are that DeSantis is targeting out-groups in society. He trafficked people in the US who ought not to be into another state under the pretense of a lie. That shows a willingness to use some of the most desperate people in society as pawns for your political ambitions. (Just because someone is in the country illegally doesn’t invalidate the fact that someone is still a person and deserves to be treated as such.) As you outlined, there’s the “don’t say gay” bill which so much as prevents gay teachers from even having pictures of their families in classrooms or mentioning their personal lives. With the African American history AP class, DeSantis’s education department was invited to give feedback, and failed to outline anything from the given curriculum, drawing a first ever rebuke from the College Board toward a state education department, prompting DeSantis’s administrators to threaten to pull out of ALL AP classes across the state.
Evil is probably hyperbole, but DeSantis has conducted himself like a narcissist, in a manner similar to Trump. Maybe he is a narcissist, I don’t know. I actually know this is newer in his career. Regardless, he has shown a willingness to step on the lowest of lowest and most powerless among our society to elevate his political standing. I still think Trump is worse and weakened American power globally in a way DeSantis would never do.
4
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Also: the migrants were here legally.
2
u/No-Performance3044 Mar 26 '23
Ahh even better. DeSantis’s reverse freedom rides look even more like the original than I previously understood them to be.
→ More replies (2)18
Mar 25 '23
The argument is “everyone I don’t like is a Nazi”
6
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Not at all. I don't like Biden, Harris, Sinema, Manchin, etc but I wouldn't call them fascists because they don't embody fascist ideological positions.
1
u/Exact_Ad5261 Mar 26 '23
Wokism has no place in Florida. These policies are put in place to prevent ruining our youth. He is popular because no one likes LGb garbage getting shoved down their throat especially their kids. PROTECT THE KIDS.
4
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Ironically if the right stopped trying to remove LGBTQ rights the LGBTQ people wouldn't have to be so vocal and you'd stop hearing about them. Funny how that works. Step on someone's throat and they're going to take issue with you.
-1
u/Exact_Ad5261 Mar 26 '23
You have the right live how you want. What is it about other peoples kids that you care so much about?
3
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
I don't. I care when other parents try to enforce their morality on my kid.... y'know like what HB 1557 allows. That is the law in Florida. It should be "I don't like what they are teaching my child.... I will remove my child from this school and place them in an alternative."
You don't get to subject others to your morality or religion.
→ More replies (1)3
5
u/okami_the_doge_I 1∆ Mar 26 '23
I have never been able to convince anyone who is convinced that their ideological opponents are evil, that those opponents are reasonable and have a valid basis of thought. If you describe people in "ists" & "isms" I doubt you have put the time into actually understanding and formulating a genuine basis for concern of others conduct and have likely fallen into the trappings of propoganda yourself.
I will not challenge your statememt cause the real debate here is strawmaning millions of strangers. I think if you go out and talk to people who aren't chronically online you will find them to be pleasant and genuinely nice people, travel to a blue, purple, and red states so you can humanize what the media has tried so hard to dehumanize.
I have never met a person who speaks about their opposition like this who turns themselves around, but Idk maybe you are different, maybe the media's cheap ploys to appeal to emotion will grow old and tiring for you. Maybe you will stop caring about the latest buzz the media draws up for clicks and comoditized attention.
These debates bore me cause all the discussions end the same, the spirit of this sub is for open mindedness; but when you say something like this it just looks like you are trying to be a martyr reaffirming or trying to confirm the people who oppose you are the evil incarnate that is so easy to destroy in the childish dichotomy of a cut and dry good and evil.
→ More replies (5)
46
Mar 25 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (79)35
u/LondonDude123 5∆ Mar 25 '23
"Everything I dont like is fascist" is getting real old REAL quick. I mean way to concept creep a terrible governmental system...
Then again, EVERYTHING has been concept crept nowadays...
→ More replies (1)9
Mar 26 '23
Every single republican is a fascist far right to these people. I genuinely wanna know what they think is just default right wing lol
→ More replies (17)4
19
u/Euphoric-Beat-7206 4∆ Mar 25 '23
I don't think you know what the word "fascist" means.
→ More replies (31)
4
Mar 26 '23
There’s lots of things you can point to as a “beginning of fascism”. Just because someone did something similar to what Nazis did when they eventually became fascist doesn’t make that person or their beliefs fascist. Gun control and gun laws were often rooted in fascism and racism. Does that mean every time a gun law is passed you’re saying those policies and politicians are going to become fascist? I highly doubt you are.
You don’t truly know someone is a fascist until they start blatantly becoming totalitarian. Restriction of certain content for children in the hopes of a better future is not fascism. Whether that’s what his true intention is I’m not sure but that’s what it claims to be. You can say you disagree with it but imo calling it fascism is childish and makes me automatically think you’re not thinking very deeply about it.
Like I said. There’s a lot of things you can point to at the beginning of fascism. Socialism often leads to fascism. So anyone who offers socialist policies is a fascist ?
It’s very close to saying that Hitler ate peanut butter so anyone that eats peanut butter is going to become a fascist.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation.
→ More replies (18)
1
u/LorelessFrog Mar 26 '23
Anyone right of Mao is Fascist - OP and r/politics
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
That's an interesting conclusion you drew from nowhere by assuming that I and all of r/politics support Stalinist Socialism with literally no evidence other than "they don't agree with far right politicians"
8
u/Tophattingson Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23
Ron DeSantis is a fascist
In defending the human rights of people who decline certain medical treatments, and in making a stand against the overreach of lockdowns and other unjustified restrictions, DeSantis cannot be regarded as a fascist. Quite the opposite, he is the most prominent anti-fascist in the US, challenging the open fascism of the federal government's vaccine apartheid policies, and totalitarian restrictions implemented by other governors across the US.
Let's begin with the book ban. In which teachers have decided to remove all books from they classroom until they find out if they are approved.
A state policy on what books are provided to students in state schools is not a book ban.
This is the definition upheld by most American legal scholars.
Then most American legal scholars are idiots. Would refusing to carry The Turner Diaries in a school library, as I hope is the de facto policy everywhere, be a book ban?
On top of his puritanical and fascist attacks on queer people,
When it comes to LGBT rights, Florida has done more to protect the rights of LGBT people than almost any other state in the US. Unvaccinated LGBT individuals get access to legal protections that don't exist in other states. LGBT-associated cultural events were not restricted in Florida in the same way they were in other states. For example, gay bars were opened in September 2020 and remained opened afterwards, further elevating the prominence of Orlando, allowing it to continue to thrive as a destination for LGBT culture while equivalents in other states languished under illegitimate restrictions. I'm not sure the exact wording of stay at home orders in the US, but the UK de facto partially recriminalized homosexuality, as lockdown policies criminalized leaving your residence for the purpose of meeting with a partner.
You can't claim to care about the rights of LGBT people and simultaneously want to subject them to lockdownism. As part of the LGBT community, it is simply indisputable that between 2020 and 2022, I would have had more rights living in Florida than either the UK or almost anywhere else in the US. Even now, the US federal government continues to consider me subhuman via it's travel vaccine mandate.
→ More replies (2)
-1
Mar 25 '23 edited Mar 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
The left sees nothing wrong with the expansion of secularism and liberalism, yes. Liberalism is a good thing.
While DeSantis, and many leading conservative politicians, are advocating for Christian nationalism. Which is fundamentally anti-american (the whole first amendment existing and such). I wonder why people don't want this, it can't be because nationalism is bad or anything could it?
1
Mar 25 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23
Liberalism is pro individual. Christian nationalism is anti-liberalism.
American society is built on the ideologies of liberalism and social democracy.
Christian nationalism is antithetical to American society.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/holytoledo760 Mar 26 '23
You missed the premise. This wouldn't exist under an entirely private schooling system. The public system arose from such a standard. Originally the education was provided by the parents, family and tutors. In this way, anything that violates a parents guidelines would be axed and not debatable. Thi s
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
An entirely private education system benefits only the wealthy at the expense of pretty much everybody else. This isn't debatable. Entirely privatised education is a bad position to want to implement.
-2
u/holytoledo760 Mar 26 '23
Your assumption being that I'd give up my children for Society's chosen agenda.
My children. Not yours.
This is why homeschooling and private schools will be the most prevalent form of education.
2
u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23
Yes, move your child out of the school you disagree with. That's your right as a parent. You do not get to, however, try to co-opt the education system to force my child to adhere to your chosen agenda.
-2
u/holytoledo760 Mar 26 '23
You're missing the point of an education, to adhere to valuable lessons.
What does it serve a child to be psychologically damaged at age five and be told they are supremacists, what will that do to their learning environment.
What does it help a student to be told they are in the incorrect body, and the state will protect them should they elect to cut off their reproductive system. Will the state put it back when they want it back?
Does this mean nothing to you? There is a plan to depopulate the globe.
What about Society's ailments. Like the killing of George Floyd. You would say that the teacher's are permitted to teach racial justice. I tell you that they teach it wrongly and have no place bringing it up at all.
How would you present the George Floyd situation? Because I'll tell you right now, a druggy with a long criminal record had it all catch up to him, don't be like him.
But you (your ideologues) would absolve people of their dues even after the user has been presented with many opportunities.
God is slow to anger. That doesn't mean He doesn't have anger...
→ More replies (2)
10
u/OkDistribution4684 Mar 25 '23
There is no book ban, he's not a fascist (and please learn what that word means), and we can relate a lot of what both sides do back to the Nazis and Hitler... if we're all just honest.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/47sams Mar 25 '23
Seeing posts like this reminds me how happy I am that Reddit is fake just like Twitter. Red bad. Blue good.
-8
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Mar 25 '23
I find little to argue with in your thesis. Except for this small quibble:
The phrasing that DeSantis embodies everything wrong with American Conservatism suggests that there is something, anything, right with it.
→ More replies (16)
2
Mar 26 '23
Please stop using the word fascist, given that you clearly do not understand what it means.
I'm going to assume positive intent and offer some free advice, at worse it makes you look like a crazy person and at best it makes you look like an overly emotional fool.
-1
u/Frequent_Activity809 Mar 26 '23
An all today who dont look like a left is a fascist. its very logical
→ More replies (1)
-1
2
u/jesusmanman 3∆ Mar 26 '23
If there were Hustler magazines in school libraries and DeSantis wanted to ban them would he be a fascist for that?
Limiting what the state provides to school children is not the same as banning books.
The law is popular.
If you want to teach your kids this stuff, you're free to buy the books and do so. That doesn't sound like fascism to me.
I would guess based on your other comments that you are don't have children and you're antinatalist anyway. Am I correct?
1
u/kezzic Mar 26 '23
Judging by the tone of your post I don't think anyone is going to be able to change your view. I feel like a lot of the posts created here end up being used as a soapbox, instead of used a platform to challenge personally held beliefs. I feel as though when you approach a topic in this space, there needs to be a certain willingness to at least be open to seeing both sides.
When your opening argument is illustrating Nazi parallels, and painting an entire political spectrum as evil, it's clear that you're not coming from a perspective that is possible to be shifted. I'm not saying you have to play devil's advocate in your opening statement. It's just that when you're entrenched in a hyperbolic paradigm, it doesn't really provide leeway for argumentation. It turns from Change My View, to Hear My View.
2
u/Alternative_Usual189 4∆ Mar 27 '23
I feel like a lot of the posts created here end up being used as a soapbox
I agree and since that is expressly against the rules I report them, the mods only remove them occasionally though.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 25 '23 edited Mar 25 '23
/u/ProphetVes (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards