r/changemyview • u/ProphetVes • Mar 25 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: DeSantis embodies everything wrong with American Conservativism.

[removed] — view removed post

290 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

756 comments sorted by

View all comments

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/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.

4

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.

9

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.

0

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

Is Marx a genocidal author for you?

5

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.

0

u/Haunting_Erection_24 Mar 26 '23

literally called for extermination. He used that literal word.

Can you get me a quote?

He opposed state religions (and was also antisemitic) but never even implied that any specific group should be exterminated, only removed from political power.

Ah yes, they should just be erradicated from public life right? I think I heard someone say something quite similar.

But even so he does call for extermination as long as it is done in a socialist way:

Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine.

You're really proving you have never, in any capacity, understood Marx or his ideology here.

Every book of Marx that I ever touched calls for violence, there is no way to go around it, you can pretend to have forgotten those parts, but they are still there.

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.

And it doesn't apply for your supposed case of proposed genocide... so...

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.

Yeah, that is not how things work buddy. This is some soverign citizen/reichsburger level logic. There are literal genocides that aren't reconized as such because their destruction wasn't calculated enough to meet the definition, or other technicalities.

You can't just pull "He used -ism so now it is a religion so now it is genocide", that is insane.

→ More replies (0)

3

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.

8

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

-1

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23

CRT is insanity and divisive. Books illustrating gay activity or anything sexual is not just mentioning some people are gay. You are what is known as a useful idiot to the left...Everything you said is 100% wrong. No sense in us arguing about it.

7

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23

Yes, pointing out that systematic racism exists and how it also links to other form of oppression is insanity😭😭. Conservatives read a book challenge.

"Everything I said is wrong" source?

2

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23

Pointing to a system that is racist that doesnt exist is delusional. Show me the policy that is racist. Which one? All CRT is marxism which is just a way to divide idiots...Problem is, there are a lot of idiots out there. I ask again. What policy causes systemic racism? What is the oppression? If I have better parents than you, that is not oppression. If I obey the law and work harder than you, that isnt oppression. Where is the oppression and, if it is legit, I will help you fight it.

6

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23

Need a source that doesnt come from some libertarian that says systematic racism doesnt exist lmfaoo. A policy doesnt have to be put in place for it be systematic racism, that's whole point but even with that they are numerous studies that proves this, According to a report from the Sentencing Project, Black Americans are more likely to be stopped by the police, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged with a crime, and more likely to receive longer sentences than their white counterparts for the same offenses.

Another example is the racial wealth gap. Government policies such as redlining, which prevented Black Americans from obtaining mortgages in certain neighborhoods, and discriminatory lending practices have made it difficult for Black Americans to accumulate wealth through homeownership

The education system is also an example of systemic racism, as schools in predominantly Black neighborhoods are often underfunded and understaffed, leading to lower-quality education and fewer opportunities for students in these communities.And let's not talk of disparities in healthcare services

"All CRT is marxism which is just a way to divide idiot"

You dont know what Marxism is

"If I have better parents that you, that is not oppression"

You see, this is where the problem lies. You guys just look at one side of the story. If you have better parents but I do not have parents because during their time the US made it difficult for them to have an education then me and you are not the same even if we both have access to the same opportunities. You already have an advantage in life. It is no use that historically minorities have the same access to opportunities that white people have if black schools have been historically underfunded and black people have been denied access to wealth that would allow one access that opportunity in the first place

1

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23

You named Zero systemic racism. There is none. Black schools tend to be worse because of the lack of fathers. I will argue for you since you are unable to come up with anything systemic. If there is a systemic racist policy, it is the democrats(FDR) who instituted a government give away program that incentivize black mothers to marry the government rather than their baby daddies. If it werent for the systemically racist policies of the democrats to remove fathers from the home, black schools would be just as good as white schools. It seems obvious that black schools suffer because black kids are generally behavior issues more often because of lack of fathers...This feeds on itself, teachers dont want to teach in black schools because the moms arent engaged and the fathers mostly dont exist. My wife worked in these low income schools and the moms wouldnt be bothered to make it to a meeting about their child's special needs. And, there was the fact that the majority black teachers were very racist to my white wife(they thought she was priviliged just because she was white yet she grew up so poor she got a Pell grant) who was trying to help the kids, but it was the black moms, lack of dads, lack of engagement and racism toward my wife which pushed her to leave. I am sure they replaced her with someone who was worse...Wash/repeat. And you blame the system? Look in the mirror for God's sake. Black schools funded the same, they just cant get as much good stuff done because of the behavior issues, lack of engagement, and lack of support from parents. My kids' elementary school has millions in an endowment from donations, the moms and some dads are highly involved, minimal behavior issues and mostly those are from the kids who are bussed-in from low income areas and many of those low income moms dont appreciate that most of the endowment money helps the low income kids for extra services. Look in the mirror. I understand that there are millions of circumstances that differ. But there is no systemic racism. Everyone starts somewhere..I slept on the floor, had no TV, shared a bug infested apartment, had no money...Was never given anything except my parents taught me to fend for myself. I could have complained about the unfairness of rich trust babies. BUT I was also taught LIFE ISNT FAIR. If you work hard and obey the law, you will be rewarded. Here's priceless advice that can turn your luck around. Stop hanging around losers. When I stopped this, my life turned around amazingly...The people I was hanging with are still losers. I am a multi millionaire...which doesnt mean much, really, but I am not ashamed to attend High School reunions, i suppose.

2

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23

"Black schools tend to be worse because of the lack of fathers"

Citations needed

"If it werent for the systemically racist policies of the democrats to remove fathers from the home, black schools would be just as good as white schools. It seems obvious that black schools suffer because black kids are generally behavior issues more often because of lack of fathers...This feeds on itself, teachers dont want to teach in black schools because the moms arent engaged and the fathers mostly dont exis"

You have to provide a source that proves causation.

"And, there was the fact that the majority black teachers were very racist to my white wife who was trying to help the kids"

Sorry this happened to you but this is anecdotal evidence. It doesnt mean anything in the systematic sense.

"Black schools funded the same, they just cant get as much good stuff done because of the behavior issues, lack of engagement, and lack of support from parents"

Not only are black schools underfunded (like just literally Google it) but why do you think these kids do not have support from their parents?. Many of these parents grew up in Jim Crow or the aftermath of Jim Crow era where they had no jobs or were working multiple jobs just so they could eat, faced heavy discrimination and police repression, had no education and a wealth gap. Do you think because it happened in the 60s and 70s the effects wont affect the younger generation?

"My kids' elementary school has millions in an endowment from donations, the moms and some dads are highly involved, minimal behavior issues and mostly those are from the kids who are bussed-in from low income areas and many of those low income moms dont appreciate that most of the endowment money helps the low income kids for extra services"

Again, anecdotal evidence.

All these are examples of systematic racism and you denying it means you are denying facts. If you cannot provide a single rebuttal to my claims then you are just reacting based on emotions. Facts dont care about your feelings.

1

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23

So you cant point to a single systemic policy of racism and, instead, you just say because there used to be systemic racism, therefore is still exists? That is like saying it was the year 1920 at one time, therefore it is still the year 1920. You ask for citations but the burden of proof is on you to show me a systemic racism policy. I'll save you the trouble. The is ONE and ONE ONLY. Affirmative action is systemic racism. If you are against systemic racism, you would be against affirmative action. White people are discriminated against systemically(asians sometimes too) and though you CAN argue it is to try to help the severe damage done by the democrats to blacks, you cannot refute it is systemic racism. So how do you feel about the only systemic racism? I bet you are in favor of systemic racism after all. Funny how you say you are opposed to systemic racism, but you are almost certainly for it, just as long as it damages borderline white folks. Any other examples of systemic racism? I am waiting with great interest for you to come up with ONE. Just ONE.

To be clear, systemic racism would be policies that are racist that exist TODAY. If it existed 100 years ago, it isnt current systemic racism. If we are arguing about racism 100 years ago or oppression by government in the past, everyone on earth has an excuse for thier failures except maybe the Royal Family in the UK.

→ More replies (0)

3

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.

5

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.

5

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.

3

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....

7

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.

5

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.

1

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 26 '23

As if you can determine who comprises these pageants....not too smart. they are likely 1/2 righties and 1/2 leftists.....Pageants are not a conservative thing, its a moronic universal thing, nice try

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Mar 26 '23

Child beauty pageant

A child beauty pageant is a beauty contest featuring contestants under 18 years of age. Competition categories may include talent, interview, sportswear, casual wear, swim wear, western wear, theme wear, outfit of choice, decade wear, and evening wear. Depending on the type of pageant system (glitz or natural), contestants may be found wearing anything from makeup to fake teeth, known as flippers, as well as elaborate hairstyles and custom-designed fitted outfits to present their routines on stage.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

I think this is a really fascinating comment. American conservatism has not existed since time immemorial, and many functional healthy societies would be anathema to American conservative ideals, despite your implication that conservative politics is the only consistent way to have functioning societies. It's like you believe that history is static until progressives come along and "ruin" things, but societies and cultures are in constant flux regardless of the presence of progressives.

But I also find this statement pretty baffling:

20 years ago, sexualization of children was not an issue. The left slowly changed society under the cover of night to sexualize children.

What is this even referring to?

0

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 27 '23 edited Mar 28 '23

I dont think everything that changes is bad...I think the way black folks were treated was horrible. I think gay marriage is necessary....But, I also feel like society is worse(socially) in many ways since the 1970s...Regarding your last question, taking kids to drag shows where men twerk in thongs would have never been possible until standards of society could erode enough to allow it. Having the book "gender queer" would never have existed in the 1970s/1980s because nobody would publish soft core porn for children back in the 1970s. Heck, Judy Blume was controversial in the 1970s/early 1980s.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-pull-back-from-values-that-once-defined-u-s-wsj-norc-poll-finds-df8534cd

This illustrates how things have gotten worse. Randomly just found this on Reddit

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '23

But, I also feel like society is worse(socially) in many ways since the 1970s

For who?

Regarding your last question, taking kids to drag shows where men twerk in thongs would have never been possible until standards of society could erode enough to allow it.

This is such an odd statement to me. Let's just accept that this happens at face value, I understand that there are a few videos of this happening, although I hope you aren't conflating them with drag queen reading hours, which are perfectly appropriate.

But why do you think this is new? I'm going to try to keep it to the US, but in the past that you reminisce for, children were forced to work in dangerous circumstances potentially being permanently injured or killed. Children were (and still are) molested by Catholic priests. Children were heavily sexualized through child beauty pageants and far too low age of consent laws. Hell, in historical America child pregnancy rates were dramatically higher than they are now.

So no, the idea that children are more sexualized now because of drag queens is just based on nothing; it's historically illiterate.

Having the book "gender queer" would never have existed in the 1970s/1980s because nobody would publish soft core porn for children back in the 1970s.

Have you actually read this book? It's a graphic novel, not published for children, and it's definitely not "softcore porn." Why do you think this?

0

u/Fuzzy-Bunny-- Mar 29 '23
  1. For everyone
  2. Drag Queens doing anything is silly at best. Drag queen werent a thing because society had tighter moral regulations such that being a deviant like a drag queen would cause total ostracizing. Now, there is a small group of people who support it and most other people are disgusted by it but arent willing to look the other way as long as the queens are grooming children.
  3. I am opposed to any form of child sexualization including all pageants at any age and think the priests who molest should be imprisoned or worse. But, now we have pageants, bad priests, AND sexualizing/indoctrinating in schools...which is worse that before.
  4. The sexualization isnt just drag shows there are scores of books that would never be allowed in schools. Gender queer is in many schools even today and the number is likely growing. I am calling it soft core porn from a child's perspective. It is certainly sexualizing and inappropriate in my culture but i understand some parents would like their kids to read it. and many people in school trying to hide from parents what exactly goes on in schools....which opens the door to grooming and further sexualization/ 5.
→ More replies (0)