*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Is this one of those stupid traps where you interchange the current definition of "liberal" with the classic British definition from the 1700's? Because I hate that fucking game.

If by liberal, you mean leftist, democrat, progressive, or socialist, or any degree of those words....you're wrong.

Well I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about it, it's just that the US definition differs from the rest of the world somewhat. I guess to clarify let's say modern liberalism, aka support for healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, immigration reform and so on. If you think I'm wrong that support for those have been rising steadily, please correct me.

[Mr.Banana]

Well I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about it, it's just that the US definition differs from the rest of the world somewhat. I guess to clarify let's say modern liberalism, aka support for healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, immigration reform and so on. If you think I'm wrong that support for those have been rising steadily, please correct me.

Everyone supports healthcare. Everyone agrees that we need social safety nets for the poor and underprivileged. The problem of stagnant wages is a republican talking point. Nothing in the republican platform seeks to deny any legal voter the right to vote. LGBT rights is not a real thing. Groups can't have rights. Same thing for women's rights. and immigration reform is part of the conservative agenda. The liberals just don't want to have a border. That's not "reform".

[CoccoBill]

Everyone supports healthcare.

For themselves yes, not for others.

Nothing in the republican platform seeks to deny any legal voter the right to vote.

Technically true, they just want to limit who can legally vote and make it extra hard for non-whites.

LGBT rights is not a real thing. Groups can't have rights. Same thing for women's rights.

Exactly the kinds of opinions that seem to steer people to the left. And you know damn well I didn't mean a "group" should be given rights, but the members of those groups.

[Mr.Banana]

Technically true, they just want to limit who can legally vote and make it extra hard for non-whites.

Source??

[CoccoBill]

Source??

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/29...nority-voting/

[Mr.Banana]

I didn't mean a "group" should be given rights, but the members of those groups.

they already do

this is a myth of the left. The idea that society is patriarchal, or male-dominated, is a farce. it's not real.

and gay people are doing just fine too. I used to fall for that trick. "love is love man" and "If they want to get married they should be able to". yeah, ok fine. But then what happened? Suddenly all these Christians are asked to bake cakes, or host gay weddings in their churches. And it's not like gay people seem value marriage anyway. Open relationships and multi-way sexual encounters are far far more prevalent in the gay community. So why do they want to get married in the first place?

I have nothing against homosexuality. Anyone should be able to live however they want to. But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "gay rights" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass Christians.

[Poopadoop]

But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "gay rights" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass Christians.

I lol'd.

[CoccoBill]

they already do

this is a myth of the left. The idea that society is patriarchal, or male-dominated, is a farce. it's not real.

and gay people are doing just fine too. I used to fall for that trick.

Well argued.

"love is love man" and "If they want to get married they should be able to". yeah, ok fine. But then what happened? Suddenly all these Christians are asked to bake cakes, or host gay weddings in their churches.

So Christians' rights to exclude others override gays' right to marry? I think you're increasingly in the minority. IMO a Christian baker has the right believe whatever he wants, but he doesn't have the right to discriminate others based on his beliefs. As long as we're talking about a private person/company doing the discriminating, I don't know where exactly I'd draw the line, possibly not a gay wedding cakes, but any public office/representative should absolutely not practice any of it.

And it's not like gay people seem value marriage anyway. Open relationships and multi-way sexual encounters are far far more prevalent in the gay community. So why do they want to get married in the first place?

Whether and how many of them actually want to exercise a basic right has nothing to do with whether they should have it.

I have nothing against homosexuality. Anyone should be able to live however they want to. But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "gay rights" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass Christians.

I have nothing against Christians. Anyone should be able to live however they want to. But the political/legal/social actions taken in the name of "religion" doesn't really seem to be about equality at all. To me, it seems like a movement to harass homosexuals.

[Mr.Banana]

support for those have been rising steadily.

Don't confuse "support" for prevalence. That's the illusion of the Democrat party. it's Saul Alinsky's philosophy of 'coalitional politics'. You have a fractured grouping of tiny coalitions all made up of one marginalized group or another.

Imagine a family of four. The daughter in the family decides she is going to only eat vegetarian. So she says "mom, cook whatever you want, eat whatever you want. But I'm just telling you that I won't eat anything that's not vegetarian." So now the mom has a choice to make. She can either start cooking a second meal for her vegetarian daughter, or she can make one meal and the whole family eats vegetarian.

So you can see this one person, 25% of the family, can get the rest of the group to go along just by identifying as an intransigent minority.

Now let's say that family goes to a barbeque at a neighbor's house. They tell the neighbor, "our family only eats vegetarian. you guys can have meat, but we'll only eat vegetarian food at your barbeque". So now the neighbors have to make a decision about accomodating that by either un-inviting the family, or making extra food to appease them.

Now imagine the son in the family says he won't ride in a non-electric car. So Dad's forced to buy an electric car. And maybe the mom wants something her way. And the family all accomodates that too. So what you end up with is this coalition...the family....all with completely different agendas, all accepting each other's demands in exchange for their own.

Everyone is "going along to get along".

That can't last.

just for example, what do you think is going to happen when the gays find out that black people don't like them very much?

[CoccoBill]

Don't confuse "support" for prevalence. That's the illusion of the Democrat party. it's Saul Alinsky's philosophy of 'coalitional politics'. You have a fractured grouping of tiny coalitions all made up of one marginalized group or another.

Imagine a family of four. The daughter in the family decides she is going to only eat vegetarian. So she says "mom, cook whatever you want, eat whatever you want. But I'm just telling you that I won't eat anything that's not vegetarian." So now the mom has a choice to make. She can either start cooking a second meal for her vegetarian daughter, or she can make one meal and the whole family eats vegetarian.

So you can see this one person, 25% of the family, can get the rest of the group to go along just by identifying as an intransigent minority.

Now let's say that family goes to a barbeque at a neighbor's house. They tell the neighbor, "our family only eats vegetarian. you guys can have meat, but we'll only eat vegetarian food at your barbeque". So now the neighbors have to make a decision about accomodating that by either un-inviting the family, or making extra food to appease them.

Now imagine the son in the family says he won't ride in a non-electric car. So Dad's forced to buy an electric car. And maybe the mom wants something her way. And the family all accomodates that too. So what you end up with is this coalition...the family....all with completely different agendas, all accepting each other's demands in exchange for their own.

Everyone is "going along to get along".

That can't last.

Without realizing it, you've hit the nail here. People very rarely, especially on the societal level, change their convictions. Usually what happens is the younger generations disagree with them, partly I'm sure of just spite and teen rebellion, but also because they have a vastly updated set of information to digest in their formative years. People generally learn new stuff in their youth, and hold on to those beliefs till they die.

The daughter and son in your examples demonstrate this exact effect, causing some change in behavior immediately, which overtakes when the parents croak. Progress.

just for example, what do you think is going to happen when the gays find out that black people don't like them very much?

Holy what the shit?