politics

It is usually republicans, but when it's a democrat the stories don't gain as much traction on Lemmy.

• Democrat #1
• Democrat #2
• Democrat #3

Generally when it's a democrat, we are not defending it is the difference. Granted, the news stories don't gain as much traction on left biased social media platforms, but at least we aren't defending them and making them president.

Conservatives rage at made up stories about Democrats.

Conservatives tend to be awfully quiet about videos of conservatives doing bad shit.

Still no drag queens.

I actually thought he looked liked Jimmy Carr

Dingus

Working for antifa!

Oh my, I've never heard Ohio called that, but it's pretty accurate. There's even a Miami University (Ohio). I live in Florida and I see the similarities.

It does say teen so isn't that a minor? Unless 19?

Not a Republican, but I think I've got it figured out.

See, they think everyone has these awful, sinful thoughts that they can't control. When they see trans people living their lives they feel like those trans people are giving into the nasty, sinful thoughts. Or gay people. Or people in interracial relationships. Or really anyone who's doing something they've been told is a naughty, sinful, deplorable thing that no one should do even if it feels good and hurts no one.

So when they see people accepting others who have dirty, naughty, sinful thoughts they assume we're okay with sin. The conflict arises because we have a different view of sin that is less self-interested. We're not about punishing people for doing things that feel good and hurts no one, we want to help the people doing things that feel bad, and let people do things that don't hurt others.

This makes their brains get hot and when their brains get hot they feel angry.

I'll take a stab at this rhetorical question, even though I'm not a right winger nor an American -- just been reading up on their 'theories' and wackiness a bit.

From their ideological perspective, I imagine that the more nuanced response (ie. not the base's "GAY BAD!"), would be that the issue of crime/outliers exist in any group, but that the existence of a trans-interest specific movement is dangerous to the broader community/stability. Do republican pedophile incestuous mayors exist? Yes. Are they lobbying to change how government treats them / trying to get more privileges and special treatment to support their pedophile incestuous mayor collective? No. So the 'risk' to society of a one off criminal, is far less than the risk of a collective movement intent on dismantling social norms in favour of norms specifically beneficial to their niche members, and generally detrimental to the interests of non-niche members.

It's similar to Dave Chappelle's comments, about how he knows/likes trans people he meets on an individual/personal level, but he hates the "trans community". It's the collective community that they take issue with, as it aims to dismantle what they consider the norms of social life / public interactions.

To try and frame their issue a bit differently using a recent example: most educated folks know about people with Tourette's, even if they don't fully understand the condition. But there's a significant difference between understanding it / tolerating it within a limited context, and inviting someone with Tourette's to sit within mic shot at the BAFTA's and pretending everyone should be comfortable with it just because it's a disability. Being at a black-tie type event, and hearing someone scream the N-word at a couple of black presenters is uncivilized, but it's "tolerated" under the guise of these niche special interest groups. Just like everyone's been forced to "tolerate" fent users collapsed all over the place in many metropolitan cities, under the guise of "drug user rights advocacy groups" -- do people understand folks are addicted? Yes. Does that understanding make seeing them flopped out, shitting in public etc, a "civilized" experience? Nah.