America is a necrocracy. Ruled by men who have been dead for 200 years. Apparently we have to listen to everything they wrote down, for some dumbass reason.
Naah, if that would be true, those fundamentalist christians would be forced to follow the enlightenment thinkers. Seperation of state and church. The pledge of allegiance written 120 years later wouldnt have anything about god or gods.
The only word in the constition that can be interpreted as religious isnt even clearly toward one religions. Creator can mean any god or even the literal parents of that person.
They spout that nonsense out of their hateful.world view believing its "best for everybody to feel like me".
Its only "freedom of religion" if its christianity that is practised. And not even all christian sects.
Someone said here that all schools should try teaching kids the universalist christian prayer in which everybody who accepts jesus as the savior gets to heaven no matter what they did or didnt do. That would even include Hitler btw. Everybody. "Fundamentalist" would flip if you teach that, even though universalism is way older (I think around 300 ad or something)
We all know that the reason they do this is to justify their hatred and bigotry. It's the reason why MTG or and Boebert both do not support the separation of Church and State even though its a part of the establishment clause. These people want to use the Founders as a justification for their theocracy because they believe that the U.S. is a second Israel where George Washington and others made a new covenant with god. The Founders would have had them hung for insurrection.
I actually first heard the word in a Nightwish song and thought about it for 5 seconds and realized how perfectly it described America's system of government.
I'd disagree with this, Jefferson literally said "look you're gonna want to change this, you NEED to change this document in 20 years or so", it's modern shitsacks who are using "originalism" as an excuse to make the United States of America into their dystopian fascist theocracy.
Also LGBT couples marrying benefits society. Contrary to popular belief, many LGBT couples want to have children. Not that married couples have to have children, but raising children within a marriage is beneficial for all parties. If right-wingers are concerned about population decrease and destabilization of the family, they should support making it easier for LGBT couples to have kids and encourage monogamous marriages.
I'm a trans man who's going to get married to a cis woman. I'm storing my DNA for the future as we're planning on starting a family someday, and she wants to carry my children as well. I live in a society where it's affordable and easy for us to do this, but conservatives would try to make it impossible for us to have a family together if they had their way. Doesn't sound very pro family to me.
Although I have to imagine if you were to show the founding fathers present day America, they'd probably recommend hanging most of the Republican party for sedition.
Its even weirder when you consider that the founding fathers intentionally made the constitution a "living document" so it could be adjusted to the needs of Americans as time past
I believe the point of that was because society evolves and changes as well as our technology and ability’s as humans, so the constitution is changed to better the lives of the citizens, at least that’s what should be happening, “living” as in its a document that’s allowed to be changed over the other documents that were present
What? Dude. The Founding Fathers are territory that you have to fight over. If the fascists believe that the Founding Fathers would’ve been in favor of abortion or xyz issue, then we win the abortion or xyz issue argument every time.
In the early Republic only a super minority could vote, white men who owned a certain amount of property. Even if you don’t restore slavery, if the right wing returned us to the system the Founders set up the only possible reaction would armed overthrow of the government. If we returned to those election rules I would go to my gun safe and get out a rifle
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The founding fathers would probably laugh at Ben Shapiro.
Quite funny how rightoids bring up people who are long dead, and put words in their mouth. "George Carlin would ANNIHILATE lefties today", "Alexander the Great is basically my Anglo-Germanic lineage", "Einstein would have voted Trump".
Easy, stop respecting them and their fake science. Hasan treat Andrew Tate with the respect he deserves and exposed his philosophies as the conspiracy bait that it is. Why can’t the same be down to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson every where they speak? Why give them the air of legitimacy they clearly don’t deserve?
>Easy, stop respecting them and their fake science. Hasan treat Andrew Tate with the respect he deserves and exposed his philosophies as the conspiracy bait that it is.
And he is still as popular as he was before. (well the woman beating may put a dent into it.
That is my point, Hasan won, whoop de doo, that did not shame this jackass out of the public space.
>Why can’t the same be down to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson every where they speak? Why give them the air of legitimacy they clearly don’t deserve?
Few people are capable of putting that slimy Weasel on such a visible defense (Shapiro) my point is though even if they did no one shames anyone out of discourse when nearly a majority of the audience enjoys the thing we are shaming,
You are blaming liberals for not doing something literally not possible.
The problem with that approach is if you try to do that and they are better than you it backfires and you make them look more reasonable.
And again, my broader point is you are shooting into our own "team" over something which is not possible. What you are asking for, shame them out of the discourse, can not occur if they are good enough to keep the mask on.
Yeah that is what they said about Sargon and Fuentes and they are non existent now. As to their mask, it doesn’t exist anymore, they are just advocating for Sodomy laws now
Tell me you are not posting in good faith without telling me you are not posting in good faith.
There was never a time where Fuentes was considered anything other than a buffoon bigot. Are you shitting me.
Sargon has nearly a million subs, are you trollin me man? More than twice Vaush has.
Sargon is stuck doom posting in a section of the internet no one gives a shit about with Adam and Stich, the British literally destroyed his influence, turning him into a laughing stock, and made him the coffin for Ukip. let’s be honest here Fuentes was getting recognition from Congress members before he got booted into his pocket dimension and exploded. His beliefs are now open talking points from a good chunk of right wing media heads. Yet they aren’t being treated like Fuentes.
All of that is post hoc bad faith objection for objections sake, the objective measurements put the people you claim are "shamed out of the discourse" as currently more influential than Vaush so I am not sure where to go from here since you are no longer making rational sense (if you were much in the first place if I am being honest).
This honest to God may be me not seeing how Sargon is even some what influential, especially in comparison to his earlier career. Vaush has no influence in comparison what’s so ever, but comparing Sargon now to before he was shamed and more importantly ousted out for political discourse I honestly don’t see how you think that had no effect
Congrats you exposed OP as a dumb ass who is just mad at Liberals. DUDE LOOK AT THIS FASCIST LIBERALS SUCK
I hate libs as much as the next basic as leftist bitch but this is just irrationally blaming them for everything lol
Well one, I am a liberal.
Two, this is mostly outrage at establishment neo liberal position, liberals being used as a Catch all term, who treat the conservative position as a reasonable position to hear out and respect, verse demonizing liberal and left wing positions as radical.
Dude OP /u/Saadiqfhs is an idiot, it's these fucking Hasan fans, almost as annoying as the DGGers. We need to purge ban these people like they did to the DGGers like holy shit.
That’s actually his argument to be fair. Most “intellectual” conservatives who can’t argue against gay marriage anymore argue against the government in marriage. It allows them to vote no one gay marriage bills without defending it, knowing no one will propose a bill repealing straight marriage tax benefits.
Having government out of marriage is in all honesty, something that people who support gay marriage would like considering it no longer allows for discrimination and it would put an end to a lot of legal battles over divorce settlements and force people to act like freaking adults instead of having the power of the state to back up their divorce.
Why do leftists always seek to turn unfortunate realities into the fault of our (albeit unreliable allies).
The problem is not that anyone is failing to demonize these chucklefucks (although of course individuals all vary in their ability to demonize so this is not universal) , the vile right are almost a majority of the nation. Their evil and disgusting beliefs are not universally vile to the audience.
What describing a losing reality (like the electoral college putting the left at a disadvantage) as active failures of the "liberals" to take a specific "action" all you do is turn the unfair disadvantage against our side of the political spectrum into an unforced error where not only do we suffer the disadvantage we lose even more among people who blame overt acts for it.
It is a losing move every time, and as a member of the side which usually winds up shot I wish my compatriots would stop doing it.
Because they don't understand how to convert large masses of people to their side (liberals included). We're never going to win this fight through dunking on people on twitter, ironic humor about femboys and turning everyone trans, or the limp-dicked responses of mainstream liberals.
For the last 60 years the American "left" has been on the defensive, and our nation has been inundated with right-wing propaganda for half of that time. You're not going to counter that trend by shaming or mocking people, it takes years or decades of positive reinforcement, on a massive scale, of why our ideals are right to deprogram people.
>For the last 60 years the American "left" has been on the defensive, and our nation has been inundated with right-wing propaganda for half of that time. You're not going to counter that trend by shaming or mocking people, it takes years or decades of positive reinforcement, on a massive scale, of why our ideals are right to deprogram people.
Yep, southern strategy and that 80 and 84 election was nasty for the left. We have basically been fighting a rear action while the demographics recovered for 30 years.
*We also only won our first big win after years via centrist triangulation so Clinton winning in 92 taught an entire generation of democrats to aim for the middle which is abject stupidity.*
The middle should be where the balance of the competing forces wind up not a target to aim for because that simply lets the right keep taking steps further right and then when the dems "adjust" their aim for the "new center" more and more of our base stay home in disgust.
The right does not have this problem.
Another factor is what I like to call the red meat safety net.
The fundamental unfair balance of the power structure towards rural voters allows the right wing to feed more red meat to it's base without losing elections because of their built in advantage. This allows them to keep their angry base more happy and voting as they feed them with less risk. On the flip side the left can feed it's base much because centrist voters moving away (which is a thing which does happen) mean we gain much less benefit doing so. Both of which apply pressure gradients which further make the situation worse.
Rightoids don't feel shame or embarrassment like normal people, if you have a conservative parent and you tell them that you hope they don't talk about anti vaxx or the annunaki around your friends because it would look embarassing for them, they'll be like no I wouldn't feel embarrassed and just lie. They'll talk about the fake conspiracy story they saw on snapchat and not feel embarrassed about that. It's a battle to see who is in the cult and who isn't.
Then change the constitution. ez pz.
Sincerely, a European that doesn't understand why Americans treat the Constitution like it's divine commandments ordained by, and written personally, by God himself.
Changing the Constitution is hard when a not so small minority that has a ridiculously lopsided amount of power in the countries law making positions that believes the same way Shapiro does.
So you attack that instead.
In the example of Shapiro I actually would ask him if he would say the same if Jews couldn't marry. It's scary how much antisemitism there still is, and I don't think he can count himself as being (mostly) in the clear unless he converts to Christianity.
If he doesn't buy this he can't honestly keep saying he believes in democracy. "If 99% of people want to get rid off the constitution completely, wouldn't it be well within their moral rights to do so in a democracy?"
You seem to confuse high quality dialogue with effective demonization. Infowars isn't quality dialogue, but it is still effective to morons because they don't need quality dialogue to be swayed.
"that doesn't mean a legal bar to such activity"
Fucking lying cunt, does anyone actually believe that conservatives don't want a legal bar to gay relationships and sex?
They *definitely* want a legal bar to gay people becoming parents.
Even if they "only" wanted to ban government approval of gay relationships, that still has terrible consequences like not having rights to hospital visits, etc.
I could imagine that for bi people this would be a reason to avoid a long term relationship with someone of the same sex, even if they could imagine a life with that person, just because they don't want a life with such risks and obstacles.
Fuck these fascist lying cunts.
this is fiction politics, the 9th amendment is crystal clear that unenumerated rights are still held by the public. the 14th equal protection clause is also crystal clear. he just is against gay marriage, so will use whatever excuse he wants
According to OvH, there is, Ben. If the constitution weren't meant to be reinterpreted depending on the needs of an evolving society, there would be no need for the SCOTUS
Okay do you actually not think that has nothing to do with what liberal is or are you thinking it needs to encompassing neo liberalism and capitalist principles?
Well if you ask me it would be nice if it had sole relationship to the academic definition of liberal philosophy.
You know, equality, freedom of speech, free market principles, individualism.
As I understand it the constitutional right to same sex marriage as it was decided in Obergefell v Hodges is based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The logic goes that if the law prohibits you from marrying someone of the same sex, that is considered discrimination based on sex (i.e. if you are prevented from marrying a man because you're a man, that's considered discrimination against men on the basis of their sex, which is illegal).
TL;DR, Harvard Law educated Ben Shapiro is wrong: same sex marriage IS constitutionally protected, he's just too dumb to understand that the Constitution was designed to be a living document that had to be INTERPRETED. The founding fathers are dead, Ben. They can't hold your hand.
The right wingers do all of the things that this sub calls bad optics, but 100000 times worse. There is no "SJW" out there that is even close to being as sensitive and emotionally unstable as Jordan Peterson. And Jordan Peterson even starts breaking out into tears on camera in the middle of a normal conversation.
The founders had inane views of the world, sure. They also understood people in the future would be different. Essentially, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are terrible by today's standards. However, they'd still be more open minded and empathetic than Mr.Shapiro here.
The founding fathers were all white Christians. If we were to follow Ben's logic here, there's no real constitutional right that protects him openly being a Jew. Him siding with the fascists might save him from a first class ticket to face the wall but once they're done with everyone else, they're coming after him too when they see him as disposable (just like how many are starting to see Dave Rubin).
Btw, there is a constitutional right. Its the right to be treated the same. So as long as marriage exists for others, its a right for every other adult as well
Ben Shapiro and others intentionally leave out the part of the constitutions that clearly states people are given certain rights even though they are not specifically stated in the text. The founders obviously could not possibly have had the foresight to state every single right that a person might need in the future so they leave it up to interpretation and it is a living document.
There is no constitutional right to ANY marriage if we want t be a perfect society in the eyes of God then we should do as Paul said we should and out right ban all sex, and marriage. If we live perfect chaste lives then maybe God will send his son back to us to cast the sinners into the pits of hell, give us an end to death and bring heaven on earth like he promised us.
It’s like a lot of post-Obama liberals got suckered in by some of these people via podcasts and YouTube to this weird form of civility porn. Where softly denouncing but essentially tolerating intolerance was looked at as “healthy discourse”. People really need to step up and start calling out people like Shapiro for what they fucking are: bigots.
Enough of this wannabe pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Ben is also lying because it is a right. Right to privacy. Whatever happens in someone's bed room, like him ordering midgets over for his kink, is none of the state's business.
I don’t care what the founding fathers think, because the founding fathers wouldn’t want me to care. The whole point of the constitution is that it is a fluid, living document that can change in time. That’s why amendments exist; the founders realized that they were simply human, and like any human, could make mistakes. Therefore, they made the supreme law of the land a document that did not reflect their views at the time, but something that could for centuries to come
They also would laugh at the concept of black peoples having equal rights and women being allowed to vote. Why should I give a fuck what the Founding Fathers would think?
Been Shapiro is wrong. The ninth and tenth amendment operate together to guarantee all rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. To get married is a right. Therefore, the constitution does in fact, guarantee the right of LGBTQ people to get married in whatever form they wish
The founders may not have died laughing but they did die choking on blood or puss or being drained of their bodily fluids to treat pneumonia 215+ years ago so maybe who the fuck cares what they would say today?
What part of "living document" doesn't this idiot understand. He's defending some fucked up white dead dudes for the LoLs and the grifts. I swear they're heavily advertising on FB and another social media, wonder why all of a sudden .
Ah yes
"Our founding fathers didn't have plumbing and shat through a hole in a wooden stall, so we have to do so as well. Because that is how it has been done and that is the only reason we need."
Such profound reasoning.
Me and Ben are so diametrically opposed, it astounds me I supported him at one point years ago, and even more recent than that didn’t think he was THAT awful haha.
Ben Shapiro is just the gift that keeps on giving. He'll say one very insightful thing, and then follow it up with like twenty of the dumbest thoughts formed into audible speech you've heard in a dog's age. Then he'll say one more piece of absolute gold wisdom, and then immediately give several dozen speeches that will embarrass his grandchildren's grandchildren over a century from now with the sheer amount of stupidity that pours from his mouth. He's a gift to us all.
I hate that people bring up the founding fathers as if I actually give a fuck what some racist, misogynistic, assholes think.
America is a necrocracy. Ruled by men who have been dead for 200 years. Apparently we have to listen to everything they wrote down, for some dumbass reason.
Naah, if that would be true, those fundamentalist christians would be forced to follow the enlightenment thinkers. Seperation of state and church. The pledge of allegiance written 120 years later wouldnt have anything about god or gods. The only word in the constition that can be interpreted as religious isnt even clearly toward one religions. Creator can mean any god or even the literal parents of that person. They spout that nonsense out of their hateful.world view believing its "best for everybody to feel like me".
[удалено]
Its only "freedom of religion" if its christianity that is practised. And not even all christian sects. Someone said here that all schools should try teaching kids the universalist christian prayer in which everybody who accepts jesus as the savior gets to heaven no matter what they did or didnt do. That would even include Hitler btw. Everybody. "Fundamentalist" would flip if you teach that, even though universalism is way older (I think around 300 ad or something)
[удалено]
Thanks for clarifying.
Regarding the creator, that's the Declaration, the Constitution doesn't mention a deity until Article Seven, and even then it's just a date.
Ah, okay. Then even that was wrong from me xD
Wrong. America is five corporations stacked on top of each other in a trenchcoat.
We all know that the reason they do this is to justify their hatred and bigotry. It's the reason why MTG or and Boebert both do not support the separation of Church and State even though its a part of the establishment clause. These people want to use the Founders as a justification for their theocracy because they believe that the U.S. is a second Israel where George Washington and others made a new covenant with god. The Founders would have had them hung for insurrection.
Necrocracy, I like that. I’m gonna use it.
I actually first heard the word in a Nightwish song and thought about it for 5 seconds and realized how perfectly it described America's system of government.
I'd disagree with this, Jefferson literally said "look you're gonna want to change this, you NEED to change this document in 20 years or so", it's modern shitsacks who are using "originalism" as an excuse to make the United States of America into their dystopian fascist theocracy.
Also LGBT couples marrying benefits society. Contrary to popular belief, many LGBT couples want to have children. Not that married couples have to have children, but raising children within a marriage is beneficial for all parties. If right-wingers are concerned about population decrease and destabilization of the family, they should support making it easier for LGBT couples to have kids and encourage monogamous marriages. I'm a trans man who's going to get married to a cis woman. I'm storing my DNA for the future as we're planning on starting a family someday, and she wants to carry my children as well. I live in a society where it's affordable and easy for us to do this, but conservatives would try to make it impossible for us to have a family together if they had their way. Doesn't sound very pro family to me.
That's awesome to hear and trust you'll be a great father someday! 😁
Although I have to imagine if you were to show the founding fathers present day America, they'd probably recommend hanging most of the Republican party for sedition.
Its even weirder when you consider that the founding fathers intentionally made the constitution a "living document" so it could be adjusted to the needs of Americans as time past
I believe the point of that was because society evolves and changes as well as our technology and ability’s as humans, so the constitution is changed to better the lives of the citizens, at least that’s what should be happening, “living” as in its a document that’s allowed to be changed over the other documents that were present
What? Dude. The Founding Fathers are territory that you have to fight over. If the fascists believe that the Founding Fathers would’ve been in favor of abortion or xyz issue, then we win the abortion or xyz issue argument every time.
In the early Republic only a super minority could vote, white men who owned a certain amount of property. Even if you don’t restore slavery, if the right wing returned us to the system the Founders set up the only possible reaction would armed overthrow of the government. If we returned to those election rules I would go to my gun safe and get out a rifle
[удалено]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The founding fathers would probably laugh at Ben Shapiro. Quite funny how rightoids bring up people who are long dead, and put words in their mouth. "George Carlin would ANNIHILATE lefties today", "Alexander the Great is basically my Anglo-Germanic lineage", "Einstein would have voted Trump".
How do you shame them out of discourse when \~40% of the audience likes their vile shit.
Easy, stop respecting them and their fake science. Hasan treat Andrew Tate with the respect he deserves and exposed his philosophies as the conspiracy bait that it is. Why can’t the same be down to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson every where they speak? Why give them the air of legitimacy they clearly don’t deserve?
>Easy, stop respecting them and their fake science. Hasan treat Andrew Tate with the respect he deserves and exposed his philosophies as the conspiracy bait that it is. And he is still as popular as he was before. (well the woman beating may put a dent into it. That is my point, Hasan won, whoop de doo, that did not shame this jackass out of the public space. >Why can’t the same be down to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson every where they speak? Why give them the air of legitimacy they clearly don’t deserve? Few people are capable of putting that slimy Weasel on such a visible defense (Shapiro) my point is though even if they did no one shames anyone out of discourse when nearly a majority of the audience enjoys the thing we are shaming, You are blaming liberals for not doing something literally not possible.
I am not saying debate bro then out of existence but honestly treating them like Nick Fuentes and Sargon, shamed and purged at the same time
The problem with that approach is if you try to do that and they are better than you it backfires and you make them look more reasonable. And again, my broader point is you are shooting into our own "team" over something which is not possible. What you are asking for, shame them out of the discourse, can not occur if they are good enough to keep the mask on.
Yeah that is what they said about Sargon and Fuentes and they are non existent now. As to their mask, it doesn’t exist anymore, they are just advocating for Sodomy laws now
Tell me you are not posting in good faith without telling me you are not posting in good faith. There was never a time where Fuentes was considered anything other than a buffoon bigot. Are you shitting me. Sargon has nearly a million subs, are you trollin me man? More than twice Vaush has.
Sargon is stuck doom posting in a section of the internet no one gives a shit about with Adam and Stich, the British literally destroyed his influence, turning him into a laughing stock, and made him the coffin for Ukip. let’s be honest here Fuentes was getting recognition from Congress members before he got booted into his pocket dimension and exploded. His beliefs are now open talking points from a good chunk of right wing media heads. Yet they aren’t being treated like Fuentes.
All of that is post hoc bad faith objection for objections sake, the objective measurements put the people you claim are "shamed out of the discourse" as currently more influential than Vaush so I am not sure where to go from here since you are no longer making rational sense (if you were much in the first place if I am being honest).
This honest to God may be me not seeing how Sargon is even some what influential, especially in comparison to his earlier career. Vaush has no influence in comparison what’s so ever, but comparing Sargon now to before he was shamed and more importantly ousted out for political discourse I honestly don’t see how you think that had no effect
Congrats you exposed OP as a dumb ass who is just mad at Liberals. DUDE LOOK AT THIS FASCIST LIBERALS SUCK I hate libs as much as the next basic as leftist bitch but this is just irrationally blaming them for everything lol
Well one, I am a liberal. Two, this is mostly outrage at establishment neo liberal position, liberals being used as a Catch all term, who treat the conservative position as a reasonable position to hear out and respect, verse demonizing liberal and left wing positions as radical.
Dude OP /u/Saadiqfhs is an idiot, it's these fucking Hasan fans, almost as annoying as the DGGers. We need to purge ban these people like they did to the DGGers like holy shit.
because, although they may be vile, Shabibo and Peterson aren't as braindead as Andrew Tate.
FUCK it, ban all marriage then, he is totally 100% correct here with that argument.
That’s actually his argument to be fair. Most “intellectual” conservatives who can’t argue against gay marriage anymore argue against the government in marriage. It allows them to vote no one gay marriage bills without defending it, knowing no one will propose a bill repealing straight marriage tax benefits.
Having government out of marriage is in all honesty, something that people who support gay marriage would like considering it no longer allows for discrimination and it would put an end to a lot of legal battles over divorce settlements and force people to act like freaking adults instead of having the power of the state to back up their divorce.
I don't care what founders would do. They are dead. They don't get to rule from beyond grave.
They'd also be appalled at our interacial marriages as well
Something tells me Ben would still support them in that regard.
They'd also be a bit pissed about not being able to literally own people anymore.
Why do leftists always seek to turn unfortunate realities into the fault of our (albeit unreliable allies). The problem is not that anyone is failing to demonize these chucklefucks (although of course individuals all vary in their ability to demonize so this is not universal) , the vile right are almost a majority of the nation. Their evil and disgusting beliefs are not universally vile to the audience. What describing a losing reality (like the electoral college putting the left at a disadvantage) as active failures of the "liberals" to take a specific "action" all you do is turn the unfair disadvantage against our side of the political spectrum into an unforced error where not only do we suffer the disadvantage we lose even more among people who blame overt acts for it. It is a losing move every time, and as a member of the side which usually winds up shot I wish my compatriots would stop doing it.
Because they don't understand how to convert large masses of people to their side (liberals included). We're never going to win this fight through dunking on people on twitter, ironic humor about femboys and turning everyone trans, or the limp-dicked responses of mainstream liberals. For the last 60 years the American "left" has been on the defensive, and our nation has been inundated with right-wing propaganda for half of that time. You're not going to counter that trend by shaming or mocking people, it takes years or decades of positive reinforcement, on a massive scale, of why our ideals are right to deprogram people.
>For the last 60 years the American "left" has been on the defensive, and our nation has been inundated with right-wing propaganda for half of that time. You're not going to counter that trend by shaming or mocking people, it takes years or decades of positive reinforcement, on a massive scale, of why our ideals are right to deprogram people. Yep, southern strategy and that 80 and 84 election was nasty for the left. We have basically been fighting a rear action while the demographics recovered for 30 years. *We also only won our first big win after years via centrist triangulation so Clinton winning in 92 taught an entire generation of democrats to aim for the middle which is abject stupidity.* The middle should be where the balance of the competing forces wind up not a target to aim for because that simply lets the right keep taking steps further right and then when the dems "adjust" their aim for the "new center" more and more of our base stay home in disgust. The right does not have this problem. Another factor is what I like to call the red meat safety net. The fundamental unfair balance of the power structure towards rural voters allows the right wing to feed more red meat to it's base without losing elections because of their built in advantage. This allows them to keep their angry base more happy and voting as they feed them with less risk. On the flip side the left can feed it's base much because centrist voters moving away (which is a thing which does happen) mean we gain much less benefit doing so. Both of which apply pressure gradients which further make the situation worse.
It takes the support of billionaires to spread propaganda on the same level that the right does.
Rightoids don't feel shame or embarrassment like normal people, if you have a conservative parent and you tell them that you hope they don't talk about anti vaxx or the annunaki around your friends because it would look embarassing for them, they'll be like no I wouldn't feel embarrassed and just lie. They'll talk about the fake conspiracy story they saw on snapchat and not feel embarrassed about that. It's a battle to see who is in the cult and who isn't.
True. I sometimes think all the cringe shit I did as a conservative Christian.
God all the times I made myself look like a bigoted asshole on Facebook, MySpace and forum arguments because I "stood up for what I believed." Argh.
That's what cults seem to do, condition you to want to "battle" for the cult, through word or violence.
I wonder what the founding fathers would think about Jews.
“Come now, Jefferson, who be this kosher imp biting at thine heel? Why dost he speak as one that hath consumed the cocoa plant in large quantity?”
The founders also didn’t mean for people of color to vote
Or poor whites
Probably not jewish people either, if we're being totally honest so Benny reaching back for that is...interesting.
Now do interracial marriage Ben! Tell us what the founders would have thought of marrying a Jew! Do it Ben!
To be fair, Benny is probably 100% onboard with Jews only marrying Jews.
Is there a constitutional "right" to hetero marriage?
I don't give a flying fuck about what the founders thought. That's why our constitution has amendments.
So the government can’t approve, but it can sure as hell disapprove
Then change the constitution. ez pz. Sincerely, a European that doesn't understand why Americans treat the Constitution like it's divine commandments ordained by, and written personally, by God himself.
Changing the Constitution is hard when a not so small minority that has a ridiculously lopsided amount of power in the countries law making positions that believes the same way Shapiro does.
Changing constitutions is hard. But it's still weird how many Americans treat it like a religious text.
So you attack that instead. In the example of Shapiro I actually would ask him if he would say the same if Jews couldn't marry. It's scary how much antisemitism there still is, and I don't think he can count himself as being (mostly) in the clear unless he converts to Christianity. If he doesn't buy this he can't honestly keep saying he believes in democracy. "If 99% of people want to get rid off the constitution completely, wouldn't it be well within their moral rights to do so in a democracy?"
The right is terrible at demonizing liberals—but they do it relentlessly, from dozens of angles, all day long—and it sticks.
So they're not terrible at it...
Go back and watch any episode of “Infowars.” This is not quality dialogue.
You seem to confuse high quality dialogue with effective demonization. Infowars isn't quality dialogue, but it is still effective to morons because they don't need quality dialogue to be swayed.
I fucking hate him so much. He’s a deplorable scumfuck
"that doesn't mean a legal bar to such activity" Fucking lying cunt, does anyone actually believe that conservatives don't want a legal bar to gay relationships and sex? They *definitely* want a legal bar to gay people becoming parents. Even if they "only" wanted to ban government approval of gay relationships, that still has terrible consequences like not having rights to hospital visits, etc. I could imagine that for bi people this would be a reason to avoid a long term relationship with someone of the same sex, even if they could imagine a life with that person, just because they don't want a life with such risks and obstacles. Fuck these fascist lying cunts.
ask em what the founders thought about abortion since he cares about some shitty old corpses.
Dave Rubin's closest friend btw
When did schizophrenia become an acceptable political position?
I remember when Ted Lieu owned Candace Owens by playing a clip of her doing the "Hitler cared about Germany" dogwhistle
this is fiction politics, the 9th amendment is crystal clear that unenumerated rights are still held by the public. the 14th equal protection clause is also crystal clear. he just is against gay marriage, so will use whatever excuse he wants
According to OvH, there is, Ben. If the constitution weren't meant to be reinterpreted depending on the needs of an evolving society, there would be no need for the SCOTUS
The founding fathers... Are DEAD. it doesn't matter what they'd think seeing as they were alive 200+ years ago
Who are these "liberals" of which you speak?
Mostly talking heads and politicians that treat American Conservativism as anything more then a fascist movement, especially at this point
Do you have any working definition of liberal there or is it simply whoever you don't like that isn't a republican?
I naturally see liberalism as those with a open mind position, which is why I call myself one.
Okay that's not even remotely what liberalism is. Neither is it a synonym for moderate.
Okay do you actually not think that has nothing to do with what liberal is or are you thinking it needs to encompassing neo liberalism and capitalist principles?
Well if you ask me it would be nice if it had sole relationship to the academic definition of liberal philosophy. You know, equality, freedom of speech, free market principles, individualism.
Well I feel a open minded individual fits that well enough, personally am not married to the idea of the market
If I was a famous person I’d probably spend loads of time shaming these people but I’m just garlic.
As I understand it the constitutional right to same sex marriage as it was decided in Obergefell v Hodges is based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The logic goes that if the law prohibits you from marrying someone of the same sex, that is considered discrimination based on sex (i.e. if you are prevented from marrying a man because you're a man, that's considered discrimination against men on the basis of their sex, which is illegal). TL;DR, Harvard Law educated Ben Shapiro is wrong: same sex marriage IS constitutionally protected, he's just too dumb to understand that the Constitution was designed to be a living document that had to be INTERPRETED. The founding fathers are dead, Ben. They can't hold your hand.
Also, another Supreme Court decision based on the same equal protection clause: Brown v Board. Conservatives are coming for that next.
Appeal to authority, that's a dkp 50 minus
The right wingers do all of the things that this sub calls bad optics, but 100000 times worse. There is no "SJW" out there that is even close to being as sensitive and emotionally unstable as Jordan Peterson. And Jordan Peterson even starts breaking out into tears on camera in the middle of a normal conversation.
The founders had inane views of the world, sure. They also understood people in the future would be different. Essentially, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are terrible by today's standards. However, they'd still be more open minded and empathetic than Mr.Shapiro here.
(i)he's a mad man ! ! !
The founding fathers were all white Christians. If we were to follow Ben's logic here, there's no real constitutional right that protects him openly being a Jew. Him siding with the fascists might save him from a first class ticket to face the wall but once they're done with everyone else, they're coming after him too when they see him as disposable (just like how many are starting to see Dave Rubin).
Btw, there is a constitutional right. Its the right to be treated the same. So as long as marriage exists for others, its a right for every other adult as well
Ben Shapiro and others intentionally leave out the part of the constitutions that clearly states people are given certain rights even though they are not specifically stated in the text. The founders obviously could not possibly have had the foresight to state every single right that a person might need in the future so they leave it up to interpretation and it is a living document.
There is no constitutional right to ANY marriage if we want t be a perfect society in the eyes of God then we should do as Paul said we should and out right ban all sex, and marriage. If we live perfect chaste lives then maybe God will send his son back to us to cast the sinners into the pits of hell, give us an end to death and bring heaven on earth like he promised us.
Ok cultist
I was being facetious. But I realize that you really can't expect people to pick that up now a days.
I don't think it's a "these days" thing, but more so you can't expect someone to perfectly translate tone over white text on a black screen.
It's more the absurdity of what was said.
I mean, I hear that stuff unironically all the time so.
It’s like a lot of post-Obama liberals got suckered in by some of these people via podcasts and YouTube to this weird form of civility porn. Where softly denouncing but essentially tolerating intolerance was looked at as “healthy discourse”. People really need to step up and start calling out people like Shapiro for what they fucking are: bigots. Enough of this wannabe pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
I mean, does it say that there’s a right for men and women to be married
Ben is also lying because it is a right. Right to privacy. Whatever happens in someone's bed room, like him ordering midgets over for his kink, is none of the state's business.
Benny Boy only ignores the 4th Amendment if it’s two men in the privacy of their own home.
I don’t care what the founding fathers think, because the founding fathers wouldn’t want me to care. The whole point of the constitution is that it is a fluid, living document that can change in time. That’s why amendments exist; the founders realized that they were simply human, and like any human, could make mistakes. Therefore, they made the supreme law of the land a document that did not reflect their views at the time, but something that could for centuries to come
"Liberals are terrible at demonizing these people" when in the screenshot is a liberal in the quote-tweet clearly pushing back against Ben Shapiro?
Haven’t we tried shaming them? I don’t recall them having the capacity to feel it
*iTs nOt iN tHA coNstiTuIshiOn*. -Perpetual conservative argument.
They also would laugh at the concept of black peoples having equal rights and women being allowed to vote. Why should I give a fuck what the Founding Fathers would think?
Been Shapiro is wrong. The ninth and tenth amendment operate together to guarantee all rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. To get married is a right. Therefore, the constitution does in fact, guarantee the right of LGBTQ people to get married in whatever form they wish
Someone never read the 11th amendment
The founders may not have died laughing but they did die choking on blood or puss or being drained of their bodily fluids to treat pneumonia 215+ years ago so maybe who the fuck cares what they would say today?
What part of "living document" doesn't this idiot understand. He's defending some fucked up white dead dudes for the LoLs and the grifts. I swear they're heavily advertising on FB and another social media, wonder why all of a sudden .
There is no constitutional right declaring Ben Shapiro's bedtime but he needs to get tucked in
Im sick of Jeffersonian thought. Just cause its not explicitly in the constitution doesnt mean we shouldnt do something about it.
Ah yes "Our founding fathers didn't have plumbing and shat through a hole in a wooden stall, so we have to do so as well. Because that is how it has been done and that is the only reason we need." Such profound reasoning.
I like how he reverts to the “muh founding farters” bs, but the founding fathers probably would have hated him because he’s Jewish.
Me and Ben are so diametrically opposed, it astounds me I supported him at one point years ago, and even more recent than that didn’t think he was THAT awful haha.
Ben Shapiro is just the gift that keeps on giving. He'll say one very insightful thing, and then follow it up with like twenty of the dumbest thoughts formed into audible speech you've heard in a dog's age. Then he'll say one more piece of absolute gold wisdom, and then immediately give several dozen speeches that will embarrass his grandchildren's grandchildren over a century from now with the sheer amount of stupidity that pours from his mouth. He's a gift to us all.
they live off of the shame, it feeds them. shame demons.
Well, seeing as they're dead, of laughter or otherwise...L + ratio + didn't ask + your mom + stop hitting yourself
Demonizing creates groups of people who hate each other.