Conservatism

[McLaren]

I guess "groomer" isn't sticking, so they want a new phrase thought up so they can go around like proud 5 year olds, "Wook what I wearned today!"

 

[HenrySwanson]

Possibly the most hilariously pathetic ****ing thing I've ever seen typed out.

OK....

Kind of funny that this week a programme giving guidance to universities on trans rights issues is being revised following pushback from Cambridge academics arguing that by committing to "fostering a collective understanding" on controversial topics it doesn't encourage open debate in universities but, whatever.

But I thought about the question of why it seems so many are using the "excuse" of fearing offending people and came across this:

Now Ofsted inspects most schools in the UK as well as other educational institutions so in effect this future teacher was told, on their first day of training, that if they used the words "black coffee" in a school they were being racist and would be fired. What is obviously an extreme case of political correctness had a profound effect on their way of thinking. You can see how, from just one interaction, they either developed or had a worsening of a stutter and their behaviour was conditioned such that they avoided speaking in the class. Is it not plausible that outside of this class, they would now have an irrational fear of offending when carrying out actions or speaking? If black coffee is offensive, who knows what other innocuous things they wouldn't want to say at work when dealing with ethnic minorities. The solution in this case was discussing it with a friend who isn't white (you can read the messages here - LANGUAGE WARNING). Is this the exception? Funnily enough, 40% of Brits are afraid to say the word "Black" at work and

One in six fear they could lose their job if they got terms around race and ethnicity wrong, and nearly 30% believe it would result in a formal disciplinary.

This fear of repercussions might help explain why working professionals are now more confident talking about death (38%) than race and ethnicity (29%) in the workplace.

So....ignorance of how minorities actually think and fear of consequences right? Certainly could explain the fear when you're in a work setting, and some of the most vocal critics of that culture come from minorities themselves

Consider this piece now (ignore the clickbait headline).

In it the author talks about San Francisco and how, in her opinion, it's all gone a bit downhill.

Here she talks about when she was robbed:

Once, when I was walking and a guy tore my jacket off my back and sprinted away with it, I didn’t even shout for help. I was embarrassed—what was I, a tourist? Living in a failing city does weird things to you. The normal thing to do then was to yell, to try to get help—even, dare I say it, from a police officer—but this felt somehow lame and maybe racist.

Here her outlook on the city:

I used to tell myself that San Francisco’s politics were wacky but the city was trying—really trying—to be good. But the reality is that with the smartest minds and so much money and the very best of intentions, San Francisco became a cruel city. It became so dogmatically progressive that maintaining the purity of the politics required accepting—or at least ignoring—devastating results.

Evidently this is someone who has grown up around minorities (and who is gay), and is herself very educated. Yet even still she has this weird reaction to being robbed, considering (however fleetingly) that by reacting normally she may be racist. The second quote is more telling, with her observing that residents would ignore obvious problems for the "greater good", to maintain an ideal that was created in the community. That ideal could be present in wider culture, and may have become distorted as a result of society trying to make amends for centuries of discrimination and mistreatment of certain groups of people. In order to avoid causing harm, and thereby being no better than the generations before us, we may overcompensate. People then start questioning themselves since their surprise at fancying a Tory politician could be rooted in racism, or that the articles they read in The Guardian (!) are transphobic. Before you know it they may wonder if they should object openly to stuff like this:

One night in 2021, the meeting lasted seven hours, one of which was devoted to making sure a man named Seth Brenzel stayed off the parent committee.

Brenzel is a music teacher, and at the time he and his husband had a child in public school. Eight seats on the committee were open, and Brenzel was unanimously recommended by the other committee members. But there was a problem: Brenzel is white.

“My name’s Mari,” one attendee said. “I’m an openly queer parent of color that uses they/them pronouns.” They noted that the parent committee was already too white (out of 10 sitting members, three were white). This was “really, really problematic,” they said. “I bet there are parents that we can find that are of color and that also are queer … QTPOC voices need to be led first before white queer voices.”

Someone else called in, identifying herself as Cindy. She was calling to defend Brenzel, and she was crying. “He is a gay father of a mixed-race family,” she said.

A woman named Brandee came on the call: “I’m a white parent and have some intersectionality within my family. My son has several disabilities. And I really wouldn’t dream of putting my name forward for this.” She had some choice words for Cindy: “When white people share these kinds of tears at board meetings”—she pauses, laughing—“I have an excellent book suggestion for you. It’s called White Tears/Brown Scars. I’d encourage you to read it, thank you.”

Allison Collins, a member of the school board, dealt the death blow: “As a mixed-race person myself, I find it really offensive when folks say that somebody’s a parent of somebody who’s a person of color, as, like, a signifier that they’re qualified to represent that community.”

(Board members were eventually voted out)

So what does all this mean for debate? Well, I for one would want to hear what the student really thought about the idea that it is racist to say "black coffee" in that class, and not by reading about it in some anonymised blog. I want to hear what athletes and coaches have to say on Scotland's proposed gender reforms - not through Sharron Davies but in person. I want everyones opinion, doesn't matter if it's "moderate" or "extremist".

 

[TexRex]

OK....

Kind of funny that this week a programme giving guidance to universities on trans rights issues is being revised following pushback from Cambridge academics arguing that by committing to "fostering a collective understanding" on controversial topics it doesn't encourage open debate in universities but, whatever.

But I thought about the question of why it seems so many are using the "excuse" of fearing offending people and came across this:

View attachment 1162496
Now Ofsted inspects most schools in the UK as well as other educational institutions so in effect this future teacher was told, on their first day of training, that if they used the words "black coffee" in a school they were being racist and would be fired. What is obviously an extreme case of political correctness had a profound effect on their way of thinking. You can see how, from just one interaction, they either developed or had a worsening of a stutter and their behaviour was conditioned such that they avoided speaking in the class. Is it not plausible that outside of this class, they would now have an irrational fear of offending when carrying out actions or speaking? If black coffee is offensive, who knows what other innocuous things they wouldn't want to say at work when dealing with ethnic minorities. The solution in this case was discussing it with a friend who isn't white (you can read the messages here - LANGUAGE WARNING). Is this the exception? Funnily enough, 40% of Brits are afraid to say the word "Black" at work and


So....ignorance of how minorities actually think and fear of consequences right? Certainly could explain the fear when you're in a work setting, and some of the most vocal critics of that culture come from minorities themselves

Consider this piece now (ignore the clickbait headline).

In it the author talks about San Francisco and how, in her opinion, it's all gone a bit downhill.

Here she talks about when she was robbed:



Here her outlook on the city:



Evidently this is someone who has grown up around minorities (and who is gay), and is herself very educated. Yet even still she has this weird reaction to being robbed, considering (however fleetingly) that by reacting normally she may be racist. The second quote is more telling, with her observing that residents would ignore obvious problems for the "greater good", to maintain an ideal that was created in the community. That ideal could be present in wider culture, and may have become distorted as a result of society trying to make amends for centuries of discrimination and mistreatment of certain groups of people. In order to avoid causing harm, and thereby being no better than the generations before us, we may overcompensate. People then start questioning themselves since their surprise at fancying a Tory politician could be rooted in racism, or that the articles they read in The Guardian (!) are transphobic. Before you know it they may wonder if they should object openly to stuff like this:



(Board members were eventually voted out)

So what does all this mean for debate? Well, I for one would want to hear what the student really thought about the idea that it is racist to say "black coffee" in that class, and not by reading about it in some anonymised blog. I want to hear what athletes and coaches have to say on Scotland's proposed gender reforms - not through Sharron Davies but in person. I want everyones opinion, doesn't matter if it's "moderate" or "extremist".

That you haven't included a single defense of that which I quoted and referred to as pathetic tells me I was justified in calling it pathetic, because you don't stand by it. I suppose that's good on you, because it really is that ****ing pathetic.

Some people presumably "self-censor" and some people presumably don't (or rather I ****ing hope they don't, given the heinous things they've seen fit to say). Sometimes the things people say-- either verbally or through other means of expression--come with social consequences and those consequences may be appropriate or they may not, so one must exercise discretion. Or one can be a little bitch about it.

 

[Danoff]

OK....

Kind of funny that this week a programme giving guidance to universities on trans rights issues is being revised following pushback from Cambridge academics arguing that by committing to "fostering a collective understanding" on controversial topics it doesn't encourage open debate in universities but, whatever.

But I thought about the question of why it seems so many are using the "excuse" of fearing offending people and came across this:

View attachment 1162496
Now Ofsted inspects most schools in the UK as well as other educational institutions so in effect this future teacher was told, on their first day of training, that if they used the words "black coffee" in a school they were being racist and would be fired. What is obviously an extreme case of political correctness had a profound effect on their way of thinking. You can see how, from just one interaction, they either developed or had a worsening of a stutter and their behaviour was conditioned such that they avoided speaking in the class. Is it not plausible that outside of this class, they would now have an irrational fear of offending when carrying out actions or speaking? If black coffee is offensive, who knows what other innocuous things they wouldn't want to say at work when dealing with ethnic minorities. The solution in this case was discussing it with a friend who isn't white (you can read the messages here - LANGUAGE WARNING). Is this the exception? Funnily enough, 40% of Brits are afraid to say the word "Black" at work and


So....ignorance of how minorities actually think and fear of consequences right? Certainly could explain the fear when you're in a work setting, and some of the most vocal critics of that culture come from minorities themselves

Consider this piece now (ignore the clickbait headline).

In it the author talks about San Francisco and how, in her opinion, it's all gone a bit downhill.

Here she talks about when she was robbed:



Here her outlook on the city:



Evidently this is someone who has grown up around minorities (and who is gay), and is herself very educated. Yet even still she has this weird reaction to being robbed, considering (however fleetingly) that by reacting normally she may be racist. The second quote is more telling, with her observing that residents would ignore obvious problems for the "greater good", to maintain an ideal that was created in the community. That ideal could be present in wider culture, and may have become distorted as a result of society trying to make amends for centuries of discrimination and mistreatment of certain groups of people. In order to avoid causing harm, and thereby being no better than the generations before us, we may overcompensate. People then start questioning themselves since their surprise at fancying a Tory politician could be rooted in racism, or that the articles they read in The Guardian (!) are transphobic. Before you know it they may wonder if they should object openly to stuff like this:



(Board members were eventually voted out)

So what does all this mean for debate? Well, I for one would want to hear what the student really thought about the idea that it is racist to say "black coffee" in that class, and not by reading about it in some anonymised blog. I want to hear what athletes and coaches have to say on Scotland's proposed gender reforms - not through Sharron Davies but in person. I want everyones opinion, doesn't matter if it's "moderate" or "extremist".

It's worth noting that one someone posts a personal story, like say, about coffee, that story may or may not be true.

Speaking out about the truth can be hard. It can be especially hard when the prevailing cultural attitude is that it is in fact not true. But it is important to exercise one's freedom and speak out anyway, even if the consequences are negative, rather than to seek to undermine the freedom of speech of others. If you want to say the coffee is black, say it, because it's true. And other people (at least in the US) are free to tell you it's racist.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That you haven't included a single defense of that which I quoted and referred to as pathetic tells me I was justified in calling it pathetic, because you don't stand by it. I suppose that's good on you, because it really is that ****ing pathetic.

The last paragraph summed up what I thought about the impact on debate based on the examples given, which is what you called pathetic.

Or one can be a little bitch about it.

Ehh. I mean this is where I disagree. I wouldn't call those people "little bitches" for feeling that way because of how the culture has shifted, and its obvious a lot of people feel that way. That fear of getting it wrong socially is a classic shame response which can be remarkably strong since some psychologists believe it developed evolutionarily to keep the human tribe hierarchy in place.

It's worth noting that one someone posts a personal story, like say, about coffee, that story may or may not be true.

Definitely, but teaching over here tends to attract very liberal minded people so I don't doubt its veracity. The president of the National Black Police Association also referred to it not being acceptable to say "black coffee", and how that gesture is unhelpful

Speaking out about the truth can be hard. It can be especially hard when the prevailing cultural attitude is that it is in fact not true. But it is important to exercise one's freedom and speak out anyway, even if the consequences are negative, rather than to seek to undermine the freedom of speech of others. If you want to say the coffee is black, say it, because it's true. And other people (at least in the US) are free to tell you it's racist.

It's not that we should be infringing on other people's freedom of speech, but acknowledging that as a society we've gone a bit too far in the opposite direction and we need to course correct somehow. If 40% of people are avoiding the term "black" in the workplace then it's obviously become deeply embedded in the psyche which, while coming from good intentions, could actually hinder race relations.

 

[TexRex]

The last paragraph summed up what I thought about the impact on debate based on the examples given, which is what you called pathetic.

What I called pathetic, explicitly and entirely devoid of subtext, was the notion that one wouldn't like "self-censoring." I would even go on to explain precisely why this is pathetic, but you've decided to ignore that and distort my comments in a manner that suits you and your desire to not address my assertion that the notion is pathetic. This is deceitful, but it's also ****ing pathetic. I'd tell you that you don't actually have to be a little bitch about it, but you do you.

Ehh. I mean this is where I disagree. I wouldn't call those people "little bitches" for feeling that way because of how the culture has shifted, and its obvious a lot of people feel that way. That fear of getting it wrong socially is a classic shame response which can be remarkably strong since some psychologists believe it developed evolutionarily to keep the human tribe hierarchy in place.

I'd suggest that there has never been a time during which social consequences for disfavored expression didn't exist, and I'd say you have the opportunity to provide an example of a time this wasn't the case but I know you won't and you'll likely instead offer a vague, off-topic rebuttal linked to a paywalled article from The Times that you see as validating your particular bitchfit.

I suppose overall attitudes have changed, but the biggest difference is this new class of whiny, little bitches telling other whiny, little bitches that they're the real victims.

Edit:

Definitely, but teaching over here tends to attract very liberal minded people so I don't doubt its veracity.

Amazing. An anecdotal to reinforce the notion that the anecdotal may not be purely anecdotal, absent any legitimate evidence. You really can't help yourself, can you? It's pathological.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What I called pathetic, explicitly and entirely devoid of subtext, was the notion that one wouldn't like "self-censoring." I would even go on to explain precisely why this is pathetic, but you've decided to ignore that and distort my comments in a manner that suits you and your desire to not address my assertion that the notion is pathetic. This is deceitful, but it's also ****ing pathetic. I'd tell you that you don't actually have to be a little bitch about it, but you do you.

That wasn't clear as the sentence you called "pathetic" had two propositions in it, one before the comma and one after. I thought, with your quoting of those tweets, you were referencing the latter one (i.e. since they didn't self censor, debate is unaffected).

Now that that's cleared up, are you disputing that people wouldn't like self-censoring?

I'd suggest that there has never been a time during which social consequences for disfavored expression didn't exist, and I'd say you have the opportunity to provide an example of a time this wasn't the case but I know you won't and you'll likely instead offer a vague, off-topic rebuttal linked to a paywalled article from The Times that you see as validating your particular bitchfit.

There never has been that I can think of (which makes sense from a evolution perspective). What's changed is how readily its invoked/threatened and what's considered an infraction.

I suppose overall attitudes have changed, but the biggest difference is this new class of whiny, little bitches telling other whiny, little bitches that they're the real victims.

This strikes me as odd. You hear people complain about something and label them as "whiny, little bitches" and seem to suggest they are taking a victim mentality for pointing out problems with the present day culture. It was the same thing with the Horowitz article, as if this was the preserve of only conservatives having "bitchfits".

Edit:

Amazing. An anecdotal to reinforce the notion that the anecdotal may not be purely anecdotal, absent any legitimate evidence. You really can't help yourself, can you? It's pathological.

Firstly, it's not being used to disclaim the anecdote is purely anecdotal - but about whether the story was true.

And the assertion that teaching attracts liberals is anecdotal is....odd. It's pretty well known over here. Maybe it's different in the US?

 

[TexRex]

That wasn't clear as the sentence you called "pathetic" had two propositions in it, one before the comma and one after. I thought, with your quoting of those tweets, you were referencing the latter one (i.e. since they didn't self censor, debate is unaffected).

Now that that's cleared up, are you disputing that people wouldn't like self-censoring?

There never has been that I can think of (which makes sense from a evolution perspective). What's changed is how readily its invoked/threatened and what's considered an infraction.

This strikes me as odd. You hear people complain about something and label them as "whiny, little bitches" and seem to suggest they are taking a victim mentality for pointing out problems with the present day culture. It was the same thing with the Horowitz article, as if this was the preserve of only conservatives having "bitchfits".

Firstly, it's not being used to disclaim the anecdote is purely anecdotal - but about whether the story was true.

And the assertion that teaching attracts liberals is anecdotal is....odd. It's pretty well known over here. Maybe it's different in the US?

One who feels compelled to "self-censor" (which I gather is a candy-ass way of referring to one not saying what they want to say) and complains about it is a whiny, little bitch. I know whiny, little bitches such as this exist. That they exist is why I'm so compelled to mock them.

I'm like a halved lemon with kosher salt--acidic and abrasive. It's my nature. My nature has a negative affect on interactions with others, and so I make an effort to curtail my nature for the benefit of my interactions with others. See, I like to interact with others. Even as I'm acidic and abrasive, I'm also a social butterfly. I don't have the urge to complain about this because I'm not a bitch. And the bottoms of all of my pots and pans are ****ing clean.

Either say what you want to say and accept that there may be social consequences which may or may not be appropriate--and this has always been the case--or don't. That one can't accept this reality makes one a bitch.

The main issue at play here is that conservatives feel like they had the privilege of dictating what is and isn't okay to say, but now they see that as changing and they don't like it one bit.

Cry some more.

 

[Racer294]

....

 

[TexRex]

 

[Racer294]

Looking at the state of the right wing, in the UK and US at least, do most arguments when approached from a socially conservative platform not seem to....make sense? By that I mean do they stand up to well reasoned, forensic analysis or do they have shaky foundations which are easy to deconstruct by a competent opposition. I'm not questioning the intentions of those who express such views, and frequently they do "have their heart in the right place", but I wonder why people continue to hold onto those views despite the sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The most prominent example would probably be the US election results, but that is just one example out of many that includes rights to obtain abortions through to thinking it's "PC gone mad" when a radio station censors an LGBT slur in a popular Christmas song. And then if we dive deeper we come to conspiracy theories ranging from anti-vaxxers to NWO plots.

I guess what I want to know is, how viable is conservatism now and heading into the future?

I think your statement after almost two years proves a point. The opposite/liberal side is just as bad and worse. The Liberal side have no values.

 

[TexRex]

I think your statement after almost two years proves a point. The opposite/liberal side is just as bad and worse. The Liberal side have no values.

I ****ing love conservative bitchfits.

 

[UKMikey]

****ing love conservative bitchfits.

I'd give my opinion on the post you quoted but have decided to self-censor instead.

 

[Joey D]

I think your statement after almost two years proves a point. The opposite/liberal side is just as bad and worse. The Liberal side have no values.

I'm not liberal, but only one side has actively tried to overthrow the government in a coup led by white supremacists, gravy seals, and people with an IQ similar to jellyfish. So while I think many liberal policies are bad for the country, they at least aren't committing blatant sedition and treason along with attempting to throw out the First Amendment and alter democratically ran elections.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not liberal, but only one side has actively tried to overthrow the government in a coup led by white supremacists, gravy seals, and people with an IQ similar to jellyfish. So while I think many liberal policies are bad for the country, they at least aren't committing blatant sedition and treason along with attempting to throw out the First Amendment and alter democratically ran elections.

With you save for the bit about jellyfish IQ. Jellyfish are sure to be incredibly intelligent, but the application of a measure as flawed as IQ isn't likely to reflect that intelligence.

 

[Joey D]

With you save for the bit about jellyfish IQ. Jellyfish are sure to be incredibly intelligent, but the application of a measure as flawed as IQ isn't likely to reflect that intelligence.

I was just picking an animal that has no brain

 

[TexRex]

I was just picking an animal that has no brain

Fair, I guess, but it's apparent that they don't really need one.

Jellyfish also have no heart. Read into that whatever you will.

Edit:

Of course Seb Gorka absolutely looks like a pedophile pedophile pedophile pedophile...dammit...pastor, so this isn't terribly surprising coming from him.

 

[Racer294]

I'm not liberal, but only one side has actively tried to overthrow the government in a coup led by white supremacists, gravy seals, and people with an IQ similar to jellyfish. So while I think many liberal policies are bad for the country, they at least aren't committing blatant sedition and treason along with attempting to throw out the First Amendment and alter democratically ran elections.

You start your conversation with insults based in lies. Amazing the mods let behavior happen. TDS is a real mental illness. Btw, you are a liberal. Only one would believe 1/6 was a coup.

 

[Northstar]

Only one would believe 1/6 was a coup.

A failed coup is still a coup.

 

[Racer294]

With you save for the bit about jellyfish IQ. Jellyfish are sure to be incredibly intelligent, but the application of a measure as flawed as IQ isn't likely to reflect that intelligence.

You must have "Rules for Radicals" memorized. Deflect what you are guilty of to your foe. Bill Aries would be proud.

 

[TexRex]

You start your conversation with insults based in lies. Amazing the mods let behavior happen. TDS is a real mental illness. Btw, you are a liberal. Only one would believe 1/6 was a coup.

It's just one continuous bitchfit from these mother****ers.

 

[Racer294]

A failed coup is still a coup.

😂 Seriously.

It's just one continuous bitchfit from these mother****ers.

More insults. Very mature.

 

[Joey D]

You start your conversation with insults based in lies. Amazing the mods let behavior happen. TDS is a real mental illness. Btw, you are a liberal. Only one would believe 1/6 was a coup.

I'm liberal? Anyone who's participated in the OC&E forum regularly knows that I'm pretty far from being liberal. Thinking I'm liberal in any sense is rich.

And think of January 6th however you like, but the attempted overthrowing of a democratically elected government is a coup. It was a failed coup thankfully, but still a coup. I mean assholes invaded the Capitol with the intent to hang the vice president and force Trump into power when he lost the election. Look, I loathe Biden and didn't vote for him because I thought he'd make a terrible president, but he whether I like it or not, he won.

Also, if you believe I'm lying, feel free to report the post, that's how you signal a mod's attention. If a mod tells me to stop posting something, I'll listen.

 

[Racer294]

I'm liberal? Anyone who's participated in the OC&E forum regularly knows that I'm pretty far from being liberal. Thinking I'm liberal in any sense is rich.

And think of January 6th however you like, but the attempted overthrowing of a democratically elected government is a coup. It was a failed coup thankfully, but still a coup. I mean assholes invaded the Capitol with the intent to hang the vice president and force Trump into power when he lost the election. Look, I loathe Biden and didn't vote for him because I thought he'd make a terrible president, but he whether I like it or not, he won.

Also, if you believe I'm lying, feel free to report the post, that's how you signal a mod's attention. If a mod tells me to stop posting something, I'll listen.

Who was the leader of this coup?

 

[TexRex]

The Liberal side have no values.

TDS is a real mental illness. Btw, you are a liberal.

More insults. Very mature.

Oh...is this really the post to which you intended to reply as you have?

If so, how broken are you? If not, maybe take a break until you can manage your actions better.

I'm liberal? Anyone who's participated in the OC&E forum regularly knows that I'm pretty far from being liberal. Thinking I'm liberal in any sense is rich.

And think of January 6th however you like, but the attempted overthrowing of a democratically elected government is a coup. It was a failed coup thankfully, but still a coup. I mean assholes invaded the Capitol with the intent to hang the vice president and force Trump into power when he lost the election. Look, I loathe Biden and didn't vote for him because I thought he'd make a terrible president, but he whether I like it or not, he won.

Also, if you believe I'm lying, feel free to report the post, that's how you signal a mod's attention. If a mod tells me to stop posting something, I'll listen.

Real serious returning banned member vibes from that one. Groundfish, is that you?

 

[m76]

I don't consider myself conservative. But the line for conservative keeps moving towards me.

 

[Joey D]

7Who was the leader of this coup?

Have you not been paying attention? More than half of the Republican Party supported it and it was almost certainly led, in part, by Trump himself. If you can't see that, based on others I've had this exact conversation with, I'm afraid nothing I can say will bring you back from the delusional world you now live in.

Also, pro-tip since I know this is kicking around in your mind, you can still be conservative while thinking Trump is a lightweight fascist and that most of the current Republican Party just wants authoritarianism. Also, if you hate Trump you don't automatically like Biden or vote Democrat. I can't remember the last Democrat I voted for but I do know the last Republican I voted for because it was last November. Finally, you can think the GOP supports failed policies without thinking the DNC's policies are good.

 

[TexRex]

I don't consider myself conservative.

Yet you would prohibit one seeking to exit life on their own terms. Weird. Maybe just fess up to being a "suicide is a sin" fundie and go thump that bible of yours.

 

[Joey D]

I don't consider myself conservative. But the line for conservative keeps moving towards me.

View attachment 1163486

You do know that the line on the right is moving further to the right. If you're center, you'll still be center regardless of how far either side moves.

Also, using "woke" to describe anything is just cringy.

 

[Danoff]

I don't consider myself conservative. But the line for conservative keeps moving towards me.

View attachment 1163486

It's not totally wrong, the graph is just fixed on the wrong side. It's the right side of the graph that attacked the country in an attempted coup and is calling for executions and suspension of democracy that OBVIOUSLY has moved a tad.


Edit:

On the one hand, we have some liberals that call people bigots. On the other hand we have pickup trucks flying american flags upside down with decals that read no quarter. They're talking about the people of this country, who they don't just want to defeat in war, they believe their enemies (fellow americans with different political views) are sub-humans that deserve execution if captured.

So... "bigot" is kinda cute.