Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "How did the Limited Govt party become the Authoritarian party?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As far as I can tell, Rs are authoritarian when it comes to abortion and for many people that is the defining voting issue. But outside abortion, ehh... On the other hand, when it came to covid, censorship, media suppression, fact checking, DEI, trans right over women's rights, politicization of education, the Democrats are definitely authoritarian. You just don't notice because you agree with it. The Twitter files made it clear Democratic authorities eagerly embraced state sanctioned censorship and using private enterprises to censor on behalf of the government. Between the two parties, the Ds are certainly the far more authoritarian of the two and much more ideological in lock step. The Rs don't have the political or cultural power the Democrats do so they don't have the power to be authoritarian. [/quote] Remember MGT arguing that people moving to Georgia shouldn't be allowed to vote? Remember the bill introduced in Florida to dissolve the democratic party or the bill requiring bloggers who write about elected officials to register with the state? [/quote] Has either of those things happened?[/quote] There’s a link to one of them on the page before this one. The other one is here: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/591585-blaise-ingoglia-bill-would-cancel-democratic-party/[/quote] I meant have they been implemented? or are they just more performances by crazy attention whores that will go nowhere which is a separate problem in our politics and public culture[/quote] They are bills introduced by elected legislatures. If. you think this is a both sides culture things, show bill the other side has introduced [/quote] sure, here's one https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/61/text "anyone who criticizes [stuff I will define as I like] is going to be a criminal"[/quote] Did you even read the text that you linked to? It clearly says “white supremacy ideology that motivates a crime” so not sure how you read that as anything but specific.[/quote] Sure, just go ahead and define white supremacy for me, cause for some reason I didn’t see a definition in the document, which I did read Would you say current mainstream discourse defines “white supremacy” as a specific, clearly evil thing? https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333 https://rrapp.hks.harvard.edu/the-culture-of-white-supremacy-in-organizations/[/quote] You sound like Sen. Eastland of Mississippi when he blocked a federal anti-lynching law from coming to the Senate for a vote. “Lynching is murder so it is already illegal in state law so we should trust the states to handle it.” Then Eastland suggested amendments to include “race riots” and “gang violence” in the definition of lynching. [/quote] come on, that's silly look at those links and tell me you think "white supremacy" still means something if it meant "Nazis" I might feel differently[/quote] Except it isn't silly, and when you label it as such, it either shows your ignorance, hate or disrespect. You are entitled to your opinion, but history happened, it was documents and it can be demonstrated. The idea is to not repeat it, and when people like you are shown comparisons with obvious parallels and it is dismissed as being silly, then you are missing the point.[/quote] Your response misses the point. Lynching is a word with a clear meaning. Thus, a law against it could actually be enforced “White supremacy ideology” doesn’t mean anything at all. Or rather, it means too much - a crazy grab bag of cultural elements. The links I posted describe the way it’s now used in academia and the nonprofit world. There’s no comparison between this bill and one about lynching. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
