935
Ted Nugent; another victim of “reader added context” on Twitter. (feddit.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/murderedbywords@feddit.uk
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Which harmful laws are voting dems attempting to preserve? There are quite a few bad things the voters are attempting to get politicians to act on, e.g. incarceration rates, drugs, police reform, health reform, gun policy, etc. but they keep getting no action because the competing party is loudly fighting hard for the opposite of all those things and all the dems have to do is say "at least we won't make those problems 1000 times worse."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    From how I see that country regressing, it's been one crap law after another. One side is actively trying to strip minority rights, the other is actively trying to strip the middle and lower class rights, sometimes they switch sides. All guised, of course, as protecting the children or protecting women or protecting trans or protecting the minority or protecting the small business owner, but, in reality, they're actively stripping rights away and people seem to not care. So, again, I am confused by your definition of conservative, when every party has done this same thing ("Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves"). Or, are you saying the USA government is conservative, and you're gathering your definition of the term based on the USA government? Sorry if I am offending. I'm genuinely interested in learning this and I don't mean to be offensive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    One side is actively trying to strip minority rights, both are trying to strip the middle and lower class rights, but the voters on only one side are attempting to get through to their politicians to fix that. But again, they can't because they have a huge pile of "your worst nightmares" to point a finger at.

    Which harmful laws are in place under the guise of protecting women, protecting trans, protecting the minority? I'm talking physically threatening laws that individuals need to fear just for existing. Ill placed "equality" laws that never do what they're intended to do are a problem, but not dreadfully dangerous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    So, would they be considered as conservative, too? Or are there specific actions that are considered so? I'd say by your original definition, both sides would be considered conservative, but I'm gathering that I'm mistaken by this assumption. The more we talk about it, the more confused I get, but the more excited I get in learning your view, and breaking what I thought I knew to rebuild something more complete. It's quite enlightening!

    E: oh, I forgot to answer your question. Without doing any research on your country, COPPA comes to mind, which claims to protect the privacy of minors online, but actually just strips privacy from minors and adults alike. I know there are more laws and acts, but this is the one that comes to mind first, since it's one of the last ones that I read about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I left off children from that question on purpose though, I can think of hundreds of examples of that, but I can't think of a law that was passed, by the left, in the name of protecting women, trans, or minorities that actually strip rights away from them or anyone else. Since you're saying both sides do the same things, I think my point was that both parties are corporate shills, so they're both stripping rights of the working class, but the right is the only one doing the other stuff to a degree that strips certain people of basic human rights. I guess if I were to rephrase my original definition it would be "Anyone that's OK with laws that oppress only certain people, just for being a different kind of human." There is overreach in other areas of concern on both sides under those guises, and that's a very big problem, but they effect most citizens equally.

    By the way, I'm just a ranting, drunk, stoner. Since you seem genuinely interested in analyzing this stuff, there are far better sources than me :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •