Does watching porn threaten your masculinity? Science says it doesn’t. Is porn addictive? No, it’s not. Is sexual expression that is consenting legally protected by the First Amendment? Yes, …
The sad part is that’s the best there is for people on the left out of over 500 Congress people. Yet I still regularly have to listen to morons screech about socialism, communism, “cultural Marxism” etc.
Yes, so far at least the Democrats seem to be far less tolerant of extremists in politics. Maybe that’s untrue - but they tend to not be violent or wanting to overthrow the system. Part of it is how you define extremists - I’m more tolerant of people who want to campaign and try to make most any change via the democratic process via voting no matter their position. I’m less interested in those who feel we should invade the capital to try and overrule the outcomes of elections or violently intimidate opponents.
Oh, no, you’re spot on. Democrats have actively kept leftists from getting traction in the party. There’s a huge age gap between Bernie and AOC with no real progressives in between them. And they’re not even that far left.
how you define extremists - I’m more tolerant of people who want to campaign and try to make most any change via the democratic process via voting no matter their position. I’m less interested in those who feel we should invade the capital to try and overrule the outcomes of elections or violently intimidate opponents.
Hmm, I actually disagree that extremists should only be those who want to go outside the system and use violence. I would also find trying to effectively and knowingly go against the 1st amendment extreme too. I think that extremists also need to be kind of at the… extremes of a political spectrum also. In fact, I do find it useful (maybe we need a different term) for a way to talk about if someone is in a very edge AND niche position of their group.
You don’t need to be violent if the electoral apparatus is rigged to favor you (the right in American politics—I’m not making this up), but they are anyway. But if the electoral apparatus is rigged against you, if your party can get the most votes consistently and still lose, while your opponents make policy that literally kills people, if you’d still argue that extraelectoral measures are extremist, you’re not advocating democracy, you’re advocating acquiescence. The people of Germany would have been right to rise up against the Nazis (who only got 38% of the vote, btw), yeah? So where’s the line? Which standing up for yourself makes you righteous, and which an extremist?
The name “do nothing democrats” is sadly very accurate. They are just letting the right wing extremists walk all over us. I’d like to imagine how much better our political system would be if we simply had an age cap on political positions. Of course the people in power will never vote themselves out though.
Name one left extremist in a position of power.
Go ahead, tell on yourself.
Bernie Sanders and AOC
(This is a joke)
The sad part is that’s the best there is for people on the left out of over 500 Congress people. Yet I still regularly have to listen to morons screech about socialism, communism, “cultural Marxism” etc.
Yes, so far at least the Democrats seem to be far less tolerant of extremists in politics. Maybe that’s untrue - but they tend to not be violent or wanting to overthrow the system. Part of it is how you define extremists - I’m more tolerant of people who want to campaign and try to make most any change via the democratic process via voting no matter their position. I’m less interested in those who feel we should invade the capital to try and overrule the outcomes of elections or violently intimidate opponents.
Oh, no, you’re spot on. Democrats have actively kept leftists from getting traction in the party. There’s a huge age gap between Bernie and AOC with no real progressives in between them. And they’re not even that far left.
Yes that’s the correct approach to define them.
Hmm, I actually disagree that extremists should only be those who want to go outside the system and use violence. I would also find trying to effectively and knowingly go against the 1st amendment extreme too. I think that extremists also need to be kind of at the… extremes of a political spectrum also. In fact, I do find it useful (maybe we need a different term) for a way to talk about if someone is in a very edge AND niche position of their group.
You don’t need to be violent if the electoral apparatus is rigged to favor you (the right in American politics—I’m not making this up), but they are anyway. But if the electoral apparatus is rigged against you, if your party can get the most votes consistently and still lose, while your opponents make policy that literally kills people, if you’d still argue that extraelectoral measures are extremist, you’re not advocating democracy, you’re advocating acquiescence. The people of Germany would have been right to rise up against the Nazis (who only got 38% of the vote, btw), yeah? So where’s the line? Which standing up for yourself makes you righteous, and which an extremist?
The name “do nothing democrats” is sadly very accurate. They are just letting the right wing extremists walk all over us. I’d like to imagine how much better our political system would be if we simply had an age cap on political positions. Of course the people in power will never vote themselves out though.
Not giving guns to children. It’s like they don’t even want freedom! Everyone knows that more guns equal more freeduhms