Can We Stop The Moral Panic Yet? New Study: Children’s Brains Are Not Harmed By Screen Time
from the the-research-is-becoming-overwhelming dept
Over the last few years, we’ve highlighted study after study after study showing that, contrary to the public narrative, claims by politicians, the media, and plaintiffs in many, many lawsuits, the actual evidence just does not show at all that social media/internet is doing damage to kids. In a recent post we highlighted just a few of the recent reports on this.
- Last fall, the widely respected Pew Research Center did a massive study on kids and the internet, and found that for a majority of teens, social media was way more helpful than harmful.
- This past May, the American Psychological Association (which has fallen for tech moral panics in the past, such as with video games) released a huge, incredibly detailed, and nuanced report going through all of the evidence, and finding no causal link between social media and harms to teens.
- Soon after that, the US Surgeon General (in the same White House where Wu worked for a while) came out with a report which was misrepresented widely in the press. Yet, the details of that report also showed that no causal link could be found between social media and harms to teens. It did still recommend that we act as if there were a link, which was weird and explains the media coverage, but the actual report highlights no causal link, while also pointing out how much benefit teens receive from social media).
- A few months later, an Oxford University study came out covering nearly a million people across 72 countries, noting that it could find no evidence of social media leading to psychological harm.
- The Journal of Pediatrics just published a new study again noting that after looking through decades of research, the mental health epidemic faced among young people appears largely due to the lack of open spaces where kids can be kids without parents hovering over them. That report notes that they explored the idea that social media was a part of the problem, but could find no data to support that claim.
Now, the folks at Oxford University, who did one of those studies above, have released another study, this time looking at almost 12,000 kids in the US to determine whether “screen time” had an impact on their brain function or well-being. This is a pretty massive study, and the results are pretty damn clear:
Screen time activities included ‘traditional’ screen pursuits such as watching TV shows or movies and using digital platforms such as YouTube to watch videos, as well as interactive pursuits like playing video games. In addition, they were asked about connecting with others through apps, calls, video calls and social media.
Even with participants who had high rates of digital engagement, there was no evidence of impaired functioning in the brain development of the children.
The study appears pretty thorough:
Using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, the largest long-term study of brain development and child health in the United States, researchers from Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, University of Oregon, Tilburg University, and University of Cambridge analysed the cognitive function of 9-12 year old children alongside their self-reported screen time use.
[….]
In the ABCD study, the participants’ neurodevelopment was assessed through monitoring functional brain connectivity, which refers to how regions of the brain work together and includes emotional and physiological activities. This was done through MRI scans. Further to this, physical and mental health assessments and information from the child’s caregiver was provided.
When analysing the screen time use alongside the ABCD data, patterns of functional brain connectivity were related to patterns of screen engagement, but there was no meaningful association between screen time use and measures of cognitive and mental well-being, even when the evidential threshold was set very low.
The researchers behind this study were pretty clear on what they feel has been learned (and I’ll note that Andrew, in particular, is always extremely careful not to overclaim what his studies say, as you can hear when we had him on the podcast recently):
Jack Miller, the first author who analysed the data as part of his thesis at the Oxford Internet Institute said: “If screen time had an impact on brain development and well-being, we expected to see a variety of cognitive and well-being outcomes that this comprehensive, representative, research did not show.”
Professor Andrew Przybylski who supervised the work added: “We know that children’s brains are more susceptible to environmental influence than adults, as digital screen time is a relatively new phenomenon, it’s important to question its impact.”
Professor Matti Vuorre from Tilburg University, a co-author observed: “One thing that makes this work stand out is our analysis plan was reviewed by experts before we saw the data; this adds rigour to our approach.” He added, “One also suggested we take a look at social media on its own because it’s a source of worry for many and we did not find anything special about this form of online engagement.”
Professor Przybylski concludes: “Our findings should help guide the heated debates about technology away from hyperbole and towards high-quality science. If researchers don’t improve their approach to studying tech, we’ll never learn what leads some young people to flounder and others to flourish in the digital age.”
All of this research is important, because clearly there does remain a mental health crisis going on, including among children. But we risk making things worse, not better when we immediately insist that it must be because of the internet, or video games, or screen time or whatever.
You can also read the full study yourself if you’d like to get at the details, since they published it as open access. And, because they put it under a creative commons attributions license, we can also post a copy here.
Filed Under: andrew przybylski, cognitive development, jack miller, kids, moral panic, screentime, social media
Comments on “Can We Stop The Moral Panic Yet? New Study: Children’s Brains Are Not Harmed By Screen Time”
Can we? Yes.
Will we? Who is we white man?
There is to much mileage in ‘think of the children’ and so many people are sure THEY have the only solution that once we fully fund them will usher in a new age of enlightenment and we’ll all be better.
Facts haven’t mattered for a very long time, just the feels & what they think god believes is how things should be. We can blame all the other things rather than look are our our culpability & real reasons for bad things to make ourselves feel better.
For all the studying
HOw much of the internet is Just a major distraction, and Habit forming?
Its exactly what people are looking at/for.
Its harder to control then TV or newspapers, and is besieged with truth, fantasy and Lies.
Which is Habit forming.
As soon as they create an interactive, Fully functional Internet teaching, WE WILL HAVE LOST millions of jobs.
But 1 consistent Education.
government nannies and rule makers are rarely persuaded by studies and facts.
they operate primarily by ideology, emotion, and political incentives
To Answer Your Question...
It COULD stop yes.
WILL it stop? No because there’s money to be made pushing safety tech and the nerds just need to nerd harder!
It’s the oldest moral panic in history. Facts didn’t matter to them then and they don’t matter now. It’s always been feelings over facts.
Re:
Sad, but true fact.
It’s fantastic that there is another clear, unambiguous study that shows no harm. And it would be great if we could imagine this to be another nail in the coffin of the Moral Panic.
However, the pro-Panic side are experts at misrepresenting pretty much anything that disagrees with their narrative.
So, expect the moral panic to continue.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Anecdotes
I spoke with a PHD researcher at Oregon Health Sciences University, who told me that children who played video games, had some of the same addictive FMRI patterns as drug addicts, implying that the video games are causing too much dopamine release.
However I did noticed that you have emphasized “causal” relationships versus “correlational” relationships, and to find a causal relationship requires specific experimental design, rather than just massive testing samples sizes that you refer to.
Re:
Reminder: The plural of anecdote is not data.
Re:
I’ll take “Things thatnever happened” for $1000, Alex.
Re: Re:
Well, it might maybe just be what he understands, of what he remembers, of how he interpreted what he heard, back then when it sort of happened.
I think it is misleading to talk about teens and screen time, when it is clear that screen time on phones and tablets has a clear effect on language delay in pre-school and children.
Re:
Then why didn’t this study find it?
Re: Re:
he didn’t respond back so i guess your not gonna get a answer
Re:
True. It prevents it.
No
Not until the next violent film or video game comes along. Or another blood splattered metal band makes the top 10.
Politicians need moral panics to keep the country occupied so they don’t have to deal with real problems.
Billions to a raciest Ukrainian dictator? Look over there, tick tack.
10 million under the poverty line? Bad Y.
Over a million criminal trespassers? Face bum
Well, actually, they realised that nobody cared about the books, the movies, the music, the games. Nobody in the general public. Notice the return to books generally fizzled out?
In a country of a 350+ million you get these little handfuls of people who create PACs or fraudulent NPs that make a stink. The public says omg and then moves on. America has a short attention span. In general.
Despite the cry’s from the most hard-left progressive, we are a country of individuals who really don’t care about the general population. We pretend to cover our mouth over some scandal or moral outrage, but honestly the 99% simply doesn’t care.
In a year or so (nost moral panics here last 1-3 years) people will stop pretending to care. The morality patrol will latch on to some new thing, and the politicians will pretend to care about that then.
Social media panic is burning out. AI is moving in as the new panic.
Some game will come out in November to move AI out of the news with its blood and boobs.
It’s a show. The more people write on this stuff, the longer they last. You’re smart Mike! Stop giving it press.
Re:
Ignoring your other bullshit:
My dude, no game has been front-page headline news controversial for “blood and boobs” alone since the Hot Coffee days. Mortal Kombat 1 didn’t even register as “controversial” for a level of gore that is grotesque and repulsive even by modern standards. It’s going to take more than Reptile eating a hapless victim alive in the latest game of a franchise where blood’n’guts has been the norm since its inception for that kind of content to be “controversial” again.
Ah, you’re one of those “if you ignore the problem, it will surely go away” people. Do you also think the same logic applies to racism, homophobia, and fascism?
Re: Re:
Gal*gun and Omega labyrinth made news not long ago.
I remind you one of the factors in my Clinton list was her drive for censorship. One she sticks to to this very day.
Moral panics aren’t just media. The whole “systemic racism” thing is a moral panic. Most of the country is colour blind. They don’t care about race. The few that do, the Arian brotherhood and Nation of Islam types, will fizzle out eventually.
In a nation of intended law and order groups like that pop up and die fairly easily. They aren’t accepted or supported.
Moral panics make the headlines, then die off. They often come up when some political issue happens. When the political story is forgotten the panic fizzles out.
Re: Re: Re:
If they had been front-page-headline levels of controversial, I would’ve heard about them. But this is the first time I’ve ever heard of either of those games, so…not really that controversial if they’re not names that someone who regularly keeps up with gaming news can recognize.
Yeah yeah, we know, you want to vote Trump into office and let him tear this country into shreds because you literally believe Hillary Clinton is a literal demon from the actual literal Hell. We get it. She’s never going to be POTUS, she’ll probably never hold public office again, and she’s not out to personally kill you, so get the fuck over your bullshit, Trumpist.
It isn’t, but you go ahead and keep believing that systems of racist behavior and ideas aren’t/were never baked into the workings of a country that was built on the forced labor of enslaved Black people and over the graves of murdered Native Americans. I’m sure that makes you feel better.
If that were the case, there wouldn’t have been a massive backlash to the casting of Disney’s live-action Little Mermaid adaptation. But hey, if believing a comforting lie instead of a harsh truth makes you feel good, you go right on doing it. After all, you did vote for Trump in 2020, so you already have experience in telling yourself comforting lies like “Trump isn’t a fascist”, “the GOP isn’t planning to shit all over the Constitution”, and “Roe v. Wade will withstand a Trumpian Supreme Court”.
Counterpoint: The Ku Klux Klan still exists. “But it’s not that big in numbers these days!”, you’ll screech. Doesn’t matter. You insisted that groups like it “pop up and die fairly easily”; the Klan has existed for more than a century and it’s clearly not going away any time soon. Remember that no matter how much they comfort you, your comforting lies are still lies.
Re: Re: Re:2 You have points
You obviously don’t follow the censorship issue. Brutal is still facing boycotts.
Well, I grew up, lived, and continue to see today, attacks on art. For 30 years most of that was from Democrats and nanny state politicians. Today it appears to be more a Republican idea. But there was zero chance I’d ever cast m vote for the champion of censorship.
why is it only blacks are talked about. Every race was enslaved. How about the Chinese that moved the gold and built the railroads? There were white slaves. They literally killed people for being Irish. In the street. And you ignore that inconvenient aspect of black slave holders.
And Why is it nobody can put forward any sort of evidence that it is so engrained? There’s much screaming about it, but nobody shows any evidence.
There was? I heard some comment in passing on some site somewhere. Didn’t read about it in the Times though. Maybe it’s more a choice of the stuff you follow? Much like you missed the controversy over Sony censorship and Nintendo refusing to.
My guess is it’s more about changing a well known character than anything to do with racism. We got controversy over Nick Fury too. The Marvels being only women.
And if they suddenly made Mario black? It’s not the race (generally) it’s about the change. But if you have a tinted view you see what you want.
Well, you’re wrong. The Klan died off completely. A new group formed with the same name.
That aside, where are they today? How many members?
So what! I assure you the US isn’t alone. Racial identity and discrimination will always exist. Here’s a bit of factual hinting for you, try travelling in Asia as a white person. (Outside of the tourist areas). There will always be racism. You have that right in thought. As long as they don’t break the law, live and let live.
Re: Re: Re:3
If a Japanese game that wasn’t really developed with overseas audiences in mind suffers a bit of censorship to get released in overseas markets, that’s not really a controversy unless the censorship is so pervasive that it fundamentally alters the game. More to the point, such censorship has been part and parcel of the release of games in the United States since the days of the NES; hell, Super Castlevania 4 for the Super NES had all of the crosses removed when it was ported to the U.S. market even after the first three games made it to U.S. shores with crosses intact. You’re asking me to give multiple fucks about some minor-ass censorship in a game targeted towards a niche audience outside of its home market that never made enough of a splash in that niche market to matter. I’m sure this will hurt your feelings, but I can’t muster up a single fuck to give when there are far worse forms of censorship going on than a practice that’s been routine (for better or for worse) for over thirty years being applied to games that weren’t even given attention by mainstream gamming press outlets back when the games were released.
Then I suppose you won’t be casting a vote for Donald Trump in 2024, given how he recently demanded that the U.S. federal government look into MSNBC for being (and I quote) “a 24 hour hit job on Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party” but not into Fox News for being similarly partisan towards him and the GOP.
People of every race weren’t kidnapped en masse from their native lands like Africans were and subjected to being stripped of their culture and identity until they were left with being “Black” (or “Yellow”, or “Brown”, or whatever other color you can think of to describe people who aren’t considered “White”).
They can, but you choose to write it off as “whining” or “screeching” or “wokeness”. If you can’t see the evidence, that shit is on you and your supposed “color blindness”.
“I’ve learned a lot I would have never known. I one time told Brandi, ‘I don’t have a racist bone.’ I said, ‘I don’t see color.’ And she said, ‘Well then you don’t see my experience.’ And I thought ‘Oh, you’re right. I can’t just say that.’ You need to be able to see that experience and at least understand it.” — Cody Rhodes
It wasn’t hard to miss unless you seriously don’t keep up with movies even on a peripheral basis. Christ, man, get some fucking culture in your life.
It’s about both. Your refusal to see that and insist on your “color blindness” is your problem.
Which means that the Klan isn’t dead.
Irrelevant to your claim. The Klan still lives despite you saying that such groups would die quickly in a society with laws and order. Or are you saying the U.S. has no more laws? Because, hey, vote for Trump and you may find that the laws will no longer exist…for the racist pricks who do Trump’s violence for him and get pardoned for it. (Remember, he’s already promised to pardon the insurrectionists who’ve been convicted if he wins in 2024.)
And yet, you believe systemic racism doesn’t exist. News flash, Trumpist: Racism is more than slurs and direct physical violence. But keep telling yourself otherwise; I’m sure that lie gives you a lot of comfort these days.
Re: Re: Re:4
You completely miss the point. Sony is censoring. Microsoft less so. Where games are hitting switch unedited.
Is a truth in advertising issue. They claim to be news but have no news show in their lineup. As opposed to CNN and FOX which run news most of the day and commentary in prime time.
A practice long ago abolished in this country. Get over it. Slavery is thousands of years old. You also fail to understand how the process worked. People weren’t kidnapped. Rival tribes sold enemies caught in combat.
Nor is it even historically blacks. They may have made up some 70% of slaves in this country at various points, but the vast majority of slaves over history are white or Arab/persian/west Asian.
Slavery is evil. But claiming it’s about Africans is a slap in the face to the majority of slaves throughout history.
Two terms I never use and a third I tend to throw back at far right commentators?
Still, no evidence. What is so engrained? Where?
My guess is the extent of the issue was the far left trolling through the far right and complaining about rare complaints as they found them.
Didn’t see one mention of it from the WSJ or NYT and I get both daily.
People who focus on race are the cause of the problem. The 99% doesn’t care.
Neither is the Nation of Islam.
So what. People have a natural right to feel as they chose. Even if they sick fucks. So be it. Unless they break the law, so what.
How many members do they have? In a population past 350 million.
They are not prime news. They are not a daily display. They are less than 1% of no real consequence to the rest of the country.
You may need to go back and read the full story on that. Hundreds of people with no ability to defend themselves in court coped to trespass and loitering pleas on fictional charges of insurrection.
I have yet to see more than a few dozen who committed any crime that day. The criminals should be charged. Yet the poor innocent are slaughtered by the courts for protesting.
It doesn’t. Finding a few here or there that have some racial problem… isn’t systemic.
Do you not understand what the word means? The whole of? Of the system.
There is no systematic racism in this country.
Re: Re: Re:5
I could spend a good hour or two going over this, but I don’t have the time, energy, or fucks to give. So I’mma just pick out one thing here.
Hey, so, remember when people who were converging on and inside the Capitol chanted “hang Mike Pence”? Because that happened, and it was caught on camera, and you can’t deny it happened. I’d say that threatening to murder the Vice President because of his refusal to abdicate his duty in the most important part of American democracy—his refusal to stand aside and let the GOP find some way of keeping the loser of a presidential election stay in power—counts as an act of insurrection against the United States federal government.
But please, go ahead and tell me about how you think Ashli Babbitt is a martyr for freedom or whatever. I’ll try to roll my eyes hard enough for you to hear it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Remember when a not funny “comedian” held a prop head of president? When a singer called for the bombing of the White House?
It’s called hyperbole.
It doesn’t pass free speech until you act on it.
I’d suggest you review all the democrats over 16-20 and their commentary before you hold up your sword on words being criminalised. There were a lot of very public calls for the death of Trump.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yes, I do, and I think both of those acts were misguided acts of flagrant stupidity that hopefully earned both of them a visit and a talking-to from federal authorities.
Not when someone puts up a makeshift hangman’s gallows outside the Capitol. That happened, too. Whether it was a working gallows or not is beside the point.
That happened, too.
Tell me how many of them came from sitting and former Democratic lawmakers, credible Democratic candidates for office, DNC leaders, and megadonors who give money to Democrats. Then tell me how many of them came from regular jackoffs who happened to vote for (or are registered to vote as) Democrats. I’ll wait.
And before you even think it: Yes, those chants of “hang Mike Pence” came from regular jackoffs and not Trump. And yes, Trump never actually called for violence against Pence. And I know you’ll never actually own up to this partly because of your adherence to Trumpism and partly because you don’t believe in (read: understand) concepts like subtext and stochastic terrorism even if experts in the fields of political science and speech could explain those concepts to you like you were a five-year-old. But Trump’s speech did embolden his followers to march to the Capitol, break into the Capitol, and seek out members of Congress (as well as the Vice President) with self-expressed violent intent. And if you don’t believe me, ask the judges and court clerks and such who’ve been harassed by Trump followers after he attacks them online. That shit isn’t an accident—and it’s the reason Trump has gag orders on him in at least two of his criminal trials.
Re: Re: Re:8
Which is on par with a severed head or bearing and burning a stuffed Trump doll. Stupid,
But not criminal.
Nowhere does the president say riot, or commit insurrection.
I remind you: https://loudwire.com/twisted-sisters-dee-snider-1985-pmrc-senate-hearing/
People hear what they want to hear. Those that heard protest, protested. A few dozen may have heard something else. Or had their intentions set before the rally.
I refer you to the PMRC hearings. People are responsible for what they say, not what others hear. I find no violent rhetoric in the president’s speech.
Re: Re: Re:9
Did either of those events coincide with direct calls to kill Donald Trump? Because the makeshift gallows being set up at the Capitol on the 6th of January 2021 coincided with direct calls to kill Mike Pence—and video proof of those chants exist. So go ahead, answer that question. I insist.
Trump exhorted his followers to march to the Capitol. Trump ginned up violent thoughts in the minds of his followers by using language that can easily bring to mind violent imagery. Trump told his followers over and over and over before the election that the election was going be stolen from him, and he told his followers over and over and over after the election that the election had been stolen from him. Trump made a point of naming Mike Pence as the last man who could ignore the Constitution, overturn the certified results of a free and fair election, and put the loser of both the electoral and popular votes back in the White House in a move that would’ve been so fascistic that you’d probably be praising it if it had happened.
You can deny any or all of that, but all the evidence of that is available to read/watch on the Internet. Hell, that evidence forms the basis for his criminal cases. Or are you going to yell “fake news”, “witch hunt”, and “we have to weaponize the DOJ against the Dems in retaliation” like your orange godking?
Hey, dipshit: There is actual video of people chanting “hang Mike Pence” inside the Capitol. And even if I accept that the people who were outside the Capitol were protesting the results of a free and fair election, that can’t apply to the people who busted into the Capitol, disrupted the certification proceedings, and proceeded to call for the death of the sitting Vice President—and all to please Donald Trump (and maybe put him back in the White House).
Yeah, that’s the trick of stochastic terrorism: You don’t have to make direct threats because if you can say the right things, someone else will get the message and make those threats (or take action) for you. Coincidentally enough, that’s how mob bosses work: “I have a problem with Jimmy Snitches” isn’t a direct call for violence, but the underlings understand it as one because they know their boss says that sort of thing when he wants someone whacked.
Yeah, because…
…and…
…don’t have any connotations of violence or any words that bring acts of violence to mind. Nope, not a single bit of violent context or subtext in those lines. And hey, it’s not like the other speakers of that day, like Rudy Giuliani…
…and Mo Brooks…
…and Katrina Pierson…
…and Eric Trump…
…said anything that has any violent context or subtext. Nope, nada, zilch, no words or phrases that would bring to mind acts of violence or would convince people who believe the election was stolen to do something to keep Donald Trump in power despite his having lost a free and fair election.
Nope.
Nothing. At. All.
(jfc are you brain damaged or selectively illiterate)
Re: Re: Re:10
Yes yes, the prop of wood that would snap hanging a chicken. Yes, Madonna called for vining the white house with the president inside.
“Peacefully”
I hear, and see, no violent images in the speech. Anyone who did was already predisposed to such thoughts and the president made no difference.
The situation has never been tested and legal commentators remain split on the premise. There is far more to the idea than the simple rejection that democrats claim he intended.
Hey, there’s video of people calling for the murder of Trump too. That’s free speech. Saying it is not breaking the law. It’s disgusting and should be called out, but it’s not a crime.
Against people are responsible only for the actions they take themselves.
Not to me. I won’t deny that an idiot may perceive such commentary as a call to violence. It is a fact that a few dozen criminals acted on the little voices in their warped heads and committed illegal actions. They alone are responsible for their misinterpretation.
Are not Trump.
Re: Re: Re:11
Irrelevant. If you’re going to shit on Kathy Griffin for holding up a prop head of Donald Trump while otherwise doing nothing to call for his death, I’m going to point out that someone set up a makeshift hangman’s gallows outside the Capitol while Mike Pence was still in the building and people who had broken into the Capitol were chanting “hang Mike Pence”. Or do you seriously think they were chanting “hang out with Mike Pence”?
For months, Donald Trump had set up his followers to believe that his losing the election meant the election was rigged or stolen—a belief that requires an underlying belief that American democracy is dead because the Democrats destroyed it. Trump and several other people that day exhorted his followers to “fight”, to “take back” the country, to “show strength” against the enemies of democracy (i.e., the Democrats and the Vice President). Trump then directly implored his followers to march on the Capitol.
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass public communication to demonize a person or group by making them responsible for ills both real and imagined, dehumanize the target so they become a mere symbol for evil, desensitize audiences to violent speech so that such speech becomes part of the accepted discourse even when no actual threats or made, and deny responsibility for violence when it occurs. “Stochastic” refers to the notion that such violence is statistically probable but specifically unpredictable. Donald Trump spent months (if not years) preparing his followers to commit violence, even if he didn’t directly tell them to do it. The events of the 6th of January 2021 were a statistical probability even if no one could’ve predicted they would happen. And that’s why Donald Trump is facing trial for his role in the insurrection.
The Constitution was pretty clear that the Vice President’s role in certifying the results of the election is ceremonial. A refusal to certify the results likely would’ve triggered a constitutional crisis—and that’s before getting into the situation where the House would’ve voted Trump (who I again remind you was the legally certified loser of a free and fair election) back into office thanks to the “one state, one vote” setup for that voting.
Did that happen while supporters of Hillary Clinton stormed the Capitol in an attempt to delay the certification of her election loss? Oh right, they didn’t do that on the 6th of January 2017. And neither did supporters of Al Gore on the 6th of January 2001.
(I’m not trying to justify the calls for his death. I’m saying that the threats you’re bringing up aren’t in the same context [and yes I know you don’t believe in the concept of context] as the threats to kill Mike Pence when he was being rushed out of the Capitol to protect his life from rioters with openly violent intent who had broken into the Capitol while he was in the building.)
And when they’ve spent months, if not years, hearing Trump glorify violence against his enemies and the so-called enemies of democracy—remember how he openly wished for protestors at his rallies would get beaten up “like in the good old days”?—they’re going to be far more willing to commit violence than if they hadn’t spent that time listening to a fascist openly wish for violence.
Plenty of people who aren’t idiots—including experts in political science and speech—perceived his speech as a call to action. Maybe not a call for people to commit violence in particular, but definitely a call for people to act in such a way that he could remain in office despite having legally lost a free and fair election. That people did commit violence was a statistical likelihood even if the violence wasn’t predictable.
The person whose speech inspired them is responsible for their speech—morally and ethically, if not legally. See also: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
They spoke with the approval of Donald Trump to supporters of Donald Trump in language that kissed Donald Trump’s ass. They knew what they were doing: They were fomenting a violent mindset inside the heads of his supporters, who’d been told over and over that they were the last line of defense of American democracy itself and they would need to do whatever was necessary to save democracy from Democrats and the Vice President who didn’t have the balls to do what Trump considered to be “the right thing”.
Deny facts all you want. But people more educated and more knowledgable about political science and speech than either you or I have said that the rally was little more than the lighting of a fuse that ended with the explosion of violence at the Capitol on the 6th of January 2021.
But sure, keep talking about how people chanting “hang Mike Pence” while breaking into the building where Pence was located is less serious than a D-list comedian holding up a prop head. I’m sure that argument will eventually be worth a damn~.
Re: Re: Re:12
The law requires action. At no time did the president call for violence. The only people responsible for violence are the ones who committed violence. That is why the Trump will ultimately be exonerated.
Yes, the Supreme Court would need to review and decide on the actions taken. A mess, for sure. But it was an option. You notice I’ve never said he should have refused. Only that he could have.
I’ve noted it may, or may not, have been better to delay. On an untested theory, nobody knows the ultimate outcome.
I don’t believe the majority of people saying that were any more likely to do so than fans at a boxing or wrestling match screaming kill the bastard.
That said, anyone who said such about anyone should be investigated. There’s a fine line between hyperbolic rhetoric and public threat.
That’s rather lacking fact. You have no evidence they are more or less likely. That’s the same nonsense used for video games and music and books causing action.
If you commit violence you alone are responsible for that action.
You could quite legally join a letter or phone campaign to the bishop against said priest. Completely legally.
It remains; two basic facts.
Trump did not call for violence.
People are legally responsible for their own actions.
Re: Re: Re:13
A mob boss says, “Jimmy Snitches is a problem.” The underlings kill Jimmy Snitches. After they’re caught, they tell the cops that the boss ordered the hit despite his not actually calling for any violence because they understood his complain about Jimmy Snitches to be a request akin to “will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest”. For what reason should the boss not be prosecuted other than “but he didn’t actually call for violence” if his underlings understood what he said to be a call for violence and the boss never once corrected their perception of his speech (and possibly even rewarded the underlings for acting on his complaint)?
And conveniently (though GOP bullshit), three Associate Justices of the Supreme Court happened to be appointed by Donald Trump. Gee, I wonder if they would’ve ruled in his favor~.
He could have refused…and then the entire American experiment would’ve been thrown into disarray as the most important part of American democracy was delayed and denied to satiate the desires of a fascist.
They broke into the Capitol while members of Congress and the Vice President were still in the building. They attacked police officers. Bloodlust was in the air. I have no doubt that the rioters would’ve at least assaulted a Congressperson if they’d managed to get their hands on one. Murder might be a stretch, but they were calling for the death of Mike Pence, so…yeah…
People indoctrinated into a mindset of hate will always be more likely to carry out violence against those they hate. The white supremacist asshole who shot up that church a few years back is proof enough of that: He was so deep into his hatred of Black people that he sat down and prayed with them before he shot and killed them. See also: the Pulse nightclub shooting.
The point of stochastic terrorism is to make those acts of violence more likely to occur despite those acts being hard to predict. Conservative Christian preachers and pundits yelling about how fags are destroying America will make people who take those words seriously more likely to target queer people for violence; that such violence can’t be predicted Minority Report–style doesn’t mean it isn’t likely to happen. That those conservative assholes don’t actually call for violence—unless it’s state-sanctioned, of course—doesn’t make them any less responsible for their speech and the effects they either know or hope said speech will have on others.
You really need to re-read the Wikipedia article on that phrase—and this time, make an effort to understand the concept behind it instead of brushing it off as “non-existent subtext bullshit”.
He didn’t have to, given that his fans were already prone to violence (witness the assaults on protestors at his rallies) and the language laced with violent words and imagery that he’d used at his rallies and in his speeches for years.
And Trump is responsible for convincing those people to commit those actions on his behalf. Again: He crafts his language to give himself plausible deniability just as a mob boss doesn’t directly call for a “problem” to get whacked so the boss can say he didn’t order the hit after the hit goes down. Your inability to comprehend the concepts of subtext, context, and stochastic terrorism are not my problem.
Re: Re: Re:14
The likely result would be either a national recount or a new court monitored election. But other good,
Valuable things, may have come from such an act. A state funded national ID being one of the back burner options. Bringing us in line with 99% of the open election world.
Yes. He could have. A mess it would have created.
A very small number of criminals did indeed breaks into the capital. A few dozen. All of which should be tried for treason.
A few hundred more came inside with explicit permission to do so. Despite your inaccurate claim otherwise. A sitting congress member has the right to invite nearly anyone in, so the few people let in that way were legally present.
The capital police have the authority to allow or deny entrance. The police opening the door constitutes permission to enter. Hence the shaman man declaring the police had allowed them entrance but they must remain within the law.
It doesn’t change fact. There are alternatives to violence. If you choose violence, that is a personal choice.
I understand the concept. I don’t see it from Trump. I don’t have the slightest bit of belief Trump intended for anyone to be hurt that day.
And
I remain hardened on my belief that a person is responsible for their action alone. Trump did not say go forth and slaughter. He said March peacefully.
Re: Re: Re:15
Look, I’m tired of arguing with you about your inability to understand what people who don’t have their nose permanently affixed to Trump’s taint can understand about what he said leading up to the insurrection and how his works provoked his followers into committing an insurrection with at least partially violent intent. So I’m gonna do you a favor and tell you one thing: Donald Trump is a fascist who will destroy American democracy and the GOP is more than willing to help him pull that off. If you refuse to believe that statement and act accordingly (i.e., vote for Trump), don’t be surprised when Trump wins and starts weaponizing the federal government against everyone who has ever wronged him in his life while the GOP strips away rights from anyone who isn’t cisgender, heterosexual, Christian, male, and/or White—after all, you chose to ignore the warning.
Re: Re: Re:16
Anyone who committed a criminal act did so of their own free will.
That’s it.
Trump did not call for violence. Anyone who thinks he did so is using their own interpretation. This are still solely responsible.
Let’s reiterate, you have no idea my 2024 plans.
My vote is and always will be for the benefit of my family first, myself second. My friends third.
I don’t really care about anyone else beyond that.
Biden, a progressive in actions, is detrimental to my future. There is zero doubt about that. His economic policies and ideas are absolutely crippling to anyone but the bottom 10%
As Covid lockdowns showed, they prefer reactionary theatre over rational science.
And his drive foe Ukraine is a disaster. The only threat not funding Ukraine, is to his and his cronies bank accounts.
However, Trump is a big red missile. This time around. While a master of negotiations, with actual willing parties, neither the fringe right bore much of the left in this country will negotiate. Not until the boomers are all dead and gone.
Now I have a real concern for a trump presidency.
While I believe he would stop funding the genocidal government of Ukraine, he’d probably go all in with Israel’s terror campaign. Completely destabilising Western Asia.
If he militarised the South Pacific, all of east Asia would become destabilised.
Those ideas directly put my family, friends, loved ones in danger.
Trump in his first, and if he had a second, term, was/would have been a stabilising force throughout the world.
Biden’s incompetence has destroyed our reputation as a reactionary force for good. We’re past the point where a threat of action would prevent things already in motion.
Today is a very different world than 2016, or 2020. Unfortunately neither party has given us a reputable candidate. The puppet old man with dementia, or the shoot first consequence be damned question mark. (And a bunch of people with no chance of winning “debating” like school kids).
Trump’s unpredictably would have been an asset before and in the beginning of the world’s current conflicts. Now, they are a threat to every life on earth.
So no, you don’t have a clue about my current political thoughts. Because in reality both the likely idiots next November will end the world as we know it.
Re: Re: Re:17
You’re not voting for Biden because he is tangentially connected to Hillary Clinton and you’ve made your feelings about her more than abundantly clear in the past. You won’t waste your vote on a third party because…well, you won’t waste your vote on a third party. Given that Trump will be the GOP candidate in 2024 and assuming that Biden doesn’t drop dead between now and the election, your plans are “I’mma vote for Trump a third time”.
You don’t care that Trump and the GOP will go after vulnerable people or turn the military into Trump’s personal police force or pass policies that will force pregnant underage rape victims to birth their rapist’s child. You said as much yourself—quoting you verbatim: “My vote is and always will be for the benefit of my family first, myself second. My friends third. I don’t really care about anyone else beyond that.” So long as Republicans leave you, your family, and your closest friends alone, you don’t give a shit what happens to anybody else—like, say, me.
You can talk all the shit you want about Biden and suddenly start weakhandedly criticising Trump like you always disliked him and always saw his flaws (despite your having voted for him twice and your constant refusal to place responsibility for his words and deeds onto his shoulders). But you and I both know that your plan in 2024 is to vote for Trump, hope he wins, and pray he leaves you and your loved ones alone when the GOP starts going after their political enemies with the explicit approval—and active cooperation—of the first American dictator.
As for me? I’ll be voting for Biden because electing a centrist needledick is the only way to stop a fascist from taking over the White House. But you do you, Trumpist—after all, according to you, you’re the only person who matters in this world.
Re: Re: Re:18
The American Socialists are running an interesting platform this time. I disagree with their tax policies and refusal to acknowledge foreign spending cuts could finance social health care. But tax laws can always be changed, and are every two years or so.
The libertarian groups are tired.
I keep hoping we get a breakout independent. A centrist could break through. Lots of people hate Trump. Lots of people hate Biden. And many people hate both.
Re: Re: Re:19
Our electoral system has no room for third parties; for as long as I’ve been alive, no third-party candidate has won even a single electoral vote. The only choice will be Trump vs. a Democrat (likely Biden) because those are the only two candidates who have an actual chance of winning, and we both know that you’ll be voting for Trump because even though he’s a fascist who will weaponize the American government against Republicans who betrayed him and Democrats while the GOP weaponizes the government against anyone who isn’t a GOP voter, he’s not Joe Biden, and that’s really all that matters to you because—as you’ve explicitly said—no one who isn’t close to you matters to you, so it’s not like you’ll give a shit if the GOP undoes same-sex marriage rights or bans all abortions nationwide.
You’re going to vote for Donald Trump. Stop lying to me and stop lying to yourself.
Re: Re: Re:20
I’ve voted 3rd party twice in my life. And will likely do so again in 2024.
I doubt my choice will win there, but a name than can get in most ballots now and make waves has a good chance for 2028.
Honestly, I think Trump will likely win. Only the most brainwashed or the most brain dead don’t see an issue in Biden’s suffering from rapid onset dementia. He’s definitely not the one controlling things. How many “what am I signing” moments the few remaining holdouts need… I can’t tell you.
But I won’t vote for the man likely to get my friends and family bombed. I have zero doubt that Trump will destabilise the Pacific past the point of no return. I will not take part in that. He will be clothe cause of WWIII!
A lot of people said that about Taipei too. And yet they have a strong 3rd party this year.
The very real threat of war combined with the two main parties ignoring the majority of the country opens room for a strong challenge.
The democrats only care about ripping down rich people that dont agree with them. And propping up the 0.1% in social issues they can make news copy with.
The republicans only care about cementing the 1%.
It’s almost a mirror image of what is happening in Taipei.
You’re right, a 3rd party won’t win in 24. But enough votes can push a candidate to the national stage. Push a party into the system.
And there we have hope in ending the coming war quickly.
Because no, I don’t see Biden wining. Half the country hates his woe-is-me politics. Over 70% in many polls, show concern for his health. As NYT put it, there’s a large population of quite non-speak that will vote for Trump. There’s many Democrat law that won’t vote for Biden. And he lost most independents.
For the first time in my life (I didn’t fear ‘the bomb’ in the 80s like many older ones did) I am actually worried about a world ending engagement. I only hope there’s a world left for a 3rd party to save come 28.
I won’t go any further trying to convince you. You’re the type that comes to a decision and stick with it no matter what on how you think people’s minds work.
Re: Re: Re:21
Did that happen for Ross Perot? Did that happen for Jill Stein? Did that happen for any third-party candidate in your lifetime? You’d have to go back to 1968 to find a third-party candidate that managed to win any electoral votes in a presidential election, so please don’t delude yourself into thinking that a third-party candidate in 2024 is ever going to be anything but a spoiler for one of the Big Two candidates at best.
Ah, yes, that rapid onset dementia that prevents him from making any trips around the world and dealing with any foreign dignitaries~. He’s obviously so mentally deficient that he can’t even make speeches without stuttering, which he’s never had a problem with before in his life~. (jfc you’re fucking stupid)
And by the by: Trump is only four years younger than Biden and he has clearly diminished in his own mental faculties since his youth. If you’re going to throw Biden’s age and mental state into question, why aren’t you going after Trump’s? (Trick question: It’s because you’re voting for him.)
You have openly admitted to voting for him twice. Are you really so much more concerned with a small number of family and friends than you are with the rest of American society that your sole motivating factor for (allegedly) not voting for Trump isn’t his plans to seek “retribution” against his political enemies (including the press), his promise to be a dictator on “Day One” of a theoretical second term, or the damage the GOP could do if emboldened by a Trump victory and broader control of the gears of government, such as the stripping away of LGBTQ rights and the further advancement of destroying the wall of separation between Christianity and the state, but the vague fear that he might someday trigger some sort of war somewhere that could hurt your family and friends? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining, Lodos: You voted for him twice, and you’ll vote for him a third time because you’re not going to waste your vote on a candidate who will never be anything more than an afterthought and you still believe Hillary Clinton is running the DNC from her office in the ninth circle of Hell.
The United States is not Taipei. Deal with it.
I can all but guarantee that any and every third-party candidate in 2024 will fail to win even a single electoral point. That’s how it’s gone down for the past thirteen presidential elections, and that’s how it’ll work in 2024. Would I like to be proven wrong? Sure. Will I be proven wrong? I wouldn’t bet on that if I were you.
Without looking it up online, tell me the name of the candidate who finished 3rd in the 2020 presidential election and the name of their party.
When you’re done racking your brain for the answer, go look it up on Wikipedia. Then look at the statistics for modern third-party candidates while you’re there. You probably have a better chance of winning the grand prize of a scratch-off lottery game than you do of voting for a third-party presidential candidate who will win a presidential election.
Then vote for Biden. He isn’t actively trying to start wars in foreign nations and he’ll be the only other candidate on the 2024 ballot who has an actual chance of winning the election.
I’m a queer atheist. If the GOP gets its way, I’d have to watch as my rights as a queer person get stripped and my rights as an atheist become subsumed by a Christianist theocracy. Out of self-preservation, I cannot and will not vote for a Republican candidate for any office. But I care about more than myself, Lodos.
I care about the trans people who are already under constant attack by Republicans and face even worse scrutiny about their existence if the GOP gets even more power. I care about people of minority religions who will have to deal with conservative Christians shoving their Christianity in everyone’s faces—to the point where they can legally get away with it!—while those from minority religions can’t even try without being metaphorically crucified for the attempt. I care about the women and little girls who will be forced into carrying pregnancies made possible by rape to term because they can’t get a legal abortion. I care about the poor and working class people whose lives will inevitably be made worse by the GOP’s policies on healthcare, climate change, and the economy.
I care about the society I live in. Do you? Because if you did, you’d vote for Biden, because he will be the last line of defense against a fascist vision for America that Trump and the GOP will carry out if he wins and the GOP regains control of Congress. But hey, keep going on about how you only care about yourself and a small number of other people. Your selfishness is what led you to vote for Trump twice, after all—and it’ll likely lead you to vote for him a third time because you will inevitably come to recognize the futility of voting for a third party in a country where no third-party candidate has done better than third place since 1912.
Re: Re: Re:22
I voted for him. And the country is in a different place today.
More accurately, I have extensive experience with the condition. You apparently don’t.
Yes, I’ve pointed that out more than once. It’s part of why I won’t be voting for him this time. He was already a loose cannon. Now he’s dangerous.
Yes. Your LGBT concerns are a combination of won’t happen (they can’t reinstate private bigotry laws any more than they can block gay porn) and not concerned (bathroom choice). You’re trying to force half the country to ignore their feelings and beliefs. I’m more worried about what we can do in our own private residence.
The Supreme Court, despite your unfounded crying, won’t overturn the constitution. I’m not worried about religion.
I’m well documented in my belief that a good 3rd party candidate could win. I also recognise that it takes time to build a following and that change takes time.
No. But they said that about Ukraine. And we, the US, deposed a fairly elected leader, a 3rd party candidate who won. Myanmar elected a 3rd party candidate. Nobody expected a woman to head Germany. Or a socialist liberal in the Congo. The people will choose here. You may not believe in democracy, but I still do.
I believe the possibility of any electoral votes is just that, possible. But they won’t win. But another 4 years of either failed economics or 4 years of all but guaranteed large scale war, will bring a 3rd party to the national stage.
All the country needs is one that’s both good on policy and has the drive to not give up when they loose the first time.
I won’t willingly vote against my own best interests either. Biden’s progressive policies have destroyed the economy. And another 4 years will give them a chance to tax non-spendable holdings (what you erroneously call “stored” wealth). The base savings and investment platform for the majority of the country.
You make a good hard copy for those that don’t understand reality in your last three paragraphs. Or the 1/10 of a percent that want to pee in the other gender’s toilet.
What you fail to understand is how much freedom those groups have here compared to most of the world.
You have a very narrow view of how “restricted” you think you are (or will be). Have you ever left the country. Seen the rest of the world?
Trump didn’t and couldn’t stop your ability to fuck who you want in your own bed, or kitchen, or anywhere else privately.
And even the Supreme Court you are so worried about, won’t take away your right to wear a dress if you so choose.
Your complaints and concerns range from not-gonna-happen to not your right anyway.
You worry about RvW but that was never a constitutional right. And it should be. But the court errored by usurping states’s rights. But your blame belongs with Democrat who had plenty of time and chance to codify that in the constitution, with super majority Congress and Dem presidency.
You worry about a bathroom? I don’t believe in equal access to private entities. Be it colour or disability or sexuality. Private entities have no duty to serve those they don’t want to and we have no right to force ourselves where we’re not wanted.
We live in one of the most accepting nations. A nation of law guided by the constitution. We have our flaws. But we’re still a great nation. If you’re bothered by a few nazis in X you are unlikely to ever see without actually looking for them, go somewhere else. If a baker doesn’t want to make a cake, go somewhere else.
If you’re not wanted, why would you want to force yourself on them?
That’s the biggest difference. Between you and I. I’m a patient person that looks to the future. You are an activist that wants to force change yesterday. Ignorance and bigotry will fade.
If you think you’re persecuted, though, I suggest you research the rest of the world.
Re: Re: Re:23 This is my last reply to you here.
He didn’t win a single electoral vote in either of the elections in which he ran. He didn’t affect policy while he was a candidate. He didn’t boost the Reform party to newfound heights after the 1996 election (in which he won a lesser percentage of the vote than he did in 1992). Your vote for Ross Perot didn’t change the country in any way—and unless you count the amount of material that Saturday Night Live got out of his candidacy, neither did he.
When Biden is less able to give coherent answers to questions than Trump, you let me know. Until then, I don’t see where he has full-blown dementia instead of general age-related issues.
You’ve never done that. You’ve always deflected back to the accusation of Biden having full-blown late stage dementia.
He was dangerous when he was president the first time. You still voted for him a second time. And you’ll vote for him a third time because he will eventually say or do something that will make you want to vote for him a third time.
You say this, but with a Supreme Court willing to side with Trump and the GOP (including at least one Associate Justice willing to overturn Obergefell) and the legislative assault on transgender people taking place in Republican-controlled states, any fears about what could happen to queer people in the United States won’t be squashed until the GOP is out of power everywhere and the civil rights of queer people are enshrined into the law of the land by way of an amendment to the federal constitution. Also: Given how rabidly anti-queer the GOP is and how rabidly pro-gun GOP supporters tend to be, an increase in anti-queer violence bolstered by the GOP having all the power necessary to make queer lives hell is not out of the realm of possibility.
You say that, but the current court has sided with majoritarian religious interests in ways that telegraph the desire for the court to overturn the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of a state religion. A slow chipping away at the wall between church and state will get the job done so long as the chipping is done slow enough and in small enough increments to avoid the notice of anyone who isn’t begging for the wall to come down (or stay up).
Since the first presidential elections in 1788, no third-party/independent candidate has ever won an election; of the three who managed to reach second place, only one—Horace Greely in 1872—managed to come the closest to winning with 43% of the vote. The second-best performance came in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt won 27% of the vote but was still squashed by Woodrow Wilson. And as I’ve noted, no third-party/independent candidate since 1968 has managed to win a single electoral vote. In the United States, no candidate outside of the Big Two has ever stood anything remotely resembling a chance to win a presidential election within my lifetime. I don’t see any reason to believe that will change in 2024, given that every other candidate in 2020 combined couldn’t get more than 2% of the overall vote.
The United States is neither Ukraine, Myanmar, Germany, nor the Republic of the Congo. The United States is the United States—and in the United States, third-party/independent candidates haven’t stood a real chance of winning in more than a century, and no such candidates have ever been anything but a spoiler in at least the past 40 years. When this country has national ranked-choice polling and no more of this Electoral College bullshit, maybe things will change. But I wouldn’t bet on either of those changes happening any time soon.
You need to stop believing in possibility and start believing in probability. Statistically speaking, any vote you cast for a candidate that isn’t one of the Big Two is a wasted vote because that candidate will have no legitimate path to victory.
Did that happen after George W. Bush?
This country will never have a viable third party until the electoral process—including presidential campaigning—is changed in a way that gives any third party a viable chance at success. Learn to live with that fact.
Are you sure it was Biden? Are you sure it wasn’t a bunch of rich assholes raising prices on their products because The Line Must Go Up? Are you sure it wasn’t a bunch of corporations testing the limits of how much people are willing to pay for basic life necessities—including healthcare and housing—while refusing to pay people enough in wages so they can reasonably afford paying for those necessities without needing to beg for money online? Are you absolutely sure—and I mean “with the certainty of God” sure—that only Joe Biden is responsible for the state of the economy?
And you fail to understand—or care—that said freedom can and will be revoked at the drop of a hat. Up until the Dobbs decision, women took the fact that they could have safe and legal abortions in most of the country for granted. Then Dobbs came down and the right to an abortion was no longer federally protected. We can point the blame at Democrats for refusing to enshrine those rights into law when they could have done so or at Donald Trump for appointing the three judges who made that decision possible (on the advice of the GOP and the Heritage Foundation). But blame is irrelevant to a single fact: The matter is that the right to an abortion was a national right until it wasn’t. Same-sex marriages are a national right, and the Supreme Court can undo that state of affairs in an instant if the right case drops into its collective lap. The Lawrence decision, which nullified anti-sodomy laws, can always be overturned—and that would mean queer people couldn’t legally have sex in their own homes without being arrested in states with such laws still on the books.
To act like all marginalized peoples are magically free of any attempt to curtail their freedoms and rights because the Constitution exists is to ignore the fact that not all freedoms and rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and those that aren’t can be taken away by a court willing to believe that centuries-old dead men should always and forever have the final say over this country’s laws. That’s why I vote Democrat: They’re the only viable political party in this country that isn’t willing to sacrifice the civil rights of marginalized people for the sake of pleasing a bunch of goddamned Bible thumpers and their rich benefactors.
People didn’t think Roe v Wade would fall until it did. Look at the chaos that decision has caused—and the consequences thereof. Do you really think the GOP gives a shit if a 10-year-old who was raped and made pregnant by her father is forced by law to carry that pregnancy to term? The level of GOP support for a national-level ban, state-level six-week bans, and no exceptions for rape/incest should inform your answer.
My giving a shit about trans people is not only about bathrooms, and you’d know that if you actually gave a shit about trans people yourself. But since neither you nor your friends or family are trans, I guess you don’t give a shit about trans people and their civil rights, so I’m not even going to bother explaining how my advocacy for trans rights is about their access to proper healthcare, their ability to exist in public spaces without being harassed or assaulted, and their right to be treated as people under the law. If you don’t get it, you never will; considering how you admit that your selfishness trumps the well-being of society when you enter the voting booth, I doubt you’ll ever understand how caring about marginalized people is about more than a single hot-button front-page issue that gets bandied about by conservatives fighting a culture war against the very existence of those people.
And yet, there is still so much hatred and bigotry in this country that trans people damn near have to beg for their existence to be respected by lawmakers.
When Donald Trump became the GOP candidate in 2016 (and eventually the winner of that eelction), white supremacists were so emboldened by his victory and his racist rhetoric that they began marching out in the open again. Charlottesville was a direct result of Trump’s refusal to condemn the hateful ideology of white supremacy (because doing so likely would’ve lost him votes). But sure, tell me how bigotry is fading out in a country where Donald Trump is now promising to be the “retribution” of his followers and threatening to be a dictator on “day one” of his second term so he can make the government build The Wall (and likely force immigrants, legal and undocumented alike, into concentration camps).
I have never personally claimed to be persecuted and I’ll thank you to never make that accusation again.
And yes, I’m well aware that persecution exists outside of the United States. But you don’t seem to care about the persecution that happens within the United States so long as it doesn’t affect you or your loved ones. Marginalized people may face different levels of persecution and bigotry in the United States, but they still face it all the same. Yes, the country has improved on making things better for marginalized people. But that doesn’t mean things are always going to stay good for those people—and if the GOP gets its way, a lot of marginalized people are going to be even more marginalized in the future.
You say that you look to the future. And yet, when you’re confronted with the very real and very likely possibility that the GOP (a party of Christofascist authoritarians who would sooner protect the rich and the privileged than the poor and the marginalized) could gain enough power to harm groups of people that the GOP dislikes, you suddenly stop looking into the future and start saying “that’ll never happen” as if you know with the certainty of a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural deity that it’ll never happen. Again: Nobody thought Roe v Wade would fall until it did, but its fall was highly probable given the circumstances leading up to the decision that felled Roe. The GOP is willing to use its sociopolitical power to destroy the lives of marginalized people of all kinds. You voted to give them that power twice. And you will vote for that result a third time because, no matter how hard you try to deny it, you cannot and will not resist the siren song of Donald “Dictator on Day One” Trump.
I’m not saying I know that with the certainty of God. I’m saying that the probability is closer to 1:1 than even you’re comfortable with admitting to me—and maybe that scares you more than you’re willing to admit to yourself.
Re: Re: Re:24
Past tense. And sorry to burst your little idea bubble; but neither current primary party existed in the first election. Showing a 3rd party very much can win. And if you refuse to vote the way you want, rather than the way your told or think your supposed to, your part of the problem in our political system.
Yes, you would rather a single large house has dictatorial control over the rest of the island.
You are against democracy. No vote is wasted if it is cast willingly. The only wasted vote is the ones people like you cast, which don’t represent their choice.
W didn’t fund a war that is of zero consequence to our country and didn’t involve us. Nor did he trash a vibrant economy.
Both things Biden is doing and will continue to do. You can argue that Iraq was a lie, and I’d agree. But factual evidence that the president was fed misinformation came after he left office.
When you raise the cost of business the business will raise prices to offset that cost. The more you tax a company the more you hurt the public.
Your progressive policies that raised the cost of business, thus raising the cost of products, are why the cost of living is higher than wages.
It’s a blazer fact. While NY and LA and Chi residents have problems with $20 per hour, $20 per hour is rich level lifestyle in the majority of the nation, away from those tax walls.
You know there are still locations where $0.59 McDonald’s hamburgers are on the menus right? That’s because it doesn’t cost them an extra $1.49 to do business there
Absolutely not. Today, since the 70s, it 75% progressives, 10% democrats in general, and 5% Reagan.
I already pointed out how spending cuts, not taxes, could fund social healthcare for all.
False. The constitution enshrines our freedoms.
Blame the democrats for not amending the constitution. Blame the court error that overstepped its authority. Any law or right not enshrined in the constitution or not made by Congress is the sole right of the state to dictate.
No, it was not a right. Our rights are no more prize than the constitution states. Our laws no more in stone than congress at the will of the court to interpret against the constitution.
Not until the constitution says so.
They do not exist unless they are part of the constitution, or the will of federal law at the moment.
I did, long before Trump came along. People who believed that are ignorant to the political process in our country. They need to be better educated, something your democrats don’t care about as they continue to teach the book and pass failures who should be held back.
You have a right per law as it stands in most jurisdictions, to dress as you want. A right protected under the first amendment. One that has protected both the dress on a man and the Jesus is a Cunt shirt in a school.
I know a few effeminate gays who I call friends. Funny none of them are demanding to piss in a girls school bathroom.
Even more are lesbians. None of which demand use of a men’s toilet. Including a couple married a year ago. (Hence my firm belief dems should stop worrying about the environment in 500 years and start enhancing our rights in permanent ways.
Being trans does not change your biological gender. And as long as this country is afraid of sex you can expect pushback. The solution is in federal law (which is difficult to change) and the constitution.
Huh?
The different will always be harassed. Including myself. If you’re assaulted, you go to the police. But if I feel unwelcome, I go elsewhere.
Existence is accepted. The right of a man to use a toilet next to an underaged girl is not. The right of a man to complete against smaller women in sports is not.
Most estimates put the number of white supremacists at a few thousand. About on par with other racial identified groups. As a whole, they are just a few percentage points. And generally are far more marginalised than those they hate.
The wall is good, like much of the world. Legal immigrants? Tell me you’re not that brainwashed.
I always did. It’s a constitutional debacle that RvW was granted in the first place. Only then ignorant (read most Democrats in power) ignored those of us who demanded action.
As for Trump, not this time. I won’t vote to turn the Pacific into a nuclear battlefield with as many people I know living there. Including family. Trump will bomb China the first time they spray water at a US ship under a new term. I don’t doubt that. That’s how wars start.
If the rest of the world has stood up and done something about Poland’s refusal to accept its own citizens, Hitler likely never would have had the support to start a greater conflict.
If we didn’t, in effect, kill the leader of Vietnam, there would have been. I war for us to fight.
And don’t mistake my preference for financial stability and national security as a rubber stamp to all GOP policy. From the day Japan surrendered to now, every aspect of U.S. involvement in war has been a Christian crusade. (Biden gets a policy pass because he funds Ukraine to protect his family’s wealth, not for religious reasons). The entire Cold War and anti-communist idea is a religious crusade. Propped up far more by the right than the left.
No, I know where my vote is going and it’s not where you think . Unlike you, I’m not going to waste my vote. I vote with my feelings, every time. The only wasted vote is one you make against your own wishes.
And my hope, as I’ve said here, and everywhere, is someone co es along with a real set of good ideas that motivates the country. It won’t be 24, but the same people can only step on a country the same way for so long before the people have had enough. And regardless of your pessimistic beliefs, there’s more independents today than ever in our nation’s history since the first election. The time is ripe for change.
The last time the nation had its two parties fracture we got new parties. 3rd parties have very much won elections. And with the two parties infighting more today than ever, a fractured ticket is bound to come up, even potentially for 24. Many democrats are sick of Biden. Many republicans are against Trump. Whoever wins will splinter both parties.
Again, I just hope I’m alive to see it happen.
Re:
If we can’t keep corps honest with criticism and whatnot, don’t be surprised when we’re forced to keep them honest violently.
Then again, the only language your ilk understands is… unsurprisingly, violence.
Yes, I know the fucking consequences.
I will repeat this, though.
YOU WANTED THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS. WHERE VIOLENCE IS NECESSARY TO KEEP EVERYONE HONEST.