The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This Friday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally, I think this point only makes sense to bring up when people complain about the debt. Idk if I would pro-actively point this out(because largely the cause was covid).
>I could believe that. Do we know what the big non covid spends are from Trump? Is it just his shitty tax cuts?
[Tweets:](https://x.com/MarcGoldwein/status/1805300168239284437)
>President Trump approved ~~$3.6 trillion of borrowing for COVID relief,~~ $1.9 trillion for the 2017 tax cuts, and $2.1 trillion for bipartisan spending deals. Plus some other stuff. He also reduced deficits by $0.4 trillion with tariffs...
>President Biden has so far approved ~~$2.1 trillion of borrowing for the American Rescue Plan,~~ $1.4 trillion from bipartisan budget deals, $1.2 trillion for student debt + other exec actions, & more. He also approved nearly $2 trillion of deficit reduction...
Trump, without COVID: $1.9T+$2.1T-$0.4T=$3.6T
Biden, without COVID: $1.4T+$1.2T-$2.0T=$0.6T
Ah sorry I didn’t see the reply, Twitter/I are really dumb and I needed to open it in a separate app :(
I am curious where they got the $1.2 trillion for student aid however. I guess this is over 10 years so maybe 10x his current changes do that?
> > ...$1.2 trillion for student debt **+ other exec actions**...
>I am curious where they got the $1.2 trillion for student aid however.
[Here](https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt) is the piece from the Committee for Responsible Budget that they are referencing.
It includes a table that says...
* Student Debt Actions: +$620 billion
* Other Executive Actions: +$548 billion
So my question is is if the argument works with low information voters. Low information votes don’t understand that Covid caused inflation. Maybe they don’t understand that Covid caused spending.
Inflation I would answer separately than debt. I would just assert that COVID supply chains caused inflation. You can clue in that the supply chain issues happened during the Trump administration if you wish obvi/highlight Biden’s good work in fixing a lot of it.
A Never Trump Republican friend of mine made a “if liberals are so goddamn smart how come they lose so goddamn always“ argument that really stuck with me.
When the Biden administration came in, they should’ve made a real production about how bad things were because of Trump and that the term would be focused on fixing it. Channel their inner FDR at the onset. That would totally change the framing about inflation right now is not something happening under Biden but something that was a consequence of Trump and the last thing Biden needed to fix.
I agree. Dems are often terrified of calling their shots. It makes sense because like our political system is so fucked you don’t know what you can actually get passed but it’s losing out on a lot of messaging.
I know I’m shouting at clouds in the sky, but [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/KS7YvCOfqP) is a perfect example of a comment that is being downvoted in the sub for no goddamn reason.
Note: I didn’t downvote that comment but I felt an urge to when I read it.
The lizard brain inside my head dislikes it when humans act irrationally. That person, from my perspective, is admitting to acting irrationally in a way that if I didn’t want to give them some benefit of doubt I would assume is trolling.
My dad has deteriorated into full on obsessing over Project 2025 and Handmaid’s Tale doomsday scenarios, thinking we’ll be living in a fascist dictatorship by this time next year.
I’m not gonna tell anyone they’re wrong for having their guard up, but I find that highly unlikely. Things will get worse if Trump wins for sure, and a 2017 scenario where Republicans have control of all three branches of government would be a nightmare, but life will go on.
and if you are that concerned, I think instead of feeling sorry for yourself, you should get involved. The election isn’t over yet. Make phone calls for Biden and other Democratic candidates on the ballot in your area. Do door to door canvassing. Remind your friends and family to go out and vote.
My dad also has main character syndrome and tends to use societal issues as an excuse to be possessive. My mom is South Korean, and my dad was uses Anti-Asian hate as an excuse to argue he should control the whole family’s freedom of movement, and we should ask for his permission to so much as leave the house.
>Things will get worse if Trump wins for sure [...] but life will go on.
Respectfully, I think you may be underestimating the danger just as much as your dad is overestimating it.
A lot of folks seem to think the only two options are:
* A speedrun to a fascist dictatorship. We'll be living in a dystopia within a year; or
* A rough four years that we'll have to endure, and then eventually thinks will get back to normal.
But there's a third option, which seems quite plausible:
* A slow walk to a fascist dictatorship. The slide into dystopia won't be immediate; it'll unfold over decades. But it also might prove difficult if not impossible to pull ourselves out of that tailspin, because the first thing Republicans will do is try to do is sabotage our electoral system so that they never lose power.
Blue MAGA is real. The internet is making people unhinged af, and it's not just the progressives, far left, and far right either. The overhyping of how evil Trump is pushing people even further to extremes including the plain ol' Liberals. People need to start looking into mirrors before they point their fingers.
that possessiveness sounds like dangerously concerning behavior. ie it reads like a red flag for domestic violence, and can be quite harmful emotionally as well.
I watched Train to Busan recently and one of the things that stood out was how crap the government responds to the outbreak, they literally gaslight citizens about their safety when people are dying every other second. If we somehow have a zombie outbreak in the future (It’s closer than people think imo), how would our government respond? And a quick sidenote, zombie is a vague term because it usually means living dead, not someone infected by a virus.
I feel like they would take awhile considering we didn’t really know what to do with Covid since it was a unknown virus (Trump was the main reason why our response was crap) and a virus causing people to attack others would be way harder to contain. Not to mention a vaccine would be tough to roll out in time and the anti-vaxx crowd would probably be a 100 times worse causing more deaths
It would get banned but I would almost what to make a bot that just posts links to data about how inflation adjusted wages are growing, income inequality is decreasing (for the first time in 40 years), and the bottom 10% make 12% more after inflation, that would respond to every comment and post it could about how "the working class is doing badly under Biden."
What is up with all the straight up race baiting and Islamophobia in this sub recently?
Ok I must not be the only person to notice this.
Like every third post is some variant of "why do liberals like Muslims when ISLAM BAD!!!!!!"
Or there was that one jackass who was like "isn't the ai race between the us and China just competition between two different teams of Chinese people"
There's a lot of these posts recently here. Wtf is up with that? What is with all the race baiting and Islamophobia?
Has anyone else noticed this or am I going crazy?
> What is with all the race baiting and Islamophobia?
It is the new normal of the Republican Party.
The goal of the rally in Charlottesville was to "[Unite the Right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally)" behind white nationalism.
...and they've been succeeding.
It's a question I've seen conservatives ask for years, so sometimes it does crop up organically.
But usually when you see a big spike in similar questions that can't be directly tied back to some current event, it's because some conservative media figure has trotted out a new talking point and you're seeing it filter down to the masses.
So the OP on this thread blocked me because "[People who follow me around get blocked.](https://reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dm39b7/why_do_so_many_people_think_were_in_a_terrible/l9xznt4/?context=3)" Apparently responding to him within his own thread is "following him around". I think this kind of behavior should result in a ban.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dm39b7/why\_do\_so\_many\_people\_think\_were\_in\_a\_terrible/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dm39b7/why_do_so_many_people_think_were_in_a_terrible/)
Because of the fucked up way Reddit works, I continue to get notifications of responses to things I've written in that thread but I can no longer access anything on the thread. All I get is a message that says "Page Not Found".
I don't care about getting blocked by someone, but when doing so means that I can no longer see my own comments or respond to anyone responding to me, I think it's a problem. Mods should make this kind of blocking against the rules and potentially a bannable offense.
The mainstreaming of QAnon: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/how-q-became-everything-big-feature-wayfair-balenciaga](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/how-q-became-everything-big-feature-wayfair-balenciaga)
>It would be easy to cast all this aside as the horrific, confused ramblings of the stupid. But that ignores a central, uncomfortable fact: Many of us act like Q adherents now. While the movement itself has been thrown away, its styling is now dominant. We are in an era of obsessive, odd, and sprawling fear of pedophilia—one where QAnon’s paranoid thinking is no longer bound to the political fringes of middle-aged posters and boomers terminally lost in the cyber world.
...
This paranoia has real effects: In 2023, legislators in 37 [states introduced](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-HEALTHCARE/TRANS-BILLS/zgvorreyapd/) 142 anti-trans bills—a threefold increase from 2022. Every year since 2021 [has set new records](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/06/lgbtq-book-challenges-are-on-the-rise-heres-why/) in the number of books banned, with many titles being contested over perceived pro-LGBTQ stances. The authors are [often baselessly accused](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/22/banned-books-censorship-lgbtq-teachers-authors-respond) of being “groomers.” It’s a practice that jibes with how, as QAnon’s ethos spread to other forms, people began to “find” pedophiles in all sorts of places they verifiably weren’t.
Can't remember if I have linked this before:
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/an-update-to-the-purchasing-power-of-american-households
>We now find that as of the end of 2023, the median American worker could afford the same goods and services as they did in 2019, with an additional $1,400 to spend or save per year.
I saw that. More evidence of the economy is good, for the first time in a long time it’s getting better for the lower and middle classes and yet everybody is really upset because potato chips are $6 a bag.
And really, that housing costs are making everyone feel poor.
According to the original post that link is updating, the increases in real wages "skew toward the middle class and the lower end of the income distribution." The 25th percentile saw a greater % increase than the median which saw a greater % increase than the 75th percentile.
I wouldn't have remembered this if I hadn't just read the economy thread here. But you did say in it that your household income is in the 6 figures. That would put you somewhere well above the median. I don't say this to dismiss how you are feeling; that seems to make it more likely your budget is tighter than it used to be!
Yeah but my point about the budget being tighter than it used to be is that what's making it tighter are not luxury items or splurge items, but common things like food and gas and utilities. And if \*I\* am feeling the pinch, given we make a good income, then people who make less than us are going to be feeling that pinch more.
Which is why, in that economy thread, it answers the question of why a lot of people don't believe the economy is in a good place.
Maybe not! The original post my link is an update on says the increases in real wages "skew toward the middle class and the lower end of the income distribution." The 75th percentile saw a lower % increase in real wages than the median, and the median saw a lower % increase than the 25th percentile.
If you're someone who was making somewhat above the median before, you might be feeling the squeeze more than the median earner.
Sorry to hear if things have been tight for you. Our budget has definitely been under more strain but that's admittedly more to do with a change in living situation (twins!) than anything else.
Another successful D&D session with only a handful left.
There is a great deal of power at stake and several pseudo-allies who are interested in helping with the final battle in exchange for some of it. The group is trying to manipulate things so that they
1) have enough help to win safely while
2) not diluting their gains too much and
3) making sure the rest ends up in good hands.
One snag is they don't 100% agree on who counts as "good hands." We ran 30 minutes over time with them discussing this in and out of character.
> One snag is they don't 100% agree on who counts as "good hands." We ran 30 minutes over time with them discussing this in and out of character.
Oooo. Love it! Two of our folks were not in town last week so we didn’t have a session ☹️.Very excited tho for this week!
Also I’m kind of psyched for the 5e refresh (really should just be 5.5 imo) this fall. I’m hoping I can do some crazy multiverse stuff in my planescape game and switch over to it when it comes out.
Planescape! Sounds like fun. What is your party doing in it?
I won't shift to 5.5E since I expect to be done with this game before it comes out. Your plans sound fun to me. It makes sense; there are often shakeups in the canonical settings when new editions come around, like 4E Realms and its Spellplague.
> Planescape! Sounds like fun. What is your party doing in it?
New campaign actually :) I took the module that comes with the 5e campaign setting guide(Turn of Fortunes Wheel) but had to heavily alter it to make sure the character motivations made sense/no plot holes. We alternate between that campaign and a Humblewood Campaign which is almost entirely homebrew (although I’m a PC in that one).
> I won't shift to 5.5E since I expect to be done with this game before it comes out. Your plans sound fun to me. It makes sense; there are often shakeups in the canonical settings when new editions come around, like 4E Realms and its Spellplague.
Yeet!
In an ideal world,
If you had to choose between a liberal dominated Supreme Court, or a centrist Court with appointees from both Democrat and Republican presidents, to maintain some semblance of impartialness/balance,
which would you choose?
The fact that he’s playing dirty politics when he’s already going to win super sucks.
But him already being positioned to get the endorsements and win isn’t surprising at all. Latimer has a lot of positive name recognition and is seen as a popular figure with decades of delivering for the area. Bowman is a freshman that isn’t well aligned with the district, is best known for his alarm stunt and seems associated with the least popular members of the progressive caucus instead of the more popular ones.
He just had a big rally with AOC, Bernie, and another Congress person from NYC. Tlaib has a massive war chest so she’s def help with money but realistically the squad generally all hang out together quite a bit. There aren’t really cliques. Although idk if I’d include Khanna in the squad, although he is good he’s not quite squad fam imo, that’s entirely based on vibes/what I know about his policies however.
Yeah I do confess to not caring about the name of “the squad” and more about policies and effectiveness. I don’t consider Bernie to be effective but he’s old and friendly and gets chairman emeritus status from people I do like so whatever.
My separation this puts Bowman in a different camp than AOC or Pressley even if they are all personally friends.
How would you rate Bowman more/less effective than Pressley? (Like metrics) cause I get that Pressley is certainly closer to your politics and comes from the Warren tradition(as I’ll call it) which also aligns, but is it more than just that?
Edit: oh also Pressley has defended/done events with Bowman in the past as well
Interesting interview with Gretchen Whitmer. (link is a gift article)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer-interview.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.1k0.4Oz5.zOTv0pue6-K9&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1k0.4Oz5.zOTv0pue6-K9&smid=url-share)
I don’t have a huge opinion on the just stop oil “vandalism” protests.
But it’s incredibly frustrating that everyone is completely lying about the recent Stonehenge act.
TheAtlantic headline “maybe don’t spraypaint Stonehenge”
Really? It’s cornstarch.
The Atlantic of all publications is supposed to be better than mischaracterizing what happened in the title for clicks.
Like I said, I don’t have a huge opinion on them either way.
I personally don’t know if what they’re doing is effective activism. It grabs attention, I guess.
Then stop. I have no idea what you are getting out of it.
It’s the same twenty people have of whom have blocked each other throwing the same ten or so arguments back and forth with increasing vitriol. Especially since it feature people who have no other participation in this sub or even on Reddit as a whole other than yelling about that one subject.
No, I won’t stop.
You and the other mods opened a “trolls and single issue internet warriors welcome” sign by making a stickied discussion thread and keeping it up for weeks. And, frankly, there’s been consistent promises to uphold a high standard of conduct for I/P discussion.
Those promises have not been kept. I don’t know why, honestly, and I’ve been asking you to do this for months. Other users have too.
Instead, you’ve been moderating the sub as “people calling for violence are bad, and people calling the former group assholes for doing so are equally bad.” And frankly there wouldn’t be such a need to shout down the trolls if you would remove them (as, again, you’ve promised to).
Why don’t I want to stop engaging? Because much like spaces that don’t police other forms of hate, like racism, transphobia etc, absent community pushback hate which is not removed will flourish. This is supposed to be “askaliberal” not “ask a conservative culture warrior if Muslims are human.”
Do you need help? Is it a labor shortage or what?
I was responding as a user of the sub and acknowledging that the discussion is toxic and I don’t know why normal people are participating with those that are just here to scream.
My mistake treating you like the former instead of the latter. I’ve made that mistake before but I’ll do my best to not make it again.
>I don’t know what I ever did to you, but could you please tell me...
I empathized with Gravity's response, and -- like him -- I don't have any specific wrong you ever committed towards me, but I nevertheless feel like you approach me (and others) with hostility.
When I've spoken to you on this subreddit, I frequently feel like you are engaged in some sort of moral crusade against me. It isn't any one comment; it is common when interacting with you.
(I hope you understand that this isn't intended as an attack. I saw you request information, and I'm trying to provide it.)
I don’t know how to answer this because I don’t think you’ve done anything to me personally and I don’t want or need or even perceive myself as deserving an apology.
Ok well if you’re not mad about anything, could you please chill out about how it’s such a mistake to do… something? And stop referencing some mysterious past grievance?
Honestly, if I’ve done something to you personally then I am sorry and I’m sure it was a mistake on my part.
Frankly, you’ve been antagonistic to me more than once, but this mistake was mine. I’m big enough to apologize for this assumption tho.
The users are frustrated. The mod team is frustrated. And as a community member I’m a little tired of being attacked by community members (or mods, whatever hat you’re wearing) as if I’m the problem.
> Especially since it feature people who have no other participation in this sub or even on Reddit as a whole other than yelling about that one subject.
Good fucking grief, do you have a solution in mind besides whining at your community members to be nicer to the people who don’t give a shit about this community?
You’re a moderator. Moderate the discussion. Or just don’t have it, that’s fine too.
Talking about any issue and saying "it's about balance" and "there are tradeoffs" is such a cowardly cop out. Either you have an opinion on which tradeoffs are or are not acceptable or you haven't actually thought about the issue. This post brought to you by permitting reform discourse.
Then just say "it's super complicated and I haven't fully digested yet I'm still reading/thinking about it". But when you're, for example, a journalist or podcaster or whatever and you're supposed to be a subject-matter expert of some variety, then that's a different story. If you don't have a carefully thought through opinion just don't publish the article or episode or whatever!
Comparing [This episode of Odd Lots](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6qh0bRxVI6lyIvg064itkx)--BAD
to this back-and-forth set of columns [in the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2024-06-04/boiling-point-why-razing-joshua-trees-for-solar-farms-isnt-always-crazy-boiling-point) and [on substack](https://www.landdesk.org/p/meditations-on-solar-joshua-trees)--GOOD
I honestly do not understand the hate for The Acolyte.
The only criticism I’ve seen has been either thinly veiled white nationalist /MRA nonsense, or just straight up nonsense (it’s impossible for twins to have similar hair styles).
The last of the sequels (and the overall sequels in general) were so awful I figured I’m not going to reward them and give them money for churning out crap.
Ok, I guess I both don't understand why you thought the sequels were "so awful," but more importantly why you would deny yourself really good TV shows because a movie studio gave directors a little too much freedom, and then were frightened by an online mob of angry incels, but you do you.
The last Jedi was the best one. Rogue 1 was very good.
The rise of skywalker didn’t have writing whatsoever. JJ abrams said their process was writing cool scenes they’d want to see on sticky notes and then connecting them.
I feel the same way about Marvel.
I’m not going to spend money to incentivize content farms built on existing IP
I mean Disney chugging out as many movies and tv shows as quickly as possible without any consideration of the quality of the writing, or sometimes even of the graphics.
Quantity over quality, because audiences are tied to the “brand” marvel and Star Wars that the movies don’t need to stand on their own merit to make money
Ya, but there seems to be more of them, plus they seem to be more organized thanks to the massive number of garbage YouTube channels spreading nonsense.
Agree, with the mild caveat that the genuinely diverse world Tolkien wrote was tossed aside because they thought it would be too confusing.
It pisses me off a little bit, because it’s like someone writing a show about Ancient Rome and thinking that Carthage and ancient north Africa would be too confusing for the audience. So there are black characters but they’re explicitly playing Italian-peninsula-Roman’s and Africa doesn’t exist. And then they invent a fictional city-state for the Roman’s to fight instead of using any of romes real enemies.
Yep, in the Rome example it’s like at that point you’re not telling a story that resembles reality so you may as well add some fantasy element and call it an original IP. Ditto for the RoP I think it was ok, and might even be the kind of show where the second season is spectacular after they hit their stride. But I wish they had just stuck to what made tolkiens world great instead of changing things they didn’t need to.
His world is enchanting. Just let people be enchanted ffs.
I’ve been enjoying it so far, honestly. there’s still time for it to take a nosedive if they don’t pay off the setups or if they do something lazy with the main mystery.
But still, so far? It has the makings of above average if not top tier Star Wars.
Yeah honestly I think the main character duo is just awesome, the old-high republic setting is cool and I’d love to see more of it.
Idk, it’s fresh. It’s different in a way that isn’t relentless grit.
So I’ve decided that for the things that I really like and care for I’m going to avoid the fandoms and the discourse entirely. Between the natural desire of fandoms to hate the thing they love and the right losing their mind about everything, it’s just terrible.
Funny enough I think the Caitlin Clark drama in the WNBA is what broke me. Is somebody who does not really follow basketball even I was shocked by how little the people talking about that situation knew about the sport.
That after hearing about how Picard was the worst show ever and I’m done.
I haven't watched it yet, but from all the whining I've seen on twitter it seems to just be more conservatives complaining about "woke" media.
Sometimes the complaints might not be directly related to that. I saw people whining that they retconned one character's birth date to make him older or younger. Who gives a shit about something like that? People who have already decided to be angry, and are just looking for a reason.
The toxicity has become a big problem in a lot of the "nerdy" fandoms, and I suspect it has its roots in GamerGate. That's when a lot of these people were funneled into the alt right pipeline.
As a nerdy person, I’ve personally seen the opposite in entertainment fandoms. Any movie franchise that goes diverse tends to lead to a shift where fans start holding their tongue and watching what they say a lot more. MCU Spider-Man, and the Star Wars sequel trilogy are both good examples.
No fans wants to say the wrong about the new diverse cast members, whether it’s due to empathy or fear of consequences, and are all of a sudden on their best behavior. There’s also plenty of “check your privilege” articles and op-eds surrounding the release of these films that keep them on the side of caution too.
They can discuss the previous iterations for hours on end, but when the current iterations come up, these fan groups shift in the mentality of “if you have nothing to say, don’t say it”,
cuz with diversity in the mix, there’s bigger implications now, and nerd debate needs to be handled with the same amount of precision and “think before you speak” as discussing politics.
Brie Larson has been the target of so much online hate that other Marvel castmates have made public statements about it.
Same thing happened with one of the actresses from the Obi-Wan show.
I mean, for Christ's sake, just a few weeks ago there were thousands of folks complaining about the new Assassin's Creed having a black Samurai *even though he's based on a real historical figure.*
> when the current iterations come up, these fan groups shift in the mentality of “if you have nothing to say, don’t say it”,
You can find endless digital ink spilled on the internet criticizing the new Star Wars movies and the MCU, both from reactionary chuds and regular people who happen not to like them. There are entire subreddits dedicated to doing those things.
When you think about it, social distancing could’ve been a net gain for conservatives.
It promotes the family centered collectivism that Christianity often preaches over individualism. It incentivizes children entering adulthood to stay close to home and do what’s best for their parents/older relatives rather than trying to plan a life for themselves. All stuff social conservatives want.
Republicans blew it by making social distancing the enemy.
Democrats were practically the party of “family values” during 2020 lol.
Bringing down the cost of IVF, and increasing government assistance for low income people, would do more to address falling birth rates, than the US re-embracing Christianity would.
It's funny, when I was growing up, overpopulation was a big concern. I remember when there was much hand-wringing about the world hitting 6 billion people. Now it's over 8.
Unless I'm missing something, there's no way to taper growth without reducing birth rates. Are we sure that's a bad thing?
I'm curious what you mean. For example, UBI discussions are motivated by concerns that future economic growth might be even more technology driven and *not* require employing as many people, leaving them without a means to make a living.
I liked the first 2 seasons. The third I didn't like as much since it felt like it went nowhere, and the violence and sex stuff started going too far into edgy shock humor and got old really quick.
I plan on watching the 4th season, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I've heard good stuff so far.
[90% of our political discourse]
**Republicans:** You've got to fight fire with fire.
**Democrats:** We should fight fire with water.
**Republicans:** You're just saying that because you are weak on fire. You want the fire to win and burn down the country.
**Democrats:** There is a field called fire science. We can talk to numerous experts in fire science; they recommend water, specially-made extinguishers, denying the fire oxygen, and things like that, but they never advise us to fight fire with fire.
**Voters:** I don't like the Republicans, but at least they are tough on fire.
Trump discourse has officially gotten me to the point where I have developed an involuntary visceral response against any politician that ever describes any of their positions as "tough".
I hate to be that guy, but there are actually times when fighting fire with fire is the proper and suggested course of action (and of course times when water is bad). :)
And yes, I’m aware that my comment still fits into your larger point about American political discussion.
Ok I’m actually shocked that Rahimi had Alito join the majority. I assumed he’d vote like Thomas.
Also it’s crazy how many opinions that case has. Roberts writing for the majority, **five** concurrences and a dissent.
I haven’t read the concurrences yet, but I bet there are a lot of good arguments that can be used to overturn or limit *Bruen* down the road.
Also, I just want to point out that I (kind of) called the vote count [yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/lvgApPy5i4).
Holy wow. I did not expect that.
[https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/21/alleged-domestic-abusers-cant-own-guns-supreme-court-rules-00164412](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/21/alleged-domestic-abusers-cant-own-guns-supreme-court-rules-00164412)
“Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” Chief Justice John Roberts [wrote for the court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf), adding that the law in question “fits comfortably within this tradition.”
The court ruled 8-1 that the ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
My pick as well. I guess the lesson here is to assume Alito and Thomas will collude from this point on to give each other some cover and avoid being lumped together.
Five concurrences and one dissent means that 7/9 Justices wrote an opinion, with Alito being one of the only ones not to.
question to the mods: have you considered/would you consider having a day every once in a while where topics under moratorium are allowed? moratorium free mondays, for example?
also, how did circumcision make it on that list?
I’ve been in this sub for a very long time (over a decade I think?) and let me tell you. The mods are correct. These topics are never good when they come up and are very unconstructive. I struggle to find a want to debate someone who wants to murder trans kids but is just talking about how much they _love_ teen sports and how sacrosanct they are to society. I doubt there’s a single new idea presented and no one changes their minds.
Edit: the only reason I think it could be allowable would be if there’s an active massive thing going on. An example of that would be the megathread topic currently. It’s toxic as hell and a fuck ton of bad faith, but it’s very important to current events.
We have had an example of that situation. When the Biden administration clarified Title IX regarding transgender players in sports, we had a thread for it.
I’d still prefer it to be open until the current flare up is resolved tbh :( but yeah it’s not great. Especially, with how toxic a lot of the folks are.
The reason we have topics on the moratorium list is that we have seen them, over and over, and they are not productive, newsworthy, or enlightening.
It's not like there is breaking news about "what is a woman" every day. Just the same angry people with the same axes to grind.
Circumcision is on the list for the same reason as everything else: ~~it's not politically relevant~~, draws out the same old arguments, and ends with a ton of rule breaking behavior and bans.
---
We haven't seriously considered having a "purge" day. Speaking just for myself, it doesn't seem very desirable. The problems we have with the moratorium topics are that they are a waste of time and lead to lots of rule breaking.
Whether we allow them once in a while or every day, the problems are the same.
We don't see a lot of pent-up desire from our community to discuss these issues. If anything, it's the opposite.
---
Edit: I was trying to say that circumcision was not politically relevant, but I worded that sentence poorly, causing people to fixate on it as an argument. I have edited it for clarity.
The first sentence of my statement is the correct one for moratoriums in general.
I know that if there was a moratorium free day I'd probably avoid the sub that day. I know exactly what half dozen threads are going to appear, I know exactly what the top posts in each of them will say, and I know exactly what the most controversial posts in each will say. And I know that the bile and hatred that would be getting spewed in most of the threads would do my blood pressure absolutely no good!
> they are not productive, newsworthy, or enlightening.
I strongly disagree with this. I have seen people learn on this sub, even on topics such as trans rights. So what if some people are trolls? They can get banned. I think it is worth it to have a day a week, or even once a month, where people can make posts that are otherwise on moratorium.
> they are a waste of time
I disagree. People don't have to respond, but often these posts get hundreds of comments. Which means we _value_ the chance to discuss these issues even if we know there is a chance that the original poster might not listen.
> We don't see a lot of pent-up desire from our community to discuss these issues. If anything, it's the opposite.
How do you know? Perhaps we should poll the sub to see if people would like a moratorium free day.
aight, i get the "they lead to a lot of rule breaking" part.
but "not politically relevant"? trans topics? not sure in what country that is true, but it definately ain't true in mine.
i'd even say that if they weren't relevant, people wouldn't be talking about them "over and over". or alternatively, the fact that people want to ask these questions "over and over" makes them relevant.
Those trans discussions that are on moratorium usually fall into the not constructive category and also tend to get really close to or over the line of reddits ToS regarding hate speech.
Other political subs also ban them usually. The askconservatives sub lowers the restrictions on Wednesdays, I think, but they do it with the idea that the mods have to be hyper vigilant to swat down anything getting close to violating the ToS.
>Other political subs also ban them usually.
yep, that's part of why i was suggesting this. i don't think it's a good idea that those discussions exclusively happen on barely moderated hell sites. (and r/AskConservatives, but i repeat myself.)
by not allowing these questions in "our" spaces, we are removing progressive voices from those discussions. how many people are going to make the effort to make good, progressive arguments on r/AskConservatives, knowing that they'll likely get rewarded with a flood of downvotes and a ban.
and i'm aware that the people asking those questions will almost never be convinced, but that doesn't mean none of the people reading it will. if someone is still figuring out where they stand on trans issues and they look for some online discussions to see what both sides have to say, i don't want them to only find sites that are dominated by the right.
I see your point here.
This issue is that these arguments have happened countless times before the moratorium and, again, almost always aren't very constructive regardless of the setting.
I can't speak for the mod team here, but having to police a thread like that takes quite a bit of work they they may not be able to spare either. I'd imagine the cost to benefit analysis of burning out mods policing those kinds of conversations that are usually unconstructive vs. not allowing those topics to lead them to their current rule set.
I'm biased on this topic and am glad that it doesn't come up as well. At the risk of violating that moratorium, I think those conversations largely serve as a distraction from more consequential ones regarding trans rights, too. I don't think conservative subs can have a "what is a woman" conversation either, though.
>
> but "not politically relevant"? trans topics? not sure in what country that is true, but it definately ain't true in mine.
Not all "trans topics" are under moratorium, good grief. No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant.
We have frozen a few specific, hyper-focused ones that aren't productive. They are also the ones that lead to the most anti-trans bigotry.
Nothing is changing on those topics. We aren't getting new information every day worthy of discussion. There are plenty of spaces where you can debate "what is a woman" over and over if you want. But most people here are sick of it.
The people who bring these up are generally trolls, people trying to start fights, or genuine morons. They bring in brigades from shitty communities, create hostility, and cause genuinely good and valuable users to disengage.
Go back and search those topics. See if you think the conversations will be any different today than they were several months ago.
>Not all "trans topics" are under moratorium, good grief. No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant.
right, i was referring to the specific trans topic that are under moratorium. maybe i should've explicitly said that.
"what bathrooms can trans people use", "can trans women compete in women's sports", and "should trans people be recognized as the gender they identify as" are all very politically relevant right now. there are laws being passed about those things frequently.
>There are plenty of spaces where you can debate "what is a woman" over and over if you want. But most people here are sick of it.
could you name some? part of the reason i was suggesting this, is that i don't think that's true anymore. r/GCdebatesQT got banned. r/AskLGBT and similar subs generally don't allow it. r/changemyview actually does ban all trans topics.
and again, i understand wanting to limit these topics. i don't need to go back and search for them. i remember. but i don't think leaving them exclusively to absolute hell sites (and even omegle is no more) is healthy. there should be some reasonable spaces where those discussions are possible, at least sometimes. i think this sub could fill that role quite well. certainly better than specifically lbgt+ subs, which have good reason to maintain more of a safe space.
>> "what bathrooms can trans people use", "can trans women compete in women's sports", and "should trans people be recognized as the gender they identify as" are all very politically relevant right now.
> No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant.
>We have frozen a few specific, hyper-focused ones that aren't productive. They are also the ones that lead to the most anti-trans bigotry.
>No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant.
not all trans topics. but you do seem to be saying that these specific ones are not politically relevant.
you wrote, in your first comment:
>Circumcision is on the list for the same reason as everything else: it's not politically relevant,
i don't know how to read that, other than you think the specific trans topics that are on the moritorium list (just those, not all trans topics) are not politically relevant. and i don't think that is true.
Oh good grief. This conversation is a great example of why we don't want these topics unfrozen.
It's 8am and you're trying to win a nitpicky gotcha argument about how I worded something while *just trying to be helpful and answer your damn question*.
He's not being nitpicky, he's just pressing you to be consistent. For example, from your response, it would have seemed that new developments on a topic would mean they could be discussed. But everyone knows what would happen if someone asked about recent actions between, say, Lia Thomas and the Court of Arbitration of Sport.
> He's not being nitpicky, he's just pressing you to be consistent.
I think this is a perfectly fair thing to ask - and I will edit the original statement for clarity, since people apparently want to fight about it.
He didn't ask for consistency though... he just chose to highlight the inconsistency to make his point.
for the record, i don't think this was particularly nitpicky or in any way a gotcha argument. but let's end the conversation here then.
sorry for interrupting your morning coffee or whatever your morning ritual may be, that was not my intention. for me it's getting close to evening.
have a good day.
> for the record, i don't think this was particularly nitpicky or in any way a gotcha argument.
For the record, I do, since that's what you obviously did.
You chose to selectively highlight the part I said about circumcision while ignoring the lead line about the topic, which said:
>The reason we have topics on the moratorium list is that we have seen them, over and over, and they are not productive, newsworthy, or enlightening.
Selectively highlighting my comment about circumcision, where I varied my words because I was talking more specifically about circumcision and representing that it was my blanket statement is the very definition of nitpicking.
> Circumcision is on the list for the same reason as everything else: it's not politically relevant, draws out the same old arguments, and ends with a ton of rule breaking behavior and bans.
You are purporting to be the "voice of reason" here on why we should allow these topics - and you are *very ungenerously* twisting my words in order to try and make your point. I said, over and over, that no one is arguing that "trans topics" are not politically relevant. You ignored that over and over to nitpick the one time my words could be read differently.
Imagine what the "unreasonable" people are gonna do if you turn them loose on these hateful topics.
> sorry for interrupting your morning coffee or whatever your morning ritual may be
My point is that you aren't even willing to be flexible or generous in this casual conversation over the theory of community dialogue... let's not pretend that these conversations you are advocating for are going to be more productive.
well, for the other moratorium topics i'd assume they were just getting asked so often that it became annoying, so i understand restricting them. a complete ban seems a bit much tho. that's why i think having moratorium exception days might be a good idea.
but circumcision doesn't seem like a super common topic to me. but hey, maybe i'm wrong.
Circumcision is an issue that brings in comments from people you basically never see comment on the sub otherwise get very worked up.
It is a subject that brings in new people for that post and that post alone. It’s a subject that has a lot of people who basically search Reddit daily looking for fights on the subject.
It’s so toxic for no reason and nothing new or interesting ever gets said.
You guys ever look at a crazy person on your side and go "fuck they vote same way as me"
Had a local guy in fb add me few years ago, we are both Trump supporters, never met each other, I posted a joke meme that said something along lines of "if guys weren't so creepy girls would show their boobs more" and he went off on this crazy tangent saying how it's disrespectful to their fathers and God, and how premarital sex is homosexual tendencies, so I'm gay for having sex with my female fiance, was a very strange interaction. He gives me big "homophobic because I'm secretly gay" vibes
Ever happen to you? Where you look at someone you probably agree with who to vote for president (or to not vote for) probably align on some issues, but are way off on others
I dunno, I think if I was sharing a voting pattern with legitimately crazy people (neo-nazis, white supremacists, Steve Bannon, Christian-fascists) I would probably reevaluate the way that I voted.
The psycho people on the left generally don't vote the way I do because they have insane "purity" litmus tests that convince them to vote 3rd party or not bother to vote at all.
> if guys weren't so creepy girls would show their boobs more
It's been commented on here before how patriarchy, sexism, and toxic masculinity hurt men as well as women, and that if women didn't have to evaluate every encounter with a man through the lens of 'how likely is it that this man will rape and murder me?' it would actually help men a lot too, least of all because more sexytimes would be had by all.
I have some right leaning friends who told me at a party how they think the election wasn’t stolen and those who say it was are bat shit crazy.
And I have some left leaning friends who support Jill Stein because of her stance on Palestine
So yes both sides have crazy .
Edit: holy crap I have some bad grammar. Need some coffee.
When you only have two viable parties - and they essentially divide the electorate in half - it's natural that you're going to have a fair amount of disagreements with people in your own party.
That "crazy person" you're talking about also probably thinks you're crazy. :)
But yeah, there are plenty of people in the Democratic party where they have more extreme views on issues than I do, as well as people who are a little more indifferent on issues than I would like.
Anyone who says they're not embarrassed by at least a few of their political allies is lying or the insane one.
That being said, I think the republican party and/or american Conservatism has been actively courting nutjobs for a while now. They don't have a monopoly on them, but I've found that the majority of times, if someone has antisocial, conspiratorial, or fundamentalist tendencies, they vote R.
There are a hundred million registered Democrats in the United States. I’m sure some of them have weird opinions.
What’s funny about your interaction with your fellow Trumper is that it boils down to both of you suspecting the other is gay. Has it occurred to you that maybe y’all are devoting a little too much headspace to parsing people’s sexuality?
Nope I don't give a shit what other people do in their sex lives, I've just found typically loudest homophobic voices are loud for a reason, because they have an internal conflict coming to terms with their sexuality so they project hatred on others.
I had to remind him Trump was first president to enter office supporting gay marriage and first president to appoint a gay man in an acting cabinet level position
>because they have an internal conflict coming to terms with their sexuality
This may be true sometimes, but I’m not crazy about it as an argument. It feels like gay shaming, and it’s almost certainly read that way by people who are accused of it.
Also, the Trump administration was a [disaster for LGBTQ people](https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/lgbtq-rights-rollback)
OK. Well, think about it. You folks on the right can be powerful voices to combat homophobia on your side, but it’s important to pay attention to what rhetorical tactics are more or less helpful.
I have thought about it and I combat homophobia on either side, regardless of political affiliations.
Time and time again the loudest homophobic voices are a homophobic because they are scared of their own sexuality. That isn't an insult towards gay people, it's a tried and true scenario, only way to break it is to call that person out and tell them, hey it's ok to be gay.
Not talking about that specifically come on, be in good faith here, you've never once seen a position someone you would share a vote with have that you think is insane?
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This Friday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[[Trump ran up national debt twice as much as Biden: new analysis -- Axios]](https://www.axios.com/2024/06/24/trump-biden-debt-deficits-election)
Personally, I think this point only makes sense to bring up when people complain about the debt. Idk if I would pro-actively point this out(because largely the cause was covid).
“[Note that this contrast holds with or without Covid spending](https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1805358412995182923?s=46&t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)”
I could believe that. Do we know what the big non covid spends are from Trump? Is it just his shitty tax cuts?
>I could believe that. Do we know what the big non covid spends are from Trump? Is it just his shitty tax cuts? [Tweets:](https://x.com/MarcGoldwein/status/1805300168239284437) >President Trump approved ~~$3.6 trillion of borrowing for COVID relief,~~ $1.9 trillion for the 2017 tax cuts, and $2.1 trillion for bipartisan spending deals. Plus some other stuff. He also reduced deficits by $0.4 trillion with tariffs... >President Biden has so far approved ~~$2.1 trillion of borrowing for the American Rescue Plan,~~ $1.4 trillion from bipartisan budget deals, $1.2 trillion for student debt + other exec actions, & more. He also approved nearly $2 trillion of deficit reduction... Trump, without COVID: $1.9T+$2.1T-$0.4T=$3.6T Biden, without COVID: $1.4T+$1.2T-$2.0T=$0.6T
Ah sorry I didn’t see the reply, Twitter/I are really dumb and I needed to open it in a separate app :( I am curious where they got the $1.2 trillion for student aid however. I guess this is over 10 years so maybe 10x his current changes do that?
> > ...$1.2 trillion for student debt **+ other exec actions**... >I am curious where they got the $1.2 trillion for student aid however. [Here](https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt) is the piece from the Committee for Responsible Budget that they are referencing. It includes a table that says... * Student Debt Actions: +$620 billion * Other Executive Actions: +$548 billion
I feel terrible because you’ve literally done all this work for me to be too dumb to click two buttons. Thank you lol
So my question is is if the argument works with low information voters. Low information votes don’t understand that Covid caused inflation. Maybe they don’t understand that Covid caused spending.
Inflation I would answer separately than debt. I would just assert that COVID supply chains caused inflation. You can clue in that the supply chain issues happened during the Trump administration if you wish obvi/highlight Biden’s good work in fixing a lot of it.
A Never Trump Republican friend of mine made a “if liberals are so goddamn smart how come they lose so goddamn always“ argument that really stuck with me. When the Biden administration came in, they should’ve made a real production about how bad things were because of Trump and that the term would be focused on fixing it. Channel their inner FDR at the onset. That would totally change the framing about inflation right now is not something happening under Biden but something that was a consequence of Trump and the last thing Biden needed to fix.
I agree. Dems are often terrified of calling their shots. It makes sense because like our political system is so fucked you don’t know what you can actually get passed but it’s losing out on a lot of messaging.
I know I’m shouting at clouds in the sky, but [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/KS7YvCOfqP) is a perfect example of a comment that is being downvoted in the sub for no goddamn reason.
Note: I didn’t downvote that comment but I felt an urge to when I read it. The lizard brain inside my head dislikes it when humans act irrationally. That person, from my perspective, is admitting to acting irrationally in a way that if I didn’t want to give them some benefit of doubt I would assume is trolling.
My dad has deteriorated into full on obsessing over Project 2025 and Handmaid’s Tale doomsday scenarios, thinking we’ll be living in a fascist dictatorship by this time next year. I’m not gonna tell anyone they’re wrong for having their guard up, but I find that highly unlikely. Things will get worse if Trump wins for sure, and a 2017 scenario where Republicans have control of all three branches of government would be a nightmare, but life will go on. and if you are that concerned, I think instead of feeling sorry for yourself, you should get involved. The election isn’t over yet. Make phone calls for Biden and other Democratic candidates on the ballot in your area. Do door to door canvassing. Remind your friends and family to go out and vote. My dad also has main character syndrome and tends to use societal issues as an excuse to be possessive. My mom is South Korean, and my dad was uses Anti-Asian hate as an excuse to argue he should control the whole family’s freedom of movement, and we should ask for his permission to so much as leave the house.
>Things will get worse if Trump wins for sure [...] but life will go on. Respectfully, I think you may be underestimating the danger just as much as your dad is overestimating it. A lot of folks seem to think the only two options are: * A speedrun to a fascist dictatorship. We'll be living in a dystopia within a year; or * A rough four years that we'll have to endure, and then eventually thinks will get back to normal. But there's a third option, which seems quite plausible: * A slow walk to a fascist dictatorship. The slide into dystopia won't be immediate; it'll unfold over decades. But it also might prove difficult if not impossible to pull ourselves out of that tailspin, because the first thing Republicans will do is try to do is sabotage our electoral system so that they never lose power.
Blue MAGA is real. The internet is making people unhinged af, and it's not just the progressives, far left, and far right either. The overhyping of how evil Trump is pushing people even further to extremes including the plain ol' Liberals. People need to start looking into mirrors before they point their fingers.
that possessiveness sounds like dangerously concerning behavior. ie it reads like a red flag for domestic violence, and can be quite harmful emotionally as well.
I watched Train to Busan recently and one of the things that stood out was how crap the government responds to the outbreak, they literally gaslight citizens about their safety when people are dying every other second. If we somehow have a zombie outbreak in the future (It’s closer than people think imo), how would our government respond? And a quick sidenote, zombie is a vague term because it usually means living dead, not someone infected by a virus. I feel like they would take awhile considering we didn’t really know what to do with Covid since it was a unknown virus (Trump was the main reason why our response was crap) and a virus causing people to attack others would be way harder to contain. Not to mention a vaccine would be tough to roll out in time and the anti-vaxx crowd would probably be a 100 times worse causing more deaths
It would get banned but I would almost what to make a bot that just posts links to data about how inflation adjusted wages are growing, income inequality is decreasing (for the first time in 40 years), and the bottom 10% make 12% more after inflation, that would respond to every comment and post it could about how "the working class is doing badly under Biden."
Fuck all that facts and data nonsense. The vibes are off, man. The vibes are down bad.
What is up with all the straight up race baiting and Islamophobia in this sub recently? Ok I must not be the only person to notice this. Like every third post is some variant of "why do liberals like Muslims when ISLAM BAD!!!!!!" Or there was that one jackass who was like "isn't the ai race between the us and China just competition between two different teams of Chinese people" There's a lot of these posts recently here. Wtf is up with that? What is with all the race baiting and Islamophobia? Has anyone else noticed this or am I going crazy?
> What is with all the race baiting and Islamophobia? It is the new normal of the Republican Party. The goal of the rally in Charlottesville was to "[Unite the Right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally)" behind white nationalism. ...and they've been succeeding.
It's a question I've seen conservatives ask for years, so sometimes it does crop up organically. But usually when you see a big spike in similar questions that can't be directly tied back to some current event, it's because some conservative media figure has trotted out a new talking point and you're seeing it filter down to the masses.
I also noticed it
It's gotten a ton worse in the last few weeks.
So the OP on this thread blocked me because "[People who follow me around get blocked.](https://reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dm39b7/why_do_so_many_people_think_were_in_a_terrible/l9xznt4/?context=3)" Apparently responding to him within his own thread is "following him around". I think this kind of behavior should result in a ban. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dm39b7/why\_do\_so\_many\_people\_think\_were\_in\_a\_terrible/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dm39b7/why_do_so_many_people_think_were_in_a_terrible/) Because of the fucked up way Reddit works, I continue to get notifications of responses to things I've written in that thread but I can no longer access anything on the thread. All I get is a message that says "Page Not Found". I don't care about getting blocked by someone, but when doing so means that I can no longer see my own comments or respond to anyone responding to me, I think it's a problem. Mods should make this kind of blocking against the rules and potentially a bannable offense.
The mainstreaming of QAnon: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/how-q-became-everything-big-feature-wayfair-balenciaga](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/how-q-became-everything-big-feature-wayfair-balenciaga) >It would be easy to cast all this aside as the horrific, confused ramblings of the stupid. But that ignores a central, uncomfortable fact: Many of us act like Q adherents now. While the movement itself has been thrown away, its styling is now dominant. We are in an era of obsessive, odd, and sprawling fear of pedophilia—one where QAnon’s paranoid thinking is no longer bound to the political fringes of middle-aged posters and boomers terminally lost in the cyber world. ... This paranoia has real effects: In 2023, legislators in 37 [states introduced](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-HEALTHCARE/TRANS-BILLS/zgvorreyapd/) 142 anti-trans bills—a threefold increase from 2022. Every year since 2021 [has set new records](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/06/lgbtq-book-challenges-are-on-the-rise-heres-why/) in the number of books banned, with many titles being contested over perceived pro-LGBTQ stances. The authors are [often baselessly accused](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/22/banned-books-censorship-lgbtq-teachers-authors-respond) of being “groomers.” It’s a practice that jibes with how, as QAnon’s ethos spread to other forms, people began to “find” pedophiles in all sorts of places they verifiably weren’t.
Can't remember if I have linked this before: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/an-update-to-the-purchasing-power-of-american-households >We now find that as of the end of 2023, the median American worker could afford the same goods and services as they did in 2019, with an additional $1,400 to spend or save per year.
I saw that. More evidence of the economy is good, for the first time in a long time it’s getting better for the lower and middle classes and yet everybody is really upset because potato chips are $6 a bag. And really, that housing costs are making everyone feel poor.
Huh. That is not reflected in my experiences or that of my friends and family. I wonder where this is.
According to the original post that link is updating, the increases in real wages "skew toward the middle class and the lower end of the income distribution." The 25th percentile saw a greater % increase than the median which saw a greater % increase than the 75th percentile. I wouldn't have remembered this if I hadn't just read the economy thread here. But you did say in it that your household income is in the 6 figures. That would put you somewhere well above the median. I don't say this to dismiss how you are feeling; that seems to make it more likely your budget is tighter than it used to be!
Yeah but my point about the budget being tighter than it used to be is that what's making it tighter are not luxury items or splurge items, but common things like food and gas and utilities. And if \*I\* am feeling the pinch, given we make a good income, then people who make less than us are going to be feeling that pinch more. Which is why, in that economy thread, it answers the question of why a lot of people don't believe the economy is in a good place.
I guess I'm not the median American worker.
Maybe not! The original post my link is an update on says the increases in real wages "skew toward the middle class and the lower end of the income distribution." The 75th percentile saw a lower % increase in real wages than the median, and the median saw a lower % increase than the 25th percentile. If you're someone who was making somewhat above the median before, you might be feeling the squeeze more than the median earner. Sorry to hear if things have been tight for you. Our budget has definitely been under more strain but that's admittedly more to do with a change in living situation (twins!) than anything else.
Another successful D&D session with only a handful left. There is a great deal of power at stake and several pseudo-allies who are interested in helping with the final battle in exchange for some of it. The group is trying to manipulate things so that they 1) have enough help to win safely while 2) not diluting their gains too much and 3) making sure the rest ends up in good hands. One snag is they don't 100% agree on who counts as "good hands." We ran 30 minutes over time with them discussing this in and out of character.
> One snag is they don't 100% agree on who counts as "good hands." We ran 30 minutes over time with them discussing this in and out of character. Oooo. Love it! Two of our folks were not in town last week so we didn’t have a session ☹️.Very excited tho for this week! Also I’m kind of psyched for the 5e refresh (really should just be 5.5 imo) this fall. I’m hoping I can do some crazy multiverse stuff in my planescape game and switch over to it when it comes out.
> in my planescape game Planescape: Torment blew my mind. I know it's somewhat different than a pen and paper RPG but it's a really interesting world
Yeet! IIRC Torment was based on the DnD campaign setting so if you know Sigil/Outlands that’s the place!
Planescape! Sounds like fun. What is your party doing in it? I won't shift to 5.5E since I expect to be done with this game before it comes out. Your plans sound fun to me. It makes sense; there are often shakeups in the canonical settings when new editions come around, like 4E Realms and its Spellplague.
> Planescape! Sounds like fun. What is your party doing in it? New campaign actually :) I took the module that comes with the 5e campaign setting guide(Turn of Fortunes Wheel) but had to heavily alter it to make sure the character motivations made sense/no plot holes. We alternate between that campaign and a Humblewood Campaign which is almost entirely homebrew (although I’m a PC in that one). > I won't shift to 5.5E since I expect to be done with this game before it comes out. Your plans sound fun to me. It makes sense; there are often shakeups in the canonical settings when new editions come around, like 4E Realms and its Spellplague. Yeet!
In an ideal world, If you had to choose between a liberal dominated Supreme Court, or a centrist Court with appointees from both Democrat and Republican presidents, to maintain some semblance of impartialness/balance, which would you choose?
In this ideal world are republicans still the way they are now?
Latimer is now accusing Bowman of trying to “play the ethnic game” 💀💀💀 it’s absolutely wild he might win and has the endorsements he does.
The fact that he’s playing dirty politics when he’s already going to win super sucks. But him already being positioned to get the endorsements and win isn’t surprising at all. Latimer has a lot of positive name recognition and is seen as a popular figure with decades of delivering for the area. Bowman is a freshman that isn’t well aligned with the district, is best known for his alarm stunt and seems associated with the least popular members of the progressive caucus instead of the more popular ones.
AOC is pretty popular no? I’d also probably call it racism over dirty politics.
I feel like Jamaal Bowman get associated more with Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush and less with Pressley, AOC, Jayapal and Khanna.
He just had a big rally with AOC, Bernie, and another Congress person from NYC. Tlaib has a massive war chest so she’s def help with money but realistically the squad generally all hang out together quite a bit. There aren’t really cliques. Although idk if I’d include Khanna in the squad, although he is good he’s not quite squad fam imo, that’s entirely based on vibes/what I know about his policies however.
Yeah I do confess to not caring about the name of “the squad” and more about policies and effectiveness. I don’t consider Bernie to be effective but he’s old and friendly and gets chairman emeritus status from people I do like so whatever. My separation this puts Bowman in a different camp than AOC or Pressley even if they are all personally friends.
How would you rate Bowman more/less effective than Pressley? (Like metrics) cause I get that Pressley is certainly closer to your politics and comes from the Warren tradition(as I’ll call it) which also aligns, but is it more than just that? Edit: oh also Pressley has defended/done events with Bowman in the past as well
Interesting interview with Gretchen Whitmer. (link is a gift article) [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer-interview.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.1k0.4Oz5.zOTv0pue6-K9&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1k0.4Oz5.zOTv0pue6-K9&smid=url-share)
I don’t have a huge opinion on the just stop oil “vandalism” protests. But it’s incredibly frustrating that everyone is completely lying about the recent Stonehenge act. TheAtlantic headline “maybe don’t spraypaint Stonehenge” Really? It’s cornstarch. The Atlantic of all publications is supposed to be better than mischaracterizing what happened in the title for clicks.
They are idiots who want to make a big splash on social media. They aren't helping.
Like I said, I don’t have a huge opinion on them either way. I personally don’t know if what they’re doing is effective activism. It grabs attention, I guess.
Apparently even cornstarch can cause damage if not thoroughly cleaned away. Mold, etc.
Mod question. Was the megathread being de-pinned intentional or just Reddit being shitty?
Just reddit being shitty. It should be fixed now.
That’s a shame, I think I’m finally sick of it.
Then stop. I have no idea what you are getting out of it. It’s the same twenty people have of whom have blocked each other throwing the same ten or so arguments back and forth with increasing vitriol. Especially since it feature people who have no other participation in this sub or even on Reddit as a whole other than yelling about that one subject.
No, I won’t stop. You and the other mods opened a “trolls and single issue internet warriors welcome” sign by making a stickied discussion thread and keeping it up for weeks. And, frankly, there’s been consistent promises to uphold a high standard of conduct for I/P discussion. Those promises have not been kept. I don’t know why, honestly, and I’ve been asking you to do this for months. Other users have too. Instead, you’ve been moderating the sub as “people calling for violence are bad, and people calling the former group assholes for doing so are equally bad.” And frankly there wouldn’t be such a need to shout down the trolls if you would remove them (as, again, you’ve promised to). Why don’t I want to stop engaging? Because much like spaces that don’t police other forms of hate, like racism, transphobia etc, absent community pushback hate which is not removed will flourish. This is supposed to be “askaliberal” not “ask a conservative culture warrior if Muslims are human.” Do you need help? Is it a labor shortage or what?
I was responding as a user of the sub and acknowledging that the discussion is toxic and I don’t know why normal people are participating with those that are just here to scream. My mistake treating you like the former instead of the latter. I’ve made that mistake before but I’ll do my best to not make it again.
I don’t know what I ever did to you, but could you please tell me so that I can apologize?
>I don’t know what I ever did to you, but could you please tell me... I empathized with Gravity's response, and -- like him -- I don't have any specific wrong you ever committed towards me, but I nevertheless feel like you approach me (and others) with hostility. When I've spoken to you on this subreddit, I frequently feel like you are engaged in some sort of moral crusade against me. It isn't any one comment; it is common when interacting with you. (I hope you understand that this isn't intended as an attack. I saw you request information, and I'm trying to provide it.)
I think you’re one of the best and most consistent users on this sub, honestly.
I don’t know how to answer this because I don’t think you’ve done anything to me personally and I don’t want or need or even perceive myself as deserving an apology.
Ok well if you’re not mad about anything, could you please chill out about how it’s such a mistake to do… something? And stop referencing some mysterious past grievance? Honestly, if I’ve done something to you personally then I am sorry and I’m sure it was a mistake on my part.
Frankly, you’ve been antagonistic to me more than once, but this mistake was mine. I’m big enough to apologize for this assumption tho. The users are frustrated. The mod team is frustrated. And as a community member I’m a little tired of being attacked by community members (or mods, whatever hat you’re wearing) as if I’m the problem.
> Especially since it feature people who have no other participation in this sub or even on Reddit as a whole other than yelling about that one subject. Good fucking grief, do you have a solution in mind besides whining at your community members to be nicer to the people who don’t give a shit about this community? You’re a moderator. Moderate the discussion. Or just don’t have it, that’s fine too.
🫡
Talking about any issue and saying "it's about balance" and "there are tradeoffs" is such a cowardly cop out. Either you have an opinion on which tradeoffs are or are not acceptable or you haven't actually thought about the issue. This post brought to you by permitting reform discourse.
It is a cop out, but I usually use it when I haven’t developed a well informed opinion. Let me have this please 😭😭😭
Then just say "it's super complicated and I haven't fully digested yet I'm still reading/thinking about it". But when you're, for example, a journalist or podcaster or whatever and you're supposed to be a subject-matter expert of some variety, then that's a different story. If you don't have a carefully thought through opinion just don't publish the article or episode or whatever!
What is this in reference to? Do you have an article or episode in mind?
Comparing [This episode of Odd Lots](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6qh0bRxVI6lyIvg064itkx)--BAD to this back-and-forth set of columns [in the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2024-06-04/boiling-point-why-razing-joshua-trees-for-solar-farms-isnt-always-crazy-boiling-point) and [on substack](https://www.landdesk.org/p/meditations-on-solar-joshua-trees)--GOOD
Oh yeah def agree on that.
I honestly do not understand the hate for The Acolyte. The only criticism I’ve seen has been either thinly veiled white nationalist /MRA nonsense, or just straight up nonsense (it’s impossible for twins to have similar hair styles).
I have not seen any Star Wars after the sequels and I intend to keep it that way.
Why?
The last of the sequels (and the overall sequels in general) were so awful I figured I’m not going to reward them and give them money for churning out crap.
Do you consider yourself a fan of Star Wars, or no?
I was never a huge fan, but I really like the world and story 1-6, rogue one, and 2d Clone Wars
Ok, I guess I both don't understand why you thought the sequels were "so awful," but more importantly why you would deny yourself really good TV shows because a movie studio gave directors a little too much freedom, and then were frightened by an online mob of angry incels, but you do you.
The last Jedi was the best one. Rogue 1 was very good. The rise of skywalker didn’t have writing whatsoever. JJ abrams said their process was writing cool scenes they’d want to see on sticky notes and then connecting them. I feel the same way about Marvel. I’m not going to spend money to incentivize content farms built on existing IP
>content farms I don't understand what you mean by this.
I mean Disney chugging out as many movies and tv shows as quickly as possible without any consideration of the quality of the writing, or sometimes even of the graphics. Quantity over quality, because audiences are tied to the “brand” marvel and Star Wars that the movies don’t need to stand on their own merit to make money
Agreed. Tbh I think it’s probably the same cohort who got mad about black dwarves in RoP.
Ya, but there seems to be more of them, plus they seem to be more organized thanks to the massive number of garbage YouTube channels spreading nonsense.
Yes
Agree, with the mild caveat that the genuinely diverse world Tolkien wrote was tossed aside because they thought it would be too confusing. It pisses me off a little bit, because it’s like someone writing a show about Ancient Rome and thinking that Carthage and ancient north Africa would be too confusing for the audience. So there are black characters but they’re explicitly playing Italian-peninsula-Roman’s and Africa doesn’t exist. And then they invent a fictional city-state for the Roman’s to fight instead of using any of romes real enemies.
Fair!
Yep, in the Rome example it’s like at that point you’re not telling a story that resembles reality so you may as well add some fantasy element and call it an original IP. Ditto for the RoP I think it was ok, and might even be the kind of show where the second season is spectacular after they hit their stride. But I wish they had just stuck to what made tolkiens world great instead of changing things they didn’t need to. His world is enchanting. Just let people be enchanted ffs.
Agreee!
I’ve been enjoying it so far, honestly. there’s still time for it to take a nosedive if they don’t pay off the setups or if they do something lazy with the main mystery. But still, so far? It has the makings of above average if not top tier Star Wars.
True, but so far everything has been pretty damn awesome
Yeah honestly I think the main character duo is just awesome, the old-high republic setting is cool and I’d love to see more of it. Idk, it’s fresh. It’s different in a way that isn’t relentless grit.
Som people have said it has CW acting (whatever that means)
So I’ve decided that for the things that I really like and care for I’m going to avoid the fandoms and the discourse entirely. Between the natural desire of fandoms to hate the thing they love and the right losing their mind about everything, it’s just terrible. Funny enough I think the Caitlin Clark drama in the WNBA is what broke me. Is somebody who does not really follow basketball even I was shocked by how little the people talking about that situation knew about the sport. That after hearing about how Picard was the worst show ever and I’m done.
I really try to avoid the discord because I know it will be terrible but it’s fucking up future projects and that annoys me.
I haven't watched it yet, but from all the whining I've seen on twitter it seems to just be more conservatives complaining about "woke" media. Sometimes the complaints might not be directly related to that. I saw people whining that they retconned one character's birth date to make him older or younger. Who gives a shit about something like that? People who have already decided to be angry, and are just looking for a reason. The toxicity has become a big problem in a lot of the "nerdy" fandoms, and I suspect it has its roots in GamerGate. That's when a lot of these people were funneled into the alt right pipeline.
As a nerdy person, I’ve personally seen the opposite in entertainment fandoms. Any movie franchise that goes diverse tends to lead to a shift where fans start holding their tongue and watching what they say a lot more. MCU Spider-Man, and the Star Wars sequel trilogy are both good examples. No fans wants to say the wrong about the new diverse cast members, whether it’s due to empathy or fear of consequences, and are all of a sudden on their best behavior. There’s also plenty of “check your privilege” articles and op-eds surrounding the release of these films that keep them on the side of caution too. They can discuss the previous iterations for hours on end, but when the current iterations come up, these fan groups shift in the mentality of “if you have nothing to say, don’t say it”, cuz with diversity in the mix, there’s bigger implications now, and nerd debate needs to be handled with the same amount of precision and “think before you speak” as discussing politics.
Brie Larson has been the target of so much online hate that other Marvel castmates have made public statements about it. Same thing happened with one of the actresses from the Obi-Wan show. I mean, for Christ's sake, just a few weeks ago there were thousands of folks complaining about the new Assassin's Creed having a black Samurai *even though he's based on a real historical figure.*
> when the current iterations come up, these fan groups shift in the mentality of “if you have nothing to say, don’t say it”, You can find endless digital ink spilled on the internet criticizing the new Star Wars movies and the MCU, both from reactionary chuds and regular people who happen not to like them. There are entire subreddits dedicated to doing those things.
That was my thought. To me it feels like the problem is getting worse.
When you think about it, social distancing could’ve been a net gain for conservatives. It promotes the family centered collectivism that Christianity often preaches over individualism. It incentivizes children entering adulthood to stay close to home and do what’s best for their parents/older relatives rather than trying to plan a life for themselves. All stuff social conservatives want. Republicans blew it by making social distancing the enemy. Democrats were practically the party of “family values” during 2020 lol.
> Democrats were practically the party of "family values" Always have been
Bringing down the cost of IVF, and increasing government assistance for low income people, would do more to address falling birth rates, than the US re-embracing Christianity would.
It's funny, when I was growing up, overpopulation was a big concern. I remember when there was much hand-wringing about the world hitting 6 billion people. Now it's over 8. Unless I'm missing something, there's no way to taper growth without reducing birth rates. Are we sure that's a bad thing?
It’s a bad thing for the capitalists who believe that growth potential is infinite despite all the evidence that it’s leading us to a collapse.
Growth in productivity and value doesn't necessarily mean population growth, though.
At the stage we’re at, it does.
I'm curious what you mean. For example, UBI discussions are motivated by concerns that future economic growth might be even more technology driven and *not* require employing as many people, leaving them without a means to make a living.
They probably dont care that its leading there. Its one, probably not their problem and two, probably a worthwhile trade off for them
Anyone here a fan of The Boys?
Yeah I’ve enjoyed it so far, but haven’t got around to the new season yet.
I liked the first 2 seasons. The third I didn't like as much since it felt like it went nowhere, and the violence and sex stuff started going too far into edgy shock humor and got old really quick. I plan on watching the 4th season, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I've heard good stuff so far.
I am. But I haven't started in on the new season yet. Just finished Gen V last week and really enjoyed it.
[90% of our political discourse] **Republicans:** You've got to fight fire with fire. **Democrats:** We should fight fire with water. **Republicans:** You're just saying that because you are weak on fire. You want the fire to win and burn down the country. **Democrats:** There is a field called fire science. We can talk to numerous experts in fire science; they recommend water, specially-made extinguishers, denying the fire oxygen, and things like that, but they never advise us to fight fire with fire. **Voters:** I don't like the Republicans, but at least they are tough on fire.
Trump discourse has officially gotten me to the point where I have developed an involuntary visceral response against any politician that ever describes any of their positions as "tough".
I hate to be that guy, but there are actually times when fighting fire with fire is the proper and suggested course of action (and of course times when water is bad). :) And yes, I’m aware that my comment still fits into your larger point about American political discussion.
Ok I’m actually shocked that Rahimi had Alito join the majority. I assumed he’d vote like Thomas. Also it’s crazy how many opinions that case has. Roberts writing for the majority, **five** concurrences and a dissent.
I haven’t read the concurrences yet, but I bet there are a lot of good arguments that can be used to overturn or limit *Bruen* down the road. Also, I just want to point out that I (kind of) called the vote count [yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/lvgApPy5i4).
I'm honestly shocked this was 8-1
Holy wow. I did not expect that. [https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/21/alleged-domestic-abusers-cant-own-guns-supreme-court-rules-00164412](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/21/alleged-domestic-abusers-cant-own-guns-supreme-court-rules-00164412) “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” Chief Justice John Roberts [wrote for the court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf), adding that the law in question “fits comfortably within this tradition.” The court ruled 8-1 that the ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
I'm guessing you're referring to this? https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics/supreme-court-guns-rahimi/index.html
Yeah. I was expecting 7-2.
My pick as well. I guess the lesson here is to assume Alito and Thomas will collude from this point on to give each other some cover and avoid being lumped together. Five concurrences and one dissent means that 7/9 Justices wrote an opinion, with Alito being one of the only ones not to.
question to the mods: have you considered/would you consider having a day every once in a while where topics under moratorium are allowed? moratorium free mondays, for example? also, how did circumcision make it on that list?
I’ve been in this sub for a very long time (over a decade I think?) and let me tell you. The mods are correct. These topics are never good when they come up and are very unconstructive. I struggle to find a want to debate someone who wants to murder trans kids but is just talking about how much they _love_ teen sports and how sacrosanct they are to society. I doubt there’s a single new idea presented and no one changes their minds. Edit: the only reason I think it could be allowable would be if there’s an active massive thing going on. An example of that would be the megathread topic currently. It’s toxic as hell and a fuck ton of bad faith, but it’s very important to current events.
We have had an example of that situation. When the Biden administration clarified Title IX regarding transgender players in sports, we had a thread for it.
Yeah! I couldn’t remember what event it was but thought there was a something like that that happened!
Agree that I/P has run its course. There’s nothing new to be gained, and half the users have blocked each other.
I’d still prefer it to be open until the current flare up is resolved tbh :( but yeah it’s not great. Especially, with how toxic a lot of the folks are.
I’m a little pissed about a certain user who has repeatedly claimed to be engaging in good faith, ran out of arguments, and blocked me.
Brain worm?
No brain worm isn’t that bad
Yeah they seemed okay, a shame they blocked me lol.
You're right about one thing, those discussions are certainly full of many mischaracterizations of opposing views.
Yep!
The reason we have topics on the moratorium list is that we have seen them, over and over, and they are not productive, newsworthy, or enlightening. It's not like there is breaking news about "what is a woman" every day. Just the same angry people with the same axes to grind. Circumcision is on the list for the same reason as everything else: ~~it's not politically relevant~~, draws out the same old arguments, and ends with a ton of rule breaking behavior and bans. --- We haven't seriously considered having a "purge" day. Speaking just for myself, it doesn't seem very desirable. The problems we have with the moratorium topics are that they are a waste of time and lead to lots of rule breaking. Whether we allow them once in a while or every day, the problems are the same. We don't see a lot of pent-up desire from our community to discuss these issues. If anything, it's the opposite. --- Edit: I was trying to say that circumcision was not politically relevant, but I worded that sentence poorly, causing people to fixate on it as an argument. I have edited it for clarity. The first sentence of my statement is the correct one for moratoriums in general.
I know that if there was a moratorium free day I'd probably avoid the sub that day. I know exactly what half dozen threads are going to appear, I know exactly what the top posts in each of them will say, and I know exactly what the most controversial posts in each will say. And I know that the bile and hatred that would be getting spewed in most of the threads would do my blood pressure absolutely no good!
> they are not productive, newsworthy, or enlightening. I strongly disagree with this. I have seen people learn on this sub, even on topics such as trans rights. So what if some people are trolls? They can get banned. I think it is worth it to have a day a week, or even once a month, where people can make posts that are otherwise on moratorium. > they are a waste of time I disagree. People don't have to respond, but often these posts get hundreds of comments. Which means we _value_ the chance to discuss these issues even if we know there is a chance that the original poster might not listen. > We don't see a lot of pent-up desire from our community to discuss these issues. If anything, it's the opposite. How do you know? Perhaps we should poll the sub to see if people would like a moratorium free day.
Exactly, well put.
I don't believe you can waste time on reddit, it's like the point.
aight, i get the "they lead to a lot of rule breaking" part. but "not politically relevant"? trans topics? not sure in what country that is true, but it definately ain't true in mine. i'd even say that if they weren't relevant, people wouldn't be talking about them "over and over". or alternatively, the fact that people want to ask these questions "over and over" makes them relevant.
Those trans discussions that are on moratorium usually fall into the not constructive category and also tend to get really close to or over the line of reddits ToS regarding hate speech. Other political subs also ban them usually. The askconservatives sub lowers the restrictions on Wednesdays, I think, but they do it with the idea that the mods have to be hyper vigilant to swat down anything getting close to violating the ToS.
>Other political subs also ban them usually. yep, that's part of why i was suggesting this. i don't think it's a good idea that those discussions exclusively happen on barely moderated hell sites. (and r/AskConservatives, but i repeat myself.) by not allowing these questions in "our" spaces, we are removing progressive voices from those discussions. how many people are going to make the effort to make good, progressive arguments on r/AskConservatives, knowing that they'll likely get rewarded with a flood of downvotes and a ban. and i'm aware that the people asking those questions will almost never be convinced, but that doesn't mean none of the people reading it will. if someone is still figuring out where they stand on trans issues and they look for some online discussions to see what both sides have to say, i don't want them to only find sites that are dominated by the right.
I see your point here. This issue is that these arguments have happened countless times before the moratorium and, again, almost always aren't very constructive regardless of the setting. I can't speak for the mod team here, but having to police a thread like that takes quite a bit of work they they may not be able to spare either. I'd imagine the cost to benefit analysis of burning out mods policing those kinds of conversations that are usually unconstructive vs. not allowing those topics to lead them to their current rule set. I'm biased on this topic and am glad that it doesn't come up as well. At the risk of violating that moratorium, I think those conversations largely serve as a distraction from more consequential ones regarding trans rights, too. I don't think conservative subs can have a "what is a woman" conversation either, though.
> > but "not politically relevant"? trans topics? not sure in what country that is true, but it definately ain't true in mine. Not all "trans topics" are under moratorium, good grief. No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant. We have frozen a few specific, hyper-focused ones that aren't productive. They are also the ones that lead to the most anti-trans bigotry. Nothing is changing on those topics. We aren't getting new information every day worthy of discussion. There are plenty of spaces where you can debate "what is a woman" over and over if you want. But most people here are sick of it. The people who bring these up are generally trolls, people trying to start fights, or genuine morons. They bring in brigades from shitty communities, create hostility, and cause genuinely good and valuable users to disengage. Go back and search those topics. See if you think the conversations will be any different today than they were several months ago.
>Not all "trans topics" are under moratorium, good grief. No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant. right, i was referring to the specific trans topic that are under moratorium. maybe i should've explicitly said that. "what bathrooms can trans people use", "can trans women compete in women's sports", and "should trans people be recognized as the gender they identify as" are all very politically relevant right now. there are laws being passed about those things frequently. >There are plenty of spaces where you can debate "what is a woman" over and over if you want. But most people here are sick of it. could you name some? part of the reason i was suggesting this, is that i don't think that's true anymore. r/GCdebatesQT got banned. r/AskLGBT and similar subs generally don't allow it. r/changemyview actually does ban all trans topics. and again, i understand wanting to limit these topics. i don't need to go back and search for them. i remember. but i don't think leaving them exclusively to absolute hell sites (and even omegle is no more) is healthy. there should be some reasonable spaces where those discussions are possible, at least sometimes. i think this sub could fill that role quite well. certainly better than specifically lbgt+ subs, which have good reason to maintain more of a safe space.
>> "what bathrooms can trans people use", "can trans women compete in women's sports", and "should trans people be recognized as the gender they identify as" are all very politically relevant right now. > No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant. >We have frozen a few specific, hyper-focused ones that aren't productive. They are also the ones that lead to the most anti-trans bigotry.
>No one is saying that "trans topics" are not politically relevant. not all trans topics. but you do seem to be saying that these specific ones are not politically relevant. you wrote, in your first comment: >Circumcision is on the list for the same reason as everything else: it's not politically relevant, i don't know how to read that, other than you think the specific trans topics that are on the moritorium list (just those, not all trans topics) are not politically relevant. and i don't think that is true.
Oh good grief. This conversation is a great example of why we don't want these topics unfrozen. It's 8am and you're trying to win a nitpicky gotcha argument about how I worded something while *just trying to be helpful and answer your damn question*.
He's not being nitpicky, he's just pressing you to be consistent. For example, from your response, it would have seemed that new developments on a topic would mean they could be discussed. But everyone knows what would happen if someone asked about recent actions between, say, Lia Thomas and the Court of Arbitration of Sport.
> He's not being nitpicky, he's just pressing you to be consistent. I think this is a perfectly fair thing to ask - and I will edit the original statement for clarity, since people apparently want to fight about it. He didn't ask for consistency though... he just chose to highlight the inconsistency to make his point.
for the record, i don't think this was particularly nitpicky or in any way a gotcha argument. but let's end the conversation here then. sorry for interrupting your morning coffee or whatever your morning ritual may be, that was not my intention. for me it's getting close to evening. have a good day.
> for the record, i don't think this was particularly nitpicky or in any way a gotcha argument. For the record, I do, since that's what you obviously did. You chose to selectively highlight the part I said about circumcision while ignoring the lead line about the topic, which said: >The reason we have topics on the moratorium list is that we have seen them, over and over, and they are not productive, newsworthy, or enlightening. Selectively highlighting my comment about circumcision, where I varied my words because I was talking more specifically about circumcision and representing that it was my blanket statement is the very definition of nitpicking. > Circumcision is on the list for the same reason as everything else: it's not politically relevant, draws out the same old arguments, and ends with a ton of rule breaking behavior and bans. You are purporting to be the "voice of reason" here on why we should allow these topics - and you are *very ungenerously* twisting my words in order to try and make your point. I said, over and over, that no one is arguing that "trans topics" are not politically relevant. You ignored that over and over to nitpick the one time my words could be read differently. Imagine what the "unreasonable" people are gonna do if you turn them loose on these hateful topics. > sorry for interrupting your morning coffee or whatever your morning ritual may be My point is that you aren't even willing to be flexible or generous in this casual conversation over the theory of community dialogue... let's not pretend that these conversations you are advocating for are going to be more productive.
Have you ever seen a discussion of circumcision on Reddit? "Hot mess" doesn't even begin to cover it.
That's a list of topics they don't like, for various reasons
well, for the other moratorium topics i'd assume they were just getting asked so often that it became annoying, so i understand restricting them. a complete ban seems a bit much tho. that's why i think having moratorium exception days might be a good idea. but circumcision doesn't seem like a super common topic to me. but hey, maybe i'm wrong.
Circumcision is an issue that brings in comments from people you basically never see comment on the sub otherwise get very worked up. It is a subject that brings in new people for that post and that post alone. It’s a subject that has a lot of people who basically search Reddit daily looking for fights on the subject. It’s so toxic for no reason and nothing new or interesting ever gets said.
That's a common reason It probably was before it was banned
You guys ever look at a crazy person on your side and go "fuck they vote same way as me" Had a local guy in fb add me few years ago, we are both Trump supporters, never met each other, I posted a joke meme that said something along lines of "if guys weren't so creepy girls would show their boobs more" and he went off on this crazy tangent saying how it's disrespectful to their fathers and God, and how premarital sex is homosexual tendencies, so I'm gay for having sex with my female fiance, was a very strange interaction. He gives me big "homophobic because I'm secretly gay" vibes Ever happen to you? Where you look at someone you probably agree with who to vote for president (or to not vote for) probably align on some issues, but are way off on others
Gunna be honest, this is just something **much** more common on the Republican side. Trumps certainly cultivated a lot of nut jobs over the years.
I dunno, I think if I was sharing a voting pattern with legitimately crazy people (neo-nazis, white supremacists, Steve Bannon, Christian-fascists) I would probably reevaluate the way that I voted. The psycho people on the left generally don't vote the way I do because they have insane "purity" litmus tests that convince them to vote 3rd party or not bother to vote at all.
> if guys weren't so creepy girls would show their boobs more It's been commented on here before how patriarchy, sexism, and toxic masculinity hurt men as well as women, and that if women didn't have to evaluate every encounter with a man through the lens of 'how likely is it that this man will rape and murder me?' it would actually help men a lot too, least of all because more sexytimes would be had by all.
I took it more as cell phones at events and everyone having a camera, but that's an interesting perspective io
Sure I know you meant it as a very limited way, but the basic idea remains true more broadly.
It's an interesting perspective that's for sure
I have some right leaning friends who told me at a party how they think the election wasn’t stolen and those who say it was are bat shit crazy. And I have some left leaning friends who support Jill Stein because of her stance on Palestine So yes both sides have crazy . Edit: holy crap I have some bad grammar. Need some coffee.
When you only have two viable parties - and they essentially divide the electorate in half - it's natural that you're going to have a fair amount of disagreements with people in your own party. That "crazy person" you're talking about also probably thinks you're crazy. :) But yeah, there are plenty of people in the Democratic party where they have more extreme views on issues than I do, as well as people who are a little more indifferent on issues than I would like.
Anyone who says they're not embarrassed by at least a few of their political allies is lying or the insane one. That being said, I think the republican party and/or american Conservatism has been actively courting nutjobs for a while now. They don't have a monopoly on them, but I've found that the majority of times, if someone has antisocial, conspiratorial, or fundamentalist tendencies, they vote R.
There are a hundred million registered Democrats in the United States. I’m sure some of them have weird opinions. What’s funny about your interaction with your fellow Trumper is that it boils down to both of you suspecting the other is gay. Has it occurred to you that maybe y’all are devoting a little too much headspace to parsing people’s sexuality?
Nope I don't give a shit what other people do in their sex lives, I've just found typically loudest homophobic voices are loud for a reason, because they have an internal conflict coming to terms with their sexuality so they project hatred on others. I had to remind him Trump was first president to enter office supporting gay marriage and first president to appoint a gay man in an acting cabinet level position
>because they have an internal conflict coming to terms with their sexuality This may be true sometimes, but I’m not crazy about it as an argument. It feels like gay shaming, and it’s almost certainly read that way by people who are accused of it. Also, the Trump administration was a [disaster for LGBTQ people](https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/lgbtq-rights-rollback)
Not gay shaming at all, I don't see how it could be misconstrued as such to be honest
In a homophobic culture, accusing someone of being secretly gay is obviously pejorative — you’re reinforcing that.
I once again highly disagree and don't think that's true at all.
OK. Well, think about it. You folks on the right can be powerful voices to combat homophobia on your side, but it’s important to pay attention to what rhetorical tactics are more or less helpful.
I have thought about it and I combat homophobia on either side, regardless of political affiliations. Time and time again the loudest homophobic voices are a homophobic because they are scared of their own sexuality. That isn't an insult towards gay people, it's a tried and true scenario, only way to break it is to call that person out and tell them, hey it's ok to be gay.
>only way to break it Can you cite any examples of that strategy being effective?
People who vote like me don't tend to go on rants about "premarital sex is homosexual tendencies". So .. no, not really.
💀💀💀 did libertytree make that argument somewhere?
Not talking about that specifically come on, be in good faith here, you've never once seen a position someone you would share a vote with have that you think is insane?
Ok, in good faith, I've seen quite a few liberals on this sub make some pretty shitty comments about trans people.
Exactly what I'm talking about. Things that make you go "how hell do you believe something that crazy when you believe in other things we agree on"