US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 331

On September 24 2025 05:00 Luolis wrote:

The point is the obvious hypocrisy that the party that wants to eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public really loves gay sex on the down low (for more information, see the stats on red states and watching transgender porn).

On September 24 2025 04:08 Billyboy wrote:
Evangelicals and Charlie Kirk are still extremely anti gay. You're just wrong wombat, he called being gay an “error” and compared the LGBTQ pride movement with encouraging drug addicts.

Most evangelical churches teach that homosexual behavior is sinful, citing passages from Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians. They typically uphold heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable context for sex.

According to Pew Research (2023), about 29% of white evangelicals say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with around 71% of Americans overall.

On September 24 2025 06:14 oBlade wrote:

You are manufacturing the hypocrisy.
John is a Republican. He thinks gay marriage should be illegal.
Dave is a Republican also. He's gay.

Therefore Dave is a hypocrite because he believes gay marriage should be illegal but he's gay, since he and John are the same person since they're both Republicans.

I have no idea what "eliminate LGBTQ+ people from the public" is supposed to mean. The only LGBTQ+ issue the right cares about is not exposing and transitioning children, and not undoing the existence of women's sports. Those are T. They don't care about adults doing their own thing. Go slightly outside the average and you get active concerns about gay adoption/surrogacy's prevalence. Framing these as "anti-gay" would presuppose your own worldview that society is sure it can handle a certain amount of families that look a certain way without drawbacks. Society isn't sure. For the same reasons that we're suspicious of the practice of polygamy despite not "eliminating" the FLDS from the public - whatever that means.

Your new contribution is founded on yet more dated assumptions. First, that G is related to T. Second, that anybody's private sexuality should be in the public square. It shouldn't. Whether that's a pride parade, flashing tits on the White House lawn, or a Playboy Parade. States watch transgender porn? As long as it's not child porn, and as long as it's not children watching it, nobody cares. You don't care, and they don't care, but because you think they are supposed to care, you care. We may certainly care at a societal level if we end up having too many porn and tiktok addicted imbeciles to run a functioning economy.

They aren't all secretly gay homophobes. And even if they were secretly gay - who are you and what do you know? We should be accepting of gays unless they're closeted? Like a gay man who has a 30 year marriage and fathers children and raises a family doesn't count unless he votes the right way, doesn't go to church, definitely doesn't go to a memorial, but wears all that fetish crap at some parade?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people think this is not just an acceptable thing to say, but some kind of tolerant moral high ground. You need to actually open your mind and not just pretend.

Let me ask differently. You said they "really love" gay sex. Is "really" too much? How many gay Republicans is okay, and how many is too many? Is it an inverse thing? The more gay Republicans there are, the more disapproval they get from some guy in Europe? They need to all fit your stereotype, and never, ever be homosexual because that would transgress your expectations. But oh yeah the straight ones are trash anyway because they're Republicans, right Luolis? Hey, question, what do you think is worse, a gay Republican or a straight Republican?

On September 24 2025 06:59 WombaT wrote:

What’s your point?

I’m wrong because specifically white evangelicals feel a certain way, despite my post not specifically zoning in on that demographic?

Ok. Sure fucking showed me and circumvented the actual point I made. Good job there

On September 27 2025 23:26 Introvert wrote:


I will try one more time to make my point since apparently other people are also confused.

You don't have to like any of the publications I mentioned in that post however many weeks ago. Yes, NR is an self-admitted conservative opinion magazine. My problem is you seem to think, as you said above, that you are very familiar with the American right. But you clearly aren't very familiar with the American right that I am a part of. The results of the little survey oBlade did is actually not that uncommon of an occurrence.

I don't want to sound gatekeeper-ish, because plenty of conservatives don't from NR, but the point is that in most of your posts I find an arrogance and intransigence that is unearned. I've been here for years, I've quoted stuff from conservative outlets but never news (WSJ reporting is famously less Republican than the editorial page). To disagree with my ideas you don't need to start with "well he mentioned National Review once (a publication I never knew existed btw) and now I'm going to start every post about something he says by opening with that and what score it got on my scoring wrbsite." Again, not inspiring confidence that you are not the one who is in fact running the argument backwards.

+ Show Spoiler +

On September 28 2025 01:08 Introvert wrote:


I won't go too far with this because I think it’s bordering on the feedback thread or needing PMs, but you keep saying this stuff in this thread. I am only drawing these conclusions from your own words in this thread. Your claimed knowledge appears to be belied by the things you actually say. The next time I quote an argument from somewhere you are free to engage with it. In the meantime, starting almost every reply the same way is not conducive esp when it's not relevant. That's all

On September 27 2025 11:19 Introvert wrote:


Somewhat related to what you saying there is an interesting thing happening in the Republican party that it is getting less obviously religious. I think for a long time Democrats yearned for such a day,, now I wonder if they are reconsidering lol.

That aside, I think it's hard to argue against the fact that discourse has gotten worse. For the moment I will abstain from guessing *why* but I do think you are more or less correct. I didn't mean my comments in a paternalistic sense, but I think at least that the type of politicians conservatives used to vote for were less combative. Again, for the sake of discussion I am agnostic as to why this is true.

But I would add that this more aggressive tone doesn't undermine what I said. It's true, if you are left-wing nudist in Berkeley, California who only eats locally grown non-GMO vegetables, there's also a chance your social circle is more "diverse" than an 85% white evangelical town in Nowhereville, Arkansas. But if you or your kids in that small town went to college almost anywhere, if they ever turned on the news, if they ever saw a movie, if they ever read anything at all about the nation they lived in, they'd have a deeper understanding of people on the other side than the free-range Bay Area man. Because that left-wing man in one of the hearts of blue America *probably* knows far less about the tens of millions of citizens who disagree with him than the college educated evangelical Christian. Sure, the former may know lots of people, but he has a huge, huge blind spot. And it would be entirely possible to go on living that way unless he consciously chose to learn something more. It's not that people on the right can't be a-holes or close-minded. I think these are all traits that come with human.exe, no software update required. Maybe that's my conservatism talking.

So I think both sides are growing in their obvious and stated contempt for the other, but combined with what I said and Sent. so succinctly summarized before, I think (my opinion) that it's harder for people on the left to really know what people who disagree with them think. I don't mean people who come from different cultures but all moved the same place and share a kind of mixed cultural milieu, but people who honest to God disagree about some very fundamental things.

My one tiny data point I will give here is that every survey says that people on the left are more willing to cut off family members and friends over politics. At first blush that is not the most open-minded behavior lol

Social media has helped silo people with their media consumption, so maybe both sides are becoming alike, but i do think that for a long time the right had an idea, imperfectly followed, as principles often are, that accepting that people could disagree with you over VALUES was ok.

On September 28 2025 03:25 Introvert wrote:


You have started a huge percentage of your posts responding to me by pointing out the the right-wingy-ness of some of the commentary outlets I listed weeks ago. I didn't even quote from them in those posts! The basis of your critique isn't even from a passing familiarity with the subject (which, to reiterate, *you* keep bringing up), it's based on the rating of a website you trust. You have used that to downplay or attack what I'm saying before you even get to what I actually say. How is that not "arguing against the person"? When oBlade provided a contrasting view you immediately dismissed it as an anomaly. To be frank with you, what i mostly see from you is an attempt at a takedown with some stuff thrown in to make it look like it's an intellectual argument.

It's especially rediculous because when I do quote news stories for factual information, it is never from those websites, it is always from some place like WSJ, NYT, WP, LAT, and Politico. Partially that's because msny right-of-center outlets focus more on commentary than news. But also because I know what would happen were I to quote news from one of those places. I read more "facts" from outlets that are decidedly left of center than the reverse and yet here you are still going on about it. You are getting very far ahead of yourself.

On September 27 2025 15:37 Introvert wrote:


ah, I see what you are saying, I think. Is that not disagreeing more with the potential ideological underpinnings previously mentioned? I guess I would return to the (admittedly extreme) example I gave. From what I can tell, it's not that hard, just by accident of birth, to never come across very conservative viewpoints articulated well and and defended systematically. There's no guarantee of it in high school, non in college, almost none in regular print media. In popular media you might have some right-of-center ideas appear and presented perhaps sympathetically (though also often unsympathetically). If those ideas appear there one often has to wonder if it was an accident, and it's often just background or subtext. Now of course it's true that none of these things make those views right or wrong. But I don't think I'm getting too far ahead of myself in saying it's more difficult for someone on the right to avoid opinions and arguments they don't want to hear then someone on the left. Making all allowance for individual circumstances of course.