NSFW’d for language.

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The clear anti-LGBTQ+ conservative stance is no secret. Same with the white supremacy and Christian nationalism.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        The claim is that the platform is based on wanting to destroy lives. Are you saying that the “clear” anti-LGBTQ+ stance is such that they are seeking to destroy the lives of those people?

        I’ve never once heard anyone on the right declare a desire to destroy anyone’s lives. I’m open to being proven wrong, but that would require a link to such a declaration.

        • EvilBit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This feels like a bad faith hair-splitting argument. But just in case you’re not being deliberately obtuse, the conservative platform views LGBTQ+ rights, minority voting rights, women’s bodily rights, and many other important matters of human freedom and livelihood as invalid. Just because they don’t explicitly say “our platform is specifically to maliciously destroy the lives of these people”, doesn’t mean the de facto platform is not destructive of those lives.

          Edit: Freudian typo hate->hair

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            the conservative platform views LGBTQ+ rights, minority voting rights, women’s bodily rights, and many other important matters of human freedom and livelihood as invalid

            Yes, I’m very familiar with this image of conservatives.

            The difference is I’m asking you to link to a conservative individual or organization taking this stance.

            What you consider “bad faith” is me issuing a challenge that I don’t think you’re going to be able to meet. It’s a rhetorical method where you’re supposed to try and then realize you can’t, and then have the presence of mind to realize that it’s significant that you can’t find this thing you claim exists.

            • EvilBit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you fucking kidding me? It took all of two seconds to find a catalog of the conservative scion himself actively stripping LGBTQ+ rights: https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/lgbtq-rights-rollback

              Unless for some reason the only valid rhetorical claim is for there to be a recognized conservative leadership organization explicitly codifying in its charter that trans people should die, you’re wasting my time with your willful ignorance.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also just like more generally if you take “conservative” to mean “keep things the way they are” and accept the way things are is pretty bad for a lot of people, it becomes difficult to ethically support a conservative stance.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That probably works well for convincing people who already agree with you.

        When someone claims “A” and I say “I’m skeptical of this A”, a rejoinder like “Well A is obvious if you look at things” isn’t very convincing.