The catch here is that I don’t like people who try to destroy my friends’ lives. Since the conservative platform is to destroy many of my friends’ lives, I don’t like people who follow the conservative platform. Conservatives like to treat this as bigotry when it actually isn’t. It’s intolerance of intolerance, which is not just acceptable, but necessary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![[CW: Slurs] Any attempt to connect with my dad immediately turns into "Woke liberals are ruining the world."](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/0c31dba6-f734-472c-9aab-ab90643b89a6.jpeg){kind=link}
The catch here is that I don’t like people who try to destroy my friends’ lives. Since the conservative platform is to destroy many of my friends’ lives, I don’t like people who follow the conservative platform. Conservatives like to treat this as bigotry when it actually isn’t. It’s intolerance of intolerance, which is not just acceptable, but necessary.
I’m sorry what? Can you substantiate what you said about the conservative platform?
The clear anti-LGBTQ+ conservative stance is no secret. Same with the white supremacy and Christian nationalism.
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.
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
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.
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.
I mean, just look at literally anything they’ve done in the past few decades.
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.
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.