61–70 of 92 posts
>51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns. This one blows my mind. A law that punishes people if they don't use certain words? I just... I can't even... Wow.
OK. Sorry for the snark. But I find this wholly improbable.
>51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns. This one blows my mind. A law that punishes people if they don't use certain words? I just... I can't even... Wow.
I think an interesting takeaway for me is that people aren't principled. And of course it's obvious in hindsight, but the scatterbrained nature of this data puts the sheer reality of it right in your face. There's no admonishment intended, this is entirely my err. It's so easy lose touch with humanity on the Internet: discussions are formal, responses are picked apart word-by-word, contradictions are jumped on. But i…
Some people are. Not all. I'm not sure how you would differentiate that in a telephone poll.
> 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns. That is pretty absurd. > 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem. This more absurd. EDIT: maybe I got the order of absurdness wrong.
The first indicates that the government should regulate verbal speech of pronouns of its citizens, the second indicates that NFL team owners a) should have the right to terminate employees for not standing for the anthem and b) ought to do so since (assumingly) it is interpreted as being disrespectful to the dead by either themselves or the fans. The latter seems to be a controversial but sane thing to expect someone…
> 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns. That is pretty absurd. > 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem. This more absurd. EDIT: maybe I got the order of absurdness wrong.
The first indicates that the government should regulate verbal speech of pronouns of its citizens, the second indicates that NFL team owners a) should have the right to terminate employees for not standing for the anthem and b) ought to do so since (assumingly) it is interpreted as being disrespectful to the dead by either themselves or the fans. The latter seems to be a controversial but sane thing to expect someone…
Lack of education.
>51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns. This one blows my mind. A law that punishes people if they don't use certain words? I just... I can't even... Wow.
Well let's try to understand it. This view must be rooted in the idea that such people have chosen their gender, and therefore chosen their gender pronoun. To not use it then would be like refusing to call someone by their preferred name. I don't know of widespread cases where people refuse to call others by their name after a name change, but I can imagine that if I changed my name and people refused to use my new n…
They could have a protest where every person is called by their opposite pronoun just to show how it feels.
In case it's useful to anyone on HN working in/on politics, I've been with some Trump supporting and voting people lately, and my takeaways: - They hate the idea of getting in trouble for using the wrong pronouns for people. A few strongly disliked, and most somewhat disliked, having to use non-traditional pronouns at all. - They were very upset about stories of people being suspended from elementary school after usi…
It's the fact they chose, as a frontman for this body of positions, a person who's not only blatantly incompetent -- but who may very well get large numbers of us killed (for example, by unnecessarily provoking a confrontation with North Korea) and/or potentially cause extreme, irreparable damage in a whole bunch of other ways -- that's the part I don't get. Or that they can't see this basic disconnect (between the sentiment of their positions; and the reality of the end result of the course of action they advocate in response to this sentiment). When it should be blindingly obvious.
EDIT: Failed to notice that this thread represents the very essence of a "pure politics" discussion, and hence is strongly against site guidelines. Nonetheless your analysis was very succinct and thoughtful.
> 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns. That is pretty absurd. > 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem. This more absurd. EDIT: maybe I got the order of absurdness wrong.
The first indicates that the government should regulate verbal speech of pronouns of its citizens, the second indicates that NFL team owners a) should have the right to terminate employees for not standing for the anthem and b) ought to do so since (assumingly) it is interpreted as being disrespectful to the dead by either themselves or the fans. The latter seems to be a controversial but sane thing to expect someone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say "America has fallen into," it makes it sound like you believe that this is specific to America, and recent. Was there some historic golden-age that I'm unaware of when people didn't get emotional over political views? (consider the duel of our founding fathers)
I think there was, and it was pre-1990s. Something flipped after that. I feel like before the 90s, there was disagreement, but it didn't take on the extreme, vengeful tactics that it has today. This may be a result of the internet, or the 24hr news cycle, I honestly don't know. But something has changed. There's been a ratcheting up of attempts to silence dissent, and aggressively punish someone for disagreeing.