politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
just my 2c...
conservatives require hierarchy to exist. they believe it always did, does, and always will exists - that achieving any kind of equality on a large scale is a pipe dream and unnatural and impossible or even evil to strive for, because it necessitates "knocking them down" to do it. so, their focus is to ensure that they are not currently on the bottom of this hierarchy (fortunately, there's always someone to put beneath them) and to ensure that the bottom does not "rise past them" to leave them at the bottom (as anything promising equality may do). they rally around loud personalities that project power and control (even if it's not true) because just as there must be those beneath them, there must be those above them as well - they pick superiors that are the most personally relatable to them (in an arbitrary, per-person manner) so they can feel they are higher in the hierarchy than they are. after all, if you're just like this person who is obviously high on the ladder of society, you must be pretty well-off too, right? is this why the people they pick tend to be bigoted, unintelligent, and cruel? maybe.
the reason it's always someone else's problem is that the problem (in their mind) is that the people beneath them (their "lessers") are acting as though they're on a level of the social hierarchy that they don't belong. therefore, all social problems clearly have an obvious clause: "if only everyone else would just know their place under us, we wouldn't be having these conflicts." - it can't be them that's the problem, because that would imply there's some kind of issue that may suggest they're not as high up on the social ladder as they thought. gay/trans/brown/etc people want to be recognized as equals? it dilutes their position on the ladder. they would claw past others in this imaginary hierarchy by any means necessary, so of course they assume the "others" will too. no, it's an attack on them, they have to strike back!
gay nightclub shootings and anti-lgbt violence? "maybe they shouldn't have called attention to themselves as they tried to push us down the social hierarchy" someone (anyone) threatens violence upon them? "intolerable. inexcusable. they need to learn their place beneath us"
why do so many of them hate being called cis? because being labelled cis puts them at the same level as a trans person, who they believe is automatically beneath them by virtue of not being exactly like them. it is an attack on them, because they are not considered the normal, the default, as they believe they are. an identifier implies that differentiation between the conservative and the trans person is required, which implies it's not clear to everyone that they are inherently superior to the trans person. you may as well call them "poor powerless worthless scum who deserves to be exploited and abused" in their eyes.
it's maddeningly difficult to convince a hierarchy-addict that it's a delusion.
it makes being a politician for them pretty easy, too. just be relatable to the average self-absorbed person, and claim to do what's needed to put the inferior scum back below your voters where they belong so they can rise up to be superior once more. no surprise this interlaces very well with fascist and racial supremacist ideologies.