54
Conservatives Are Running Out of Things to Eat
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
54 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
82 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Farms tend to be rural... Rural communities tend to be conservative. How are "Conservatives" going to run out of things to eat when they literally grow food?
The hell is this article supposing? That Tony the Tiger owns all food? This type of editorialization is stupid. Who cares that ANYBODY boycotted what amount to sugar soup?
Its not literal. Its just poking fun at the fact that culture-war-conservatives are boycotting more and more things for dumb reasons
So boycotting (and suing) cake shops for not making gay marriage cakes... this is any different how?
You can't shit on the other side for something yours is doing too and act holier than thou.
All this serves is to antagonize them and divides everyone more... And makes people like me hate both of your parties.
Every day my Polish Citizenship looks better. Everyone looks more childish every day in this country.
If I discriminate at work, I'll get fired. If I don't discriminate at work, I won't get fired. This is not a double-standard. It's THE standard. Pretending otherwise just emboldens discrimination.
the key difference is it's good for people who refuse to respect basic human rights to be boycotted and socially ostracized for doing so. conservatives, meanwhile, pretty much exclusively do boycotts because they're mad they can't restrict other people's human rights
You're attempting to restrict the rights for an artist to choose their art... Somehow that's different? That's very delusional thinking. It is literally the same thing. You're just treating it special because you happen to agree with one and not the other, so you're refusing to look at it from a neutral standpoint.
If the left can boycott a cake shop for not wanting to generate art that has certain motifs, then the right 100% should be able to boycott companies for depictions that also have certain motifs.
This is literally equivalent. And if you're mad about the right treating you like shit because you harbor the former belief then you shouldn't be the people push the latter problem on others.
If you have to resort calling the other side "nazi" because you have no other point... You make yourself look pretty foolish.
It doesn't matter the ideology if you both act the same exact way.
edit: It's actually disappointing that a moderator acts like this. Strawmanning my statement... talking down to fellow federation members... participating in bad faith arguments.
Do you really think that's what the article was saying? Their boycotting farms? I guess you also think they are boycotting ranches, and fisheries too? Or many... just maybe... the author was using something so common we have name for it? Hyperbole
You may want to read my post again.
Boycotting sugar soup is not "running out of things to eat".
Nowhere did I say that they're boycotting farms. Wouldn't make sense since I asserted that they run most rural farms.