Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’
Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’
Conservatism itself is not a religion. There are plenty of conservative atheists and non-conservative religious institutions. Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
The only portion of the definition of “bigot” you care about is the portion you bolded. Which you’re using as a proxy for “people who hold political views that are rooted in bigotry.”
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots. I hope that never changes.
I have no doubt that there are some conservative atheists, but let’s not pretend that they represent anything other than an extreme minority of self-identified conservatives.
I will let Wikipedia do the talking here.
The bolded portion was the portion relevant to the conversation, and relevant to Lemmy in general. Even if what you are saying was true and that was all I cared about, it wouldn’t mean OC wasn’t being bigoted.
If Lemmy was hostile to all bigots instead of just conservative bigots, someone else would have called out OC as a bigot. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I would have upvoted then moved on.
You argue semantics a lot, huh? Got any more cherrypicked excerpts of definitions that you want to bold portions of at me?
If we are going to have a conversation can we at least try to have a little intellectual integrity?
You wanted to accuse me of having weird definitions of words. I copied the very first link from a web-search regarding those words to confirm my statements, but I am the one playing semantics games and cherry-picking?
How about you respond to the actual stances laid out since we got all our definitions in order. Or would you rather continue to throw bright colored fish across the room instead?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Advocating for mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Disagree entirely. You choose your political affiliation, and that choice says something about the person who makes it. For example, anyone who is still with the Republican party after January 6 does not consider an attempted coup to be a dealbreaker. They see people marching with swastika flags and shouting “Jews will not replace us” and don’t consider that to be a problem. They cheer when people call for the eradication of trans people.
Advocating for it is not genocide. It’s advocating for genocide. I oppose genocide.
You point to any criticism of conservatives, up to and including nazis, announce that it’s genocide, and then pretend to oppose genocide in that narrowly defined circumstance only. You would be positively delighted of conservatives’ stated goal of wiping out trans people were accomplished, for example.
You are arguing on behalf of bigots in bad faith. I have better ways to waste a Sunday evening.
Well at least we can both agree that one of us is arguing on behalf of bigots and in bad faith.
Hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend.
And we both know it’s you.