New polling shows national Republicans and Iowa Republican caucusgoers were more interested in “law and order” than battling “woke” schools, media and corporations.
It would be nice if my country could have two functional political parties. Right now we have one that thinks if it does something once a decade it is too radical and the other is eating horse dewormer.
We have a conservative party and a proto-fascist party.
The vast majority of Americans are neither.
Edit: probably not vast, but an easy majority
Nah, look at the numbers. Three quarters support for single payer.
Hell, when you explain “defund the police” it has overwhelming majority support even by conservatives.
Vast majority are very liberal, just too busy being buried by capitalism to vote.
I feel like a lot of progressive ideals lately are simply plagued but godawful marketing.
Great ideas that are given a verbal shorthand that is confusing, misleading, needlessly polarizing, easily demonized, or all of the above.
Pride, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Defund the Police, Woke, Antiwork, and lots lots more…
How is anti-fascism bad marketing?
Anti-fascism is not. But how many rank-and-file Republicans even know that’s what Antifa stands for? All they know is they’re evil violent rioters because Fox News or Newsmax or whoever says so.
I don’t see how that’s a result of bad marketing, though, just the right’s usual usual brainwashing to make people react negatively to a word, just like they did with CRT, woke, etc. If they can do it to a word like “welfare” that’s literally one of the first words in the Constitution, they can do it to anything.
The sad fact is that any words we choose are vulnerable to being poisoned and turned against us. Some words and phrases are a lot more vulnerable than others (like “defund the police”), but it can happen to any words.
It’s easily demonized.
You save one syllable, and in exchange you get a term that most conservative media consumers have never heard and have no idea what it stands for or means. Bonus points in this case because it sounds vaguely “foreign”, maybe even middle eastern.
This gives the opposition a lay up opportunity to show armed/active individuals and label them as “antifa”, and since they’re opposed to the Kool-Aid the conservative media machine is selling, it’s a trivial matter for them to set up their viewers/listeners to make the connections from “strange term they’re not familiar with” to “violent terrorists who oppose all that is right and good with America”.
The shortening simply gives the talking heads on the right an opening to add their misdirection to the conversation in a way that will resound with their base.
There are conservatives arguing that Antifa stands for Anti- First Amendment (anti-f-a), but a vast majority think it’s a new word with an ambiguous meaning.
Most people would agree to anti-facist ideas. The same people polled on Antifa would say otherwise.
Neither of those things are liberal. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
This made me actually lol. Beautifully said
I think it would be nice if more moderates from each party were more prominent. Right now we really have mostly very right leaning republicans and very left leaning democrats pushing legislature, making news headlines etc.
very left leaning democrats
Where? The democrats would be center right in any other western country. So who are these very left leaning democrats you fear? Bernie is as left as they come in America and he’s barely left leaning.
I never said nor do I fear either side of this coin. I was just pointing out what it seems like the problem is to me.
I would genuinely like to learn about how America compares to another western country. What policies make other countries much more left leaning?
I wish we had “very left leaning Democrats.” We have corporatists.
Idk, from a global prospective the American “left” are center or slightly right and continue to shift rightward over time.
very left democrats made me lol
I would like to see people running for positions in government actually interested in government. The vast majority of running stuff is just running stuff. Taxes get collected, bills get paid, vacant positions filled, roads get built or repaired, cops don’t murder unarmed minorities, and if you have time you get to fix maybe one big problem. It isnt romantic, you don’t get interviewed by some talking head, or sued, or boycotted, it is just making sure that things basically work.
And I am not seeing that. I am seeing one party terrified of doing anything and another that pushes in some very radical position that causes devastation.
Recoiling in horror does not count as left leaning.
where are these left leaning democrats? at worse we have bernie and aoc who thinks people who work 40+ hours a week shouldnt be impoverished and that everyone deserves healthcare.
What moderate Republicans? The few that didn’t gleefully embrace fascism (e.g. Liz Cheney) have been run out of the party. And even the left fringe of the Republican party is awful.
Removed by mod
Ah yes, “very left” ideas like drone strikes, breaking strikes, and corporate welfare
Not entirely sure why all the downvotes were necessary but I guess this is just like Reddit. I was just commenting on what the issue seems like to me. I’m happy to hear differing opinions but “lol @ very left leaning” comments and downvotes are hardly constructive.
Two sides of the same coin, honestly.
Anti-“woke” means refusing to acknowledge the presence of systematic injustice.
“Law & Order” is the dogwhistle for cranking up the tangible effects of systematic injustice.
“Law & Order” = Straight Fascism, No Chaser
“Law & order” has always been code for putting [whatever marginalized group you don’t like] in jail.
What would be fucking grand is if they tired of voting.
I’m hoping at least a significant number have since Trump has spent years now telling them that their votes didn’t count anyway.
I’d be fine if they just would get over their lying, grifting, shit-slinging “leaders.” Of course, while I’d like if there were “legitimate” conservative candidates, the truth is that I don’t know what that would even look like. Eisenhower?
Yes, DeSantis schtick is getting old. It’s not a real policy. Most people don’t even have a clear view of what woke is even supposed to mean.
Even Trump doesn’t care for it.
“I don’t like the term ‘woke’ because I hear ‘woke woke woke.’ It’s just a term they use, half the people can’t even define it, they don’t know what it is,” Donald Trump
When Donald Trump is the voice of treason, you know shit’s gone way off the rails.
… voice of treason…
Can’t tell if typo or autocorrect.
Typo, but I’m not gonna fix it.
He went on to complain about woke shit at his very next speaking event. Don’t give him even that much credit
He just doesn’t like the word “woke” because he didn’t make it up
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And given a choice, republicans will still take that broken clock because being able to tell time makes the libs happy
You mean some of them are starting to remember that people are just free to have their own opinions on things? Who could have seen it coming…
Problem with the outrage/fear machine is its not sustainable. The brain gets tired of it eventually, particularly when there’s some cognitive dissonance down there somewhere.
Can you get tired of something you don’t under and can’t define, even though for it’s pretty easy to understand and define for a normal person?
They’re just getting tried of hearing DeSantis say it 800 times a minute. And he can’t even define it.
Can you define Assault Weapon?
That is such a stupid whatabout. Even if you can’t get a universal definition for “assault weapon” you can at least get as far as “rifle that kills people.” With “woke” we have… “this offends me or makes me feel icky.”
Any rifle can kill people.
Are you suggesting that when people talk about restrictions on assault rifles that the restrictions should apply to all rifles, and that the term “assault” is completely superfluous?
Not trying to be antagonistic, but when you start talking about restrictions and regulations, definitions matter.
And having a discussion about terms you can’t, or aren’t willing to clarify and be specific about seems like a bad faith position. Or at least an indefensible one. Like saying we should lock up “bad people” but refusing to get specific on what constitutes “bad”.
Unfortunately, “assault rifle” is a term without a specific, clear definition, so when people suggest it as a distinction between weapons they want to regulate/outlaw/criminalize and weapons they don’t… it’s only natural that the next logical question is for a concrete definition, if only to establish a starting point for a reasonable discussion and establishing common ground.
Getting frustrated at someone for asking for clarification of a term being invoked as a key determining factor of a proposed law just makes it that much harder to have a conversation about it.
What are you even talking about? I’m talking about the fact that there’s a clearer definition for ‘assault rifle’ than there is for ‘woke.’ You know, the subject of this thread?
Except that despite your belief, if anything, your lack of ability/willingness to actually clearly and unambiguously define “assault rifle” indicates the opposite of your assertion.
The people who use the term “assault rifle” are unanimously using it to mean a gun that can shoot more people than you’d be able to with a hunting rifle, handgun, or shotgun in a short span of time
That’s specifically what they’re against
“Woke” is a grab bag of personal grievances that is meaningless other than the only universal common thread being “democrats are for it”
Sure, I’ll do that as soon as you unambiguously define ‘woke’ as Conservatives use it. Good luck with that one.
I never claimed to try to.
I’m not defending conservatives here, no matter how much you may think otherwise; just pointing out that this assault rifle comparison is equally ambiguous and nonsensical.
That is such a stupid whatabout. Even if you can’t get a universal definition
I thought we were talking about defining terms? How is asking to define a term whataboutism?
you can at least get as far as “rifle that kills people.”
Any rifle that’s ever killed an individual is an assault weapon? That’s why non-crazies think the push against AW’s are stupid, because you just say dumb shit like that
Any rifle that’s ever killed an individual is an assault weapon?
I never even implied such a thing. You are being highly disingenuous by saying so. The suggestion was that it was a subset of rifle, which is more definition than you can give for “woke.”
Even if you can’t get a universal definition for “assault weapon” you can at least get as far as “rifle that kills people.”
Was this what you said?
Oh for fuck’s sake, I apparently left out an indefinite article. “A rifle that kills people.” Happy?
If my .22 kills someone, should every .22 be considered an assault rifle?
You aren’t clarifying anything. If you have an argument state it, stop pussy footing around.
And for your precise needs…
From the American Heritage Dictionary :
-
Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.
-
A military style automatic rifle or carbine that fires a shortened rifle caliber round or lower power smaller calibre round larger than pistol ammunition from a high capacity magazine.
From the Meriam Webster Dictionary
- any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
Does that work for you?
Those three definitions indicate very different specific firearms though, and all three have significant gray areas that are left open to interpretation.
Not that that’s a failing of the definitions, or even of the term…but it’s definitely worth noting within the context of a discussion about potential laws using the terms in question as a defining, delineating qualifier.
There’s also the very eyebrow raising last part of that last definition. Basically defining a weapon not by its function or capability but based on aesthetic qualities alone.
Again, if that’s the definition everyone agrees upon, fine, whatever… but the narrower the definition, the easier it’ll be to get buy in but the fewer weapons it’ll affect…whereas a broad definition might cover a lot more firearms but then you’re going to have a lot of objections to any legislation based on the increasing number of edge cases where a law impacts a firearm that it probably shouldn’t.
…of course this is all hypothetical, and it all exists in the no man’s land between the real gun control ideal scenario of simply outlawing all guns and requiring everyone to turn in all guns they own and totally disarming the population…and the hard-line 2A advocates who feel that 2A is the only gun law that should exist, and rather than restricting weapon ownership, laws should instead focus on the illegal acts done with the guns rather than the guns themselves.
I really don’t understand why we can’t just say, things that are legal today are grandfathered in and tomorrow, X, Y, Z are what the law is going forward.
We do this with laws all of the time, changing statute of limitations on crimes… heck, a ton of companies grandfather in pricing or services for folks. It’s not a new concept.
Why is it always, ‘the horse got out of the barn, so we can’t try to ever keep horses in the barn because the first horses got out already.’
Sure! So as long as the manufacture says ‘not designed for combat’ it’s not an assault rifle, right??
-
Classic whataboutism
A powerful rifle with high ammo capacity.
With many/most modern rifles available with a detachable magazine, ammo capacity isn’t a property directly linked to the weapon itself in any sort of concrete way. So with that caveat, how would you propose classifying weapons based on that property when it isn’t intrinsically linked to the weapon?
Further, how would you define “powerful”?
Even a small caliber like a 22 is perfectly capable of killing. A 9mm is a fairly low power round and is likely one of the rounds responsible for more human deaths than any other in criminal killings thanks to its widespread popularity. On the other hand, most big game hunting calibers are far more powerful than the rounds most associated with gun violence.
I’m not against addressing gun violence, and in fact I feel it’s an area in urgent need of attention…
…but as a gun owner and shooting sports enthusiast who is familiar with guns, it’s an area where I feel both sides of the issue argue past one another, one side with their blinders up based on dogma and partisan vitriol underlying their position…and the other side just as partisan…and wanting to make a bunch of laws with little understanding of the subject matter and no regard for any of the potential impacts of their proposed legislation.
I regularly get into debates with my (overwhelmingly liberal) friend group on this subject and I try to stay calm, rational, and open minded to show I’m not just coming from the standard position on the right of “don’t do anything about gun violence, end of story”…so my position is basically: I’m willing to consider any proposed legislation that fulfills three criteria… First, the proposed law must not create a precedent of infringing on constitutional rights without due process… Second, the proposed legislation must not make a criminal out of anyone who’s currently a law abiding individual in compliance with all laws, who does nothing differently after the law passes…and third, the proposed legislation must be such that it could have been reasonably been expected to significantly reduce or eliminate recent acts of gun violence had it been in effect previously.
If you can come up with a law that checks all those boxes, by all means, I’m interested!
But too often, the laws I hear discussed fail to fall into line with all of those conditions…and other than loophole-closing and background check laws, I have yet to hear any sort of a ban suggestion that does all three.
the proposed legislation must not make a criminal out of anyone who’s currently a law abiding individual in compliance with all laws, who does nothing differently after the law passes
Wouldn’t any new law about firearm sale, ownership, or use do this by definition? If it doesn’t change any legal things into illegal things, it isn’t doing anything at all. What kind of law can you imagine that would pass this part of your test?
Not necessarily.
But even if that were the case, just make it non-retroactive.
Other conditions aside for a moment, let’s say you want to ban all guns with polymer frames.
You could fulfill that specific condition with the provision that all poly frames currently out there are legal to own, use, and sell, but no more retail sales from manufacturers will be permitted.
Again, this is a nonsense hypothetical that wouldn’t make sense (then again lots of actual proposals aren’t much more realistic), but such a provision would ensure that everyone out there who’s already bought one of these guns wouldn’t be in a situation where they need to surrender or register their legal purchase now that it’s been illegal, or risk felony charges because they didn’t do so.
More to the point, many of these laws seem designed to create criminals where no criminals currently exist, as opposed to preventing crimes from happening.
It’s like trying to cut down on petty theft by requiring everyone to register all belongings, and then inspecting people’s homes and charging them with theft for everything in their home they didn’t register…then pointing to all those arrests as proof of the law’s success.
Not just the two sides are arguing past each other, they are arguing from wildly different viewpoints. So many urban and suburbanites argue very heavily for gun legislation and much more rural people argue against it. One side view guns solely as a weapon used against people and the other as a tool to hunt, kill nuisance animals on farmland, or protect crops/livestock.
The first isn’t familiar with firearms and frequently don’t want to get into the minutia because of their viewpoint as guns being solely weapons.
I’m all for reasonable gun laws, but I believe there are more important underlying issues that lead to many of these mass shootings that we as a society can address. The gun is a tool used because it is easy to get and use. But if we placed restrictions that made it harder other tools would be used to carry out the mayhem and destruction these people strive for.
Maybe it’s naive and idealistic to think we can address the societal issues that lead people to committing these atrocities rather than just make it harder for them to get the tool they use.
The AR-15 is fairly weak as rifles go so I guess it doesn’t count?
The AR in AR-15 doesn’t mean assault rifle.
I know. That wasn’t the point of my comment.
whats powerful? Whats high capacity?
Don’t JAQ off in public.
Is it jaquing off if it’s just asking the first obvious question the gun nuts would say?
Arguments need to stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Not even just “gun nuts”.
This is the most basic, logical, obvious question that would be asked, and would need to be addressed, in any hypothetical where such a potential law is being discussed.
Essentially, invoking such a term while being unwilling/unable to objectively and clearly define it suggests dishonesty/deception in the argument. Not that these negative qualities necessarily exist, but it’s perfectly reasonable to be frustrated in a discussion where party A uses a term, party B asks for a clarification/definition, and party A responds to that with a refusal to do so and a personal attack.
Perfectly valid questions that have clearly made some folks here uncomfortable.
There’s lots of these feel good terms thrown around when discussing gun policy that so many of those who use them can’t seem to (or aren’t willing to) clarify.
But whatabout what your mom does, down by the docks at night?
A semiautomatic or fully automatic rifle; machine gun; or weapon that fires a propelled explosive ordnance.
Hate, anger and the church pulpit are the main things that drive a right wing voter.
The word may change, as it has many times in the past, but the emotion behind it will never be abandoned.
Yeah, there’s absolutely nothing new about the war on “wokeness”, they just swap out the names every now and then
The PC Mob
The radical left
Antifa
SJWs
Socialists
Communists
They all mean the same thing in this context, but they know that people tire of specifics quickly, so they keep changing labels. I guess this study means that they’ll likely pick a new word for the boogeyman soon
It’s not even the church pulpit. It’s whatever shit they’re spewing on YouTube, newsmax, OAN, truth social, etc.
Some “church” pulpits are helping spew that stuff, too. (Not all churches, and I’d go so far as to say not real churches. Political campaign theaters masquerading as religious institutions.)
For Republican candidates, no word has hijacked political discourse quite like “woke,” a term few can define but many have used to capture what they see as left-wing views on race, gender and sexuality that have strayed far beyond the norms of American society.
Easy to define:
Taryn Fenske, DeSantis’ Communications Director said “woke” was a “slang term for activism…progressive activism” and a general belief in systemic injustices in the country.
https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2022/12/desantis-ron-woke-florida-officials/
Believe that there is inequality? You’re part of the woke mob burning down cities and eating soup or whatever.
I don’t know, I’d say the term ‘racism’ (another word with multiple conflicting definitions) has hijacked political discourse more than ‘woke’.
I’m pretty sure the hijacking that the term racism has been through is the reason woke is used so much. Cause when you’re woke you think everything’s racism
They’re tired of the current entry on the “then they came for” list.
They want to move on to the next largest minority group they can demonize.
Never lose sight of the fact that you’re supposed to direct your politicians to fight for your issues, and not the other way around.
They’ve run out of trigger words and myopic symbolism.
I don’t think they’re actually beginning to care about other people’s opinions and beliefs, I think, I PRAY, they’ve begun to realize that campaigning on the idea you’re going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on enforcing their beliefs isn’t what you pay taxes for.
I beg of them to realize exactly how much these republican bastards waste their OWN money on useless crap instead of the schools, infestructure, and societal improvements they’re meant to be spent on.
Hell, I know I am…
Wokeness has been made into a bigger issue than needed.
never forget whose making it such a big issue.
The only way you could think it’s an issue at all is if you have no idea what the word means.
Probably, that’s why we’ll see another simple word that the mouth breathers can say like a magic spell. A spell that will make all the smarter people that constantly tell them they are wrong go away
