Chit-Chat: The Feels

[fastiller]

1 hour ago, tearknee said:

CBS Sunday Morning ran a story in its latest episode, concerning how parents of school shooting victims deal with the tragedy. The story followed photographer Lou Bopp, as he traveled from home to home, photographing the child victim's bedroom. Many of the parents keep the room as their child left it before going to what would be their last day. Beds unmade; toys scattered all over the room. The parents would never touch anything, even letting dust accumulate. That story made me think about one thing. How many of those parents voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election? Particularly with his "Smithers" J.D. Vance's attitude of "Get Over It" in regard to school shootings. I would hope that none of them did.

I get how photo like these would be touching & powerful.  I think they need to start publishing photos of the schoolrooms & hallways immediately after the shootings.  Or those of the ER where the victims are brought.  Maybe that'll tip the needle for some people. 

Edited Monday at 11:43 PM by fastiller

[peacheslatour]

9 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

All the money in the world and this is what they eat.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't make it to the end of his term. Because he dies or for other reasons.  He was always a means to an end whether he knows it or not.  

I wish we had a puke emoji.

Edited Monday at 11:44 PM by peacheslatour

[Annber03]

9 minutes ago, fastiller said:

I get how photo like these would be touching & powerful.  I think they need to start publishing photos of the schoolrooms & hallways immediately after the shootings.  Or those of the ER where the victims are brought.  Maybe that'll tip the needle for some people. 

In my ideal world scenario, if such a thing were possible, I would make it so that the politicians who refuse to support any sort of gun control and continue to donate to the NRA would be required to go to the sites of all these mass shootings. Let them be involved in or witness to the first responders pulling out the the bodies of the victims. Then I'd also make them go to the morgues and observe the autopsies, and require them to pay for the funerals for those who died and the medical bills for those who were injured. 

Not because I think it would magically change their minds, 'cause if a politician sees a mass shooting on the news and STILL refuses to do anything to try and stop it, it's clearly because they have no interest in doing so.

No, I'd just make them do that because if everyone else has to suffer and struggle in the wake of a mass shooting, it needs to impact the politicians, too. Once it starts to affect them on a financial level, then maybe that'll be enough to make them do something to stop this. 

[Ohiopirate02]

I will give RFK, Jr. credit for making it off that plane without punching Elon or Junior. Both of them have extremely punchable faces not to mention their personalities. And to me at least, the Kennedy family has always given off the vibes of a family where boys and men settling things outside was permitted. That tends to go hand in hand with letting boys be boys.

[Browncoat]

45 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I wish we had a puke emoji.

Here ya go:  🤮

[Avaleigh]

59 minutes ago, fastiller said:

I get how photo like these would be touching & powerful.  I think they need to start publishing photos of the schoolrooms & hallways immediately after the shootings.  Or those of the ER where the victims are brought.  Maybe that'll tip the needle for some people. 

Unfortunately, the gun fanatics can't be reasoned with. You can show them dozens of kids and their response is to have armed security at schools. There's no reasoning with people who think more guns is the answer to this problem. 

Sandy Hook was proof to me that we'll never see meaningful change when it comes gun control. If that doesn't get people to wakeTF up, what will?

[Lantern7]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't make it to the end of his term. Because he dies or for other reasons.  He was always a means to an end whether he knows it or not.  

That is what I think. I'd say how I figure things will shake out, but I do not wish to cross any lines here.

[fastiller]

@Avaleigh - of course you're right.  

[Bastet]

2 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

Sandy Hook was proof to me that we'll never see meaningful change when it comes gun control. If that doesn't get people to wakeTF up, what will?

Same here -- once it happened to six-year-olds and still nothing, I knew nothing would ever be horrible enough to motivate Congress to stand up to the NRA. 

[bluegirl147]

8 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Same here -- once it happened to six-year-olds and still nothing, I knew nothing would ever be horrible enough to motivate Congress to stand up to the NRA. 

The fact so many people thought that horrible thing didn't happen and was just a ruse for confiscating people's guns told me we were never going to have meaningful gun control.  How do convince people who believe an entire town faked young children's deaths that we need stronger gun laws?  Forget lack of empathy those people have lack of brain cells.

[Browncoat]

17 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

There's no reasoning with people who think more guns is the answer to this problem. 

Or who think there is no problem because they believe these shootings never actually happened.  That they were all staged with actors.  Alex Jones did immeasurable damage with his lies.

[JustHereForFood]

9 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Pretty much. They appeased him and kept trying too long after the invaded Poland. The other countries pretty much when like this; the Dutch well they invaded Poland and Belgium but they won't invade us because we're neutral. Denmark-they invaded Poland but we'll declare neutral. Norway-well they invaded Poland and Denmark but they won't invade us because we're neutral. It's really not that different from now Russia has never stopped. They maded it all the way to Berlin in WW2 and kept all the land they took. Putin invaded Crimea, nothing happened. No one did anything. So of course he invaded Ukraine. You have people saying let him have parts of Ukraine or all of it. As if that's going to end things. Ah, no Putin will invade another country and another until he's stopped. That's how Putin works. That's how Russia rolls.

 

Thank you, andromeda! That's what I keep saying, it's exactly the same pattern as back then. I'm sure I'm probably already annoying with mentioning it, but I'm just so tired of seeing history repeat itself, step, after step, after step. Especially with the past being still pretty much within living memory. And I'm worried how much worse it can get with that idiot in charge of the most powerful country in the world, when he seems to be deciding foreign policy based on how well he sleeps that night. I was just listening to some interviews with political analysts and the moderator tried to joke that with Trump being so unpredictable, he might do something good or clever when we don't expect it ... none of the guests laughed.

[Lantern7]

11 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The fact so many people thought that horrible thing didn't happen and was just a ruse for confiscating people's guns told me we were never going to have meaningful gun control.  How do convince people who believe an entire town faked young children's deaths that we need stronger gun laws?  Forget lack of empathy those people have lack of brain cells.

It defies logic. What, did a family of actors move into town, embed themselves there for years, wait for a notice that a "gunman" would come to the school, and their "kid" would fake a death? And this happened many times over? It's like a litmus test for stupidity.

In case you didn't hear, Sean Duffy has been tapped to head Transportation. Yes, he was on The Real World and two seasons on what would be known as The Challenge, but I don't consider him a "reality star." I think he's best known as a Congressman from Wisconsin and from impregnanting his wife many times over.

[Avaleigh]

10 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Or who think there is no problem because they believe these shootings never actually happened.  That they were all staged with actors.  Alex Jones did immeasurable damage with his lies.

I was hesitant to mention this being a factor too but...yeah. This goes back to my earlier post about the damage Trump did with "fake news". Now people are just picking and choosing what news they want to believe is true. 

With people who are anti gun control, my guess is they're especially susceptible to "alternative facts" because they need to make themselves feel better. Their position isn't just unreasonable. It's actively harmful and thousands and thousands of people are unecessarily dead because of the power of the gun lobby along with the people and politicians who support those policies. They have blood on their hands and they want to be in denial about it. They hide behind stupid slogans like 'guns don't kill people' and want to act like they care about mental health (all while not supporting universal healthcare), but refuse to do anything real about the gun laws that have destroyed so many families. 

It makes me sick. 

[Annber03]

24 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Or who think there is no problem because they believe these shootings never actually happened.  That they were all staged with actors.  Alex Jones did immeasurable damage with his lies.

I truly, genuinely, do not understand, and never will understand, how the hell one gets to a place where they think that kind of bullshit makes any kind of sense or is something worth spouting publcly. That is a level of cruelty and depravity I can't even begin to imagine. 

And the morons who believe this shit, and the people who care mroe about protecting their guns than anything else, have the nerve to turn around and harp on about being "pro-life". If the so-called "pro-lifers" spent as much time protesting outside the NRA offices as they did abortion clinics, maybe I'd buy that they actually gave a shit about protecting people's lives. 

People want to insist women keep having babies? Then they need to make sure we can take care of the children we already have here first, and ensure they have a safe and stable future ahead of them. Until then, they can shove off. 

[bluegirl147]

I had former coworker who was a single issue voter.   Guns.  It was all he cared about.  He was one of those people who literally said his right to bear arms supercedes anyone else's right to you know not be shot.  You can't reason with people like that.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

14 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

 

In case you didn't hear, Sean Duffy has been tapped to head Transportation. Yes, he was on The Real World and two seasons on what would be known as The Challenge, but I don't consider him a "reality star." I think he's best known as a Congressman from Wisconsin and from impregnanting his wife many times over.

I don't really remember Sean from his time on The Real World, but I do remember his wife and her season. She was on the San Francisco season with Pedro and Puck as the barely legal ingenue. I disliked her back then.

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

I had former coworker who was a single issue voter.   Guns.  It was all he cared about.  He was one of those people who literally said his right to bear arms supercedes anyone else's right to you know not be shot.  You can't reason with people like that.

 

It's going to be interesting if the second Trump term goes full authoritarian because that kind of leadership does not allow for widespread gun ownership. 

[PRgal]

I, for some reason, read Sean Duffy as Sean "Puffy..."  Though it wouldn't surprise me if Diddy ends up involved.  I mean.....you know.....

[Annber03]

17 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I, for some reason, read Sean Duffy as Sean "Puffy..."  Though it wouldn't surprise me if Diddy ends up involved.  I mean.....you know.....

I read it that way, too :p.

25 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

They hide behind stupid slogans like 'guns don't kill people' and want to act like they care about mental health (all while not supporting universal healthcare), but refuse to do anything real about the gun laws that have destroyed so many families. 

It's so maddening how people keep insisting on blaming everything except the actual weapon that kills these people. They are called mass shootings for a reason. Not mass mental health-ings, not mass vioent video gam-ings, not mass lack of God-ings, etc., etc. We have literally tried to restrict or ban every single other thing that people always insist is the real reason these shootings happen. Violent media, dark clothing (remember the whole trenchcoat thing after Columbine?). And guess what? Mass shootings still happened. We've had mass shootings in churches, the one place where you literally would have no problem finding religious people, so clearly lack of interest in God or religion isn't the issue. 

And mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators, and again, if people REALLY think mental health plays a role here, and yet refuse to fund mental health services, well...

The bottom line is, every country has people who watch/pay/read/listen to violent media. Every country has people who don't believe in God or go to a place of worship. Every country has people with mental health issues. 

And yet, so many other countries also have strict gun control and do not have anywhere near the amount of mass shootings that we do. 

Gosh. Almost like there's a connection there or something. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:57 AM by Annber03

[bluegirl147]

I remember when it was handguns people were worried about. Because they were easily concealed.  And now more and more states have open carry.   Assault weapons are now the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  There is no reason for someone to have one of them.  They are weapons of mass destruction who's sole purpose is kill as many people in the shortest amount of time.  In so many ways our country has moved backwards.  

[Bastet]

16 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

And yet, so many other countries also have strict gun control and do not have anywhere near the amount of mass shootings that we do. 

Gosh. Almost like there's a connection there or something.

There's a West Wing quote for every occasion.  This time it's Toby:  "But I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia you've got a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature?  Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"

[peacheslatour]

It must be miserable to live in so much fear all the time that you have to be armed to teeth to go to Pet Smart.

 

[bluegirl147]

20 minutes ago, Bastet said:

There's a West Wing quote for every occasion.  This time it's Toby:  "But I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia you've got a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature?  Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"

And that was over 20 yrs ago.  Wonder what the numbers are now.

[Eri]

1 hour ago, Avaleigh said:

I was hesitant to mention this being a factor too but...yeah. This goes back to my earlier post about the damage Trump did with "fake news". Now people are just picking and choosing what news they want to believe is true. 

Absolutely - I don't think even half the stuff people are exposing themselves to these days is actually "news." 

The problem is a lot of folks (across all age ranges but especially Gen Z) are gravitating to platforms outside the mainstream media that are unregulated and often go unchecked and unchallenged because tech bros won't enact policies to fact check and manage the discord. I've listened to a lot of analysis on how people voted since the election and a great majority of media influencers are men.

A lot of folks going to random places online for their "news" - when it could just be a YouTube channel of Tucker Carlson complaining about vaccines or Joe Rogan on a podcast demonizing women or immigrants. Anyone can go on the internet and start sharing information (opinions) that is usually unsubstantiated, not fact checked, etc. and these businesses don't care or have the financial incentives to change that. The restriction to "freedom of speech" argument is their common excuse, but look at how 2016 turned out (Russian bots, outside hackers, and now AI...) so it's definitely a factor.

Result: Facebook has become a cesspool for disinformation. Twitter has become a haven for hate speech. 4chan is full of white nationalists, just to name a few - it is getting out of control.

I think a lot of people DO want social media to be more regulated but unfortunately, until Congress passes some sort of legislation that will hold these tech executives accountable, it will continue. And since we have such a geriatric Congress who never grew up with the internet, it will take even longer (no offense intended to any older posters on here).

Case in point: How many times has Zuckerberg or some CIO from Silicon Valley been invited to the Congress floor to explain how their systems work? lol. The tech industry built the car and hold the keys at the same time - it's a dangerous position to be in when you only have the knowledge of what these tech execs are sharing to make decisions.

Edited Tuesday at 03:19 AM by Eri

[mostlylurking]

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

2 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

Sandy Hook was proof to me that we'll never see meaningful change when it comes gun control. If that doesn't get people to wakeTF up, what will?

Same here -- once it happened to six-year-olds and still nothing, I knew nothing would ever be horrible enough to motivate Congress to stand up to the NRA. 

My thoughts exactly.  If a school full of dead kindergartners is not enough to change people’s minds, nothing will.

[EtheltoTillie]

I have little hope of any gun regulation succeeding given the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment pronouncements. 

[tearknee]

Gaetz probably got his law degree in a Cracker Jack box. Kennedy is anti-vaccination, and wants to eliminate fluoride from drinking water. Bringing back almost eradicated diseases like polio and smallpox* and giving all of us rotten teeth.

Ability to do the job...not an issue.

(*) 

Spoiler

Smallpox is not coming back, unless he also takes the few remaining virus samples held at the CDC and releases them into the wild. Which, now that I say it out loud, is something I wouldn't put past him.

 

[EtheltoTillie]

Tonight John Stewart was pretty funny. 
 

But over on Fox News the pundits are crowing about how the NFL players are no longer kneeling during the anthem. Now they’re doing the Trump dance. 

[Annber03]

13 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

But over on Fox News the pundits are crowing about how the NFL players are no longer kneeling during the anthem. Now they’re doing the Trump dance. 

Oh, fuck off, Fox News. 

I truly do not get the insane reaction some have to the idea of someone daring to simply kneel during the national anthem. They're not bothering anyone else, nor are they forcing anyone to join them. Get the hell over it. 

[Lantern7]

40 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Tonight John Stewart was pretty funny. 
 

But over on Fox News the pundits are crowing about how the NFL players are no longer kneeling during the anthem. Now they’re doing the Trump dance. 

1. Here's the video for those who haven't seen it. Jon shares my frustration  about the Democrats. The opposing party is two months away from taking insurmountable power, and they are doing NOTHING about it. Where is the nobility of having the high ground if you're going to wind up not doing anything? "When they go low, we go high" doesn't cut it these days. Go below the belt. Set fire to the enemy. Set fire to yourselves. DO SOMETHING.
2. I am happy that TDS hasn't been showing coverage of FNC basking in their victory. Anytime I go to a place with a newsstand, I avoid looking at the New York Post front page because I don't want to get worked up. Same deal with TV. I regard all on-air "talent" on that network as c***s******, and I don't want to see them tangled up their own asses in glee.
3. How is the kneeling thing an issue? When was the last time a player took a stand like that? They saw what Colin Kapernick went through, and they're not going to risk it. I think the only player that could risk that with minimal consequence is Travis Kelce, and that's only if he stays with Taylor Swift. Even someone with enough clout like Patrick Mahomes risks getting sent into the proverbial cornfield for doing that. The most galling thing is that NFL owners strongly discourage public protests, and a lot of them worked hard to block Trump from buying one of their teams. Also, as always, the bottom line is "Fuck Fox News and everyone associated with it."

[kittykat]

1 hour ago, Lantern7 said:

Here's the video for those who haven't seen it. Jon shares my frustration  about the Democrats. The opposing party is two months away from taking insurmountable power, and they are doing NOTHING about it. Where is the nobility of having the high ground if you're going to wind up not doing anything? "When they go low, we go high" doesn't cut it these days. Go below the belt. Set fire to the enemy. Set fire to yourselves. DO SOMETHING.

Seriously!  Jon, yet again, nails the analysis.  The high road means nothing to the other side.

[Palimelon]

That picture of them on Air McDonalds made me think "Oh, look, the anti-Christ and the 4 Horsemen..."

 

[EtheltoTillie]

3 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

1. How is the kneeling thing an issue? When was the last time a player took a stand like that? They saw what Colin Kapernick went through, and they're not going to risk it. I think the only player that could risk that with minimal consequence is Travis Kelce, and that's only if he stays with Taylor Swift. Even someone with enough clout like Patrick Mahomes risks getting sent into the proverbial cornfield for doing that. The most galling thing is that NFL owners strongly discourage public protests, and a lot of them worked hard to block Trump from buying one of their teams. Also, as always, the bottom line is "Fuck Fox News and everyone associated with it."

This is some insanity and I've never understood it either.  Look what happened last week when Michael Strahan stood respectfully during the anthem without putting his hand over his heart.  The reaction was insane.  I didn't even know covering your heart for the anthem was a thing.  Then he had to come up with a story about how he got distracted and forgot.  Who knows.  Clearly he was not protesting anything.

ETA: I think racism is involved. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:29 AM by EtheltoTillie

[Anela]

10 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I was hesitant to mention this being a factor too but...yeah. This goes back to my earlier post about the damage Trump did with "fake news". Now people are just picking and choosing what news they want to believe is true. 

With people who are anti gun control, my guess is they're especially susceptible to "alternative facts" because they need to make themselves feel better. Their position isn't just unreasonable. It's actively harmful and thousands and thousands of people are unecessarily dead because of the power of the gun lobby along with the people and politicians who support those policies. They have blood on their hands and they want to be in denial about it. They hide behind stupid slogans like 'guns don't kill people' and want to act like they care about mental health (all while not supporting universal healthcare), but refuse to do anything real about the gun laws that have destroyed so many families. 

It makes me sick. 

I mentioned the news yesterday.  I’m not one of those people, just to be clear.  But CNN and other stations, haven’t helped in recent years, by bolstering trump, instead of stating facts.  I pay attention, but I’m not streaming twenty-four hour news.  I used to watch PBS news.  
 

but that one woman I mentioned, somewhere in this thread, who was vicious to me, after I countered something she posted about vaccines - it turned out she was an Alex jones fan, and didn’t believe that those little school children were really shot.  I still can’t get over that.  

[bluegirl147]

57 minutes ago, Anela said:

but that one woman I mentioned, somewhere in this thread, who was vicious to me, after I countered something she posted about vaccines - it turned out she was an Alex jones fan, and didn’t believe that those little school children were really shot.  I still can’t get over that.  

I read a book about Sandy Hook and watched the documentary on MAX.  There is a special place in the Hell I don't believe in for the people who harassed and continue to harass those families.  

3 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

This is some insanity and I've never understood it either.  Look what happened last week when Michael Strahan stood respectfully during the anthem without putting his hand over his heart.  The reaction was insane.  I didn't even know covering your heart for the anthem was a thing.  Then he had to come up with a story about how he got distracted and forgot.  Who knows.  Clearly he was not protesting anything.

ETA: I think racism is involved. 

That crowd keeps moving the goalposts (no pun intended). First you have to stand. Then you have to put your hand over  your heart. What's next? Start reciting the pledge of allegiance?

I'm still salty about Colin K being ostracized for simply trying to raise awareness for the police brutality against people of color.  But now we have (white) football players proudly showing their MAGA allegiance and people scream freedom of speech when it is criticized.    And if I see one more player do the Trump dance I'm going to vomit.

4 hours ago, Palimelon said:

That picture of them on Air McDonalds made me think "Oh, look, the anti-Christ and the 4 Horsemen..."

 

It made me think two things. One oh so white and two, maybe they will all die of heart disease.  Soon hopefully

6 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

I think the only player that could risk that with minimal consequence is Travis Kelce, and that's only if he stays with Taylor Swift.

In some circles he is already the enemy because he dared to support Covid vaccinations.

6 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

Even someone with enough clout like Patrick Mahomes risks getting sent into the proverbial cornfield for doing that.

Patrick Mahomes would never.  He is pulling a Michael Jordan.  Being apolitical because to quote MJ "Republicans buy shoes too".

7 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I truly do not get the insane reaction some have to the idea of someone daring to simply kneel during the national anthem. They're not bothering anyone else, nor are they forcing anyone to join them. Get the hell over i

If Tom Brady had knelt he would have been cheered by the MAGA crowd. Trump would have given him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

8 hours ago, tearknee said:

Ability to do the job...not an issue.

Loyalty ass kissing to Trump a must.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

6 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

How is the kneeling thing an issue? When was the last time a player took a stand like that? They saw what Colin Kapernick went through, and they're not going to risk it. I think the only player that could risk that with minimal consequence is Travis Kelce, and that's only if he stays with Taylor Swift. Even someone with enough clout like Patrick Mahomes risks getting sent into the proverbial cornfield for doing that. The most galling thing is that NFL owners strongly discourage public protests, and a lot of them worked hard to block Trump from buying one of their teams. Also, as always, the bottom line is "Fuck Fox News and everyone associated with it."

Pat Mahomes is never going to publicly protest anything. I don't think many of his teammates outside of Harrison Butkner agree with him, so he's going to keep his mouth shut. The man's wife is MAGA, and I believe so is his mother.

[Yeah No]

23 hours ago, Eri said:

Indeed - If an atheist deemed The Bible too offensive, containing "illicit content' or against their beliefs, would Moms for Liberty respect their religious freedoms and agree to ban that as well? 

It's the tolerance paradox. If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

The problem is that if our society becomes intolerant to the intolerant it risks becoming just as intolerant as they are. Which I think is even worse. It's the flip side of that paradox and why I don't support that position. It's also why we aren't doing that in my opinion. We have been extending tolerance to all positions for our entire history as a country and yet I don't think it's resulted in the dominance of intolerance. In the end we have protections against violations of human rights which tend to prevail. But if we become more intolerant of intolerance we only become more intolerant ourselves and in the end will violate our own principles. And that's only making the problem worse in my opinion.

[bluegirl147]

10 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

In the end we have protections against violations of human rights which tend to prevail.

But do we really?  For me human rights is access to affordable healthcare.  Equal rights for all genders, colors, sexual identity and religions. Body autonomy.  

The Supreme Court was once the body that expanded people's rights. It is now the body that is taking away people's rights.  

15 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

But if we become more intolerant of intolerance we only become more intolerant ourselves and in the end will violate our own principles

My problem is intolerance seems to include racism, sexism, antisemitism, anti Muslim and anti LGTBQ.  Why are we supposed to tolerate that?

[Yeah No]

 

12 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

The fact so many people thought that horrible thing didn't happen and was just a ruse for confiscating people's guns told me we were never going to have meaningful gun control.  How do convince people who believe an entire town faked young children's deaths that we need stronger gun laws?  Forget lack of empathy those people have lack of brain cells.

12 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Or who think there is no problem because they believe these shootings never actually happened.  That they were all staged with actors.  Alex Jones did immeasurable damage with his lies.

30 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I read a book about Sandy Hook and watched the documentary on MAX.  There is a special place in the Hell I don't believe in for the people who harassed and continue to harass those families.  

Alex Jones is thankfully ruined now as a result of the lawsuit the families of the murdered children brought against him. He may have had the freedom to speak lies and untruths but he was held accountable for them in the courts, which is an example of the appropriate way to deal with this kind of thing. So he'll never be able to do that again.

This is justice at work. It's the price of free speech to allow someone to spread lies (intolerance, racism, sexism, you name it) but in the end we have ways of making whatever wrong they cause in the process right. We don't want to take away free speech from some people because first of all who gets to decide what's offensive and what's not? It's just not possible to please everyone with that and we don't have control by one point of view nor do we want one lest people that don't agree with us use it against us. All positions have to be allowed to co-exist no matter how offensive we may find them. If they violate others' rights in the process that's another story dealt with in another way. We all have to have this freedom or it is meaningless. I think we should remember and govern by our universal democratic principles here.

Here in CT this case is daily news. The Onion is attempting to buy Alex's Infowars which is on auction to help him pay off his 1.5 billion the court is making him pay for defamation of the families of the children. So far that purchase has been struck down in the court. We'll see what happens.

[Yeah No]

6 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

But do we really?  For me human rights is access to affordable healthcare.  Equal rights for all genders, colors, sexual identity and religions. Body autonomy.  

The Supreme Court was once the body that expanded people's rights. It is now the body that is taking away people's rights.  

My problem is intolerance seems to include racism, sexism, antisemitism, anti Muslim and anti LGTBQ.  Why are we supposed to tolerate that?

I'm talking about general, universal democratic principles which are protected by law. As much as we may disagree with them, there are many people that think the present supreme court is protecting their rights or the rights of unborn children which they think are as valid to protect as anyone else's. I disagree with them. But that's the price of living in a democracy. All positions get their chance to be heard, voted in and enacted within reason. And that's why we have elections every 4 years, hopefully to balance things out.

We have to be consistent with tolerance lest we become even more intolerant in response. I believe in being consistent. I have to allow people their rights to disagree with me lest they become in power and overthrow my right to free speech. It works both ways. I personally feel that some people use religion to support sexism and misogyny, which takes away women's rights but I have no right to tell people what to believe and follow in their religion. So I have to live with it. It's as simple as that. I hate it too but again, that's the price of living in a democracy. The alternative is even worse. I learned this from my parents who lived in a time when these things were very much in focus for them.

[bluegirl147]

8 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

but I have no right to tell people what to believe and follow in their religion

It becomes a problem when those people are in our government and are working towards making their religious beliefs law.

 

[fairffaxx]

15 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Here in CT this case is daily news. The Onion is attempting to buy Alex's Infowars which is on auction to help him pay off his 1.5 billion the court is making him pay for defamation of the families of the children. So far that purchase has been struck down in the court. We'll see what happens.

I think the losing bidder has only challenged sale to The Onion & the court has yet to rule on the challenge.

[Yeah No]

5 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

It becomes a problem when those people are in our government and are working towards making their religious beliefs law.

Yes but my point is that this will be dealt with under our present laws. We don't need to call for intolerance of their beliefs or rights to express them publicly and enact them in their personal lives. Those are rights I think they should have if I believe in those rights for all, not just people with my point of view. And that extends to shaping the constitution and how it is interpreted too. It also depends on whose reading the laws and interpreting them. If we don't think the laws they're enacting are constitutional and limit people's rights we need to address that just as they addressed what they thought was unconstitutional to suit how they saw it. We  have to allow for disagreement in what the laws should be and extend the ability to shape those laws to everyone, not just people that agree with me. And I think we have to accept that even if we don't like it when people who don't share our beliefs move to change laws to suit their beliefs. Otherwise like I've said before, I think it ultimately compromises everyone's freedoms, which as Americans are of ultimate importance to protect.

[Palimelon]

Quote

It becomes a problem when those people are in our government and are working towards making their religious beliefs law.

Exactly. Plus, being tolerant to intolerance normalizes it in the long run.

[Anela]

7 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Yes but my point is that this will be dealt with under our present laws. We don't need to call for intolerance of their beliefs or rights to express them publicly and enact them in their personal lives. Those are rights I think they should have if I believe in those rights for all, not just people with my point of view. And that extends to shaping the constitution and how it is interpreted too. It also depends on whose reading the laws and interpreting them. If we don't think the laws they're enacting are constitutional and limit people's rights we need to address that just as they addressed what they thought was unconstitutional to suit how they saw it. We  have to allow for disagreement in what the laws should be and extend the ability to shape those laws to everyone, not just people that agree with me. And I think we have to accept that even if we don't like it when people who don't share our beliefs move to change laws to suit their beliefs. Otherwise like I've said before, I think it ultimately compromises everyone's freedoms, which as Americans are of ultimate importance to protect.

But they’re already promising things mentioned in project 2025, and that basically reshapes government and society. That’s why so many of us were, and are, scared. 

[Yeah No]

3 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

Exactly. Plus, being tolerant to intolerance normalizes it in the long run.

With respect, I disagree unless you mean doing it within our present system. Lobbying to restore abortion rights nationally is fine, but taking away the freedoms of people who don't agree with me on that to take away their right to shape the laws to fit their beliefs is not the way to do it if I am to be consistent with my beliefs about freedom. Freedom is not just for people that agree with me.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Yes but my point is that this will be dealt with under our present laws.

But it's not being dealt with under our present laws.  The Supreme Court is ruling more and more in favor of people who want their religious beliefs to take precedence over other people's rights. We now have a school  superintendent who is using taxpayer dollars to buy Trump bibles to placed in Oklahoma schools.  People like him have become emboldened.  

Just now, Yeah No said:

Freedom is not just for people that agree with me.

That only works if the people you disagree with feel the same way and they don't.  

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Anela said:

But they’re already promising things mentioned in project 2025, and that basically reshapes government and society. That’s why so many of us were, and are, scared. 

I think it's foolish to expect a majority Trump appointed judiciary to overturn these laws. They are a part of the machine, not a safety valve. We are screwed as long as the P2025 people stay the course. The only real hope is for the coalition of Evangelicals, rad trad Catholics, and fundamental Baptists to break down sooner rather than later.

[Enigma X]

I don't think it's fair some of us have to live in a place that tolerates us for our race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion. I also don't think it is fair that the burden falls upon us to convince others to tolerate us. Double whammy! Basically, we must persuade others we are worthy of humanity and allow us to have it? NO!

[Yeah No]

1 minute ago, Anela said:

But they’re already promising things mentioned in project 2025, and that basically reshapes government and society. That’s why so many of us were, and are, scared. 

Fine, but my point is they are allowed to do that. We have the chance to prevent it with our voices and votes. Also a lot of it won't get very far in my opinion because it's so against democracy and probably the constitution too. But yeah, it scares me too.

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

But it's not being dealt with under our present laws.  The Supreme Court is ruling more and more in favor of people who want their religious beliefs to take precedence over other people's rights. We now have a school  superintendent who is using taxpayer dollars to buy Trump bibles to placed in Oklahoma schools.  People like him have become emboldened.  

Yes but they have the right to do that. We can't take away that right illegally. We have to find ways to do it that are within our rights to do so without violating theirs. If what they're doing is unconstitutional maybe we need to find a way to address that and limit what they can do on that basis, or reform the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court etc. Doing it within legal means, not by denying that they have the right to do it. People gave them that right by voting them in. They were stupid but what can you do? Hopefully they won't get so far with all they're trying to do. And it will be voted out next time.