/townhall/ - Townhall

Cause they are arrogant enough to believe they don't have to and anyone who points out the hypocrisy of how much they demand civility from others while not respecting the same expectations from others is the real bad guy.

It's classic DARVA behavior characteristic of narcissistic abuse (Deny and Acuse, Reversing Victim and Abuser)

>>13924
Just from your screenshot, it seems to be something of a tongue in cheek response in hyperbole to the accusation of "ethnic cleansing" for deporting people who've come here illegally.

But it's really hard to tell because of course you've chosen to just use a screenshot, wherein the full context isn't available, as opposed to just linking the tweet itself...

Besides all that of course, one individual isn't the whole of republicans... There's no reason the whole of the party needs apologize for one individual's statements, any more than the Democrat party and its members in congress as a whole ought apologize for Biden's calling Zelensky Putin.

>>13926
It's never wrong to hang someone by their own rope.

They are under no obligation to engage civilly with those who aren't doing so themselves.

>>13928

Thanks for proving my point

>>13929
I get the point perfectly well;
You want your enemy to lie down and take your beating, without ever responding in kind.
You appeal to their morals to do this, with none of your own.

Fortunately people are waking up to this tactic; It is no longer holding weight.

>>13930

Get over yourself.

The OP pic depicts Will Stancil on twitter using hyperbole to criticise a ridiculously inhumane policy idea, and you consider that 'incivility' that justifies Chip Roy's response?

Don't give me this bullshit facade of moral superiority dude, this is totally hypocritical and insincere. A terrible idea is still a terrible idea even if presented in a 'civil' way, and calling out the bullshit of it is not 'incivility'. And even if it were, it wouldn't necessary be wrong.

Seriously contemporary Republicans just love interpreting rules of discourse with the most bad faith self serving interpretations possible. Like, for example, ad hominum is one thing, the ad hominum fallacy is another thing, yet you always run into Republicans online who either don't understand the difference, or selectively don't understand the difference when convenient. The fact that the ad hominum fallacy is a formal logical fallacy doesn't mean that incivility loses an argument by default. It means that an unsavory characteristic of the person making an argument doesn't make the argument wrong, especially when one comments in the reverse, that the argument itself reveals an unsavory characteristic of the person making the argument, which contemporary Republicans seem, hypocritically, to love to do all the time.

>>13931
I would consider accusing people of "ethnic clensing" to be an abandonment of civility, yes.
And that's leaving aside I can't even fucking see the whole tweet by Will here, because OP decided to go with a screenshot that doesn't have the full context, instead of just linking the damn thing.

>>13932
>I would consider accusing people of "ethnic clensing" to be an abandonment of civility, yes.

The subject of Will Stancil's post is 'Deporting 20 million people', not 'people'. That's an action, not a person.

>>13933
Yes, I am aware of this.

If I kiss my wife and someone calls it rape, guess what?
Someone's accusing me of rape.

>>13927
>>13928
thank you

>>13933
what an interesting thought to have about the actions of deporting people. What do you think this line of thinking says about you.

>>13934

How does one get this egocentric that some rando calling a kiss rape is a personal attack against oneself instead of a ludicrous hyperbole. You could potentially interpret any criticisms of the morality of a policy position you could support as impliying you're a bad person for supporting it, but then you'd basically be making moral criticisms of any position you support 'uncivil'.

>>13938

That I understand basic grammar? In the first sentence of Will Stancil's post 'Deporting 20 million people' is the subject of the sentence, Not 'people who support deportating 20 million people'

This bullshit attempt to act like a hyperbolic criticism of a policy (or inacting it) is the same as a personal attack is just acting in bad faith to avoid engaging with the actual criticism.

>>13945
Why are you feeling attacked?

>>13945
> calling a kiss rape is a personal attack against oneself instead of a ludicrous hyperbole
Because they're accusing you of something horrendous, that you obviously wouldn't do, and obviously isn't true.

>You could potentially interpret any criticisms of the morality of a policy position
Most of them aren't ETHNIC CLEANSING.
There's obviously a difference between "What you are doing is reprehensible" and "WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS LITERALLY GENOCIDE"

>>13946

I'm not? Not from you at least.

You asked 'what does this line of thinking say about you?. Did you misread what I wrote? I was quoting the post by Will Stancil in the OP to make a point about what it was about? Why would you think I was thinking like Will Stancil when I was pointing out that the sentence wasn't about any specific person.

>>13947
>Because they're accusing you of something horrendous, that you obviously wouldn't do, and obviously isn't true.

Again, how does one get this egocentric to interpret at statement not directed at anyone in particular to be about you

>There's obviously a difference between "What you are doing is reprehensible" and "WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS LITERALLY GENOCIDE"

Where does that 'you' come from?

Also, does this mean that a pro-lifer who opposes pro-choice policy's by declaring 'All abortion is murder!' is being uncivil to the pro-choicer defending early term abortion? Or the pro-choicer declaring that 'Total abortion prohibition is tyranical' being uncivil to the pro-lifer? How about a libertarian opposing universal healthcare by declaring 'All taxation is theft!', are they being uncivil to the social liberals by implying they're thieves?

>>13948
>Again, how does one get this egocentric to interpret at statement not directed at anyone in particular to be about you
The context is unfortunately cut out, so there's a level of presuppositon here, but it seems to be a policy or initiative that Chip supports.

>Where does that 'you' come from?
You're ignoring the relevant point.
The "you" changes nothing here.
The point I am bringing up is that there is obvious differences between declaring something immoral, and declaring it an ethnic clensing.

You are certainly smart enough to know this.
You just recognize it's inconvenient to your argument, so you're dodging it.

>Also, does this mean that a pro-lifer who opposes pro-choice policy's by declaring 'All abortion is murder!' is being uncivil to the pro-choicer defending early term abortion?
I would absolutely consider declaring abortion murder to be tossing out civil dialogue, yes.

>Or the pro-choicer declaring that 'Total abortion prohibition is tyranical' being uncivil to the pro-lifer?
Probably not, but "tyrannical" certainly has less meaning these days.
I might be inclined to agree if you'd said "fascism", though.

>How about a libertarian opposing universal healthcare by declaring 'All taxation is theft!', are they being uncivil to the social liberals by implying they're thieves?
That'd be anyone who supports taxes, as a blanket rule. Not just social liberals.

>>13948
>This bullshit attempt to act like a hyperbolic criticism of a policy (or inacting it) is the same as a personal attack is just acting in bad faith to avoid engaging with the actual criticism.
>it is the same as a personal attack

I did not misread you. You interpreted a pretty short statement as a personal attack

I gotta admit it is endlessly funny to see conservative dorks tie themselves into knots about how english works to justify a good 'ol genocide

Keep pretending you have morals or ideals or whatever principles you insist are inherent to your ideology, there's nothing that you could say that would convince me otherwise

>>13951
Deporting people here illegally is not a genocide.

>>13952
Oh good! We can all sleep well knowing that a mass deportation of 20 million people is not a crime. Our consciousness can now be clear knowing that the legal definiton of genocide is not the same as this, and therefore says nothing at all!

If the libs get triggered by this, obviously it's their own fault for failing to read lmao

>>13953
Deportation doesn't mean you kill them.
In any case if they're here illegally, they're here illegally.

>>13954
google what was the trail of tears?

>>13955
They didn't enter the country illegally.

Good try though.
Keep going. Your seething is entertaining, if nothing else.

>>13956
>They didn't enter the country illegally
>They didn't enter the country illegally
>They didn't enter the country illegally
>They didn't enter the country illegally
>They didn't enter the country illegally

>he thinks he made a good point

I'm perfectly aware that the US is capable of kicking people off their lands illegally

>>13957
Likewise. Did you assume I believed the US government was inherently good?

This doesn't change the fact that these individuals entered the country illegally.

>>13958
Thank goodness I was wondering when the goalposts were going to be moved

>>13959
It's the same position as it always was.

>>13960
do you really not understand why folks like us are sick of arguing with people like you

>>13961
Sure.
People're tired of not being able to lambast their enemies with the latest accusation without pushback.

I wish the same conservatives now complaining about those on the left who sincerely advocated for killing Donald Trump (which is a justified complaint against unethical actions, morally) could be even slightly consistent when it comes to cases such as these:

> https://abc11.com/post/pauly-likens-murder-family-sharon-pa-dashawn-watkins-arrest/15064776/

Conservatives should understand reality outside of their teensy-weensy mental bubble, and get that the moral rule of "don't advocate for open hatred justifying violence" (which if actually applied fairly is a valid take) maybe should apply to people like her (and me) as well as to Trump.

I wish there was some way to reach inside of their spiritual existence, somehow, and make conservatives feel what it would be like to be this father.

It's hard for me especially because universally categorical ethics help everybody. If I'm white, a world without racism means nothing happening to whites for being white. If I'm Catholic, religious violence against Catholic ends. If I'm a manly man, hating my clothes and voice plus more ends if nobody uses 'looks' and whatnot to justify bigotry. Literally everyone wins.

[I suppose you can argue that being far left and "woke" is just reversed bigotry, but categorical ethics are a Ghandi and Mister Rogers thing you'd associate with peacefully normal people and not a far left thing: it's not like Lenin and Mao actually cared about fairness? Right?]

>>13968
"Kill trans people" is not a "sincerely advocated" for position on the right.

>>13972
You're totally right, that would be insane

instead it's "make them kill themselves by taking away all their protections and treating them like less than human by not allowing them to be treated the way they wish to be treated" which is a totally different and totally much more morally okay stance to have. At the very least, it's a lot easier to obfuscate!

>>13973
This.

>>13972
Besides trying to come to terms with what Cat pointed out, I'd also like to note that grief over the severe illness or even death of a family member is an extremely important part of a person's life. And any morally decent civilization will have social togetherness and connection thereby you can talk to the local rabbi, local pastor, local barber, local ice cream man, local baker, and so on in a way that keeps positive growth and progress going. You shouldn't live an atomized and lonely existence where those in grief get basically told "Penis Penis Penis LOL" by the goofy, trolling community around them.

It's hard to even put this into political terms. People should inherently be nice to each other. People should inherently care about their local communities.

Think about this quote:

"In vast stretches of the earth, men awoke today in hunger. They will spend the day in unceasing toil. And as the sun goes down they will still know hunger. They will see suffering in the eyes of their children. Many despair that their labor will ever decently shelter their families or protect them against disease. So long as this is so, peace and freedom will be in danger throughout our world. For wherever free men lose hope of progress, liberty will be weakened and the seeds of conflict will be sown."

That wasn't Bernie Sanders. That wasn't AOC. That wasn't any modern liberal Democrat. That was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The icon who spearheaded the rescue of American freedom against the Axis Powers. The former conservative hero. Campaigning in fucking November 1958. Nineteen. Fifty. Seven.

Can you tell me how even a single word he said was wrong?

>>13972
>"Kill trans people" is not a "sincerely advocated" for position on the right.

And no one explicitly advocated for anyone to attempt to assassinate Trump, but that's what all the rhetoric against him inspired.

Just like how all the anti-trans 'groomer' rhetoric strategy the GOP adopted for the midterms never explicitly called for murdering transgender people (though at CPAC Micheal Knoweles called for the 'elimination of transgenderisim from public life'). Not at all surprisingly, there was a subsequent rise in violent hate crimes against transgender people and LGBTQ+ people in general in 2023. Hate mongering typically leads to violence eventually.

>>13973
What protections have been taken away?

> by not allowing them to be treated the way they wish to be treated
You aren't entitled that.
If you were, I'd by lying in a hammock, being fed grapes

>>13974
>Can you tell me how even a single word he said was wrong?
No, but that's more because it doesn't really mean anything. It just sounds good.
Politicians are good at that. Making flowery speeches that sound good but mean little.
I don't really tend to put much stock in them, personally.

Maybe I'm just a cinic  when it comes to such things.

>>13978
There were absolutely a fair number who did so, actually.
It wasn't just rhetoric. Which frankly is why you're getting so many people giving the "they missed how could you miss" type responses.

Rhetoric certainly played a part, but, there was more than just that.

>>13980
>There were absolutely a fair number who did so, actually.
>It wasn't just rhetoric. Which frankly is why you're getting so many people giving the "they missed how could you miss" type responses.

I am aware of what happens on social media, and yes, that is also effect of the initial anti-trump rhetoric. Things like that snowball in online echo chambers, it's true of the left and just as much true of the right.

There are absolutely a 'fair number' of right wingers in various corners of the ring-wing social media ecosystem who say the same about transgender people in general.

And of course, the death penalty for being transgender is indirectly advocated for in Project 2025

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

As point out by this image.

This claim that
>"Kill trans people" is not a "sincerely advocated" for position on the right.

Is bad faith as fuck

From the forward on page 5:
>Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.

From page 554:
>Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise through legislation.

Fuck off with Republican sophistry.

>>13982
Gotta be honest, given the whole "Project 2025" thing came out of absolute nowhere, and the media's been seething about it for ages now, I'm really not inclined to take it at face value.
At bear minimum, I've not heard such things echoed at all by people on the ground.

I'll grant that some nutters exist. There's always extreme types on the fringes.
But, I'm not sitting here claiming the left sincerely believes we need to genocide rural Americans, despite some radicals saying so.

>>13983

It's literally on the front page of the Heritage Foundation.

https://www.heritage.org/
https://www.project2025.org/


But it's all just 'fake news' huh?

>>13984
I am aware it's the front page of some group I hadn't ever heard about before this whole thing went everywhere, yes.

>>13983
If you objectively look at the past five hundred years of modern human history, Jews being killed for being Jews, LGBT people being killed for being LGBT, and disabled people being killed for being disabled is actually a genuinely horrific and recurring issue in bloody conflict, particularly in WWII given the mass oppression of those groups by the Axis Powers.

There's just a fundamental category difference here.

A guy worried about the dangers of being abducted by aliens and so he stays all day in his house is a lunatic. A guy worried about the dangers of catching pneumonia and then coughing up blood so he does the same thing since his hometown has a localized outbreak is a regular dude with a rational worry based on normal logic. They're not the same. At all.

I'm well aware that Republicans are in some cases terrified that like mass waves of gay Jews are going to somehow take over the American military and then somehow gas them all in camps or whatever. But that's insane paranoia based on bigotry. It's absolutely nothing whatsoever like an actual, say, rabbi who feels scared at his local Jewish deli eating outside because the local police heard chatter about a local neo-Nazi or local Palestine Islamic Jihad militant planning something. Or a young gay dude not hanging out outside at the local nightclub because of a similar police report.

It's just not the same thing. My doctor saying "because of your vitamin deficiency I recommend taking a certain dosage of Xmg in pill form daily" after looking at a page of test results is not the same thing as an astrology expert telling me "rub your nude body outside with fine oils and you might feel the gods and goddesses heal every single health woe". Common sense exists. A specific threat or benefit from a specific action isn't akin to brain rot.

>>13985

The Heritage Foundation has been around since 1973. The fact you've never heard of it just means you haven't heard of it.

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative policy institute (a think tank), it primarily conducts research, publishes articles and drafts legislation proposals for republican legislatures. This is like all other policy institutes in the US and UK, such as the Brookings Institute (centrist economic policy institute founded 1916) or the Hoover Institute (conservite-libertarian foreign policy instute founded 1919), or the Cato Institute (libertarian policy institute founded 1977). The Heritage Foundation focuses on both economic policy and cultural issues of interest to the religious right sector of the Republican party. The Heritage Foundation in particular became the most influential of the conservative think tanks in the US during the Reagan administration and were particularly influential on Reagan as policy advisors.  They are also advisors on rhetoric used by politicians as part of campaign strategy consulting. Every presidential election year they publish a 'Mandate for Leadership' which is kind of like a wishlist/playbook of proposed policy goals for conservative  presidents should they win their elections. They begin drafting it early within a presidential term but don't usually publish it until the election year. Most mainstream conservative media outlets don't report on it (or rarely do), in fact most televised media doesn't report on anything that any think tank does, mostly only traditional printed media reports on it. Like 'The Economist' magazine or other similar ones you used to only find at newsstands in book stores but rarely in more traditionally mainstream newsstands like you would find in a grocery store. Basically media for nerdy policy wonks.

I guess you're unaware of how the legislative process works if you don't know what a policy institute is or if you are unaware of which ones exists. Here is a list from an article from the University of Pennsylvania published in 2020 ranking policy institutes from around the world in terms of how much influence they have (Heritage Foundation ranks 8th):

https://guides.library.upenn.edu/c.php?g=1035991&p=7509972


My point though was, yes, killing trans people is a sincerely held position by a fair number on the right, who see transgender people who spread 'transgender ideology' as a form of sexual predation and thus see them worthy of the dealth penalty. As reflected in the Heritage Foundation's current mandate for leadership. It's disengenuous to say that it isn't, just because none of them have outright directly said 'kill trans people', but basic reading comprehension and logic would indicate that yes, they are proposing that. If A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C. If the Heritage Foundation proposes the death penalty for any child sexual predator, and if anyone 'spreading transgender ideology', like a visibly transgender person, is a sexual predator, then they're suggesting executing transgender people (and by extension anyone else advocating for transgender rights or really anyone who accepts and that transgender is an ontologically real category of people).

>>13994
>I'm well aware that Republicans are in some cases terrified that like mass waves of gay Jews are going to somehow take over the American military and then somehow gas them all in camps or whatever.


"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

- Jean-Paul Sartre

>>13985
>>13984
>>13983

Project 2025 is, at the least, not directly from Donald Trump.

What is directly from Donald Trump, or at least directly from his campaign, is Agenda 47, which sounds only marginally better.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/president-trumps-plan-to-protect-children-from-left-wing-gender-insanity

His actual proposed policies more or less amount to making transitioning illegal, particularly for children, but with impacts even on fully grown adults, and while I don't imagine literal hit squads going out to murder people who have transitioned, there's seemingly no question that his party would rather the culture not exist in any capacity and their tolerance is at a limit.

>>13982
>all transpeople are rapists and child molesters!!!1!1
I can't fathom actually believing this without having a brain tumor or something. How do people still fall for this kind of thing?

>>14007
Easy for someone to believe any bad thing about anyone if they already start out with some sort of negative bias.

Finding someone "creepy" can lead lots of people to accept whatever negative things are said about them.

Sucks, really.

>>14007

Some people don't handle ambiguity and uncertainty and tend to respond to it with fear and paranoia. They don't personally 'get' how anyone can be transgender and can't accept that not everyone's subjective experience of being themselves are like their own, and faced with that uncertainty they become fearful. So they grasp for alternative explanations that assume malicious intent as the real reason anyone is transgender, typically informed by stereotypes of men as being more likely to be sexual predators (transphobes tend to forget that transgender men exist), hence the reason they accept the idea that transgender people are sexual predators, it comports with that knee-jerk fear and is consistent with their xenophobic, strangwr-danger view of anyone they see as weird and hard to understand. It's why they'd be so receptive to the need for transgender bathroom bans, despite the fact that sexual predators have rarely ever claimed being transgender as an excuse to sexually assault someone in the restroom. In fact there's no record of it happening at all, sexual assault of women in the women's restrooms committed by men are commited by predators who aren't inhibited by the fact that it's in a woman's restroom in a first place

>>14007
Personally, I could get along with the thought that it was grooming, as in normalizing it, enticing kids to become part of the LGBTQ group by means of exposure / acceptance.

But some do seem to take it literally as sexual predation.
Probably because they associate transgendeism, and all the other groups within LGBTQ (make no mistake, for now T and Q are socially acceptable to say out loud somehow) as sexual deviancy. And since it's so promoted in front of kids, it's to them the same as child predation.

>>14016

>Personally, I could get along with the thought that it was grooming, as in normalizing it, enticing kids to become part of the LGBTQ group by means of exposure / acceptance.

That's disengenuous as fuck. It's using a word that explicutly and originally implied a kind of psychological manipulation of someone for sexual activities, and pretending like it doesn't.


>But some do seem to take it literally as sexual predation.
>Probably because they associate transgendeism, and all the other groups within LGBTQ (make no mistake, for now T and Q are socially acceptable to say out loud somehow) as sexual deviancy.

Bullshit. "Grooming" was already used to describe manipulation for sex, especially in regards to pedophiles. This is the entire reason the word was chosen by propogandist, because of this preexisting connotation. It's just dishonest as fuck not to acknowledge this.

>>14017
Birds groom themselves and eachother.
You can groom someone into becoming your successor.


The definition is much wider than the sexual predation one and the sexual meaning is most certainly not the original definition.

Honestly... I'm just about done... emotionally...

It's now eight decades after Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust.

I know that the world is full of idiots who still agree with their brainless claims that Jewish people, gay people, bisexual people, disabled people, and transgender people are inherently more likely to be child molesters.

And many of these idiots happen to decide to live in America.

At this point, I strongly believe that normal people who just want to live their regular lives should just tell those extremists to f**k off.

>>14018

Obviously the word grooming in older than that, however, in the context of a post #MeToo movement consciousness of sexual groomers, especially pedophilic groomers has absolutely entered general public consciousness before the right adopted the term as a buzz word for transgender people in 2022.

This act of playing dumb about that was done first by professional opinion-havers like Ben Shapiro back then. It's not fooling anyone anymore.