NSFW’d for language.

  • @EvilBit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This feels like a bad faith hair-splitting argument. But just in case you’re not being deliberately obtuse, the conservative platform views LGBTQ+ rights, minority voting rights, women’s bodily rights, and many other important matters of human freedom and livelihood as invalid. Just because they don’t explicitly say “our platform is specifically to maliciously destroy the lives of these people”, doesn’t mean the de facto platform is not destructive of those lives.

    Edit: Freudian typo hate->hair

    • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -138 months ago

      the conservative platform views LGBTQ+ rights, minority voting rights, women’s bodily rights, and many other important matters of human freedom and livelihood as invalid

      Yes, I’m very familiar with this image of conservatives.

      The difference is I’m asking you to link to a conservative individual or organization taking this stance.

      What you consider “bad faith” is me issuing a challenge that I don’t think you’re going to be able to meet. It’s a rhetorical method where you’re supposed to try and then realize you can’t, and then have the presence of mind to realize that it’s significant that you can’t find this thing you claim exists.

      • @EvilBit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        148 months ago

        Are you fucking kidding me? It took all of two seconds to find a catalog of the conservative scion himself actively stripping LGBTQ+ rights: https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/lgbtq-rights-rollback

        Unless for some reason the only valid rhetorical claim is for there to be a recognized conservative leadership organization explicitly codifying in its charter that trans people should die, you’re wasting my time with your willful ignorance.