4 ms·
>You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being tr
by CountDrewku 5y ago
>You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow.
So, essentially you're telling people they should stop thinking the way they do and think the way you want them to?
Would you apply this to trans people as well? I'm trying to figure out where your line is. Basically if it's an external physical attribute then discrimination is bad but if it's mental then discrimination is fine and dandy? Does this apply to homosexuality, religion, cultural attitudes etc?
- wonderwonder 5y agoMy line is that its not wrong for a private company to censor a politician or entity that calls for violence and attempts to overturn an election without evidence. People claiming that all republicans are being censored are disingenuous. The only people being censored are those spreading unfounded dangerous claims that threaten the very heart of US democracy. Everyone else is still posting and tweeting without a care in the world besides the crosses they choose to bear in order to get clicks and eyeballs. No political party is being widely censored currently despite what certain media figures would have you believe.
- anoonmoose 5y agoHomosexuality and transgenderism, no, because they aren't choices, in my opinion based on the evidence I've seen they are biological/genetic in nature. Religion and cultural attitudes, yes, they're choices. I'll admit I'm in the minority here, but it's the only way I've found to have the view I have and be consistent.