7 ms·

Can anyone who voted for this clown car help me understand what the appeal is? Everything the administration is doing was either expressly said or undeniably te

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• twisteriffic 2y ago
  The appeal is "I will hurt the people you don't like".
  • mindslight 2y ago
    TFW you realize that disappearing grad students off the street for having said something politically incorrect will likely be the bulk of their action on immigration.
  • ratg13 2y ago
    I feel it’s more the idea of “misery loves company” playing out on a grand scale. The wealth gap in America has pushed a larger amount of the population into ever tightening economic situations.. the psychological aspect of this brings people to want other people to feel suffering if they are. Unfortunately the population is being fed fake enemies by the people in leadership positions.
  • kelseyfrog 2y ago
    And this feels good to some people? I don't get it. Normally I feel bad when people get hurt.
    • cmurf 2y ago
      Schadenfreude.
    • twisteriffic 2y ago
      I don't get it either, but I haven't found any other explanation that fits as well.
    • intended 2y ago
      They feel that Dems, liberals, scientists, elites, etc. have hurt them. They are tearing down what they see as left power and cultural centers. It’s natural to respond to threats, and so they are.
      • ethbr1 2y ago
        Step 1. Identify the political obstacles in your way. Step 2. Use conservative media to make people hate those things. Step 3. Get elected on the basis of manufactured hate. Step 4. Get rid of your political obstacles. Since the Southern Strategy, American conservativism has been encouraging and weaponizing hate for votes. And since the gutting and exiling of mainstream conservatives ~2019+, it's fair to say they're now primarily a party of hate. (Both in their elected officials and supporters) It isn't about actual slights against conservatives by liberals -- at this point those are only rhetorical cover for doing what they want to politically.
• refurb 2y ago
  I would question your true interest in understanding when you use the words “this clown” and “all moronic”. We tend not to use those words when we have an honest intent to understand someone else’s position. You also have access to the internet so have the ability to find well written and thought out discussions of the other side when it comes to vaccines and Peter Mark’s opinions. If all you do is consume media from your side of course the other side appears to make no sense. If you want a good place to start you can look at the controversy of Mark’s overruling of FDA review teams to approve Elevidys which I would argue raises questions as to his judgement.
  • Fezzik 2y ago
    I am genuinely curious - the goofy language is to mask the (possibly misdirected) immense concern. If I am wrong, and all these goons I perceive as sinners are in fact saints, I would truly love to hear the recitation of facts that expels me of my delusion.
    • refurb 2y ago
      If you’re looking for sinners and saints I don’t think you’re going to find it. If I were to summarize the disagreement in the most neutral terms, it’s the risk vs benefit of vaccines. And like all risk vs benefit choices, it comes down to a choice - there is no one right answer, it’s a value judgement. I work in the industry so see this all the time - someone makes the call “we have enough data to confidently say X”. People disagree all the time over this. You can always get more data to be more sure, but at some point you start wasting your time. I’d say the argument from the RFK side is we don’t know enough about the safety of certain vaccines to make the risk vs benefit argument of mandatory vaccination. The same argument for food additives like red dye. Marks likely disagrees - as is evident from him overruling 3 different teams on Elevidys - a drug that failed phase 3 yet Mark’s decided the risk vs benefit was good enough for FDA approval. And before anyone says “yeah but look at the kooky things that side says”, you can do that for any argument. Even the pro-vaccine side says untrue things but that doesn’t mean the core argument doesn’t have validity.
      • deleted 2y ago
• lovich 2y ago
  What you're missing is that you are dumber than them and misunderstand. Everything will be better after their decisions. They already told us it would be better. I think you'll find it much easier in the future that if you find yourself disagreeing with the current administration, then you should assume you are wrong and missing some critical information. Thinking that you know more than our betters is a quick way to get a taxpayer funded trip to El Salvador
• add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  Many people can't accept new ideas about identity topics like sexuality. Today's trans panic is yesterday's fear of gays and the fear of women voting and school desegregation before that. This can be leveraged by the rich to get the poor to help make them (the rich) richer, and they'll install whoever they owe a favor to in whatever government post because they care about nothing.
  • tim333 2y ago
    There's a difference between being tolerant of trans people, or for that matter any unusual life choices that don't harm others, which I'm fine with, and having it forced on you to the extent that if you say common sense thoughts like there are two sexes you can be fired. I'm not sure it's trans panic so much as being pissed off with being told by the anointed ones what it's acceptable to say and think re that.
    • add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
      If there wasn't really a trans panic there wouldn't be passive aggressive comments like that and the harrassment that follows to start with. Making it "only 2 sexes lol" is bad faith, incorrect semantics, or just bad branding to frame it that way. Semantics aside, what it's really about is that some people feel psychologically different than their biological gender. If you frame it that way, there's no reasonable option other than to give them freedom and acceptance. Hence, "only 2 sexes lol" and other distractions like "won't someone think of the children". I'm not trans so I don't understand it from personal experience, but it's not in my nature to write off surprising or counterintuitive behaviors as wrong.
      • monkeyfun 2y ago
        Fwiw you pretty much nailed what being trans is in terms of a concise and unattached summary. There's usually a lot of extreme discomfort with your birth sex too, among other things, but yours is a pretty good starting definition. Of note on the "2 sexes" subject btw: - are there actually "only 2 sexes" in context of the genetically intersex? - the dialogue usually isn't "there's no such thing as a simple biological sex of male or female for most people!!!!", and most people seem to confuse gender with sex or are just seeking excuses to hate on other people. - many have been trying to suppress reasonable conversation, which is making it harder to just explain things to people. But a lot of us don't even bother trying to explain personally for ourselves when most conversations end up being exhausting bad-faith arguments just to justify our existence to someone spitting some points they heard on a podcast once. So it does tend to mean not a lot of us are going around just trying to explain to everyone like glorified jehovah's witnesses, and the popular perception is pretty distorted from the actual situation on the ground.
• plsbenice34 2y ago
  The response to covid was abysmal and Operation Warp Speed destroyed confidence in vaccines. People responsible for that should be dismissed. What is so incomprehensible about this viewpoint?
  • kadoban 2y ago
    The people responsible being Trump and his cronies?
    • riehwvfbk 2y ago
      If you are claiming that your opponents are dumb, why act dumb yourself? There was no significant difference in COVID deaths in places that did draconian shutdowns and the places that did not. Not in Florida, not in Sweden, not anywhere else. Fine, we didn't know what COVID could do, and maybe it was prudent to be cautious. Rushing vaccines through certification is the opposite of that though. And lastly there is the tale of massive corruption. A certain Ursula bought so many vaccine doses they could last a century if they had no expiration dates. These were bought with money that could have gone to much better uses than lining Pfizer's pockets. The same kind of corruption happened stateside too, it's just that the "free media" happened to stay mum. Now go hit that downvote button and keep pretending you are smarter than everyone, nobody could ever fool you, and anyone who disagrees with you must be subhuman.
      • kadoban 2y ago
        Even you seem to think the US's response to covid sucked. Who was responsible for the US's response again?
        • riehwvfbk 2y ago
          A certain St. Fauci I believe
          • ethbr1 2y ago
• gitaarik 2y ago
  Well, maybe, it could be, perhaps, that the vaccines were not that effective as they were marketed, has there been mangled / cherrypicked with data and information been censored to move the public into a certain direction, maybe motivated by people that could make big money on this. But of course this is a way too controversial / conspiracy way of thinking, that it's ridiculous and even dangerous and you shouldn't even be allowed to talk about it. But maybe that is also a bit crazy actually, because what if it's true? And they make you afraid and shameful for talking about it? And like that they have everyone under their control. I find it suspicious that it's so looked down upon to even question things about vaccines. Why don't people focus on their general health instead of taking more and more medicines and vaccines and whatnot. I believe if we start eating more healthy, clean the pollution out of our environments, supplement our bodies with nutritions we need that we lack in the food we eat (nutritional value has dropped due to pollution of our environment), drink enough clean water, be in nature a bit more, that we will build such a strong immune system that we need much less medicines and vaccines.
  • Centigonal 2y ago
    I'm upvoting you because this is genuinely what people I know who are fans of RFK Jr. say and apparently believe. I believe that there's a yawning epistemological void built into this way of thinking that makes it unlikely that it will result in better health outcomes for anyone. However, I think a narrative most people can agree with is that a broken food system and healthcare system have fostered mistrust of the medical and public health establishment among many and driven people to seek alternative ways of finding "truth" and understanding the world around them.
    • gitaarik 2y ago
      I'm not necessarily a fan of RFK, I don't really know much about him to be honest. I'm just giving my view on why people might have voted for him. But thanks for your support for me sharing my views. That seems to have become challenging the last 5 years, I've noticed. I don't trust governments and big corporations in general. And I find it amazing how many people are so trustworthy about a new vaccine technology that hasn't been tested widely, globally organized by mayor governments and big corporations. And I've done a lot of research about it and I'm not convinced about the effectiveness of it. There are many studies with different results, that can be interpreted in many ways, could have been mangled with / cherry picked, has many parameters influencing it, etc. And I find it weird that there is so little attention to so many obvious improvements we can make in our health and environment. But we do have the money for LBQT+ projects in South Africa or something. And then if someone comes along who kind of questions it a little bit, he is condemned by a lot of people like he's some kind of psycho. If I put that all together in one equation, I get a big frown. Not a trustworthy feeling.