Republicans Suck/moral absolutism - Revision history

Woozle: Woozle moved page User:Republicans Suck/moral absolutism to Republicans Suck/moral absolutism without leaving a redirect: take 2...

2025-02-07T01:34:24Z

Woozle moved page User:Republicans Suck/moral absolutism to Republicans Suck/moral absolutism without leaving a redirect: take 2...

Woozle: Woozle moved page User:Woozle/Why Republicans Suck/moral absolutism to User:Republicans Suck/moral absolutism without leaving a redirect: promoting this to a main article

2025-02-07T01:33:57Z

Woozle moved page User:Woozle/Why Republicans Suck/moral absolutism to User:Republicans Suck/moral absolutism without leaving a redirect: promoting this to a main article

Woozle at 22:14, 16 October 2019

2019-10-16T22:14:35Z

Woozle: more fake threats... then moved fake threats to its own chapter

2016-03-26T23:19:18Z

more fake threats... then moved fake threats to its own chapter

Woozle: this also seems like a chapter

2016-03-26T20:19:42Z

this also seems like a chapter

New page

=Republicans and Moral Absolutism=
Republicans think they're in the right, regardless of any criticism or evidence. Anyone who criticizes you is therefore the enemy, and not to be trusted. As the second President Bush famously said: you're either with us, or you're against us; either you're with those who "love freedom", or you're with "the enemy". Never mind that his idea of "loving freedom" seemed to involve hoarding it. (I'll touch only lightly on Bush's awfulness; I'd have to write another book to explore the subject even a little bit thoroughly.

That kind of sentiment is what we non-Republicans often refer to as "facepalm-worthy": it's the kind of thing we just can't believe anyone would be so stupid as to say out loud.

I really shouldn't have to explain this, but apparently Republicans don't get it: this is not what America was ever about. This is not what ''civilization'' is about. This is what ''destroys'' civilizations from within. It is exactly what "the terrorists" want: a black and white world where everyone believes that our in-group is Right and everyone else is Wrong and evil and we'd be doing the world a favor if we just nuked 'em.<ref name=ISIS1>It says as much in the ISIS training manual: they're trying to create a black-and-white world where everyone not actively fighting against their cause is aligned with it... and this isn't the only point on which Republican hardliners and their best frienemies seem to agree.</ref>

In other words: Republicanism is what the terrorists want.<ref name=ISIS2>Not that I think we should care all that much about what the terrorists think; they're just part of the dark pantheon of overrated, created, or invented bogeyman threats that Republicans need to have around in order to be seen defending us from something -- but y'all seem to be scared of them, so....</ref> When Donald Trump says we should kill the families of known terrorists, he's following their playbook to the letter. When Republican leaders talk about nuking countries whose policies or actions we dislike, they're doing the same way: using the threat to advance their own agenda, then using their agenda to advance the threat.

...which is how the Republican Party makes its living, in a nutshell: create a threat, campaign on promises to defend against it; when elected, go out and attack something not necessarily related to the threat (which may have been imaginary to begin with), and act all shocked when they retaliate or protest -- a new Threat to America! <s>We're saved</s> I mean how terrible, and we must bomb, torture, imprison, or harass more people to show them we ''really'' mean business!

Among the fake threats Republicans have ginned up are the following:
* '''non-heterosexuals''' and '''non-cisgendered people''': they're different from the majority in certain ways that trigger deep-seated instinctive emotions in many people, and therefore an easy target for demonization
* '''abortion''': aborting a pregnancy at any stage is apparently exactly the same as killing a baby
* '''liberals''' in general: apparently there is a growing contingent on the far-right which fervently believes that liberals have destroyed, or are destroying, or want to destroy, America -- while liberals are in fact pretty much the only people who give enough fucks<ref name=fucks>If the use of swear-words offends you, then you are being "politically correct". Just so you know.</ref> to actually try to fix things, rather than just using a pose of fixing things as a pretext for gaining power.
* '''terrorists''': yes, they actually kill people -- but far less than many other phenomena that Republicans seem to have no trouble ignoring or even playing down. Deaths from terrorism have been on a decline for the past few decades, as well; this is not a new problem, and it's getting better on its own. Terrorists have been one of the primary excuses for dysconservative hypocrisy on the subject of small government: they brought us the dysfunctional TSA (which replaced a private, for-profit system which was ''working just fine,'' thanks), a now-even-more-biggerer-than-ever-before Military Industrial Complex, increased government surveillance and reduced rights of privacy against same: ''1984'' in a bottle (just add media).

==Footnotes==
<references />

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 16 October 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{moved/wrs\|Moral Absolutism}}
	=Republicans and Moral Absolutism=		=Republicans and Moral Absolutism=
	Republicans think they're in the right, regardless of any criticism or evidence. Anyone who criticizes you is therefore the enemy, and not to be trusted. As the second President Bush famously said: "you're either with us, or you're against us; either you're with those who love freedom, or you're with the enemy."<ref name=Bush>Never mind that his idea of "loving freedom" seemed to involve hoarding it. (I'll touch only lightly on Bush's awfulness; I'd have to write another book to explore the subject even a little bit thoroughly.</ref>		Republicans think they're in the right, regardless of any criticism or evidence. Anyone who criticizes you is therefore the enemy, and not to be trusted. As the second President Bush famously said: "you're either with us, or you're against us; either you're with those who love freedom, or you're with the enemy."<ref name=Bush>Never mind that his idea of "loving freedom" seemed to involve hoarding it. (I'll touch only lightly on Bush's awfulness; I'd have to write another book to explore the subject even a little bit thoroughly.</ref>

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:34, 7 February 2025
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:33, 7 February 2025
(No difference)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 =Republicans and Moral Absolutism=
-Republicans think they're in the right, regardless of any criticism or evidence. Anyone who criticizes you is therefore the enemy, and not to be trusted. As the second President Bush famously said: you're either with us, or you're against us; either you're with those who "love freedom", or you're with "the enemy". Never mind that his idea of "loving freedom" seemed to involve hoarding it. (I'll touch only lightly on Bush's awfulness; I'd have to write another book to explore the subject even a little bit thoroughly.
+Republicans think they're in the right, regardless of any criticism or evidence. Anyone who criticizes you is therefore the enemy, and not to be trusted. As the second President Bush famously said: "you're either with us, or you're against us; either you're with those who love freedom, or you're with the enemy."<ref name=Bush>Never mind that his idea of "loving freedom" seemed to involve hoarding it. (I'll touch only lightly on Bush's awfulness; I'd have to write another book to explore the subject even a little bit thoroughly.</ref>
 That kind of sentiment is what we non-Republicans often refer to as "facepalm-worthy": it's the kind of thing we just can't believe anyone would be so stupid as to say out loud.
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 I really shouldn't have to explain this, but apparently Republicans don't get it: this is not what America was ever about. This is not what ''civilization'' is about. This is what ''destroys'' civilizations from within. It is exactly what "the terrorists" want: a black and white world where everyone believes that our in-group is Right and everyone else is Wrong and evil and we'd be doing the world a favor if we just nuked 'em.<ref name=ISIS1>It says as much in the ISIS training manual: they're trying to create a black-and-white world where everyone not actively fighting against their cause is aligned with it... and this isn't the only point on which Republican hardliners and their best frienemies seem to agree.</ref>
-In other words: Republicanism is what the terrorists want.<ref name=ISIS2>Not that I think we should care all that much about what the terrorists think; they're just part of the dark pantheon of overrated, created, or invented bogeyman threats that Republicans need to have around in order to be seen defending us from something -- but y'all seem to be scared of them, so....</ref> When Donald Trump says we should kill the families of known terrorists, he's following their playbook to the letter. When Republican leaders talk about nuking countries whose policies or actions we dislike, they're doing the same way: using the threat to advance their own agenda, then using their agenda to advance the threat.
+In other words: Republicanism is what the terrorists want.<ref name=ISIS2>Not that I think we should care all that much about what the terrorists think; they're just part of the dark pantheon of overrated, created, or {{l/same|imaginary threats|invented bogeyman threats}} that Republicans need to have around in order to be seen defending us from something -- but y'all seem to be scared of them, so....</ref> When Donald Trump says we should kill the families of known terrorists, he's following their playbook to the letter. When Republican leaders talk about nuking countries whose policies or actions we dislike, they're doing the same way: using the threat to advance their own agenda, then using their agenda to advance the threat.
 ==Footnotes==
 <references />