Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
Racist, misogynist and polluter are not "extreme terms."
And yeah, not putting a pretty high value on the equality of others humans does, indeed, make one a racist and a misogynist.
|
Racist and misogynist are two of the nastiest labels in the language. And polluter can land your ass in jail, or owing massive fines. These are not equivalent to saying one has bad hair, poor taste in clothes, or shit for brains. These terms should only be used where the speaker is pretty damn certain they fit.
On your second point, suppose you were a serious conservative in the last election. Suppose as most of them did that all you cared about was SCOTUS. So you're faced with possibly losing control of the court for a generations - allowing a progressive majority to emerge, which in your view would ruin the fabric of the nation. Considering all of that, your deeply held belief that Trump is unfortunately the only one of the two candidates who will not destroy SCOTUS and by extension the country... Were you still obligated to vote for Hillary because of what Trump said about Mexicans and Muslims? In the laddering of priorities, is bigotry objectively higher than all other concerns? If so, where was that decided? Who decided it? Whose values informed that hierarchy of issues, and why does that hierarchy of issues objectively trump your hierarchy of issues, which puts SCOTUS above bigotry?
Trump must be the strangest of candidates for conservatives. You receive wonderful gifts, but for each one, there's something totally fucking awful happening elsewhere. "Congrats! You get a tax cut! Oh... and we'll be separating children from parents at the border." "You won SCOTUS control! ...And now we're going to have a trade war that's going to make a dog's breakfast of your portfolio."
