> Are against open borders? Then you’re a racist.
It's immediately obvious you are arguing in bad faith. Literally no elected official says this.
Edit: instead of downvoting, please find a counterexample and I'll gladly eat my words.
Not the same thing, but this level of discourse is laughable.
An infinitesimal part of the population and debate around border/immigration policy favors open borders. The framing of anything remotely mainstream as “open borders” definitely strikes me as a likely sign of racism.
> Are against abortion? Then you’re a misogynist.
Yes. This is correct.
> Are for a pro worker visa policy and tariffs on imports? Then you’re a nationalist (which isn’t even a bad word but they make it sound like one)
Pro-worker? Or pro-worker-with-citizenship? And last I checked the objection to tariffs is that they’re harmful to all the people they’d ostensibly benefit.
> Are for the right to bear arms? Then you’re an uneducated hillbilly.
Not sure what uneducated hillbilly has to do with any Overton Window but the debate right now is over limiting access to certain kinds of arms, not eliminating the right to bear arms totally.
> Are for churches and other religious institutions to decide for themselves if they remain open? Then you’re a religious nut job who thinks the world is flat.
I don’t think the judgment has anything to do with religion, it has to do with allowing exemptions to gatherings being a public danger. You’re still a superspreader if you’re a superspreader with a good healthy positive religious faith.
Have you looked at the data of how many women are pro-life? Do you think half of women are misogynists?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018...
Why don’t you actually go talk to pro-life people and really listen to what they have to say? You might discover a better line of argument than just saying “stop being a woman hater”.
I’ll ask you again: isn’t forcing a woman to use her uterus to host another life against her will misogynist? You don’t have to be one of the women who share that view to agree that the women who don’t (and the large number of women who do but get abortions anyway) don’t deserve to be forced to be living fetus nurseries.
It damages our ability to have a constructive conversation with people who have opposing views, because it implies that they carry some unreasonable inner hatred of women within them, and that they can never be persuaded, only defeated and disempowered politically.
The youngest foetus to survive premature birth was around 24 weeks old, so does that mean you oppose abortion of foetuses older than that, as they could survive outside of the womb?
For what it’s worth I’m much closer to an open border advocate than the vast majority of the liberal-left spectrum, and it’s frankly absurd that the right’s take on this is “trump’s bigger detention camps and more aggressive policy means all the others literally didn’t exist even if they were basically his prototype”, when what he effectively did was add malice and lack of humanity to existing policy.
The same can be done the other way around.
For medical for all? You're a communist
For benefits and worker protections, like unions? You're a snowflake and don't want to work
This is a meaningless exercise.
We have multiple levels of government, we have a courts system, a legislature, and an executive branch, all directly or indirectly elected by the people. I'm not going to make any excuses for anyone for threatening the foundation of everyone's way of life here.
Sometimes your guy loses, fair and square.
1.) Everyone not in your bucket is NOT in the other bucket
2.) Everyone not in the other bucket is NOT in your bucket
Your arguments just appear to be a bunch of straw men to me. I can't identify a single one of those as mainstream viewpoints. Nobody I know who voted against Trump holds them. I'm personally a "liberal" that owns guns and am against bans an buybacks.
People, please, be warry of people trying to convince you there is a binary set of beliefs and it's all-or-nothing.
I think that's what GP is saying - talking about (for instance) NATO members contributing their contractually agreed funding to the organization and aligning with our own contractual commitment seems like a sane position, but when it's called "nationalist" either the word isn't bad anymore or the level of hyperbole is so off the charts that the accusation doesn't mean anything. Many other examples of the "nationalism" criticism that have been pretty hyperbolic in the last four years.
Find me one Democrat with actual power advocating for open borders.
And it's not as if the speech used by xenophobes is free of racial overtones and dogwhistles, either.
> Are against abortion? Then you’re a misogynist.
If you are against a woman's right to do what they please to their own body, you have to give compelling evidence for why. There is no such evidence.
> (which isn’t even a bad word but they make it sound like one)
Because it is a word that historically was used by people who started a lot of wars and were fixated on who/what was _truly_ part of their nation.
The "they" in "they've been shifting" is a strong majority of the people around you who now value racial inclusion and self-autonomy far more highly than ever before. This is a problem of values and pretending that all of them are created equal.
That's us. USA starts lots of wars. We've still got, what, seven going right now? Maybe it's down to six? (Ummm... Iraq Afghanistan Syria Yemen Korea Palestine Iran well that's at least seven but I'm probably missing multiple wars in Africa...)
Are against open borders? Then you’re a racist.
Are against abortion? Then you’re a misogynist.
Are for a pro worker visa policy and tariffs on imports? Then you’re a nationalist (which isn’t even a bad word but they make it sound like one)
Are for the right to bear arms? Then you’re an uneducated hillbilly.
Are for churches and other religious institutions to decide for themselves if they remain open? Then you’re a religious nut job who thinks the world is flat.