because they're not much different from each other when you think enough about it.
I would say it's more that what the US calls "liberal" is pretty much centrism or moderate conservatism and what is called "conservative" is more often than not simply reactionary.
"Reactionary" is an understatement. They are unabashedly fascist.
but if Aliroz's brother uses Aliroz's account to post here, and posting here makes you a heaper, wouldn't that make Aliroz's brother a heaper?
No.
Okay, let's assume, for the moment, that the person posting this is Aliroz's Brother and not actually Aliroz. But what name appears at the top of this post with a link? To what account is this post connected?
Going by accounts, this is a post by Aliroz, or at least one made on Aliroz's account.
To what does the "Aliroz" at the top of this post refer? Does it refer to whomever it is that actually wrote these words? Does it refer to the username?
If Aliroz's Brother posts on Aliroz's account, then the "Aliroz" you respond to; should you respond to said post of Aliroz's Brother on Aliroz's account; would be Aliroz's Brother.
Therefore, when you respond to "Aliroz", you respond to Aliroz's Brother.
Thus, Aliroz's brother would now be Aliroz, at least going by your responses.
So, assuming a male Aliroz; the original Aliroz would now be the brother of the current Aliroz.
Thus, assuming Aliroz's Brother posting on Aliroz's account; and assuming a male Aliroz:
IF Aliroz's brother uses Aliroz's account to post here, and posting here makes you a heaper, that would make Aliroz's brother the new Aliroz; and it would make the old Aliroz the brother of the new Aliroz. Since the new "Aliroz's Brother" would no longer be posting, he (assuming male) would no longer be a heaper.
So, in that case, Aliroz becomes Aliroz's brother; and vice versa.
In any case, the sibling who is a heaper is called Aliroz; and the sibling who is not a heaper is called "Aliroz's brother".
In no case is the being referred to as "Aliroz's Brother" a heaper.
Well, there are a handful of Republicans who have instituted and promoted policies that could be considered fascistic—the current Governor of Michigan seizing unilateral control of bankrupt towns and putting them under corporate management, for instance—but most of them are just horribly reactionary. Which isn't much better.
US conservatives are not fascist, unless you're using the word as a general-purpose political insult
No they are literally fascist. Conservative congresspeople hate everyone that isn't white or Christian, their economic ideas are literally Randian, they are the sort of nationalists who think that America is the beacon of light to the world and outsiders don't deserve sympathy or rights, they believe in torturing people for information, they think abortion should be illegal, and they almost universally despise and actively work to harm the LGBT population. One congressman literally said that he would beat up a trans person in a bathroom.
US conservatives are not fascist, unless you're using the word as a general-purpose political insult
No they are literally fascist. Conservative congresspeople hate everyone that isn't white or Christian, their economic ideas are literally Randian, they are the sort of nationalists who think that America is the beacon of light to the world and outsiders don't deserve sympathy or rights, they believe in torturing people for information, they think abortion should be illegal, and they almost universally despise and actively work to harm the LGBT population. One congressman literally said that he would beat up a trans person in a bathroom.
well that last one is just being a vile, bigoted human being (who should probably be locked up)
but in general it's inaccurate to suggest that US conservatives are fascist
not everything bad is fascist anyway, that word gets used too much
So, would it be just as wrong to beat up a non-transsexual person in a bathroom? Or is it only Transsexuals who are not allowed to be beat up in bathrooms.
Or is it an issue of bathrooms; and outside of bathrooms it is okay to beat people up.
Please stop using "they" and "their" as singular gender-neutral nouns.
Assuming that I am Ali's Brother, I know that my little sibling absolutely hates singular "they".
Assuming that I am Ali, I absolutely hate singular "They".
well, i am not sure i will do that
but supposing i will, what would you like me to use instead?
I don't know. As far as I know, in the English Language, there is no common, currently-used, near-unanimously accepted singular third-person gender neutral pronoun that can politely be used to refer to a person (some people don't like "it").
Some people use "he" in that case; such as "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far away".
It would be kind of silly to say "If a man or woman loses place with her or his companions, perhaps it is because she or he hears a different drummer or drummerette. Let him or her step to the music which he or she hears, however measured, or far away."
I guess there is nothing that is actually better.
I mean, "he", "he or she", "it", all just seem kind of clunky.
Perhaps assume one gender for Aliroz, for consistency and readability? Or, perhaps, alternate between pronouns (though that might be confusing)..
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
*ignores*
anyway I dislike the Democratic party too because it still panders to the corporate interests and the so-called liberals who are really just populist nationalists and also I hate Obama because of Chelsea Manning
hmm, maybe. but idk if you gave this country to the Republican party it would become 10x worse than it already is.
Correction: If you gave it to the fanatical rump of the Republican Party, it would be many times worse.
But then, the moderate wing of the party is absolutely hamstrung by the loons that want to re-enact Pride's Purge, so it's really not much of a difference...
So, would it be just as wrong to beat up a non-transsexual person in a bathroom? Or is it only Transsexuals who are not allowed to be beat up in bathrooms.
Or is it an issue of bathrooms; and outside of bathrooms it is okay to beat people up.
It is about threatening someone because they are something, not the act itself. The latter is bad enough; the former is abominable.
that kind of violent hatred is especially bad because it means there is no guarantee that person won't just attack somebody in the street without provocation for reasons outside the victim's control
however i can't think of any circumstances in which beating somebody up is really justifiable
Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, was an intelligence officer who leaked embarrassing classified military information (of no real national security importance but describing all manner of misconduct) after having a nervous breakdown. They tried to get her tried for treason, which is a capital offence.
really i don't blame anyone for being apathetic about politics at the moment, it's not a good thing, but politicians have thoroughly alienated most people anyway
Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, was an intelligence officer who leaked embarrassing classified military information (of no real national security importance but describing all manner of misconduct) after having a nervous breakdown. They tried to get her tried for treason, which is a capital offence.
Comments
Okay, let's assume, for the moment, that the person posting this is Aliroz's Brother and not actually Aliroz. But what name appears at the top of this post with a link? To what account is this post connected?
Going by accounts, this is a post by Aliroz, or at least one made on Aliroz's account.
To what does the "Aliroz" at the top of this post refer? Does it refer to whomever it is that actually wrote these words? Does it refer to the username?
If Aliroz's Brother posts on Aliroz's account, then the "Aliroz" you respond to; should you respond to said post of Aliroz's Brother on Aliroz's account; would be Aliroz's Brother.
Therefore, when you respond to "Aliroz", you respond to Aliroz's Brother.
Thus, Aliroz's brother would now be Aliroz, at least going by your responses.
So, assuming a male Aliroz; the original Aliroz would now be the brother of the current Aliroz.
Thus, assuming Aliroz's Brother posting on Aliroz's account; and assuming a male Aliroz:
IF Aliroz's brother uses Aliroz's account to post here, and posting here makes you a heaper, that would make Aliroz's brother the new Aliroz; and it would make the old Aliroz the brother of the new Aliroz. Since the new "Aliroz's Brother" would no longer be posting, he (assuming male) would no longer be a heaper.
So, in that case, Aliroz becomes Aliroz's brother; and vice versa.
In any case, the sibling who is a heaper is called Aliroz; and the sibling who is not a heaper is called "Aliroz's brother".
In no case is the being referred to as "Aliroz's Brother" a heaper.
This is going to be fun...
however, as far as i'm aware a person doesn't cease to be a heaper if they stop posting, even if their account gets hijacked
socialists don't get to own property
much safer and more lucrative
Assuming that I am Ali's Brother, I know that my little sibling absolutely hates singular "they".
Assuming that I am Ali, I absolutely hate singular "They".
but in general it's inaccurate to suggest that US conservatives are fascist
not everything bad is fascist anyway, that word gets used too much
but supposing i will, what would you like me to use instead?
Or is it an issue of bathrooms; and outside of bathrooms it is okay to beat people up. I don't know. As far as I know, in the English Language, there is no common, currently-used, near-unanimously accepted singular third-person gender neutral pronoun that can politely be used to refer to a person (some people don't like "it").
Some people use "he" in that case; such as "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a
different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however
measured, or far away".
It would be kind of silly to say "If a man or woman loses place with her or his companions, perhaps it is because she or he hears a different drummer or drummerette. Let him or her step to the music which he or she hears, however measured, or far away."
I guess there is nothing that is actually better.
I mean, "he", "he or she", "it", all just seem kind of clunky.
Perhaps assume one gender for Aliroz, for consistency and readability? Or, perhaps, alternate between pronouns (though that might be confusing)..
Or just say, "they" or "their".
anyway I dislike the Democratic party too because it still panders to the corporate interests and the so-called liberals who are really just populist nationalists and also I hate Obama because of Chelsea Manning
however i can't think of any circumstances in which beating somebody up is really justifiable