4thgenheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,442
well, we have a lot of morons who don't troll.
I do want conservatives on here
- Thread starter TarSpiel
- Start date
- Replies: 713
- Views: 17K
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,020
I'm not sure the German people would agree with you. I don't think it's a coincidence that the internet hate-o-sphere emerged at the same time as the resurgence of neo-Nazi activity in the past decade.
And I also think that most virtual spaces would be made worse by people posting shit like, "slavery was a good thing," or "Hitler was right."
EyeballKid
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 571
Not sure where to put this—if mods or anyone can think of a better thread, I’m all for moving it:
I just recently watched this documentary on Netflix. Strangely, despite having nothing explicitly to do with politics, this flick more than anything else encapsulates the problem with trying to communicate with MAGA folks.
Short synopsis of the flick is that a mob boss in Connecticut bought a minor league hockey team, brought them to New Haven, all for his 17-yr old son to manage.
Son (with mob bosses connections and blessing) fills the roster with goons, Slap Shot style. The team does well, and of course becomes infamous because of their goonery and violence.
The part that struck me most was how the blue-collar locals LOVED the team, loved the violence, loved the mobbed-up culture. They sold out every game. Every single fan interviewed in the doc was absolutely a MAGA supporter. They were angry with the league for enforcing penalties against the team and owners/managers.
MAGA folks root for the bad guys in movies. They love the attention they get by thumbing their noses at the rules and the “experts”. You can’t talk reason with them because they don’t give a shit about reasoning.
I just recently watched this documentary on Netflix. Strangely, despite having nothing explicitly to do with politics, this flick more than anything else encapsulates the problem with trying to communicate with MAGA folks.
Short synopsis of the flick is that a mob boss in Connecticut bought a minor league hockey team, brought them to New Haven, all for his 17-yr old son to manage.
Son (with mob bosses connections and blessing) fills the roster with goons, Slap Shot style. The team does well, and of course becomes infamous because of their goonery and violence.
The part that struck me most was how the blue-collar locals LOVED the team, loved the violence, loved the mobbed-up culture. They sold out every game. Every single fan interviewed in the doc was absolutely a MAGA supporter. They were angry with the league for enforcing penalties against the team and owners/managers.
MAGA folks root for the bad guys in movies. They love the attention they get by thumbing their noses at the rules and the “experts”. You can’t talk reason with them because they don’t give a shit about reasoning.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 978
Internet forums are just toxic in their very essence IMO. What we lack here (tone of voice, body language, give-and-take in conversation pacing, on the fly clarification, etc) is the stuff that keeps communication healthy. Sports boards are every bit as nasty and toxic as politics boards, sans any political ideology at all.
- Messages
- 978
The thing about MAGA that is most interesting to me is that it's not limited to America. There are exactly this same type of political mobs in Hungary, Brazil, Philippines, India, France, Italy, the Middle East, Russia....you name it. IMO you can't understand MAGA without having some sort of sense of the global right-wing retrenchment that it is *one* instance of.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,358
Sort of a human condition thing. It all ties together with the mob/thug hockey team mentality. The global right-wing simply lacks the ability to empathize with “the other”. They like their red meat, they like their “strong man”. They like their leaders to be like John Wayne toilet paper.
The very much dislike weaker, less-than, effeminate types. Soyboys, tree huggers, Green anything. They like to kill other things. Period. They like to kill. Whether or not they need to kill in order to eat and survive, they just want to kill stuff even if just for sport. If they see a turtle trying to cross the road, they don’t swerve their car (I should say truck) to miss it. And they certainly wouldn’t stop their vehicle to help the little guy across the road… no. On the contrary, they’re more apt to purposefully run over the poor guy…. And they would actually get their rocks off doing it.
These humans who lack the ability to empathize with any other living creature - human or otherwise - tend to be hard-right. They like their authoritarian dictators. They like their Taliban. They like their religion to be “stronger than yours”. They easily justify, killing, slavery, oppression of women and people of color as their God - given right… They’re nothing more than barbarians who think might makes right.
The purpose of your thread is altruistic. The idea of having “conservatives” on this board is a nice idea. And there are some former Republicans here. There are some who admitted they voted for Trump the first time in 2016, and they’ve admitted to the error of their ways. They are indeed “conservative” in a lot of areas (fiscally if nothing else), but they’ve renounced Maga and Trumpism. Good on them. They’ve decided to be on the right side of history. Just like John Kasich, Adam Kinzinger, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, etc. etc. Those I listed earlier.
Those conservatives are absolutely welcome and we should want them aboard.
But as far as Maga is concerned… be they from the States, or any of the other countries mentioned… those on the right side of history have been trying to beat back those sonsabitches for centuries. I only find them interesting in the same way a research scientist finds cancer cells “interesting”.
- Messages
- 1,373
I guess you'll find it ironic that the Trump Administration in its first term set goals for Federal Agencies such as FDA, NIH and EPA reducing animal testing by 30% by 2025 and full eradication of animal testing by 2035. In his second term, Trump and the agencies are moving full steam ahead and has even removed all deadlines according to a May 14, 2025 VOX article. PETA spokesman praised the Administration stating that these policies were "among the biggest news there's ever been for animals in laboratories."
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,020
No, full eradication of mammal testing. Only the FDA has committed to it.
But you understand WHY they are cutting it, right? It's not because they care about the animals. It's because they want to cripple the science. The EPA took several measures in Trump 1.0 in an attempt to kneecap scientific inquiries into toxins. This is just another step along that same path. The goal is to throw sand in as many gears as possible to slow down environmental regulations.
- Messages
- 1,373
According to the Washington Times, new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin plans to reinstate the phaseout of mammal testing (the Biden Admn reversed Trump 1.0 policy). Zeldin has a history of pushing to end animal experiments while in Congress, including an effort to end cat and dog research at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sounds like Zeldin and MAGA love animals! Certainly not the animal sadists Centerpiece described.
akillesheel
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 115
From the article that you're citing:
"During Trump’s first presidency, enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law that governs the welfare of animals used in research, took a nosedive. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency tasked with implementing that law, removed thousands of animal welfare reports, which had previously been publicly posted for decades, from its website."
They do not care about the animals. They want science to stop happening.
Milk and Cookies
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 330
You might want to check facts before assuming your dear leader loves animals
1. Weakening Endangered Species Act - The Trump admin are proposing significant changes to the ESA that would great limit the ability to protect animals in the future. One notable example is reducing the scope of "harm" to protected animals to exclude destruction of habitat. They are also wanting to include economic considerations when determining if a species should be designated as endangered.
2. Increased Hunting on Public Lands - The Trump admin has opened up millions of acres of public land to sport hurting including on federal lands that were restricted national wildlife refuges. The impacts of these disruptions will hamper conservation and lead to destruction of natural ecosystems.
3. Environmental Deregulation - The admin has repeatedly rolled back environmental regulations that are leading to more polluted water and air. The expansion of fossil fuel mining is doing similar.
4. Climate Change Denialism - Removing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement and generally supporting climate change denialism will help usher in massive threats to animals by altering habitats.
5. Trophy Hunting - The Trump admin lifted bans on importing elephant and lion trophies from Africa. If you mean MAGA loves hanging dead animals on their walls maybe you have a point.
Tell me more about how MAGA loves animals
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,020
1. LOL at citing the Washington Times. Even my very conservative judge dumped on that rag.
2. It took posters like 10 minutes to return that shit to sender. Doesn't that embarrass you?
- Messages
- 2,368
Good rebuttal, in a good faith discussion. For the folks actively posting and lurking who did not know these truths, I hope they find it valuable. I assure you, Ram got satisfaction from the notion of you wasting your time “debating “ him; he doesn’t care a bit for any of the presented facts or reason.
Remember, he’s a lawyer, on a site filled with lawyers, who spends the majority of his time shit posting.
- Messages
- 1,373
This Act has been misused by environmentalists for stopping or delaying development. These groups have taken extreme positions on enforcement of the Act. That is the point of the changes to the ESA NOT any hatred of animals.
Enjoying hunting does not mean one hates animals. In many cases hunting is needed to reduce animal population.
Your biased opinion
Your interpretation of the "benefit" of the Paris Agreement. A stretch to equate this with a hatred of animals.
Admit, I haven't heard of this one. If true, then I oppose the Administration on the lifting of this ban.
I really don't see a love or hatred of animals as a particularly political position - that was my original point in response to Centerpiece's post. Plenty of conservatives and liberals who deeply care about animals and particularly their pets.
tonman
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 143
Oh you mean diversity?
- Messages
- 6,106
Ok, so they like animals as long as they animals don't impact building and developing?
The reason hunting is needed to reduce the number of animals is because of the imbalance humans have caused. Read about how reintroducing the Grey Wolf has leveled out deer populations. Humans caused the problem to begin with.
I do agree that most people on both sides probably live their animals. It's not the people I question as much as it is the motives of this administration. Trump has proven that everything he does is for his benefit therefore I question the motive even if a policy, on the surface, seems agreeable.
I am all for reducing or eliminating animal testing. I'm also for stronger protections of animals and their environments, screw development. We need to develop better and smarter. More density and less spraw.
- Messages
- 6,106
There is already evidence of how climate change is impacting animals. Republican administration's clearly oppose any combat of climate change, they want to pretend it doesn't exist.
Environmental deregulation isn't helping. These regulations were derived from humans being willing to do most anything for money. There are plenty of examples of humans taking shortcuts to save money before the regulations. They still try with the regulations.
- Messages
- 6,106
And inclusion.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,358
You guys wouldn’t last 2 minutes in the stands at a New Haven Hockey game. 
akillesheel
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 115
I'm going to say that bringing up people's care for their pets in response to a drive-by statement about the cruelty of conservatism vis-a-vis random animals on the street is little more than a non sequitur. Conservatism as an ideology is defined by the difference between how one thinks and cares about those close to them versus everybody else; that was the whole point that seemingly went over your head.
But you do open an interesting line of thought - In my own personal experience, liberals and left-leaning people are much more likely to talk about their pets as part of their family; you might not be able to tell whether one of them is talking about a child or an animal. I don't think that's true on the other side of the aisle; I find that the conservatives I know talk about their pets like they talk about their cars: particularly prized possessions that enrich their lives, but not entities with personalities.