Vivek Ramaswamy has the most civilized debate with a pansexual LGBTQ activist ever captured on video

submitted by xoenix from (twitter.com)

all 35 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Femaleisnthateful 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Damn. This guy for president please.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I hate Benny Johnson.

But if it’s not the Kennedy, then it’s him.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Me too, but that's where I found the video.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You know what is odd?

I like what he says. I like his links and videos. I just hate him.

Something is off about the guy.

[–]OuroborosTheory 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

all our pols have been firmly in the Uncanny Valley since 2000 (except Sanders, who makes faces like a real human entity would) (I mean even 1996 The Simpsons joked Dole and Clinton were aliens in skinsuits)

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

Typical "conservative"

Always moving further and further left. He doesn't have a problem with same sex marriage? Then he's a far leftist. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I find that I have far more problems with divorce law and the general cultural attitudes surrounding the annulment of marriage especially when kids are involves, to the point I can't really care about gay marriage being legal or not.

The thing is at a certain point I think freedom of association comes into play. Adults should be free to choose who they associate with, and in the same vein they should be free to choose who they live with without the necessity of government approval.

As to how that comes to legal marriage, I can't say I really see many problems with extending the same "benefits of marriage" be those tax incentives, visas and what not, to any sort of legitimately stable long term homosexual relationship. Though I do think we need to consider whether those benefits should exist in the first place and their position with childless relationships in general.

I suppose I tend to be pretty liberal in a lot of my politics but I don't really think this all or nothing approach really does much for the political discourse. This guy might take a left wing view on homosexuality in general but might be rightwing in all other aspects. Regardless this basically just turns into political posturing as I doubt anyone really has a good plan in place to what you do if you decide to make homosexual marriage illegal again. Do you annul the existing marriages? Grandfather them in? What is the plan?

I think you need to understand at some point regardless of what your opinions on what marriage should be, what marriage legally entails is a different matter entirely. For example I don't think the idea of no fault divorce should be allowed when children are involved. But that doesn't change the fact that legally a couple with children can choose to separate for reasons that I would consider to be frivolous. One must also accept the physical reality of life as well regardless of law that one party may just for whatever reason leave.

Modern political discourse wishes to simplify everything down into a red vs blue team game with meaningless slogans like some kind of Orwellian newspeak inspired thought crime prevention system.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

When did that become a left-wing view? Just a couple of years ago the right-wing position was "Why the hell is this up to the government?".

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Small government is more a libertarian approach I think, plenty on the right hold to it as well but the big tent nature of US political alliances does mean the small government right wing is in bed with the moralist authoritarian right wing who believe that government power should be used to enforce their views of morality.

It's essentially a form of eight wing progressivism imho. Although people don't like that term. It's just you've got more christian nationalist progressive types rather than left wing globalist progressive types. They'll both agree that the government should wield it's power to force people to behave in a way that benefits society, they disagree on what that way is.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Exactly. However until recently they were almost all moderate libertarians, but now the majority have turned authoritarian.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Nah I think they've always had the authoritarian bend. This is true of both parties. The small government limited power voices are loudest in the opposition. Once they get power the authoritarians are emboldened and use whatever power they can get away with regardless simply because they can.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I know that. However the racism, sexism, etc. is definitely new, and that cannot be explained by "we have power now". Besides, they haven't gained any more power.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Nah it's always been there but it's a minority position. There's a couple reasons why it seems like more or a problem. One is there is some truth to the idea that Trump emboldened this base, he did and it brought a lot of otherwise non-engages voters to the table, problem is a lot of them were non-engages voters because they are stupid.

Another is social media which magnifies the stupidest and craziest viewpoints and moves the culture war even more towards a battle of the most insane extremist voices.

And finally as a consequence of that what is considered racist or sexist has become so broadly defined that virtually everything qualifies, so virtually everyone is a racist or a sexist.

I don't think most people on the left really well understand the dynamics of the religious authoritarian right so to speak. They really aren't that different from authoritarian leftists in a lot of sense, a lot of their ideals match up as well, for example both a hardline social reform commie and a born again theocratic bible thumper will probably come to agreement that gambling needs to be banned, ostensibly for the reason that it causes social harms, but go below the surface and their motivations will quickly diverge, the commie because it's a form of profiteering off of the proletariat that is not compatible with the values of socialism and distracts people away from the cause, the bible thumper because it's a sin that is not compatible with the teachings of Jesus and distracts people from Jesus.

They are both extreme ideologues simply following different ideologies. Often they will come to the same conclusion despite hating each other, but it's a feature of the totalitizing nature of extreme ideological persuasions. As is authoritarianism.

There's little overt racism or sexism in either group though and most ideologues believe in some kind overarching authority that erases such distinctions. That's not to say that all their ideas are beyond criticism of course, but I think people forget that there are loads of black evangelical types, to say nothing of the fact that politically it is an extremely female dominated group.

Of course we could get into the discussion about how the people who most want to control women's life choices happen to be other women. And I think there's a pretty good argument to be had that a lot of the "sexism" in society can be ascribed to judgemental attitudes used by women to attempt to place themselves on top of their own social hierarchy.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I rarely see men oppressing women. It's usually from the matriarchy, even though they blame everything in the patriarchy.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

When the Republicans finally got to shake the last part of the "we are ostensibly religious and will at least pretend we're trying to be good people" and could finally say "no, we are the forces of evil and we're proud of it."

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I've been surrounded by them my entire life, and all but a few were genuine. Far more tolerant and open-minded than far-left "progressives" who shoot you down and call you a bigot over the smallest disagreement. There was never the slightest sign of racism, sexism, etc., in fact they tried to stay as unbiased as possible, much to the dismay of those who think black people, women, LGBT people, etc. are superior and should get special treatment. They hated identity politics and the leftist tendency to judge people based on group membership (aka prejudice), for example, "all men are rapists". They loved America, the land of the free. The most concerning thing I ever saw was that SOME of them were always a bit iffy around gay and trans people, but that can be explained almost entirely by religion, and they never hated those people or advocated for government action against them. To do so would be compromising everything they believe in (which was "don't turn America into 1984"). On the contrary, it was always them trying to reconcile with raging liberals who perceived everything as offensive and wouldn't speak to you again after one perceived microagression.

Then everything changed, seemingly overnight, in the middle of 2020. If I had to guess, it was after Minneapolis was burned to the ground by "Black Lives Matter".

[–]wylanderuk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Well I would not lay everything at the feet of BLM riots, although that most likely had a impact of some kind, combine it with lockdowns, drag queen story hours and getting a look into what their kids were actually being taught and the massive overreaction to Jan 6 combined with seeing the radical leftwingers getting away riots invading the actual whitehouse grounds etc and you are going to flip a lot of peoples "fuck me? NO FUCK YOU!!!!!!!" switch pretty firmly.

Its a bit geeky but this sums it up pretty good

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

But is it right to abandon all values and persecute masses of innocent people just to get back at some political opponents?

[–]wylanderuk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Is it masses?

And since fairness is supposed to be a core value you have the old canard of "turn around is fair play". One of the downsides of playing identity politics is not all of the identities are going to be ones you like, nor are the outcomes.

But is it right to abandon all values and persecute masses of innocent people just to get back at some political opponents?

Its what has and is been done to them, do you think they should just grin and bare it?

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

i.e., is it fair to destroy all gay people because some corrupt coalitions which appointed themselves as their "advocates" wronged you somehow? If you must take revenge, at least restrict your vengeance to the ones who are actually responsible.

[–]wylanderuk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

And just how is that being done pray tell?

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, the left should start compromising.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Regardless this basically just turns into political posturing as I doubt anyone really has a good plan in place to what you do if you decide to make homosexual marriage illegal again. Do you annul the existing marriages? Grandfather them in? What is the plan?

Not only that, but even if you try to do it, then you end up without even a slippery slope to eliminate free will. Let's say they're annulled. You can't MAKE the former married gay couple break up even if they're no longer married. And if you try to do that? You can't MAKE them enter a straight relationship. And if you say "this gay couple and this lesbian couple? You're both paired off, you with her, you with her- you're two straight couples now"- you can't stop them from just living together and being the same gay couples. And if you can? The only reason to have forced straight marriage confirmed is "we need you to have kids who can't be aborted for any reason so they can grow up, and if they don't get shot in school, those kids will be forced to join the military"- and if that happens? You can't exactly put a gun to their head and force them to have kids. Likewise, what if one of the women is barren if you try?You going to have someone in their bedroom videotaping to make sure they're having sex to make babies? Because now you're making pornography and I know you don't like that all that much either...

[–]UncleWillard56 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Marriage was first and foremost about money, land, lineage. This idea of romantic love is new in the scope of human civilization. I personally don't give a shit if two men or two women want to have a monogamous relationship that is protected by the rule of law. I think that is a good thing. I don't think anyone's religious beliefs have anything to do with it.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When did that become an exclusively left-wing view? Just a couple of years ago the right-wing position was "Why the hell is this up to the government?".