• sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Damn…not a dig at you, Soup, but “He was against murder” and “At least he didn’t shoot the black guy” as defences really shows us where we are at for our country’s representatives, huh?

    I didn’t say he was bad for his constituents. I just gave a publicly available reason that could have contributed to his turn to the right. For me personally, not apologizing after he made a very clear mistake, especially as we saw the increasing reports of black people getting profiled in white neighborhoods, is a yellow flag at the very least.

    We have people in this thread asking why Democrats always have at least one guy who turns out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The fact of the matter is, we all have prejudicial biases, no matter how liberal or left leaning our politics are. It’s not bad to acknowledge and confront them. A lot of privileged Democrat voters though are afraid to look that in the eye, and then they’re surprised when people they elect suddenly turn out to be unpalatable to them.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      What I was getting at is that his being against murder(along with the rest of the context provided, mind) means that as someone who was maybe seeing that trouble in more places than necessary he may have assumed that the gunshots he thought he heard were because a murder had taken place. Even with all that he still didn’t try to exact his own justice and detained instead of injured/killed.

      I’m trying to point at that we can’t necessarily just say “oh he was evil the whole time” and write it off like good people can’t turn rotten for various reasons. The Democrats have a lot of problems and their centrism is a huge fucking problem, but the party is not left enough to constitute “sheep’s clothing”. It’s relativistic politics to make that assumption.