C.A. Pinkham

I also want to be clear: I’m not asking this repeatedly to like, cow you or win some argument or something. I *genuinely* want to know where you stand because I have enjoyed a lot of your posts in the past and I *really don’t want to believe* you would think the horrifying thing

If your stance is “it’s fine to compromise on some issues but not others for electability” then I will immediately apologize for the insinuation you believed it was any issue. It’s still an extremely fair question to be asking because HOO BOY is it a moral abyss to believe it about any issue

You want to say you don’t owe me an answer, fine, but you don’t get to act like it’s somehow an unacceptable question to ask

If you’re saying that it’s unacceptable to ask someone basic questions of morality to see where you stand in relation to each other, I don’t even know what to say to that, that’s not a viewpoint I thought literally any human being held until this moment

Buddy nobody here needs a background essay. It’s a simple question whether you believe it is morally acceptable to politically compromise in some situations or in all of them and I don’t think it’s an unfair question to ask since it strikes at the heart of basic decency

Please explain what I have said that is in any way disrespectful or unacceptable. I have only stated “I believe X position is morally indefensible.” I very specifically haven’t actually said you believe that position and I’ve repeatedly given you the space to clarify what you mean

From what I can tell, you believe one of these two things, and this is the core of the discussion. Why are you hesitant to clarify which of the two it is? If it’s the first one then that’s a respectable position!

You know full well what the implications of “it’s fine to be a political weathervane” are. You cannot pretend to me that you don’t or that well this hypothetical question is unfair because currently the public doesn’t actually hate gay people at present

No, I am asking what you believe, because it’s unclear from your statements above what that actually is. Do you think it is acceptable to sacrifice minority groups for the sake of electability? Because I believe it is extremely evil to do so! And yes, this question is *absolutely* under the context!

If that’s not what you believe, by all means please say so! I would love to be wrong in how I am reading this!

It’s one thing to say “there are some issues you could compromise on and some you can’t,” I wouldn’t even necessarily disagree in concept. But what you appear to be saying is “it is acceptable to compromise on any issue if it genuinely did serve to get you elected,” which is a VERY different thing

“Well the public doesn’t actually hate trans people” cool good I’m glad we agree on that

Would it be ok to stab them in the back if the public DID hate them?

I’m not asking for a loyalty test. I’m pointing out that if you think sacrificing issues of equality is acceptable in order to win elections, that is a fundamentally evil thing to believe. What I don’t know is whether or not you actually believe it

Being a political weathervane, even a technically accurate one, does not exist in a vacuum the same way a Panzer tank built to operate only under ideal conditions didn’t exist in a vacuum. It is both a moral *and* strategic failure!

That’s also leaving aside the fact that a voting public who *sees* a politician shift position to court votes is infinitely more likely to *not trust that politician and then not vote for them.* this is the exact problem Dems have been dealing with for decades

If the public decided it hated LGBT people again à la the 1980s, it would not be acceptable for Dem politicians to shift their rhetoric toward homophobia in order to get elected, how in the fucking world is this a conversation we are having

Here. Here’s the core point. If this is something you dispute then I cannot ever interact with you again because to disagree with this is, I’m sorry, completely morally bankrupt

Jesus Christ read the rest of the thread, man, there are just so many *different* problems with this cynical, morally broken viewpoint

If the public decided it hated LGBT people again à la the 1980s, it would not be acceptable for Dem politicians to shift their rhetoric toward homophobia in order to get elected, how in the fucking world is this a conversation we are having

that’s even leaving aside that the job of morally good public figures is sometimes to affirmatively make the case for issues where the public has not yet caught on to what’s right, e.g. LGBT rights pre-2010s

Any politician who will shift beliefs in order to get elected rather than because their views have *actually* shifted cannot be trusted on *literally anything*

You cannot make the argument “well it’s actually fine unless they do it wrong” they won’t do it right! This cannot be your argument!

I don’t have to come up with a theoretical, I can point to all of the Dems who became erroneously convinced in the wake of 2024 that the public hated trans people now

The problem with politicians lying to get elected is it means you cannot trust them because the second they think something else will help them get elected, they will shift that position. Any politician who does this fundamentally cannot be trusted as a human being

Oof buddy this ain’t it

No it is 100% accurate and I believe it with every fiber of my being. I don’t say shit I don’t believe, my man

Emotionally if it helps you to tweak the original statement to “Gavin Newsom as president would be as bad as ICE” then you go ahead, but that’s splitting hairs at this point

Buddy I believe everything I have said in this conversation

Ideally I would prefer not to yes but if my choice is that or shoot a Gazan kid, guess I’m checking out early

TLDR why would you want to live if you can’t live with your own actions?