• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

GOP spent 50 million on anti-LGBTQ attack ads

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Isn't the problem really with the stupid abuse in
the ads, rather than the amount of money spent?
Dems spend much on ads too...money that could
have been "spent helping people".

It's common when criticizing wrongful behavior by
the other tribe, to decry not only what's wrong, but
also ordinary things, eg, spending money. This
dilutes real criticism.
I think we can agree that political advertising is never going to go away. It may also be possible that we could find partial agreement that some of that advertising is going to be useful, assuming we agree that politics is both a necessary and important part of national life.

But of course, as with all limited resources, the question of where to allocate those resources and in what proportion does come up. How much should go to "helping people" versus "helping people vote wisely" might be an interesting debate, but I seriously doubt it could ever result in anything like agreement except in the smallest of settings -- say electing officers to your local charity.

However, and I think this is important, the fact that the Republican Party spent a minimum (I say minimum because we only know of the money they actually tracked) demonizing something like 4,200 people, mostly young, is in fact quite extraordinary. Less than 100 kids and young people in each state, struggling with gender identity, have been held up shameful public scape-goating for no other reason than to instill "fear of the other" for no other reason than to garner votes.

It does not speak to any policy that one might intelligently consider as a guide to casting their ballot. It does not talk to the questions of what sort of people do we wish to be.

I was just thinking about a friend of mine (who actually is a Scot), who has quite severe Tourette Syndrome -- no mild "tics" here, he can be a bit shocking when people are around who don't know him. But what can he do? Some "tics" can be managed (not cured), some cannot. Nobody really knows what causes Tourette Syndrome.

Likewise, nobody really knows how the brain decides that its gender identity does not agree with the gender assigned to the physical body it is housed in. What can such a person do? Try to manage, try to find a way to comfortably exist both within their own body, and in their society.

What can possibly justify spending so much money to demonize so very few people?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If I were to attend a lecture on culture or society, I would much rather listen to a reliable, disciplined educator than an ideologue like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. If a university asked me to vote on whether either of them should be hosted and take up time that could be given to more productive speakers, I would vote for hosting other speakers.
Why? Hearing and reading opposing viewpoints does us good. If for no other reason it's how you know your opponents points and arguments and learn how to best counter them. Q&A sessions are an opportunity to challenge. I've also found it helps prioritize things, such as realizing Peterson gets a bit wonky at times and it really doesn't matter what Bill Maher's views on Islam are because a lot of people don't like him to begin with. And Maher shows us degree of hypocrisy, because he got canceled for his views on Islam but not his views on Christianity (he even made a movie about that one). Not his views on religion in general. He is an unabashed and unapologetic anti-theist but it's his views on Islam are what got singled out.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't think that it was spent was so much the issue, rather highlighting that money had potential to be used for love but was instead used to spread hate. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

That's not going to effect millions with the stroke of a pen.
Scale of spending is what made it wrong, eh.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I
What can possibly justify spending so much money to demonize so very few people?
This reminds me of a Homer Simpson quote
(that I can't fully remember)....
"I hate those people who use words to say things."
It have an insertion....
"I hate hose people who spend money to use words to say things."

Shouldn't it be about the message, not the fact that money was used?
Or is spending money only wrong when Republicans do it?
There will be vigorous disagreement in politics.
Money is spent by all.
Use Occam's Razor to pare that away as the problem.

BTW, Trump spent a pittance for his 2016 election.
What was the problem there....Trump, not money.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
This reminds me of a Homer Simpson quote
(that I can't fully remember)....
"I hate those people who use words to say things."
It have an insertion....
"I hate hose people who spend money to use words to say things I hate."

Shouldn't it be about the message, not the money?
Or is spending money only wrong when Republicans do it?
Okay, I agree that the amount of money is not the real issue. Why spend even a nickle on demonizing anyone trapped with that which they cannot help? So I have to go with @Shadow Wolf and conclude that it really is about hate -- using hate to get elected. Pretty shabby, in my view.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Okay, I agree that the amount of money is not the real issue. Why spend even a nickle on demonizing anyone trapped with that which they cannot help? So I have to go with @Shadow Wolf and conclude that it really is about hate -- using hate to get elected. Pretty shabby, in my view.
You're so easy going.
Are you Canuckistanian or Minnesotan?
Or inebriated?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Why? Hearing and reading opposing viewpoints does us good. If for no other reason it's how you know your opponents points and arguments and learn how to best counter them. Q&A sessions are an opportunity to challenge. I've also found it helps prioritize things, such as realizing Peterson gets a bit wonky at times and it really doesn't matter what Bill Maher's views on Islam are because a lot of people don't like him to begin with. And Maher shows us degree of hypocrisy, because he got canceled for his views on Islam but not his views on Christianity (he even made a movie about that one). Not his views on religion in general. He is an unabashed and unapologetic anti-theist but it's his views on Islam are what got singled out.
Whilst I do agree with that in principle, I ultimately agree with @Debater Slayer on this one.
Sure it’s good to get out of our echo chambers and challenge our own views by listening to the “opposition” as it were.
But ideologues such as the aforementioned Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson aren’t going out and having good faith debates in which they simply wish to discuss issues from their perspective.
Ben Shapiro literally made a name for himself for being able to “own the libs” and touting the rather shallow meme of “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
It was actually kind of weird to watch, if I’m honest

And Peterson, well I won’t pretend to know much about the guy other than his unfortunate addiction issues. Though there seem to be documentaries popping up detailing the harmful affect his ideas has had on folks. Allegedly.
Regardless both these men seemingly want to merely put on a performance. Or have you buy their stuff

In contrast, a professor playing Devil’s Advocate or even a person arguing in good faith is likely going to produce a much more beneficial result. If one wanted to hash out ideas and have a back and forth.

In saying that, perhaps that’s not nearly as entertaining I suppose
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I understand where this is coming from and it is not without basis, but I also don't agree. That conservatism has become so co-opted by bigotry doesn't mean we need to (and more importantly, should) be defining it based on that. The way I was taught about conservatism growing up, it didn't include bigotry and intolerance in the equation. It was mainly about fiscal conservatism or governing conservatism; the focus wasn't on any social issues at all. Perhaps that's the old-school conservatism and I'm just not with the times, but I for one would like to see conservatism actually be conservatism proper again.
Social conservatives discovered that they can "cancel" any cultural "irregularities" by defunding it in the name of fiscal conservativism.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Thank you for so fervently misunderstanding my post....in Latin too!
You should see what I can mess up in Irdu! And, speaking of messing up, ...
<yawn> <pbbbbt> <yawn>
The HTML element includes a start tag, e.g., <yawn>, some content, and an end tag, e.g., </yawn>. Note that the forward slash is required. I have no clue as to what might have been intended by "<pbbbt>."
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
And Peterson, well I won’t pretend to know much about the guy other than his unfortunate addiction issues. Though there seem to be documentaries popping up detailing the harmful affect his ideas has had on folks. Allegedly.
Regardless both these men seemingly want to merely put on a performance. Or have you buy their stuff
But he and Sam Harris did have an interesting debate, with one of Peterson's wackier moments being when he said to Harris "you live your life as if god where real."
I can't see all of Peterson's ideas as being bad, but I've read just a bit of his political stuff and his psychology stuff (I think I learned more about lobsters reading those), and not really that much.
He's one of those, he's not dumb, he's not really the worst ideologue, but wow, damn, he comes up with some far out, whacked up ideas.
Kind of like Ben Carson. He was a brain surgeon. He wasn't dumb or stupid. But he had some serious "what the hell?" moments.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
But he and Sam Harris did have an interesting debate, with one of Peterson's wackier moments being when he said to Harris "you live your life as if god where real."

Okay I want to watch that now

I can't see all of Peterson's ideas as being bad, but I've read just a bit of his political stuff and his psychology stuff (I think I learned more about lobsters reading those), and not really that much.
He's one of those, he's not dumb, he's not really the worst ideologue, but wow, damn, he comes up with some far out, whacked up ideas.
Don’t get me wrong here, I don’t think Mr “Lobsterman” Peterson is an idiot who is promoting nothing but dangerous ideas. Indeed even most of his detractors will clarify that not all his advice is bad. And can be useful for folks to heed. He’s certainly not stupid. I mean he was a tenured professor, right?
I’m just not particular familiar with the man outside of memes and scandals.
But I’d likely agree with your assessment if I read his book/ideas

Kind of like Ben Carson. He was a brain surgeon. He wasn't dumb or stupid. But he had some serious "what the hell?" moments.
Not familiar with Ben Carson. But in saying that, I know some otherwise brilliant people who sometimes say something that makes me question their intelligence lol

A result of Book smarts vs social/street smarts perhaps?:shrug:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Not familiar with Ben Carson. But in saying that, I know some otherwise brilliant people who sometimes say something that makes me question their intelligence lol
He was an American politician. He also believed the Egyptian Pyramids were used primarily for grain storage.
The guy who invented the MRI (can't remember his name), is/was a Creationist (I think he's still alive, but I can't recall that either).
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No, it is not about the money. The money is just an indication to what "extent" the Republican Party is an anti-LGBTQ organization. To the extent of 50 million dollars.


(and probably more than that)
And I agree it's a waste of money, but it's not only Republicans who do that.

Sign making companies themselves excepted of course who benefit from the business.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
He was an American politician. He also believed the Egyptian Pyramids were used primarily for grain storage.
The guy who invented the MRI (can't remember his name), is/was a Creationist (I think he's still alive, but I can't recall that either).
MRI is Raymond Damadian, and yes, he was a Young Earth Creationist. This is because he was a committed, live-long Christian.

This is the most astounding thing, to me. That a person with sufficient brains to study sodium and potassium in living cells, have the genius to turn that into nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), the precursor of MRI -- and yet have an unevidenced, unlikely belief cause him to ignore the immense amount of science that says YEC is simply impossible -- this boggles my mind. I don't know what it tells me about human intelligence, except that it's far, far less explicable than anybody thinks.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
MRI is Raymond Damadian, and yes, he was a Young Earth Creationist. This is because he was a committed, live-long Christian.

This is the most astounding thing, to me. That a person with sufficient brains to study sodium and potassium in living cells, have the genius to turn that into nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), the precursor of MRI -- and yet have an unevidenced, unlikely belief cause him to ignore the immense amount of science that says YEC is simply impossible -- this boggles my mind. I don't know what it tells me about human intelligence, except that it's far, far less explicable than anybody thinks.
I can't even begin to imagine the mental gymnastics required to be that well versed, experienced and educated in such a field but yet still believe in such a thing.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I can't even begin to imagine the mental gymnastics required to be that well versed, experienced and educated in such a field but yet still believe in such a thing.

Which is why I have long suspected that religion, while it might not make one more stupid, has tremendous power to make one say, do and believe (or perhaps pretend to believe) stupid things. Dogma, that which must be believed but overrules reason, has got to be a bad thing. Maybe one of the worst things.
 
Top