NewEnglandRedshirttime for a rebrand!
smokinjoeNot as much of a rebrand as a merger
sharpiemarkerGot em!
How is Microsoft and Target rebrands when it literally still says Microsoft and Target?
raspberry_confettiThe brand is the corporate iconography, typography, etc. Not necessarily the name.
I was thinking the same thing until I saw the punchline. Target and Microsoft were just fodder here.
Targets was a minor one but still a good update! The new logo is much more eye catching, the red is what you immediately notice first, whereas the old one your attention was divided between the name text and circular logo.
The new logo is also much larger and uniform in colour making it easier to remember.
be_excellent_to_each_otherI like those. Thanks!
The confederates were (southern) democrats
slicedcheesegremlintrue but the party switch was a thing
StumblinbearIt wasn’t really a switch, more like both parties having an ideological shift. A switch implies they didn’t change core beliefs at all and just flipped, when many of the beliefs of both parties changed.
The parties never switched. The Democrats just started pandering to the minorities they’ve been fighting against the entire time because they were losing a lot of votes.
Republicans freed the slaves. Republicans ended segregation.
Democrats just keep promising change that never comes.
Look, I’m pretty centrist and do my best to split my vote for both parties if policies align, but you can’t ignore or handwaved away the southern strategy.
Do you not know what actually happened and want people to tell you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant?
tHe CoNfEdErAtEs WeRe DeMoCrAtS
More important than the name of their party is their ideology. Conservative.
It was supposed to be a commentary on calling it a rebrand. It’s like if Coca-Cola rebranded to Pepsi.
Conservative is not always bad, but take it too far and you end up with fascists and stalinists.
When have conservatives ever been on the right side of history?
The situation was mostly middle-ground, but the US in Cold war? In the USSR, the far left policies gave way for the Far right stalinists to take charge when Lennon died.
The problems with the USSR were a case of leftists making mistakes that allowed reactionaries to take over, not a case of conservatives being on the right side of history.
… that became Republicans in the 60s?
ScrubblesBut that’s not the history I want to remember!!!
They say this is a lie and a conspiracy. I’ve had this argument many times.
Yet which modern party flies the confederate flag?
Who cares. How are they voting now. Are they bad now or good now. Both parties have changed drastically from the inception.
United Fruit Company ---> Chiquita
This is too political for me
Why are people down voting this?
To be honest, a lot of Republicans are still very respectable. The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief. A Democrat doesn’t believe in everything in the Democrat’s platform either.
In that sense, insulting a party is not generally helpful for public discourse.
Fuck Republicans and fuck Democrats.
That’s the spirit.
Then where is the Republican outrage against the fascist policies so many Republican politicians are advocating for? There are only two options: either they don’t care, or they’re secretly happy.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” ~~Martin Luther King, Jr
Fredselfish Exactly anyone today that votes Republican or calls themselves one (my boss) yet continues to vote republican just because either don’t care or wants what they want.
If you are not in the republican circle, how do you even know how they perceive the policies?
… did you read the MLK quote I included? The fact that there aren’t many Republicans loudly and repeatedly condemning the leaders of the party says exactly that. If you want to read the whole thing, I recommend you take a look at King’s full Letter from a Birmingham Jail to fully understand the point: silence means acceptance.
You look at this thread, and you ask “where’s all the voices”. You don’t find that ironic?
Silence could mean acceptance, it doesn’t mean agreement. Just like being on the left if I say “let’s keep the discussion going” all you fuckers are gonna downvote me to oblivion and accuse me of less intelligent and make anyone who have a different idea an outcast, it is the same thing for republicans. Someone who don’t go with the flow is made an outcast, so if you don’t agree, tough luck.
Yeh, if the left treat its different opinions like this, what the fuck you think a republican having a different opinion is treated like? So if you are strongly for the core policies of your affiliated party, would you raise your voice? Or if you did, you think those voices get heard and get reported?
See, now, the 1920s and 1930s taught us that reasonable debate with fascists is impossible. So where are all the Republicans in the public sphere standing up for moderation? No offense to you, but you’re a rando on the internet (and so am I). Where are the politicians standing up to the far right?
So where are all the Republicans in the public sphere standing up for moderation?
You know even from liberal media that there is a moderate republican faction, and they are indeed getting hammered exactly by people just like you but from the right.
See, now, the 1920s and 1930s taught us that reasonable debate with fascists is impossible.
Where did you learn that? A reasonable debate with any extremism is impossible, it isn’t just fascism. Point is you can’t let an ideology slip into extremism to begin with. If you refuse to debate your position, that’s already a sign of extremism, and calling your counterpart fascist doesn’t really make yourself better.
g0nz0li0Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.
Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?
This belief depends entirely on the state. Other red states don’t give a shit. Kansas and Florida for example haven’t restricted it at all.
Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:
Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.
Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”
“Not as bad” isn’t really a W.
Every country limits abortion to some extent. The UK limits it at 24 unless medically necessary. Denmark is at 12 weeks.
The US was unique in that you weren’t permitted to limit it at all due to the supreme court decision.
Some limitations are fine, imo.
You support a platform for many different reasons. For example you really want small government, so what choice do you have? And how do you know that a republican definitely is a pro-lifer? And if he is a prolifer, how do you know he believes government should control woman? You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagined. What you imagined is not your neighbor.
You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine
Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.
Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).
I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?
I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”.
Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.
But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.
The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief.
…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.
So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.
The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.
you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
people are probably amenable if you use the right approach
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
You seem to think the world run on responsibilities. How many people you see in your life take responsibilities for everything they do and say? And I am not saying responsibilities do not matter, but you can’t just interpret what I said based on your imaginary value system. I never said people aren’t responsible for their ideas and what they support. It just doesn’t matter in this conversation. You want it to matter? Then who are you to say “they are responsible”? Who are you to judge the consequences of policies? Who are you to call what exactly does a person believe in simply based on his party affiliation?
But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy?
Well you missed the part of talking to your neighbor first. How he act alone doesn’t really matter that much. To understand what he believes in you gotta talk to him. Does he hate gays? Or does he just believe in small government and love guns?
If he hate gays, and you tell him you are homosexual, would he start throwing dog shit in your yard, or would he have a painful conversation with you? That’s the important part. You didn’t really get what I am trying to say.
I said we keep the conversation going, I never said treat everyone like your BFF. You talk, you don’t judge before you talk. You don’t brand a Republican as a Nazi before you talk to him.
“Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests.
I am honestly not sure what are we arguing about. If you are fine with talking to your neighbor in a frank manner, what do you disagree with me on? Like, how do you know Bill is going to argue that way? How about he tells you “yeh I don’t really like that shit either but I don’t like how the liberals are doing things yada yada”? Wouldn’t you think if you talk long enough the latter response is more likely and probably a more interesting discussion to have?
I’m going to quote someone else in the comment section. Fuck republican, Fuck democrats. You are dealing with to evil sides, of which everyone must choose the lesser of two evils.
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
In the argument you call out, wasn’t the republican side pushing the decision of abortion legality to state level, putting it more in the hands of the people?
Is the Republicans platform not anti-abortion?
It is, and I don’t know how anyone could disagree with you on that.
We bash the Confederacy for using “states rights” to try and justify slavery. We should bash Republicans for using the same tactics.
ThatWeirdGuy1001Yeah they pushed it for state level and when they realized most people even in Republican states didn’t support the ban they went straight to trying to push it federally.
It’s all a grift for the sake of control and power. Acting like it’s anything less when the mask has been removed makes you complicit which is why I say fuck all republicans.
It used to be up to the individual. The Republicans took it out of the hands of the people.
I don’t give a shit about personal beliefs, I care about outcomes. Republicans’ desired outcomes actively hurt people I care about, so I can absolutely tell them to fuck off. Even if they don’t “believe in everything,” they are indifferent enough to let horrible things happen.