TRANS PEOPLE and DRAG QUEENS are BAD for KIDS but ALSO we should be able to MARRY CHILDREN!
-Republicans. All of them!
Removed from the delicate snowflake Conservative community lol
Oh, are the /r/Conservative mods here too?
When they only have two brain cells to share, they have to pass them around communities.
Cuckflakes.
Are people posting lemmy links on reddit? Why?
It’s worth the remembering that these are the “LGBT = groomers” people. However, I posit that this horrid statement belies the truth, which is that they’re not trying to protect children, at least not individual children from specific ills. The anti-queer vitriol is, and has always been, grounded in eugenics. this is also why conservatives’ eyes glaze over whenever the topic of queer youth suicide rates in restrictive states is broached. Taken with the ever-present conservative fixation on ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’ underage girls, alongside the Great Replacement conspiracy that has become central to their rhetoric, I feel justified in saying OH MY GOD THIS IS FASCISM WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK HOW IS THIS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
The tired, old trope of “Every accusation is a confession” tends to be true with conservatives.
It’s grounded in disgust over violations of what they perceive to be natural. They see a 16 year old girl having a husband to be natural, they see a 16 year old AFAB boy as being a violation of the natural order. And since they see queerness as a sexual perversion and marriage as the sacred outlet of sexuality they see queer people as pushing sex on teenagers when they’re just encouraging them to settle down and have a family
Legitimately how do conservatives even try to defend this
“Biden has said worse”
“They didn’t mean it like that”
“Your source is corrupt”
“They are lying about their age because they are immigrants”
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
The more you get angry, the more they can play victim.
Because the GOP have taken Mitch McConnell’s mantra of “if the Democrats are for it, we must speak out against it, no matter what” to ridiculous extremes.
I would make a hyperbolic example about the GOP arguing in favor of murdering puppies and kittens if the Democrats wanted to save them, but they’ve already argued in favor of forcing 10 year old rape victims to give birth, telling those children they should be happy for the “blessing” they received, murdered schoolchildren being nothing more than the price we pay for a ‘free society’, and guns being necessary and more important than the safety of our children because they need to shoot prairie dogs. I don’t think any hyperbole is necessary.
But this is how we get here. When the default is to be against literally anything the Democrats support, and the answer to the “what if…” questions that follow are to either double down on the extremism and/or just say “ban that too!”, this is the only logical outcome.
I think you’re underestimating the extent to which they really want these things, or their donors do. These issues aren’t new, and many of them either trace back to before the founding of the country, or are proxies for other issues which do. They’re just feeling bold these days.
It’s a brain malfunction where cognitive dissonance apparently feels good.
We are right, you’re wrong.
There is a defense for these laws! Which makes it doubly fucked up that I’ve never once heard a Republican utter it.
(Among other issues, marriage wipes out many legal complications of inheritance.)
So does adoption. And properly managed wills, trusts, and estates.
… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?” he said.
Gross.
He believes child marriage should be an option, so abortion isn’t an option. I would expect this from 4chan, not a government official.
Well that’s a gross new dog whistle to listen for.
“Freedom-loving couples” is shorthand for “oh shit I knocked up this ripe fertile child I was fucking, and I love freedom, so now I need to marty/own her instead of going to jail.”
Heyyyy 4chan’s b exposes paedos, conservative people DEFEND paedos. There’s a difference there!
I mean, I don’t know what he’s whining about. In most states all he has to do is get the parents’ permission, and he can marry her even if she’s underage. Maybe he’s mad that 12 states ban it completely?
On a side note, why is that a fucking exception in the law!?
I wish he gets every kind of cancer.
Fucking groomers going after kids with nothing but sex on their mind.
“… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?”
It’s either abortion or marriage, it seems. No other alternative. Also, Freedom loving couples? Never knew hippies to be into traditional marriage. Someone please shut this degenerate up for good.
“We need child marriage because it’s the only solution to child rape!”
These people aren’t even pretending anymore.
Me, who was adopted as a child: “Oh they forgot about adoption again. I’m shocked.”
Same here but I NEVER think about that
“Freedom of Marriage”.
So these two men who have been together for 10 years can get married?
“No, not like that…”
Someone please shut this degenerate up for good.
let’s shut them all up for good. the world would turn on a dime within one decade.
I think the GOP intentionally spews some ridiculous shit like this every so often to make their regular shit look less crazy.
That’s not even a conspiracy theory; It’s literally why reps like MTG, Boeburt, and Ted Cruz exist. Their entire goal is to drag the Overton window farther to the right. They’re in safe seats where they don’t need to worry about reelection. So they’re able to spew batshit crazy far-right propaganda, and it makes the republicans in threatened seats look less crazy. Because if you’re in a threatened seat, you need to appear moderate to catch the swing votes. It allows those threatened republicans to continue to quietly vote along party lines without looking like a hardline republican.
just look at the abortion debate, folks are celebrating that AZ now has a 15 week ban instead of a full ban.
Yep, to move the Overton Window to the right. The left should do this as well. If a group of real leftist put out a political platform it would make Biden look like a Republican.
- Completly ban lobbying
- Free healthcare for all
- Free college for all
- Housing guarantee - homelessness not acceptable
- Billionaires fortunes taken and redistributed
- Ban fossil fuel subsidies
- Military exit from all countries except as part of multi-lateral peace keeping forces
Stuff like that
Where’s the extreme position in that list? oO
(I know, to the average US citizen, most of those seem extremist :( )
Just one thing. You can’t ban lobbying. You can and should highly regulate it. But you’d have to put your representatives in an isolation chamber if lobbying was banned. What we need to do is define anything more than a handshake passing between lobbyist and politician as a bribe. But Congress pulled the FBIs fangs decades ago now.
We could ban lobbying for consideration. (We already have a well-developed body of contract law which spells out the scope of consideration.) A lot of the effectiveness of lobbying comes not from donations, gifts, or other bribe-like transactions, but rather from the scope of their presence. For example, petrochemical lobbyists can show up in person every day of the week, exert direct pressure, and even soft influence like providing consultations or “expert opinion” about bills that come before Congress. The people affected by fracking, on the other hand, have lives to live, and the best that they’re capable of is calling and writing letters occasionally.
Ban consideration in exchange for lobbying, instead. If an individual wants to go to D.C. and lobby on behalf of the petrochemical industry for no personal benefit whatsoever (not even covertly), great, that’s democracy in action. They’d be on a level playing field with the rest of us.
But you’d have to put your representatives in an isolation chamber
Interesting… lol
But in all seriousness, I’d say the number of reps we have it wouldn’t be impractical for a yearly complete IRS audit for each of them that has real consequences like losing your position, repaying victims fully, and/or going to prison.
Oh absolutely.
If a group of real leftist put out a political platform
You’re just describing the DSA
Ya, I wish they were more effective. I’d also like to see more from the less authoritarian side of the left.
the less authoritarian side of the left
Very hard to be authoritarian when you’re at the bottom of the economic totem pole. Are you sure you’re not just talking about the police, writ large?
I was speaking of the general authoritarian vs libertarian divide in the left. It’s not about power excercised, it’s about the power some on the left feel entitled to exercise to achieve their goals.
Everyone on the left wants to make the world a better place, eliminate hunger and homelessness, all that good stuff.
–> The terminology is confusing though as different groups use different words or definitions.
On the one side you have your (authoritarian) “socialists”, and “communists” those who believe that order must be imposed from above by a powerful government and this government. Good social behavior is coerced by implied threat of force. This government of course is supposed to be and remain benevolent and always controlled by well-meaning socialists to ensure a functional socialist system. The DSA fits in here on the lighter side, “tankies” fit here on the extreme authoritarian end.
On the other side you have your anarchist types (who are also typically non-authoritarian communists), those who feel that any entity powerful enough to control society will inevitably end up controlled by the worst type of people (because this is what’s happened in every state/government that has ever existed) and the we should look to non-state and non-coercive solutions.
the power some on the left feel entitled to exercise to achieve their goals
This reads more like a right-wing interpretation of leftism than any kind of leftist internal critique.
On the other side you have your anarchist types (who are also typically non-authoritarian communists), those who feel that any entity powerful enough to control society will inevitably end up controlled by the worst type of people
That’s an Orwellian critique. But Orwell was a Burmese cop turned UK intelligence official under Churchill. The Animal Farm / 1984 view of left-libertarianism is far more a right-wing propaganda critique intended to discourage any form of organizing or collective action. Hell it might as well be lifted directly from the CIA Guidebook on how to disrupt a meeting rules 1, 7, and 8.
And, in the end, the reflexive flight from any kind of organizational structure demonstrably doesn’t work. You can have fully decentralized entirely non-violent organically assembled student protests on college campuses, and you’ll still be accused of operating as violent, bigoted, fifth columnist dupes of wicked foreign governments. Meanwhile, you’re squaring off against a heavily financed, tightly managed, rigid state hierarchy that can act with impunity in the face of a fractured and easily infiltrated opposition.
The foundation of left-anarchism is the cultivation of networks of trust. Not a reactionary fear of authority. When anarchists trust one another, they can and do form hierarchies and develop party discipline and even form state structures once they’ve achieved sufficient degrees of success. And its these trust networks that allow a community of anarchists to preserver after decades under siege by militant capitalists.
Ya, this is the response I always get from tankies.
Ban fossil fuel subsidies
I think you mean Abolish Cars
I don’t think it makes sense to completely abolish cars. There will always be transport needs where public transport, trains, or bicycles just don’t fit the bill. There will be car and racing enthusiasts for the next century (assume we don’t collapse). The car industry needs to be reduced by 99% though, mostly transforming into maintaining existing cars rather than producing new ones.
Some people will want to or need to live or work where public transit systems would be impractical to build. You can’t spend 80 million dollars on a transit system out in the sticks and you can’t force everyone to live like sardines next to a bus stop.
I wish it was some strategic play to manipulate public opinion. But this is sincerely what white nationalists who have ingested too much Great Replacement Theory honestly think.
Teenage girls are just baby-making factors for the “correct” ethnicity. Everything about our civilization hinges on the level of pigmentation in our skin and the shape of our foreheads/lips. We need to be prepared for a War To End All Wars, and that means churning out an army of Ubermensch to combat the savage hordes.
It isn’t an act. This is what they sincerely believe. 20 years of post-9/11 hysteria and migrant-bashing has produced a party dead set on doing Nazi shit all over again, but from the inside of the country that won the last big war.
20 years ago that was their plan, but now they used the BS to control the masses so long, and so thoroughly, that the rubes that the were playing have taken control of the party.
See: Tea Party Republicans.
They absolutely are what happened when the rubes got tired of the lip service and demanded action.
Now, if only the radicals of the left could do the same, grow tired of the lip service, and hijack the Democratic Party.
Remember: It’s not paedophilia if it comes from the Bible.
“Remember, its not pedophilia if it makes me come” - Republicans.
“Fuck dem kids”
-Republicans
Instructions very unclear. Are trans people pedophiles or not??? /s
Idk, need more information.
Which Senator are they having sex with?
I know it’s a joke but it still feels like lampshading a transphobic statement. One day it would be nice to go through a comment section about stuff like this and not be personally and explicitly reminded that people draw a connection between transness and wanting to do unspeakable shit to kids. It hurts even when it is sarcasm.
…well being that I’m trans…
Yup and so am I. It’s not a free pass for either of us.
You are free to feel that way
Relevant Classic Trevor Moore Song:
Songs of Olden Times https://youtu.be/l_fIWlu5zuo
Let us see if it shows up at the GOP convention…
Let’s set aside morality, because that’s also wrong. It’s factually incorrect. You want someone to die in childbirth? Knock them up at 16. Early 20s are the actual reproductive prime.
Whoa whoa whoa…he didn’t say ripe, fertile and likely to survive child birth… this is pretty consistent with thier priorities.
Yup. Whenever someone tries to justify underage marriage with “most fertile period” or “it’s always been the norm”, you know they’re a pedo. Teenage pregnancies are risky because the pelvis hasn’t fully developed, and the girl is more likely to suffer severe depression as well. Most fertile age is more like 19-32 not 12-18. Also, I live in the UK and marriage records kept by the church from the 1400s show the vast majority of girls married for the first time in their early twenties, not teen years :)
Yeah I looked up my family on the Mormon genealogy site and was surprised how many of the women married around 28-30 years old. Certainly not as teens and I really was surprised. Like, I as a modern woman had kids younger than a good chunk of my ancestresses.
Truth. Marriages at a super young age were not normal outside of nobility doing it for political alliance reasons and even then the general advice were not to try for a pregnancy because your risks of killing a young spouse were astronomically high. However the concept was popularized by fiction that basically wanted to trade on the idea of a gritty nasty medieval age where the darkness of the human soul cam be laid bare and how mankind has evolved into a kinder more civilized place… basically the same thematic itch as Warhammer grimdark logic.
In regards to the whole “darkness of the human soul” thing it really doesn’t stack. People just want to believe their personal id (as in the Freudian concept, not “identity” ) is more universal than it is.
deleted by creator
What the actual fuck.
And they accuse us of being groomers
Yo United States, please save your country from these crazies.
I’m voting as hard as I can, but they’re making it as difficult as possible and even some of our leaders advocate for ignoring the votes.
If you’re voting, you’re not the problem. We’re failing at the polls and then complaining of the repercussions for their entire term.
Yo I live in California. I can’t vote for people in Mississippi.
Yet somehow conservatives think they can point at liberals as the “groomers.”
Because whatever disgusting, vile thoughts run through their heads is what they assume others must be doing.
Some call it projection… but it’s projection because these are things they are OBSESSED with. They are so sick and lacking empathy and experience that can’t imagine that others genuinely think differently than they do. Every accusation is an admission.
As always, it is all about Projection.
Ew. Ew, ew, ew. Gross in ways I didn’t think an elected official could get away with in public.
Someone needs to do a wellness check on his kids, if he has any. Again… Ew.
With a statement like this, it’s more likely he has grandkid-kids.
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
and 20 states do not require any minimum age for marriage.”
0.0
The exceptions in the law:
If the child is pregnant
If a judge okays it
If the parents okay it
Nothing wrong with this picture, nope, nope, nope. No abuse could possibly happen with this setup.
Oh most of those states don’t even require a pregnancy. Just for the adults in the situation to approve of it. Technically the kid too but that’s probably the easiest part.
What’s amazing to me is the absolute caterwauling from grown men in the Republican party when you suggest you should have to be 18 to get married. Like that 75 year old guy is worried he won’t be able to marry a high school girl.
LPT: If you have to sleep with the judge to get his approval, do it before the proceedure
deleted by creator
Someone’s certainly does, and you won’t be the one picking whom.
Edit: I’m not sure what I meant by this. Needed a nap.
