this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
359 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] InvisibleHat@lemmy.ml 138 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)
  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban divorce
  3. Lower marriage age to 12.
  4. You can now have a child sex slave, thank Jesus! God bless all.

I think this is the Christian plan for marriage and for childhood for females.

[–] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 68 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If you get them young enough, you can avoid that troublesome think for yourself phase.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

I'll give you an upvote for the satire/sarcasm, but I want you to know that it comes with a feeling of disgust towards myself for upvoting those words.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

If you get them young enough, you can avoid that troublesome think for yourself phase.

sounds a lot like the plan religions use.

[–] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For the group railing against Sharia law the loudest, they sure do love to legislate religious beliefs. I guess the real problem was Sharia just wasn't going far enough.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is that those filthy heathens follow the wrong holy book.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

The irony is that they are all Abrahamic and even worship the same god (Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah - all the same).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] No_Change_Just_Money@feddit.de 84 points 5 months ago

Let's start with divorcees not being allowed to run in the 2024 election if it is so incredibly unethical and all

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 75 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Conservatives have bad ideas about nearly everything. They should under no circumstances be allowed to have any power. I'd even say they're an existential threat to the US and the rest of humanity.

It's far past time to stop treating them as just folks with a different opinion. This is not "oh well they wanted to paint the bedroom walls green and I wanted blue."

Someone announcing themselves a conservative should be taken as a declaration of a threat. Removing them from power is self defense.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The conservatives opinions bother me. But the authoritarianism is the bigger issue to me. This desire to force their opinions and wills on other people instead of living their lives as they want and leaving others alone is far more problematic.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The problem though is tht once the conservative Republicans joined hand with the religious right decades ago, it's been on a steady course towards authoritarianism

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Agreed. It's why I'll always oppose them.

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And what really irks me is that there needs to be some semblance of authoritarianism to stop their authoritarianism. Otherwise they'll keep pushing and pushing and won't ever stop.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's like the paradox of tolerance. Or "extreme situations call for extreme measures".

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The "paradox" of tolerance isn't a paradox, it's a social contract. If you do not abide by the terms of the contract, you are not protected by it. It's that simple.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Treating it as a social contract where tolerance is limited in certain situations is a resolution of the paradox. The paradox itself is just "if you try to tolerate everything, you'll have to tolerate intolerance" or "you can't maximize tolerance by tolerating everything". Though that second one is more of an irony than a paradox.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 3 points 5 months ago

And that's fair, I guess in that sense it is a true paradox. It just appears a little different in theory and in practice - the theory is the paradox, the practice is not.

Sorry, calling out that it's a social contract is a bit of a knee-jerk response for me, after years of having people whip out the paradox of tolerance as some kind of "gotcha, LIBS!!!" because being tolerant of unfamiliar lifestyles doesn't mean I won't punch a nazi when it's relevant. And that's poorly understood. My rights end where yours begin, and vice versa, but if you start actively infringing on the rights of others and souring that contract, it is our duty as righteous citizens to put you back in your box. Sometimes that means "hey knock it off asshole", sometimes that means hunting down bigots and deleting their kneecaps. Depends what you're guilty of and where.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I agree with what you're getting at, but "conservative" is relative and doesn't actually indicate specific beliefs, so "conservatives should never have any power" can be easily twisted once the conservatives we'd currently think of are gone.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

What word would you prefer? I considered "Republicans" but that doesn't catch people outside the US. "Contemporary Republicans or people who would vote for them" isn't very catchy

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The solution is simple, as it is for gay marriage. Marriage is not recognized by the state/government.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yep. At the very least, just make everything a civil union that any two consenting adults can enter into. Religious people can still get "married", it just has nothing to do with the government.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What? And take away the ability to piss on people?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hey man. What you and your civil partner do in private is up to you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I'm sure there will still be plenty of eager consenting adults that we can all piss on.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Why limit it to two? I say allow any amount of people in a civil union, or allow one person to have a civil union with multiple people separately. It's mostly for visits in the hospital, parental rights, stuff like that.

Of course, that makes residence/citizenship based on relationships complicated, but that's mostly an issue caused by closed national borders being a fucked up concept in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (6 children)

They want laws that follow ancient religious texts, to control women, force everyone into marriage, prosecute homosexuals, ban birth control and get rid of media that go against their narrative.

What I'm wondering is, why the fuck do they not like Islamists?

[–] goatbeard@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago

They're brown

[–] dumblederp@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Most religions feel that anyone not in their religion is beneath them, or a lesser person. Believers are going to heaven, well meaning pious atheists are going to burn in hell.

[–] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

The really bonkers ones get even more exclusive, where other Christians that aren't their same little sect are going to hell, even Catholics.

[–] cristo@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Because a different guy a few hundred years later said some of the same stuff while also saying some different stuff.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

That's how religion keeps power. Only our group are righteous and are doing it right.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

I think they largely do envy them and their social control and want the same, just for their religious beliefs instead.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

So they should not shave, not eat prawns, not wear cotton, fuck their kids, ... ?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

The old "We are suffering (because we are stupid), so you should suffer, too!"

[–] Rayspekt@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How backwards can you be lmao

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Just wait. They're only getting started.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

You don't really want to see that question answered in the form of their implementation.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

Why not? They live with an abusive god who constantly threatens them with punishment if they don’t follow a bunch of conflicting rules and won’t love you or reward you unless you kiss his ass. You can never leave the relationship or check out any other gods, or just be single, either. You’re trapped.

They want everyone else to be trapped in abusive relationships, too.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 17 points 5 months ago

Seems like the Republicans core voting block are men too terrible to be with unless you are forced to by the state. Winning strategy

[–] jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh, so arsenic will be back on the table?

[–] Evrala@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Arsenic? Oh no officer no poison here! Just a bottle of Aqua Tofana.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Next up, mandatory marriage? Like if you're single past age twenty one or so, you're criminally charged? Maybe sent as cannon fodder in the colonies?

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Of course they are. The men and I use that term loosely are trying to make women chattel again. The next step for them after that is to make other chattel. They dream of the mid east style government.

[–] RotatingParts@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

You don't need divorce if you never get married. 👍

load more comments
view more: next ›