All school-girls are attracted to gross old men, therefore it’s consensual and perfectly ok. And even if it isn’t, they’re only kids; what do they know? They’ll learn to love their husbands in time. And if they don’t, who cares? They’re only women
I’m at a loss for words. How did this man not get shouted down for saying that out loud and in public?! Those are the thoughts of a predator, which is a position of power.
In the name of honest, good degenerates, I protest these ghouls being lumped in with us. It’s perfectly sane to want to have sexual relations with eg. military aircraft, and it is much more natural and socially beneficial than what these despicables imply.
When they screamed about the degeneration of Western society it wasn’t a warning it was an announcement. Everything is just projection with these evil cunts
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
I think this can be interpreted as “young people will inevitably get pregnant”, not “young people should get pregnant”.
Still wrongheaded and cringeworthy, but maybe not as monstrous as it initially looked.
I’m not sure he cares if anyone provides for them. Like many in the GOP, he seems to only care about preventing abortions without any thought to what happens next.
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
Read as:
If we ban child marriage, then desperate single mothers will want to have abortions instead of getting married like God intended.
Dude’s literally complaining that children getting abortions is easier than getting children married. No, that sounds exactly as ghoulish and monstrous as it appeared.
Yeah but he skipped adoption and the idea that parents can continue to support their daughter even if she’s not a virgin. Teens getting married because one of them got pregnant is not the first thing I want people to think of. A teen marrying her statutory rapist should be even farther down the list.
In my mind there is no generous interpretation of his words as there is a paragraph which makes his statement worse in my opinion.
In a state where 18 is not old enough to drink, Edwards believes girls at 16 are old enough to get married.
He wants marriage to 16 year olds to be legal; I don’t believe this is a good thing, especially if he also then argued for parental consent for marriages to adult men. It’s a huge red flag to me, personally.
I’m deeply familiar with them it’s never been in their nature to say the quiet part out loud in front of everyone! Rather it’s projecting their desires on others to vilify them, hopefully their looser tongues sink their ship. 🤢
Any conservative board or sub, will immediately be overtaken by fascist snowflakes. I mean who the hell would want to freely mod a conservative sub in their free time? The job description alone requires someone deeply disturbed
I was just thinking it would be fun to mod a conservative sub but take a conservative instead of a regressive viewpoint. Like: “people who do crimes should be held accountable regardless of their cult size,” “investing in infrastructure or climate mitigation is huge ROI so we should do a lot of both,” “we need regulations to manifest the invisible hand so the market can price things efficiently.”
“Any investment by the government in a private company should be done through the purchase of newly issued shares so that the government has voting rights and can push them to take decisions in favour of the long term interests of the country first and foremost.”
Right? It’s fun as hell. And if they’re insolvent that’s just a fire sale on the stock. Why are we harming the free market’s ability to price things by handing out money?
That would be an interesting idea… IPO and issuing new shares incurs a ‘tax’ where say 10% of those shares belong to the government, with the end result that all publicly traded companies are 10% government owned
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.
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
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.
… 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.”
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!?
“… 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s the only extreme one to me. Higher taxes on billionaires is a reasonable take. Government forcibly seizing private property is not.
Except that billions are never private property - you have to steal from people to accumulate that much wealth. Or inherit stolen wealth. Exception: stars, where people voluntarily spend that much money to listen to them / see them. Not an exception: sports stars who get paid from sponsoring / advertisement revenues which in turn are stolen by slave labour / low wages.
Nevertheless, no one needs billions, so taking all private properties above 1 billion still leaves those people with an obscene amount of money that honest work can not save up in a hundred(!) lifetimes.
As for the military exit: While I agree that it’s not possible, I disagree on the reason - a sudden shift of military concentrations (e.g. weakening presence in some area) is unfortunately pretty much guaranteed to encourage someone to start an armed conflict somewhere. But that could be addressed in the form of the multi-lateral peace keeping forces mentioned.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment