My guess is that it could be some kind of opportunistic rise of theocratic fascism that has been empowered by the weakening of the social order and social institutions by the clash of disaster capitalism with the old establishment?
Just a small pedantic note, depending on what we want to emphasize is going on, the government they’re going for is either theocratic autocracy or one-party autocracy.Fascism just describes the strategy of using hatemongering, mythical history and enemy within propaganda to distract the Republican base from noticing that they’re not personally gaining anything from the abuses of the ownership class.
(Fascism depends on a myth that all the undesirables are at fault for the misery of the general population, that once they are removed from the population, the government can get right back to serving the public and fixing all the failing infrastructure and making sure everyone that remains prospers. But there are always new people added to the bottom of the undesirables-to-be-purged list. Eventually the nation will have to go to war to continue to push solidarity among the people.)
From the perspective of the Christian Nationalist movement, the goal is theocratic autocracy in which all the whims of the government are justified by the bible. (The bible, or any sacred scripture, can be used to justify anything, no matter how dire, conspicuous or indulgent. In fact, the Church is notorious for its extremes.) The establishment of a state religion also means the establishment of state positions on dogmatic minutiae, so it’s not enough to be Christian but also to adhere to the specific position of the state. Anyone who doesn’t will end up on that undesirables list to be purged.
From the position of the Republican Party, the goal is one-party autocracy The only thing that keeps the Republican party from completely going unhinged is that it has to continue to negotiate with the other party (the Democratic party for now), but once it no longer has to compete for votes, our legislators are enabled to do whatever they want (or whatever is dictated to them by the leaders of the party, currently Donald J. Trump and his handlers). This is why the Texas GOP is trying to reshape how elections are counted, essentially making a Texas electoral college, so Democrats are locked out. This is not for the benefit of Republican voters, but for the benefit of consolidating all power in their party.
Anyhow, autocracy is the endgame. Fascism is used to keep the public frightened and in line and accepting that atrocity may be necessary to keep the enemys at bay. (Otherwise, they might actually realize this is all bullshit and violently revolt.)
I really didn’t. Like I keep saying, “moderate” conservatives are mythical creatures, much like unicorns or ethical billionaires. I had a “fiscally conservative” and “moderate” acquaintance flat out tell me to my face that the world would be a better place if gender minorities didn’t exist and that we’re all pretending anyhow
Well, you shouldn’t have gone after their kids. You go after people’s kids, they aren’t going to sit down and take it. They’re going to see you as a threat to their children, and if you make people choose between tolerating you or protecting their children, they’re not going to choose you.
I’d be willing to bet that the majority of child abusers are conservative; it’s an ideology centered around dominance and with a proven link to sadism and psychopathy
Imagine just foaming at the fucking mouth over people choosing sexual and romantic partners. They’re mentally unwell if people you hardly ever see loving each other takes up this much of their thoughts. Choosing who you love, as long as its between two consenting adults, is part of true freedom. If they don’t like true freedom they can take their own advice and fucking leave.
It really has nothing to do with people choosing sexual and romantic partners, and that’s not really what Pride is about. That’s why there are many LGBT people who don’t participate in or support Pride events.
Choosing who you love, as long as its between two consenting adults, is part of true freedom.
That is the hedonistic principle. Not everyone agrees with that principle, and almost no one agrees with it when taken to its logical conclusion: That all expressions of sexual desire are expressions of love, that all expressions of love are equally valid, and that no expression of love should be repressed.
For example, very few people would agree that scat play – eating other people’s feces as part of sexual play – is a healthy, normal, or acceptable expression of love. Most people would agree that scat play is sign of sexual deviancy and degeneracy. Yet, the queer movement must necessarily present all forms of sexual deviancy as being equal in value, which is why This Book is Gay – one of the books that parents are calling to have removed from classrooms and school libraries – includes a friendly definition of scat play in a list of bizarre sexual fetishes presented to children as normal, healthy expressions of sexuality.
They’re applying general relativity to quantum physics my guy. Once you go down to those small minutia the rules change. You don’t need to show children sex, just let them know that as long as you’re both consenting adultslove is okay. You gotta understand, I’m talking about people not getting attacked in the streets for holding hands and you’re mentioning scat play, totally different scopes.
Except your “logical conclusion” missed the most important part of their comment. Here, let me fix it for you:
That all expressions of sexual desire (“between two consenting adults”) are expressions of love, that all expressions of love are equally valid, and that no expression of love should be repressed.
I agree with this statement, and I think most people would. You’re right as well that almost no one would agree with your thought experiment, as it opens up the argument that rape and sexual assault are “expressions of love” when they very much are not. I don’t think that was an accident on your part though, considering your account is less than a day old and you decided to come straight to an lgbtq community and participate in the manner in which you have.
My understanding of what is going on is that they’re suffering from the same precarity (food, rent, housing, work, family, etc. all in a state of precarity) that the rest of us are, but rather they don’t challenge their own values. The don’t challenge the traditions or the decades of pro-capitalist, pro-nationalist, anti-communist propaganda they’ve been spoon fed. Instead, it’s much it’s easier to blame those in the society they already don’t like because they’re creepy or weird. (And it occurs to me, this may be instincts – called or related to Fixed Action Patterns – from migratory tribes to combat infectious disease. When things feel wrong, you shun or stay away from the members that are looking zombiesque.)
And the ownership class is fueling its propaganda engine (financing it directly, often) to continue to feed them hate rhetoric, the notion that their fellow citizens (or immigrants) are the enemy within causing them grief, and not the deep abuses of the ownership class.
This mythology runs deep, it’s why all our stories point to ramblers, gamblers, adulterers and thieves as sinners and criminals, rather than war profiteers, pharmaceutical companies and tobacco moguls pushing their respective addiction epidemics, or fossil-fuel billionaires pushing an automotive culture while burying data about the climate crisis. Even though all of the former category cause only a tiny fraction of the death, destruction and economic cost that the latter category does.
If we investigated and prosecuted white collar criminals and set all serial killers and bank robbers free, we’d have a lot more people living and a lot more money. And so decades of copaganda have absolutely figured into redirecting that outrage towards the marginalized.
And yes, the ownership class would rather see human extinction than give up their money and power. So I don’t know how we’re going to navigate through this great filter.
Taliban, with all its problems, took arms in hands and fought a foreing invader with a disgracefull disadvantage on their side in order to free their country. And won. I dont think republicans could ever do something remotely similar
Not sure if you’re just looking for a fight, but I’m not comparing. I’m pointing out that the Taliban is not an admirable group. I think praising a group that persecuteslgbtq+people in an lgbtq+ community is really fucking tacky.
Taliban is a very admirable group in their fight against a foreing invader. If you want people there to have a mentality that no longer condems individuals for their sexuality, they need to develop economically first. I think its naive to belive that an agricultural country set back in development many years by a foreing invasion will have any kind of progressive mindset. And no ecomic development will occur under invasion and war. So if theres any chance for a progressive mindset to come for the people there in the future, its path starts with the fight taliban did, even if they are against it themselves.
I get what you’re saying, but commending a group that is currently running fascistic, theocratic, totalitarian government for repelling an invading force isn’t exactly the talking point you want it to be.
Not to once again prove Godwin’s law, but it’s like saying “Hitler may have nearly eradicated all the Jews, but he brought Germany out of spiraling hyperinflation!” You may have a point, but no one’s going to listen closely enough to prevent them from interpreting your statement as an endorsement of Hitler.
isn’t exactly the talking point you want it to be.
It is. The history of the country changed because of what they did. It was an historical event
but it’s like saying
Absolutely not. Taliban was fighting a foreing invasor, Hitler commited genocide, among many other things. If you grossly look at the casualities there, you could argue that the USA genocided afghan people. Tbh this is stretch you did really looks like bad faith, overlooked reality for the sake of argument
I’m not saying I think you’re endorsing the Taliban; I’m saying that people won’t read that closely into what you’re saying and THINK you are.
And even though the Taliban aren’t committing genocide (which I never said they were, I should’ve been clearer that the Hitler example was hyperbole for the sake of making a point), the human rights violations their government is committing are reprehensible. That’s why it’s an issue to say “they were just protecting their homeland”: they kicked foreign invaders off their land to treat their own citizens just as poorly (if in different ways). It looks like you’re taking up for a group that’s pretty worthy of villainization.
Afghanistan was destroyed and made into a giant papoula plantation in order to supply the heroin that goes to the USA. Why would you villanize the group that fought against that? Only in a fantasy world a progressive pro lgbtqi+ woman rights group could emerge in a country like Afghanistan during war. I do understand the various problems that taliban have, but they are the real ppl fighting to free their country, not the ideal ppl we imagine they could be
Add comment