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?
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.
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.
Of course they are. Trap women in abusive marriages. Then if they get their national ban on all birth control, men will force themselves on their wives, and they’ll have no choice but to become pregnant. The only way out for them will be suicide – and then the religious assholes will talk to the rest about how that woman will spend eternity in Hell because she killed herself. Meanwhile religious assholes will indoctrinate subsequent generations of girls into believing that “”“Gods plan”“” for them is to get married, have babies, and serve their husbands, and that only sinful selfish women have educations and careers.
In my younger days I’ve seen women have their lives destroyed by one church or another, either stifling their minds, or forcing them to stay in abusive marriages.
Fuck all religion, it ruins everything every single time.
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.
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.
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.
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
I don’t think there’s an all-encompassing term for people who have “destructive”/harmful beliefs considered conservative. Most I can think of is “bigoted capitalists”, but even “bigoted” could be interpreted way differently. Plus, that excludes bigoted non-capitalists so it has a more narrow usage…
What I go with, though, is “fascists” and “collaborators”. Plain and simple, straight to the point, but most importantly no chance of confusion – that’s how I see our conservatives, their supporters, and their enablers. Ultra-socially-regressives (usually religious) who want a system that enforces/maintains a social hierarchy they deem “natural” (or having a religious justification for the hierarchy). Maybe “wannabe fascists” or “social fascists” would be more accurate, since generally people think of a dictatorship when they think of “fascism”.
“Oppressors” may also work, and it also can pair with “collaborators”. It’s more general, but I think here the flexibility may come be an advantage, and it isn’t tied to a specific set of political beliefs, it vaguely just means “those who use unjust force/threats of force to control others”. Of course, contemporary conservatives follow this definition.
We don’t have “”“conservatives”“” anymore, all we have is the Fascist Pig Party. Anti-democracy, anti-American, racist, sexist, and taking their orders from Moscow. THAT is what we’re fighting against.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Basically they want to drag the country backwards about 200 years socio-politically, to a time where only white men had any rights at all, and women and children were more-or-less considered ‘property’.
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.
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.
Add comment