• InvisibleHat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago
    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.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        29 days ago

        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

      • Delusional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        29 days ago

        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.

          • skulblaka@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            28 days ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              28 days ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                28 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      Cymraeg
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        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

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          Cymraeg
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          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.

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

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

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      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.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        Cymraeg
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        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.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          I don’t disagree, that’s just a much more involved change. I was just suggesting the bare minimum that would be relatively simple to implement.

    • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      30 days ago

      Maybe they should make it super bureaucratic and you have to pay to renew your civil union every 7 years, otherwise it dissolves.

  • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    28 days ago

    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?

    • dumblederp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      28 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 days 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.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

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

    • cristo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Esperanto
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

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

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    30 days 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    30 days 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

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    29 days 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.

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days 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?