politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Republicans, tell us again how it’s the trans people we should all be afraid of.
Not a Republican, but I think I've got it figured out.
See, they think everyone has these awful, sinful thoughts that they can't control. When they see trans people living their lives they feel like those trans people are giving into the nasty, sinful thoughts. Or gay people. Or people in interracial relationships. Or really anyone who's doing something they've been told is a naughty, sinful, deplorable thing that no one should do even if it feels good and hurts no one.
So when they see people accepting others who have dirty, naughty, sinful thoughts they assume we're okay with sin. The conflict arises because we have a different view of sin that is less self-interested. We're not about punishing people for doing things that feel good and hurts no one, we want to help the people doing things that feel bad, and let people do things that don't hurt others.
This makes their brains get hot and when their brains get hot they feel angry.
"Psychological projection" is a much shorter phrase and describes exactly that, and basically the entirety of right wing, fascist idiology.
And has been since at least the Nazis
Unironically, exactly right.
This is the same reason they see homosexuality as a sinful choice, and take issue with homosexuals just simply being alive. They struggled so hard to suppress their homosexual urges, and now these people are flaunting theirs, openly? And the rest of the world wants to celebrate this moral failure, despite it being something that everyone struggles with? I mean the mental gymnastics required to succeed in choosing to be heterosexual, while celebrating someone else who failed to do so is just absolutely insane.
You can see how this all logics together if you assume everyone feels the way you do, and you're fighting an urge to do something you see as morally wrong. Obviously, abusing your teenage daughters trust to give yourself a mild sexual release is morally wrong, but the point stands. These people play the moral high ground card because they struggle with these thoughts every single day.
The right-wingers who say that homosexuality is a choice are probably† outing themselves as bisexual. Who else sees their sexuality as a choice? Bi people are the ones who have options.
† Or just flat-out denying their true sexuality by hoping that if they make the "right" choices, it will work itself out. "Pray away the gay" and such.
I feel a similar thing when I see people doing absolutely immoral things like denying health care coverage and making tons of money doing it. I've been taught all my life that if someone asks for help you help them, so seeing someone getting praised and paid for being an asshole pisses me off to no end.
I feel this comment. 🙌
Yep, and that's why it's not just stuff like this, but also stuff like them being gay, or Alex Jones watching trans porn, or boebert getting caught giving a handy at a play.
Or, he's a pedo.
Oh, he definitely is. Those are the dirty, nasty, sinful thoughts he has. And he needs help for them because it's not right and he's hurting people.
But what he'll get is an overly-emotional testimony in a church where he "repents" and pushes those intrusive thoughts even deeper rather than dealing with them, where they'll fester and he'll probably do something worse than sniffing dirty underpants.
You should consider committing to reading an entire comment before chiming in, next time. Your comment was irrelevant and didn't really add much to the conversation. Yes, he's a pedo. No, that's not relevant to this comment thread, which is discussing the Republican party's projections.
lol
I'll take a stab at this rhetorical question, even though I'm not a right winger nor an American -- just been reading up on their 'theories' and wackiness a bit.
From their ideological perspective, I imagine that the more nuanced response (ie. not the base's "GAY BAD!"), would be that the issue of crime/outliers exist in any group, but that the existence of a trans-interest specific movement is dangerous to the broader community/stability. Do republican pedophile incestuous mayors exist? Yes. Are they lobbying to change how government treats them / trying to get more privileges and special treatment to support their pedophile incestuous mayor collective? No. So the 'risk' to society of a one off criminal, is far less than the risk of a collective movement intent on dismantling social norms in favour of norms specifically beneficial to their niche members, and generally detrimental to the interests of non-niche members.
It's similar to Dave Chappelle's comments, about how he knows/likes trans people he meets on an individual/personal level, but he hates the "trans community". It's the collective community that they take issue with, as it aims to dismantle what they consider the norms of social life / public interactions.
To try and frame their issue a bit differently using a recent example: most educated folks know about people with Tourette's, even if they don't fully understand the condition. But there's a significant difference between understanding it / tolerating it within a limited context, and inviting someone with Tourette's to sit within mic shot at the BAFTA's and pretending everyone should be comfortable with it just because it's a disability. Being at a black-tie type event, and hearing someone scream the N-word at a couple of black presenters is uncivilized, but it's "tolerated" under the guise of these niche special interest groups. Just like everyone's been forced to "tolerate" fent users collapsed all over the place in many metropolitan cities, under the guise of "drug user rights advocacy groups" -- do people understand folks are addicted? Yes. Does that understanding make seeing them flopped out, shitting in public etc, a "civilized" experience? Nah.
I’m just gonna say from my perspective, this take is wrong.
I understand where you were trying to go with this, but I completely disagree that that is what republicans are thinking when they hate on trans people. Most republicans who are transphobic hate the individual trans people too, not just the community. It’s pretty apparent with how they treat individual trans people in public. Even cis people, if they look just slightly “too androgynous” (read not exactly what the bigot expects a cis person to look like), are targets for these people.
And that also doesn’t touch on why republicans paint trans people as pedophiles, when the biggest pedophile operations are within the religious and political elite. AFAIK, there is no correlation between transgenderism and pedophilia. There is a high correlation between religiosity and pedophilia though.
You may think the take is wrong, but it's basically what Posobiec and them attempt to argue in "Unhumans", a political ideology book that's been lauded by Vance, Trump Jr, Carlson and so on. It is rather overtly what their more "intellectual" (debatable!) contingent paint as the ideological justification for their actions. What they describe there also explains what they're "trying" to do with some of their other shenanigans, like the supreme courts overturning of women's rights -- or more specifically, why they wanted to push that down to the state level as part of their broader objectives.
That it gets implemented in a fear mongering way that attempts to rile up the uneducated common US idiot is a secondary 'thing' -- as is the common US idiots take on it in the "They gonna fuck our kids/jobs!". The ideology not matching the implementation isn't a 'new' phenomenon, nor is it restricted to fascists -- communism is an easy example on that front, where the 'ideology' rarely matches the implementation, even if you can 'see' elements of the ideology underpinning the movements justification for their actions.