- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
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?
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.
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.
Regressives works too
My wife and I each give this two enthusiastic thumbs up.
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.
Yeah, it’s like the paradox of tolerance. Or “extreme situations call for extreme measures”.
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.
- Ban abortion
- Ban divorce
- Lower marriage age to 12.
- 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.
If you get them young enough, you can avoid that troublesome think for yourself phase.
If you get them young enough, you can avoid that troublesome think for yourself phase.
sounds a lot like the plan religions use.
How backwards can you be lmao
You don’t really want to see that question answered in the form of their implementation.
The solution is simple, as it is for gay marriage. Marriage is not recognized by the state/government.
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.
What? And take away the ability to piss on people?
Hey man. What you and your civil partner do in private is up to you.
Until Russia gets a copy of it and you try to run for president and expect to have free will.
