1724
Reddit users are reporting Christian websites for violating Virginia's new porn identification law, citing vulgar passages in the Bible (www.insider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
195 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As more and more states pass laws targeting "pornographic material" in books and online, they are repeatedly running up against a problem: The Bible has not just a few passages that could be considered indecent

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 170 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (5 children)

It's not a broad generalization at all. It's a widespread pattern of hypocritical and contradictory conservative outrage, statements, and laws.

  • "I should be able to teach kids about the Bible in school, but you can't teach them about Yoga"
  • "we can't have vulgar language, oh unless it's from our religious book"
  • "I can't make a cake for you because you're gay and that's against my religion. What do you mean you won't make a Christian cake? That's religious discrimination!"
  • "Happy holidays!??! Happy holidays??! You monster, how dare you wage war on Christmas! We have religious liberty in this country! What do you mean that protects other religions? There's only one God and one religion!"
  • "It's totally fine that the polling places in large democratic areas have hours long waits so long as my polling places are quick and easy"
  • "it's totally fine that a county with 10,000 people has the same number of ballot drop boxes as a country with 3,000,000 people"
  • "marriage is between a man and woman ... and may include 17 divorces; they gays can't have it"
  • "we need to teach kids (i.e., indoctrinate them in the ways of) Jesus not this woke (black history, trans, etc)"
  • "let's let white kids off with a slap on the wrist while we throw a black kid in jail for smoking a plant"
  • "I can't believe a president could have such a scandal in the white house as to have had an affair with an assistant! We need to impeach! No, I don't think extorting an ally for information about an opponent is worthy of an impeachment! Trying to overthrow a legitimate presidental victor with a procedural trick? Nah that's not worth an impeachment either! Oh but hey, this Biden guy's son who lost one of his parents and a sibling in a car crash, that lost his brother to cancer, that has a drug problem, called his dad while he was in business meetings to show off... so you know his dad definitely was up to something! We've got to impeach him over that! What do you mean that was before he was even president and that's completely unprecedented?"
  • "We should totally lock her up for those emails! What do you mean the guy screaming that's son and law did the exact same thing?"
  • "We're sorry we can't appoint a supreme court justice just before the election! Psych! We totally can if it's nominated by OUR president!"
  • "We need law and order in this country! What do you mean Trump broke the law? Nah, I'm not hearing it; this is clearly a partisan witch hunt and the majority conservative staff of the FBI is out to get conservatives! Oh but we'll DEFINITELY weaponize the federal government and go after our political rivals full steam if we get the presidency in 2024"
  • "I believe abortion is amoral, that's why I hid the fact that my ex/current lovers have had one"
  • "I believe homosexuality is amoral, that's why I am one in the closet"
  • "we're going to be the party of health care, but don't watch as we strip you of your federal protections for your health care"
  • "we're the party of the little man, but don't watch as we cut taxes for the rich (and you but make sure that expires under the next term (probably while the Democrats are in power)"
  • "the national debt is an outage! Oh let's spend as much as Obama did in half the time! Oh Biden is in power again, spending is out of control!"
  • "the problem isn't guns it's mental health, but we're not going to do anything about that either! Must be because the kids aren't in church, the gays, video games, or hey look over there, a squirrel!"
  • "climate change? Nah. It's not real. Okay maybe it is, but it doesn't matter because look at China! Oh we could make a dent and get the ball rolling? Well, it's too late anyways, we should've been building nuclear plants! What do you mean I just made that up? Clearly I've been trying to solve this via nuclear the whole time, and it's not another dog whistle! Oh and btw all of my top presidential candidates say they don't believe in man made climate change! But yeah, totally serious about this issue!!"

... and that's just off the top of my head. If you're a conservative, wake up, your party is a mess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 77 points 3 years ago (20 children)

    Spoiler: he'll completely ignore this comment and just continue to go on saying that all criticisms of conservatives are baseless and unproductive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I'll be honest, the point was less for him and more for lurkers, that might not pay as much attention and might benefit from an outline. I gave up on changing the mind of the person I'm replying to on the internet a long time ago (if it happens great!) ... but I want to challenge and cut through the "noise" for the casual observer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    He didn't say that, he criticized generalizing conservatives. I know conservatives who don't care to block books from school libraries, or block trans students from going to bathrooms in their identified gender- or most of the other "culture war" arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If they feel that way, then why do they vote politicians into power who do those things?

    You don't get to vote evil people into power and then say "oh no, I don't support the evil stuff, I just care about the lower taxes"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Because they at least agree with some of their messaging rather than agree with none of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes but until they start actively opposing those policies and demanding their politicians do the same, they are still complicit with these policies as their votes are what enable them. Whether or not they personally believe these things is entirely irrelevant. All that matters are the actions and policies, and every conservative voter is this complicit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Unfortunately people have different priorities than you or I, I guarantee a politician you have voted for has done something you oppose, and you may have still supported them. That's because you care more about their other policies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    False equivalency.

    "We should focus more on corporate taxes rather than individual taxes" is an opinion; "gay people shouldn't have rights" isn't an opinion, it's hate.

    Don't try to pretend these are on the same level. Supporting American conservatism requires a level of moral bankruptcy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Both are opinion, something being abhorrent doesn't make it not an opinion. Opinions can be hateful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes but I don't have to respect those opinions enough to validate them by acknowledging them. If those are your "opinions" then you're a monster and you can fuck off. Don't expect any respect from me; we need less kid gloves and more people calling out assholes in the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Being very wrong doesn't make someone evil. If someone genuinely believes something like that and isn't just saying it be edgy, I'd try to convince them out of it. Just like a flat earther, they believe something that I believe is very wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    I never signed up to be the social caretaker of the world. If they're adults, I assume they've had plenty of opportunity to learn. I've devoted way to much of my life already to trying to educate the vile sort of people that vote conservative, I'm fucking done with it. They can go get the kid gloves treatment from their imaginary "tolerant left," this fucking leftist is done with them.

    And before you say "but how will things ever change if we don't educate them?":

    First, again that's not my job. But more importantly, education is only *one" weapon of change, not the only in our arsenal. We've forgotten how powerful rightly-applied shame can be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago

    I fricking hate how we’re expected to gently explain in soothing voices and educate and be understanding of people who damn well want us dead and who wouldn’t even extend someone on the left the courtesy of even pissing on them if they were on fire. We’re supposed to extend them every grace and courtesy while they’re not expected to do the same to us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You don't have to do what I do. But that doesn't make their wrong opinions not opinions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (18 replies)
  • [+] -32 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah... I agree. None of that makes selective enforcement the core of conservative laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I agree those are bad examples.

    Better examples:

    Phillando Castile. All for gun rights until a black man is shot while legally owning a gun. One could run down the list of black people (and children) who have been murdered by the police because they "thought there was a gun". Guns are legal and they're quite vocal about supporting the right to bear arms (but only if you look white).

    Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don't get what they want. They lied about the cities in this country being destroyed during the Floyd uprisings as if America was gone.

    All of the anti-trans laws passed are to "protect children" and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.

    Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.

    How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?

    We could continue but I'll just boil it down with a pithy quote: there are those who the law must protect but does not bind and there are those that the law must bind but not protect. That is the conservative idea. Go read the only moral abortion is my abortion with that statement in mind and it'll make sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Phillando Castile.

    I haven't heard that case, can you show some examples of "conservative" outrage?

    And I feel like it's probably not race related seeing as conservatives were some of the first people to criticize the police in the Brenna Taylor case(a post about her boyfriends trial is still the top post on r/progun). Some conservatives also defended Andrew Coffee IV.

    Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don't get what they want.

    From their perspective(by the way me explaining someone's perspective doesn't mean I agree with it at all like most of the people on this site seem to think!!!) their is a coup happening by the elites so they are going in to uphold the law and put in the rightfully elected(again in their mind) president.

    All of the anti-trans laws passed are to "protect children" and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.

    Can you site any they defended recently?

    Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.

    I don't see how that's hypocritical.

    How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?

    IIRC not illegal- but against tradition

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    I'd argue it does, conservative lawmaking has consistently operated with a distinct understanding (and execution) that shows "this applies to them not us." I'd love for conservative law makers to do what they say and say what they mean. However, they won't and thus can't build a coalition that gets them elected by being honest about their policy goals.

    Conservative law making in the US has become at its core "outrage politics" (and that depends on selectively enforcing ideals, policies, and laws/antagonizing part of the population). I don't make generalizations lightly, but this is the core and fundamental piece holding the Republican party together, and it's an awful state of affairs.

    This can be further demonstrated by Vivek Ramaswamy climbing in the polls despite, as Chris Christie put it, "sounding like ChatGPT."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -21 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I'm done with this conversation, you lot are ignorant, loud, and preventing actual progress and critical discourse.

    You want to talk about outrage politics? You morons are outrage politics. Fuck off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago*

    K. When you figure out what discourse you want to have come back without an empty argument.

    You've just proven everyone else's point that wrote you off. You've made no supportive arguments for your position and resorted to an opaque moral high ground where everyone else is an idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Bruh, you are the literal embodiment of the issue plaguing the USA in this historical period: you say you are ready to have a discussion and then, once somebody engages you with actual facts in his hands, you attack your interlocutor with the most vapid point without replying to his considerations.

    Furthermore I've been taught that there are two possible sides when tackling a problem: you can either be part of the problem or part of its solution.

    As far as I see nowadays republicans are ALL part of a problem called "political extremism". If you vote for the party which is presenting an autocrat and a crybaby as it's frontrunner for the past and upcoming elections you don't get to be offended when someone calls you out for that. If you are not voting democrat you are actively choosing to be ruled by a tiny minority which sees it's religion as the only viable solution to all the (made up) problems they see in the modern world. Should you vote democrat, on the other hand, the worst which may happen is that you'll loose some purchasing power when the world has been facing a pandemic and a regional war at the gates of Europe.

    If your choice is to actively vote for the first option I've news from you: you are an enemy of the people and of democracy, don't be surprised when people will treat you as such in your future interactions with tem

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Why vote democrat though? Supposedly the US does have or allow other political parties to be formed. If they can organize themselves, diversifying the local state political pool should not be a problem at least.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Because due to the system in place at the moment and due to the culture surrounding American politics USA can only operate in the two parties system. Organising, raising and keeping a third party is not a viable option at this time as many different candidates and elections have shown us. The easier way to improve American politics is to get involved in the democratic party and to change it from within as many of the newly elected representatives are trying to do, with quite positive outcomes I might add.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent