top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 139 points 2 years ago* (8 children)
  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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If you get them young enough, you can avoid that troublesome think for yourself phase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 84 points 2 years ago

    Let's start with divorcees not being allowed to run in the 2024 election if it is so incredibly unethical and all

  • source
  • [–] 76 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah, it's like the paradox of tolerance. Or "extreme situations call for extreme measures".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 2 years ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    What? And take away the ability to piss on people?

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    The old "We are suffering (because we are stupid), so you should suffer, too!"

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    How backwards can you be lmao

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Oh, so arsenic will be back on the table?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    You don't need divorce if you never get married. 👍

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›