Reddit users are reporting Christian websites for violating Virginia's new porn identification law, citing vulgar passages in the Bible
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
insider.com
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
Yeah... I agree. None of that makes selective enforcement the core of conservative laws.
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.
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.
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.
Can you site any they defended recently?
I don't see how that's hypocritical.
IIRC not illegal- but against tradition
Love it
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.