The right is getting weirder about sex
Close watchers of the MAGA movement have been chronicling the alarming escalation of both violent intimidation and overt white supremacy in recent weeks. Donald Trump, of course, now begs his followers on a nearly daily basis to murder his perceived enemies. But the rhetoric is spiraling, with people like Fox News host Greg Gutfeld openly calling for civil war. Meanwhile, Christopher Rufo — a right hand man for Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla. — recently hosted a forum that pushed establishment Republicans to build a “bridge” to the so-called "dissident right," including some open white nationalists. He may get his wish, as one of the top contenders for Speaker of the House, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., described himself as "David Duke without the baggage."
The radicalism of the right is growing as the GOP careens swiftly towards nominating Trump as their presidential candidate, despite his 91 felony indictments in four jurisdictions. But, as anyone who has studied cults can tell you, they never limit their escalations to violence or hateful ideologies. There's almost always a weird sexual component, as cult leaders come up with ever stranger rules and regulations to control the sexual expression of their followers.
The MAGA movement is no different. The cult-like following of Trump always had an unsettling mix of incel-inflected misogyny, coupled with a homophobia that is somehow also homoerotic. But it's been rapidly getting worse in recent months. Even more frightening is how determined they are to inflict their sexual hang-ups on the rest of the country.
Gutfeld, who claims to be a "comedian," has long positioned himself on Fox News as an everyman character. He's meant to make audiences feel that normal people can be Republicans, and not just Bible-hugging weirdoes or camo-clad militia nuts. But, as his civil war rant makes clear, lately he's been channeling a more David Koresh-esque vibe, and invariably that comes with some sexual weirdness.
Last week, Gutfeld hosted a far-right figure named Hotep Jesus, who is known primarily for being an apologist for white supremacists and anti-semites. Hotep Jesus, whose real name is Bryan Sharpe, was on the show to promote a "dating" blog that is, in actuality, propaganda for domestic abuse. As Media Matters chronicled, Sharpe regards it as a form of adultery if women are "allowed" to work or vote. "Imagine guts, sweat, and tears shed only to watch your woman get dolled up only to prance around another man’s office while he gives her marching orders," Sharpe writes, claiming, "Women WANT to give up control of their life," and that they only vote, work, or otherwise make decisions because of "the pressure of modern society."
This wasn't a one-off, either. Gutfeld recently joined the chorus of right wing voices defending Russell Brand, after the British "comedian" was accused by multiple women of sexual violence and rape. Gutfeld applauded a teacher who got arrested for having sex with a 16-year-old student. And he claimed men only cry because of "substances in the water that reduce testosterone."
The jokey tone of some of this is there to insulate it from criticism, but Gutfeld isn't joking. The party of Donald "Grab 'Em By The Pussy" Trump shows no limits in normalizing extremely toxic masculinity and sexual violence. That much is evident in new court filings in the first big test case for the abortion "bounty hunter" law in Texas. The author of the law, former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, has so far shown no shame that his client — who is suing his ex-wife's friends for helping her abort a pregnancy — displays a long history of abusive, controlling behavior. Mitchell shrugged off reports that his client, Marcus Silva, tried to prevent his wife from working and called her names like "slut" and "whore" in front of her coworkers.
So it's unlikely that Mitchell will mind a new filing providing evidence that Silva threatened to upload sexually explicit videos of his ex-wife, unless she returned home to clean and do laundry for him. Or that he used blackmail methods in an attempt to rape her, saying he would drop the lawsuit if she had sex with him. The document had a transcript of Silva, this latest "hero" of the anti-abortion movement, telling his ex, "You’re just gonna have your fcking life destroyed in every fcking way that you can imagine to where you want to blow your f*cking brains out."
It's not surprising that Mitchell would be fine with this treatment of women. As he argued to the Supreme Court in 2021, women have it coming by not "refraining from sexual intercourse." But now, of course, Mitchell is working for a man whose goal is to force his ex-wife to have sex with him.
One would think, after the political backlash to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Republicans would not be so eager to advertise how the anti-choice movement is about controlling women and not "life." But, as David Kirkpatrick of the New Yorker writes, the head of Alliance Defending Freedom, the biggest conservative legal group in the country, was open about how the goal is to destroy access to contraception. "It may be that the day will come when people say the birth-control pill was a mistake," Alan Sears explained.
What's notable is this extremism isn't just relegated to the world of fundamentalist Christianity. The more secular and more proudly fascist right — which is increasingly cossetted and promoted by the tech billionaire world of Elon Musk and his buddies — has been aggressively promoting pseudo-scientific arguments in favor of extreme curtailing of sexual freedom.
The most prominent example is Costin Alamariu, a self-declared fascist who has become an "intellectual" darling on the right for putting a faux-intellectual gloss on some of the most evil impulses of the MAGA movement. He's been blogging for a long time under the name "Bronze Age Pervert," which makes him sound fun, but of course, he's anything but. His book, "Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy," has become an Amazon bestseller because he's promoted by the grossest people on the internet. He proposes strict control over human "breeding" on the facetious grounds that it's necessary for the betterment of humanity, which he mostly understands in extremely racist terms. In his newsletter, John Ganz quotes Alamariu's writing:
I make the case in this introduction that this same matter of selective breeding, whether sexual selection, or various societies' management of marriage and reproduction, constitutes the most important part of morality, legislation, or of the "lawgiver's art," and that a sharp awareness of this reality is what led, again, to the discovery of the standard of nature and the subsequent birth of philosophy.
As Graeme Wood at the Atlantic pointed out, on his blog, Alamariu dispenses with the faux-academic language for an earthier version of the same arguments. "He considers American cities a 'wasteland' run by Jews and Black people, though the words he uses to denote these groups are considerably less genteel than these," he writes. Christopher Rufo has publicly praised Alamariu.
The sexual weirdness of the MAGA movement is deeply intertwined with the racism and the violence. Alamariu's writings are just saying the quiet part out loud: Sexual control, especially of women, is largely fueled by notions about "breeding" future generations, especially to look a certain way that racists want them to. Normalizing violence against women is part of that scheme, since, as fascists long have understood, women often don't go along voluntarily.
Because this is so weird, it's tempting to ignore it as the chattering of a fringe group of men are still mad they didn't get laid in college. But that would be a mistake, and not just because some of those men have become wildly powerful:
As the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court shows, Republicans are never content to keep their massive sexual issues to themselves. They are determined to make everyone else suffer, not only by rolling back reproductive rights but by aggressively normalizing sexual and domestic violence. The throughline here is a belief that women aren't full human beings, but a sexual resource to be put under male control, by violence if necessary. It's a view they're getting increasingly less coy about publicly sharing.
How long are we, as a society, going to allow shit like this in the name of free speech? Read this shit, listen to it, it is not good shit. It is blatantly evil. I've about had it. Shut the fuck up. This isn't free speech, this is fucking hate speech.
It feels that those nations that experienced the Nazi terror of the Third Reich have a much better idea of what constitutes dangerous speech.
Allowing this kind of stochastic terrorism out of some misguided notion of "free speech" is just not a good idea.
It's the paradox of tolerance:
Sir Karl Popper, 1945
The part that I can’t understand is they say you can say whatever you want as long as you’re not being physically violent while ignoring the hard fact that everyone has a limit. If someone yells hateful things at you 12 hours a day at some point you need to protect your psyche. It works the other way too in that people who are constantly exposed to hateful ideas in an echo chamber will eventual act on those ideas. This simply isn’t a problem with the other end of the spectrum in that someone surrounded by caring people who teach kindness will never become a threat to anyone.
So if I say something to you enough times, then it should be legal to take physical violent action against me?
You made a lot of assumptions there. I never said it should be legal. I am stating a fact that everyone has a point that they will snap, even the most devoted pacifist. Some people have a lot of patience and others have none but everyone will snap eventually if you add enough time. So for your example I encourage you to chose anyone at random (not a child please) and run the experiment. Please get back to me and tell me how it goes.
This is demands to have the right to exterminate some groups and violently subjugate everyone else. They should be afraid to go to the grocery store
We’ll stop when we can make it where everyone can say what they want and have it magically not affect national politics.
So... I can go to your neighborhood, knock on every door and tell them all that you're a pedophile, and face no consequences in your ideal world?
I said national politics.
Saying you are a paedophile doesn't affect national politics.
I'm confused as to which shit you're referring to. OP's rant or Trump's speeches? Either way, if you let someone start controlling which speech is allowed and which is not based on the ideas it contains at a society-wide level, you'll have created a tyrant. It's not a good plan.
Similarly, if you allow people to spew hateful diarrhea from their mouths eventually half the country will believe them. I myself, would much rather live in a society that punches people who say women are naturally subservient to men than one that does not. Its not a bad thing to punch shit heads. They're only so bold and out there with racism/misogyny/anti-semitism because they never suffer the consequences of having their teeth knocked out of their still-moving jowls. Maybe I just need a break, but I am over all these cunts flying their flags proud.
That's only because you listen to OP's nonsense. Meanwhile the trump supporters are in their own echo chambers and thing you're either a pedo or a pedo defender so you deserve to get punched too.
The right, especially Trump supporters are dangerous, not because of their "weird sexuality" or misogyny. But because they're trying to dismantle democracy. Free speech is an essential component of democracy and they'll go after it the second they get an ounce of power.
You talk about not wanting to allow hate speech, yet the speech you just read is making you want to punch people. That's what hate speech looks like.
Free speech is not unlimited, and never has been. When your speech infringes upon - or causes to be infringed - someone else's rights, your speech should be limited. Slander and libel are illegal. When your speech creates an unjustified panic, your speech should be limited. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless there is a fire. When your speech creates a legitimate threat to someone's life or limb, it should be limited. You can't call for the execution of your political enemies when your supporters have demonstrated that they are willing and able to commit violent crimes on your behalf ... unless you're Donald Trump, apparently.
Yup - and honestly, the people who blindly follow people like Trump or the GOP just “to own the libs” and those like Sanctus who say they’d “rather live in a society that punches people who say women are naturally subservient to men than one that does not,” are the same kind of person: the kind of people who want to control the speech of people who say things they don’t like.
Hate speech, from either side, should not be tolerated. The right tends to say a lot more batshit insane things that are downright vile, and I am deeply sadden that what they say is fucking okay and even cool with others, but that doesn’t give a free pass for people to go “well we should harm them or kill them or something”. Ideally, we would be holding people to a higher standard - especially those in public office - because saying stuff like “women are men’s property”, “maybe Hitler was right”, and “fuck black/hispanic/asian people” is actually hate speech, and that should be called out and have people held accountable for.
First of all, I'm not talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be.
But the way the law treats speech in the United States, I think is correct.
If you're trying to immorally cause direct harm with your speech (e.g. calling Fire in a crowded theater, or organizing an insurrection) then that should be illegal.
If you're only talking about the idea related to these, like how you think it should be legal to punch Nazis. Then that should be allowed by allow. But the people around you should call you out for being full of hate and spreading hate and that you're really not being the good person you think you are when you're doing this and you should stop.
I dont see how I am listening. Trump is calling for outright violence, punch him. Tate brothers selling women hate books creating hordes of incels, punch them. RFJ Jr spitting anti-semetic world domination conspiracies? Punch him, too. Its not hard to identify these people, they wear it on their sleeves. Even the pedophiles, like Matt Gaetz. Saying people should get punched and suffer consequences for hate speech is not hate speech. Saying the Jews control the world and should all be killed is hate speech. Hate speech targets a demographic. People saying idiotic and hateful shit is not a demographic.
You don't think that the misogyny talked about in the post is dangerous? Asking for clarification here, but are you openly saying a political ideology promoting misogyny isn't dangerous?
Ideas are not dangerous; censorship is.
Have to be intolerant of intolerance or you lose freedom and free speech. We as a society have to decide that intolerant speech that tries to remove rights from certain demographics is in fact harmful and evil and intolerable.
We're not talking about academic debates here or hypothetical arguments. Folks are actively working to reduce the rights of others, and in some places they're winning. Advocating to reduce rights of others is not okay.
Normally I would agree censorship is not the answer. However without limits, we will see hate gain ground. Part of being a society is setting limits of acceptable behavior, we can't shit in the aisle at the grocery store, we can't propagate hate speech, both of these rules (should) exist to protect ourselves as a group. Pretty simple stuff.
Talking about reducing rights isn't what reduces them. Those in power dictate what our rights are, and the more power we give them the more they will take them away. People with money limit our rights; people with power limit our rights, but people with nothing but speech simply cannot. Don't give those in power the power to dictate what we're allowed to say simply because an extreme minority of people have opinions you don't like. One day you'll find yourself being the one that has an opinion they don't like, and by then you won't be able to defend yourself against it, because no one will be able to hear you.
How do you think those people got power and how do you think those rich people keep their money? It's not just the illuminati in the background. They use free speech to convince people that their problems are caused by someone different, not the guy on the microphone robbing them blind.
I don't think it's a controversial statement to say fuck Nazis, we literally fought an entire war to make that statement. They don't get to have a podium anymore, because their ideas are evil and harmful to others
As someone who has faced years of virulent antisemitism, some of which has led to violence when I didn't respond... ideas are fucking dangerous.
Ideas certainly can be dangerous. There are plenty of people in America today with the idea that I, as a Jew, am somehow evil and behind everything they label as bad in society.
Ideas like that lead to action to "fix the situation." This could be everything from relegating me to a second class citizen for the "crime of being Jewish" to pushing for a second Holocaust. Without the dangerous idea, the dangerous actions wouldn't occur.
I will agree that we need to be careful when we censor dangerous ideas. If we do it in a sloppy fashion, the right could gain power and use the same mechanism to ban ideas that they think are "dangerous." Things like LGBTQ people deserve to exist, POC deserve to be treated the same as white people, women deserve to be treated as equals to men. You know, really dangerous ideas to right wing straight white Christian men.
I've got to agree. I hate speech like the examples in the article and would love to restrict it, but we need to be careful about how we do it.
Suppose a law was passed tomorrow allowing a federal agency to deem certain speech not covered by Free Speech. (Also assume this survived the inevitable court challenges.) The Biden administration might only restrict speech targeting women, LGBTQ people, POC, etc. What would happen if Trump won in 2024, though? What kinds of speech would his administration label as illegal?
Whenever we work to give a government agency power, we should ask ourselves what the Republicans would do with this power and what guardrails are there to prevent abuse. Otherwise, we're just handing the Republicans the tools to silence us the second they regain power.
Just know that a bunch of bots and paid commentors are responding to your post here. They're programmed/paid to see comments like yours in all sorts of forums and respond by saying how stupid you are and explaining why free speech is evil. Stand tall, very few actually believe this, and the ones that do (those currently in power) all stand to benefit from us being silenced.
Women don’t want to fuck conservative men anymore. So they’re trying to punish women for it.
Sounds and looks like just another bunch of nazis dressed differently. In German, there is a saying when talking about Soviet/Russian leadership changes, "Selber Ivan, andere Hosen." "Same Ivan, different pants."
This made me LoL.
Arm yourselves my liberal brethren. It's not a statistical blip that POC, LGBT and women are currently (and have been) the largest gun purchasing demographic. And they're asking how to learn safely and train. If you haven't heard this talk, it's because they're hiding it from you. "How do I approach the subject with my liberal friends?", is an oft asked question.
What did that guy say at the Israeli festival? Something about how all he could think about was how to defend himself and/or fight back?
You don't have to choose sides. You only have to choose self-defense. I won't be on the next round of trains. Your choice.
I'll do my damndest for you if you choose to be harmless. But I am a peaceful man, because I made a choice.
For those that don’t understand the issue or never learned their history, give this a read
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
They desperately want to keep the opposition unarmed/afraid/powerless, same shit different day
And please, if not for yourself, arm yourself for those of us who can't, whether it be because of disability, mental health, poverty, background checks or any number of reasons. We will need you
I am left, and armed. I'm mostly trying to get out of here though
As a straight white cis man... these people do not represent me.
That won’t stop them from claiming to have the moral upper hand. Fuck these people.
good. Make sure you punch any fascists you meet too. Allies also need to be a part of this fight against fascism.
As a bi white cis man, these people would probably want me dead
As a Trump voter, these people do not represent me.
As a Trump voter, you represent them.
What the fuck are you talking about? Every one of these morons is a die hard Trumper.
Nobody gives a fuck if fascists get their fee-fees hurt.
In fact, it delights me that you're embarrassed by them.
So why do you support Trump? Is it for his healthcare plan that's coming "in 2 weeks"?
In the lead-up to the 2016 election, in men's online spaces, there was a concerted and organized recruiting effort by white supremacists. They used legitimate men's issues like circumcision, suicide, or child custody as gateways to gradually expose men to increasingly outlandish propaganda. Conservative media was more than willing to give these people a soapbox to spread their propaganda further. Trump further normalized it. It's nearly identical to the tactics used to build support for authoritarian dictatorships through history. I'm afraid that we are far past the point where there can be any peaceful resolution.
Oh look, christians are trying to restrict consentual sex while helping and hiding rapists and pedos.
Wow, couldn't see that coming.
I disagree about the cause and effect here. It’s not that they’re promoting sexual abuse to get control of breeding, they’re demanding control of breeding to justify their demands to have the right to abuse women sexually.
These are people who really exemplify that Wilde quote: “everything’s about sex, except sex that’s about power”
You make a good point. The power and control are their goal, sexual repression is the means to that end.
Yeah they want to never have to earn a woman’s love and loyalty as a fellow human being. In part because that’s hard, it takes a lifetime of hard work to keep another person willingly loyal to you. You have to treat them with kindness, respect, loyalty, etc and even then there’s still a chance that they break your trust. What these people want is for none of that. And they’ll hurt anyone to get it
Spoiler alert: they’re not getting weirder in a fun way.
Calling being in favor of domestic abuse "getting weirder about sex" is a strange way to put it.
Seems to go way beyond simply domestic abuse. On a societal level, they are trying very hard (and in some areas of the country, succeeding) to bring us back to a time when the patriarchy had enough power that any man could beat the shit out of any women they want, for any (or no) reason, and expect zero consequences.
They want to do away with marital rape laws, and divorce.
This is more than just some old white men who like beating on their wives a bit every now and then...
Right-wingers are just disgusting beings. They can't self-reflect or have any intellectual honesty in their thoughts.
Think the point is that they are both in favor of domestic abuse and getting weirder about sex.
Seriously, who didn't see any of this at least as far back as 2015, and certainly by 2016, when donnie "won" and these people started to step out of the shadows because they thought donnie's "win" would allow them to be their absolute worst selves right away.
My first thought reading this post was “RECENT WEEKS?!?!!?”
A lot of stuff changed several years ago when he became a real thing in politics, but most of the stuff since then has seemed par for the course (the batshit insane course, but still).
They always have been pretty weird about sex.
Recently, my Nanna said, "Those young rich women think it's so cool to get their abortions and have sex." It took a while to unpack that with her.
Thank you for your service.
Mostly about the parts that have to do with imbalances of power. They love those. Two+ actually consenting adults living their lives openly and honestly is threatening to them, though.
Let's not pretend that imbalances of power aren't an enormously popular fetish for all kinds of people. I have never met a woman who wasn't into it to some degree and I suspect the vast majority of men are into it too.
If you're talking about a kink or a fetish like BDSM, that's very very different from, say, criminalising reproductive rights and education. No safe word's going to get you out of that one.
I’m pretty sure these cunts got a pizza shop in DC where they rape & torture kids in the basement.
As much as they project it I wouldn't be surprised.
I'm currently watching "The handmaid's tale." If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. It's basically the story of what happens when the right wing extremists get exactly what they want.
It is devastating and tragic, and also a very stark warning about what that future actually looks like.
When the show first premiered, critics said "it's just like the book from the 80s: paranoid poppycock" as if the events of the story could never happen. Meanwhile, in the US, you had Jan 6th which has TONS of parallels to the events of the show where the right wing extremists assassinate all of the moderates and Liberals in Congress before rolling back civil rights for women.
the author herself has said all events in the book is based on real events. Just the majority didn't happen to white people.
Man, I used to be way into that show when it first premiered. It's top notch in terms of writing/keeping you on the edge of your seat. Now it just stokes my anxiety about what could happen. I can't watch it at all. I had downloaded the book back when I was into it, but I can't finish it. It's too real.
Living in Texas, I fear how far Greg Abbott could take it. I don't think it's going to get quite that bad, but I didn't even want it to be as close as it currently is (no abortions except rape and threat to life of the mother - with caveats such as the rape must be reported immediately and women must be actively dying before docs step in).
Now I just am too mentally spent to fucking deal.
These people are fucking idiots. Zero logic, feelings only. And then they claim they, as men, only cry because there is something in the water artificially lowering their testosterone. Just when you thought they can't get any dumber or less mature....
I feel great after a good cry. Clear headed, focused. Crying is great.
Feelings for these ‘men’ are ok, as long as those feelings are anger and machismo. Everything else is too effeminate.
Or they just hold it on and take it out on women and minorities.
selective breeding is birth control.
What a bunch of fucking degenerates.
The old hag was actually right "basket of deplorables"
I swear… every conservative talking head/mouthpiece/soul-sold shill always comes of like they’re trying desperately to be seen an evil supervillain, but end up looking like a stock cartoonish comedy relief “supervillain.”
I think one of the things I struggle with is: how much should I be concerned about this?
Like, it's wildly concerning, but aren't these just the same people that always thought this way saying the quiet part out loud?
I kind of personally feel that it's the death throws of the more gentrified version of this brand of politics. The women are more family focused, men are goal oriented demographics reflect reality while ignoring systemic issues brand. It's kindly thought of as old fashioned, but increasingly described as ignorant or unsophisticated.
It feels more like the violent lashing out of a cornered animal that knows it is about to be lunch.
The money behind it is worrying, but it feels like these people are kicking and screaming because they're being dragged forward.
Idk
There’s danger in the fact that they’re comfortable saying it out loud. It means they don’t fear the consequences of saying this, and thus they’re much closer to not fearing the consequences of doing it
they're lashing out, hoping the liberals amongst us go to their defense. They want a fascist dictatorship, it's spelled out in the 2025 plan. You should be concerned. But we aren't done fighting yet. Join protests, punch fascists, vote, and volunteer at election sites to fight the wave of fascism heading towards our country.
I would agree if they hadn't controlled the country for 4 years and hadn't made huge strides like overturning roe v wade. The fact that you see them as fringe kind of works in their favor.
The regressive right has been pushing back against progress, playing the long game, since the civil rights era. Fifty years or more.
It seems to me their power has only grown since then. They've stacked courts, gerrymandered the shit out of many places, and managed to get Bush and Trump elected.
If regressive politics is in its death throes, how did Republicans gain control of the Senate? How is it that so many anti LGBTQ laws have been passed in* so many states? How is it so many boards of education have been taken over by the right?
If the right is almost done how did they have the power to overturn Roe v Wade? How did we end up with the Shelby County v Holder decision?
Conservative* regressivism and the bigotry that undergirds it is a fact of human nature. Don't be naive and think we will be done with it so easily.
And pay attention to who is exercising power to enact their visions. That should disabuse you of any false hope that the fight against regressivism is over.
So you ain’t wrong that they are lashing out because they see the march of social progress on the wall and see that as a threat. But they are very much still dangerous maybe more than ever. They know that if they don’t take extreme measures to drag us backward they will die out and “lose”, which is why what they hope to achieve is a dictatorship where they can force the country to fit their desired reality. I am very much afraid and I live in a very solidly blue state
The problem is that no one is saying they can't continue to be family-focused or goal oriented, old-fashioned, or ignorant and unsophisticated. They can choose those things for themselves and no one is going to try to stop them. The problem is that they insist that everyone else conform to their values and are trying to drag the rest of us back to the Dark Ages with them. And they've made a good start with the rights they've already rolled back.
So yeah, I'd say there's good justification to be concerned. If they were only dangerous to themselves I wouldn't be too worried, but they're a danger to everyone.
Yeah I do agree tbh, people find a weird bit of right wing craziness poking through the wall and panic but the reality is you can find popular republican's with crazy hateful ideas all through time and in every direction.
I have literally seen very notorious white supremacists on Facebook tell people they vote for Joe Biden to 'kick off race war'. They're bizarre.
I haven't seen that, but then again, I tend to not follow or friend people on Facebook who are white supremacists.
I have a fake Facebook account where I am a pretend white supremacist so I befriend white supremacists, and report all their Nazi posts to Facebook and get them banned, as well as share pertinent information with journalists/researchers/law enforcement, is why I saw it.
Bro, while your hobby is noble, just, and a fucking necessity, how do you have the mental capacity to deal with that shit?
I get depressed just thinking about the repeal of RvW, much less purposefully reading the thoughts of people who wanted it!
Well I used to process it by putting their ugly Nazi faces on r/beholdthemasterrace on Reddit for us to mock, but the Nazis noticed it and complained to Reddit, who took the side of the Nazis and banned me.
In seriousness they fill me with rage routinely and are the most vile example of humanity, but I think I'm doing something important, even if I only see it that way, and also it's quite satisfying how long I've been able to pull the wool over their eyes.
Also we catfished Enrique Tarrio into thinking I was some young hot Trump woman and he sent us dick pics, which someday I'll do something with.
It's been difficult reading these Salon articles. They really come off as written by two or three editors. There's a great conversation to be had about "underpopulation", "genetic purity", and "the patriarchy" but this article only barely gives itself a moment to touch on its point.
The weirdest part are those on the right who refuse to wipe their asses because "Only a gay would touch themselves around that area!"
Yes these exist
I don't think the right can get any weirder. They're already psychotic in general.
There are like 5 lies in the first paragraph. Why would you read further?
This thread's existence appears to be an attempt to keep power where it currently is, with the elites of our society. People here are hating a group of people that barely exist (a super-minority). It's the same on the right; they pick the loudest, craziest leftist groups and say that all people in the left are like that. This is crazy! I voted for Trump and according to many in here I'm essentially a Nazi that wants a fascist dictatorship.
It's pretty disheartening, but at the same time I know there's basically a bunch of bots in here that are trying to pit us against each other. The people in power (government and corporate elites) are scared of us becoming allies and realizing THEY are the ones responsible, not MAGA Republicans, and not extreme leftists. They WANT us to question free speech even though we know better. They'll even reply to me to make it SEEM like there are people that want to limit free speech, but the only people that want to do so are the elites.
Please people wake up. I am not your enemy. The government and corporate elites are scared! They are the ones that need to answer for this. Stop fighting your brothers and sisters and LOOK UP!
I think there is more we have in common then we have differences, but I view Trump and every single one of his lackeys and sycophants to be an existential threat to the United States. I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I will vote for nothing but until the pro-racism, pro-fascism, pro-authoritarianism wing of the Republican party is buried. I swore an oath over thirty years ago to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, and only now have circumstances made it necessary for me to act on that oath.
You want to work together against the rich? Great! Me too! But first things first. Let's save democracy.
I'll happily vote for RFK if you will. I only voted for Trump because the establishment hates him, but I don't think he's the solution. That being said, imo Biden and the neo-democrats (as well as the neo-cons) are even worse.
RFK can get fucked, sorry. I'm 100% anti-Trump and I will vote for any democrat in any race against a republican who refused to denounce him. When they are all gone, and my daughters have their rights back, and my queer friends and family can live their lives without fear or discrimination, then we can elect the person with the best plan for taking some of the last fifty years of economic growth back from the rich assholes who stole it from us. Until then, I want nothing but to keep Trump and his ilk as far away from the mechanisms of power as we can.
No matter what you think about Biden, America's going to be pretty much the same as we've always been under him. Maybe better in some ways, worse in others, but nothing that's going to undermine the nation. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Trump.
I don't want things to be the same, that's exactly my problem with our current society. We've become a society that supports forever wars, and lacks any and all compassion. I'm just here doing the best I can in this world with all my flaws and all the tools I was given by this society, and I voted for Trump. Does that mean I should be labeled a Nazi and a fascist for doing so? Maybe, but what does that say about the society that led to me being this way? Where is the compassion? Where is the discussion? I can tell you FOR SURE that it's not in this forum where I've already been called a fascist Nazi for trying to bring us together.
If the drastic change you're looking for either doesn't contemplate people besides yourself or actively seeks to harm them, please don't complain about being called a Nazi. If you would prefer a fascist regime to a center right one, I don't know what you expect.
There are a lot of nutters on the left I disagree with, but I will vote to take away every gun in America and redesigning cities to be anti-car and eliminate the suburbs, and even minimum income—all positions I disagree with—i will vote for every one of those things before I allow a fascist to take over this country.
Note that Biden isn't endorsing any of those positions, so my sacrifice is only theoretical in any event. This is what I mean by nothing really changes—we are still recognizably the America I've lived in for fifty years.
Yes, voting for a fascist dictator is literally a defining characteristic of someone that wants a fascist dictatorship.