Is "Sexual Anarchy" supposed to be a bad thing? Because that's sounds pretty fucking awesome to me.
I'm pretty sure there's at least 5 mildly successful punk bands called that. If not, there should be!
Woohoo, fuck the systeeeem!
Puts on condom
"Incel-isation of the modern GOP"? OK, apart from the point that "modern" and "GOP" don't really go together, this just means no sane female member of the human race wants to touch a Republican even with a 10-foot pole?
He is closeted gay man his homophoiba screams it. Democrats should kick him out of office next year. We need Democrats to take a super majority in both chambers.
Could we not use "he is secretly gay" as an insult or as a witch hunt? Like, I don't see why that even needs to be elaborated on in the 2020s.
We can comment on hateful bigots and hypocrites without dragging down one of the demographics who are particularly under threat from said bigots.
My 2 cents that no one asked for… mentioning, or hypothesizing that he’s “secretly gay,” is meant to further articulate the degree of absurdity around his views. I do not believe it’s meant as a which hunt or an insult.
Its not 4D chess, it's reactionism. Its subconsciously trying to find a reason for peoples douchosity, failing, and falling back on pointing out something that might get the other side to react just as emotionally.
It is still using "gay" as an insult and is a direct insult to all the people who are STILL "in the closet" because they are afraid of what people like mike johnson will do them if they pursue their own happiness.
This is right up there with "I am not insulting gay people, I am insulting motor cyclists" in terms of tone deafness that is largely indistinguishable from bigotry.
There are so many other ways to shit on this asshole. Let's pick one that doesn't attack our LGBTQ+ friends?
Its not entirely uncommon for homophobes to later come out as bi. They mistakenly assume their experience is universal and that sexuality is a choice for everyone as it is for them. Their hatred is deep reactionary denial of their own nature.
It's not bad if he's gay. It's bad if his policies are disingenuous. If he's gay, then there's an extra reason he shouldn't support anti-gay legislation.
It's hard to have snappy one-liners without also boiling down problems to their simplest and most generalized form. Often removing any and all context and reasoning.
Which is generally why the GOP and their attack dogs tend to use it the most. Unfortubately this often leads the people they attack to respond in kind. Hard to have a reasoned argument with someone who spits in your face as their comeback.
Except every rabidly homophobic male I ever met irl really did come out after they were involuntarily outed. Tbf I live in a deeply conflicted, fundamentalist religious area.
Really, every single one? Wow. Must be something in the water (insert gay frogs joke).
Been a minute but years ago I watched a REALLY good youtube on this phenomenon. Part of it is very much sample bias. One bigot being revealed as "closet gay" becomes all bigots.
But the reality is that: Sexuality is a spectrum. It is pretty rare for someone to be all gay or all straight or whatever. Its why there are like two men alive who wouldn't let Ryan Reynolds stick it in them but Jon Hamm is a lot more YMMV.
And it kind of gets summed up by the hilarious SVU meme of the suspect (?) saying "I am not gay. Sometimes I have sex with women and sometimes I have sex with men" and Ice T saying "That makes you gay" as a one liner.
If you've grown up and had it forced into your skull that gay is evil and to think unsexy thoughts and so forth, you just say "Shit, I am gay". Rather than, the reality, of "I am mostly heterosexual but I am a bit bicurous" or "I generally prefer other women but I am not opposed to dating a guy" and so forth.
Yeah, every single one.
If you’ve grown up and had it forced into your skull that gay is evil and to think unsexy thoughts and so forth, you just say “Shit, I am gay”.
Dude my buddy in college used to sport-fuck "straight" redneck boys, and I can confirm that this shit you describe literally never happens.
He did adopt a 14 year old black boy when he was first married to his wife. I can't find any information about the kid now or find any family pictures of them together. Sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I actually looked it up yesterday
So the son has been an adult for a while and allegedly has his own family, and asked not to be put in the spotlight. Which makes it confusing when he occasionally brings up his black son by name to speak to race issues, but he generally goes around saying he has 4 children instead of 5. He does generally seem to actually take a reasonable principled stance on black race issues (specifically), but I have no idea what to make of all that
He's a weird dude all over. I wasn't sure what to make from him, but it seemed like maybe has actual principles (not good ones, but genuinely held). Learning more about him hasn't really improved my opinion of him...
Because liberal concern trolls don't give 2 fucks about being hypocrites. They kept talking about how Trumps wife was a pornstar a couple years ago too, because she's a former model that posed topless once or twice. Meanwhile they idealize and elevate actual pornstars and would scream if anyone insulted based on their profession.
They kept talking about how Trumps wife was a pornstar a couple years ago too
No, he cheated on his wife with a porn star, who then told lots of people about it.
He actually said it out loud. Instead of expecting fabulously wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.
He wants to breed more wage slaves that are so disposable, it doesn’t matter if they starve on the streets, as long as they’re not self-medicating.
This is how mass shootings are going to increase in frequency. As soon as they wise up in their tactics and stop going after innocent school children I wonder what they'll do about it.
Even the type of mentally retarded subhuman trash that kills random people will figure out the corrupt government is fucking them over sooner or later.
They won’t attack them because the party projects the same projections as the base; iow, anything but face the shadow self.
I'm just wondering if the Republicans will make a complete 180 and start pushing for gun control harder than the dems after the first time one of these people commit terrorism against a government establishment or if they'll still be like "meh, dead people. Thoughts and prayers".
They won't be the ones terrorized, so no they won't care.
They won't be the ones terrorized
Not with that attitude, they won't!
Buy your (preferably used/pawned) guns or acquire them from your crazy antivaxxer uncle's estate after he expires, put on some ANTIFA gear and start marching!
The moment a politician gets shot (I mean Republican), gun laws will be passed ASAP.
On June 14, 2017, during practice for that year's Congressional Baseball Game, Scalise was shot and seriously wounded by an anti-Trump domestic terrorist
We can expect MAGA Mike to ban women from talking because he believes they don't belong outside of the kitchen.
"Exposing your ankles on the House floor like a hussy? That's a censuring." - Mike Johnson
He will ban it because he's a Christofascist who interprets the Bible literally.
Mike Johnson: "Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it - that's my worldview. That's what I believe and so I make no apologies for it."
The Bible, 1 Timothy 2:12: But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
Exactly what I'm tracking.
Interprets select, out of context, quotes.
The Bible is terrible fully in context. People pretend that the context explains all the stupid and abusive stuff because it feels nice to avoid arguments with well-meaning religious people. There isn't context that fixes that Timothy quote, there are evolutions and rationalizations to try to sand off the rough edges so the religious institutions can keep trundling along while secular morality rightfully moves beyond it.
This guy is just so fucking weird.
It’s crazy that House Republicans only sank Jim Jordan’s Speakership candidacy because he and his proxies were mean to them. Once they were offered a bland nobody with even more extreme beliefs they elected him unanimously.
Calling them fervent misogynists would be much more accurate, because unfortunately, these hateful hypocrites are anything but "involuntarily celibate" behind closed doors.
If he really wants to go down this route, then perhaps he should call out Nick Fuentes over his desire to have a child bride first. Both shithead monsters can fuck off and die.
If I'm going to Hell, then I am sure as shit seeing these two assholes there. And I'm looking forward to accompanying them while we burn. Seriously, fuck them both.
No no no, you misunderstand. Fucking a child is perfectly fine as long as you marry your victim.
I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore that source too though, despite the fact that it tells you that exactly where to find the interview where he says it and provides direct quotes about it
No, they'll just never reply
Nah. He doesn't seem the type that can resist continuing the troll lol
Either way though, I'm done with it - if he actually cares, the proof is right there, if he doesn't believe Yahoo News (which would be reasonable), he can check out the original interview, if he refuses to do that, then it's clear he's just concern trolling and can be safely ignored 🤷🏼♂️
I miss /u/AmputatorBot
why do you assume so negativity?
I can give it and take it, I'll admit your right
I don't give much benefit of the doubt to someone who cares enough about an issue to refute claims of a high profile figure being a pedophile, but doesn't care enough about truth to out even a tiny sliver of effort into looking into the issue yourself.
oh please, get over yourself.
I asked for proof, not my allegiance.
see, that wasn't hard
It really wasn't, which begs the question of why you couldn't take the couple of seconds to do it yourself? You care enough to contradict the claim, but not enough to click more than once to get the proof? And you wonder why everyone in this thread has such a low opinion of you lol
Reading comprehension clearly isn't their thing.
so lazy, either shut up or put up
man conservatives don't even know how to click a link in Google. how embarrassing for you.
not a conservative
How's trolling working out for you? Genuinely interested.
nice username
A reporter needs to ask him about his stance on pornography being banned and whether he's considering crafting legislation to that effect. His first answer will be wildly unpopular, and if his second is anything but a complete denial, that story will explode.
Ask him his stance on pornography in the Bible and watch him get pissy.
I believe pornography is protect it First amendment speech
You are 100% correct, but multiple unconstitutional "think of the children" style laws have already been passed in several states. The status quo of pornography being protected speech is only a result of multiple litigations on behalf of the ACLU over the years. The reality is unconstitutional laws will keep being passed, and challenging them takes a lot of time and money, without any guarantee of success.
Who would fuck a conservative, anyway? Just the thought turns my stomach. They are fucking grotesque.
As for why these people find someone who will marry them? They covet power just like their spouses. These psychopaths chase power and money. It's all they care about. They will kill you and me if it means they get more, and they won't lose any sleep over it.
Fuck a conservative? Sure, why not? Marry one? Nope.
The party of legitimate rape and those who would depend on it for sexual satisfaction is a set within set.
We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to occasionally utilizing sources poor sources and failed fact checks.
or something else in addition to this?
The article says "commentary" in the top left corner, so it is an editorial piece.
Ah okay, gotcha. Thanks.
Super common thing I'm seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.
Read everything, but the moment it's a commentary piece or there's extremely unchecked bias, give it a toss and don't recommend it to others you want to convince.
We don't need fluff pieces, or people like this author claiming the speaker was making sex jokes about the "weeks on her knees" comment (still weird she wasn't there, but it definitely didn't sound sexual) when we have all the evidence and spin on those stories needed with the direct context.
If somebody posted OAN news, I'd say it's trash and you shouldn't get your news from there, Salon isn't as bad but its definitely not good journalism.
So much for attacking their ideas when you can just attack them for being them, I guess.
Did you have some particular disagreement with the content of the article?
The man gives off strong incel energy
Johnson is trash, there's no disputing that.
However, in a sea of character flaws, the best the author can come up with is "incel energy" it's a severe lack of talent on the author's part. That speaks to the quality of Salon's "writing."
Well OK but,
He backs up his claim with linked citations
He doesn't ignore, but rather acknowledges many of the other things that are bad about the guy, and backs those up with linked citations too.
And, he ties it all together at the end:
There are still many in the punditry who are confused about why Christian conservatives like Johnson glommed onto Trump, a thrice-married chronic adulterer who touches the Bible like it will burn him. But, of course, it was never really about Jesus. What Trump and the men who worship him share is anger that any woman would have the right to say no: To a date, to a marriage, to having your baby. It's why Trump has a long history of sexual assault. And it's why men like Johnson embrace a "religion" that is hyper-focused on caging women like they're farm animals. And why they resent gay people for their perceived sexual adventures.
So I don't know if it's the "best" the author could come up with so much as what he chose to write about, but it seems like a reasonably coherent piece to me.
In any case though, your comment at least gave a concrete thing you disliked, so fair point! 🙂 The comment I replied to on the other hand...
I'm not a particular Salon fanboy, but we're in a sub about politics so I expect to see some opinion pieces about politics.
a thrice-married chronic adulterer
That's quite the opposite of an incel. That's all I'm saying. If you're going after the guy, use the right words.
Is "Sexual Anarchy" supposed to be a bad thing? Because that's sounds pretty fucking awesome to me.
I'm pretty sure there's at least 5 mildly successful punk bands called that. If not, there should be!
Woohoo, fuck the systeeeem!
Puts on condom
"Incel-isation of the modern GOP"? OK, apart from the point that "modern" and "GOP" don't really go together, this just means no sane female member of the human race wants to touch a Republican even with a 10-foot pole?
He is closeted gay man his homophoiba screams it. Democrats should kick him out of office next year. We need Democrats to take a super majority in both chambers.
Could we not use "he is secretly gay" as an insult or as a witch hunt? Like, I don't see why that even needs to be elaborated on in the 2020s.
We can comment on hateful bigots and hypocrites without dragging down one of the demographics who are particularly under threat from said bigots.
My 2 cents that no one asked for… mentioning, or hypothesizing that he’s “secretly gay,” is meant to further articulate the degree of absurdity around his views. I do not believe it’s meant as a which hunt or an insult.
Its not 4D chess, it's reactionism. Its subconsciously trying to find a reason for peoples douchosity, failing, and falling back on pointing out something that might get the other side to react just as emotionally.
It is still using "gay" as an insult and is a direct insult to all the people who are STILL "in the closet" because they are afraid of what people like mike johnson will do them if they pursue their own happiness.
This is right up there with "I am not insulting gay people, I am insulting motor cyclists" in terms of tone deafness that is largely indistinguishable from bigotry.
There are so many other ways to shit on this asshole. Let's pick one that doesn't attack our LGBTQ+ friends?
Its not entirely uncommon for homophobes to later come out as bi. They mistakenly assume their experience is universal and that sexuality is a choice for everyone as it is for them. Their hatred is deep reactionary denial of their own nature.
It's not bad if he's gay. It's bad if his policies are disingenuous. If he's gay, then there's an extra reason he shouldn't support anti-gay legislation.
It's hard to have snappy one-liners without also boiling down problems to their simplest and most generalized form. Often removing any and all context and reasoning.
Which is generally why the GOP and their attack dogs tend to use it the most. Unfortubately this often leads the people they attack to respond in kind. Hard to have a reasoned argument with someone who spits in your face as their comeback.
Except every rabidly homophobic male I ever met irl really did come out after they were involuntarily outed. Tbf I live in a deeply conflicted, fundamentalist religious area.
Really, every single one? Wow. Must be something in the water (insert gay frogs joke).
Been a minute but years ago I watched a REALLY good youtube on this phenomenon. Part of it is very much sample bias. One bigot being revealed as "closet gay" becomes all bigots.
But the reality is that: Sexuality is a spectrum. It is pretty rare for someone to be all gay or all straight or whatever. Its why there are like two men alive who wouldn't let Ryan Reynolds stick it in them but Jon Hamm is a lot more YMMV.
And it kind of gets summed up by the hilarious SVU meme of the suspect (?) saying "I am not gay. Sometimes I have sex with women and sometimes I have sex with men" and Ice T saying "That makes you gay" as a one liner.
If you've grown up and had it forced into your skull that gay is evil and to think unsexy thoughts and so forth, you just say "Shit, I am gay". Rather than, the reality, of "I am mostly heterosexual but I am a bit bicurous" or "I generally prefer other women but I am not opposed to dating a guy" and so forth.
Yeah, every single one.
Dude my buddy in college used to sport-fuck "straight" redneck boys, and I can confirm that this shit you describe literally never happens.
He did adopt a 14 year old black boy when he was first married to his wife. I can't find any information about the kid now or find any family pictures of them together. Sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I actually looked it up yesterday
So the son has been an adult for a while and allegedly has his own family, and asked not to be put in the spotlight. Which makes it confusing when he occasionally brings up his black son by name to speak to race issues, but he generally goes around saying he has 4 children instead of 5. He does generally seem to actually take a reasonable principled stance on black race issues (specifically), but I have no idea what to make of all that
He's a weird dude all over. I wasn't sure what to make from him, but it seemed like maybe has actual principles (not good ones, but genuinely held). Learning more about him hasn't really improved my opinion of him...
Because liberal concern trolls don't give 2 fucks about being hypocrites. They kept talking about how Trumps wife was a pornstar a couple years ago too, because she's a former model that posed topless once or twice. Meanwhile they idealize and elevate actual pornstars and would scream if anyone insulted based on their profession.
No, he cheated on his wife with a porn star, who then told lots of people about it.
Oh great, so now even homophobia is out fault. Thanks.
Imagine thinking sexual anarchy is a bad thing
Coitus without a license? Preposterous!
He actually said it out loud. Instead of expecting fabulously wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.
He wants to breed more wage slaves that are so disposable, it doesn’t matter if they starve on the streets, as long as they’re not self-medicating.
This is how mass shootings are going to increase in frequency. As soon as they wise up in their tactics and stop going after innocent school children I wonder what they'll do about it.
Even the type of mentally retarded subhuman trash that kills random people will figure out the corrupt government is fucking them over sooner or later.
They won’t attack them because the party projects the same projections as the base; iow, anything but face the shadow self.
I'm just wondering if the Republicans will make a complete 180 and start pushing for gun control harder than the dems after the first time one of these people commit terrorism against a government establishment or if they'll still be like "meh, dead people. Thoughts and prayers".
They won't be the ones terrorized, so no they won't care.
Not with that attitude, they won't!
Buy your (preferably used/pawned) guns or acquire them from your crazy antivaxxer uncle's estate after he expires, put on some ANTIFA gear and start marching!
Maybe. It’s how the Brady Act got passed.
You mean like Reagan did? He supported the Brady bill and auto weapons ban.
The moment a politician gets shot (I mean Republican), gun laws will be passed ASAP.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Scalise
We can expect MAGA Mike to ban women from talking because he believes they don't belong outside of the kitchen.
"Exposing your ankles on the House floor like a hussy? That's a censuring." - Mike Johnson
He will ban it because he's a Christofascist who interprets the Bible literally.
Mike Johnson: "Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it - that's my worldview. That's what I believe and so I make no apologies for it."
The Bible, 1 Timothy 2:12: But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
Exactly what I'm tracking.
Interprets select, out of context, quotes.
The Bible is terrible fully in context. People pretend that the context explains all the stupid and abusive stuff because it feels nice to avoid arguments with well-meaning religious people. There isn't context that fixes that Timothy quote, there are evolutions and rationalizations to try to sand off the rough edges so the religious institutions can keep trundling along while secular morality rightfully moves beyond it.
This guy is just so fucking weird.
It’s crazy that House Republicans only sank Jim Jordan’s Speakership candidacy because he and his proxies were mean to them. Once they were offered a bland nobody with even more extreme beliefs they elected him unanimously.
Calling them fervent misogynists would be much more accurate, because unfortunately, these hateful hypocrites are anything but "involuntarily celibate" behind closed doors.
If he really wants to go down this route, then perhaps he should call out Nick Fuentes over his desire to have a child bride first. Both shithead monsters can fuck off and die.
If I'm going to Hell, then I am sure as shit seeing these two assholes there. And I'm looking forward to accompanying them while we burn. Seriously, fuck them both.
No no no, you misunderstand. Fucking a child is perfectly fine as long as you marry your victim.
please, show me where NF said any such thing
Pick one: https://www.google.com/search?q=nick%20fuentes%20child%20bride&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
lol you gave me a Google search
Right right but it's what's IN the Google search that's the point.
Bruh, just look at his username - if you're hoping he'll argue in good faith, you're in for a rough time..
I just asked dude to show me proof NF wants a "Child Bride"
I'm indifferent, if NF did, I'm not going to lose any sleep
and he didn't show me proof
Alright bud, I took the 0.5 sec to pull this from the Google search for you
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/nick-fuentes-admits-dream-wife-020000948.html
I'm sure you'll find some reason to ignore that source too though, despite the fact that it tells you that exactly where to find the interview where he says it and provides direct quotes about it
No, they'll just never reply
Nah. He doesn't seem the type that can resist continuing the troll lol
Either way though, I'm done with it - if he actually cares, the proof is right there, if he doesn't believe Yahoo News (which would be reasonable), he can check out the original interview, if he refuses to do that, then it's clear he's just concern trolling and can be safely ignored 🤷🏼♂️
I miss /u/AmputatorBot
why do you assume so negativity?
I can give it and take it, I'll admit your right
I don't give much benefit of the doubt to someone who cares enough about an issue to refute claims of a high profile figure being a pedophile, but doesn't care enough about truth to out even a tiny sliver of effort into looking into the issue yourself.
oh please, get over yourself.
I asked for proof, not my allegiance.
see, that wasn't hard
It really wasn't, which begs the question of why you couldn't take the couple of seconds to do it yourself? You care enough to contradict the claim, but not enough to click more than once to get the proof? And you wonder why everyone in this thread has such a low opinion of you lol
Reading comprehension clearly isn't their thing.
so lazy, either shut up or put up
man conservatives don't even know how to click a link in Google. how embarrassing for you.
not a conservative
How's trolling working out for you? Genuinely interested.
nice username
A reporter needs to ask him about his stance on pornography being banned and whether he's considering crafting legislation to that effect. His first answer will be wildly unpopular, and if his second is anything but a complete denial, that story will explode.
Ask him his stance on pornography in the Bible and watch him get pissy.
I believe pornography is protect it First amendment speech
You are 100% correct, but multiple unconstitutional "think of the children" style laws have already been passed in several states. The status quo of pornography being protected speech is only a result of multiple litigations on behalf of the ACLU over the years. The reality is unconstitutional laws will keep being passed, and challenging them takes a lot of time and money, without any guarantee of success.
Who would fuck a conservative, anyway? Just the thought turns my stomach. They are fucking grotesque.
As for why these people find someone who will marry them? They covet power just like their spouses. These psychopaths chase power and money. It's all they care about. They will kill you and me if it means they get more, and they won't lose any sleep over it.
Fuck a conservative? Sure, why not? Marry one? Nope.
The party of legitimate rape and those who would depend on it for sexual satisfaction is a set within set.
You really need some scare quotes in that term
you mean "legitimate rape"?
I'm calling it now. The GOP platform will include banning contraceptives within 10 years.
I'd be surprised if it isn't on the platform by next year's election.
It already is.
https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-senator-blocks-bill-to-codify-americans-right-to-contraception-
That's what Republicans do. The platform is what they run on. And the Republican platform is "whatever Lord Trump wants."
Go ahead, Johnson - threaten us with a good time.
Salon.com
What’s up with Salon? I feel like I’m OOTL on this one.
Edit:
I checked here and is it this:
or something else in addition to this?
The article says "commentary" in the top left corner, so it is an editorial piece.
Ah okay, gotcha. Thanks.
Super common thing I'm seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.
Read everything, but the moment it's a commentary piece or there's extremely unchecked bias, give it a toss and don't recommend it to others you want to convince.
We don't need fluff pieces, or people like this author claiming the speaker was making sex jokes about the "weeks on her knees" comment (still weird she wasn't there, but it definitely didn't sound sexual) when we have all the evidence and spin on those stories needed with the direct context.
If somebody posted OAN news, I'd say it's trash and you shouldn't get your news from there, Salon isn't as bad but its definitely not good journalism.
So much for attacking their ideas when you can just attack them for being them, I guess.
Did you have some particular disagreement with the content of the article?
Johnson is trash, there's no disputing that.
However, in a sea of character flaws, the best the author can come up with is "incel energy" it's a severe lack of talent on the author's part. That speaks to the quality of Salon's "writing."
Well OK but,
And, he ties it all together at the end:
So I don't know if it's the "best" the author could come up with so much as what he chose to write about, but it seems like a reasonably coherent piece to me.
In any case though, your comment at least gave a concrete thing you disliked, so fair point! 🙂 The comment I replied to on the other hand...
I'm not a particular Salon fanboy, but we're in a sub about politics so I expect to see some opinion pieces about politics.
That's quite the opposite of an incel. That's all I'm saying. If you're going after the guy, use the right words.
Well, you are the best kind of correct, I must admit.
Using the term incel like this reduces the credibility of your argument.
Not really, in no way is it false.
Not false, just so broad and nonspecific as to be more of a dismissive slur than a categorization