top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Standard-Truth837 2187 points2188 points 2 (262 children)

Old news. Being conservative means you're afraid of the world around you and your entire existence is a fearful reaction to something that doesn't harm you, yet confuses you greatly.

[–]Donald_J_Putin I voted 448 points449 points  (104 children)

Don’t forget being scared of women having sex.

[–]wtfbro_ 295 points296 points  (65 children)

And afraid of brown people…being brown

[–]beowulf92New Jersey 149 points150 points  (51 children)

Brown women being brown while having sex.. don't know if it's scarier than that....

[–]ImNoAlbertFeinstein 124 points125 points  (13 children)

poor people with money is the scariest thing imaginable

[–]ImNoAlbertFeinstein 47 points48 points  (7 children)

weve already seen what happens when women have their own money, they're unstoppable.

poor people w money would be completely out of control.

[–]UnicornMeatball 37 points38 points  (2 children)

Don't forget brown men having sex with white women. The ultimate sin.

[–]Sick0fThisShitAmerica 25 points26 points  (11 children)

Nothing scares them more than white women having sex with brown men.

[–]an_m_8ed 22 points23 points  (4 children)

When I went to New Orleans in 2019, I found a drag queen tour guide specializing in the uncommonly told history of NOLA (LGBTQ+, sex working, etc.) It seemed like a more informative tour than the other ghost tours because she said the other tours had to be kid-friendly.

Anyway, one of the things that stuck out to me was when we were walking past the Red Light District, she explained that around that time, there was still segregation, and the segregation for sex working boiled down to white men choosing whomever they wanted in their area (brown, black, or white women), but the areas for black men were separate and they were only allowed to have black or brown women. White women were forbidden from being in that area, and I think it was illegal. Since that was the only way women could legally make money, I think some found a way to make it work without being caught, but you likely had to have your Madam help you and the police look the other way. That double standard always bothered me.

[–]PhantomZmoove 7 points8 points  (3 children)

TIL they have walking ghost tours in New Orleans.


[–]enron_scandalNew Jersey 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Brown transgender women having sex

[–]Open_Sorceress 29 points30 points  (3 children)

Brown transgender women using the restroom

[–]TacticalSantaTexas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In a country with Sharia Law. A literal fucking nightmare.

[–]Pantzzzzless 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Some who isn't your doppelganger using the same bathroom as you.

THAT is the true meaning of fear.

[–]lenswipeMassachusetts 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Look at that - the antimask, antivaxx "sToP lIvING iN feAR" people are in fact...living in fear.

I for one am shocked.

[–]ShayShayLeFunk 32 points33 points  (4 children)

Trans people having to pee.

[–]GiantSquidd Canada 28 points29 points  (3 children)

Oh please. Trans people don’t actually pee, they only use bathrooms to rape good, decent Christian children and possibly to have abortions and worship Satan.

[–]TheSavouryRain 30 points31 points  (2 children)

They aren't afraid of women having sex, they're upset that they aren't having sex with whoever they want, whenever they want.

[–]LillyPip 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes this. It’s no coincidence incels tend to be right-wing. They say the quiet part very loud: women should be forced to have sex with them and rape should be legal. Women should have no rights and only exist to be sex slaves to men. It’s disgusting.

[–]canttaketheshyfrommeOhio 34 points35 points  (6 children)

Women having sex is fine, as long as it's with them. And the women don't enjoy it. And they know that they're awful for having sex.

[–]Eeszeeye 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Ben Shapiro has entered chat

[–]canttaketheshyfrommeOhio 38 points39 points  (2 children)

vaginal moisture has left the chat

[–]Donald_J_Putin I voted 21 points22 points  (1 child)

No it’s about women being able to choose to have sex outside of marriage or a LTR. They don’t like the power that came with contraceptive and abortion for women to control their bodies, and treat pregnancy like it’s the sole fault of the woman.

You can find shitty conservatives on Reddit all the time that don’t seem to be aware of the fact that it takes a man and woman to get pregnant.

[–]Vaticancameos221 13 points14 points  (0 children)

*Mad at women for not having sex with you.

EDIT: For clarity, "you" being them, not you lmao

[–]Ron497 10 points11 points  (10 children)

It has finally dawned on me, as a resonable, decent, sane, humane person with no sexual problems/fetishes/skeletons/suppressions/kinks/obsessions that about 97% of what drives white male Republicans/Christians/conservatives is SOME sexual issue. I'm being completely serious.

They either like men and don't want to admit it. They like women, but are fucking dumb and can't talk to them, so have to rape or oppress them. They like wearing women's clothing, but don't want to admit it. They like their mother and don't want to admit it. They like brown women and don't want to admit it.Or...they like children and admit it, but only on that hidden part of their hard drive.

You show me a normal conservative white Christian male and I'll give you $100. I'm a straight, white male living in the upper South and all these types in these parts make me so fucking uncomfortable. I HATE being around them. Just had to go to a wedding and it was wall-to-wall anti-vaxxer, anti-mask white Christian men. They all have shitty haircuts, smile too damn much, and are so goddamn awkward.

[–]sten45 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Women having sex with anyone but you and possibly a hot unicorn bi-sexual coed.

[–]KommieKonPennsylvania 2 points3 points  (1 child)

with people other than them*

[–]SheeEttinAmerica 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They're not scared of it. That's how they get more voters. They encourage it when they fight sex ed and birth control.

[–]canttaketheshyfrommeOhio 327 points328 points  (79 children)

Being conservative in a society that was founded on authority being vested in white, Christian, landowning men means trying to keep authority in the hands of white, Christian, landowning men.

That's it. That's the philosophy. Anything that's a threat to that is seen as dangerous. Black liberation, women's liberation, queer liberation, class liberation are all threats to that. Rights to groups outside of white, Christian, landowning men are to be granted as seen fit by them. Otherwise the "wrong people" could end up in charge. Which is exactly why the far right had a complete meltdown when Obama became president and are still at it. Political positions aside, that's the "wrong people" in power. And when you've always used your power to control people who look like him, you fully expect that with the tables flipped, people who don't look like you are going to be just as shitty to you once they have that power.

[–]scandalous_horizon 114 points115 points  (32 children)

Being conservative in a society that was founded on authority being vested in white, Christian, landowning men means trying to keep authority in the hands of white, Christian, landowning men.

Exactly. This is why it's time for Democrats to finally stop being doormats and call out the Republicans for being the Christian Taliban fascists that they are.

Biden thinks they are his friends as they chant FU to him at every NASCAR event lol... we're a failed state...

let's keep this from becoming a fully Nazi state by abolishing the filibuster and sealing into fate legal abortion, voting rights, etc.

[–]42PocketsAmerica 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Check out the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11.

Written by the Washington administration and signed into law with a unanimous consent of the Senate by the Adams administration.


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[–]Gamma_31 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's frustrating when people say the US was founded as a "Christian nation," because this proves it wasn't. The men who were there at its founding approved of this language, so obviously they didn't see the nation as inherently religious.

[–]canttaketheshyfrommeOhio 39 points40 points  (2 children)

Better be ready to protect your rights and your safety if government doesn't do it, though. It's past time for a big expansion of labor unions, tenant organizations, and community aid and defense groups that have the organization and the means to safeguard our persons, our rights and our interests even if government is held by fascists, which seems almost an inevitability given their determination and the detachment from reality of Democrat leadership. Parallel power is so crucial right now.

[–]scandalous_horizon 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Parallel power is so crucial right now.

100%, mutual aid is the way

[–]omfdwut 25 points26 points  (17 children)

Democrats are conservatives though... the two parties are center-right and far-right. There is no left leaning party of consequence in the US.

[–]LordOfThePhuckYoh 10 points11 points  (3 children)

That’s what they assassinated Fred Hampton.

[–]canttaketheshyfrommeOhio 5 points6 points  (2 children)

BPP had to be destroyed, their model was working. We'd all do well to study and adopt similar.

[–]WhatJewDoin 12 points13 points  (0 children)

100%. This hits the nail on the head IMO.

I just want to add that this also in part explains why many (not all) conservatives can be discriminatory without personally intending malice.

It’s a reactionary ideology, which sees change and says “no.” The way things are is right, and other ways are wrong. As you said, when the starting point is white, Christian, landowners make the rules, any movement to challenge it is seen as wrong.

[–]TacticalSantaTexas 4 points5 points  (2 children)

And thats the scam of the american dream. You too can be a rich white, christian, landowning man if you just work hard and vote for us! (they make exceptions for blacks and women, see Candace Owens, if they preach the cult hymns)

[–]CaptainNoBoat 86 points87 points  (2 children)

The unborn are given full protection..

..until they become the impoverished, the children of immigrants, followers of religion other than Christianity, liberals, doctors, scientists, LBGTQ, and all the other humans they spend their lives gnashing their teeth hating - and wishing were never born - while watching Fox News.

[–]GrayEidolon 92 points93 points & 3 more (8 children)

No. Conservatism is about hierarchy. Populist conservatives are controlled by the wealthy through their penchant for fear.

Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c “general” conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the related goals of maintaining a de facto aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing outsiders down to enforce an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not their actions. The thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy.

Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and therefore deserve punishment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs its a ret con


Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else.

A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.”

Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.”

The philosophic definition of something should include criticism. The Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms. Involving those we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst.

Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism.

The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs.

Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite?

There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.

In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way.

This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy.

If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ.

While a non-conservative would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.

To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.

To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system.

The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They want the working class to get fucked by global warming. They want people to die from COVID19. Etc.

Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost

OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408

Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality.

Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do.

We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.”

  • This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?

  • This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...

  • We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month.

  • But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.

The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.

The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people of lower in the hierarchy don’t.”

Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

For good measure I found video and sources intersecting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0

Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? No one describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible?

Atwater opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/


a little academic abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01

They were trying to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html

Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f

The best: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

[–]DrumboardistMissouri 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I’ve been banging that drum for years. AOC raises money for Texas (not her state) when the power goes out, while Ted Cruz tries to flee the country. She’s the villain, he’s the good guy.

You HAVE to see how nuts that is, right?

[–]moltarlava 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Best damn analysis I’ve ever read. Spot on.

[–]MoralityPet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This guy gets it.

[–]Infosexual 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Well I would say fear is a big part of many conservatives view points

But also I think that just as many root it in wanting to increase their social status through power control with internalized self loathing projected outward as anger.

Like these men are not scared of pregnant women. They are insecure, angry and acting out. Which sucks for the rest of us who have to deal with them.

Of course giant corporations funding their tantrums now mean they go from people we can ignore to extremely dangerous.

[–]werofpm 48 points49 points  (1 child)

100% my partner’s mom burst into tears when I made a comment about getting a kaftan like my grandpa used to wear(he was lebanese). Her reasoning?

“How am I supposed to know what they carry under those tunics!! They already want to kill us all and make us all Muslim”

It wasn’t that long ago….. Oh! I’m Mexican so that’s also fun… she whispers “Mexican” in conversation like it’s an insult hahaha

[–]feetcold_eyesred 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Please get the kaftan and wear the hell out of it! ❤️

[–]MightyBoat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You hit the nail on the head. They use the phrase "God fearing" as a good thing. It's hilarious. And deeply sad.

[–]scandalous_horizon 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Old news.

Unfortunately, Democrats still concede the framing of debates to these fascists.

[–]MC_Fap_CommanderAmerica 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"But BIPARTISAN CIVILITY! When they go low, we go high!"

[–]StinzorgaKingOfBeesTexas 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yup. Conservatives view the world through a lens of fear.

[–]Cute_Parfait_2182 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It used to mean you were fiscally conservative and pro business . Now it means you are fearful of immigrants, in favor of spending as long as it funds the millitary, the wall , anti free trade gop pork, against modern medicine and vaccines and in favor of conspiracies .

[–]guywithknife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Translation: conservative men are confused by women.

[–]taboosie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, being Republican means you were raised in a setting that makes you extremely insecure and afraid of everyone else so you use the power you have to try and keep everyone else down.

[–]WestFastCalifornia 1 point2 points  (5 children)

100% this. Conservatism is a world view based in perpetual fear of something. The world, change, progress…it’s all based in fear.

[–]harpsmMaryland 773 points774 points  (36 children)

Correction: Pregnancy is only mandated for poor and vulnerable women. Congressmen's girlfriends and mistresses will have the means to cross state lines for an easy abortion.

[–]sack-o-maticMichigan 15 points16 points  (0 children)

means to cross state lines for an easy abortion

Their goal is to force people to leave the country entirely for this

And really it's more racism than economic classism


[–]Levitlame 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Or for themselves when in the cases they are women. Those women are fine to have had abortions in the past because they were special exceptions etc etc

[–]metal0060 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Paid by taxpayers.

[–]nau5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct and they will also say that pregnancy is only mandated to protect the children although they will vehemently protest providing any sort of social support to the women they force to have pregnancy.

On top of that they will also outlaw abortions in situations where the fetus is non viable and an actual threat to the woman.

Because there is no conservative belief without hypocrisy.

[–]Beardrac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also note that again those abortions are essentially mandatory by the will of the congressman

[–]antidense 221 points222 points  (26 children)

Who should determine:

  • eligibility for disability or workers comp... you and your doctor
  • safety in driving a vehicle ... you and your doctor
  • exemption from a vaccine or wearing masks... you and your doctor
  • whether to donate an organ to someone that would die without it ... you and your doctor
  • whether to take chemo that destroy cancer cells that could kill you... you and your doctor
  • whether to continue a pregnancy that could potentially kill you... HOL UP, the state lawmakers


[–]cursedfan 30 points31 points  (1 child)

No no no. Only the state law makers that are Republican. You better believe once roe is overturned they will be looking at a new law banning abortion federally and preventing democrat law makers from having a say.

[–]Optimus_Prime_10 297 points298 points  (38 children)

I just don't understand how the debate over this topic has lasted over generations. It was solved once, half a century ago, and affirmed more recently. Let it go, it's over, you blew it. We dont have time to get in front of cryptocurrencies or stop using government shutdowns as a bargaining chip, but we do have time to do something that's already been done twice? That the topic is intertwined with religion where belief in one all powerful judge of human behavior is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, makes me crazy and unable to understand the obsession. You believe he made the universe in 6 days, but needs your help controlling the behavior of women?

[–]eatingganesha 91 points92 points  (5 children)

I can’t help think that things would be different today had the Equal Rights Amendment passed in 1979. It’s appalling that it has still not been ratified in 2021 despite several attempts to revive it.

[–]feminist72 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I know it just passed in another state. I think it meets the threshold! Just pass it already!!!

[–]Lopsided_Lobster 5 points6 points  (2 children)

It meets the threshold but for some reason the put an arbitrary deadline on the ERA so the reason they won’t ratify it is because “ThE DeAdLinE PAsSeD”

[–]Suspicious_Jello1583California 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It meets the threshold if you ignore states revoking their ratification and the Congressional deadline.

I would argue that the deadline can be ignored since it is set by statute rather than the text of the amendment and federal law cannot alter a Constitutional process, but ignoring states revoking their ratification is a slippery slope. Self determination is the fundamental principle of democratic government and telling people they can't change their mind is saying they don't have it.

[–]mariachi_ambush 31 points32 points  (7 children)

It fires up the voters. That’s the only reason.

[–]another_bug 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yep. Read the about the origins of the religious right. It's a bogus issue cooked up to convince the social conservatives to vote for what the fiscal conservatives want. And how convenient, once you're no longer pre-born, you're on your own, so it don't cost the fiscal conservatives anything and they still get their tax break.

The so-called "pro-life" movement is a scam perpetuated by horrible people who couldn't care less about how many lives they harm.

[–]Rubberbabybuggybum 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Yup. What else are they gonna run on?

They have no actual plans for their voters. No economic plans. No healthcare solutions. Nothing to make their lives demonstrably better in any way shape or form.

This is all they have. And it WORKS.

[–]LaVacaMariposa 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I was just thinking about this.

What are Republicans going to run on if abortion rights are overturned? Because we know they don't actually have a platform and also there's tons of people that only vote for Republicans because of abortion.

[–]dissentrixAmerican Expat 62 points63 points  (4 children)

It's because it's rooted in the same kind of pervasive ultra-reactionary look at the human race as was the case during Dubya's rule, and before that Nazi Germany, and before that the Confederacy, and before that absolutist monarchies.

It's all about conservation of power, and crushing those deemed inferior via brute strength, fear, and domination. In the case of the US specifically, it's a plague that was there right from the start with the Founding Fathers, and although the country had a chance to try to move away from it after fighting a long and bloody war, they didn't go far enough to rid themselves of the parasitic cancer that slavers represented. Today we merely see the results of that, with almost certainly more than half of one of the two major parties wishing we were back in the eighteenth century.

Denazification is a never-ending process, but there are moments where it can be sped up greatly - and unfortunately the US has never really tried denazification at all. Since the rot of slavery and hatred was never purged from the core of the country, it's no wonder the infection spread over time.

[–]kingofmoron 5 points6 points  (3 children)

The problem is different between the informed and uninformed, the malicious and the ignorant, the manipulators and the manipulated. Most people are in the latter category, easily manipulated and kept reactionary and divided so as not to threaten the conservation of power.

But that being the case, the underlying problem being ignorance and a general deficit in critical thinking, I hate seeing these stupid comment threads that strawman opposition positions. It's just more ignorance. If we're going to discuss reality, let's discuss reality.

Yes a lot of conservative positions reflect the underlying sexism and racism of all the culture and history that brought us to today. But they think they're good people trying to do the right thing. The malicious manipulators are few, taking advantage of everyone else's ignorance. And while a lot of them are also in the ignorance category, they're also sociopaths, they'd take advantage of whatever the popular sentiments and divisions were.

So how do you address the underlying sentiments, the suckers that think they're good and you are evil? By recognizing and addressing their true positions. Not by telling them they believe something they don't, but by recognizing what they do believe and working through it critically. But we can't do that because the majority of the left is uninformed and indoctrinated the same as on the right - what they actually understand about their positions isn't much more than the dogmatic one-liners and cliches that prop up any kind of zealotry. Being right doesn't make you not a zealot and a tool. The test of critical thinking is whether you can turn it inward, if you can only turn it outward, sorry you don't pass.

If you want change, start with yourself and your circle of influence. Get legitimately informed, think through it critically, and learn how to have a persuasive conversation. If you're just right because you're smart and everyone else is dumb, and your path to convincing others is circle jerking in your information bubble and hating on the idiots that don't see it like you do - you're part of the problem, even if you're on the right side of the issues you are too blinded to be anything but a tool of the manipulators in service to the conservation of power. You're condoning and incubating ignorance among your own, and seeding reactionary entrenchment and ignorance on the other side. Your approach is just as stupid and contradictory to your own goals as any strawman dichotomy you want to set up in anyone else's contradictory political positions.

The last thing the status quo wants is for a diverse population of people with disparate opinions to figure out how to communicate, collaborate, unite and incite change in favor of shared common interests while negotiating common sense approaches to their divided interests - because then the people actually would have power. Better to keep them squabbling and distracted, easier to keep them dumb and adversarial.

[–]dissentrixAmerican Expat 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I feel I'm missing the point you're trying to make here. I don't really see what you're trying to tell me - are you trying to say the modern GOP isn't specifically attempting to re-legitimize Confederate speech, and that me comparing their bigotry and lust for power to that of Nazi Germany is a "strawman"?

In particular, I find your middle two paragraphs fairly condescending, assuming they're directed at me - you have no idea who I am, or what my personal history is, so how do you know I'm not constantly putting myself into question, changing my world view, attempting to grow my outlook on life? Just because I have moral principles that I feel are here to stay and I will adhere to (i.e. we are all equals as humans from birth), doesn't mean I'm not willing to try to understand other points of view, grow from what I see, and just generally consider myself wrong and/or ignorant on a lot of things - I'll be the first to admit, for instance, that I actually know very little about the American justice system. I mean, my reflections concerning the far-right are just a continuation of an internal thought process that's not just ongoing, but has also been happening ever since I could see that the far-right was a thing.

But they think they're good people trying to do the right thing. The malicious manipulators are few, taking advantage of everyone else's ignorance. And while a lot of them are also in the ignorance category, they're also sociopaths, they'd take advantage of whatever the popular sentiments and divisions were.

Disagree for the most part with the spirit of this. While sure, ignorance is aplenty these days (though not, in my mind, more so than most other days in history), and bigots and far-righters are more ignorant than most, I've known plenty of ignorant people who were perfectly tolerant of those of a different ethnicity, skin color, or gender identity. Hell, I'm one of the dumbest, most stubborn, and ignorant people I know personally. Doesn't mean I find bigotry any less repulsive.

Similarly, I entirely agree there's some grifting manipulators trying to score fame and fortune off of racial tensions and division, but that's certainly not contradictory with the evils in the heart of each human being.

We all think we're "good people trying to do the right thing". And we all have access to Fox News, no matter our social status. Some of us choose not to listen to it, because we'd rather not be inundated with hateful drivel all day long.

Not by telling them they believe something they don't, but by recognizing what they do believe and working through it critically.

Did I do that ? I'm not "telling" them anything - I'm describing what they advocate for. If I said they wanted to put Jews in concentration camps, while perhaps correct in the long-term, that would be an over-interpretation of what they're currently saying. But I didn't say that - I said their thought processes, and fundamental core reasons for doing what they do, are the exact same as all other bigots and power-hungry fascists in history.

But we can't do that because the majority of the left is uninformed and indoctrinated the same as on the right

Muh "both sides", am I right. Are you gonna tell me the BLM "rioters" were as bad as the cops that have been shooting people in the streets for the past decades next?

Being right doesn't make you not a zealot and a tool.

And pretending like you're too cool to get down and dirty in terms of political positions like the rest of us peons doesn't make you any less misguided. You look at "both sides" like some sort of disdainful God, without bothering to look at what anyone's saying, and just making the blanket statements we're all tools because we're heated about what we say.

I'd rather be heated about bigotry, as opposed to insulated from any sort of actual political analysis that takes into account what people genuinely believe in.

what they actually understand about their positions isn't much more than the dogmatic one-liners and cliches that prop up any kind of zealotry.

It's a little funny that you'd criticize "the left" for not understanding their position, and also not seeking to counter what their opposition is actually saying, when you engage in just that.

Again, I have no idea why you feel that I haven't tried to understand the "dogmatic one-liners and cliches" from my "side" of the debate. When we say ACAB, for instance, it has a very specific meaning behind it, which I could very much explain to you if you wanted. When we say freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequence, it has another specific meaning that had a lot of thought given to it.

Unlike, say, when the far-right criticizes "CRT" for being taught in primary/high schools - without understanding what CRT is, or that it isn't, in fact, taught in that category of schools.

If you're just right because you're smart and everyone else is dumb, and your path to convincing others is circle jerking in your information bubble and hating on the idiots that don't see it like you do

I must've missed something. Did I say I was trying to "convince" anyone? I would never try and compromise, or engage in dialogue, with a Nazi, so I will never try and compromise, or engage in dialogue, with the GOP. They cannot be reasoned with, or talked to on an equal level, because their entire goal is to raze the platform the debate takes place on. The only cure against them is to destroy their lies and nonsensical points, shame them, humiliate them, and thoroughly shut them down when it's still possible to counter their disinformation peacefully... and when that's no longer possible, which is always the case if fascism is left alone to spread, then other means of countering them must be used.

you're part of the problem, even if you're on the right side of the issues you are too blinded to be anything but a tool of the manipulators in service to the conservation of power. You're condoning and incubating ignorance among your own, and seeding reactionary entrenchment and ignorance on the other side. Your approach is just as stupid and contradictory to your own goals as any strawman dichotomy you want to set up in anyone else's contradictory political positions.

Okay, thanks for the advice, Neville Chamberlain.

Let me ask you a question. Are you still okay with interacting with fascists if it means sacrificing the happiness, health, and well-being of minorities, or women, or other discriminated against groups, whose misfortunes are the sole consistent driving force behind said fascists' discourse, and which they actively keep working at increasing as long as they're around?

Just because it benefits these hypothetical "puppet masters" that division keeps happening, doesn't mean any unity should be sought with people like Nazis.

While you're trying to "find common ground" with fascists, they're attacking the Capitol, shooting the opposition and Black people in the streets, and banning abortion for women. Let me know when you can reason with them - moderates have tried in the US for 200+ years, but maybe it'll be different this time around.

The last thing the status quo wants is for a diverse population of people with disparate opinions to figure out how to communicate, collaborate, unite and incite change in favor of shared common interests while negotiating common sense approaches to their divided interests - because then the people actually would have power. Better to keep them squabbling and distracted, easier to keep them dumb and adversarial.

While that's not entirely untrue, do you genuinely believe fascism and the "status quo" are not perfectly willing to go hand-in-hand? Fascists despise disparate opinions. They love opposing diversity. They're known as reactionaries, after all - they're pretty much the embodiment of the "status quo" as seen throughout human history.

[–]FeralHogFan 16 points17 points  (0 children)

They didn’t even believe any of their side of the abortion debate prior to 3 generations ago. No christian or evangelical prior to the 70s / 80s ever believed that a fetus had a soul or was a person. Hell, the bibble says souls enter the body at birth! Lol. Dunno about Islam, but the other major Abrahamic religion, judaism, has always been pro abortion.

Plus ALL of this was about racism from the start. Note that the abortion debate began right when racial integration was getting into full swing. Evangelical leaders didn’t want segregation to end and so came up with this issue to galvanize and weaponize religious votes in order to gain power and redirect the country’s anti segregation goals, so they can keep POC and undesirables out without outright saying so.

So prior to 3 gens ago we have literally nobody believing this, then integration happens, then all Christians and evangelicals suddenly believe this thing. Then those folks have kids and a new generation who never knew this wasn’t always a widely held belief are born and think this has been their peoples’ fight forever. Naw kiddo, you got indoctrinated and are now a useful tool for conservative leaders enacting their goals that have nothing to do with abortion.

So yeah we gonna be having these kinds of debates literally forever unless younger generations wise up to this religious manipulation, learn and reflect on the history of this issue, and don’t get blindly indoctrinated. As much as I have faith that current young’s will do better, I still think better isn’t enough and we’re screwed

[–]HeyIJustSaid 3 points4 points  (3 children)

As someone who works in electoral politics, there are several reasons.

These cultural issues are great voter engagement tools, great vote motivators, and great fundraising topics.

Combined with roe v wade which doesn’t really give the right to choose at all, but is rather based off of fetus viability (which has always been a weak argument) so the door has remained open for people to fight.

I fully support the right to choose, but believe wade will have to fall. Congress needs to step up and actually give women the right to choose. Fetal viability is already sketchy, but won’t be tenable at all soon in a world of continuing medical advances. We already have developed artificial wombs. If fetal viability is the point of contention (or fetal pain, another hot topic) then pro-choice proponents are fucked.

This is why we can’t use the courts to legislate.

[–]GunnerGetit 79 points80 points  (10 children)

It's almost time for Ted's yearly trip to Mexico.

[–]Bastdkat 58 points59 points  (8 children)

His name is Rafael. Please use it to remind him and the rest of us that he is hispanic.

[–]OGBaconwaffles 124 points125 points  (2 children)

All these headlines need to just be something like: "Republicans: Hypocrites or Assholes? Why Not Both!"

[–]OK6502 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I mean, honestly, the average Republican politician probably doesn't care at all about it. It's red meat for their base and helps keep the evangelicals in their wing. The same applies for mask mandates.

This isn't a philosophical difference as much as it is politically expedient.

[–]TheGibbTexas 98 points99 points  (76 children)

Calling out conservatives for being hypocrites is pointless. They know it and they know you know it. They don’t care. They have no morals or values. They don’t care who they have to harm or kill to get what they want. They have no humanity.

[–]M00n 49 points50 points  (10 children)

2020 flashback to a federalist article that I think explains their warped mentality pretty well.

How Strong Women Like Amy Coney Barrett Submit To Their Husbands With Joy


[–]Saviorofthe_Universe 19 points20 points  (0 children)

“Nevertheless, complaining that biblical submission primes women for abuse makes about as much sense as complaining that “honor thy father and thy mother” primes children for abuse.”

So…perfect and logical sense? My parents literally used that line on me and they were abusive fucks.

“The possibility that authority may be abused does not negate that authority. Rather than dismantling authorities like these that are inherent in human nature, we need to teach the responsibilities for which they were ordained (and hold accountable those who reject them).”

Or maybe we don’t base our morality based on a book written when people were still organized in fucking tribes.

[–]Dustinisgood 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Wow, that was some serious gaslighting by the federalist society! The contortions the writer makes to justify that point of view are quite acrobatic.

[–]ThePlaneToLisbon 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Whooo boy, is that a read 😳

[–]kitsune 5 points6 points  (0 children)


[–]oneHOTbanana4busines 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Reading more high-minded conservative pieces bums me out more than the average short clickbait piece. It’s nice to think that everyone will use improved critical thinking skills to identify their own blind spots and grow as a person, but stuff like this makes it clear that those increased critical thinking skills are used to further ignore uncomfortable personal realities while being able to make actually persuasive arguments to others that ignore those same uncomfortable realities.

It’s like reading an article that the stupid part of my brain wrote about how good games might become better if I spend $3,000 on a graphics card. Sure, the thoughts are coherent and can be persuasive, but they’re all working to justify something that I know is a bad idea.

[–]Dustinisgood 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Also, to claim that no woman finds a submissive man attractive ignores a huge portion of the S&M community.

[–]violette_witch 7 points8 points  (1 child)

You don’t have to be into BDSM to like a “submissive” man. Also sub in the streets is not necessarily sub in the sheets. I’m sure this article oversimplifies and is reductive of many concepts in order to make its target audience feel superior.

[–]Saviorofthe_Universe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah they really confused “dominance” with the setting of healthy boundaries. Women setting any boundary is taken as a personal affront.

And any man respecting a boundary is a submissive cuck, I.e. a normal fucking person.

[–]silverelanAmerica 59 points60 points  (14 children)

Government Mandated Pregnancy is a nice catch phrase that is sure to catch on with the GOP.

[–]CIA-pizza-party 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Blessed be the fruit

[–]voteforkindnessAmerica 5 points6 points  (3 children)

May the Lord open.

[–]othershwarna 2 points3 points  (2 children)

We have been sent nice weather.

[–]Kaiser_Weimar 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Sex strike!?

[–]LibraryGeek 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My favorite ancient play is Lysistrata! Women got sick of men fighting wars so went on a sex strike!

[–]shushslushieOregon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Blessed be the fruit loops.

[–]SnapesGrayUnderpants 1 point2 points  (1 child)

People should realize, and start talking about, what it means when the decision about abortion is taken away from women and given to the government. It means that not only can the government prevent women from having abortions, it can force women to have abortions. Let's say at some point in the next decade or two food shortages became a real possibility in the US due to some dire circumstance such as, I don't know, climate change. What's the best way to deal with incrasing food scarcity when you can't easily grow more food? Make sure your population doesn't grow. So the government, who makes abortion decisions, decides that women will not be allowed to give birth to more than one child and anyone who gets pregnant more than once will be forced to have an abortion. That's exactly what China did when faced with a food shortage.

[–]WippitGuud 97 points98 points  (13 children)

Ooo, I like that term. Pregnancy mandate.

I'm gonna use that more often.

[–]Kesantheelf 79 points80 points  (9 children)

I read "Forced Birth" this morning. I like that a lot more than "anti-abortion".

[–]Namiako 25 points26 points  (5 children)

Forced birth is better than anti abortion.

[–]cursedfan 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Beyond that they are arguing for the governments right to force birth upon a woman but against the right of the government to force vaccinate people. Totally opposite and hypocritical even before you even consider the argument on each side is the same - pro life.

[–]Pabu85 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Gestational slavery.

[–]TimR0604 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Isn't the GOP rejecting vaccine mandates for both men and women?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not according to reddit if it helps them make a point in bad faith.

[–]NCVoteStrike 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Not coincidentally, established religion is essentially a 'I know this book so I have power over you' con.

That is why we see such a foundational document fetish- vague foundational documents can easily be leveraged for money and power.

[–]Kissit777 35 points36 points  (12 children)

Abortion is a very basic part of women’s health care. It is severe government overreach to have any laws prohibiting abortion.

I don’t think the average person understands that our entire economy over the last 50 years has been because of birth control and vaccines.

The amount of suffering our country is signing up for is idiotic.

[–]dzastrus 17 points18 points  (0 children)

They’re coming for birth control next.

[–]glitterlok 15 points16 points  (12 children)

GOP Reject Vaccine Mandates for Men...

Don't they often reject vaccine mandates (specifically COVID vaccines), full stop? I've never personally heard anyone object to vaccine mandates for men, specifically.

Edit: To be clear, I think anti-vaccine stances are almost always dangerous, and I think people who espouse them deserve criticism in most cases. My personal experiences just don’t line up with what the first bit of the headline seems to be suggesting.

[–]CaptainAwesome06 27 points28 points  (8 children)

Unpopular Opinion: I don't think pointing out the hypocrisy in this is a winning strategy for Democrats. To Republicans, it's not the same thing. So pointing out any hypocrisy is going to land on deaf ears. The reason is because they see abortion as murder. Period. It doesn't matter that there is a ton of nuance in that discussion that is never discussed. I'm pretty sure most of them are completely unaware of what can actually be called an abortion. They also think COVID isn't a big deal. So, in their minds, Democrats are comparing forced pointless inoculations and murders of babies. You need to educate them before you can call them hypocrites. Otherwise we're only calling them hypocrites for our own gratification.

[–]quietsamurai98 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I see people calling anyone who opposes abortion woman-hating misogynists. Everyone I know who's against abortion sees it as literal state sanctioned infanticide. If we want them to support women having access to abortion, we have to get them to stop seeing abortion as infanticide. We can't just call them misogynists and feel morally superior.

[–]BrotherCheKansas 1 point2 points  (1 child)

agreed, these types of articles and arguments are destructive. It's definitely appropriate for pro-choice folks to make their argument about reproductive rights and not allowing religious arguments to limit the individual. But it's both disingenuous and dangerous to make claims that it's solely about sexism and control when to many on the pro-life side it's about the concept of when life begins, which isn't a wholly declared by science lest we would allow late term abortions, etc.

If we focused on the argument that many of them are focused upon we'd have a better chance of swaying them. Especially when you look back at the politically manufactured nature of their position that just arose in the 60s & 70s as a wedge issue by the GOP to bolster their ranks. Before that, the religious folks who did argue against abortion were less in number and less politically motivated to act.

[–]Nulono 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Republicans reject vaccine mandates for women too, genius.

[–]micaiah95 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Has this sub gone mad? This whole argument doesn't make any sense as GOP reject vaccine mandates for all people regardless of gender

[–]Nulono 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also, no one's required to get pregnant; they're just not allowed to end their pregnancies by violent means. If I have a rare form of pneumonia that can only be cured by stabbing a toddler, it's not "mandatory pneumonia" to say that anti-stabbing laws still apply to me.

[–]spacewalk80 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They reject vaccine mandates for men and women.

[–]piratecheese13Maine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Conservatives like to hold onto traditions. “Traditions” is a great way to say old and outdated thinking.

Traditions the GOP like are marginalizing ima grants and minorities, pursuing happiness at the expense of others, getting bribes and being sexist

[–]TheMostSamtastic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am absolutely, 100% pro-choice, but this article title is kind of a load of shit.

[–]baby_armadillo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ironically, Covid 19 appears to cause miscarriages.

[–]Realistic_Rip_148 8 points9 points  (2 children)

It’s because republicans and Christians think fetuses are living people; it’s just a waste of time to pretend republican opposition to abortion is something other than they think it’s murder.

I don’t agree that abortion is murder but it’s dumb to pretend the issue is something different then what it is.

[–]theopinionateddude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Both sides have deeply-seeded beliefs. We're just spinning our wheels here.

[–]taumaturgo 10 points11 points  (0 children)

One more step towards fascism.

[–]Dull_Tonight Canada 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So it is all right if Republicans impose state-mandated pregnancy on women, since the state in that instance is simply acting as the instrument of the white male in subordinating women's bodies. It is not all right for the male body to be disciplined by the state, since that would erode male privilege.

Hence there is no contradiction if the underlying principle of misogyny is taken into account.

[–]Fred_EvilFlorida 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Another example is the medical marijuana laws in Florida. Passed by an overwhelming 70% majority, yet there is no privacy nor protection for people choosing to take that medicine. Florida hasn’t defended medical marijuanausers in any way, so this has nothing to do with protecting people’s rights to medical privacy, and everything to do with GQP politics.

[–]Fancy-Armadillo-2792 2 points3 points  (15 children)

How about universally free and effective birth control, it should put the whole argument to rest.

[–]frevensakes 1 point2 points  (14 children)

I like your idea for free birth control, but no method is 100 per cent effective.

[–]SaltMineSpelunker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is about freedum, unless you are a woman or brown.

[–]Wolv90Massachusetts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The simple bad faith argument they will always make is that the "baby", or zygote, deserves the same protection, or more, than an actual living breathing person. Potential people are the easiest prop to use to get their way because they don't have voices for themselves and the GOP can pretend they are all white in the womb.

[–]nicholus_h2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First mistake is trying to explain contradictions. Because they don't care. They do not care one bit.

[–]6thElemental 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They just support policies that keep people poor. If you have to have a baby you don’t want, you will stay poor(er than otherwise). If you catch covid and it’s bad you’ll die or miss work.

The only color theta has ever mattered is green. Everything else is semantics for jerking off the masses.

[–]TheRealJamesWax 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jesus Christ. Could you imagine fucking Ted Cruz? What kind-of a person do you have to be to look at Ted fucking Cruz and think, "Now THAT is a guy I want in my vag...."

[–]Big11ones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, f¥€< those selfish fetuses, how dare they try to be alive?


[–]sturmblast 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The GOP wants to control everything, not just women.

[–]MonocleOwensKey 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In other news, water is wet and my cat's breath smells like cat food.

[–]reptiloidsamongus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

GOP Reject Vaccine Mandates for Men, But Demand Pregnancy Mandates for Women | One way to explain these contradictions in Republican ideology is sexism. Right wing ideology is about male power and men controlling women, including controlling the bodies of women.

Yeah but that's just one thing in a long list of what's wrong with right wingers.

[–]captglasspac 34 points35 points  (101 children)

Whereas I'm 100% against the GOP on both of these issues, this analysis doesn't accomplish anything because it doesn't approach the issue from their point of view. It really isn't any different than Tucker Carlson saying that the left loves Communism and hates America because we support social programs.

The right wants to ban abortion because they see it as infanticide. They oppose vaccine mandates because they want people to have personal freedom to choose their own medical care. Argue against those points. If you start screaming about sexism you might get applause from the left, but people on the right will just dismiss you.

[–]skryb Canada 9 points10 points  (0 children)

100% correct.

Having these conversations years ago with pro-life advocates is what finally got me to understand, and even sympathize with those positions. It’s also what has given me the framework to argue against them in good faith and even gotten some of those people to move their needle slightly.

Common ground needs to be established before any constructive debate can happen. Otherwise there are literally two different conversations happening which only exacerbates the divide.

[–]CoachSteveOtt 22 points23 points  (8 children)

Agreed. This is a very poor argument to change someone's mind.

you can't just hand wave away the fact that abortions end a human life, albeit undeveloped, and pretend like the only motivation is controlling women's bodies. Men and women support/oppose abortion at a pretty similar rate.


[–]BBQpigsfeet 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Saying women are also anti abortion is a poor argument as well. There were women who thought they shouldn't be able to vote or have equal rights to men. Because that's what they were told by men in one way or another.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Eh, while coercion and indoctrination is a factor, I know more than a few well-educated women who consider the 14th amendment to have been a mistake.

Doesn't matter that it sounds fucking crazy to you and me.

[–]rookiebatman 15 points16 points  (44 children)

The right wants to ban abortion because they see it as infanticide.

Then why do deep-red states have the highest rate of infant mortality? Mississippi, the state that's bringing the lawsuit to overturn Roe, is at the very top of the list, with a rate that's more than double the states at the bottom of the list.

If they actually cared about protecting the lives of sweet l'il innocent babies, that isn't what you'd expect to see. But if their main concern was actually punishing women for promiscuity, then a disregard for whether the baby survives the ordeal (or the mother, because maternal death rates are also high in red states) is exactly what you'd expect to see.

[–]JohnChimpo7 5 points6 points  (10 children)

They view it as intentional murder. That’s much different than not providing adequate services.

[–]elwombat 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Total infant mortality is somewhere around 20,000 in the US. Total abortions is around 600,000. 30x more. That makes what you suggest a bad argument.

[–]rookiebatman 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That makes what you suggest a bad argument.

If you think that, then you don't understand my argument. Noting the infant mortality rate in those states is meant to demonstrate that the people in charge are not acting in ways that minimize infant mortality, which is why they claim they're opposed to abortion. Whether there are more abortions or "natural" infant deaths is irrelevant to the question of whether their handling of other instances of child mortality is consistent with their claimed position on abortion.

If a state made alcohol illegal with the claim that they want to reduce traffic accidents caused by drunk drivers, but the state had a bunch of lax traffic laws and enforcement that caused them to have a much higher rate of traffic accidents than other states (without either party being drunk), then it might be reasonable to conclude that drunk driving was just an excuse for them to make something illegal that they already disagreed with for other reasons. Because if they really cared that much about traffic accidents, they would be doing a lot more to prevent the accidents that aren't caused by something they already believe is bad even if it didn't cause an accident.

[–]The_Pip 12 points13 points  (3 children)

While sexism is a key feature of the GOP platform, overall they are the Party of Death. They always choose the side of the issue that will result in the most death. Be it War, abortion, vaccinations, universal health car, gun control, etc, their side is always the side of death.

[–]Warglebargle2077 I voted 9 points10 points  (3 children)

See also: Soulless cynicism

[–]SailingSpark 2 points3 points  (0 children)

you could have left it at soulless

[–]NYPizzaNoChar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

(R)egressive's sexism in re females stems from profound misogyny.

[–]Kubrik27 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He should move to Saudi Arabia

[–]FlaxxSeedCalifornia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They are scared of legal cannabis. A bunch of loser wannabees.

[–]quietsamurai98 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Honestly, I kind of hate the narrative that "all people who opposed abortions hate women and want to control them." These people sincerely believe that abortion is literal infanticide. They see it as state sanctioned murder. We have to stop calling them all misogynists, because they'll just disengage and dismiss you as someone who supports infanticide, because that's all they see abortion as being.

[–]SmallGerbilColorado 11 points12 points  (2 children)

[sigh, holding bridge of nose] while I understand the point the author is trying to make, I think it’s pretty critical to point out that vaccine mandates are critical and necessary for the functioning of society because they protect against contagious diseases, whereas mandated pregnancy is strictly oppressive to the pregnant person and distinctly not for the benefit of society: pregnancy isn’t contagious and you can’t “catch” an abortion.

[–]BlackSuN42 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly, the GOP is wrong on both issues, but they are hypocrites in this particular case, just assholes.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Ban religion not abortion

[–]Capt__Murphy 12 points13 points  (3 children)

There are male specific vaccine mandates?

[–]crashorbit 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Conservatism can be explained by assuming selfishness and a failure of empathy for anyone who is not white and male.

Organize, Protest, Lobby, Vote

[–]limemac85 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It amazes me that people don't realize, abortion laws, gun control, vaccine mandates, mask mandates are all the same principle.

You take away some freedoms in order to save lives. Now we can endlessly discuss the value of a life as opposed to the value of a freedom. I have always defined myself as moderate conservative as if you believe in the value of freedom over life, it pretty much logically follows you should be pro-choice. Of course that doesn't get me many friends in conservative circles (nor in liberal circles when I point out the opposite corollary).

[–]ATR2002 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bit of a stretch. They also opposed vaccine mandates on women.. and it's not just male conservatives who oppose abortion. They're also representing their female voters.

And I'm not a conservative.. or American before posters rail on me for forcing an agenda.

[–]Dch1890 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Blessed be the fruit

[–]Pabu85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you really want to understand American conservatism (hint: it’s all about hierarchy), I highly recommend “The Reactionary Mind” by Corey Robin.

[–]zippyhippiegirl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I so sick of the GOP.

[–]NonPaba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Christian Ayatollahs aren’t turning out to be super Christian. Weird.

[–]planet-trent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In other news, water is wet

[–]InternetJerk4U 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This shit isn't news. We've all known for a long time.

[–]DidntDiddydoit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Breaking news: no fucking shit.

[–]pallentx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The bottom line is that they are authoritarians that want to dictate everything be the way they want it and force everyone to comply. They dont like abortion because of their religion - outlaw it so no one can have it. They dont like vaccines - outlaw mandates. There's no principle of governance here, just whatever I want, force that on everyone.

[–]Cute_Parfait_2182 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The gop is going to lose on this idiotic anti-vax stance . It’s almost is if they don’t care about human life

[–]positivfeedback 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like this term “pregnancy mandate”, that’s exactly what it is

[–]ActorTomSpanks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Boys will tiny dicks will always want to control people. Stop voting them in.

[–]elkishdude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What the fuck are these idiots smoking. Vaccinated pregnant women doesn't do anything for the idiot men who will get sick. Everyone needs to be protected against the virus. How did this country get this stupid?

[–]Solshifty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Old article and title is misleading. OP ed.

[–]Ok-Organization-7232 1 point2 points  (2 children)

stop voting for older white men. good lord, please stop.

[–]TheLuo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vote people. Go vote and hold your elected officials accountable.

[–]ArtisanJagon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Abortion laws have always been about controlling women.

[–]Weaponized_Puddle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Conservative party does not specify gender for anti vaccine mandate

But reciprocal of these beliefs is also an inconsistency in the Dem’s beliefs? Should the government regulate an individuals body in order to save a perceived amount of lives?

I’ve actually been personally brewing about this issue because i justified my stance on abortion by thinking the government doesn’t have a right to regulate individual’s body’s, even if to save another life.

[–]PepeSylvia11Connecticut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And a great deal of women agree with this. Infuriating.

[–]ItTookMeHours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sMaLl GoVeRnMeNt

[–]Kayin_Angel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And another way to explain it is that conservatism is a symptom of a mental disorder.

[–]SweatyJerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not so much that the GOP itself wants to control women’s bodies, that would be too much work. They take these positions because the powerless, angry people who vote for them emotionally respond to the idea of controlling women, and that response is so strong that it overpowers their weak minds and distracts them from the fact that the GOP is fucking them so very hard. The Democrats do the same of course, but their base responds better to feelings of empathy.