As more and more states pass laws targeting “pornographic material” in books and online, they are repeatedly running up against a problem: The Bible has not just a few passages that could be considered indecent

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        171
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not a broad generalization at all. It’s a widespread pattern of hypocritical and contradictory conservative outrage, statements, and laws.

        • “I should be able to teach kids about the Bible in school, but you can’t teach them about Yoga”
        • “we can’t have vulgar language, oh unless it’s from our religious book”
        • “I can’t make a cake for you because you’re gay and that’s against my religion. What do you mean you won’t make a Christian cake? That’s religious discrimination!”
        • “Happy holidays!??! Happy holidays??! You monster, how dare you wage war on Christmas! We have religious liberty in this country! What do you mean that protects other religions? There’s only one God and one religion!”
        • “It’s totally fine that the polling places in large democratic areas have hours long waits so long as my polling places are quick and easy”
        • “it’s totally fine that a county with 10,000 people has the same number of ballot drop boxes as a country with 3,000,000 people”
        • “marriage is between a man and woman … and may include 17 divorces; they gays can’t have it”
        • “we need to teach kids (i.e., indoctrinate them in the ways of) Jesus not this woke (black history, trans, etc)”
        • “let’s let white kids off with a slap on the wrist while we throw a black kid in jail for smoking a plant”
        • “I can’t believe a president could have such a scandal in the white house as to have had an affair with an assistant! We need to impeach! No, I don’t think extorting an ally for information about an opponent is worthy of an impeachment! Trying to overthrow a legitimate presidental victor with a procedural trick? Nah that’s not worth an impeachment either! Oh but hey, this Biden guy’s son who lost one of his parents and a sibling in a car crash, that lost his brother to cancer, that has a drug problem, called his dad while he was in business meetings to show off… so you know his dad definitely was up to something! We’ve got to impeach him over that! What do you mean that was before he was even president and that’s completely unprecedented?”
        • “We should totally lock her up for those emails! What do you mean the guy screaming that’s son and law did the exact same thing?”
        • “We’re sorry we can’t appoint a supreme court justice just before the election! Psych! We totally can if it’s nominated by OUR president!”
        • “We need law and order in this country! What do you mean Trump broke the law? Nah, I’m not hearing it; this is clearly a partisan witch hunt and the majority conservative staff of the FBI is out to get conservatives! Oh but we’ll DEFINITELY weaponize the federal government and go after our political rivals full steam if we get the presidency in 2024”
        • “I believe abortion is amoral, that’s why I hid the fact that my ex/current lovers have had one”
        • “I believe homosexuality is amoral, that’s why I am one in the closet”
        • “we’re going to be the party of health care, but don’t watch as we strip you of your federal protections for your health care”
        • “we’re the party of the little man, but don’t watch as we cut taxes for the rich (and you but make sure that expires under the next term (probably while the Democrats are in power)”
        • “the national debt is an outage! Oh let’s spend as much as Obama did in half the time! Oh Biden is in power again, spending is out of control!”
        • “the problem isn’t guns it’s mental health, but we’re not going to do anything about that either! Must be because the kids aren’t in church, the gays, video games, or hey look over there, a squirrel!”
        • “climate change? Nah. It’s not real. Okay maybe it is, but it doesn’t matter because look at China! Oh we could make a dent and get the ball rolling? Well, it’s too late anyways, we should’ve been building nuclear plants! What do you mean I just made that up? Clearly I’ve been trying to solve this via nuclear the whole time, and it’s not another dog whistle! Oh and btw all of my top presidential candidates say they don’t believe in man made climate change! But yeah, totally serious about this issue!!”

        … and that’s just off the top of my head. If you’re a conservative, wake up, your party is a mess.

        • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          79
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Spoiler: he’ll completely ignore this comment and just continue to go on saying that all criticisms of conservatives are baseless and unproductive

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ll be honest, the point was less for him and more for lurkers, that might not pay as much attention and might benefit from an outline. I gave up on changing the mind of the person I’m replying to on the internet a long time ago (if it happens great!) … but I want to challenge and cut through the “noise” for the casual observer.

            • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s the only single reason I debunk conservatives with some of their tactics thrown back at them. In a forum, I’m pretty much am blocked by nearly every conservatives there.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            He didn’t say that, he criticized generalizing conservatives. I know conservatives who don’t care to block books from school libraries, or block trans students from going to bathrooms in their identified gender- or most of the other “culture war” arguments.

            • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If they feel that way, then why do they vote politicians into power who do those things?

              You don’t get to vote evil people into power and then say “oh no, I don’t support the evil stuff, I just care about the lower taxes”

              • aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because they at least agree with some of their messaging rather than agree with none of it.

            • Vespair@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes but until they start actively opposing those policies and demanding their politicians do the same, they are still complicit with these policies as their votes are what enable them. Whether or not they personally believe these things is entirely irrelevant. All that matters are the actions and policies, and every conservative voter is this complicit.

              • aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Unfortunately people have different priorities than you or I, I guarantee a politician you have voted for has done something you oppose, and you may have still supported them. That’s because you care more about their other policies.

                • Vespair@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  False equivalency.

                  “We should focus more on corporate taxes rather than individual taxes” is an opinion; “gay people shouldn’t have rights” isn’t an opinion, it’s hate.

                  Don’t try to pretend these are on the same level. Supporting American conservatism requires a level of moral bankruptcy.

                  • aidan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Both are opinion, something being abhorrent doesn’t make it not an opinion. Opinions can be hateful.

          • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            56
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t put words in my mouth or accuse my of something you made up in your mind.

            • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              33
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t need to put any words into your mouth, your reply to the comment was to ignore all the real, objectively true examples and just claim that despite the fact that they’re the actions of real conservative policy makers, that they somehow have nothing to do with real conservative policy

              You ignore the faults of real world conservatism, holding up this idealistic version of conservatism you have in your head as “real” conservatism. Ill bet you also hold that conservatism has nothing to do with anti-LGBT+, despite their policy makers constantly making anti-LGBT+ policy decisions

              • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                38
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re completely ignorant of who I am and you’re reinforcing my initial point that we should be careful about creating an echochamber.

                • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And you’re reinforcing mine by continuing to not actually address any of the actual points.

                  Pointing out actual, provable examples of selective enforcement by conservatives isn’t an “echo chamber” it’s discussing real world politics

                  Ultimately it looks from my perspective like you’re falling into the classic trap of just assuming that when a lot of people disagree with you, that they’re just mindlessly repeating talking points - rather than ever considering that your own view might be skewed. Further reinforced by the fact that you steadfastly refuse to actually talk about the issue, and instead just keep deflecting and crying “ECHO CHAMBER”.

                  And no, I have no idea who you are, why should I care though? This is a discussion about conservative politics, not you or your feelings.

                  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    22
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re trying to say “there are many examples of selective enforcement in conservative laws” and I’m saying “yeah, no shit, I agree with you”

                    Meanwhile I’m being attacked for saying it’s important to be reasonable, demonstrating the echo chamber I’m talking about.

            • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              30
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Don’t put words in my mouth or accuse my of something you made up in your mind.

              Translation: I don’t have an argument for any of the things posted so I’m going to accuse a random person of something instead

              • aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean they just said don’t generalize, not that there isn’t widespread hypocrisy.

                • Vespair@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No dude, fuck you and your weasel words and moving goalpost. You made a shit comment and got proven wrong. Now’s the time to gracefully take the L; anything else just makes you look like a jackass.

                • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lol, you prove my point more eloquently than I could have on my own. Well done, and keep getting mad at strangers online it’s probably the best part of your life.

        • PrinzMegahertz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Excellent summary. Maybe add:“That slut next door should not have an abortion, she should have kept her legs closed. My daughter‘s abortion? That‘s totally different, it would have ruined her career“

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah… I agree. None of that makes selective enforcement the core of conservative laws.

          • Wakmrow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree those are bad examples.

            Better examples:

            Phillando Castile. All for gun rights until a black man is shot while legally owning a gun. One could run down the list of black people (and children) who have been murdered by the police because they “thought there was a gun”. Guns are legal and they’re quite vocal about supporting the right to bear arms (but only if you look white).

            Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want. They lied about the cities in this country being destroyed during the Floyd uprisings as if America was gone.

            All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.

            Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.

            How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?

            We could continue but I’ll just boil it down with a pithy quote: there are those who the law must protect but does not bind and there are those that the law must bind but not protect. That is the conservative idea. Go read the only moral abortion is my abortion with that statement in mind and it’ll make sense.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Phillando Castile.

              I haven’t heard that case, can you show some examples of “conservative” outrage?

              And I feel like it’s probably not race related seeing as conservatives were some of the first people to criticize the police in the Brenna Taylor case(a post about her boyfriends trial is still the top post on r/progun). Some conservatives also defended Andrew Coffee IV.

              Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want.

              From their perspective(by the way me explaining someone’s perspective doesn’t mean I agree with it at all like most of the people on this site seem to think!!!) their is a coup happening by the elites so they are going in to uphold the law and put in the rightfully elected(again in their mind) president.

              All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.

              Can you site any they defended recently?

              Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.

              I don’t see how that’s hypocritical.

              How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?

              IIRC not illegal- but against tradition

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’d argue it does, conservative lawmaking has consistently operated with a distinct understanding (and execution) that shows “this applies to them not us.” I’d love for conservative law makers to do what they say and say what they mean. However, they won’t and thus can’t build a coalition that gets them elected by being honest about their policy goals.

            Conservative law making in the US has become at its core “outrage politics” (and that depends on selectively enforcing ideals, policies, and laws/antagonizing part of the population). I don’t make generalizations lightly, but this is the core and fundamental piece holding the Republican party together, and it’s an awful state of affairs.

            This can be further demonstrated by Vivek Ramaswamy climbing in the polls despite, as Chris Christie put it, “sounding like ChatGPT.”

            • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m done with this conversation, you lot are ignorant, loud, and preventing actual progress and critical discourse.

              You want to talk about outrage politics? You morons are outrage politics. Fuck off.

              • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                K. When you figure out what discourse you want to have come back without an empty argument.

                You’ve just proven everyone else’s point that wrote you off. You’ve made no supportive arguments for your position and resorted to an opaque moral high ground where everyone else is an idiot.

              • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bruh, you are the literal embodiment of the issue plaguing the USA in this historical period: you say you are ready to have a discussion and then, once somebody engages you with actual facts in his hands, you attack your interlocutor with the most vapid point without replying to his considerations.

                Furthermore I’ve been taught that there are two possible sides when tackling a problem: you can either be part of the problem or part of its solution.

                As far as I see nowadays republicans are ALL part of a problem called “political extremism”. If you vote for the party which is presenting an autocrat and a crybaby as it’s frontrunner for the past and upcoming elections you don’t get to be offended when someone calls you out for that. If you are not voting democrat you are actively choosing to be ruled by a tiny minority which sees it’s religion as the only viable solution to all the (made up) problems they see in the modern world. Should you vote democrat, on the other hand, the worst which may happen is that you’ll loose some purchasing power when the world has been facing a pandemic and a regional war at the gates of Europe.

                If your choice is to actively vote for the first option I’ve news from you: you are an enemy of the people and of democracy, don’t be surprised when people will treat you as such in your future interactions with tem

                • lath@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why vote democrat though? Supposedly the US does have or allow other political parties to be formed. If they can organize themselves, diversifying the local state political pool should not be a problem at least.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sort of, but also, Christianity is a death cult that enables child molesters and promotes hate, so there is not much room for subtly. It is also profoundly lacking in any basis of reality and frankly teaches deranged ideas that harm children’s ability to make rational judgments about reality.

        Also a church is the worst kind of echo chamber.

      • Tyfud@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Broadly speaking though, it’s true. Do you have counter examples to offer?

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          A counter example of what? A conservative law that doesn’t have selective enforcement at its core?

            • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I’m done with this stupid conversation and closer to believing Lemmy is a cesspool echo chamber than before it started. You people are fucking idiots that detract from reasonable discourse and progress on the left.

              And by the way, I’m far from conservative, I hate Trump and all the other extremist authoritarian assholes, and I’m starting to realize you lot are almost as stupid as the MAGA fascists.

              Downvote me and fuck off.

              • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t know what you want from other people. You’re not obligated to argue with people on the internet, but you started a disagreement that you weren’t willing to back up. Then you baseslessly called everyone idiots and a danger to the left before storming off. Maybe when you have more distance you can learn some lessons. Maybe you can understand where they’re coming from. Maybe you can better articulate what they did to harm the discourse. At the very least, it would be wise to learn to not pick fights you don’t want to actually participate in, for your sake and everyone else’s.

              • Vespair@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Dude just shut the fuck up and leave Lemmy then. Clearly you aren’t interested in any actual conversation, so why the fuck would we want you here to begin with? Do us the favor of walking away.