this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
415 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1981 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 61 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

So let me get this straight.

  1. Republicans realize they can court religious nuts by switching their position to anti-choice
  2. Religious nuts start switching sides to the Republican party
  3. The entire rest of the country thinks this is toxic like polonium, starts abandoning the party
  4. Rather than change their policy planks, Republicans decide to try to brainwash the rest of the country into being anti-choice too

What will this fix, for them? I guess I'm confused.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 43 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Tl;Dr: its mostly religious lunacy, bigotry and sadism

It's all about forcing white women to produce more white conservative babies to swell their ranks while keeping people of color down by forcing them to have a bunch of children they can't afford to give a good life.

And the demonizing of sex for pleasure, of course.

At least those are the obvious motivations. There's also the fact that many of them are megalomaniacal sadists who get off on hurting and controlling people, especially women, and don't much care about anything beyond that.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I hear what you are saying, but propaganda works.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Yeah I know. Much better than most people think, unfortunately 😮‍💨

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You missed a couple steps.

4 is actually: Religious nuts take over the party. Internal insanity increases, and is increasingly unchecked.

5: During Obama and Trump, even the Republicans are amazed at how well Fox and others are at propagandizing and convincing people. That means their ideology can go full lies, which is what we now see.

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

After decades of brainwashing people with the most insane shit, the inmates are finally running the asylum

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 56 points 7 months ago (3 children)
[–] audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 7 months ago

It began several years ago with trans health care. Trans folks warned y’all this was coming, but you chose not to listen.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 2 points 7 months ago

👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀 Always has been.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 40 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What could we do to like send this guy to the sun or some other place? I don't think we need this sort of chicanery here.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

Tell him about the giant space goat that’s going to eat the earth, but he can escape on a special spaceship.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, the simplest conception way was to launch a big ass rocket retrograde and let it fall into the sun.

More effecient would be to do a Venus flyby.

Personally, though, I’d say drop them in an earth trailing orbit, with a big solar sail. Use it to slowly reduce their orbit until it falls in.

Give them enough food, air, and water to survive the trip. Maybe in a completely isolated pod, maybe with a certain handful of others.

Also maybe live stream that shit.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Why waste air, food or water on Charlie Kirk? He's absolutely unnecessary. It's like somebody left a stove on one time in 85 and now we have this dunce. He's a sad accident that should have been prevented, but now he's here inconveniencing everybody like a rock in our collective shoe. I wish there was a checkbox on my tax forms to get rid of this unfortunate accident of a person.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

what? you don't want to see a bunch of assholes go all Lord-of-the-Flies-in-Space on each other?

yeah. neither do I but I bet it'd generate a lot of proceeds until people learned were donating to school lunches and LGBTQ+ stuff and women's rights stuff and... whatever else we can....

But you're right, of course. WE should probably just drop them in a pit and get the same effect.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We all knew this was coming after the success of abortion bans. Shameless.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That’s definitely also conditioning them to oppose female suffrage

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

To be fair, Emma Goldman called that shit.

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You lost me at "females" Kirk. Talking like they're science specimens.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Isn’t this the natural progression of they’re gonna get hounded about sex and gender being different?

I can imagine the sentiment might be “ok, we’ll start referring to sex specifically.” And why shouldn’t they if that’s what they mean?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kase@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I didn't see this mentioned in the article, but I skimmed parts of it. Do they realize that preventing pregnancy isn't the only reason people use birth control? Are they planning on making medical exceptions? Let me be clear, it's still hugely fucked up either way; I'm just curious.

I took BC for several years for my endometriosis, and I knew several friends who were prescribed it as teens to treat similar conditions. And sometimes they didn't have a specific diagnosis, but they just had especially painful or frequent/heavy periods. Apart from that, aren't there certain medical treatments that require you to take birth control for x number of weeks bc they could harm a potential fetus? I can't remember a specific example.

And, yeah, preventing pregnancy is pretty damn important too. Fuck those guys.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do they realize that preventing pregnancy isn't the only reason people use birth control?

They don't care

Are they planning on making medical exceptions?

No.

Source: see abortion bans. Women with unviable pregnancies that will kill them can't get abortions. Control is the entire point.

[–] AnxiousOtter@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Source: see abortion bans. Women with unviable pregnancies that will kill them can't get abortions. Control is the entire point.

I just laugh now when people say "there will be reasonable exceptions". We already went on this rodeo with abortion. There will be no exceptions. Reality is slapping voters in the face and they just don't care.

Women. When Conservatives are screaming that they hate you, believe them.

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago

There will be no exceptions in Gilead.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 13 points 7 months ago

An extremely painful/heavy/frequent period is exactly what they want to happen. The cruelty is the point.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

aren’t there certain medical treatments that require you to take birth control for x number of weeks bc they could harm a potential fetus? I can’t remember a specific example.

Accutane. It's based on vitamin A and will do all sorts of nasty stuff to fetuses.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Also to your skin. I was dried out for like 5+ years

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's for serious cystic acne though isn't it?

The alternative would be incredibly oily skin, then, right?

I had acne as a kid but not that bad. Tetracycline or Erythromycin were enough for them. Still, I'd see that like "dressing in layers". Just like you can always add more layers but there's a point where you can't take them off...it's probably easier to re-moisturize dry skin than to de-lipidize oily skin.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In the video, in the link, he mentioned that birth control pills were used for all sorts of other things besides preventing pregnancy, like helping with acne amongst others. I wish I could quote you what he said, but I refuse to listen to it again, it's infuriating.

Anyways, point is, he knows and he believes all it's uses are wrong.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Wonderful. /s

But thanks. And it only makes it more ironic what he's complaining about, because personally, getting my hormones under control made me way more emotionally stable.

My condition was absolutely debilitating -- I ended up doing 7th grade online at home, and it was miserable. If this idiot wants to take away medication that can keep a kid out of pain, I'd like to be first in line to personally rip his head off.

I'll add, the alternatives for 15 y/o me would have been stronger pain medication, or surgery. (...I mean, I switched to testosterone hrt after turning 18, and I guess you could consider that an option since it does stop periods. But somehow I doubt more trans people is what he wants lmao.)

[–] antidote101@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The Pill can in fact alter the smell based preferences of women, which temporarily alters mating preference. This is due to the pill simulating the hormones of pregnancy, as part of its mechanism of action.

However, I don't believe this is what Republicans are referring to, as in The Salon article Charlie Kirk is talking about it causing "brain damage".

No they're just being possessive and controlling assholes, as usual. They're anti-freedom.

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Anecdotally pills can also alter behaviour and personality somewhat. Especially the megadose hormones like Depo-provera, that stuff messed up a girl I was dating long ago. Turned her into an emotional wreck. I would actually support not a ban, but warnings and restrictions on that particular product.

I've always felt that choices like the Mirena IUD should be promoted over systemic hormones, my ex-wife was very happy with them over the years and we agreed we'll be offering our daughter the option as soon as she gets her first period. For some reason they seem to push the Pill instead.

I know some people have issues with IUDs but if they work for you they really work. Her hormones changed and she went asexual after kids, but she still maintains an IUD just for the greatly diminished cramping and bleeding.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Skkorm@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ok why do conservatives hate having sex wtf sex that doesn't end with a baby if one is off life's best things

[–] Esqplorer@lemmy.zip 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

People don't desire sex with them. They may be able to coerce (religion) or get sex through power (money/influence), but they aren't generally sexually appealing.

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

Modern women are financially independent (in fact, they're more educated than men nowadays) and are now far less likely to be tied down and dependent on a man by accidental pregnancies (widespread contraceptives + access to abortions)

Getting a stable 9 to 5 won't result in a wife landing in your lap any more, women will choose to be single over dating a boring shit head, so all the boring shit heads are reeling at the fact that they now have to offer more to the relationship than just financials, and they're consistently voting for policy that attempts to "put women back in their place" (ie dependent on them for money)

[–] capital@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is pure cope.

If you don’t already know about it, search up tradwife culture. Some weirdo women like that sort of thing.

We can hate conservatives for the kind of world we know they want to bring about but we have to acknowledge the fact that some women are equally as stupid so as to want the same.

[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So are these Republicans going to go after vasectomies? Haven't heard a peep about them, even though they are rising.

What could be the difference? What could it possibly be?

[–] creamed_eels@toast.ooo 12 points 7 months ago

No, because how can you control women with vasectomies? It’s not about birth control, or “screwing up female brains” or whatever else is being shit out of their mouths. It is, and always has been, about the control of women. The cruelty is a feature, not a bug

[–] parrhesia@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago

Jokes on them I've been angry for a long time without birth control.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 10 points 7 months ago

Don't you blame magrats for this shit, the republicans were doing just fine on their own and have been since regan

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

Yep, that sounds like Charlie Kirk seeking coverage.

load more comments
view more: next ›