Washington Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Washington Post:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Didn’t she just lose her primary because of them? Did she say she is going to dedicate herself to taking them down now, like some sort of Korean revenge flick? Because I am all for this new arc of hers of that’s the case.
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Vox:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Propublica - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Propublica:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
This list just reads as “the billionaire list of punishments for the poor that think they’re people” I say we craft the inverse list where literally everything the billionaires enjoy is legislated away, kind of like they want to legislate away our way of life we should legislate away their way of life or I guess legislative way their ability to have billions of dollars.
I think it’s mostly the association/“logic” being literally incomprehensible to someone with even the slightest capacity for reason. Classifying an entire group of people as “pornographic” is just so insanely nonsensical, it’s difficult to look at and think of it as anything other than some insane word salad.
It means they will be persecuted in various creative ways. More than they are already, I mean. Could be anything from forbidding them from certain places and occupations to rounding them up and putting them in death camps. They’re intentionally vague about how far they plan to go.
The second. DeSantis already is playtesting this in FL by classifying, basically, being LGBT+ in public as “sexual” and making a law where sex offenders against children have the death penalty on the table. Since you’re in public, there’s a good chance CHILDREN could see you, so…well, you can fill in the rest.
It does make sense though, we’ve seen anti-trans, gay, abortion etc. conservatives be found out to take part in that very thing they’re publicly against so many times, and it’ll keep happening. Them wanting to classify trans as pornographic means they see it as that and they like it and hate themselves and transpeople for it.
It blows my mind that anyone can be that wrong on all topics.
It’s like the difference between choosing random answers on a multiple choice test versus knowing the right answers and actively avoiding them to get the worst result. It feels like they’re trying to punish the US for something.
I always laugh when they say “ban contraceptives” because I guarantee that the men in congress voting for it have vasectomies. Are they going to reverse them?
No, those with the means will still continue to get them, whether that’s knowing a doctor who will perform it illegally, or by traveling somewhere it’s legal. Same as abortion.
You have the Christofacist nutjobs who want this, the power hungry fucks who want to control others, and the cowards lacking any ethics that don’t want to offend the Christofacist nutjobs.
The christofacists wants to punish people who are not like them? That’s not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, is it? I find mild amusement in the fact that according to the beliefs of these people, they themselves are probably going to hell…
That’s true of every fascist regime using religion as an excuse. The Taliban isn’t following the teachings of Islam either, just the parts that give them control.
Do you know much about the bible? The Republicans are basically the Pharisees from Jesus’ time.
Revelation also predicted that there’d be evil shitheads who claim to be Christian but actually follow the Anti-Christ, but that was an easy prediction, there’s always evil shitheads who claim to be good, in any time and religion
Not familiar enough to know details like that. Is “Pharisees as obsessed with man-made rules (especially concerning purity) whereas Jesus is more concerned with God’s love; the Pharisees scorn sinners whereas Jesus seeks them out” an ok eli5 and tl;dr summary?
Yeah, I guess man kind is good at evil and shithead, unfortunately.
A key thing with the Pharisees was that they were obsessed with the appearance of being pious, rather than actually being so. Much like many modern Christians who are obsessed with appearing faithful and just, but aren’t so concerned with actually following Jesus’ teachings
The one time Jesus went HAM, chasing religious leaders around their temple with a whip, and whose temple was it? Zeus? Bacchus? Any of those graven-image, many-gods cults? No - he went after his own Father’s priests for being money-grubbing hypocrites.
I’m guessing that story doesn’t come up often at CPAC or prayer breakfasts.
ban IVF? why would they ban a safe and correct use of technology to help couples conceive what the actual fuck, I don’t think there is a single nation on earth that does this, can you get IVF in the middle east? this is just mind-blowingly neardenthal
As an outsider I’m fine with all of this for the US, as long as the US is completely demilitarized and gets rid of every last one if their nukes. Can’t have hyper-religious christian Nazis start nuclear crusades in the name of the only God that matters to them - The Dollar.
You know what I’m always surprised is missing everytime I see this list? Repealing the 14th amendment. They are so wrong on all of it but somehow they don’t go for that one.
But that’s just it. To the megalomaniacal, psychotic, fascist person id assume the dream of having you own personal household slaves, or factory slaves that you can ln explort and abuse you heartless content would be the creme de la creme of goals.
Nuclear bombs are a problem because it’s something just a fucking insane genocide will use. Isn’t about it will do a lot of damage it’s cos it kills everyone in a big radius WO distinguish if they civilians or army.
The deep longing so many people have for their lost fathers is really heart breaking.
Like, fuck. He’s not your dad! Please stop trying to fill the hole in your heart with politicians and celebrities. Please go talk to a therapist about how your father abandoned you, or you lost him to right wing conspiracies, or how you miss him now that he’s dead. Don’t replace him with a guy you saw on TV! This isn’t good for you and you’re just going to get hurt.
I mean, saying someone feels like the dad you could’ve had doesn’t mean there’s anything pathologic going on. They’re just being wistful and pointing out that Walz is giving cool dad vibes.
I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic by suggesting these women have literally formed a parasocial father-daughter relationship with him in 3 weeks.
Calling it pathological might be going too far, but it’s heart breaking when someone talks at length about losing their father in the context of saying Walz reminds them of their dad. Whenever people elaborate it becomes clear there’s something wrong.
There’s a broken and sick society that’s producing all these people who are longing for their lost fathers and it’s just. Heartbreaking.
What’s unnatural is connecting their grieving process to a guy they see on TV and then wrapping this into their political choices.
You’ll notice this isn’t only happening among people voting for Harris. Among Trump voters, you know what they do? They slot Trump into that father figure role! People shouldn’t be making politicians into parental figures. Something is wrong.
I mean, can you really call it unnatural overall if people have a desire to connect to and with others - even if it’s not fully logical. Emotions can be far from logical.
In a natural process, someone might connect with an older man in the community as a father figure in their own life. A mentor or a local leader, perhaps.
Emotionally connecting to the TV is disrupting a natural and healthy process by inserting a father figure that they can never really connect with.
Again you’re putting logic in an equation where it may not exist. I’m also not disagreeing with you, but people tend to make connections where they don’t/shouldn’t exist.
I don’t think there is anything wrong about coming to your own conclusions from public figures about the ways in which your personal relationships have been impacted by said public figures. Yes we don’t know these people directly but they impact and shape our lives, sometimes without us even knowing it.
I think “connection” can be very subjective depending on who you’re talking to, and I think this conversation needs a lot more nuance than perhaps is being given to it. I think by not lending credence to how we form connections and bonds with these political figures through emotion, we are trying to act like that it doesn’t exist (or shouldn’t), which isn’t true. The article here seems more to be pointing out that liberal women have lost their fathers to far-right ideology, not so much that they are now attaching that lost relationship to Walz. It seems more as though Walz helped these women come to terms with this fact, or enlightened them to it.
Except every single one of these women is going to vote for the Harris/Walz ticket, so they’re not just learning from Walz but materially supporting his political career.
At least they’re not giving him money, but it’s not far off.
You are describing how the American political process works. So would you rather them not vote or support the candidate that aligns with their policies or values? I’m very unclear on what you’re positioning here.
They aren’t trying to fill the hole with someone else, they are just saying one person reminds them of how someone else used to be. They see how this one famous person acts and remember when their dad used to act that way. They aren’t turning the famous guy into a father figure, but they are mourning the loss of their actual father figure. You are way over-analyzing what is being said here.
I think it’s bad to see someone who you have never and will never meet as a father figure, and then to materially support them out of a misplaced para-social relationship.
You are either a troll or have serious reading comprehension issues. At no point did anyone, either us posters here or the woman in the story, say she saw him as a father figure. You are literally the only person saying father figure here. There’s a guy in my neighborhood who reminds me of my dad. I don’t see him as a father figure.
I have to conclude you are posting with an agenda and are trying to shift the focus away from a positive story. There’s no way you can be as stupid as you sound. I’ll be blocking you for clearly not trying to have an honest conversation.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.