#conservative right

[countessravengrey]

I'm going to propose we retire the use of "wholesome" and "pure" and start using "cute" "sweet" or some other words to comment on those adorable moments with kittens, puppies, or anything else you might be using "wholesome" and "pure" for.

Aside from the fact that reading stuff like "this is so pure/wholesome" makes me feel like I'm mainlining saccharin, these two words actually trigger the fuck out of me, and have really nasty connotations.

The word 'pure' has an ugly history. The concept of purity has been used for centuries to oppress people's sexuality, particularly women, who have been expected to carry out the majority of traditions of chastity. This has been particularly prevalent in Christianity, where women are not only expected to be chaste but to also take full responsibility for the consequences of sex, including having children they didn't want, even when raped. And aside from its ties to Christian Nationalism, it was (and still is) used to oppress BIPOC using the 'one drop rule'.

And if you're thinking the word itself is benign, just look at these meanings:

not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material

free of any contamination

wholesome and untainted by immorality, especially that of a sexual nature

'Wholesome', on the other hand, hearkens back to the 80s & 90s Reagan/Bush era when Republicans (and yes, some Democrats) used "wholesome" with the phrase "family values" to galvanize the Conservative Right, which led directly to the extremism of the Republican party today. These words were used as an excuse to enact policies such as the War on Drugs, the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Initiative (which states that marriage and family was between one man and one woman, both heterosexual), extreme censorship (the Parental Advisory is more than just a label), and so much more. It was used to vilify single mothers, and directly contributed to the stigma surrounding the AIDS crisis in the 80s and 90s, which in turn delayed research that could have saved millions of lives.

"But it just means cute and sweet and good!"

Not true. The word's very meaning is steeped in purity culture. While one could almost excuse its main meaning, "conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being" (ffs just say it's nutritious), it's the secondary meaning that condemns the entire word as self-righteous bullshit: "conducive to or promoting moral well-being." Synonyms like 'virtuous' 'chaste' and 'right-minded' don't help its case, either.

Oh, and nowhere does either of these words have synonyms meaning 'cute' or 'sweet'.

There is nothing kind or friendly about these words. There is nothing loving or joyful about them.

Just something to think about the next time you tag a video of cuddly kittens.

[tracyk13]

Why have strict religious regulation on clothing when the Creator made man naked?

Obviously I am not a religious scholar. But I had this sudden thought. All my amature knowledge on a wide range of religions distille down into this bizarre concept. In the Judo-Christian-Islamic traditions, the God created Man and Woman in the Garden of Eden and they were both naked. The Original Sin is Eve disobeying and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The first realization she and Adam have are that they are naked.

Conclusion: God doesn't care what humans wear. Humans were naked until this Original Sin incident. Only other humans care about clothing.

Yet we exist in a world where there are strict rules about what men and women are supposed to wear. Be it in their daily wear or for religious activities.

The most conservative religious sects require extremely conservative clothing which covers nearly all exposed skin. The most obvious is the burkas required by strict Islamic sects. But all Judo-Christian-Islamic have sects that have similar requirements. Women are usually the most subjugated. Special hats, long sleeves, long skirts, loose and non-formfitting clothing of any sort.

Conclusion: Organized Religions use clothing as a means to control their adherents and to villainize those who do not comply.

I remember growing up in the Church of Christ and the preacher angrily demonizing the cheerleader for the skimpy attire that is their uniform.

While I agreed that the cheerleader uniforms are unnecessarily small and expose a great deal of a prepubescent girl, I disagreed with the preacher villianizing the girls who are wearing these uniforms and not the adults who assign the uniform in the first place.

This disconnect among others of similar veins of thought fueled my distrust of organized religions telling women in particular that they are evil for their choice of clothing.

It is the patriarchy assuming control and asserting dominance over half of the population.

Which is why the most conservative sects of religion force women into a second class, not even a citizen in some sects. Those women have no freedom of choice.

It is dangerous to these women. They are not allowed to go to school, not allowed to drive, not allowed medical care unless the man is making the decisions.

Conclusion: Conservative Religions only exist to empower a small group of men and to subjugate the rest.

What truly worries me is the legislation being enacted by conservative religions are trying to legitimize their existance by refusing agency to others.

If some of these opinions become law, I will not be allowed to choose my own reproductive health. I will not be able to wear the clothing I enjoy. I will not be able to be independent.

These are the very choices the Women's Rights activitist have granted us and it terrifies the conservative right. They are loosing their power and their dominance.

[queerism1969]

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[mysharona1987]

[whereserpentswalk]

The nazis that you see in movies are as much a historical fantasy as vikings with horned helmets and samurai cutting people in half.

The nazis were not some vague evil that wanted to hurt people for the sake of hurting them. They had specific goals which furthered a far right agenda, and they wanted to do harm to very specific groups, (largely slavs, jews, Romani, queer people, communists/leftists, and disabled people.)

The nazis didn't use soldiers in creepy gas masks as their main imagery that they sold to the german people, they used blond haired blue eyed families. Nor did they stand up on podiums saying that would wage an endless and brutal war, they gave speeches about protecting white Christian society from degenerates just like how conservatives do today.

Nazis weren't atheists or pagans. They were deeply Christian and Christianity was part of their ideology just like it is for modern conservatives. They spoke at lengths about defending their Christian nation from godless leftism. The ones who hated the catholic church hated it for protestant reasons. Nazi occultism was fringe within the party and never expected to become mainstream, and those occultists were still Christian, none of them ever claimed to be Satanists or Asatru.

Nazis were also not queer or disabled. They killed those groups, before they had a chance to kill almost anyone else actually. Despite the amount of disabled nazis or queer/queer coded nazis you'll see in movies and on TV, in reality they were very cishet and very able bodied. There was one high ranking nazi early on who was gay and the other nazis killed him for that. Saying the nazis were gay or disabled makes about as much sense as saying they were Jewish.

The nazis weren't mentally ill. As previously mentioned they hated disabled people, and this unquestionably included anyone neurodivergent. When the surviving nazi war criminals were given psychological tests after the war, they were shown to be some of the most neurotypical people out there.

The nazis weren't socialists. Full stop. They hated socialists. They got elected on hating socialists. They killed socialists. Hating all forms of lefitsm was a big part of their ideology, and especially a big part of how they sold themselves.

The nazis were not the supervillians you see on screen, not because they didn't do horrible things in real life, they most certainly did, but because they weren't that vague apolitical evil that exists for white American action heros to fight. They did horrible things because they had a right wing authoritarian political ideology, an ideology that is fundamentally the same as what most of the modern right wing believes.

[hellomegedwards]

Just a Sensible Idealist

Who is a hippy now?

I was approached by a friendly TTC worker in uniform on the subway in Toronto recently. At first he stood by a nearby pole and watched me for a bit, and then smiled. He was not young but not old, somewhere in that middle ground where they think about death a lot. I smiled back and he opened with “I wish I had been brought up in the sixties”. I would have liked to see my face expression. A wry…

[rebeccathenaturalist]

If you aren't following the news here in the Pacific Northwest, this is a very, very big deal. Our native salmon numbers have been plummeting over the past century and change. First it was due to overfishing by commercial canneries, then the dams went in and slowed the rivers down and blocked the salmons' migratory paths. More recently climate change is warming the water even more than the slower river flows have, and salmon can easily die of overheating in temperatures we would consider comfortable.

Removing the dams will allow the Klamath River and its tributaries to return to their natural states, making them more hospitable to salmon and other native wildlife (the reservoirs created by the dams were full of non-native fish stocked there over the years.) Not only will this help the salmon thrive, but it makes the entire ecosystem in the region more resilient. The nutrients that salmon bring back from their years in the ocean, stored within their flesh and bones, works its way through the surrounding forest and can be traced in plants several miles from the river.

This is also a victory for the Yurok, Karuk, and other indigenous people who have relied on the Klamath for many generations. The salmon aren't just a crucial source of food, but also deeply ingrained in indigenous cultures. It's a small step toward righting one of the many wrongs that indigenous people in the Americas have suffered for centuries.

[tenth-sentence]

Despite condemnation by the radical left, the misogyny of the sexologists, and condemnation by the conservative right, meant unmarried women created interesting and worthwhile lives for themselves as single women choosing to marry late or not at all.

"Normal Women: 900 Years of Making History" - Philippa Gregory

[yonderlyporcupine]

Here’s the thing I think conservatives don’t understand: I don’t care what someone else does with their own body.

You wanna get surgery or take medication to make you look a certain way? Okay. I don’t care

You wanna ctrl+alt+delete that clump of cells in your uterus. Sure. I don’t care.

You wanna use meds to block a natural aspect of your body’s system? Alright by me. I. Don’t. Care.

I don’t care because it’s not my body

“But what if they regret it?” So? Let them regret it. That’s their choice to live with.

“But what if that baby would have grown up to cure cancer?” Kinda short sighted on God’s part to only put that potential in one baby, yeah? (Also … you can’t cure cancer, but that’s a level of nuance for a different time)

“But what if they want to use that function in the future?” Funny thing about meds: you can just stop fucking taking them and things usually go back to normal.

I DON’T CARE WHAT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING DOES WITH THEIR OWN BODY! I don’t care 🤷‍♀️ it’s not my body so why should I have a say in it?

The choice is not “being left up to the states instead of the federal government”, it’s that the choice is being taken away from individuals.

Why the fuck to they care so much what other people do with their own shit??

[sunbeamedskies]

The left SUCKS at recruiting people. And so many of you are part of the problem.

The talk about centrists and moderates being the literal devil I see constantly in online leftist spaces is one great example of the left's failure. Yes, it sucks when the people don't see how horrible the right is. But centrists are some of the most open people to discussion- and some already lean left!!

You can't demonize moderates to such an extent that you close yourself off to them and then wonder why you're losing swing states.

Centrists aren't even always people with all the privileges- you will find plenty of people who are part of marginalized groups who are concerned about politicians on all sides.

You can be a smol radical leftist bean all you want who only talks to other smol socialist and communist beans, but you're never going to make the difference you want to in the world that way. It's the cold, hard truth. It doesn't mean you have to engage in discourse with everyone- some people have no real hope of changing and are emotionally draining- just more than your bubble.

I am tired of the left eating itself alive and deranged people like Trump winning.

[coulsonlives]

Holy shit, Shapiro had his ass handed to him. This is so satisfying to watch.

[lectorel]

Got permanently banned from a subreddit for saying law enforcement shooting someone dead in the street was still a bad thing even when the victim was a violent right-wing fanatic.

Gotta say, I did not expect that to be such a controversial statement. So repeating it here: law enforcement shouldn't kill people. Even violent assholes have a right to be taken in alive, and it's a failure of practice and policy when someone is killed in the process of an arrest.

[mysharona1987]

This sounds like something from The Handmaid’s Tale, ffs.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Justin Horowitz at MMFA:

Project 2025 advisory board members have attacked or outright called for the end of no-fault divorce, the option to dissolve a marriage without having to prove wrongdoing by a partner. Research highlighted by CNN found “no-fault divorce correlates with a reduction in female suicides and a reduction in intimate partner violence,” including “an 8 to 16% decrease in female suicides after states enacted no-fault divorce laws.” Project 2025 is backed by a nearly-900 page policy book called Mandate for Leadership, which extensively outlines potential approaches to governance for the next Republican administration, including replacing federal employees with extremists and Trump loyalists and attacking LGBTQ rights, abortion, and contraception. The Heritage Foundation’s proposals have a track record of success — the first Trump administration implemented 64% of Mandate’s policy recommendations. Project 2025 is also supported by a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations, many of which have spent years promoting critiques of no-fault divorce as “destructive” for society — or even blaming it for enabling a “culture of death.” According to a Media Matters review, at least 22 Project 2025 advisory board members have made similar comments targeting, restricting, or eliminating no-fault divorce. Additionally, MAGA and far-right media figures have pushed for the removal of no-fault divorce laws across the country, and several local Republican parties in Texas, Nebraska, and Louisiana have called for the dissolution of no-fault divorce in some capacity.

Project 2025 partner organizations, including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, and The Heritage Foundation, have called for significant restrictions or an outright ban on no-fault divorce.

[hope-for-the-planet]

From the article:

A recent report by Indigenous Environmental Network, or IEN, and Oil Change International, or OCI, found that Indigenous-led resistance to 21 fossil fuel projects in the U.S. and Canada over the past decade has stopped or delayed an amount of greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least one-quarter of annual U.S. and Canadian emissions.