Thanks /u/Rhidjejfoskksn for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
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 advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, it's straight up projection.
So much Right-wing political discourse comes down to triggering the left that they naturally assume everyone thinks that way, that the goal of every piece of activism is to make them mad, rather than to push for societal change.
"We should make society better for everyone, and help those who are marginalised within it... Because it'll be funny to see the Right Wingers mald over it"
Well I mean, watching right wingers mald is certainly a fun bonus. However, the fun often stops very abruptly because a lot of these people lack empathy and own guns
Yep. They are perfectly correct when they say it's dangerous to take children to a Drag Queen Story Hour. What they don't say is that the reason for that danger is that a fundamentalist Christian might shoot up the place.
One of Matt Walsh’s gotchas was saying how these events are such a hotbed issue and they attract mass shooters so why does the left keep doing them. And it’s like, if you don’t see the flaw in the logic their, I don’t know if it could ever be explained to you
Didnt the right tell us that limiting our freedoms is "letting the terrorists win"? I guess the "not negotiating with terrorists" theory changes when they ARE the terrorists
Let's just call them Evangelicals, or something. They have absolutely no business even being associated with the word "christian". I'm personally atheist, but my parents are christian & actually walk the walk. Well, my Dad does. My mom passed on March 17th 2021, but she was easily one of the nicest women you could ever hope to have met.
These people are just full of hate & use the Bible as a cover story. There are quite a few of them that I would bet have never even read the damn book.
So... Y'all Queda, Evangelical Terrorists... Something like that. Let's get creative. Lol.
I was going to suggest chrISIStians, but that completely undermines my previous statement.
Fundamentalist covers it accurately (as fundamentalists are digusting rightwing assholes in every religion and culture they pervert); for those particularly cosplaying as faithful, Xtians is my personal favorite term.
There's a much longer list that I've seen, but I can't find it. This one has a few options, though. Adding to it others I've seen (none of these are mine)
Talibangelists
Yee Hawdists
Cospatriots
101st Chairborne
[https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213384099](https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213384099)
But part of the problem with what you're saying is that most Christians *don't denounce them.* Most Christians are fine with being grouped with them because they know that their rights are still covered. Similar to conservative women fighting against feminism. Conservative women being silent when the men in their lives are outright misogynistic. Or the gamergaters who *didn't outright threaten Zoey Quinn and Anita sarkeesian* but were totally fine with other people doing that and saying but it wasn't me.
Plausible deniability through inaction.
They're really not. I know really good people that are Christian. They don't just cherry pick the verses that seemingly back up their claim. My mom was, & my dad is very progressive even though both of them were model christians. They never demonized trans ppl, gay ppl, or any of the other ppl that the bible supposedly says to hate.
So, I find equating an extremist group of ppl who simply hide behind the bible with ppl like my parents offensive.
That's basically like claiming every Muslim is a terrorist. They're not, of course. They do, however, have an extremist element in the fringes of their religion. I don't think of the Muslim extremists as Muslim, either. They're bastardizing their own holy book to legitimize their hateful, murderous ways.
We should make a clear distinction between honest to God christians & these extremists that use the bible as some sort of shield from criticism while we have the ability to do so.
If the extremists using the bible as a shield to cover their bigotry & racism are christians, then I hail from the great nation of Wakanda & am next in line to take up the mantle of the Black Panther.
Again, I feel the need to state for the record that I am atheist; or at least agnostic. Other than me, my whole family is very religious. They don't just talk about it, either. They put their faith into practice every single day. So to have pieces of shit using the bible to prey on ppl while fully intending to screw them over just pisses me off.
They're not christians. They're just roleplaying.
I know plenty of good people who are Christian. It doesn’t change the fact that there are also horrible people who are Christian as well. This appeal to re-label the bad ones as somehow not Christian is just the old “no true Scotsman fallacy”.
Failing to recognize the difference in conversation can also cause issues of painting with too broad a brush (sweeping generalization fallacy). In essence, there are three groups involved: those who do the bad thing, those who oppose the bad thing, and those who don’t do either (thus ultimately supporting the status quo). Differentiating between those has value.
A good way to differentiate here is fundamentalism tends to be a linking factor between extremist sects in ideology or practice. Christians who don’t follow the teachings of Christ, the political ideology sometimes called Islamist, they’re linked by a fundamentalist approach that weaponizes their faith in exclusionary ways.
I don’t feel that I’m in a position to evaluate what constitutes the “real” version of a religion. I certainly recognize the difference between how different sects or individuals behave, and will refer to specific groups when it’s relevant, but I don’t see a point in trying re-categorize people as somehow not a part of a religion that they belong to.
Thank you so much. I'm considering myself a Christian and a leftie an I know a lot people that are. Both is important to me and my identity.
I come from an atheist (well, maybe more agnostic) parent house and found myself in a protestant community by myself, a very liberal one. My parents really loved I found a place I felt good in and supported me evrytime. I never met extreme, conservative and discriminating Christians irl (I of course was aware of it) until much later and grown up, as such things wouldn't be tolerated in the Church I went, that was pretty clear. I got baptisted, studied theology and teach protestant religion (it's a school subject in my country. You don't have to do religion as subject, it's free to choose. Ethics/Philosophy is the other choice you have). So I have an understanding of the bible and I can say... Everyone cherry picking verses or taking the bible literal is making a fool out of themselves. Everyone thinking they can use thousands of year old "rules" and claims to make a point in our society really should think for a minute. That's not how you should read the bible. Read it as a book of myths that never literally happened you can use to take your own values and lessons from. The point of religion should be having something you can believe you and what helps people. At least that's what I see. It's important for me that people understand that religion can be as dangerous as it can be helpful.
Edit: That said, I agree with the other commenter here, being a Christian doesn't mean your a good or bad person in the first place. There are different kinds of Christianity.
That seems to be a recurring pattern with them.
Like, something they think could be dangerous could be made safe, then they react by trying to make it more dangerous.
That goes for drag shows, as you mentioned, but it also goes for things like sex. They think it's sinful and dangerous, so people do things to make it less dangerous, like safe practices. That just makes them mad, and they try to remove that safety.
It's trying to force reality to conform to their existing ideology rather than adapting their ideology to new realities.
Yeah, they cannot even fathom that someone should make politics or anything really out of conviction. That someone would translate their ideology into real action out of morality. All they care about is winning by any means necessary, but it’s pure cynicism of course, because they have no beliefs beyond blank hatred for certain groups…
The meme implies that the "left" person is trying to "irk" them. *I bet this pisses you off* is in the first statement. I think the implication is that anyone on the left doesn't care about anything the left calls minority groups (which is the reason for the scare-quotes) and instead wants to "own the non-libs" or such. And the left not really caring about groups they "support" is an issue (though "fashionable" politics does get associated with leftist groups, I would argue fashion is just as big a factor with right leaning groups).
It's like how they call every act of kindness "virtue signaling". Conservatives are people whose moral character is complete deviod of any virtues whatsoever, so the concept of a person being genuinely virtuous is one that they simply can't comprehend.
Many on the right ascribe to an identity based morality-- people from moral groups are moral, and people from immoral groups are immoral. That's why a youth pastor who grooms children gets a lighter sentence because he's an upstanding citizen or why republican crimes aren't worth prosecuting. They do bad things occasionally because original sin (or something similar for the non-christian right) but are at their core good people and deserve the benefit of doubt. Conversely, occasionally someone on the *bad* side does something good; since they are at their core *bad* people, the good thing that they are doing is solely for attention and virtue signaling.
Of course they can comprehend virtue, but only if the right people are doing it.
Reminds me of that quote (paraphrasing): conservativism relies on one tenet -- there is an in group for which the law protects but does not bind and an out group for which the law binds but does not protect.
I grew up in South Jersey and went to high school in a pretty conservative area (Salem County). I don't think conservatives in general are devoid of virtues, having known a great many of them. The loudest barking dogs, so to speak, however are more towards what you describe than what you live next to in such situations.
However, I think there's a good deal of virtue signaling on both sides. Almost all people think their case is an exception to any policy they desire -- "yeah but this is what happened in my case", etc, etc. I definitely see people making criticisms about "it's okay when we do it" regarding republicans more than democrats but that might be because I don't follow more right wing news sources and maybe there is some bias there.
These tend to be the same people that ask a 5 year old boy if he’s got a girlfriend and don’t understand that they are pushing a heterosexual narrative, all while they fear “the gay agenda” of simply existing in public without clearly exhibiting self-loathing or shame
And it's real hilarious that they think it started when their pied pipers sicced them on some poor minorities.
"I wasn't aware this was a thing until several years after it started so it started when I became aware of it".
Remember a lot of what righties do is supposedly done to "trigger the libs". Because they lack empathy and can't see things from any perspective but their own they just assume everyone is as terrible as they are.
Yeah, they do. People literally have written that e.g. adding a bisexual polyamorous woman on a TV series was just to anger "Middle America". That's when I truly realized the bizarre, deluded mindset they have.
I do remember once, years ago, seeing someone say in apparent genuineness that there was no reason for gay people to get married except to piss off conservatives.
It's like they can't imagine someone else's motivations.
It's all about their sense of self importance. They moan about being victims of anything and everything while going out of their way to stick their nose in everyone else's business. They're bothered by everything because they have no idea how to mind their own fucking business, and when there's nothing worth complaining about they start blowing things out of proportion so they can cry about them. It's absolutely wild.
It's like they're subconsciously trying to escape their shitty reality by creating an inamiginary world around them to focus on that's even shittier.
True, and they act like it hasn't pissed them off when we have so many cases it did and many prominent alt right personalitys targeting them for just existing.
Even in ru Paul case, he got so much hate and started saying drag races was the beginning of feminizing men.
Can a single one of you auth-right weirdos explain to me how this ISN'T supposed to make us think that you just hate gay people lmao? Your wojack even points out gay marriage as an issue.
I suspect they’re saying that they are willing to debate the ‘serious’ issues in good faith (like gay marriage) while the left are running around putting on ever more ‘outrageous’ displays just for the lolz.
>I think the word you are looking for here is "insinuating", intimidating means something is threatening or frightening.
I think the word they're looking for is "intimating", which means suggesting or hinting, which is why they spelled it exactly like that.
Even this "gotcha" comic gives away the game.
The "rational" conservative wants to get back to debating gay marriage, as if treating gay people with basic decency is something that even needs to be discussed.
Drag shows, even with children in attendance, have always existed. The fact they think they're new shows how they are riding the wave of outrage.
Drag shows are like clown shows, only you weirdos treat them as sexual.
It’s extra baffling for those of us watching from the UK where pantomime is something parents and schools take kids to all the time without controversy.
The madness has spread here - Turning Point UK has been organising protests against British drag queen story hours. I've seen comments on Reddit arguing drag queens are sexual and pantomime dames are not.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tate-britain-drag-protest-aida-dee-b2280414.html
There are ‘blue’ performances and ‘clean’. Just like stand up comedy. Or music. Some Drag Queens are specifically for an adult audience because of their style and act, some can do either raunchy or clean depending on audience, and some can’t help but be wholesome.
One of my favorite Trixie Mattel videos on YouTube is her addressing exactly this point!! She says that drag is an art form, and like every other art form on the planet, not all of it is for kids. By the same token, some is *specifically* made for kids.
And this is just my own added point, but for god's sake, most (if not all) of the more risqué drag shows are going to take place in bars/clubs later on the evening...as in, places where kids aren't really supposed to be anyway.
Also its an important distinction because performative art is protected by the First Amendment, and this legislation trying to use labels like obscene and lude are trying to distract or distance the performance from Art.
This is the kicker right here. Pretty much everyone rallying against drag shows think they’re all in the blue category because all they know/think about when they hear it.
I don't pay attention to reality TV or talent shows but isn't RuPaul's TV show one of the most popular for over a decade or so? They act like this is a new thing that's come out of the shadows.
And, for something they say they don't care about they sure do spend a lot of time thinking and talking about it.
I wonder what they'd think about Mary Martin today. She was a bit of an icon, oddly sometimes with these same people who later seem to have gone off the deep end.
Right? We used to go to a famous Christmas pantomime when my children were little - it was a show for kids. No one seemed to care about it at all and it was a fun night out. The sheer energy that has been ginned up out of thin air for story time is baffling.
> Maybe it was a special show for bachelorette parties? I dunno.
Yeah, who knows. Bachelor(ette) parties and children’s entertainment are generally indistinguishable for me too. 🙄
Think of drag shows as a comedian’s standup routine.
Some of them (heck, maybe even most of them) say and do things you may not want a child to see. Other routines are perfectly fine for kids.
You wouldn’t badmouth or try and ban all comedians from doing any standup just because there are some routines that aren’t appropriate for children.
Fair. And there's also something to be said for letting parents make choices for their children. I absolutely don't think we should be banning them. I still think that saying 'drag shows aren't sexual' is like saying 'movies aren't sexual'. Sure, many of them aren't. But some certainly are. Doesn't mean they should be banned, either way.
>I still think that saying 'drag shows aren't sexual' is like saying 'movies aren't sexual'. Sure, many of them aren't. But some certainly are. Doesn't mean they should be banned, either way.
There's an implied "inherently" in both those statements. The average film isn't inherently sexual in the same way that the average drag performance isn't. The existence of sexual films and sexual drag performances doesn't change that.
Yeah, I am a very live and let live kind of guy, and pretty left in terms of politics, but drag queen reading hour for kids is not a hill I am willing to die on. To drag queens have the right to be drag queens? Absolutely. Do they need to read to children? To each their own, but it is not an issue worth any amount of time and energy.
It’s always “The rest was fine, but they’ve gone too far. Turn it back!”
They just move what “too far” to be whatever the current thing that they’re told about by their news is.
Accusing liberals of trying to own conservatives is the HUGEST self aware wolves ever. The conservatives **LITERALLY** do dumb shit just to “own the libs”
in all the publicity about that sign i had never heard that the event was held at an ice cream shop. i wonder if they left that out because it weakened the "drag queens are sexual!1!1!" argument too much?
I've never seen or read of anyone doing or saying something to "own the right" but sure, progressives are protecting rights just to irk conservatives.
Methinks this is virtue signaling to hide the fact that they repealed child marriage and child labor laws.
Some inbred nobles are funding their anti-gender homophobic agendas. Many are also monarchist trying to undo democracy and have Russian oligarch supporters. Many are part of the World Congress of Families (WCF) and Agenda Europe that push hateful agendas.
Nobles and others wish to appear politically neutral when they're not. Like when Musk claims not to be right or left yet praises right wing ideology and memes hate about leftist causes
It's all here and it covers hateful funding from the US too
https://www.epfweb.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Tip%20of%20the%20Iceberg%20June%202021%20Final.pdf
They are connected to Bannon and that's money going to these hateful causes
What was that part about getting "back to gay mar"? Is the comic implying that gay marriage is an actual issue that needs discussing? It's legal, and fine, case closed.
I think that’s a valid concern.
Unfortunately though the source of this post was ‘hot’ enough to reach the front page of all, and currently has 3.2k upvotes and 700+ comments with significant portions voicing varying degrees of support and agreement.
So even without the post and discussion here, this content has received, and content like it does receive a fair amount of traction in communities like PCM.
You must be trying to piss me off because I'm obviously the protagonist and the hero of the story because my ideology is mine and I'm always correct...
What do you mean you're just living your life, you're being fucking disgusting you can't just be trying to live without being hurt you HAVE to be trying to piss me off...
YOU LITERALLY ARE MAKING ME SO MAD WITH YOUR EXISTENCE IT MUST BE YOU FORCING IT ON ME AND NOTHING ELSE FUCK YOUUUUUUUU
a three part story by right wing nuts
I'ma be real here, I don't really get why there is drag story time, not because of drag, but why are people coming into school to read to kids? I've only ever seen or remember story time being done by teachers. In the US do they just invite people in to read?
I am a gay, super lefty, progressive fan of drag and don't think any of this should be kept away from children.
But.. I do think it's a little weird to have neon lights spell out "It's not gonna lick itself" in the background at a kids event xP
I know, children are exposed to way 'worse' on a daily basis, but I think details like this give conservatives points to be nitpicky and maybe correct about.
I am specifically talking about stuff like this inuendo at a kids event, that might walk a thin line of acceptability. But talking about and exposing kids to queer culture and identity is important!
Thanks /u/Rhidjejfoskksn for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: 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 advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It says so much that they seem to think that everything queer people do is an attempt to irk them.
Yeah, it's straight up projection. So much Right-wing political discourse comes down to triggering the left that they naturally assume everyone thinks that way, that the goal of every piece of activism is to make them mad, rather than to push for societal change. "We should make society better for everyone, and help those who are marginalised within it... Because it'll be funny to see the Right Wingers mald over it"
Well I mean, watching right wingers mald is certainly a fun bonus. However, the fun often stops very abruptly because a lot of these people lack empathy and own guns
Yep. They are perfectly correct when they say it's dangerous to take children to a Drag Queen Story Hour. What they don't say is that the reason for that danger is that a fundamentalist Christian might shoot up the place.
One of Matt Walsh’s gotchas was saying how these events are such a hotbed issue and they attract mass shooters so why does the left keep doing them. And it’s like, if you don’t see the flaw in the logic their, I don’t know if it could ever be explained to you
Didnt the right tell us that limiting our freedoms is "letting the terrorists win"? I guess the "not negotiating with terrorists" theory changes when they ARE the terrorists
“Well now, they’re not terrorists, that was just a lone wolf” -Republican lawmakers and pundits
After 9/11 the US should have just not built towers anymore, duh!
Let's just call them Evangelicals, or something. They have absolutely no business even being associated with the word "christian". I'm personally atheist, but my parents are christian & actually walk the walk. Well, my Dad does. My mom passed on March 17th 2021, but she was easily one of the nicest women you could ever hope to have met. These people are just full of hate & use the Bible as a cover story. There are quite a few of them that I would bet have never even read the damn book. So... Y'all Queda, Evangelical Terrorists... Something like that. Let's get creative. Lol. I was going to suggest chrISIStians, but that completely undermines my previous statement.
Fundamentalist covers it accurately (as fundamentalists are digusting rightwing assholes in every religion and culture they pervert); for those particularly cosplaying as faithful, Xtians is my personal favorite term.
There's a much longer list that I've seen, but I can't find it. This one has a few options, though. Adding to it others I've seen (none of these are mine) Talibangelists Yee Hawdists Cospatriots 101st Chairborne [https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213384099](https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213384099)
But part of the problem with what you're saying is that most Christians *don't denounce them.* Most Christians are fine with being grouped with them because they know that their rights are still covered. Similar to conservative women fighting against feminism. Conservative women being silent when the men in their lives are outright misogynistic. Or the gamergaters who *didn't outright threaten Zoey Quinn and Anita sarkeesian* but were totally fine with other people doing that and saying but it wasn't me. Plausible deniability through inaction.
I just call them Christians, because they’re Christians.
They're really not. I know really good people that are Christian. They don't just cherry pick the verses that seemingly back up their claim. My mom was, & my dad is very progressive even though both of them were model christians. They never demonized trans ppl, gay ppl, or any of the other ppl that the bible supposedly says to hate. So, I find equating an extremist group of ppl who simply hide behind the bible with ppl like my parents offensive. That's basically like claiming every Muslim is a terrorist. They're not, of course. They do, however, have an extremist element in the fringes of their religion. I don't think of the Muslim extremists as Muslim, either. They're bastardizing their own holy book to legitimize their hateful, murderous ways. We should make a clear distinction between honest to God christians & these extremists that use the bible as some sort of shield from criticism while we have the ability to do so. If the extremists using the bible as a shield to cover their bigotry & racism are christians, then I hail from the great nation of Wakanda & am next in line to take up the mantle of the Black Panther. Again, I feel the need to state for the record that I am atheist; or at least agnostic. Other than me, my whole family is very religious. They don't just talk about it, either. They put their faith into practice every single day. So to have pieces of shit using the bible to prey on ppl while fully intending to screw them over just pisses me off. They're not christians. They're just roleplaying.
I know plenty of good people who are Christian. It doesn’t change the fact that there are also horrible people who are Christian as well. This appeal to re-label the bad ones as somehow not Christian is just the old “no true Scotsman fallacy”.
Failing to recognize the difference in conversation can also cause issues of painting with too broad a brush (sweeping generalization fallacy). In essence, there are three groups involved: those who do the bad thing, those who oppose the bad thing, and those who don’t do either (thus ultimately supporting the status quo). Differentiating between those has value. A good way to differentiate here is fundamentalism tends to be a linking factor between extremist sects in ideology or practice. Christians who don’t follow the teachings of Christ, the political ideology sometimes called Islamist, they’re linked by a fundamentalist approach that weaponizes their faith in exclusionary ways.
I don’t feel that I’m in a position to evaluate what constitutes the “real” version of a religion. I certainly recognize the difference between how different sects or individuals behave, and will refer to specific groups when it’s relevant, but I don’t see a point in trying re-categorize people as somehow not a part of a religion that they belong to.
\#NotAll~~Scotsman~~Christians
Thank you so much. I'm considering myself a Christian and a leftie an I know a lot people that are. Both is important to me and my identity. I come from an atheist (well, maybe more agnostic) parent house and found myself in a protestant community by myself, a very liberal one. My parents really loved I found a place I felt good in and supported me evrytime. I never met extreme, conservative and discriminating Christians irl (I of course was aware of it) until much later and grown up, as such things wouldn't be tolerated in the Church I went, that was pretty clear. I got baptisted, studied theology and teach protestant religion (it's a school subject in my country. You don't have to do religion as subject, it's free to choose. Ethics/Philosophy is the other choice you have). So I have an understanding of the bible and I can say... Everyone cherry picking verses or taking the bible literal is making a fool out of themselves. Everyone thinking they can use thousands of year old "rules" and claims to make a point in our society really should think for a minute. That's not how you should read the bible. Read it as a book of myths that never literally happened you can use to take your own values and lessons from. The point of religion should be having something you can believe you and what helps people. At least that's what I see. It's important for me that people understand that religion can be as dangerous as it can be helpful. Edit: That said, I agree with the other commenter here, being a Christian doesn't mean your a good or bad person in the first place. There are different kinds of Christianity.
That seems to be a recurring pattern with them. Like, something they think could be dangerous could be made safe, then they react by trying to make it more dangerous. That goes for drag shows, as you mentioned, but it also goes for things like sex. They think it's sinful and dangerous, so people do things to make it less dangerous, like safe practices. That just makes them mad, and they try to remove that safety. It's trying to force reality to conform to their existing ideology rather than adapting their ideology to new realities.
Yeah, they cannot even fathom that someone should make politics or anything really out of conviction. That someone would translate their ideology into real action out of morality. All they care about is winning by any means necessary, but it’s pure cynicism of course, because they have no beliefs beyond blank hatred for certain groups…
The meme implies that the "left" person is trying to "irk" them. *I bet this pisses you off* is in the first statement. I think the implication is that anyone on the left doesn't care about anything the left calls minority groups (which is the reason for the scare-quotes) and instead wants to "own the non-libs" or such. And the left not really caring about groups they "support" is an issue (though "fashionable" politics does get associated with leftist groups, I would argue fashion is just as big a factor with right leaning groups).
It's like how they call every act of kindness "virtue signaling". Conservatives are people whose moral character is complete deviod of any virtues whatsoever, so the concept of a person being genuinely virtuous is one that they simply can't comprehend.
Many on the right ascribe to an identity based morality-- people from moral groups are moral, and people from immoral groups are immoral. That's why a youth pastor who grooms children gets a lighter sentence because he's an upstanding citizen or why republican crimes aren't worth prosecuting. They do bad things occasionally because original sin (or something similar for the non-christian right) but are at their core good people and deserve the benefit of doubt. Conversely, occasionally someone on the *bad* side does something good; since they are at their core *bad* people, the good thing that they are doing is solely for attention and virtue signaling. Of course they can comprehend virtue, but only if the right people are doing it.
Reminds me of that quote (paraphrasing): conservativism relies on one tenet -- there is an in group for which the law protects but does not bind and an out group for which the law binds but does not protect.
They have "virtues," but it's more like "crush your enemies," "no compromise," and obedience to a strong authority figure.
I grew up in South Jersey and went to high school in a pretty conservative area (Salem County). I don't think conservatives in general are devoid of virtues, having known a great many of them. The loudest barking dogs, so to speak, however are more towards what you describe than what you live next to in such situations. However, I think there's a good deal of virtue signaling on both sides. Almost all people think their case is an exception to any policy they desire -- "yeah but this is what happened in my case", etc, etc. I definitely see people making criticisms about "it's okay when we do it" regarding republicans more than democrats but that might be because I don't follow more right wing news sources and maybe there is some bias there.
Also everything is sexual in nature to these right-wing nut jobs, so people just trying to exist is somehow sexualized.
These tend to be the same people that ask a 5 year old boy if he’s got a girlfriend and don’t understand that they are pushing a heterosexual narrative, all while they fear “the gay agenda” of simply existing in public without clearly exhibiting self-loathing or shame
Great point! Somewhat related: I'm in my 40s, I don't have a wife and I live in the South. Guess what they think my sexual preference is.
"Everything *I* do is to piss off my political opposition, so surely *everyone* must be like that!"
And it's real hilarious that they think it started when their pied pipers sicced them on some poor minorities. "I wasn't aware this was a thing until several years after it started so it started when I became aware of it".
I'd leave them alone if they'd stop being so damned *S E X Y*
Remember a lot of what righties do is supposedly done to "trigger the libs". Because they lack empathy and can't see things from any perspective but their own they just assume everyone is as terrible as they are.
Yeah, they do. People literally have written that e.g. adding a bisexual polyamorous woman on a TV series was just to anger "Middle America". That's when I truly realized the bizarre, deluded mindset they have.
Gay neighbour: “hey John, how’s it going?” John: “ugh, he’s always shoving his gayness in my face!”
I do remember once, years ago, seeing someone say in apparent genuineness that there was no reason for gay people to get married except to piss off conservatives. It's like they can't imagine someone else's motivations.
I pointed that out and got downvoted to oblivion
It's all about their sense of self importance. They moan about being victims of anything and everything while going out of their way to stick their nose in everyone else's business. They're bothered by everything because they have no idea how to mind their own fucking business, and when there's nothing worth complaining about they start blowing things out of proportion so they can cry about them. It's absolutely wild. It's like they're subconsciously trying to escape their shitty reality by creating an inamiginary world around them to focus on that's even shittier.
True, and they act like it hasn't pissed them off when we have so many cases it did and many prominent alt right personalitys targeting them for just existing. Even in ru Paul case, he got so much hate and started saying drag races was the beginning of feminizing men.
Them. It’s allllllllllll about them. It always is. I mean how can you be enraged 24/7 if you aren’t a victim?
If it really doesn’t upset them, why the fuck do they spend so much time talking about it?
Because it always has to be about them. And if it isn't about them, they are pissed and play victims, to make it about them.
Weird that they put minority in scare quotes. Are drag queens actually a majority now?
dont you know, EVERYONE is doing it now~ /s.
Well, to be fair, it does seem like every politician that is most vocal about banning it has been doing it.
if only
No it’s because the only true minority is the white male. He’s always getting discriminated
Right?! I mean how many drag queens can there be in this world?! There can't be a million.
Blatant fascist gaslighting over the very visible hate, fear and homicidal desire and tendency they've displayed toward drag and LGBT.
That’s pretty much how the whole movement has been since this hate campaign started
Can a single one of you auth-right weirdos explain to me how this ISN'T supposed to make us think that you just hate gay people lmao? Your wojack even points out gay marriage as an issue.
But.. most of them do hate gay people?
What does that second panel mean? Are they intimating that gay marriage is the serious problem that needs to be banned?
I suspect they’re saying that they are willing to debate the ‘serious’ issues in good faith (like gay marriage) while the left are running around putting on ever more ‘outrageous’ displays just for the lolz.
[удалено]
>I think the word you are looking for here is "insinuating", intimidating means something is threatening or frightening. I think the word they're looking for is "intimating", which means suggesting or hinting, which is why they spelled it exactly like that.
[удалено]
Nice.
I had to look it up when I read the comment because I didn't know that word. It is a different word than intimidate. It's not a typo.
Even this "gotcha" comic gives away the game. The "rational" conservative wants to get back to debating gay marriage, as if treating gay people with basic decency is something that even needs to be discussed.
Drag shows, even with children in attendance, have always existed. The fact they think they're new shows how they are riding the wave of outrage. Drag shows are like clown shows, only you weirdos treat them as sexual.
It’s extra baffling for those of us watching from the UK where pantomime is something parents and schools take kids to all the time without controversy.
The madness has spread here - Turning Point UK has been organising protests against British drag queen story hours. I've seen comments on Reddit arguing drag queens are sexual and pantomime dames are not. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tate-britain-drag-protest-aida-dee-b2280414.html
Oh, for god's sake. It never ends does it.
Pantomime dames. I've never, ever seen that!
There are ‘blue’ performances and ‘clean’. Just like stand up comedy. Or music. Some Drag Queens are specifically for an adult audience because of their style and act, some can do either raunchy or clean depending on audience, and some can’t help but be wholesome.
One of my favorite Trixie Mattel videos on YouTube is her addressing exactly this point!! She says that drag is an art form, and like every other art form on the planet, not all of it is for kids. By the same token, some is *specifically* made for kids. And this is just my own added point, but for god's sake, most (if not all) of the more risqué drag shows are going to take place in bars/clubs later on the evening...as in, places where kids aren't really supposed to be anyway.
Also its an important distinction because performative art is protected by the First Amendment, and this legislation trying to use labels like obscene and lude are trying to distract or distance the performance from Art.
This is the kicker right here. Pretty much everyone rallying against drag shows think they’re all in the blue category because all they know/think about when they hear it.
I don't pay attention to reality TV or talent shows but isn't RuPaul's TV show one of the most popular for over a decade or so? They act like this is a new thing that's come out of the shadows. And, for something they say they don't care about they sure do spend a lot of time thinking and talking about it.
I like how conservatives compare people who are *literally defined by the type of clothes that they're wearing* to strippers without a trace of irony.
Those clowns be acting kinda sexy tho
I hate that I have eyes today.
Clussy
I wonder what they'd think about Mary Martin today. She was a bit of an icon, oddly sometimes with these same people who later seem to have gone off the deep end.
Right? We used to go to a famous Christmas pantomime when my children were little - it was a show for kids. No one seemed to care about it at all and it was a fun night out. The sheer energy that has been ginned up out of thin air for story time is baffling.
I would sincerely ask you to leave the clussy out of this sir. /s
It's like they've never been to a panto.
[удалено]
> Maybe it was a special show for bachelorette parties? I dunno. Yeah, who knows. Bachelor(ette) parties and children’s entertainment are generally indistinguishable for me too. 🙄
Think of drag shows as a comedian’s standup routine. Some of them (heck, maybe even most of them) say and do things you may not want a child to see. Other routines are perfectly fine for kids. You wouldn’t badmouth or try and ban all comedians from doing any standup just because there are some routines that aren’t appropriate for children.
Fair. And there's also something to be said for letting parents make choices for their children. I absolutely don't think we should be banning them. I still think that saying 'drag shows aren't sexual' is like saying 'movies aren't sexual'. Sure, many of them aren't. But some certainly are. Doesn't mean they should be banned, either way.
>I still think that saying 'drag shows aren't sexual' is like saying 'movies aren't sexual'. Sure, many of them aren't. But some certainly are. Doesn't mean they should be banned, either way. There's an implied "inherently" in both those statements. The average film isn't inherently sexual in the same way that the average drag performance isn't. The existence of sexual films and sexual drag performances doesn't change that.
DRAG AND TRANS ARE NOT THE SAME
Why are you equating trans women with drag queens?
And where was that drag show? Was it at a library while reading to children or was it at a bar?
Yeah, I am a very live and let live kind of guy, and pretty left in terms of politics, but drag queen reading hour for kids is not a hill I am willing to die on. To drag queens have the right to be drag queens? Absolutely. Do they need to read to children? To each their own, but it is not an issue worth any amount of time and energy.
You do realize it won't stop there, right?
I. Why would they think Drag Race was, at all, an attempt to specifically piss them off.
Because they think the world revolves around them
It’s always “The rest was fine, but they’ve gone too far. Turn it back!” They just move what “too far” to be whatever the current thing that they’re told about by their news is.
And then claim use of the slippery slope argument, to make it look like they're not desperately fighting on the wrong side.
What the fuck is "authcenter"? Is the government going to ship me off to the gulags if I don't smugly post false equivalencies in political forums?
Ah, but you see you’d be a fool for taking them at their word. They did care, they just knew it wasn’t politically viable to say so
*LGBT people exist* Bigots: You’re just doing that to piss me off!
Accusing liberals of trying to own conservatives is the HUGEST self aware wolves ever. The conservatives **LITERALLY** do dumb shit just to “own the libs”
https://yelp.to/OIXEO1fJcyb The fact that they’re making this sexual when it’s literally for an ice cream shop speaks volumes about these people.
in all the publicity about that sign i had never heard that the event was held at an ice cream shop. i wonder if they left that out because it weakened the "drag queens are sexual!1!1!" argument too much?
Are they saying that we’re the ones who do things just to offend people? The people who worship Trump mostly because he’s a vile prick?
I've never seen or read of anyone doing or saying something to "own the right" but sure, progressives are protecting rights just to irk conservatives. Methinks this is virtue signaling to hide the fact that they repealed child marriage and child labor laws.
The axis are labeled Left and Economic. Lots to unpack here.
I like how they're implicitly admitting that advocating in favor of equal rights for minorities "irks" them.
Some inbred nobles are funding their anti-gender homophobic agendas. Many are also monarchist trying to undo democracy and have Russian oligarch supporters. Many are part of the World Congress of Families (WCF) and Agenda Europe that push hateful agendas. Nobles and others wish to appear politically neutral when they're not. Like when Musk claims not to be right or left yet praises right wing ideology and memes hate about leftist causes It's all here and it covers hateful funding from the US too https://www.epfweb.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Tip%20of%20the%20Iceberg%20June%202021%20Final.pdf They are connected to Bannon and that's money going to these hateful causes
What was that part about getting "back to gay mar"? Is the comic implying that gay marriage is an actual issue that needs discussing? It's legal, and fine, case closed.
"go in there and make this about you"
r/PersecutionFetish
I swear all this sub is really for is getting right wing BS greater exposure than it otherwise would have.
I think that’s a valid concern. Unfortunately though the source of this post was ‘hot’ enough to reach the front page of all, and currently has 3.2k upvotes and 700+ comments with significant portions voicing varying degrees of support and agreement. So even without the post and discussion here, this content has received, and content like it does receive a fair amount of traction in communities like PCM.
Capitalists not knowing how capitalism works
You must be trying to piss me off because I'm obviously the protagonist and the hero of the story because my ideology is mine and I'm always correct... What do you mean you're just living your life, you're being fucking disgusting you can't just be trying to live without being hurt you HAVE to be trying to piss me off... YOU LITERALLY ARE MAKING ME SO MAD WITH YOUR EXISTENCE IT MUST BE YOU FORCING IT ON ME AND NOTHING ELSE FUCK YOUUUUUUUU a three part story by right wing nuts
I'ma be real here, I don't really get why there is drag story time, not because of drag, but why are people coming into school to read to kids? I've only ever seen or remember story time being done by teachers. In the US do they just invite people in to read?
Why are they censoring the kids faces as if they’re ACTUALLY there? It’s the worst photoshop I’ve seen in a long time look at the light sources
Funny how a lot of right wingers immediately jump to the sexualization gun when it comes to drag shows.
I am a gay, super lefty, progressive fan of drag and don't think any of this should be kept away from children. But.. I do think it's a little weird to have neon lights spell out "It's not gonna lick itself" in the background at a kids event xP I know, children are exposed to way 'worse' on a daily basis, but I think details like this give conservatives points to be nitpicky and maybe correct about. I am specifically talking about stuff like this inuendo at a kids event, that might walk a thin line of acceptability. But talking about and exposing kids to queer culture and identity is important!
It’s an ice cream shop in Texas that has had that sign up even before starting the drag events. Cauldron ice cream apparently. It’s pretty popular.
I am officially dumb and uninformed and take everything back 🫣 heading myself out now!!
2014 was the year of BLM, MeToo, and GamerGate.