Close watchers of the MAGA movement have been chronicling the alarming escalation of both violent intimidation and overt white supremacy in recent weeks. Donald Trump, of course, now begs his followers on a nearly daily basis to murder his perceived enemies. But the rhetoric is spiraling, with people like Fox News host Greg Gutfeld openly calling for civil war. Meanwhile, Christopher Rufo — a right hand man for Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla. — recently hosted a forum that pushed establishment Republicans to build a “bridge” to the so-called "dissident right," including some open white nationalists. He may get his wish, as one of the top contenders for Speaker of the House, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., described himself as "David Duke without the baggage."

The radicalism of the right is growing as the GOP careens swiftly towards nominating Trump as their presidential candidate, despite his 91 felony indictments in four jurisdictions. But, as anyone who has studied cults can tell you, they never limit their escalations to violence or hateful ideologies. There's almost always a weird sexual component, as cult leaders come up with ever stranger rules and regulations to control the sexual expression of their followers.

The MAGA movement is no different. The cult-like following of Trump always had an unsettling mix of incel-inflected misogyny, coupled with a homophobia that is somehow also homoerotic. But it's been rapidly getting worse in recent months. Even more frightening is how determined they are to inflict their sexual hang-ups on the rest of the country.

Gutfeld, who claims to be a "comedian," has long positioned himself on Fox News as an everyman character. He's meant to make audiences feel that normal people can be Republicans, and not just Bible-hugging weirdoes or camo-clad militia nuts. But, as his civil war rant makes clear, lately he's been channeling a more David Koresh-esque vibe, and invariably that comes with some sexual weirdness.

Last week, Gutfeld hosted a far-right figure named Hotep Jesus, who is known primarily for being an apologist for white supremacists and anti-semites. Hotep Jesus, whose real name is Bryan Sharpe, was on the show to promote a "dating" blog that is, in actuality, propaganda for domestic abuse. As Media Matters chronicled, Sharpe regards it as a form of adultery if women are "allowed" to work or vote. "Imagine guts, sweat, and tears shed only to watch your woman get dolled up only to prance around another man’s office while he gives her marching orders," Sharpe writes, claiming, "Women WANT to give up control of their life," and that they only vote, work, or otherwise make decisions because of "the pressure of modern society."

This wasn't a one-off, either. Gutfeld recently joined the chorus of right wing voices defending Russell Brand, after the British "comedian" was accused by multiple women of sexual violence and rape. Gutfeld applauded a teacher who got arrested for having sex with a 16-year-old student. And he claimed men only cry because of "substances in the water that reduce testosterone."

The jokey tone of some of this is there to insulate it from criticism, but Gutfeld isn't joking. The party of Donald "Grab 'Em By The Pussy" Trump shows no limits in normalizing extremely toxic masculinity and sexual violence. That much is evident in new court filings in the first big test case for the abortion "bounty hunter" law in Texas. The author of the law, former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, has so far shown no shame that his client — who is suing his ex-wife's friends for helping her abort a pregnancy — displays a long history of abusive, controlling behavior. Mitchell shrugged off reports that his client, Marcus Silva, tried to prevent his wife from working and called her names like "slut" and "whore" in front of her coworkers.

So it's unlikely that Mitchell will mind a new filing providing evidence that Silva threatened to upload sexually explicit videos of his ex-wife, unless she returned home to clean and do laundry for him. Or that he used blackmail methods in an attempt to rape her, saying he would drop the lawsuit if she had sex with him. The document had a transcript of Silva, this latest "hero" of the anti-abortion movement, telling his ex, "You’re just gonna have your fcking life destroyed in every fcking way that you can imagine to where you want to blow your f*cking brains out."

It's not surprising that Mitchell would be fine with this treatment of women. As he argued to the Supreme Court in 2021, women have it coming by not "refraining from sexual intercourse." But now, of course, Mitchell is working for a man whose goal is to force his ex-wife to have sex with him.

One would think, after the political backlash to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Republicans would not be so eager to advertise how the anti-choice movement is about controlling women and not "life." But, as David Kirkpatrick of the New Yorker writes, the head of Alliance Defending Freedom, the biggest conservative legal group in the country, was open about how the goal is to destroy access to contraception. "It may be that the day will come when people say the birth-control pill was a mistake," Alan Sears explained.

What's notable is this extremism isn't just relegated to the world of fundamentalist Christianity. The more secular and more proudly fascist right — which is increasingly cossetted and promoted by the tech billionaire world of Elon Musk and his buddies — has been aggressively promoting pseudo-scientific arguments in favor of extreme curtailing of sexual freedom.

The most prominent example is Costin Alamariu, a self-declared fascist who has become an "intellectual" darling on the right for putting a faux-intellectual gloss on some of the most evil impulses of the MAGA movement. He's been blogging for a long time under the name "Bronze Age Pervert," which makes him sound fun, but of course, he's anything but. His book, "Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy," has become an Amazon bestseller because he's promoted by the grossest people on the internet. He proposes strict control over human "breeding" on the facetious grounds that it's necessary for the betterment of humanity, which he mostly understands in extremely racist terms. In his newsletter, John Ganz quotes Alamariu's writing:

I make the case in this introduction that this same matter of selective breeding, whether sexual selection, or various societies' management of marriage and reproduction, constitutes the most important part of morality, legislation, or of the "lawgiver's art," and that a sharp awareness of this reality is what led, again, to the discovery of the standard of nature and the subsequent birth of philosophy.

As Graeme Wood at the Atlantic pointed out, on his blog, Alamariu dispenses with the faux-academic language for an earthier version of the same arguments. "He considers American cities a 'wasteland' run by Jews and Black people, though the words he uses to denote these groups are considerably less genteel than these," he writes. Christopher Rufo has publicly praised Alamariu.

The sexual weirdness of the MAGA movement is deeply intertwined with the racism and the violence. Alamariu's writings are just saying the quiet part out loud: Sexual control, especially of women, is largely fueled by notions about "breeding" future generations, especially to look a certain way that racists want them to. Normalizing violence against women is part of that scheme, since, as fascists long have understood, women often don't go along voluntarily.

Because this is so weird, it's tempting to ignore it as the chattering of a fringe group of men are still mad they didn't get laid in college. But that would be a mistake, and not just because some of those men have become wildly powerful:

As the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court shows, Republicans are never content to keep their massive sexual issues to themselves. They are determined to make everyone else suffer, not only by rolling back reproductive rights but by aggressively normalizing sexual and domestic violence. The throughline here is a belief that women aren't full human beings, but a sexual resource to be put under male control, by violence if necessary. It's a view they're getting increasingly less coy about publicly sharing.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    176
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    How long are we, as a society, going to allow shit like this in the name of free speech? Read this shit, listen to it, it is not good shit. It is blatantly evil. I've about had it. Shut the fuck up. This isn't free speech, this is fucking hate speech.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thats never going to happen through beaurocratic channels. It would be up to the citizens to enforce it but… yeah… a house divided or something.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          More a tolerance of intolerance that’s at fault than a house divided.

          We need to stop an intolerant minority that is allowed to have outsized influence because of some shitty antiquated laws and manipulated voting districts.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hope they are a minority. Its really hard for me to tell the demographics today living in a swing state. Feels like half of America is okay with being fascists sometimes.

    • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How long are we, as a society, going to allow shit like this in the name of free speech?

      It feels that those nations that experienced the Nazi terror of the Third Reich have a much better idea of what constitutes dangerous speech.

      Allowing this kind of stochastic terrorism out of some misguided notion of "free speech" is just not a good idea.

      • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        It's the paradox of tolerance:

        Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

        Sir Karl Popper, 1945

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The part that I can’t understand is they say you can say whatever you want as long as you’re not being physically violent while ignoring the hard fact that everyone has a limit. If someone yells hateful things at you 12 hours a day at some point you need to protect your psyche. It works the other way too in that people who are constantly exposed to hateful ideas in an echo chamber will eventual act on those ideas. This simply isn’t a problem with the other end of the spectrum in that someone surrounded by caring people who teach kindness will never become a threat to anyone.

      • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if I say something to you enough times, then it should be legal to take physical violent action against me?

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You made a lot of assumptions there. I never said it should be legal. I am stating a fact that everyone has a point that they will snap, even the most devoted pacifist. Some people have a lot of patience and others have none but everyone will snap eventually if you add enough time. So for your example I encourage you to chose anyone at random (not a child please) and run the experiment. Please get back to me and tell me how it goes.

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

      This is demands to have the right to exterminate some groups and violently subjugate everyone else. They should be afraid to go to the grocery store

    • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ll stop when we can make it where everyone can say what they want and have it magically not affect national politics.

    • Dienervent@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I'm confused as to which shit you're referring to. OP's rant or Trump's speeches? Either way, if you let someone start controlling which speech is allowed and which is not based on the ideas it contains at a society-wide level, you'll have created a tyrant. It's not a good plan.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Similarly, if you allow people to spew hateful diarrhea from their mouths eventually half the country will believe them. I myself, would much rather live in a society that punches people who say women are naturally subservient to men than one that does not. Its not a bad thing to punch shit heads. They're only so bold and out there with racism/misogyny/anti-semitism because they never suffer the consequences of having their teeth knocked out of their still-moving jowls. Maybe I just need a break, but I am over all these cunts flying their flags proud.

        • Dienervent@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          1 year ago

          That's only because you listen to OP's nonsense. Meanwhile the trump supporters are in their own echo chambers and thing you're either a pedo or a pedo defender so you deserve to get punched too.

          The right, especially Trump supporters are dangerous, not because of their "weird sexuality" or misogyny. But because they're trying to dismantle democracy. Free speech is an essential component of democracy and they'll go after it the second they get an ounce of power.

          You talk about not wanting to allow hate speech, yet the speech you just read is making you want to punch people. That's what hate speech looks like.

          • Nougat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Free speech is not unlimited, and never has been. When your speech infringes upon - or causes to be infringed - someone else's rights, your speech should be limited. Slander and libel are illegal. When your speech creates an unjustified panic, your speech should be limited. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless there is a fire. When your speech creates a legitimate threat to someone's life or limb, it should be limited. You can't call for the execution of your political enemies when your supporters have demonstrated that they are willing and able to commit violent crimes on your behalf … unless you're Donald Trump, apparently.

            • Poggervania@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yup - and honestly, the people who blindly follow people like Trump or the GOP just “to own the libs” and those like Sanctus who say they’d “rather live in a society that punches people who say women are naturally subservient to men than one that does not,” are the same kind of person: the kind of people who want to control the speech of people who say things they don’t like.

              Hate speech, from either side, should not be tolerated. The right tends to say a lot more batshit insane things that are downright vile, and I am deeply sadden that what they say is fucking okay and even cool with others, but that doesn’t give a free pass for people to go “well we should harm them or kill them or something”. Ideally, we would be holding people to a higher standard - especially those in public office - because saying stuff like “women are men’s property”, “maybe Hitler was right”, and “fuck black/hispanic/asian people” is actually hate speech, and that should be called out and have people held accountable for.

            • Dienervent@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              First of all, I'm not talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be.

              But the way the law treats speech in the United States, I think is correct.

              If you're trying to immorally cause direct harm with your speech (e.g. calling Fire in a crowded theater, or organizing an insurrection) then that should be illegal.

              If you're only talking about the idea related to these, like how you think it should be legal to punch Nazis. Then that should be allowed by allow. But the people around you should call you out for being full of hate and spreading hate and that you're really not being the good person you think you are when you're doing this and you should stop.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            I dont see how I am listening. Trump is calling for outright violence, punch him. Tate brothers selling women hate books creating hordes of incels, punch them. RFJ Jr spitting anti-semetic world domination conspiracies? Punch him, too. Its not hard to identify these people, they wear it on their sleeves. Even the pedophiles, like Matt Gaetz. Saying people should get punched and suffer consequences for hate speech is not hate speech. Saying the Jews control the world and should all be killed is hate speech. Hate speech targets a demographic. People saying idiotic and hateful shit is not a demographic.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don't think that the misogyny talked about in the post is dangerous? Asking for clarification here, but are you openly saying a political ideology promoting misogyny isn't dangerous?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                As someone who has faced years of virulent antisemitism, some of which has led to violence when I didn't respond… ideas are fucking dangerous.

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

                Have to be intolerant of intolerance or you lose freedom and free speech. We as a society have to decide that intolerant speech that tries to remove rights from certain demographics is in fact harmful and evil and intolerable.

                We're not talking about academic debates here or hypothetical arguments. Folks are actively working to reduce the rights of others, and in some places they're winning. Advocating to reduce rights of others is not okay.

                Normally I would agree censorship is not the answer. However without limits, we will see hate gain ground. Part of being a society is setting limits of acceptable behavior, we can't shit in the aisle at the grocery store, we can't propagate hate speech, both of these rules (should) exist to protect ourselves as a group. Pretty simple stuff.

                • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Talking about reducing rights isn't what reduces them. Those in power dictate what our rights are, and the more power we give them the more they will take them away. People with money limit our rights; people with power limit our rights, but people with nothing but speech simply cannot. Don't give those in power the power to dictate what we're allowed to say simply because an extreme minority of people have opinions you don't like. One day you'll find yourself being the one that has an opinion they don't like, and by then you won't be able to defend yourself against it, because no one will be able to hear you.

              • TechyDad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ideas certainly can be dangerous. There are plenty of people in America today with the idea that I, as a Jew, am somehow evil and behind everything they label as bad in society.

                Ideas like that lead to action to "fix the situation." This could be everything from relegating me to a second class citizen for the "crime of being Jewish" to pushing for a second Holocaust. Without the dangerous idea, the dangerous actions wouldn't occur.

                I will agree that we need to be careful when we censor dangerous ideas. If we do it in a sloppy fashion, the right could gain power and use the same mechanism to ban ideas that they think are "dangerous." Things like LGBTQ people deserve to exist, POC deserve to be treated the same as white people, women deserve to be treated as equals to men. You know, really dangerous ideas to right wing straight white Christian men.

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

        I've got to agree. I hate speech like the examples in the article and would love to restrict it, but we need to be careful about how we do it.

        Suppose a law was passed tomorrow allowing a federal agency to deem certain speech not covered by Free Speech. (Also assume this survived the inevitable court challenges.) The Biden administration might only restrict speech targeting women, LGBTQ people, POC, etc. What would happen if Trump won in 2024, though? What kinds of speech would his administration label as illegal?

        Whenever we work to give a government agency power, we should ask ourselves what the Republicans would do with this power and what guardrails are there to prevent abuse. Otherwise, we're just handing the Republicans the tools to silence us the second they regain power.

      • C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just know that a bunch of bots and paid commentors are responding to your post here. They're programmed/paid to see comments like yours in all sorts of forums and respond by saying how stupid you are and explaining why free speech is evil. Stand tall, very few actually believe this, and the ones that do (those currently in power) all stand to benefit from us being silenced.

  • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Women don’t want to fuck conservative men anymore. So they’re trying to punish women for it.

  • DevCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds and looks like just another bunch of nazis dressed differently. In German, there is a saying when talking about Soviet/Russian leadership changes, "Selber Ivan, andere Hosen." "Same Ivan, different pants."

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Arm yourselves my liberal brethren. It's not a statistical blip that POC, LGBT and women are currently (and have been) the largest gun purchasing demographic. And they're asking how to learn safely and train. If you haven't heard this talk, it's because they're hiding it from you. "How do I approach the subject with my liberal friends?", is an oft asked question.

    What did that guy say at the Israeli festival? Something about how all he could think about was how to defend himself and/or fight back?

    You don't have to choose sides. You only have to choose self-defense. I won't be on the next round of trains. Your choice.

    I'll do my damndest for you if you choose to be harmless. But I am a peaceful man, because I made a choice.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the lead-up to the 2016 election, in men's online spaces, there was a concerted and organized recruiting effort by white supremacists. They used legitimate men's issues like circumcision, suicide, or child custody as gateways to gradually expose men to increasingly outlandish propaganda. Conservative media was more than willing to give these people a soapbox to spread their propaganda further. Trump further normalized it. It's nearly identical to the tactics used to build support for authoritarian dictatorships through history. I'm afraid that we are far past the point where there can be any peaceful resolution.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    I disagree about the cause and effect here. It’s not that they’re promoting sexual abuse to get control of breeding, they’re demanding control of breeding to justify their demands to have the right to abuse women sexually.

    These are people who really exemplify that Wilde quote: “everything’s about sex, except sex that’s about power”

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      You make a good point. The power and control are their goal, sexual repression is the means to that end.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah they want to never have to earn a woman’s love and loyalty as a fellow human being. In part because that’s hard, it takes a lifetime of hard work to keep another person willingly loyal to you. You have to treat them with kindness, respect, loyalty, etc and even then there’s still a chance that they break your trust. What these people want is for none of that. And they’ll hurt anyone to get it

  • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh look, christians are trying to restrict consentual sex while helping and hiding rapists and pedos.

    Wow, couldn't see that coming.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems to go way beyond simply domestic abuse. On a societal level, they are trying very hard (and in some areas of the country, succeeding) to bring us back to a time when the patriarchy had enough power that any man could beat the shit out of any women they want, for any (or no) reason, and expect zero consequences.

      They want to do away with marital rape laws, and divorce.

      This is more than just some old white men who like beating on their wives a bit every now and then…

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Think the point is that they are both in favor of domestic abuse and getting weirder about sex.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seriously, who didn't see any of this at least as far back as 2015, and certainly by 2016, when donnie "won" and these people started to step out of the shadows because they thought donnie's "win" would allow them to be their absolute worst selves right away.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      My first thought reading this post was “RECENT WEEKS?!?!!?”

      A lot of stuff changed several years ago when he became a real thing in politics, but most of the stuff since then has seemed par for the course (the batshit insane course, but still).

    • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Recently, my Nanna said, "Those young rich women think it's so cool to get their abortions and have sex." It took a while to unpack that with her.

    • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mostly about the parts that have to do with imbalances of power. They love those. Two+ actually consenting adults living their lives openly and honestly is threatening to them, though.

      • JamesStallion@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Let's not pretend that imbalances of power aren't an enormously popular fetish for all kinds of people. I have never met a woman who wasn't into it to some degree and I suspect the vast majority of men are into it too.

        • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you're talking about a kink or a fetish like BDSM, that's very very different from, say, criminalising reproductive rights and education. No safe word's going to get you out of that one.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember ladies, if a guy says he's not political on his dating profile, that means he's conservative but has learned that won't get him laid.

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

          Anyone not left of center is a total write-off of a human. I don't care about their fiscal opinions, but they'd better be socially progressive or I will have nothing to do with them.

          I once threw my husband's friend's boyfriend out of my house halfway through dinner for calling people trannies (and also for vaping through dinner without asking).

          • Comment105@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            We use the same strategy nationally with voters, end up as an ethical minority, and lose real political power.

              • pandacoder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Or the vaping without permission inside someone else's home during a meal.

                It's impressive the level of mental gymnastics to jump around both and call the act of kicking them out excessive seeing as both are sufficient justification on their own, let alone together.

                • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What he specifically said was "oh trannies think they can just chop their dicks off and we're supposed to believe they're female and accept that.'

                  Just the word trannies by itself would have been enough but that was beyond the pale.

                  So I said "We are going to wrap up the evening now. Please leave. I don't keep friends who talk this way. Also vaping is disgusting.".

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

                kicking a guest out of your house outright is pretty excessive. could just wait until they leave and simply not invite them again

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

                  Can I come over to your house? I promise I will not take a giant shit right on the floor. I will be a good guest, as defined by your defintion of good guest.

                  Please respond soon, I’m crowning. I mean hungry. what’s for dinner?

                  In seriousness, that sounds passive-agressive af. Why not tell your guest why you don’t want to see them again? If people don’t communicate, people can’t grow.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          That article about trump staffers getting no dates in DC remains one of the funniest pieces of writing I've ever seen.

          I think at one point the term Staffcest was coined to describe guys swarming any available girls within the admin.

        • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ooh tell me more. I bet that was hilarious in retrospect.

          God, imagine dating a conservative. I can't. What would you talk about, how he hates women?

          • Cat without eyebrows @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well in those days I was extremely clear on my dating profile about my political views. But you get these guys trying to lie about it because it's tough out there for the maga boys I guess. Anyway he wouldn't stop calling and trying to argue me into giving him a chance 🤣. Meanwhile I ubered to a concert where some friends were, shook it off, and moved on to the next one a week later who turned out to be my awesome progressive husband

            • Cat without eyebrows @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              As I recall one of the arguments was 'it's batshit crazy' not to date someone because of their politics. Rest assured those screenshots circulated widely in the friend group and were heartily mocked

              • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lol I love it!

                Yeah it's really batshit crazy to not want to date someone who believes women and queer and non-white people are inferior. Sure bud.

  • figaro@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I'm currently watching "The handmaid's tale." If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. It's basically the story of what happens when the right wing extremists get exactly what they want.

    It is devastating and tragic, and also a very stark warning about what that future actually looks like.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the show first premiered, critics said "it's just like the book from the 80s: paranoid poppycock" as if the events of the story could never happen. Meanwhile, in the US, you had Jan 6th which has TONS of parallels to the events of the show where the right wing extremists assassinate all of the moderates and Liberals in Congress before rolling back civil rights for women.

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

      Man, I used to be way into that show when it first premiered. It's top notch in terms of writing/keeping you on the edge of your seat. Now it just stokes my anxiety about what could happen. I can't watch it at all. I had downloaded the book back when I was into it, but I can't finish it. It's too real.

      Living in Texas, I fear how far Greg Abbott could take it. I don't think it's going to get quite that bad, but I didn't even want it to be as close as it currently is (no abortions except rape and threat to life of the mother - with caveats such as the rape must be reported immediately and women must be actively dying before docs step in).

      Now I just am too mentally spent to fucking deal.