Apparently, Jews for Hitler are also having some trouble. They’re commiserating with the black members of the KKK and the Association of Marxist-Leninist Landlords.
Good.
Oh, weird, because their MAGA support is ruining other people’s lives as well but it doesn’t seem to cross their mind.
I would never suck a MAGA dick. Enjoy being lonely while your cult worships the orange fascist!
MAGA isn’t a cult. Cults are small. MAGA is big enough to be a religion, which is far more dangerous.
Cults are completely different from religion and size is not a defining factor. They’re more similar to a con and will sometimes use religion to exert control.
Knitting Cult Lady is great! She has a video outlining 7 defining characteristics of cults but I can’t find it.
That’s a myth perpetuated by Christian mums during the satanic panic. Back in the 60s the hippie movement was in full swing and young people were abandoning Christianity to follow pagan religions like Wicca and Hellenism. Christian pastors felt threatened, so they came up with a conspiracy to take the word cult (which up until then had meant a small religion) and make it a bad word by association with abuse. That’s why all the historical examples of cults that predate the 60s have no association with abuse. You take an example like the Cult of Dionysus and there’s no pejorative meaning to the word.
I don’t think it’s a myth if it has become an area of study. Yes, words have different meanings like “theory” does in and out of academia, but the current understanding of the word is much more comprehensive than a small religion. And MAGA is most definitely a cult of personality that uses religion as a tool.
You can do science on any made up word and reach genuine conclusions with flawed premises. Look at phrenology and scientific racism. If you ignore the question “is this thing real?” and skip straight to “what are the associations with this thing”, you’ll find something. It’ll be nonsense, but it’ll be there.
For example, suppose I look at the habits of clowns and roofers. I don’t question why clowns and roofers are associated, I just assume they are and check the data. The data I find will be the overlay of two different trends. I’ll reach all sorts of conclusions about clowns that are only true of roofers, and vice versa. The data will say clowns love a good beer after being outdoors all day, and roofers visit party stores a lot. That’s nonsense, but if I don’t question the association, the data will show it.
Associating small religions with abusive religions is the same mistake. The data will tell you all sorts of things about small and abusive religions, but it won’t tell you which trend belongs to which group, and people will make all sorts of wrong assumptions based on the wacky data.
Yep, science has churned out some whacky stuff before. But what? So you’re saying that the study of non-religious or coincidentally religious cults as a means to exploit and control is pure made-up nonsense? That’s kind of wild to me considering how characteristic and consistent their modus operandi is. MAGA fits the bill so well, for example, that I have a hard time believing they don’t exist. And I’d like to hear some opinions from people in the know, like Daniella Mestyanek from the link above, who you’re essentially saying her entire field of study is based on a lie.
You’re right. Even the moonies had big politicians kissing up to them once they got big enough and no one blinked, despite their leader openly claiming he was above Jesus Christ of Nazareth on the heavenly totem poll.
We’re dealing with a very strange religion.
Well, no. When you’re talking about the kind of massive institutional power of the kind that buys politicians and institutes theocratic dictatorships, that kind of power is exclusive to larger religions. You won’t see that kind of thing from a cult. Now a cult may well have beliefs just as vile as a religion, and it may ruin lives, but it doesn’t have the institutional power it takes to crush all opposition like you see from MAGA and Christianity.
The church of scientology.
Also not a cult.
Look into it. But not too hard or too publicly.
Were you paying attention earlier in the thread when I said cults are small, or are you expecting me to investigate Scientology and find that surprise, they’re actually very small and don’t have many members?
MEGA cult. Not to be confused with MAGA cult.
You telling me that the “religion” that sued the Cult Awareness Network into oblivion so they wouldn’t be labeled a cult is not a cult?
The Cult Awareness Network presented itself as a source of information about “cults”; by 1991 it was monitoring over 200 groups that it referred to as “mind-control cults”. It also promoted a form of coercive intervention by self-styled “deprogrammers” who would, for a significant fee, forcibly detain or even abduct the cult member and subject them to a barrage of attacks on their beliefs, supposedly in order to counter the effects of the brainwashing. The practice, which could involve criminal actions such as kidnapping and false imprisonment, generated controversy, and Ted Patrick and others faced both civil and criminal proceedings.
Gee, I fucking wonder why they lost that lawsuit. Scientologists are evil, but so was the Cult Awareness Network. You’re not going to convince anyone that those assholes were doing the right thing. You can’t expect a bunch of kidnappers to have a good opinion about what is and isn’t a cult. Scientology is a large scale religion, which makes it much worse than a cult. Now I don’t want to hear you defending the Scientologists by calling them a cult again.
Same thing. Cults are never small.
Cult is just a word the big congregation uses about the small congregation
The new lexicon is “High demand group”
This encompasses cults, religions, MLMs, and all sorts of other groups that behave cult-like attributes
Anti-theist here, religion in all it’s forms is a blight on humanity, but let’s not muddle the waters with misused vocabulary.
The difference between a cult and a religion is not the number of believers, it’s how much they enforce groupthink, how hard it is to leave and if they are based around a charismatic leader who profits directly from the imposed sameness and thought control. Generally cults:
- Rush you into joining and discourage or disallow questions.
- Followers are encouraged to worship a specific group leader.
- Leaders dictate in great detail all aspects of followers’ lives.
- Followers are personally monitored to ensure they’re following guidelines.
- Methods of control are used to keep members close.
That’s how, for example the catholic church isn’t a cult but scientology is. The sharp surveilance and strong measures in place to prevent deviancy make all the difference. It’s easy to leave catholicism, but leaving scientology can even be dangerous.
That’s a measure of the abusiveness of a religion and has nothing to do with its size. I already explained in depth in another comment the political motivations for creating a second, fake definition of the word cult. If you consult Merriam Webster you’ll see the first definition of the word cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and none of the definitions mention abuse, because your claim is ahistorical myth.
I can understand people disagreeing with them, but kicking sand and attacking people is literally the actions of fascist too. You don’t win people over by attacking them.
You don’t, but at this point if they haven’t chosen the correct side it’s kind of on them.
So you attack them & tell them it is their fault that you’re attacking them? Kind of like how an abuser would blame the abused?
Your analogy assumes innocence. In fact, it’s so strained that I have to believe you’re operating in bad faith here, or made a lapse in judgement.
It assumes that you’re the instigator of physical violence.
deleted by creator
So do you have a link or somewhere I can learn more about your domestic terrorist organization?
deleted by creator
So you keep this information stored on your local computer? Isn’t it dangerous?
deleted by creator
Who am I jerking off here?
The rest of the conversation is missing, but you seem to be looking for volunteers to be jerked off by you?
Reminds me of a piece that is gone – but the below rephrase comes from here: https://mstdn.social/@ZhiZhu/109502665651546617
"The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated."
I like that. That’s a helpfully consistent way of framing it.
deleted by creator
You don’t prevent your bar from becoming a nazi bar by asking nicely though.
So what’s the plan then? You going to punch the other side in the face to win their votes and show them how anti-fascist you are?
You make it clear they’re not welcome in the community, by force if necessary, and you let them back in once they’ve shown they can be trusted to be a member of the community again. IF they show they’ve changed.
I’ve been on a committee of people making this decision more than once. Rarely do people change enough to be welcomed back. Community self policing is the only way to really protect yourself when the government shows they wont.
Where do they go? Do you propose that America has red states where only conservatives should live & blue states where liberals can live? Do you want to put over half of voters in concentration camps?
deleted by creator
So 30% support fascism according to you, but come elections over 40% are expected to vote for Trump. Who are the other 10%? Are the people voting for RFK Jr. fascist? Would that mean over 50% of Americans are fascist? Do you expect 39% to win in a war against over 50%?
deleted by creator
Oh no, the slipperiest of slopes attached to nothing but pure conjecture! I will never be hungry again with all of the words you just put into my mouth!
Removed by mod
Their point was that kicking someone out of a small club isn’t the same as kicking them out of the state.
Your exaggeration of their point is what made it bad, not the point itself. That’s what the slippery slope fallacy is.
They saw no point in debating your exaggerated question because it was so different to their position.
They showed that they understood your debating technique better than you showed.
Maybe if fascists got their faces punched in more often they’d understand that getting punched in the face sucks and that maybe they shouldn’t advocate for punching people in the face in the first place.
Was Biden voting against same-sex marriages and gay people serving in the military a fascist once? Will Democrats call Biden a recovered fascist?
You once were a child, making poor decisions. Are you still that way? (waves at the rest of the crowd to hold their comments) No? Would you look at that then, it’s like people are capable of growing and learning.
So, you fuck that bullshit narrative here and now, past and future actions don’t mean shit. People change for better or worse, and you don’t sit on your ass and point fingers because past or promises, but by current actions, things occurring here and now.
And right the fuck now there’s only one realistic option for the LGBT+ community in the states, so I don’t particularly give a damn what the fuck happened decades ago. If you’re still stuck in the past, might want to reflect on that. The rest of us have bigger shit to worry about.
If you’re worried about LGBTQ+ community then you’d be advocating for Biden to step down.
hi, am part of said community. i’ll gladly punch a fascist in the face for being fascist. it’s like a cancer, essentially; you give it any room to breathe & it will take over the whole thing. just look at what happened to the skinhead movement. but, yeah, they want us dead or in camps anyway & civil discussion obviously doesn’t work when fascist philosophy only works if everyone involved is actively playing dumb & as such, not playing by the same rules as everyone else.
it’s like people are capable of growing and learning.
except biden didn’t learn or grow; he has a long history of going with the status quo and the status quo currently says that gays are okay and if gays were not okay tomorrow with the status quo; biden would tow that line as well.
and i wish i had your privilege of ignoring the recent past; we’ve learned from it because it was so painful and we’re still trying to recover.
That sounds like the right answer, but really, I’d be right there kicking sand.
I had a friend who is gay and supported Mitt Romney back in the day. He campaigned against gays. Obama won and legalized same-sex marriage. She is now married to her wife. Reminds me of her
obama didn’t legalize same sex marriage; the supreme court did
Granted, you’re technically right. Support for it was certainly a large part of Obama’s campaign though. It’s unclear what the overall result would have been for Obergfell vs Hodges with an administration that would have been vitriolic to the ruling.
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.
– barrack obama 2008 during his campaign.
Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it. There were some weird semantics about naming nomenclature of calling it a marriage in the early 2000’s. During the primaries he gave vague answers about some religions being opposed to it but did flip from earlier statements about same-sex marriages in his earlier career
Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it.
doma was voted and enacted in 1996.
obama entered federal politics in 2008.
the supreme court invalidated doma in 2015.
doma was repealed in 2022
You’re right and I’m misremembering how it happened. I really thought DOMA was later. I’m not sure the distinction between invalidating in verse repealing it. He may have seemed more pro-LGBTQ since others were more outwardly against it.
I’m not sure the distinction between invalidating in verse repealing it.
in practical terms:
- the repeal had no impact and was done by a congressional act that gave anti-lgbtq bigots legal protections for their bigotry; it was little more than political theater to make democrats seem more progressive on an issue that they chose wrongly (and cover biden’s ass) in 1996.
- the invalidation meant that i could sponsor my life partner for citizenship, but he had already been deported years prior and he was (barely) young enough to know that he had enough time to rebuild his life with someone else and did so; while i was too old and autistic to make getting back on that horse a reality.
He may have seemed more pro-LGBTQ since others were more outwardly against it.
i suspect there’s a blind spot when it comes to democratic voters and lgbt issues; it’s assumed they’re more gay friendly unless you’re bitten by their anti-gay policies.
How is this an example of leopards eating faces?
In this case the backlash is from the gay community to a (stupid) member of the gay community, so saying it’s a leopards-eating-faces party (lefp) member getting their face eaten would mean the gay community is the lefp right? I don’t think that’s what the lefp meme is about
You’re right, but people aren’t listening to what your point is. Come on lemmy, you’re better than this
🤷😮💨
No you and that commenter are literally wrong lmfao what do you even mean.
The meme derives humor from the fact that someone who voted for leopards was surprised when leopards hurt them.
The gays in the article supported bigots and was surprised when the bigots started to hurt them.
The article’s ambiguous, but I read it as the LGBT community (rightfully) showering them with sand, not bigots doing it to be dicks.
That would fit with the rest of the article, which includes the fellow who got blacklisted from his local gay bar for being MAGA.
Hey hey now I’m just here to argue, not read articles
It’s the dumbest possible thing to argue about, and the Internet is 86% people finding dumb things to argue about
I don’t take kindly to your tone! There are a thousand other ways you could have said this. Let’s fight about it!
Oh, yeah! Also, your mom is fat and you over feed your pets, I’m assuming.
Your lover made a minor faux pas? They’re a sociopath and they never loved you.
I bite my thumb at thee
Ha, that’s my favorite part of that play.
“Is the law of our side if I say aye?”
“No.”
Just plain “no”. Gets me every time.
deleted by creator
This person supports policies that hurt themselves and their peers. Now their peers are angry with them for supporting things that hurt them. They are being hurt by the result of what they support.
That’s not leopards eating faces though. That’s a guy voting for the leopards-eating-faces party and getting his shit rocked by his fellow citizens for endangering them.
A little bit of column A, a lotta bit of column B.
Yeah, but in this case it’s not the leopards eating their face (yet). They’ve voted for the leopards, people are angry at them for it, but so far the leopards have only eaten other peoples faces
Eh, then you could say voting progressive and getting attacked by your conservative community would count as leopards eating face, since you’re getting hurt by the result of what you support.
The meme is about voting for the harm and being directly harmed by the policy voted for, like if someone voted to ban abortions and then couldn’t get one when they needed it. Voting to ban abortions and then getting backlash from your friends is not leopards eating face (yet) either
This guy is voting not only to have his own face eaten, but everyone else’s within his community. I wouldn’t want to acquaint myself with someone like that either.
I’m not saying the guy did a good thing. In this article he voted for the leopard party, but hasn’t had his face eaten yet. He voted for the leopard party and everyone was fucking pissed at him for it
idk I thought the leopards eating faces party meme was mainly for examples of them both voting for leopards and getting their face eaten.
It’s a little more nuanced than that. The typical face eating leopards voter doesn’t have enough critical thinking to figure out they’ll get eaten eventually. Everyone else around him knows they’re gourmet leopard food and it’s only a matter of time before they’d get eaten. I wouldn’t wait to hold my judgment on the guy until after the inevitable happens because of his dumb-ass decision.
I see, so the meme is also used in cases where they voted for the leopards but haven’t had their face eaten yet?
They think it’s ruining their lives now? Wait till after the election
Me as any vulnerable minority supporting Trump’s fascist project:
Lol the cognitive dissonance levels here, insane.
I vote for criminalization of my friends and family. Why are they pissed at me?
I mean, you’ve got to be stupid to be a MAGA head. But being gay and a MAGA head you need to be terminally dumb. Amazing that such people can breathe without intellectual assistance.
Dumb or horribly self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are plenty parts of America that help instill that feeling.
They just think he’ll surely only go after Other people, that they’ll be safe, part of the “In” group.
Upper middle class white folks
Yup, every Republican woman is deeply into self loathing. I can’t tell you how many Republican woman I’ve heard say women can’t be leaders or it takes a man to do what’s right.
Just look at all the rightwingers that head anti-pedo movements that get busted for having CP or being actual groomers. (The list is LONG)
That’s just another tactic of projection. Republican woman are just mad that they aren’t men and need to justify their own subjugation by ensuring they get second place in the social hierarchy instead of questioning why there’s a hierarchy in the first place. Thinking for yourself is difficult, so being told what to do is easy. Even if that means being told to hate yourself. Hell Christianity’s first chronological story boils down to “women are the reason life sucks.”
“OWWW! MY OWN FOOT THAT I SHOT!!!”
I never thought leopards would shoot MY foot!
The person I really don’t understand- I mean I know she’s a horrible person, but I still don’t understand it- is Caitlyn Jenner. She’s supporting a party that openly wants to erase her.
She is the typical Republican -“Oh, but I’m the exeption. Thats different.”- type. She also speaks out publicly and loudly against trans women in women’s sports and then turns around and plays a women’s golf tournament.
I guess I can’t fathom the level of cognitive dissonance it takes to vociferously get behind people who want you dead, but I guess these people existed too- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
I’m glad you guys always come packing this link. Folks should know about this.
level of cognitive dissonance
it’s doublethink. there is no “dissonance.” they literally believe two completely contradictory things simultaneously and have no problem with it
Yeah. Cognitive dissonance is “the mental disturbance people feel when their beliefs and actions are inconsistent and contradictory”. If you’re happy with holding contradictory beliefs, that’s doublethink.
Yeah but golf isn’t a sport.
She has money. It’s a total “rules for thee but not for me” situation
They’re going to find out, too late, that they’re not immune to bullets, windows, or poison and that their money can be seized by the ones who disappear them.
Yep. I’m absolutely terrified that I’ll have to go into the closet again. I’m afraid my one homophobic and transphobic coworker would report me if being gay becomes straight up illegal. Only person I know personally who isn’t cool with it.
It’s both better and worse than that. It’s extremely unlikely that being gay could become straight up illegal, but is it really any different if discrimination is ok, gay marriage and family benefits are outlawed, being gay is again a “security concern”, police harassment is ok, and people again become hostile?
It’s Wealth.
If you have more money than most people, you convince yourself that you are different and more important than other people. The way you are treated validates that notion.
So politically, you’ll vote for people who protect your wealth rather than people who will protect your identity, because your wealth already protects you better than any anti-discrimination law could.
Money talks.
And bullshit walks.
I never thought about it that way but that makes perfect sense.
