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.
I knew a gay republican couple. They both cheated on each other constantly. They didn’t do anything pro-gay or even remotely lgbt themed. They were actively ashamed of who they were. Both from affluent families, so that makes sense. One of them got me super drunk, and then took advantage of me while his partner was out of town. These are not good people.
I know two married men who are openly and claim to be happily gay, adopted 4 children, but are so pro-trump and all that crazy shit. Idk how they can be like that. As a gay woman, it’s so confusing.
As a straight guy, I’m also confused.
Ah, the Hateful Gay Type. Met a few of them in my life, all Trump supporters too. Never made any damn sense to me. Like they are driven by being a bitter piece of shit.
I get the feeling they’re just normal hateful people who happen to be gay and are angry about it and committed to making it everyone’s problem
Gay people are just like all other people.
hehe. You’re implying gay people aren’t regular people.
I think the implication is that “angry gay” is a distinct category with traits that aren’t purely the result of being angry or being gay.
Also I think people get way too hung up on the idea that being “normal” is good, so not being normal must be bad. Since that probably can’t be fixed, I think it’s better to use the word “typical” instead of normal because it’s not so loaded.
Good point. I’ve changed it.
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 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?
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.
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.
Damn, black gays for trump must be getting pounded then. Pun intended 🙂
Oh, weird, because their MAGA support is ruining other people’s lives as well but it doesn’t seem to cross their mind.
Being a complete moron ain’t exclusive to straight people.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.”
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
You don’t have to be smart to be gay
Lol the cognitive dissonance levels here, insane.
I vote for criminalization of my friends and family. Why are they pissed at me?
They’re in the sunken place.
Leopard-loving people say their leopard face-eating support is ruining their lives
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.
Same thing. Cults are never small.
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.
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
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.
MEGA cult. Not to be confused with MAGA 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?
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.
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.
