trannies taking the whole LGBT down with them
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (54)
sorted by:
The fact that Republicans were over 50% at one point, and the amount of explicit gay support in THIS VERY thread shows why conservatives never win...
Didn't you hear? Conservativism is only about free market and less government involvement, and give more money to Israel. Has nothing to do with conserving race, language, and culture
I guess all the downvotes we're getting from "fellow conservatives" means you're right! But maybe they're right, sodomy ain't so bad...all sorts of successful civilizations had it in droves and weren't depraved and misguided at all!
We have the best legal gun wielding nigger faggot weed growers, don't we folks.
Quick question: when was the last time the GOP made any attempt to restrict the mass importation of third-world migrants?
Never? I was being sarcastic dude.
This. The apologetics for a perverse cultural-religion anchored on fetishism is disturbing.
Conservative being the only word for The Right in America shines a big light on the politics in America.
Odd that independents are trending slightly up, while both rep and dem are trending sharply down
Consenting homosexual relationships are neither moral nor immoral to me. They may be inferior in long-term societal value than the optimal heterosexual relationship, but they are simply a non-issue. A gay couple that is monogamous to each other in a long-term, successful, relationship is morally better than a heterosexual broken home where we see drug abuse, physical violence, and child neglect. Two gays involved in themselves is fine. Two straights who have a miserable relationship and cause their children to grow up and be part of the "I wish I was aborted crowd" is far worse. This is because the behaviors are far worse in one than another. The classification of the relationship is irrelevant.
A Queer is a Sex Communist. As such, all of their behavior is designed to be explicitly and implicitly anti-moral in all cases. Their ideological totalism guarantees that all of their behavior is in service to their anti-moral ideology. As such, every Queer is anti-moral.
Consenting homosexual relationships are a symptom of a sick society, of which these heterosexual broken homes are also symptoms.
This happens because there is no value on tradition. People have been convinced that the successful habits found through thousands of years of tradition is just blind obedience and not, well, successful.
Because it's no secret that promiscuity plus physical/sexual abuse is rampant in gay relationships, let's focus on straight ones. Divorce is at an all time high. "I'm not happy." Our society values endless dopamine bombardment without the innovation and work that should have warranted it. "I'm miserable." Maybe because you didn't really know the person you decided to entwine to your fate. Maybe because you ignored what your friends and family had to say when you introduced them (or didn't introduce them to your family at all, or only superficially!) "Oh, but they changed" No, it was always there and you ignored it, or thought you could fix it. Now consider the sexual abuse of children and you see where the homosexuals come from.
Just like how communism "has never been tried", we've done the fag experiment for 50 years and here we are. You can't deny that being permissive and accepting has enabled things to get worse, much much worse.
The solution to the fag experiment is to ban extramarital sex, along with crap like anal sodomy because it's comparable to smoking.
Anal Sex is only allowed outside the premises, or in designated Anal Sex pits.
Got it.
When you're done, don't leave your fags on the ground. Put them in a designated fag container for easy clean-up.
Woman would never allow it.
But you're still doing it backwards despite what you said initially:
Regulating the symptom doesn't effect anything. The point is that the Christians gave social regulation to the government, and (as would always happen) the government not only failed, but is now attacking them.
Criminalizing the behavior will not stop the behavior. You have to fix the social failure first.
Never sexually abused and still sexually attracted to the same sex. Of course, I fully expect you to cope and seethe with the usual "YOU MUST BE LYING" line because losers are predictable like that.
You seem to care an awful lot about what "losers" think of you.
It's obvious that the Alphabet Soup lobby is a neo-Marxist political bloc ("Sex Communists") being exploited by the establishment, and anyone with any sense who isn't an activist understands that consensual sexual relations should remain private and that pederasty is a crime.
Legal same-sex marriage is the only reasonable political concession, but give 'em an inch and they think they're rulers.
Edit: every once in a while I need to remind myself that the entire political movement centers around who or what one does or does not like to fuck. Neo-Marxist identitarianism burrowing into every aspect of our public life obscures this plain fact.
Legal same-sex marriage is a reasonable political concession, but I'm actually more along the lines of "keep government out of marriage" altogether.
I'm not saying don't allow private businesses to pair bond, but I just don't think that the conservatives really thought through the idea of having the government play this game of subsidizing and regulating families and relationships. Clearly, the government isn't to be trusted with any of it.
I'm unfamiliar with the sorts of advantages legal marriage provides; if they're all state incentives, I'd agree.
They're all basically state incentives. Tax breaks in the form of re-structuring how you file, certain family subsidies, things like that.
Single Parent Childhood subsidies are actually not for couples, but show the kind of poison that "good intentions" can bring about. These are probably the most destructive incentives we have except "soft-on crime" policing polices.
And a world where everyone shares everything and greed isn't a factor to create suffering is a better one than the current capitalistic system we have now. Where everybody gets good paying jobs to live and thrive instead of homeless and poor having to exist. Because of course those are the only two options are we are just choosing to have the worst one because reasons.
Creating a binary of "the best possible outcome" and comparing it to the "worst possible extreme" to make one side seem totally fine is such a Leftist Manipulation Tactic that its below your intelligence level to use. Come on man.
I was going to say something about his example as well, but I'm glad you addressed it.
I'm painting a stark contrast on purpose to identify the problem with the concept of "ought" as "legally required". The two shouldn't be conflated.
This is because "ought" is the optimal outcome, and "legally required" is the absolute minimum standard of conduct to be tolerated by society.
Consenting, happy, private, homosexuals fall well within the minimum requirements of society, even if they "ought not" be the standard relationship.
Whereas, heterosexual relationships "ought" to be the norm within a society, but not when they have already failed in other major ways.
The issue is not the homosexual or heterosexual distinction. The issue is the pathological behavior which needs to be regulated.
Put it like this: Matt Walsh wants to ban Pitt Bulls because they are generally dangerous to society and can maul people. He gets shit on for that because it is entirely possible for pitt bulls to be owned without harming anyone; but he's trying to point out that the state should enforce what "ought" to be the case through coercion, as if it were the minimum standard.
If he was taken seriously, we're not just talking about banning pitt bulls. We're talking about rounding them up and executing them. But not just pitt bulls, wolf-dogs, Dobermans, most if not all rescue dogs, large reptiles, snakes, falcons, all poisonous or venomous animals (like frogs), basically all spiders, many poisonous fish, etc, etc. And not just from private home owners, but from anyone, including businesses, because they are too dangerous to be allowed to potentially break free.
Walsh wants the government to create an affirmative vision of the future. A lot of conservatives do. That is not what the word "ought" means. The government CAN NOT build an affirmative vision of the future. It can only steal social responsibility to enforce "ought" form society, and use that as a weapon to coerce and destroy. The government can't keep Pitt Bulls from killing babies. All it can do is kill every pitt bull, every aggressive dog, every aggressive dog breed, and most exotic animals within it's jurisdiction purge all of society of a potential threat. Those are not the same thing, and shouldn't be considered the same.
Criminalizing Homosexuality is the same problem. As others have said, it is a symptom of a larger social failure. The government can't solve social failures. Killing, imprisoning, or castrating gays isn't going to solve the underlying social problem. Conservatives struggle to understand that the government can't solve that social problem, and that they have to do it themselves.
Does that make more sense?
This sounds like an idealist position that doesn't track with history. Governments (not arguing they were all good governments) have always set rules on what people ought to do, and over time that changed culture. Your example with pit bulls does not disprove that purging society of the threat actually did remove the threat of them killing babies. The other dogs were not as much of a threat. Applied over time, the affirmative vision that "certain dogs are dangerous and should be banned by the government" would be implanted in the population. Countries like Iran do have a lot of problems and a weird relationship with gays, but their president was generally correct when he said "we don't have that problem here". (when asked about gay rights) Faggotry and whatever negatives it leads to is a blip on the radar there. Most people living under that government agree with the policy in large part because the law set an "ought to" rule as the minimum standard for culture. Problems of heterosexual relationships are a separate issue.
I lean libertarian and would prefer no laws at all, but I can separate my ideal vision from reality. The larger problem in America is we have an empire (the federal government) imposing a set of cultural standards on every state, overturning laws on behavior that the people wanted. San Francisco should be allowed to have Pride orgies in the streets and Alabama should be allowed to sterilize suspected gays. It's probably too late to go back to that standard because the poison has set in across the western world.
Sure, it's a philosophically Liberal position.
Yes, the traditional method is the government creating an affirmative vision by democide, crushing dissent, and creating unchallengeable institutions of power that have the right to kill and impoverish your family at all times, for any reasons.
As such, I admit that I'm not being objective enough to the level of argument your making. Yes, as with Italian Elite Theory, you can crush dissent and freedom enough to compel a population to be a race of slaves in your imperial fashion. That's been done many times, and many imperial citizens are very fond of their empire, their place in it, and murdering their specified opponents. I do not reject that illiberal empires and tyrannies can, and will, do this.
Great. Now, I live in the United States, a country founded as a Revolutionary Liberal Republic, whereby individual liberty is to be respected at the cost of the government; and that passed on Anglo Protestantism, our moral framework denies our institutions the authority of God; and which mandates the responsibility of moral conduct on the individual alone.
As such, I want to preserve those structures (or at least build something to replace the ones that have been destroyed) so that I don't need to live in an illiberal imperial hell hole.
Sure, the Empire of Columbia must fall. That's precisely what I'm asking for. I'm not interested in seizing the empire to enact my will. We had a republic before, I'd like to go back to that.
As for the poison, I strongly disagree. If anything, the rise of European Liberalism is effectively a fluke of history that would not have ordinarily risen were it not for multiple geographic and political coincidences. Frankly, I see an era of less collectivism and authoritarianism than we have seen in the 20th century (which is probably the worst collectivism and totalitarianism has ever been). Totalitarianism, even in eras before Liberalism, was very rare. Even in full autocracies, you would not expect totalitarianism. You'd need something akin to the Egyptian Pharos or Assyrian Empire (the Cult of Ishtar) to get to anything similar to what we had in Cambodia, Germany, or the Soviet Union.
It's a long argument that I won't draw out here, but suffice it to say: the industrial age and the rise of Leftism created a perfect storm of human commodification and political rationalism that have ravaged the Earth for 200 years, and it is now coming to an end. Our elites are hoping that the digital age will be the final epoch that turns us all into a borg collective to serve the vision of the anointed, but it has actually allowed for the individuation of firepower and economics which has literally never been seen in human history. As such, the individuation of politics will likely succeed over the coming century, displacing the old Fabian Socialist order that is currently dying.
It does. I don't agree entirely but that's at least a well thought out idea and argument.
That's all I hope for.
I can agree. As a Christian I believe marriage is a man and woman but I’m not going to go around harassing gay couples and like you I don’t care as long as they don’t bother me. I remember the whole “we just want to be left alone” movement but the insistence on pushing it everywhere was bound to turn people off. And it’s not unreasonable for parents to not want schools pushing it
It's not unreasonable at all. The state shouldn't be pushing any efforts at "family control". I think the conservatives are being tempted by a powerful weapon that they've used successfully in the past, that is currently blowing up our faces. You give the government the authority to protect children, and now it's talking about how it has the authority to protect the state's children from their parents. We can't trust the government with public schooling as it is: the Progressive education system failed 50 years ago, and isn't being replaced.
That's kind of my problem with the Conservatives trying to turn what "ought" to be done optimally, into a minimum legal standard. It's kind of like with marriage: hell yes, society would be better off if people were forced to stay married permanently with some kind of enforcement mechanism. However, the Family Court system is criminal in it's conduct most of the time, is horrifically unjust, supports abusive parents, enables child abuse, and there clearly does need to be an out for destructive co-dependent families.
It's kind of like with abortion. No one actually treats abortion as murder, in the same way we don't treat a miscarriage as manslaughter. Even in more paleo-conservative time, women weren't going to be executed for having an abortion, or imprisoned for 30 years for asking for one as "conspiracy to commit murder". Clearly, people understood that infanticide should be aggressively avoided, but we include exclusions for rape, incest, and threat to mother's life for a reason: the life of an unborn person isn't the same as a 6 year old child, even if it 'ought' to be.
You 'ought' not be gay in an optimal environment, but we are in a fallen world (and a burning civilization) so 'ought' really isn't something we can demand be enforced with the government's gun.
Well said sir
Thanks!
But it can be enforced with the people's gun and the government's gun is only thing preventing the people from doing so. If someday, the world is truly fallen then is not gonna turn out well for those gays your are protecting.
And yes, there are people who treat abortion as murder and don't think excuses like rape or incest are valid. Not everybody shares same opinions as college students and urbanites.
This is a vanishingly small group, even among Christian Conservatives.
Except a broken child from a normal relationship and a gay relationships are already 2 deviations removed from the normal. The moment a gay relationship imprints on a child, that child is 3 deviations away.
Normal happy family -> Standard
Unhappy family -> Deviation #1 Broken child from above -> Deviation #2
Gay happy family -> Deviation #1 Unhappy gay family -> Deviation #2 Broken child from gay family -> Deviation #3
What we have today are people far removed from reality, because they are made to believe their antecedents are normal, rather than deviant.
"Normal relationships" effectively don't exist at this point. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess. The boomers don't even understand how to have adult relationships, and Zoomers are 3 generations away from anything they could actually use to keep themselves steady. The world that the Boomers grew up in was crafted by the Greatest Generation, who are now almost all dead. The Boomers were the last generation to grow up under nearly "normal" healthy family conditions.
Broken families are entirely the norm at this point. When I was in college, I'd tell you that 30-40% of my physics lab contemplated suicide at some time in their life. 45% of white women have a diagnosed mental illness. This song came out 25 years ago, and it was already speaking of a problem that was apparent. Society already degenerated and collapsed. It's been dead for over 30 years. That's why Michael Knowles was blown away by a woman saying she knew women who slept with over 300 men. He, and many other conservatives who grew up in """"normal"""" families were protected from the total collapse of civilization, and think there's still something to save, as if it's 1968. It isn't. There's nothing left to save and it has to be re-built from scratch.
Michael Knowles and everyone like him is the exception. Most families are broken, most relationships are broken, most people are emotionally under-developed, most people are intellectually stunted, and most people are fucking lost with how to address anything, because every single institution without exception is giving them misguided, wrong, bad, or actively damaging/predatory advice.
An emotionally underdeveloped, and confused child with a vague sense of morality, raised by similarly under-developed parents who have no idea what they are doing or how to address life's concerns is perfectly normal. A broken child from a broken home filled with broken people is still within the first standard deviation. A happy child from a happy homosexual home is within the 2nd standard deviation because it's a happy home and a happy child. A happy child from a happy home is always the 2nd standard deviation at best. It is never within the 1st.
People are removed from reality, but so are you. Yes, they are degenerate from what ought to be; but fucking everyone is. If you have a normal and happy family, you're the fucking lucky one. Instead, we have protestors screaming "I wish I was aborted!". Two layers of degeneracy is where the actual mean is. I will take a happy child from a homosexual relationship as an absolute victory because it is one. His neighbors are probably straight, and more fucked up than he is.
That's not "odd". Normies are pretty well retarded.
I'm thinking it's related. The Democrats went so insane that some voters became independent, but didn't change most of their views; thus, independent support for the gays went up. That's my guess.
That "Independent" is tracking upwards and yet those tracking upward are not willing to say "I align with dems" means something I feel.
Everything was fine until the trannies arrived. Never forgive a tranny. Their duty is to 42% themselves.
They'll just try to come back out of the closet. The problem has to be treated at the root of the issue.
Then we shall do both at once.
You've been here for three years. You should know that bad faith actors exist.
Because Pride Parades were totally wholesome and family friendly until a few years ago. AIDs and bugchasing were just funny little footnotes of history.
NAMBLA? Never happened. Was a secret tranny organization.
Normies are way too impressionable. Republicans going from about 30 to 55 in 10 years is a disgrace.
41%
the jokes write themselves
Good, I hope the downward trend continues down to whatever levels of "acceptance" the alphabet degenerates had in the 1800s.
source: https://twitter.com/dcoxpolls/status/1669668730287136771