4 ms·

Honestly, the way I see it: The people behind the 2025 stuff etc have been on the "losing" side of the culture war since 1969. And they're sick of it, they're

Honestly, the way I see it: The people behind the 2025 stuff etc have been on the "losing" side of the culture war since 1969. And they're sick of it, they're desperate, and now are just laying their cards on the table. I grew up in an evangelical church in the 80s-- albeit in Canada -- attending "Focus on the Family" events, Bible studies, etc. that promulgated heavy socially conservative ethos -- so I feel like I have seen this narrative play out over a few decades ... After the legalization of gay marriage they just collectively lost their shit. They see the stakes as being incredibly high. They see abortion as straight up murder. Winning the 2016 Trump presidency and taking over the US supreme court gave them a taste of blood, and a sense that they can finally reverse what they see as a profound descent into degeneracy. The trans rights stuff over the last few years has them totally incensed, as its a full-on assault (to them) on the ontological reality of family, body, identity, etc. that they consider intrinsic and holy and fundamental. I think they're full of shit, but that's I think how this world view shakes down. It's a war because they feel the stakes are incredibly high. People on the right or in boardrooms of various companies that are aligning themselves with these people for what they see are strategic ends are playing with fire.

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago
The evangelicals believe that anyone who doesn't believe in their god will be tortured by their god for eternity. There's nothing worse than eternal torture, so they see it as their moral obligation to do anything at all to prevent others from being tortured for eternity by their god. Nothing they do to others can possibly be worse than that, so as long as they're focused on saving others any actions they take are justified (to them). Their god considers gay sex a crime worthy of eternal torture. So anything they do to prevent people from having homosexual encounters is morally acceptable, up to and including torture & occasional execution via "conversion therapy". Anyone who truly believes in hell is either morally bankrupt & willing to allow others to suffer for eternity, or a dangerous monster who will stop at nothing to prevent others from what they see as sinning. Many of them don't go to the extremes they would if they actually believed they were saving others from hell. They're full of shit. But some of them do, and they're fucking terrifying.
- goatlover 2y ago
  Which means either they don't really believe in the exercise of free will, or they don't believe God is in control of who gets saved (predestination). Either way, they're not acting according to their interpretation of scripture. Being saved for a Christian shouldn't be up to governments. It wasn't for the early Christians. It was an individual choice. They're acting more like Constantine.
strontium-90 2y ago
[flagged]
andrewflnr 2y ago
As someone who grew up in an evangelical environment, this is exactly my read as well. The problem is they might still be able to "win" via a sufficient application of violence, aka state power, despite being wrong and in the minority.
- grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
  I mean are we talking about the USA here or Iran?
aaaja 2y ago
The pushback against trans rights advocacy is quite interesting because unlike with same-sex marriage, there are several distinct groups opposing it for fundamentally different reasons. Religious conservatives are one group. Radical feminists, female athletes, medical whistleblowers are others. And almost everyone draws a firm line against accepting gender identity beliefs in their romantic and sexual lives. Trying to redefine "woman" and "man", "female" and "male", "homosexual" and "heterosexual" - and then reengineering society by decree based on these controversial redefinitions - is going to get opposition across the board. I think this is why it's become such a hot "culture war" topic, because it undermines the deeply-held views of many, many more people than just religious conservatives. Take gay marriage for instance - this was fought both for and against on the basis of it being a same-sex union. But from the perspective of gender identity believers, if, for example, someone female merely identifies as male, then marries a male (who also identifies as male), then this is a "gay marriage" too. Despite this actually being a heterosexual pairing. On top of this, where these beliefs have been forced into law and policy, it has caused actual physical harms. Women being raped and impregnated by male prisoners who identified their way into the female prison estate is amongst the worst of these. But lawmakers in states that have enabled this will claim it's progressive policy, somehow. Even though it's regressing back to over a century ago when mixed-sex prisons where commonplace and incarcerated women were at constant risk of sexual violence and exploitation from the men they were locked up with.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  I dunno man, "citation needed" about a lot of your screed. On the whole the freaking out about "trans" stuff is mostly a red herring or strawman used for strategic propagandistic purposes more than it is reflecting any real world problematic. Making outlandish claims about how liberals are trying to do X, Y, and Z to their children's education or sports forces liberals onto the defensive forcing them to defend hormone therapy for 12 year olds or whatever when the actual number of real world incidents of this is vanishingly small. I don't personally carry any kind of radical gender identity theory, but I care about the rights of minorities and it's none of my business what other people do and I see no problem with the public and corporate sphere accomodate pronoun usages or even bathroom accomodations, it's unlikely to cause harms and it doesn't hurt me in the slightest. It's also somewhat ... interesting ... to bring up defense of female prisoner's rights and their conditions as some kind of demarcation point. Is the socially conservative right concerned about humane prisons now? Because that would be great. But unlikely.
bloomingeek 2y ago
Ditto.

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago

The evangelicals believe that anyone who doesn't believe in their god will be tortured by their god for eternity. There's nothing worse than eternal torture, so they see it as their moral obligation to do anything at all to prevent others from being tortured for eternity by their god. Nothing they do to others can possibly be worse than that, so as long as they're focused on saving others any actions they take are justified (to them). Their god considers gay sex a crime worthy of eternal torture. So anything they do to prevent people from having homosexual encounters is morally acceptable, up to and including torture & occasional execution via "conversion therapy". Anyone who truly believes in hell is either morally bankrupt & willing to allow others to suffer for eternity, or a dangerous monster who will stop at nothing to prevent others from what they see as sinning. Many of them don't go to the extremes they would if they actually believed they were saving others from hell. They're full of shit. But some of them do, and they're fucking terrifying.

goatlover 2y ago
Which means either they don't really believe in the exercise of free will, or they don't believe God is in control of who gets saved (predestination). Either way, they're not acting according to their interpretation of scripture. Being saved for a Christian shouldn't be up to governments. It wasn't for the early Christians. It was an individual choice. They're acting more like Constantine.

strontium-90 2y ago

[flagged]

andrewflnr 2y ago

As someone who grew up in an evangelical environment, this is exactly my read as well. The problem is they might still be able to "win" via a sufficient application of violence, aka state power, despite being wrong and in the minority.

grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
I mean are we talking about the USA here or Iran?

aaaja 2y ago

The pushback against trans rights advocacy is quite interesting because unlike with same-sex marriage, there are several distinct groups opposing it for fundamentally different reasons. Religious conservatives are one group. Radical feminists, female athletes, medical whistleblowers are others. And almost everyone draws a firm line against accepting gender identity beliefs in their romantic and sexual lives. Trying to redefine "woman" and "man", "female" and "male", "homosexual" and "heterosexual" - and then reengineering society by decree based on these controversial redefinitions - is going to get opposition across the board. I think this is why it's become such a hot "culture war" topic, because it undermines the deeply-held views of many, many more people than just religious conservatives. Take gay marriage for instance - this was fought both for and against on the basis of it being a same-sex union. But from the perspective of gender identity believers, if, for example, someone female merely identifies as male, then marries a male (who also identifies as male), then this is a "gay marriage" too. Despite this actually being a heterosexual pairing. On top of this, where these beliefs have been forced into law and policy, it has caused actual physical harms. Women being raped and impregnated by male prisoners who identified their way into the female prison estate is amongst the worst of these. But lawmakers in states that have enabled this will claim it's progressive policy, somehow. Even though it's regressing back to over a century ago when mixed-sex prisons where commonplace and incarcerated women were at constant risk of sexual violence and exploitation from the men they were locked up with.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
I dunno man, "citation needed" about a lot of your screed. On the whole the freaking out about "trans" stuff is mostly a red herring or strawman used for strategic propagandistic purposes more than it is reflecting any real world problematic. Making outlandish claims about how liberals are trying to do X, Y, and Z to their children's education or sports forces liberals onto the defensive forcing them to defend hormone therapy for 12 year olds or whatever when the actual number of real world incidents of this is vanishingly small. I don't personally carry any kind of radical gender identity theory, but I care about the rights of minorities and it's none of my business what other people do and I see no problem with the public and corporate sphere accomodate pronoun usages or even bathroom accomodations, it's unlikely to cause harms and it doesn't hurt me in the slightest. It's also somewhat ... interesting ... to bring up defense of female prisoner's rights and their conditions as some kind of demarcation point. Is the socially conservative right concerned about humane prisons now? Because that would be great. But unlikely.

bloomingeek 2y ago

Ditto.