Heikki2I cannot tell if this is satire.
The post thread can be found here
WiddershinsThe person holding the sign looks like they could be/could be related to Robert Ritchie
bratorangeFrom the subs pinned post: „As a friendly reminder, this comm is for the satirizing of conservatives only
Memes, comics, onion-type articles etc making fun of conservatives is what’s accepted here
Serious articles, discussions, information, infographics etc please post to [email protected] where the wonderful @[email protected] tries to moderate actually fair conservative debates
If you want the conservative space for conservatives to spout their bigotry, Nazism, xenophobia etc etc please see [email protected] or the HilariousChaos instance in general, “The Friendlier ExplodingHeads Instance” ™
I’ll also be updating the display name to make it more clear when searching for a comm in the new post screen“
Conservative - sh.itjust.works
We are a community dedicated to discussion surrounding the political right. People of all political views are welcome here, but we expect a high level of discussion from everyone. Rules: -Good Faith participation only. -Stay on topic. -Follow instance rules. -Only post news articles with the original headlines. -Please interact with this community if you want to downvote. -Absolutely no homophobia, transphobia or misgendering anyone.
I’m a liberal, but booting out conservatives is pretty weak. That sounds like what they do over in the conservative instances.
That’s kind of the point of instances. Everyone got sick of the kind of shit they were posting so they moved to an instance that allows bigotry.
The paradox of tolerance is not a thing here.
It still makes me giggle sometimes that “truth social” is just a mastodon instance no one federates with
That sounds like the whining conservatives do when we refuse to entertain their hateful bullshit
they can go on reddit, where they get free reign, and only get mildy punished. moderation is heavier handed against comments that implies"things against conservative" rather than the other way around.
you dont sound like one at all.
Particularly because “liberal” is a term the right uses to describe the left, but not many people on the left use to describe themselves, especially around here.
Y’all gonna just literally question my political beliefs instead of realize that it’s wrong to have echo chambers regardless of your political beliefs? Damn we’re cooked.
Oh please, please let’s do that. That would legitimately be fantastic. Not just millionaires though, because enough of them could’ve just worked hard to get there. Once you get to the like hundreds of millions or billions, then those people don’t deserve it.
AeriYeah it’s crazy how inflation is like that.
There are plenty of just regular day-to-day people that are technically millionaires. But like, it’s all invested and or it’s their retirement account and they’re 50 and it has to last them the rest of their life and they aren’t globetrotting on a mega yacht.
Inflation is the one reason I have a tiiiiiiiny corner of my mind saying “they might have a point”. Pegging laws to a dollar amount that makes sense today doesn’t mean that dollar amount will continue to make sense in the future.
Tie it to some multiple of the poverty line or median cost of living, then we’re getting somewhere.
Except the “They” who comes for people is the millionaires.
RmDebArc_5Well the headline is satire. The sign likely not.
If only
First they came for the millionaires and distributed their wealth equally and I said nothing because I wasn’t a millionaire.
Then they came for the abled bodies and made public spaces as inclusive as possible and I said nothing because I didn’t notice.
Then they came for cis men and abolished the nuclear family and I said nothing because I’m not married so I didn’t care.
And when they smashed white supremacy, there was no one left to defend me.
Then they came for the abled bodies and made public spaces as inclusive as possible and I said nothing because I didn’t notice.
Then they came for cis men and abolished the nuclear family and I said nothing because I’m not married so I didn’t care.
And when they smashed white supremacy, there was no one left to defend me.
wheezyDo you think that this means “no one can have a family that is two cis gendered people of the opposite sex raising children!”
Or do you think its talking about the structures of society that force people into these gender roles and family structures to begin with?
Answer. It’s the later one. Abolishing these structures, the incentives of and the dependencies they create, is part of abolishing patriarchy.
I don’t know what the fuck it means. I’m glad at least one of us seems to perfectly understand it as something benevolent, but it’s a pretty poor way to say it.
It’s not. You are just taking the definition of “Nuclear Family” in a vacuum. It’s like thinking “Abolish the Police” means that everyone that says that means they want anarchy, no state, and no form of law enforcement.
It’s a general phrase that speaks to the current structures and their real material results.
Your “idea” of the police or the nuclear family may be their definition on paper. An armed law enforcement. Or a single man, single women having kids.
These are what they are defined as in a vacuum. They are not what they are in the context of state structures.
The police are a defense of the capitalist class. Their job is first and foremost to protect private property and ensure class structures are not threatened.
The Nuclear Family is a means of ensuring a women’s material conditions and her children are dependent on a man for his labor. That same structure ensures men are given the advantage of control in that family structure; while keeping them having no power in their work or their labor.
These are what “leftist” are talking about when we are talking about abolishing these systems.
It’s not about being benevolent. It’s about being educated in class struggle and patriarchy.
Good try but no this was not in any way shape or form a clear way to say this. If you want to say “relive us from the pressure to confirm to the tired ideal of the nuclear family” then say that. Not “abolish the nuclear family,” which is nonsensical on its face because it’s physically impossible. You might as well say abolish parent hood. Anyway, I can tell you think this is super u portent but you’re not convincing me and I really don’t have any more fucks to give here so farewell.
I think you’re having a problem with the word “Abolish”. You might want to look at an actual dictionary.
Honestly, I feel like this happens a lot these days. There is a reason words in a dictionary have multiple definitions. But for some reason, today, people often just pick the most uncharitably definition and then just double down on their own misunderstanding.
Webster’s definitions:
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
You’re picking the second definition and just saying that it is “nonsensical”. I know we live in a world where words are quickly losing their meaning; and it is beneficial (in social media) to purposely portray or misunderstand what someone says. But you can at least realize you’re doing it when it’s been pointed out to you so clearly. I don’t think you’re doing it on purpose.
It’s why I explained the systemic structures in my last comment. But, oddly, you seem to understand that and are just unfortunately having a problem with vocabulary.
It’s a ‘classic’ red team conspiracy theory, long lasting cause it’s kiiiinda true. Just that it’s corpos atomizing us across the board because more households buy more stuff and not the liberals/gays/commies doing it because satan told them to in a weed trance
Was hoping to lightheartedly explain the “they want to abolish the nuclear family” thing, but don’t think you’re my audience and the other guy made it weird. Got a different question than “uh wut” or should we just move on?
My other question would be breaking your comment into clauses and asking you what you are talking about because it was unreadable to me.
Can you start with what you meant by “corpos atomizing us across the board?”
Big companies want people isolated and dependent on their services, rather than meeting each others needs directly. I do a lot of engine repair stuff, and in that context fuel is “atomized” into a fine mist that’s less stable and more reactive than when it’s in a cohesive puddle or droplet. If three generations share a kitchen, a population needs 1/3 the appliances it would if every 18 year old moved out and bought their own. In the course of maximizing profits the system isolates and divides us and is naturally opposed to core support systems like the “nuclear family”. It’s pretty silly to instead ascribe that opposition to the other side of a manufactured culture war that supposedly just hates your way of life
Okay I think I gotcha now. Honestly I thought you were trying to draw a literal analogy between nuclear/nucleus and atoms and I could not figure out what the message was.
Now I know you meant that commercial interests prefer separating and isolating people into as many individual households as possible to maximize consumption by making sharing and resource pooling impossible. Corpos atomizing us across the board.
Who is the “red team?”
The US two party system is often colloquially referred to as red vs blue. I’m sure you’ve seen coverage about “red states” or “blue cities” during election cycles. That was referencing the same reactionary impetus you reference elsewhere in this thread to “defend the family” against a perceived other rather than the predatory corporations actually working to dissolve it. There’s definitely some confusing cultural baggage around the term as each side has respectively glorified/demonized it, I do not blame you in the slightest for having to ask and doubt you’ll get two identical responses
Thank you. I thought it might have somehow meant “leftists” or “communists.” “Red state” snaps right into place for me in a way “red team” did not.
So you’re saying that American conservatives have a longtime conspiracy theory about the family being under attack by gays whispering to Satan in a weed haze (this part I do understand).
But what’s actually going on is “corpos atomizing us.”
Are you saying that the corpo atomization is something that “red team” fears or is against?
I would think that the “nuclear family” is the conservative ideal and the corporate consumption powers that be are aligned with them because more, smaller families drive more of that individual consumption you mentioned.
So I was a little confused how “nuclear family” as a conservative conspiracy theory fits with corpo atomization in your view exactly.
First off thank you, I’m really enjoying bridging this generation gap. And satan’s doing the whispering while his blue team minions smoke the devil’s lettuce, but that’s beside the point ;)
I don’t think modern “red team” believes or is aware that social atomization is a byproduct of corporate greed for the most part. Distracting from that and providing a scapegoat is part of the utility of culture war and exactly what that conspiracy theory is meant to accomplish. A wealthy, intelligent, well-positioned conservative might be consciously aligned with the process, but dumb is a lot more common than evil. The conflict between social and economic values kinda has to be obscured for that ideology to function. They fear the result, but can blame the other (gay weed smoking atheists!) and remain all for the process that’s actually responsible
It confuses things further that a few generations ago the “nuclear family” was widely recognized as a step towards atomization, but at this point things have progressed so far it’s become a traditional ideal many feel nostalgia for. Grandma watching the kids and everyone working the farm together is long gone, and if you’re a single parent or just living on your own it sure seems cohesive from here. It’s a destructive template imposed on us, and whether they’re after a return to the land or a soma pod above a nightclub I don’t think it’s what anyone who’s thought things through really wants. Even if it is a step in the right direction at this point x(
Actually in the process of writing that last bit I had a thought: waaaay back when, conservatives almost certainly were against the push towards the nuclear family (and were right imo). It’s only once we’d been isolated beyond that point that it could seem like something worth preserving or returning to
You should really look into the history of how the “nuclear family” was pushed by capitalist media of the 50s and 60s in an effort to normalize the suburban lifestyle in order to have a more exploitable populace and how that affected the breakdown of local community and intergenerational support structures.
The shift was heavily facilitated by the “white flight” phenomenon of the era as well and plays a role in institutionalized racism.
Trust me as an LGBT dude who came of age in the 90s, I’ve watched the whole conservative panic about “defend the family” for a long time. And of course women for centuries have been told they are a failure if they don’t marry and reproduce. The only miscommunication here is that the term “nuclear family” on its own does not communicate all those bad things. The term has a simple and objective definition so when people talk about it as the antichrist, with no qualification, that is confusing to me.
Certainly not in the sense that “we take away your children and raise them separated from you” but more in the sense of “it takes a village to raise a child”. This can mean anything from extended family to patchwork to an active and engaged neighborhood to queer constellations of open relationship or poly or what ever. There is a quote from Thatcher “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.”
Nuclear families, more than other forms of family and relating to each other, are isolating and making the people dependent on each other, most often making women financially dependent on men and men emotionally dependent on women. Abolishing the nuclear family doesn’t mean that you can’t live in a healthy monogamous relationship with a good connection to your kids. It means that you don’t have to but can leave a toxic relationship and that your kids have other caregivers to complain about you and, if need, can leave. Or to live in other ways together that don’t fit the model at all. To get back to Thatcher, it’s not about taking way the little connection the individuals have but about the society, she denied exists.
I hope that helped. Sometimes I’m too much in my bubble to realize that implications aren’t obvious. I specified “nuclear family” but I see that that’s not enough. Thanks for pointing it out. Family Abolition is an interesting topic you can look deeper into if that interests you.
I really think that the word “abolish” is causing problems of understanding here. For most people, “abolish” conjures up the word “abolition,” as in the abolition of slavery. That was not a movement that made slavery optional for those who wanted it but kept it in place for those who still wanted to maintain the practice; it was emphatically a movement to make the very concept of slavery illegal (we could have a conversation about how successful it was in the context of the private prison complex, but that’s a whole other can of fish).
I just made a comment realizing that I was arguing with someone that just was using a hard definition of “abolish” in their mind. Though in the context it is clearly using the and more systems based definition.
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
Honestly, it’s an important thing to realize how reactionary thought is so good at connecting to emotional reactions that they truly redefine words or their contextual meanings. Every word becomes a “hard” definition if it is ever used by the left to explain structures. It becomes a hard definition that can invoke emotion.
In this case it comes from “Abolish the Police”. Even people on “the left” have adopted the right wing definition since.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to “be careful” with language. The reactionaries in society will pervert the definition of whatever word one attempts to use to invoke an emotional response to defend the current structures.
The correct thing to do is to educate those that are willing to ask “what do you mean by abolish”?
If we could have anarchist not reinforcing the reactionary definitions that would help as well… But that’s a whole different story.
I am learning from these comments that some people have very strong negative associations with the term “nuclear family,” and equate it with not only the strict definition of “a family consisting of parents and children” but also rolling all the associations of cis heteronormativity and abusive marriages and pressure to confirm etc etc etc all rolled into just “nuclear family.” But yeah while I am aware of all those dimensions, that complex of oppressions and abuse has never been explicitly loaded straight into the term “nuclear family” for me in a way that I can recognize in the middle of a sentence.
First they came for the millionaires and I laughed and laughed and laughed
Pretty sure this is about the millionaires tax in Washington State, the first income tax passed in the state ever. The big argument against it is that it’ll set the precedence of an income tax being legal by the state constitution, and then they’ll start lowering the minimum income to tax everyone. Oh no, a progressive tax system!
Haven’t been following WA super closely, but this is exactly why wealth tax is cooler than income
samus12345Millionaires aren’t really the problem, billionaires are.
I feel this is not stressed enough.
The guy owning the local car dealership that has a nice yacht and a holiday appartment in Mallorca is not actually even remotly the same kind of problem like jeff bezos or elon musk.
Sure, noone needs a yacht, but the irder of magnitude is not even remotely comparable.
Seriously. The difference between someone with 2 million dollars and 800 million dollars is about 800 million dollars
Am million dollars isn’t yacht money, though. It would take several millions to actually get close.
1 million isn’t even enough for a comfortable retirement these days.
A “millionaire” doesn’t mean much compared to three decades ago.
And this was 29 years ago. It’s even less now!
Yuup. Forgot about that. Decades ago they joked that he didn’t know about billions or trillions.
amorpheusOwning-class is owning-class. Regardless of the magnitude, they are still exploitative and that is the point.
Individuals aren’t the problem, the system that allows individuals to have exploitative and unjust power over others is.
Bernie’s a millionaire. Is he exploitative?
Yup. No one earns a billion dollars without exploitation.
Millionaire, not billionaire. The difference is about a billion dollars.
Oh my apologies for misreading.
It all depends on how Bernie earned that money then. Was it through his own labor or was it through the system of exploitation that is owning and making profit off of the labor of others through having a claim to private ownership over the means of production?
If he makes his money legitimately then no. If he makes his money through being a rentier, his income being primarily being generated through the stock market and shareholder dividends, then yes.
I don’t claim to know how Bernie made that money so I abstain from making any speculations. Bernie has been an advocate for shifts towards the left, but the man isn’t perfect. Though, he is clearly good intentions so I won’t make any base judgements against him until I have more information.
And yes, I understand that retirement and stuff is incorporated into the stock market. That is a giant problem of how the owning class forces the working class to go against their own benefits as a class to ensure their own personal safety and security. That’s a much larger can of worms and nuance.
Mohamed