politics @lemmy.world ZeroCool @feddit.ch 1y ago

"Sexual anarchy": New House Speaker Mike Johnson showcases the incel-ization of the modern GOP

www.salon.com "Sexual anarchy": Mike Johnson is the GOP's Incel-in-Chief

The Louisiana congressman's career has been centered around his bitter obsession with other people's sex lives

105

105 comments

Is "Sexual Anarchy" supposed to be a bad thing? Because that's sounds pretty fucking awesome to me.
- I'm pretty sure there's at least 5 mildly successful punk bands called that. If not, there should be!
- Woohoo, fuck the systeeeem!
  
  Puts on condom
"Incel-isation of the modern GOP"? OK, apart from the point that "modern" and "GOP" don't really go together, this just means no sane female member of the human race wants to touch a Republican even with a 10-foot pole?
- He is closeted gay man his homophoiba screams it. Democrats should kick him out of office next year. We need Democrats to take a super majority in both chambers.
  
  Could we not use "he is secretly gay" as an insult or as a witch hunt? Like, I don't see why that even needs to be elaborated on in the 2020s.
  
  We can comment on hateful bigots and hypocrites without dragging down one of the demographics who are particularly under threat from said bigots.
  
  Oh great, so now even homophobia is out fault. Thanks.
Imagine thinking sexual anarchy is a bad thing
- Coitus without a license? Preposterous!
He actually said it out loud. Instead of expecting fabulously wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.

He wants to breed more wage slaves that are so disposable, it doesn’t matter if they starve on the streets, as long as they’re not self-medicating.
- This is how mass shootings are going to increase in frequency. As soon as they wise up in their tactics and stop going after innocent school children I wonder what they'll do about it.
  
  Even the type of mentally removed subhuman trash that kills random people will figure out the corrupt government is fucking them over sooner or later.
  
  They won’t attack them because the party projects the same projections as the base; iow, anything but face the shadow self.
  
  The moment a politician gets shot (I mean Republican), gun laws will be passed ASAP.
This guy is just so fucking weird.
We can expect MAGA Mike to ban women from talking because he believes they don't belong outside of the kitchen.
- "Exposing your ankles on the House floor like a hussy? That's a censuring." - Mike Johnson
- He will ban it because he's a Christofascist who interprets the Bible literally.
  
  Mike Johnson: "Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it - that's my worldview. That's what I believe and so I make no apologies for it."
  
  The Bible, 1 Timothy 2:12: But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
  
  Exactly what I'm tracking.
  
  Interprets select, out of context, quotes.
It’s crazy that House Republicans only sank Jim Jordan’s Speakership candidacy because he and his proxies were mean to them. Once they were offered a bland nobody with even more extreme beliefs they elected him unanimously.
Calling them fervent misogynists would be much more accurate, because unfortunately, these hateful hypocrites are anything but "involuntarily celibate" behind closed doors.
If he really wants to go down this route, then perhaps he should call out Nick Fuentes over his desire to have a child bride first. Both shithead monsters can fuck off and die.

If I'm going to Hell, then I am sure as shit seeing these two assholes there. And I'm looking forward to accompanying them while we burn. Seriously, fuck them both.
- No no no, you misunderstand. Fucking a child is perfectly fine as long as you marry your victim.
- please, show me where NF said any such thing
  
  Pick one: https://www.google.com/search?q=nick fuentes child bride&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
  
  nice username
A reporter needs to ask him about his stance on pornography being banned and whether he's considering crafting legislation to that effect. His first answer will be wildly unpopular, and if his second is anything but a complete denial, that story will explode.
- Ask him his stance on pornography in the Bible and watch him get pissy.
- I believe pornography is protect it First amendment speech
  
  You are 100% correct, but multiple unconstitutional "think of the children" style laws have already been passed in several states. The status quo of pornography being protected speech is only a result of multiple litigations on behalf of the ACLU over the years. The reality is unconstitutional laws will keep being passed, and challenging them takes a lot of time and money, without any guarantee of success.
Who would fuck a conservative, anyway? Just the thought turns my stomach. They are fucking grotesque.
- As for why these people find someone who will marry them? They covet power just like their spouses. These psychopaths chase power and money. It's all they care about. They will kill you and me if it means they get more, and they won't lose any sleep over it.
- Fuck a conservative? Sure, why not? Marry one? Nope.
The party of legitimate rape and those who would depend on it for sexual satisfaction is a set within set.
- You really need some scare quotes in that term
  
  you mean "legitimate rape"?
I'm calling it now. The GOP platform will include banning contraceptives within 10 years.
- I'd be surprised if it isn't on the platform by next year's election.
- It already is.
  
  https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-senator-blocks-bill-to-codify-americans-right-to-contraception-
  
  That's what Republicans do. The platform is what they run on. And the Republican platform is "whatever Lord Trump wants."
"Sexual anarchy"

Go ahead, Johnson - threaten us with a good time.
Salon.com
- What’s up with Salon? I feel like I’m OOTL on this one.
  
  Edit:
  
  I checked here and is it this:
  
  We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to occasionally utilizing sources poor sources and failed fact checks.
  
  or something else in addition to this?
- Super common thing I'm seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.
  
  Read everything, but the moment it's a commentary piece or there's extremely unchecked bias, give it a toss and don't recommend it to others you want to convince.
  
  We don't need fluff pieces, or people like this author claiming the speaker was making sex jokes about the "weeks on her knees" comment (still weird she wasn't there, but it definitely didn't sound sexual) when we have all the evidence and spin on those stories needed with the direct context.
  
  If somebody posted OAN news, I'd say it's trash and you shouldn't get your news from there, Salon isn't as bad but its definitely not good journalism.
- So much for attacking their ideas when you can just attack them for being them, I guess.
  
  Did you have some particular disagreement with the content of the article?
  
  The man gives off strong incel energy
  
  Johnson is trash, there's no disputing that.
  
  However, in a sea of character flaws, the best the author can come up with is "incel energy" it's a severe lack of talent on the author's part. That speaks to the quality of Salon's "writing."
Using the term incel like this reduces the credibility of your argument.
- Not really, in no way is it false.
  
  Not false, just so broad and nonspecific as to be more of a dismissive slur than a categorization

105 comments