this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
850 points (99.5% liked)

politics

23663 readers
2592 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He huffed about how the question wasn't "appropriate" even though his bill would result in kids being asked that same question.

A Republican state rep from Michigan testifying about his anti-trans sports bill on Monday was left speechless after an out Democratic colleague began his questioning by asking, “Representative, can you tell me: are you trans?”

A long beat staring down out gay Democratic state Rep. Mike McFall followed, before state Rep. Jason Woolford (R) managed to reply, “Are you?”

“I’m actually going somewhere with this,” he said to lawmakers in the small chamber.

“Because I want to know, how does a 14-year-old girl prove whether or not she’s trans to a 50-year-old coach?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Its not complicated at all.

Trans folks are just folks. Takes all kinds. Mind your own business.

People who can't mind their own business are assholes. And should be treated like the assholes they are.

Not to mention just how blatantly disrespectful it is to not treat people how they want to be treated. Republicans love to pull a bible out of their gaping holes when it suits them right? Luke 6:31-36.

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

Fundies largely ignore the New Testament, especially anything Jesus is quoted as saying (they're more in line with St Paul, especially the Epistles that he probably didn't write) and they aggressively cherry-pick the Old. For example, they're always wearing clothing made of mixed fiber types, so they're going to burn in hell: it's an abomination according to Leviticus. And all the requirements to welcome foreigners among you, and requiring extreme hospitality to strangers: they just pretend that part isn't there.

And as for the Old Testament (the Tanakh) itself, the Jews, over millennia, developed a whole apparatus of analysis and exegesis (the Talmud) to take the various fairy tales, genealogies, records of the actions of kings and prophets, poems and nationalistic history and try to draw conclusions as to what they're telling us. The fundies, in their arrogance, instead believed that anyone could interpret a translation of those texts with no context, no critical thought, and no use of reason, as long as they pretended they believed hard enough. They're like the Sovereign Citizen morons interpreting case law as though it's based on magic phrases.