this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
169 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3668 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
169
How Republicans became the party of raunch (www.vox.com)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by sentientity@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There’s a sexual ideology that holds all of these concepts together in a single place: the idea that you can celebrate Hawk Tuah girl and use her catchphrase to degrade a female politician; the idea that a starlet in a low-cut dress is yours to objectify, while contraception and sexual education are dangerous and probably immoral and should be restricted.

It harks back to the idea that was dominant in the Bush era, a moment when our culture was capable of prizing Girls Gone Wild and purity balls in equal measure, when pop stars like Britney Spears were expected to serve their audiences sex on a platter while avowing their virginity at the same time. It’s the ideology that unites Republican raunch and purity culture, that makes them two sides of the same coin: one based on the idea that women’s sexuality should exist in the service of men. The right once again championing this brand of bawdiness while working relentlessly to restrict women’s autonomy and denigrating the women they don’t like isn’t a departure. It’s a return to form.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tuckerm@supermeter.social 32 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Man, I had forgotten how much the "purity" of stars like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson was talked about. It didn't even seem weird at the time. (Although I was a little kid, so I probably just couldn't notice the hypocrisy.)

A quote FTA:

“Wokeness is dead,” gloated right-wing commentator Richard Hanania on X back in March, over a video clip of Sweeney in a black dress with a plunging neckline, her breasts at the center of the frame. Hanania’s logic was obscure, but it seemed to go something like this: Sweeney’s prominently displayed chest was somehow inextricably opposed to the progressive ethos currently fashionable in popular culture.

This whole issue that this article is describing is a perfect example of why it's impossible to argue against the right on their own terms. Their process is like this:

  1. Have a very loosely defined set of ideals. You can believe anything at any time. Have more of a vibe than a set of principles.
  2. Invent an enemy. This enemy should be vaguely defined; it is everything and nothing at the same time. For example, wokeism.
  3. Because your enemy is whatever you want it to be, and because your values are whatever you want them to be, you alone get to decide when you've won. You can declare victory at any time, for any reason. This conveniently fits your insecurity-based need to feel like a winner.
[–] dumples@midwest.social 10 points 6 days ago

Because your enemy is whatever you want it to be, and because your values are whatever you want them to be, you alone get to decide when you’ve won. You can declare victory at any time, for any reason. This conveniently fits your insecurity-based need to feel like a winner.

I feel this so much with the definition of "woke" it means nothing and everything at the same time. Just a general vibe of something they hate. Similar to socialism.