465

New Speaker Mike Johnson suddenly can’t remember his anti-LGBTQ+ comments (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Newly elected House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) claims he does not remember “some of” the many, many anti-LGBTQ+ comments he’s made over the course of his career.

Johnson’s history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights has been well documented and stretches back to the early 2000s, when he worked as a senior attorney and national media spokesman for anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (then called the Alliance Defense Fund). Between 2003 and 2005, Johnson also wrote several editorials for Shreveport, Louisiana, paper The Times, criticizing the Supreme Court for striking down anti-sodomy laws, opposing same-sex marriage, and arguing against non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 88 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

He is such a casual bigot he can't possibly remember all the times he advocated for people to be locked up for daring to have consensual adult relationships. I mean, for me the day he lobbied the Supreme Court to take away my freedoms was a horrific affront to my welfare, but for him it was just Tuesday.

[-] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 33 points 8 months ago

"Well yes he is a bigot, but he might lower my taxes! I need to vote in my best interest! Not my problem if your marriage is annulled, bodily autonomy revoked and your Healthcare made illegal."

Literally how republican voters sleep at night.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Pretty sure it’s all the booze and sundry other drugs.

[-] Jerkface@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

casual bigot

He's a professional bigot now, so that's no longer a valid excuse.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 70 points 8 months ago

Honestly? All Congressional Republicans are absolutely vile cretins. I'll take "Pretending to not be as vile as he is" over "Openly pushing his vileness to the max" at this juncture.

Just another year and a few months, I tell myself. Then the House will be blue again.

[-] TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

Nah, I don't want the pretending. At least when they are open about it it's easy to see and call out.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

It’s the death of a euphemism when that happens and it’s rarely good. I want him speaking in euphemisms because it means he catches flak for outright saying what he wants.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Gotta disagree, because it’s always seemed to me that the death of a euphemism theory is a bit off, in that it’s mistaking a road sign for an actual turn.

Yes, when that happens it portends bad things, but I’d argue the act of mask-dropping isn’t a catalyst but a high water mark. Normally when fascists drop the mask, it’s because they believe public sentiment is already so far in their favour that they no longer need to maintain appearances.

If they do it too early, they may lose their populist tide, which imo should be encouraged. Delaying it only pushes the peanut farther, allowing them to brainwash more people. eta: The problem will have to be dealt with eventually; best do it before they’re confident in their support.

(I think I’ve got most common metaphors out of my system now.)

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 8 months ago

I get the argument, but there's plenty of hard evidence. Calling it out is important when it can weaken them - such as near election time. Otherwise, their silence and denial is better than normalizing further backsliding to the general public, imo

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 9 points 8 months ago

When they're pretending it means they're willing to acknowledge the shame of their immoral stance. It's when they stop pretending that they openly go after these things and dare anyone to try to stop them. Normalizing their hatred and bigotry really isn't preferable, it's a step toward enabling even worse behavior on their part.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

It’s not shame that’s been slowing them down, though, it’s fear their base isn’t sufficiently radicalised to accept full fascism. Some percentage of their base would vote them out if they dropped the mask.

At least we’ll find out whether that’s true if they stop pussyfooting about.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 14 points 8 months ago

All ~~Congressional~~ Republicans are ~~absolutely vile cretins~~ fascists.

I hate that I have to keep saying that.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 8 months ago

I was an election volunteer once with an old guy who described himself as a liberal republican and loudly and repeatedly complained "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

He seemed alright.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago

Republicans used to be just in favor of lower taxes, oppressing minorities, pollution, war and small government. Oh… hmm, now they’re still in favor of most of that but they just to pretend to be about a couple of them.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago

Guy was in his 80s, and this was a few years ago. It's not inconceivable that he started associating with the Republican Party in the days of Dewey and Ike, when liberal republicanism was still a thing.

In any case, I don't disagree with your broader point about modern Republicans being literal fascists.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My dad is 88 and was a staunch Republican until Reagan. I remember the Reagan/Carter election – even the date, 6 November 1980, stuck in my little ten-year-old mind. It was my dad’s birthday, and he voted for Reagan.

That was the last Republican he voted for, and he’s liberal AF now. They say people get more conservative as they grow older, and that may be true for boomers (I’m lucky to have no boomers in my family; we skipped from the Silent Generation straight to GenX), but everyone I know old enough to have any real memory of WWII or its aftermath have swung pretty left.

I remember bringing up an article to him before the 2016* election where Holocaust survivors had released an open letter saying they’d experienced real fascism and trump’s rhetoric was Capital F Fascism, and how the general reaction to the letter was that it was hyperbole. He said he agreed with the letter 100%.

It’s only got worse since. This was never about trump; he’s just their carnival barker, and will be replaced if he goes down. This is a bona fide fascist movement, and ignoring it only makes it stronger.

Tldr: totally agree.

e: clarified with year.

e2: If this were 1932 and you were in Weimar Germany, knowing what you know now, what would you do? We should be asking ourselves and everyone this question.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, that's kinda how my dad is. Fiscally conservative but supports civil rights. That said, he isn't fully against government welfare programs, but he always wants to know where the money is coming from before backing a new government program.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

"I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

I mean, I get that... but also, if the party left you but you still vote for the party, then they didn't actually leave you. You tagged along.

People like him need to drop the label "Republican" and stop voting Republican if they really think the party left them. Otherwise they're full of shit.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

People who say that usually don't vote for the party in the general election, at least not reliably. Many hold out a hope, however naive, that their advocacy and primary votes, and that of people like them, can reverse the rot.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

Openly vile is far better, honestly. People need to start seeing these fascists for what they are, and that won’t happen if they’re hiding behind a façade.

[-] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Surprised you think the house will ever be blue again. Pretty sure we’re fucked mate, we can’t beat fascists with kids gloves.

[+] Pasta4u@lemmy.world -16 points 8 months ago

Please we have a sitting Democrat president who has a history of voting against LGBT causes

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Looks like he reversed it in 2012.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/us/politics/biden-gay-rights-lgbt.html

He's an old mf, learning new tricks, lol.

[-] Pasta4u@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago

Yea after all the damage he has done with red lining, the klan , gay rights and so on. He is just as bad as he always was

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago

People can have changes of heart, and we shouldn’t vilify them if they’re sincere in their repentance.

If MAGA and/or Q fanatics say today ‘you know what, I was wrong’ we shouldn’t berate them for what they believed in 2017, we should thank them for coming to reason. Doing otherwise makes them dig in their heels and run back to the comfort of their cult.

Anyone is capable of bettering themselves, and we should help them change if they’re willing.

How long are we supposed to hold these grudges? Or are you just looking for a reason to hate Biden?

[-] gkd@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

This is such an important thing. The more you push people away from changing the more solidified they become in their beliefs.

This is a really good Ted talk that was recently released. Highly recommend watching at least the last half of the video.

https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_mcindoe_birds_aren_t_real_how_a_conspiracy_takes_flight?language=en

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

And when was the last time he made any anti LGBT actions?

Fun fact, for anyone who didn't know, Biden was the one who ultimately pushed Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage. He randomly stated that he supported it on some interview, which sent the White House into a scramble as they suddenly had to get Obama to make a statement. This apparently rather annoyed Obama for a while.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 48 points 8 months ago

So he’s either a bigot, which should disqualify him, or he’s got serious memory deficits, which should disqualify him. And this is the best (R) they have.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 8 months ago

I dont think that him being a bigot is in contention either way to be perfectly honest with you.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 8 months ago

When dealing with Republicans, never assume incompetence when malice is a sufficient explanation.

[-] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

There were better options that would've been less harmful to everyone living here but they had to go for the closest analog to Adolf Hitler they could possibly find because fuck your freedoms

[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago

Do we really want a man who, by his own admission, is so clearly suffering from dementia as the House Speaker? I'm just asking questions here.

/s, obviously

[-] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 17 points 8 months ago

I’m just curious if there’s been any verifiable accounts that he has stopped beating his wife.

[-] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 26 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Does this guy knows there's no way to take that back? It's all out in the open, and he can't really run away from his history.

Embrace it, Johnson. We all know who you are. We'll just vote accordingly.

I'll be voting blue so hard when the time is correct. Great motivator he is.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Does this guy knows there’s no way to take that back?

Trump does it all the time, so now they all do.

[-] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 months ago

Yes, but we are not talking about Trump voters. Swing voters. They see Johnson acting crazy, they'll be galvanized to vote against Republicans. And his history is full of gold for opposition research.

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

He just needs to offer a thin layer of plausible deniability to the people who want to support him (or more importantly, his "team").

These kind of folks never need to go beyond a single layer of questioning, so "oh he says he never said that" covers for those who don't want to be considered bigot-by-association.

[-] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 months ago

They could do that, but that does not work well if one's history is full of gold for any one looking for attack ads. Swing voters would be looking at his history instead. Trump voters were never going to change their mind.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

Wonder what he thinks of the parts of the Bible that decry usery as a base and perilous sin.

He's probably going to take the fight to the bankers as soon as he finishes off the real infidels.

[-] Piecemakers3Dprints@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

To say nothing of the child rape, wanton murder, xenophobia as cultural core, etc. Oh, what a book.

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Reminds me of people in my life that have said a shitty thing, had it brought up to them at another time, and all they can do is deny it or ask why I'm bringing up "old stuff". Where's the line for bringing up old stuff? They just don't want to own what they said.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Maybe he actually read all the Bible verses people say are about gay marriage and realized they’re about shit we still think is bad (rape or weird cultic sex) and that there’s a whole ass explanation of Sodom and Gomorrah where it’s about inequality and greed: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.“

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023

465 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18075 readers

2755 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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