this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
252 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19224 readers
3086 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nifty 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Nazis, neo or otherwise, think of being gay as a mental illness. Being a billionaire might insulate Thiel from the face eating leopards, but only in so far as the leopards have other targets. Neo Nazis are going to clean up house of minorities and gays once they have sufficient legal foothold.

As for conservatives, they don’t care about how much money someone else has, but rather how much they can use someone else’s money.

[–] qarbone 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As a billionaire, you're putting forward 99% of the world as targets first. His life isn't in any danger from them.

[–] nifty 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Not necessarily, given enough legal framework to support the action of nazi like groups, rich people (including billionaires) would become the target of other rich people or billionaires

Edit some historical context:

That’s what happened in Nazi Germany. The Jewish people were robbed of their wealth and priceless heirlooms. Not only that but the possessions of Jewish people were tallied up so that “wealth would not be stolen from the state”

See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_plunder

Also happened with IP: https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2022/04/the-seizure-of-jewish-intellectual-property-ahead-of-world-war-ii/

In 1938, the Nazi government moved to hasten and complete the ‘Aryanisation of Jewish property’. In April a decree issued by Nazi leader Hermann Goering ordered Jews to compile and submit details of all private property valued at in excess of 5,000 Reichsmarks. Source https://alphahistory.com/holocaust/jewish-property-seizures/

A book for anyone interested in the subject https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/history/twentieth-century-european-history/robbing-jews-confiscation-jewish-property-holocaust-19331945/

[–] LavenderDay3544 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They're willing to tolerate gay people so long as they're racist...well for a while anyway. I mean Ernst Rohm was head of the SA (brown shirts) under Hitler.

[–] nifty 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Right and soon as they have a legal framework for dealing with the first undesirable, they’ll just move on to the next one

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Being a billionaire might insulate Thiel from the face eating leopards, but only in so far as the leopards have other targets.

The Catholics might think they can preach against homosexuality, but eventually they're going to discover that their congregants won't put up with all the homosexuality in the priesthood. Maybe not today, but possibly within the next 1500 years. And then won't they fell bad about what they've done.

[–] nifty 2 points 4 months ago

Yes, that’s kind of what’s happening now.

According to the studies, “self-identified homosexual orientation is notably more common among ordinations that occurred before the year 2000—between 11 and 15 percent—than it is after 2000 (2–3 percent),” he wrote. “The same is true of respondents’ selection of the category ‘somewhere in between, but more on the homosexual side,’ the response given by 7–9 percent of respondents with pre-2000 ordinations but only 3.2–3.5 percent of those more recently ordained.”

https://catholicvote.org/study-number-of-gay-priests-plunges/

There’s also growing support in some cases, but with mixed results

https://www.christianpost.com/news/1-million-member-regional-body-leaves-umc-over-lgbt-stance.html