1090

MAGA is straight up losing it after Taylor Swift’s Harris endorsement (newrepublic.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

378 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“F you, Taylor Swift!” shouted Megyn Kelly, “and f all of the people who want to see these children have body parts chopped off.”

For those not fluent in Republican crazy-speak, Kelly’s meltdown was triggered by Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris the night before, barely one hour after Trump all but face-planted on the debate stage. Kelly was especially triggered by Swift highlighting her appreciation for vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s support of LGBTQ+ rights.

…

Other right-wing commentators, like Ben Shapiro, took another approach: making fun of Swifties. “Note: if you vote for a particular candidate because your favorite singer is doing so, please don’t vote. You are too stupid to vote,” wrote Shapiro on X. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the richest man on the planet, threatened to impregnate her.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I’d argue that men centering themselves in the discussion which largely centers around attempts to remove bodily autonomy from women only hurts, not helps the cause.

I think we'd have to take a poll from the general population and compare it with a poll from an anti-circumcision group and compare it to be sure.

Regardless, I said it was a pathway, not a guarantee.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think we'd have to take a poll from the general population and compare it with a poll from an anti-circumcision group and compare it to be sure.

My guy, please be for fucking real right now. There is a difference between an unfounded claim and an outlandish one. If I said "all of the smartest people on earth believe Poland borders Peru," we wouldn't need a study or poll to confirm I was full of shit, we could just reasonably deduce it. Likewise we don't need a survey to tell us that any man who genuinely tried to bring up circumcision as tantamount in the abortion conversation would be rightly laughed out of serious consideration.

Again, I acknowledge you aren't wrong and I will acknowledge both abortion and circumcision exist under the same very broad umbrella of bodily autonomy, but frankly the scale and scope of the two are so wildly and enormously different as to instantly render any attempts at comparison moot.

And honestly, I really think that you know this too. I truly believe that if you can divorce yourself from your personal investment in this topic, you will also see what an absurd comparison that is.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

any man who genuinely tried to bring up circumcision as tantamount in the abortion conversation would be rightly laughed out of serious consideration.

The point has sailed over your head. At no point did I say they were tantamount. I said they are relevant to each other, because they're both problems dealing with bodily autonomy.

but frankly the scale and scope of the two are so wildly and enormously different as to instantly render any attempts at comparison moot.

I never said otherwise.

this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024

1090 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2079 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.

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

Example:

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! 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.
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.
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