I think conservatives freak out any time they learn basically anything.
Bold of you to assume they learn. They just knee-jerk get angry at whatever fox “news” tells them they should be angry about.
Some of them are capable of learning - they’re called 'ex conservatives '.
Removed by mod
It’s pretty common where I live, especially for people who grow up in conservative families. You start out assuming the trusted adults in your life are right about everything (or at least I did), but once you’re exposed to the world outside your bubble, you gradually (or not) change your mind on a lot of things.
I get that that’s different from, say, an adult with fully formed beliefs one day changing their mind, and that probably is pretty rare. Still, out of all the badass lefties I know, most of them did have at least a few years of cringy hardcore conservatism. 🤷
Or alternatively, pretend it didn’t happen
A true servative learns everything they will need to know for the duration of their life by the age of 13.
They die basically the same kinds of people they were born as.
And by conservatives you mean two random twitter accounts that, at least in the article screens, do not mention their political view at all, one random youtube commenter with no mention of political views, and one conservative sports website which is kind of a weird crossover.
Let’s keep it real here, that article is trying suuuuper hard to be edgy with nothing much to cling to. Conservatives stopped talking about gay people in the 90’s.
The fuck are you smoking? Thomas talked about overturning Obergefell in his Roe ruling. Fuck off.
Sorry dude. I read the article and see the only cites of conservatives losing it are a couple social media comments from random noname people with no clear political view.
I don’t follow foreign politics so I have no clue what you’re trying to say, but in my country the older thinkers give zero fucks about people being gay.
Either way, do you think this article sincerely found conservatives freaking out about gay animals because I do not see that in this article. It does the world no favours manifesting polarization without substance.
<fucks off>
Thomas is a Supreme Court justice and his legal ruling in a recent case advocated for banning gay marriage. Perhaps the situation is different elsewhere but in the US there is still a lot of prejudice against queer people among conservatives.
That nuts, thanks for the context.
According to Wikipedia the overwhelming majority of Americans support gay marriage. It actually references the 90’s as the turning point which seems to support my original comment.
You: I don’t understand American politics around queer people but I’m gonna tell you that you have nothing to worry about. Fucking idiot.
What the overwhelming majority of Americans believe doesn’t matter, because the US is not a direct democracy; it is a representative republic. The representatives are elected, and are massively corrupt. The corruption comes in many different forms, like gerrymandering, first past the post voting leading to a two party system, private monetary donations to political campaigns leading to representatives doing their donors’ bidding, revolving door politics, the owner class having ownership over the means of production leading to massive consolidation of wealth which then ties back into private money in politics and the revolving door, etc.
When looking at polling data, the American people are pretty solidly social democrats, but US policy does not reflect that at all; instead, it reflects the will of the corporations and wealthy donors, except for very rare situations where there is a form of direct democracy, like direct ballot initiatives, for example. When looking at bills that are signed into law outside of direct ballot initiatives, 99.99% of the time, it reflects the interests of the wealthy or fascists (since the wealthy prefers fascism over any semblence of socialism, since it keeps them in power).
Yeah I think it is more of a loud minority but it is a strongly held belief for a not insignificant portion of the population, and they hold a lot of political power.
They literally send gay children to abusive camps to “pray the gay away”. You cannot say they don’t give a shit about gay people, they’re just harder to attack so they’re focusing on trans people now.
The majority of Americans arent conservative, so what the majority believe doesnt reflect what a minority of the population believe. As for the population of conservatives its about thirty percent, they just have undue influence due to fuckery and outdated governmental systems.
I don’t follow foreign politics so I have no clue
Should have stopped there.
“The Dangerous Consequences of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Bill on LGBTQ+ Youth in Florida” - Yup, not a word since the 90s. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/online/volume-xxiii-online/the-dangerous-consequences-of-floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-on-lgbtq-youth-in-florida/
You had me until the last sentence.
You may now be my favorite parody account on Lemmy.
I guess prepare to be let down?
I don’t think you could let me down if you tried, friend.
Peruse my comments. Huge let down. But thanks for your support.
I’m not talking specifically about this issue or what was said in this article.
What issue or what article?
It was a general statement. Not sure why that’s difficult to discern.
Conservatives are freaking out because they learned that some animals are gay
Are we seriously doomed to have this stupid ass homophobia shoved down our throats by conservative bigots every 5-10 years because they keep getting mad about the same thing all over again? I’ve been listening to this shit for over 20 years now.
Just know that these asshats take extreme pride in their hate. They will subject people to it until the day they die. Christianity is an eternal well of hate and ignorance. And they want to make sure no one is ever happy, the miserable fucks!
I think we’re doomed to have it shoved down our throats way more frequently than that with their recent freak outs.
Also, he mentions 20 years, I have seen it going on much longer than 20 years, sadly. If they seize power via a Ronald McDonald presidency, they will make things far, far worse. I remember things being very hostile toward gays (trans, etc., didn’t really get a mention other than for comedy) at the height of the fear over AIDS. I think the boot lifted a bit from their neck during the 70s, a whole lot of people seemed to view the 80s as their comeuppance for daring to be who they are…
And anyone that votes for Republicans, and yet is not a fully white, xtian, far-right cishet male is absolutely kidding themselves. They’ll have you up against the wall eventually no matter how much Ronald McDonald regalia you might have purchased.
Given their history, I’m thinking yes. And they have more plans than just poutrages on their alternative reality cinematic universe, they want to force their worldview of xtian Sharia Law on everyone.
There’s literally worms in their brains.
“They’re turning the freaking frogs gay!”
Kind of amazing I didn’t think of that when I read this
I couldn’t help but think it, he lives rent free in my head.
for a positive counterbalance, the “swans can be gay” meme
Honestly, I’m a wonk, listening to an episode of KF right now, and that quote is so foreign to me because there’s so many other clips I’ve heard more often. Does that make me a hipster if “freaking frogs gay” is too mainstream?
Does that make me a hipster if “freaking frogs gay” is too mainstream?
Yes, but the good kind. The knowledgeable kind.
I’m deeply sad that Alex jones got his hands on that one. There’s a potentially huge effect that birth control has on fish reproduction, but I suspect people dismiss it because Jones said libs were turning frogs gay
Shit headline: conservatives don’t learn anything ever
Yeah, the found out some animals can be gay, but they didn’t learn anything from that.
I’ve watched decades of leftist get their heads kicked in by conservative police forces who have learned how to better kick in heads. Mean while leftists are showing up with a playbook that hasn’t been updated in 70 years. If anything the 70s probably had more effective playbook. Point is its fun to say but the left is not making a great case for learning and adapting.
Hell in Canada they have pretty much fucked us for a few decades pretty severely
We’ve been fed a story about non violent protest leading to change. They told us any non violence but intentionally left out the most important part about those protests. Those marches were to places where all those people were going to get in line to register to vote. They were out to achieve something and gum up the system. They were forcing their oppressors to contend with them.
Just showing up with signs and saying you think something is wrong is never going to do anything. They know we don’t like it, they don’t care.
You have to go inside, make a demand, and be followed by a thousand people who also make a demand. Prevent them from doing business until they deal with you. They will respond with violence. That is the point.
You go with a specific list of demands, you go in to the place you want to meet those demands, and you don’t leave until you’re forced to. You keep doing that until it becomes a national problem.
You cannot effectively protest non violently without disrupting business in concrete in measurable ways. You might as well just shout at a wall.
I agree for the most part except I disagree that the solution is violent in anyway.
View Society fundamentally as in group and then a million out groups. Its pop culture vs sub groups. The right wing represent popular culture in almost every country they are traditionalist. They are where every other group wants to be. They are blue jean letter jacket pop culture.
The left wing are always the rejects, both by choice and not by choice. They are various groups of skids and punks and poor and jobless and immigrants. Unified under this idea that they deserve the attention and same rules applied to the pop group.
Protests is a way the sub groups fight to gain equality with the pop group. Little by little it can succeed with violence but I don’t believe that’s effective. I think it does the opposite. I think a lot of these protests serve the people that are being protested more. That’s because a lot of modern protestors seem to have gone with this view that becoming a burden to everyone is the way to get movement?
Environmental activist deflate tires and stand in traffic. During morning commutes for example. If you look at life as groups all vying for popularity, these actions are unpopular and alienate these groups and their associated causes. Being violent also accomplishes this. Violence can get a lot done. Doesn’t mean its the most effective. I just cannot believe modern day protestors have never decided to make their cause appealing in a way to make their cause something that people would want to join. Why is it always being obnoxious and shouting and violent or a nuisance. I have a suspicion that large entities figured out long ago you can beat these protestors and kill their momentum by actually encouraging them. Not just encouraging them but finding the most radical and unappealing ones in the group and funding them so they become leaders.
Who? The left fucked you? The right? You need an editor.
Imagine having a world view based on such fragile bullshit that two animals fucking can shatter it…
Yeah conservatives are brain damaged.
Just see how many of them react to teaching the fundamentals of biology (evolution).
Being a conservative requires refusing to learn anything
In high school, the conservative kids refused to accept homosexuality occurred in Greek culture. Then when they finally did accept it, said it was why God destroyed their civilization?
“Destroyed” by the famously straight Romans?
How do you think the Romans caught all that gayness?
Greek blood
Being Greco-Roman means never having to apologize for getting off.
By that claim… Roman Empire go bye bye?
You conserve your brain by not learning about stuff and things.
5D Go Fish right there.
“It’s unclear if there is an official Hierarchy of Victimhood for animals,” Outkick bleats. “There is for humans. Transgender persons sit atop. Straight white Christian men sit at the bottom, almost buried beneath the pyramid.”
Pfffft. What a hypocrite. Whining about trans people’s immense victimhood, while using the exact same metaphor to imply that, in fact, HE is the most victimized of all by not even being allowed to be the victim. By being “buried beneath the pyramid” of victimhood. Bahahahaha. The cognitive dissonance is incredible.
And buddy… That “Christian” part is apparently doing a lot of heavy lifting on your victim complex, my guy. Plenty of us straight white men get by without being under constant attack. If everyone around you seems like an asshole, maybe you’re the asshole. And maybe if you acted a little more Christ-like, you’d give people less reason to attack you and you’d make more friends with different kinds of people.
The problem in his view, as best I can tell, is that there is a natural hierarchy, that he belongs on top of telling everyone else what to do, and any upset of this natural hierarchy is oppressing him. He may not have thought this out in so many words, but it’s a hypothesis that seems to make accurate predictions about what people in his reference class will do and say.
Oh, definitely. Conservatives are all about social hierarchies and how it’s the only ‘natural’ form of society. Anyone trying to ‘rise above their place’ or help someone do so is an enemy to be destroyed, lest they cause the collapse of society as we know it.
And neveryoumind if society as we know it is a mighty pile of suck for people not at the top. Shoulda been born rich white christian cishet males.
honestly from the way he talks I can’t tell if hes a top or a bottom and which he actually prefers.
Removed by mod
Straight white Christian men sit at the bottom, almost buried beneath the pyramid
Like a Pharaoh? Buried with concubines and unimaginable riches and feasts in an elaborate sarcophagus? Under a monument built on the backs of thousands of slaves and their suffering and death? Yeah, okay, that tracks.
Except that the pyramid builders weren’t slaves
billionaires lives are made near unliveable by the evil tax system that exploits all their hard work to benefit the lazy
/s
Learned? No, that is the wrong word.
They are in violent and vehement denial about facts that are empirically documented and readily observable with ones own eyes.
They didn’t actually learn anything. It will be written off as some “degenerate liberuhl conspiracy”, as they do with every other fact that doesn’t align with their perverse totalitarian worldview.
I mean, that’s the entire conservative/right-wing M.O.
Let’s now wait until they learn about shrimps and hermaphroditism in animals.
Northern shrimp, also commonly known as northern prawn, are a sequential hermaphrodite. This is a term used for animals that start their life as one sex and change to the other later in life. In the case of northern shrimp, they are born as males and become females at around four or five years of age.
In a group of anemonefish, a strict dominance hierarchy exists. The largest and most aggressive female is found at the top. Anemonefish are protandrous sequential hermaphrodites, meaning they develop into males first, and when they mature, they become females. If the female anemonefish is removed from the group, such as by death, one of the largest and most dominant males becomes a female.
I saw a post the other day half-joking that they were making the next Jurassic Park movie woke by having trans dinosaurs.
Pretty sure somebody wasn’t paying attention during the original…
But it’s because of the gay frogs!
And if they hear this information, they may stare blankly, refuse to take in the new information, then respond with a thought-terminating cliche like “God only made two genders.”
Actually like this: https://youtu.be/dF98ii6r_gU?si=auFnMHOAwPi3UWlz
YOu don’t find gay animals in nature!!! Gayness is unnatural and therefore unethical!!!
Peacock: “Actually you do, here are some gay animals”
Well… some animals also eat their own young!!! Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s ethical!!!
Fucking hilarious.
Imagine if animals had a sense of ethics lmao
Well they certainly have compassion, cooperation, a sense of fairness, social norms, etc. Whether that makes ethics is a matter of semantics, I think.
well if we’re going by the traditionally defined ethics as we humans use it. No, because they don’t speak english.
Do they have some form of ethical system? Probably, i believe we’ve even seen as much in some species already.
No, because they don’t speak english.
Lots of people in the world who don’t speak English.
correct me if im wrong here, but do any animals, ever, at all, speak any human language at all?
I just used english as a force of habit. A stand in statement if you will.
Perhaps maybe even the fact that we’re speaking in fucking english right now, will lead you to the reason as to why i stated english.
Of course people don’t fucking speak english, what a stupid fucking comment.
Varmaa siksi koska mä veikkaan et puhu mitään muuta kieltä, joten jos mä rupeen kirjottaa jollai muul kielel, ni sun pitää vaivautua itse kääntämään se (mikä ei tosin nykyään vaadi kun sen kaks klikkaust, sillonku mnää olin piän ni sullei ois ollu mitää tsänssiä).
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric they’re being. Guess it’s hard to see when you don’t have any other languages to think in.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does “animals don’t speak” somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
Of course people don’t fucking speak english, what a stupid fucking comment.
If you think that’s stupid, wait until you hear about the guy who said the same thing of animals.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognisable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, that’s another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
Anyway, for those actually interested in what the current research says about how much animals can use language, NativLang on YT has an awesome series on animal speech/grammar that goes into depth on the subject. Here’s the first video.
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language.
You’re repeating the age-old myth of “parrots just parrot, they don’t actually understand anything they parrot”.
This is decidedly untrue, and there’s heaps of science behind that. A lot of which I have shown you. So that assertion is proved untrue, ie “wrong”.
ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.
This is also just plain wrong. It’s a Greek word that comes to English from Latin. So not an English word, actually. (See my first point about monolinguistic speakers often being a bit ethnocentric. Not your fault, one language is limiting in more ways than one.)
Parrots can indeed speak, but to what extent do they actually understand the language, or have grammar? That’s the video I linked in my very first reply.
This:
Can animals grammar? – introduction to my animated series which goes deep in just what the capabilities are, because there is a lot of debate in the science world.
Thoguht you might be interested, but guess you’re more interested in “winning” a conversation than actually having one.
Monolinguistic people rarely realise just how overtly ethnocentric they’re being. Guess it’s hard to see when you don’t have any other languages to think in.
and it also probably helps when you’re classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument, where classifying humans as animals would only cause further problems.
Along with the fact that it’s arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others, but this isn’t relevant.
How hard would it have been to just refrain from the word English in that sentence? Why did you feel the need to add it? Does “animals don’t speak” somehow not convey the meaning of that? (Genuine questions, not sarcasm.)
are you actually genuinely mad at me for this? And yes, “animals don’t speak” doesn’t convey it properly, because animals literally do speak, they just don’t speak the same kind of interpreted languages that humans often do, though we have taught monke sign language a couple of times, so there’s that, which might count i guess. (though it’s not particularly fluent, or communicative)
But generally, for all intents and purposes, for this semantic argument, no, they don’t speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do “english” for example.
This is like being mad at someone for talking about transportation, and using cars as an example, because they like cars, or drive one all the time. It’s just the basic bias of existing as a human being, where being impartial to literally everything that ever exists, at any point in time, is quite literally impossible.
There are lots of parrots who can clearly utter recognizable English, so yes, there are animals who speak English. On what level can they understand the language they use, that’s another question entirely. Which more or less was my point in replying to you. :)
yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.
regardless, my point was that animals have their own code of ethics, independent from the human concept of ethics, as defined in languages like english, which i used as the example, because i don’t know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language. I’m just using the system relevant to the words i’m speaking about. It’d be a little weird if i was using fucking C the programming language, as an example of language, wouldn’t it?
Conservatives tomorrow: not eating your young is unnatural! Anyone who doesn’t eat at least one baby must be punished!
Getting “The Purge” vibes from your comment…
I love that you specifically sad Peacock. It reminds me both of the rainbow-colored peacock logo of NBC in the 90s, as well as their PSA bumper “The more you know”.
Well the second argument is true, it’s just that being gay isn’t unethical. But talk to them about veganism and all of a sudden we can eat insane amounts of dead animals cause lions eat other animals too?
“If animals can be gay, I could be gay, but I am not gay! 😱” - Republican caught sucking dick in an alley
“I’m not gay for sucking dick; this dick is gay for getting sucked.”
This is logic.
Republican caught sucking dick in an alley
That made me snort :D
Ironically, you can enjoy sucking dick without being gay. Because sexuality is a spectrum.
If the Republicans would stop being so defensive, they might find a lot to like about the sexuality spectrum.
Pretty much. The intersection of gender and sexuality spectrum means romantic attraction, sexual attraction, and sexual interests can mix and match in a lot of ways.
That’s not snot!!!
Meh, I deleted this, it was just going to get misinterpreted by literalists.
Doesn’t this happen every few years?
Oh, this sh*tfest is hilarious.
We’ve known about gay penguins since 1912, and regressives are just now cottoning on?
The conservative education system makes a special effort to misinform/occlude information about certain natural facts of life for generations of people. So every graduation cycle or two, you’ve got a fresh faced cohort of brainwashed kids who have to find out about the gay penguins from 1912 for the first time, ten years after they’ve cemented their bias against homosexuality on “rationalist” grounds.
We’ve been playing similar games with evolution since the fucking Stokes Monkey Trial. Identical debunked arguments showed up in The Panda’s Thumb over a century after they were ostensibly put to bed.
You’ll periodically see this show up in regards to phrenology and eugenics, as well. All sorts of inane long-dismissed claims about how physiognomy clues amateur race-sleuths in to someone’s criminal intent or intellectual fitness or breeding capacity.
Recycling pseudoscience and vaguely sourced gossip is also very popular in anti-abortion circles, giving us all sorts of zombie lies about pagan blood sacrifice of fetuses and elaborate plots to cull the white race.
The dogmatism of western bigotry is baked into conservative ideology. You can find people dredging up the same old tired lies from the 19th century in arguments made before the US Congress and the Supreme Court to this very day.
Man I had a cat who would only try to bang my female dog, hated my other cat and dog, just specifically had eyes for that one dog.
Haven’t seen the documentary but would be great to have an annotated list of accounts of gay animals from throughout history to point people towards so they can’t say its chemicals in the water or microplastics turning animals gay in the current era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Various forms of this are found in every major geographic region and every major animal group.
Like, all of them. But for specific examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
It doesn’t mention any historical examples from before 1990 due to cultural prejudice but I’d be shocked if the Greeks and Romans didn’t write on the subject, being such avid observers of the natural world. Sounds like a fun research project for a historian, I’m sure it’s out there.
Tbf I wouldn’t mind them thinking microplastics turned animals gay, maybe they’d be inclined to do something about it
Alex Jones’ well known statement that “they’re putting chemicals in the water that turn the fricking frogs gay” isn’t enough for them to support even the most basic environmental regulation.
A nice thought that there are inroads on the environment among the paranoid set of conservatives, maybe worth exploring. I recall studies showing some kinds of chemical effluent having gender based effects on fish at least, which might be the origin of Alex’s bizarre theory.
