this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
858 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4179 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

WHAT THE FUCK

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

For contrast the legal marriage age in Saudi Arabia is 18.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dude just said the quite part out load. If the GOP gets full control over the government, legalized child marriage would be rolled out in days.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

Child marriage is already legal in quite a few states with parental permission. And there are a lot of terrible parents.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

In China, the phrase 豆蔻年华 refers to a girl of 13-14. Why? Because a famous poet likened the appearance of a child prostitute's developing vagina to a cardamom flower. Apparently that was totally fine, romantic even. I feel bad for the girl.

Anyway here's the flower:

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So after searching a bit, "豆蔻年华" appears to translate to "cardamom years".

In case anyone else thought that the post above wasn't terribly clear.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

thanks, i was curious about the translation, but didnt plan to search that myself without knowing what it meant!

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Yet somehow conservatives think they can point at liberals as the “groomers.”

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago

Because whatever disgusting, vile thoughts run through their heads is what they assume others must be doing.

Some call it projection... but it's projection because these are things they are OBSESSED with. They are so sick and lacking empathy and experience that can't imagine that others genuinely think differently than they do. Every accusation is an admission.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

As always, it is all about Projection.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pieces of shit like this aren't worth the price of a bullet to put them out of our misery.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They are not, but I'll gladly buy all the bullets required to keep children safe from religious idiots and republikkklowns.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Completely agree.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The parts of the world where violent crime is lowest have the highest mean age of motherhood. Women in Australia and the UK, for example, wait until after 30 before having their first child.

The parts of the world where violent crime is the highest have the lowest mean age of motherhood.

Nobody should be encouraging pregnancy before age 30.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think your conclusion is correct and a correlation between the two numbers is by far not enough to assume a causality between the two of them. I would rather assume there are a lot of other factors being involved. Like e.g. the education system, especially the amount of years spent on education before starting to work, the general wealth of the society, the social securities provided the government, like e.g. health care, unemployment support etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Like e.g. the education system, especially the amount of years spent on education before starting to work

Exactly. It's kinda hard to spend years on education, years building a nest egg, when you haven't spent all that many years alive.

The correlation is through socioeconomic conditions, correct. Older parents have worked longer, saved more, and can provide greater opportunities to their children, which in turn creates a more prosperous society that values education, social security, etc.

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

That last take comes off as weird, ngl. Just let people do what they want.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I think you're reading more into my statement than what I actually said.

This thread is about a GOP official encouraging child pregnancy:

GOP official argues in favor of child marriage: Girls are ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’

I don't think we should just let that GOP official do what he wants.

I think your criticism is about reproductive rights: that we should leave individuals to make their own decisions. I agree.

However, when the question comes up as to the best time to start a family, there is an answer: "after 30".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People should just stop trying to interfere with people's private life in general. Get pregnant or don't, how is that a concern to me?

As long as it's two consenting adults, which should be obvious, but sadly apparently isn't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Get pregnant or don't, how is that a concern to me?

Because every society where the average person starts a family before age 22 is described as "developing" or "impoverished" and every society where the average person starts a family after the age of 28 is described as "industrialized".

I challenge you to find an exception.

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

You are swapping correlation and causation to some degree. A country does not become industrialized by people starting to have kids at a later age. Rather, people start getting kids when their circumstances allow it: in industrialized countries, you rely less on children to provide for you when old, as there hopefully are social systems in place or you can save up on your own. Downside is, without social systems you also have to provide for yourself at old age, meaning people need to build up more savings before they feel ready for the financial burden a child is for around 20 years.

In developing countries, children often get little support above bare necessities and start contributing to the household income at a much earlier age, even before hitting their teens.

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

A country does not become industrialized by people starting to have kids at a later age.

There is a theory that supports this:

A core mechanism of unified growth theory is that accelerating technological progress induces mass education and, through interaction with child quantity-quality substitution, a decline in fertility.

Declines in fertility have been observed after a country has become industrialized. Not only did fertility decline, but the children people were having were generally 'of higher quality'.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE1751

The testable predictions of the theory and its underlying mechanisms have been confirmed in empirical and quantitative research in the past decade, and have inspired intensive exploration of the impact of historical and pre-historical forces on comparative economic development and the disparity in the wealth of nations.

This comes from Wiki, and this particular statement currently has 3 citations if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_growth_theory

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Are all conservatives disgusting, or just most?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All. But as with most things, it's a spectrum.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Some are just a bit yucky.

Still, make sure to wash your hands.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

It's an angler fish thing. Sometimes you see the nightmare lurking in the darkness, but usually you get the "some of the nicest people you'll ever meet!" facade.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Probably most. You'd see 1000s of articles every day non-stop, if 20%+ of people were this disgusting.

The fact that you can still be surprised is proof that most of them aren't this disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Idk man, they have to be some level of disgusting to keep voting these people in.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

I'm gonna puke

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

I see they are using the tactics of religion - get them young.

load more comments
view more: next ›