Transphobic, homophonic, xenophobic.
What’s the right word for science phobic?
Luddite?
Don’t you slander Luddites that way. The Luddites were a worker’s rights movement.
Go look up how they were defeated.
I think that’s more about technology than science
Closest I can find is gnosiophobia, the fear of knowledge/learning. Was just going to use religious, but we know he’s not that, pretense notwithstanding.
Moron fits nicely enough.
I dunno.
But… is the right word for “all the phobias” panphobic?
It might be, but… shit, now what do I call my severe fear of cookware?
Corningphobia?
according to an unreliable source, Tiganiphobia is the fear of cookware… or you can lump it in with the fear of cooking- Mageirocophobia
Got bad oil burns a couple summers ago while cooking. I won’t use my stove anymore. I just microwave stuff or use my countertop combo oven/air fryer thing.
Just “Phobic”
Describes conservatives perfectly.
The Party of Fear and Hate
What’s the word for “doing the right thing” phobic and “being a decent person” phobic?
Ah I think that’s just called being a republican.
Scientiphobic? It at least jams the right Latin words together.
At this point, what aren’t they scared of?
That’s just because they still feel safe in public bigotry against trans folks. They still have all the old bigotries too; Muslims, atheists, gays, non protestant/evangelical Christians, black people, etc they just know if they come out publically against those demographics they’ll never win an election. So they use coded language, instead of the n word in public they say DEI, diversity, urban, etc. When ranting against trans folks in public they try to equivocate how people dress with being overtly sexual because that’s the same bs their pastor or political leader told them to think. The reason they scapegoat trans folks is because they are rare so most people especially in low population rural areas don’t have any trans friends or interact with trans folks on a regular basis to correct the isolationist demonization pushed by many churches and political conservatives.
They are coming for the majority of America, too. One way or another, most people will fall outside the narrow inner circle that is considered a “real” Merrikan.
I’m definitely not white or straight enough for Project 2025.
It reminds me of a certain country in the 1920s that had chosen a small segment of the population as superior…hmmm…which country was that again? Dutchland?
/s, kinda
Yeah no shit this isn’t news
The GOP
's proposed national platformis extremely transphobicThe GOP is transphobic, not transformer.
Sounds about right as they say.
deleted by creator
Approximately 88% of congress identifies as Christian. Does that mean we need to get rid of most Democrats & Biden too since they are Christians who discriminate against LGBTQ+ people?
You are making a false equivalency between “being Christian” and “being a bigot”. While there is a high correlation, particularly with some denominations of Christianity, they are not synonymous. (Heck, I’ve seen some religious groups at my local Pride celebrations for years.)
Presumably you’re aware of this.
Ask them if they believe the Bible and even the New Testament to be the word of God. If they say yes, then they are either liars or not true followers of their religion.
Somebody’s in their edgelord atheist phase.
When your ‘proof’ for them hating queer folk only applies to politicians who dont lie to their constituents, im gonna have to call that out. You find me one politician that doesn’t lie and we’ll test your hypothesis on them.
Bernie
Where in the bible does it say homosexuality is a sin? It doesn’t which is why some religious folk are cool with LGBT.
Are you serious? These are just two verses in the New Testament. However, those are just as it relates to homosexuality. The Bible is also anti-trans, anti-abortion, against women’s rights, and against sex outside of marriage. There is a reason many Republicans are the way they are.
Romans 1:26–27:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Neither of those verses reference homosexuality. Try again.
I’ll give you a hint: you’ll never find an anti homosexual verse in the bible because they don’t exist. Misreadings and incorrect translations have given rise to that belief.
This one seems like the key verse that is used as a case against homosexuality: https://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm
Pick your translation and interpretation, I guess. For me, this just underscores why religion is bullshit.
Sorry, but it’s actually pretty hard to dismiss the Romans passage, but it is something that can be chalked up to Paul being sex negative, going so far as to exhort people to be chaste or get married if they can’t control their passion if, as he noted, they were not free from such passion as he claimed to be. The other passages commonly cited don’t reference homosexuality nearly as directly, but it would not be a difficult argument to make that the word choices were specifically defaming homosexuality (especially given how common it is for people to use the same sort of defamation). Which isn’t to say that every denomination adheres to the same interpretation of these passages, but they aren’t on as theologically shaky ground as we might hope.
Expecting Christians to follow a given text to the letter will always be setting yourself up for failure. Not only do people pick and choose the doctrine they follow (or more often have it picked and chosen for them by their spiritual leader), different traditions have different emphasis and even different texts they’re operating off of. Expecting an legalistic following of a specific interpretation will leave you expecting far different behavior that most of your observations will show.
People bend over backwards to try to argue that the Bible doesn’t say what it does. If you want to argue that a book that is the basis for christian’s overwhelming homophobic views was just misinterpreted, then nothing in the book has any meaning. You could say the correct interpretation of the Bible is Jesus was really a talking rat born out of inbred to his 13 year old sister mom.
Not my point. You absolutely can point to homophobic passages of the Bible. You can also point to passages of the Bible that are not talking about homosexuality in specific, but that are commonly interpreted as such. My point is that expecting even Christians to agree with other Christians about what texta constitute the Bible let alone what those specific texts actually say is an exercise in futility.
This is the why of the existence of all the various sects and denominations of Christianity. There are theologians who have done lots of academic work to show how the Bible does not need to be homophobic. There are others who have worked just as hard to justify doing grievous harm to homosexuals. Trying to explain both of those with the One True Reading of the Bible is committing the same error they do.
For my queer ass, if Christians all spontaneously decided to follow the theology of Rev. Fred Rodgers tomorrow, I’m gonna breathe a sigh of relief and leave them alone to be just the nicest people and hope they stay that way.
Yes, but people aren’t ready for that talk
Exactly… Democrats & Republicans both enable the very same organizations that promote anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes. They’ve allowed cults to take over America.
It’s too bad that being a xtian, like being a con, is over-represented in our Congress.
