this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
323 points (96.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

15670 readers
526 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] robocall@lemmy.world 23 points 21 hours ago

Christian nationalism

  • No religious freedom
  • Women brutalized
  • Slavery allowed
  • Child rape and marriage
  • Dogs are not guaranteed good treatment

MAGA Christian nationalism is a death cult.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Are we forgetting we have a literal pedophile as the president?

How about we get that out?

You know what else is a death cult that brutalizes everyone? ICE.

[–] Pappabosley@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

But his a good Christian paedophile

[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago

The Epstein party continues to be concerned about women and children.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 20 hours ago

Why is this screenshot cropped, rotated and tinted?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sharia is already prohibited... by the same first amendment which republicans ignore when they advocate for a theocracy...

Basically all of those bullet points listed are things republican "christians" do. They only have a problem with it when it's brown people doing it.

Lest you think I'm advocating for sharia law, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that "christian law" would be effectively the same thing, and they're both equally prohibited by the constitution.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sharia is already prohibited…

The various ideological tenants of the law aren't prohibited. If a county wants to declare itself "dry" and refuse to issue alcohol sales permits, for instance, there's no real state or federal guarantee against it. The fact that the people passing the law are doing so in the name of an Islamic faith rather than a Christian faith or a secular commitment to sobriety doesn't normally play into the rule's legality.

Lest you think I’m advocating for sharia law, I’m not.

I don't think people writing or voting on this legislation really know anything about Islamic religious teachings or legal codes.

If someone in a city council tried to cap the interest rate local creditors could charge, based on their opposition to the concept of usury, I doubt a lay Texan would key in on this being an aspect of Islamic fundamentalism unless some AM Talk Radio host or Joe Rogan affiliated podcaster mentioned it. If a local school district passed an ordinance protecting transgender athletes from discrimination, how many people might trace this back to The Prophet's positive attitudes toward mukhannathun or Ayatollah Khomeini and Al-Azhar's fatwas explicitly permitting reassignment surgery... unless a conservative pundit explicitly brought it up.

“christian law” would be effectively the same thing

There was a whole Thirty Years War suggesting the definition of "Christian Law" is not so well-defined. But, again, I think there's a very limited understanding of historical religious strictures across every faith. People tend to only know what they're told of, within the context of the speaker delivering the message.

What you'd consider a normal Evangelical religious edict might fly directly in the face of a traditional Catholic or Eastern Orthodox legal code.

Islamic Laws stray even farther, depending on which Islamic community you're coming from (Indonesians can hold very different social morals than Nigerians or Turks)

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sharia law isn't the sum of prohibitive laws based on Islam, it's an entire legal system based on Islamic law.

If a county bans alcohol sales, it's not sharia just because Islam prohibits alcohol. Even if someone on the county council happens to be muslim, if the legal system itself is secular, then an alcohol ban implemented under that system is also secular.

Sharia law implies you have imams writing the legal code, not legislators who happen to be muslim. "Freedom of religion" means anyone can practice any religion, but no laws can be passed on the basis of religion.

If you ban alcohol because it's bad for the liver and the arteries, or because it destroys lives and families, or because drunk drivers are dangerous, then it's not religiously motivated no matter what religion the people passing those laws follow.

The same logic applies to tax code and trans right. They should be written on a secular basis with the intent to be designed for what's most beneficial to society. What's a fair rate for people to pay to keep the public systems running and provide social safety nets for those who need them? What's the most fair and inclusive way to enshrine human rights without marginalizing anyone?

If your religion says "be a good person and help others" so you get into politics so you can write good policy, it doesn't make your policy religious unless you write religion into it or pass it under a religious legal system.

And I understand that there are major differences between protestant/catholic/orthodox christians, but the differences in substance doesn't change the fact that if the legal system is secular, then the laws passed under it are secular (if those laws abide by the secular constitution).

When I said republicans want a theocracy, I meant it literally. They want to change the legal system from a secular one to a religious one. The substance of policy that would result from that change is secondary to the change itself. And yes, when they say "christian" they mean "evangelical protestant." Which is even scarier, because at least catholics and orthodox christians respect human rights and value things like compassion and selfless service.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If a county bans alcohol sales, it’s not sharia just because Islam prohibits alcohol.

If a Muslim community refuses to issue liquor licenses, you're going to see Christian Nationalists accuse the municipal government of "operating under Sharia Law" in order to justify a state-level take over of the administration. These laws give them the necessary leverage.

If your religion says “be a good person and help others” so you get into politics so you can write good policy, it doesn’t make your policy religious unless you write religion into it or pass it under a religious legal system.

If you're implementing policies in defiance of the state's majority party, they can point to your minority religion as the reason for your opposition. And they can galvanize the broader state religious majority to strip you of municipal self-rule, by claiming your religion says "be a bad person and hurt others".

When I said republicans want a theocracy, I meant it literally.

Any hard look at Abbott, Paxton, and Patrick suggest they aren't theocrats nearly so much as they're just fascists using any excuse to consolidate power. Texas is heavily conservative Christian, so they slam that peddle a bunch.

This push for "anti-Sharia Law" legislation is more of the same. An excuse to deprive municipalities of self-rule.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago

If a Muslim community refuses to issue liquor licenses, you're going to see Christian Nationalists accuse the municipal government of "operating under Sharia Law" in order to justify a state-level take over of the administration.

Sure, you would see that. But they'd be wrong. Unless a muslim-majority community somehow changes the constitution to allow them to create laws on religious grounds. But it seems more likely the people to do that would be the evangelicals.

Of course republicans are gonna cry "sharia law" every time a muslim person participates in politics. That doesn't make it accurate.

If you're implementing policies in defiance of the state's majority party

I'ma stop you right there. In this political system, minority parties don't implement policy in defiance of the majority. Practically speaking, that just doesn't happen, because it takes a majority vote to pass, and it has to pass two chambers of congress. And unless it passes with supermajority, it needs the executive's signature. And even then it has to stand up to scrutiny by the (albeit corrupt) supreme court.

All that applies even at the state level, although some states have a different name for their highest court. But the process is the same.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago

Repugs have been mirroring sharia for years, at least since the dump's first term

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

so Sharia law is the gop platform?

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Always has been.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wow, close call there, Texas, you're addessing a major risk there.

So, do Christofascist laws next.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I'd consider this a Christofascist law.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"No girl genital mutilation"

None for boys either, right?

Right?!

Interesting how they don’t mention it, right? Male circumcision is standard in Islam, it should be on the list. Anything to avoid addressing the genital mutilation elephant already in the room.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The middle 4 bullets are standard practice for our current epstein overlords and the top bullet is the Christo-fascist wet dream. At least we get dogs?

...Well, as long as you hide them from Kristi Noem...

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 174 points 1 day ago (21 children)

Good thing we only mutilate boys' genitals.

[–] Fokeu@lemmy.zip 111 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

It's still shocking to me how most Americans consider genital mutilation a normal thing. My European mind can't comprehend.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago

My mutilated american dick thanks you for your concern 😔

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

If it shocks you farther, it's just a little check box when you have a baby boy. Just a little bit of the paperwork before discharge. You don't even have to be there, and it's "free". Very strange, all things considered.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

I watched my little boy like a hawk so they wouldn't "accidentally" whisk him away and mutilate him.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you for mentioning this. I don't even have that set of equipment, and it boggles my mind that this is normal and acceptable to anyone. Even using religion as a reason just seems ridiculous. Why the hell would you ever cause that much physical pain to a child for a cosmetic procedure?

"Oh, they're transing the kids!" Fucker, you asked your doctor to cut off part of your son's junk before he even developed the capacity to lift his own head. Shut the fuck up.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good thing they don't read the Bible, because other than the pet dog thing, it's a tie

[–] Artafernes@lemmus.org 1 points 21 hours ago

Well according to us (muslims) its send by same god soooo thats why maybe ?

[–] SalmiakDragon@feddit.nu 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Never seen an em-dash placed within a hyphenated word before ("death—cult")

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

It's written by ai

[–] gergolippai@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

is this a hidden vote to ban the Republican Party in Texas?

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fundies are salivating to do the same thing

[–] jumperalex@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

Seriously I was waiting for the punch line at the bottom, "... Just like Christian Nationalists"

[–] Bombastic@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Do Americans actually get text messages like those? I thought it was a joke

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 day ago

The dem ones are at least somewhat sane

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Sounds like a lot of Epstein projection

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

Look at these scary sounding words!

Vote for me!

On a side note: let's ban ALL religions, the world will thank you the world population will, well, the first generation will curse us, while every next generation will thank is for not being beholden anymore to badly written stonage fairytales

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What's the point in creating a law that bans Sharia Law when the people who would allegedly institute mandatory observation of Sharia Law would just vote to repeal it and then institute it anyway?

Oh, right, Republicans are fucking idiots and this is scaremongering to drive them to the polls.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

A lot of this is a tacit attempt to control Muslim municipal populations be restricting how they govern themselves locally.

So you can step in at the state (maybe federal, if Chip Roy gets his way) level and announce this mayor or judge or city council is illegitimate because the leadership isn't Christian.

Very specifically, this is in response to EPIC City, a master-planned community north of Dallas that's being bankrolled by a group of Muslim real estate developers. But you can see it echoing the disgust conservatives have for Minneapolis and Dearborn, Michigan, with their own large Muslim populations.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Weren't there files released that pointed to Melania actually being underage when she started her relationship with Trump?

Sorry, sorry, it was referred to as him riding the 'Lolita Express'. Fuck I hate these people.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 34 points 1 day ago

This just sounds like Texas on a regular day minus the dog thing.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"NO religious freedom," so let's ban that religion? Every religion believes theirs is correct.

"Women brutalized" "Slavery allowed" "Child marriage & rape" These things are already illegal from our other laws.

"Girl genital mutilation" I think this one is already illegal, as well.

"No pet dogs allowed" First of all, wut? But second of all, I'd love to see some Texas politician try to pass a law that outlawed pet dogs. They'd probably get shot to death by the other politicians before they left the chamber.

"BAN SHARIA NOW!" BAN MARTIANS NOW! BAN FISH RIDING BICYCLES NOW! BAN ADULTS FROM SEEING WHY KIDS LOVE CINNAMON TOAST CRUNCH NOW! BAN LICKING UNTIL YOU GET TO THE TOOTSIE ROLL CENTER OF A TOOTSIE POP NOW!

BAN POLITICIANS WHO WASTE OUR TIME WITH MEANINGLESS LAWS AND CULTURE WARS NOW!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›