Why does she look like her life purpose is to make people's lives miserable? She seems like the type who'd slip laxatives into your soup when you're not looking.
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
191 points (96.6% liked)
US Authoritarianism
702 readers
342 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
founded 6 months ago
Why does she look like her life purpose is to make people's lives miserable
She's just one of the people whose outside match their inside.
It's kind of telling that you can tell what the person writing the article thinks about the other person by what picture they choose.
This lady is not an attractive woman by almost any standard, but they intentionally chose the one where she's like suddenly shocked and glaring at the camera, a photo that any child would know means that they are about to get physically attacked by this woman, as the photo for their article.
I wonder what the reaction would be if you posted the exact same article but you had a nice and pleasant picture of this woman?
All of the words exactly the same the only difference is she looks more like your kindly neighbor up the street.
She's absolutely fucking batshit crazy for allowing herself to become the face of an anti-gay movement and for shirking her elected duties that she agreed to follow in order to specifically discriminate against gay people in the name of "pleasing God", (all of which are actions that would not please God), but I still wonder about the visual bias that we place in these articles.
I wonder what the reaction would be if (..) you had a nice and pleasant picture of this woman?
If that happened, I'd probably be too preoccupied with the pigs flying past my second story kitchen window as hell freezes over.
she looks more like your kindly neighbor up the street
No such picture of her exists or will ever exist since she's never going to look like that, much less BE like that.
allowing herself to become the face of an anti-gay movement
She very actively sought it out. Don't pretend that none of it was her own doing.
I literally saw that screenshot & thought this was the most flattering photo I've ever seen of her.
OK, I guess I get what you're trying to say, but this is just how she looks....? She rarely smiles and often forgets to fill in her half-brows. As you can see glaring is pretty common for her too.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kim+davis&iax=images&ia=images
Damn, resting evil face much.
The way she does her hair makes her look like a conehead with how it accentuates her forehead.
Nothing about her looks kindly. Wrinkles are just the faces you make so much they stay with you.
I'm from the area she's from. There are many like her. Multiple marriages, kids with different dads, huge hypocrites, typical 'christians'
She looks like she's not even doing this for ideology, she just wants to ruin lives and sees a way to do it. The Omega Karen
I suppose she is mentally ill.
For some reason that’s OK when you call it religion.
It's pretty wild how married people are privileged by the state, etc. Marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn't be recognized by the state at all. It's just a tool for patriarchy, control, etc. That's the root of this conflict over "gay marriage". The state is butting into something that's completely religious. Instead of the state promoting "marriage", we should value and respect all social relationships.
marriage is not nor has it ever been a purely religious institution in the history of human kind and in the modern world.
there was not a single mention of religion or spirituality when I got married 6 years ago, it was not in a church, nor was there anyone of an official religious capacity present.
In fairness, marriage does provide a relatively consistent and arguably fair baseline for unwinding certain large life decisions and transactions (home purchase, kids, etc) that would otherwise be exceptionally problematic for the state to divide up between parties at scale.
Eliminating gender and related elements from marriage seems a more logical solution to me, as the legal institution serves a valid purpose.
Unfortunately, given “full faith and credit,” and delegation of powers to states, I don’t see an effective way to wipe away the unnecessarily specific definitions of marriage in each state - that puts us back to square one.
One can and may substitute a large stack of paperwork for many of the automatic legal benefits and protections of marriage. It’s hardly a perfect 1:1 replacement, and doesn’t keep up with legal changes automatically, as court rulings about applicability of statutes broadly tend to.
Isn’t there some other unwitting society she can inflict her astoundingly repellent self upon?
She'd fit right in in Putin's Russia, Orban's Hungary, or Netanyahu's Israel.
Log Cabin Republicans see NOTHING wrong with this because THEIR RIGHTS are NOT as important as making sure OTHER GAY KIDS Die!
I feel bad about this case. If only people let it leave in peace in its swamp..
She doesn't know when to give up does she?
There are only two kinds of people that call fascists "conservatives" - fools and Americans.