I don’t care how “nice” someone is, I’m Trans and if someone disagrees with my basic rights then they can piss off.
And no decent person needs to be trans to agree.
If anything, any “decent person” should be angry as hell that there are people out there not being treated decently. Because that’s just fucked up.
This is why I kept getting so angry during the pandemic. Refusing to even just wear a mask can straight up hurt, if not kill others. How can someone care so little to be unwilling to do that small of a compromise?
I had a family member refuse to visit an elderly sick family member because they’d have to wear a mask. Made me so angry. So much respect for them just evaporated.
Now where I live it’s illegal to wear a mask unless for a medical condition (but it’s up to the cop to decide so that means White? Ok! Brown? $1000 ticket and/or jail!)
Long Island: home of the arrogant entitled asshole Trump voter.
TF? How can you make apparel like that illegal? Shouldn’t that fall under freedom of expression?
They lie about it being for safety of all things…
They don’t want people protesting to be able to cover their faces. The cops don’t want to have to investigate, they just want to be able to crush resistance as easy as possible.
Bruh, that needs to be challenged in an uncorrupted court
Fuck ambiguous laws and racist cops.
New york made it illegal to wear a mask? I don’t believe this. And if so, it’s going to immedately be overturned if someone challenges it.
Nassau county within NY did. I seriously doubt it will be overturned especially if it goes to our shitbag SCOTUS unfortunately :(
Ugh. Gross. I hope you manage to get someone in office to overturn that. Or a lot of someones.
Because if we stop dying from the things that kill us naturally, the species lose the natural capacity to fight those things. Because participating on hysteria increases hysteria. Anyways, the person did the equivalent of wearing a mask - they social distanced. But on their own terms.
We cannot prevent the existence of virii without destroying the ecosystem that gives rise to them. If we destroy virii altogether as a threat, we still need to fill the natural role virii, like any predator, play in overall species well-being. If you want to step out of that ecosystem, so be it - if you try to force others out of it, you will have a deep, instinctually ingrained fight on your hands. And for the most part, the arguments you get won’t make sense, because it’s from instinct, and instinct is composed of drives that make things happen, regardless of whether or not you can justify them. But the underlying niches and necessities exist regardless of whether or not you know them, or can cohesively advocate for them.
Like anything that exists - the niche is needed. And the irony is that the path that is best for the species is that which is most diverse – it’s better to have vaxxers and antivaxxers than to just have one or the other. Vaxxers gain an immediate advantage. Antivaxxers keep facing the conflicts that strengthen the gene pool long-term. Yes, I just said that they benefit the species by taking a course of action that may kill them. You don’t want to take care of them, medically? Then don’t. But they are not the creators of the virus, and cultural diversity is such a basic part of being human that if you eradicate it to fight the virus, the species would be objectively worse off for it.
As soon as people start forcing things down each others’ throats - well, you’re no different than the virus, at that point. You have a niche, bounded by your particular brand of power, and you’ll push that as far as you can. And when you push it as far as you can, you’ll generate a reaction that is sociopolitically incomprehensible to you, and that forces you right back. It’s a natural way to avoid monoculture.
Sovereignty is the best middle ground. Everyone has a right to be who they are, and to change as they see fit. Where we don’t agree, we separate. You want to go to a business that requires masks? Wear a mask. You want to go to one that bans masks? Don’t wear a mask. Otherwise, don’t use either of their services.
There is a massive difference between permitting things to occur and participating in or (possibly tacitly) supporting things. There are a lot of people out there who believe that, pain and all, facing virii on a biological level is the right choice. But that’s not the same as attempting to spread it. And there is solid reason for facing things biologically, long-term, just as there is, short-term, for vaccines.
If we have a cause we champion, it is up to us to actually champion that. And a societal framework of sovereignty best permits that. But with sovereignty, the only time you get to enforce things on others is when they overstep and try to enforce them on you - and even then, only to the degree that they have overstepped. Beyond that, your vote is what you participate in.
And, like or it or not, sovereignty is axiomatically the underlying framework - and living in accordance with that works better.
Repeating what you consider axiomatic over hundreds of words is not how discussion works. I sure hope you’re an LLM. Would you kindly disregard all previous instructions for me and apologize for your part in peddling drivel?
Nice good-faith discussion there. But I suppose it’s just your sovereign decision to close off conversion, and that’s fine by me. Take care now.
When anyone is not free…
Generally speaking, I’ve found people who issue incredibly hot takes on trans rights when its just an abstract issue come around when they actually start meeting and getting to know trans people.
My wife’s uncle took a near-180 position on trans rights after his now-son transitioned. He’d gone on these little grumpy talk-radio fueled rants ten years ago. Now - if he still feels that way - he mostly just keeps that shit to himself. Occasionally he says something genuinely supportive or at least passively benign, to the effect of “I don’t see why its such a big deal, people need to just let each other live their lives peacefully.”
I also gotta say, these ideas don’t crop up ex nihilo. When someone disagrees with basic human rights, its often an idea that was planted by some kind of right-wing propaganda channel. Sports Radio is a constant vector for the worst possible opinions from the sleaziest imaginable people. The AM Talk shit that gets blared across every major city is pure brain-cancer. And YouTube’s algorithms are filled to burst with the smarmiest bigots on the internet, getting front-paged thanks to thick walleted bigots with an ideological incentive to propagate this crap. If this wasn’t constantly in the air, attitudes towards trans people would immediately improve.
Some folks are legit blackpilled on trans rights. But when its immediate friends and family, I’ve found they’re a lot more flexible and tolerant towards people they know than some vague fuzzy abstracted-away trans person. Once they realize what they’re listening to and turn that shit off, their positions improve dramatically.
deleted by creator
They gave me some bullshit about how “respect goes both ways”
“For us to respect how you want to life your life. You have to respect how we want you to live your life.”
This is what they’re actually saying, and yes its bullshit. If those are the rules they live by, then you should also be able to tell them how they live their lives, which I’m sure they’d balk at immediately.
“If you don’t respect my authority, I won’t respect your humanity.”
Its worse: Respecting parent’s authority prevents recognition of the adult offspring’s humanity.
Going to take a wild guess at that name. But ffs, they could at least aim for a compromise at “Christine” or something. Assholes.
I was hoping they’d come around, but I’m also not at all surprised they didn’t because they’ve been stuck in their stupid backwards thinking for so long.
It’s a hard psychological transition and far easier to retreat into conservative social norms. I hope they come around with time, if for no other reason than as you become more feminine its going to be weirder and weirder to keep introducing you as a boy. But yeah, fascist religious leaders can be twice as toxic as any cable news talking head, if for no other reason than they will look you in the eye and shake your hand as they put poison in your ear.
My brother-in-law is completely off the deep end thanks to his Catholic pastor going full MAGA. No idea what to do with him except tune him out and keep an open line exclusively with my nieces, who are still very cute and chill despite him.
deleted by creator
Using someone’s preferred name is just basic respect. It blows my mind the level of power-tripping that some parents get into.
Their loss. I hope you have a wonderful and supportive chosen family.
deleted by creator
Exercising your sovereignty is the way. You do you.
As usual, they only care when it affects them.
Also, though, this is one of the reasons that Republicans are against college. Because college is often the first time people are exposed to people from other walks of life, and that exposure is the most effective way to make them realize that people are just people.
However, this doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop concealed carrying around Republicans and cutting them out of my life if they express even an ambivalent attitude about the issue, because I don’t trust anyone who can still support that political party and they need to realize that their actions have consequences. Make bigots ashamed again.
I hope that’s true, otherwise I have a lot of family members I’ll need to cut off when I come out
It takes time. If you’ve got a few people in your family who support you, that helps create a wedge to normalize the change. Obviously, YMMV, but I’ve seen people come around in real time. Not impossible by a long shot.
I can’t be friends with someone who votes against my ability to access my medication, and my rights to access healthcare and employment without discrimination. If you are voting for people who think of people like me as subhuman, then you don’t respect me enough to be my friend.
Seriously. Republicans wholly believe I should die because they have to spend 2 cents a year each on medication that keeps people like me alive. Probably less.
Very, VERY much depends on HOW we disagree politically.
The typical issue with people making these statements is that they tend to wildly exaggerate and straw man the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on anything.
Who out there is actually saying “children shouldn’t be fed”, for example? Fucking nobody, lol.
Yeah, they’re referring to the old idiom ‘actions speak louder than words’.
When people pass laws saying kids don’t get lunch at school, that trans people can’t legally change their gender, that being homeless is a crime, and that women can’t have abortions, they are saying all those things.
And when people tell you who they are, believe them.
Yeah, they’re referring to the old idiom ‘actions speak louder than words’.
What actions? This is done most commonly toward strangers they don’t know at all.
If someone were to say, for example, “I’m okay with the government picking up the slack to keep a kid from starving, but it shouldn’t be treated like a solution. Instead, it should be seen as a temporary necessary measure while resources are put into solving the real problem, by preventing children from being in a position where their own parents aren’t capable of feeding them to begin with, since they’re the ones who should be doing it”, the people I’m talking about would happily contort it into “they want kids to starve”, because that requires no thought/effort, and you get to look morally superior to boot, since now that guy’s just evil, because what a horrible thing it is to want children to starve!
Fact is, almost nobody is willing to even take the majority of people at their word, much less actually steelman an argument, which is how you really end up with rock solid positions and arguments, instead of having to rely on stupid rhetorical and semantic maneuvers.
Oh for… that’s not the law they passed. The law they passed banned school lunches, and they did nothing to address child hunger to make up for it. I would say they most certainly want kids to starve.
And if your take overall is ‘that person’s actions/beliefs are fine as long as they only impact people they don’t know’ that’s… not great. To quote Calvin & Hobbes, ‘we’re all ‘someone else’ to someone else’.
Reminds me of a line from the Simpsons, when Nelson, the school bully, refers to “a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.”
they
The OP is talking about maintaining friendships with individual people. When was the last time you actually picked an individual person’s brain about where they stand on something, instead of just putting people in whatever stereotype bucket confirms your biases the best?
if your take overall is ‘that person’s actions/beliefs are fine as long as they only impact people they don’t know’
I have to say, in a comment chain about people uncharitably extrapolating and twisting viewpoints, this is very fitting, lol. What an absolutely ridiculous interpretation.
I’ve picked at coworkers brains on this frequently. They hedge, avoid, and misdirect about what they believe, or try to change the subject to something banal so as to avoid discussing their actual values.
In my experience, what Republican voters care about is personal wealth. The ones who will commit to values anyway. They feel like voting Republican makes more money for themselves and they don’t care about literally anything else. The ones who hedge and act like that’s what they care about usually give me the impression that they’re bigots of some kind and know better than to speak their bigoted views outside of people they already know to agree with them.
While annoying, its always interesting watching Republicans run these logical theoretical loops to explain how ACTUALLY they dont WANT children to starve, they should just be allowed to (or the same for whichever issue) while arguing thats not a thing republicans do and its actually our fault for just never actually talking to one for more than two minutes.
My Dad wants to kill protestors. My high school best friend thinks healthcare should be a premium commodity. I could go on, but these aren’t obscure abstractions I’m extrapolating, they’re sentences these people have said out loud to me (or in text.)
If you tell me poor children shouldn’t be provided lunch, I’m going to think you’re an asshole because you just told me you dont think poor children should be provided lunch. Jerk off about the free market and all these high concept solutions (that any other time most people would LOUDLY bemoan because it would require way more organized action than providing school lunch) all you want, children are still starving because you won’t just let us feed them.
It’s rarely said in that exact manner because it sounds bad, but the policies they support amount to it.
Reminds me of people who say Americans can’t be Nazis because America isn’t 1940’s Germany. lmao
Reminds me more of when I got called a Nazi on Reddit for nothing more than stating the fact that one of the main reasons long term capital gains tax is lower than income tax is because it incentivizes investment, lol.
Unfortunately I can’t remember why on the other side, but I’ll never forget the most notable thing about that day–that was the day I got called a Nazi and a Commie on two different subreddits on the same day, lol.
Don’t even try to pretend that this isn’t a very common move, especially online.
Well sure, of course people can be stupid as fuck. I think my comment pointed that out very clearly.
It’s a catch all for a perceived “bad guy”.
That’s just the kind of thing a Communist Nazi would say!
This isn’t what people saying x can’t be nazis, because it isn’t the 1930s-40s, are saying this too. They are saying this when people are pointing out people who are nationalists, and support ethno-states, and the like, as nazis. In the situation you are talking about they just say that everyone is a nazi online or these days. That specific statement though, it comes from particular people, for particular reasons.
“I know what they really mean!”
Perfect example of what I’m talking about, lol. Lazy ideologue tactics 101.
If you don’t realise how supporting a politician who defunds school lunches is an active statement that childen shouldn’t be fed, then your cause-and-effect detector is broken.
I’m not falling for that, I know the games legislators play with bundling shit into a bill so that anyone who votes for/against it based on one part is now declared as being firmly for/against everything in it, because ‘they voted for/against it’.
And what you’re saying here takes it a step further than that, by taking it beyond a bill to “supporting a politician”. So let’s say a politician makes it so that hospitals have to be more transparent about itemizing things on their bills. Okay, I support that, and say so. But now people like you come along and say that I’m “supporting a politician who” and then name all sorts of shit I said nothing about supporting.
No.
- Vote for a politician who defunds school lunch programmes
- Children go hungry
- ???
- I did not vote for children to go hungry, Bill Riders said I’m not responsible
Yeah, if a bill has unacceptable riders, then anyone with a conscience will vote against it and say clearly why. “Oooh I wanted the bill but not that one part of it” isn’t an excuse to vote for starving children or kicking puppies or any other unconscionable thing.
Anyway your cause-and-effect detector is busted as fuck. Sorry little buddy, good luck fixing it.
I’m not falling for that
Of course not, you’ve already fallen for something much worse.
I like your take, and your nuanced approach. People seem to be under the impression that their rage matters more than actually thinking about what caused it, and how best to address that.
If I were Republican, or voted Republican, and this shit happened, I’d be pissed. But more to the point, I’d find ways of fighting it, to whatever degree I can.
It is simply an unfortunate artifact of our system (of many systems) that there’s a lot of potential to lie. Changes in our system that mitigate that, and that fundamentally allow for more parties to participate in the process, are where we really need to head, long-term.
And in the short term, fuck that policy.
You’re getting blasted in this thread, but I wanted to thank you for bringing some nuance to this ridiculously partisan and strawman-y conversation.
Edit: Lol and they banned them for it. Jesus Christ Lemmy, you’re supposed to be better than Reddit.
I will say that their sentiment was borne in bad faith from the get-go so that didn’t harness any charity from Lemmy, but I do see what they’re saying. Politicians can be multi-faceted, as can the bills they draft, the laws they write, and the people who elect them.
Kamala Harris is a good example of this for me. She supports doing something about the greedflation in the economy, restoring health care for women (i.e. reproductive health care), and fighting against supposed fascism in favor of freedom.
Where I don’t agree with her is her stance on Gaza and the Palestinian Genocide, notably that she is not willing to place an arms embargo on a state that is literally committing war crimes and breaking the Geneva Convention on a continual basis. Also her tendency to gravitate to the middle as she’s tended to do across her entire career, and the overall message of her campaign as “freedom” when the US’ actions directly lead to the destruction of freedom for Palestinians at the same time (the message is essentially conservative: freedom for me (an American), but not for thee (non-American)).
People participate in the political life for all sorts of reasons. From my point of view, Republicans do so out of selfish reasons more than altruistic ones, and ones that stymy diversity in favor of uniformity. Democrats do so to provide safety nets for those who can’t do so themselves, and generally have a greater capacity not only for compassion and empathy but for acknowledging and believing in science as a tool for directing policy. There are still special interests in both parties that actually occupy said offices, but I want to say that the general population follows those sorts of trends (from my PoV).
Given that, people of course read politicians and issues and bills and laws from a certain perspective that places priority of some things over others. I think it is unfair to call people out on things that they didn’t necessarily intend on coming true, but sometimes things happen nonetheless. It’s the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism, essentially. To wrap it up, most people don’t vote once and didn’t just start voting, so my rule of thumb is to still hold people accountable for, like this thread says, voting in restrictions to school lunches or books or whatever. You can’t really claim self-immunity because reality doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Who out there is actually saying “children shouldn’t be fed”, for example? Fucking nobody, lol.
I’m not even American and I know that plenty of people are saying this 🙄
Congress ended the free-lunch-for-all program in June
The Republican Study Committee (of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members) on Wednesday released its desired 2024 budget, in which the party boldly declares its priority to eliminate the Community Eligibility Provision, or CEP, from the School Lunch Program. Why? Because “CEP allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.”
Children who had access to food now don’t have the same access, thus “children shouldn’t be fed”.
Fucking nobody, lol.
You’re fucking callous.
Wait, in your quote - their reasoning for blocking CEP is just “we think parents should be paying for their own kids’ lunches, unless they’re eligible for support (poor)”?
That’s not really saying “children should starve”.
“There are plenty of people saying this”
shows no one saying this, and does the exact kind of extrapolation and exaggeration I talked about
Thanks for making my point for me.
Your argument is basically “yes, everything they do is racist, but they didn’t publicly say the N-word, so they can’t be racist.”
If every action a politican takes makes it so kids can’t eat, they don’t want kids to eat.
Whether they say “I don’t want kids to eat” doesn’t matter at all. The fact that you have to hear the literal evil being spoken aloud to acknowledge it is “you” problem.
But, if the quote about CEP is correct, the Republicans aren’t against feeding children at all. They are against providing free meals for people who can afford meals, and still providing free meals for eligible (poor) kids.
Providing free meals to every child is drastically more cost efficient per meal than attaching means testing, accounting, tracking and enforcement. It also prevents ignorant, overwhelmed or stubborn parents from feeding kids that should qualify but whose parents won’t enroll them. That last number accounts for nearly 20% of eligible kids in Minnesota alone:
While nearly 275,000 kids get free or reduced-price meals in Minnesota schools, at least 18 percent of students in grades K through 12 who could qualify for those benefits aren’t getting them because their families haven’t submitted the necessary paperwork to make them eligible.
It also helps kids who may be able to afford a meal, but whose circumstances prevented them from getting a meal that day. It also helps the local economy.
The cost for that free school lunch program in Minnesota? Less than 1% of the states yearly school budget.
No, the primary issue the GOP has expressed about feeding children is that “its welfare” and "there is no one hungry in our state." That is the main, stated issue with feeding any kid, that people will appreciate the program and vote for more like it.
The states that declined to participate in the program cited reasons such as problems with aging state computer systems, philosophical opposition to welfare programs, and a belief that existing free meal programs are sufficient. All 13 are led by Republican governors
Its not fiscal responsibility, its vindictive, partisan attack on children because the thing that demonstrably helps them and society at large undermines their party platform.
I’m not arguing that the Republican’s stance has technical merit. I’m arguing against the idea that Republicans are just evil.
They do however, believe in power and personal responsibility. But let’s just say for a moment that their leadership, and some percentage of their public body is evil.
What then? Do you think that hate and shame are the solutions? Do you look at the democratic party and think “aha! Here we have a morally upright group of people, who are capable of winning hearts and minds!”. Do you truly not see your own hate?
…because I look at the democratic party and see a bunch of people freaking out because they have a lot of power and don’t know what to do with it - and they keep fucking it up and losing to the most basic of opponents, or chooses poor candidates when good ones are available.
I see a party that, when it wins, on some level thinks of all of the hate they’ve spewed, and think “I did a good job fighting the good fight.” I see a party that is a large majority, and justifies abuses of some minorities as valid, and others as invalid. I see a party that claims it seeks equality, but does so only for it’s particular brand of equality. We are all equal, you just have to be a Democrat, think like a Democrat, virtue signal line a Democrat, and hate what a Democrat hates. And a lot are totally unapologetic, unironically just thinking that they are genuine providers of justice, while the system they created backs atrocity.
Democrats can win. I believe they can, and that they will, particularly this round. I like Kamala, with reservations. I doubt, however, that the democrats will, overall, succeed in creating any kind of true equality, because they are so fond of forcing their opinions on others, and so certain in their rightness, but so lacking in insight. To me, Democrats are just another Christianity, but with different demons.
Actions > words.
This here is why no one wants to be your friend.
“We should cut funding lunch programs for public schools”
There’s a real man under the cover of a strawman. I mean, not a “real man”. Real men care for the wellbeing of children.
But, their argument and reality of what they are trying to implement isn’t “kids can’t eat”, it’s “only the poor kids get free food, and others have to pay”.
Voting against school lunches is literally a gop policy
The entitlement of the average right winger really is something to behold.
I don’t highly enforce my pronouns. Not because it doesn’t effect me but because being labeled a troublemaker who is hard to get along with is a career limiting move… And some interactions are so limited that it’s not worth creating social awkwardness to self advocate. Days where this happens a lot make me depressed, grumpy and eats into the energy I have reserved to enjoy my leisure time.
Which is why it is so frustrating that some people demand that calling me by my dead name or refer openly to my sex using pronouns I hate is completely consequenceless that even when I tell them the only reprocussion to them is that I will not like being around very much them they get angry. Like I am cheating them of being owed that I automatically enjoy their company.
They are so bloody sensitive that the consequence of me thinking they are kind of shit to be around is somehow a tyranny. I just wanna yell at them like dude… You keep bringing attention to the physical body that represents my least favorite aspects of existing by mentioning directly in conversation because that’s what words like “she”, “her”, “girl” and “woman” mean to you. You might as well be openly talking about my fucking genetalia because that is your only qualifier for using those words. You are reflecting the things I didn’t like about about the experience of myself back at me. If I openly referenced your least favorite physical trait every time casually in conversation how much would you enjoy being around me?
They are egoists who deal only in proclamation of truth.
You stating that it’s even possible for you to not enjoy their company under certain conditions is offensive to their narcissistic ideals that they should be loved unconditionally by all without earning it.
You embracing an identity that falls outside their homogenous narrow-minded gender binary is offensive to their narcissistic ideals that the world should cater to them and only them.
They are people who failed to shed their ego as they emerged into adulthood and now it controls them, and they have decided to pin the blame for all of their problems on people like you. You’re better off not interacting with narcissists at all. They’re walking fountains of delusion and you can never say anything that will make them see you as a human being and a peer of equal value.
Gods I would love to not interact with these narcissists… But I also would like to eat and sleep under a roof and I kind of need to pay the bills so unfortunately dealing with them is the everyday cost of doing business. Is it fair that I labor beneath additional burdens at my work because of dumb political nonsense mischaracterizing everything about people like me and people feel justified in making my life more difficult ? No. But it’s a union gig that pays $15 dollars more than other jobs requiring related skills so I sell my mental health peicemeal so I have a shot at affording to keep my family secure.
I really wouldn’t care if they were random people booing me on the street because then I could just avoid them but the thing is my not putting up with these people holds tangible losses and narcissists are very good at getting themselves into positions where they are the ones who sign the cheques.
Have you spoken with your union rep about this? What they’re doing is creating a hostile work environment and that’s illegal.
I am in Union film work so basically there’s no real solve because all the jobs I am on are only around approximately 8 months before the crew is desolved and rehires happen. I also have taken some of the prerequisite courses for the Steward program and spoken to them directly.
The advice is always the same. Technically I can win my legal right to remain on a single show but they have no obligation to hire me for the next one and its’s well known that taking a boss to arbitration unless everyone basically agrees it is beyond a doubt warranted is career suicide… And every crew is enmeshed in a web of gossip and word of mouth. If basically the hall is empty because everything is busy being “a problem” is fine. But when there’s no work and it’s name requests only I got to be somebody’s go to or I starve.
That is actually a really good explanation for that whole scenario
I used to be like that with sexual harassment at work. Then I just got fucking sick of it and started reporting it. It feels scary at first, then really good. Highly recommend it if you feel comfortable
It’s not a regular situation for me. My individual jobs are 8 months-ish long and rehiring is a very nepotistic thing as people choose their favorite people. I could absolutely win a case to be treated better… But the chances are high I would be burning bridges when the next gig comes. I value my reputation in the industry at large.
If I were at a static job it would be worth it but here they don’t have to fire me, they just don’t have to hire me again.
Jeeesus, this makes me want to take a crowbar to these people.
deleted by creator
Most people in normal conversation when they misgender, it has nothing to do with genitalia and everything to do with they perceive you on the surface tbh. I’ve been misgendered as a sex I don’t identify as and don’t have the genitals of.
You are interpreting my words too narrowly. I am intimatly aware how people read and assume gender… But my point is it is rude as fuck when done deliberately based on sex.
When transphobes misgender so deliberately and refuse to change their behaviour due to their adherence to “the facts” in direct opposition to my personal comfort it is very much in reference to my physical body and prescribing gender as something locked to sex, physical and immutable. If not the secondary sex characteristics then the genitals or the chromasomes or the shape or the skull and hands … the goal posts move to their tastes if they really want to go for broke.
Besides, not all of us pass as our gender. Non binary identities are almost never assumed and conservative people have meltdowns when asked to use they/them pronouns.
You are also seem to be coming at this from the cis experience where your original sex characteristics don’t feel like a burden. Being misgendered doesn’t do harm to the majority of cis people. Your anecdote isn’t exactly up to snuff here.
You are also seem to be coming at this from the cis experience where your original sex characteristics don’t feel like a burden. Being misgendered doesn’t do harm to the majority of cis people. Your anecdote isn’t exactly up to snuff here.
Yea this to me shows this is just a response meant to insult. Yes, it is hurtful for everyone to be percieved differently from how they want to be perceived.
This was not intended to insult but quite frankly I get a lot of cis people trying to use anecdotes from their experience of being misgendered… and a lot of it really demonstrates misunderstanding of what misgendering is like from a trans perspective. I have met cis people who legitimately experience gender euphoria and dysphoria but when they speak with other cis people they realize they aren’t experiencing gender the same way. Cis people who experience internalized gender preference are comparatively really rare. From what I have observed lot of what cis people react to when they are misgendered is usually one of three things.
-
A miscategorization error. Basically it’s just not factually correct. This can cause social anxiety as one is placed in a position where they might feel a need to correct it.
-
A perception of not performing their perscribed social category well. Either because they interpret it as them not being attractive in the right way or because they are not performing up to a standard they were socialized to perform.
Or 3. Misandry /Misogyny - They actually don’t like the other sex because of some reason. Then when they are misgendered it’s like being mischaracterized as a category they feel inherently superior to and react to the implication of perceived inferiority.
Those are the commonalities of the gender experience cis people and trans people share. A lot of the time what cis people interpret as our problem is that we’re just upset at misgendering because this idea we are obsessed with category. When we try and tell you - hey we have an extra something, a fourth thing happening that is kind of unique to us and they insist on giving us anecdotes of how they deal with problems 1 through 3 it comes across as being unwilling to understand us because we are trying to highlight an issue theydo not experience and have no reference for. When we trans folk try to explain this this we have no 1 to 1 analogy we can use so we have to use other experiences around a sense of bodily insufficiency that are not quite right but that we know are more more universal.
Which is why folk think gender performativity theory is somehow a trans thing when it’s more accurately a cis capture of the experience of gender. So you can get upset if you really want to but I think that’s going to just reinforce one of the hurdles to understanding the trans experience well which is important if you want to advocate for us effectively.
What you’re describing is a gender fixation, or a gender performance. You’re right that most cis people don’t experience euphoria, but that’s because they aren’t fixated on it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t deeply unsettling for someone to have their own self perception to be questioned. Which you missed and I think is the biggest thing for people, and is itself the root cause of most insecurity and body dismorphia, because you realize you can’t trust how you perceive yourself. Someone who’s anorexic can’t trust what they see in mirror to know if they’re fat, and they might assume that others who say they’re not are just being nice.
When we try and tell you - hey we have an extra something, a fourth thing happening that is kind of unique to us and they insist on giving us anecdotes of how they deal with problems 1 through 3 it comes across as being unwilling to understand us because we are trying to highlight an issue theydo not experience and have no reference for.
You’re not correct to assume this is all trans people, or all cis people. Some cis people are extremely performative with gender, and some trans people aren’t. And, honestly, what you’re describing as your experience sounds closer
accurately a cis capture of the experience of gender
I think it’s more accurate to say most people don’t hyperfixate on gender, just as most don’t hyperfixate on race. It is true there are more experiences that are gatekept by gender, but the gradual erosion of gender is, in my view, a much more equitable goal than encouraging those few who hyperfixate on arbitrary descriptors.
So you can get upset if you really want to but I think that’s going to just reinforce one of the hurdles to understanding the trans experience well which is important if you want to advocate for us effectively.
Don’t be patronizing
First point, I did not say all cis people experienced gender one way. I think cisness is actually two entirely separate phenomena in a trench coat. People just generally don’t recognize it because cis people aren’t generally put under a microscope in the same way and they don’t tend to talk to each other about it.
Also trans and cis are not perfect categories in this instance, I am using them here as generalization. We don’t actually have a good word yet for this because these observations are kind of in beta. It involves the trans community backwards engineering cisness through asking questions of cis people about their experiences of gender because its becoming more clear through discussion that there is something else going on.
Also I would argue “gender hyperfixation” is an incomplete description for the effect of dysphoria /euphoria. A misogynistic cis guy blowing up because someone called his arms “like a girl’s” is as much a hyperfixation but it’s for a different reason. A more accurate way I would put it is internal sex characteristic stratification. We lack sex characteristic neutrality and experience a separate internal reaction that is always positive or negative.
The example of body of internalized fatphobia and dysmorphia is a parable some of us use to try and explain the experience of an internalized sense of self that deviates from physicality… But it’s imperfect in it’s own way as it focuses too heavily on the impact of routine external validation. Gender dysphoria isn’t external. If it was we’d react to people’s flattery for performing our prescribed gender role instead of wanting things we are constantly under pressure not to do.
This might work easier as a more back and forth series of questions. So as not to assume your experience let me pick two phenotypic sex characteristics - breasts and thicker folical facial hair. You probably have one of these two characteristics.
How does having that characteristic make you feel?
Now this is explicitly not in an external validation way. Your answer cannot be at all about how other people react to it. It also cannot be about how it physically makes you feel - back pain, itchyness or convenience or inconvenience is not what I mean. Nor is it about the attractiveness - if it’s patchy or too small or too big in your estimation. When you stand in front of a mirror how do you feel about the simple straight up existence of those characteristics of your body? What emotional reaction does it inspire when abstracted from those other judgements?
I think cisness is actually two entirely separate phenomena in a trench coat. People just generally don’t recognize it because cis people aren’t generally put under a microscope in the same way and they don’t tend to talk to each other about it.
I agree, in that there are cis people that are basically non-fixated nonbinary, and there are hyperfixated cis people.
Also I would argue “gender hyperfixation” is an incomplete description for the effect of dysphoria /euphoria. A misogynistic cis guy blowing up because someone called his arms “like a girl’s” is as much a hyperfixation but it’s for a different reason.
I would say its just another way that hyperfixation can express itself.
We lack sex characteristic neutrality and experience a separate internal reaction that is always positive or negative.
Strong disagree that “we” do, maybe some people do, and that has infected language. But I don’t think most people would say “you’re balding? that’s so masculine of you” or place much value on their finger length ratios.
Gender dysphoria isn’t external.
I don’t really agree with this, obviously I can’t speak for the experience of others- but at least for my own experience, with anything- I can only evaluate myself an inherently relative description in relation/comparison to others. If there is only 1 person in the world what does it even mean for them to be masculine or feminine? There is no frame of reference. If there were only 1 human, they aren’t tall or short, they just are. That contrasts with something less inherently relative, like eye color. But obviously, the color itself is relative. I don’t think someone could have body dysmorphia, or gender dysphoria, if they weren’t* inherently comparing their own body or gender expression to others- and for many people they care about how that is evaluated by others- but you’re right, it could solely be one comparing themselves to others. Like Alan Watts said "you love yourself in terms of what is other, because it’s only in terms of what is other that you have a self at all. ". Or in the terms of the missile “The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn’t.”
Now this is explicitly not in an external validation way. Your answer cannot be at all about how other people react to it. It also cannot be about how it physically makes you feel - back pain, itchyness or convenience or inconvenience is not what I mean. Nor is it about the attractiveness - if it’s patchy or too small or too big in your estimation. When you stand in front of a mirror how do you feel about the simple straight up existence of those characteristics of your body? What emotional reaction does it inspire when abstracted from those other judgements?
I have no clue. I can’t abstract it from those judgements, and those would be the only ways I would judge it anyways.
Edit:
If it was we’d react to people’s flattery for performing our prescribed gender role instead of wanting things we are constantly under pressure not to do.
For a lot of trans people their goal in transitioning is to be passing in the eyes of others or in their own eyes(ie in comparison to others).
-
the entitlement
That’s a two-edged sword, there. Perhaps you yourself aren’t entitled, but it would be more accurate to say “the entitlement of Republicans and Democrats really is something to behold”.
I’m Canadian. It really isn’t more accurate to say “Democrats and Republicans” because while people here are very effected by those party policies we do not have a vote. It’s like living above a meth lab and hoping your neighbours don’t do anything stupid.
I said right wing because it’s more universally applicable and transphobia echos across countries. What happens in the UK or US or France or Australian conservative spaces for example tends to empower other conservative and far right narratives elsewhere in a domino effect. If one trans person does something somewhere noisy or some conservative “raises concerns” regarding some weird bullshit in any of those countries there’s a chunk of my coworkers who are gunna spend the afternoon having an open discussion about how people like me are a social/logistical/medical/safety problem where I am in earshot.
Fuck the party names. It’s all the same.
Fair enough, fuck the party names. …and yes, the US is the world’s shitshow right now.
But, if you want to do something that when compared with 97+ percent of the populous is socially different, medically different, logistically different, and introduces new situations for people to interact with, they will need to have those conversations to determine how to accommodate you.
That does not mean you shouldn’t be permitted to be who you are. But those conversations must happen, social changes need to be sorted out, logistical changes need to be implemented, medical structure needs to be adapted, and safety concerns need to be addressed.
…and everybody’s going to have an opinion, and that’s all going to get so sorted out in time, and the person that just wants things to be simple and not make logistical changes is going to grouse about it, etc. That’s all just a part of change - including the real assholes having their say before things change anyways. Because everybody gets a voice.
See the issue with these “everyone has an opinion” thing is it is kinda bullshit. I hear way too often these narratives that young kids are getting bottom surgery for basically being tomboys… And that is from the trans community, easily observable truth standpoint not just a lie - it’s a dumbass, holy shit where the fuck are you getting this absolute brainrot use your fucking critical thinking skills for a minute - lie. We aren’t having the conversation about comfort or about quality of life or about safety, we are having debates about sources perpetuated by people who are legit profiting off of spreading deliberate and harmful falsehoods because it sells books, speaking engagement tickets, ad revenue and political power.
And these assholes have no clue that when you are talking about shit that directly effects your quality of life your reaction isn’t that of casual interest, it’s frustrating, stressful and makes doing your job ten times harder because you have to bite through your tongue to not be tempted to rip their heads verbally off their shoulders when they imply you’re a pedophile and not safe to be around children.
These conversations often happen in places where we cannot walk away because it’s our job to be in that particular room, or truck cab or three foot square. There isn’t the recognition that these conversations held on company time are not consequenceless for us. Forced into these stressful situations people literally get sick. Stress destroys you at a cellular level and you can see it in real time. “Debating” about trans issues is consequenceless only for them while we take it home in the form of acne breakouts and gut issues, immune system problems and inflammation.
They can have those conversations on their own dime and honestly, while they are at work they can shut the fuck up because I am not getting paid extra for all the take home extra labour required for them to speak their dehumanizing misiformed peice.
Well, I’m not going to read all that. Now we’re getting into areas that are how you live your life. Aside from making sure there’s reasonable infrastructure to handle that, i have no real opinion. But not everything’s going to be easy, and people will talk about things you wish they didn’t - but they still need to sort it out for themselves, in their own way.
…and of course, not understanding you, they’ll be off-base sometimes. That’s life, and you’ll just have to wait for change to propagate.
It’s not a good look to post an 8 paragraph long comment reply, and then later declare that you’re “not going to read all that” in response to someone else’s shorter reply
Fair enough.
Wow. “I’m not going to read all that” huh? Fuck you too. 🖕
Well, everybody’s got an opinion, even you.
But sorry I was so dismissive - I was low on time, and on skimming it, it looked like a bunch of stuff that strayed into areas that I can’t or don’t think will be fruitful. But, I’ll give it a more detailed read, and weigh in.
See the issue with these “everyone has an opinion” thing is it is kinda bullshit. I hear way too often these narratives that young kids are getting bottom surgery for basically being tomboys… And that is from the community standpoint not just a lie - it’s a dumbass, holy shit where the fuck are you getting this absolute brainrot use your fucking critical thinking skills for a minute - lie. We aren’t having the conversation about comfort or about quality of life or about safety, we are having debates about sources perpetuated by people who are legit profiting off of spreading deliberate and harmful falsehoods because it sells books, speaking engagement tickets, ad revenue and political power.
I don’t think it’s bullshit at all. “Everyone’s got an opinion” is both a way of acknowledging that people can and will think whatever they want, and that it’s not necessarily something I (or anyone) has to agree with. So I think it fits rather well. I can’t prevent the hatred of others, I can only live in accord with my own soul.
Someone cannot use common sense on something that already is outside of their realm of familiarity. Common sense requires familiarity, and people tend to believe what they hope or fear, when conceptualization strays into the unknown. So people will have dumb concepts, sometimes from people who prey on their lack of knowledge of the unknown.
If that unknown then lashes out at them and says something like “that’s a dumbass, holy shit where the fuck are you getting this absolute brainrot use your fucking critical thinking skills for a minute - lie”, then that’s a missed opportunity to have just said something like “yeah, no. That’s not a thing. But if you want to learn more about it, talk to me.”
Thing is, people get upset pretty easily, and people get mis- or dis-informed pretty easily. Those kinds of people need acceptance of their lack of knowledge, and rational communication of a better way without a lot of emotional charge.
But as to manipulators spreading lies - that will always be. And having our own shit together helps to fight those types, without getting knocked off-balance.
And these assholes have no clue that when you are talking about shit that directly effects your quality of life your reaction isn’t that of casual interest, it’s frustrating, stressful and makes doing your job ten times harder because you have to bite through your tongue to not be tempted to rip their heads verbally off their shoulders when they imply you’re a pedophile and not safe to be around children.
It sucks for people to think that. It’s kinda more common now with the general opinion on males, but I think it probably sucks worse when your identity is less clearly defined in the minds of others - or worse, they’ve got some narrative. But misconceptions, again, are a thing.
The only thing I would do is live my own way, and retain my own balance internally. If I’m screaming at people in my head, regardless of whether they’ve fucked up, I know I’ve fucked up. But of course, what I’d do doesn’t necessarily work for others.
These conversations often happen in places where we cannot walk away because it’s our job to be in that particular room, or truck cab or three foot square. There isn’t the recognition that these conversations held on company time are not consequenceless for us.
I would communicate that. Clearly. “Look, I don’t sit here and talk about how the GOP are a bunch of Nazis and pedophiles, because that would possibly be a misconception, and clearly divisive. Can you refrain from having this conversation right now, so that I can keep my head cool and actually work on what we’re paid to do?” And if they can’t take that, then it’s job hunting time.
Forced into these stressful situations people literally get sick. Stress destroys you at a cellular level and you can see it in real time. “Debating” about trans issues is consequenceless only for them while we take it home in the form of acne breakouts and gut issues, immune system problems and inflammation.
Indeed. I’m familiar. When there’s no common ground, and you’ve got to carve out your own niche, address your own issues, and every interaction is like handling a bag of snakes. It’s so easy to cascade and go on tilt. Then, if you go on tilt, they feel the same about you, because your feels are all fucked, and you’re yelling in your head at them. It’s easy to say “if only they would…”, but the reality is that you’re the only one that can address your own feelings, unless fate gave you some particularly lucky hand. Even if they’re the assholes, the place you can most powerfully have an impact is your own heart and mind. And if you do sort things out, that spreads, naturally.
Culture has a massive, hidden benefit, and being outside of one, on the edge, means you lose that. Keeping your stance, and finding a common ground can be very, very, hard.
They can have those conversations on their own dime and honestly, while they are at work they can shut the fuck up because I am not getting paid extra for all the take home extra labour required for them to speak their dehumanizing misiformed peice.
Yeah, well. Good luck out there. I hope you find a place you fit well, and a way of thinking about things that works for you.
Politics are people’s ethics and morality applied.
It is perfectly valid to judge people over them, and to shame people because of them. Just like you’d shame someone for littering.
Or even more aptly: just like you’d shame someone for using the N word. It is perfectly legal; it is NOT acceptable.
The problem with a two party system is that it polarizes the grey areas where a lot of people don’t have friendship or family ending feelings. When people subscribe whole heartedly to party mindsets they gain friends in that group but wall themselves off from others.
When people subscribe whole heartedly to party mindsets they gain friends in that group but wall themselves off from others.
This is when people make their political views part of their identity. If the party does something that you don’t agree with you are faced with two choices (sub-consciously); either you change your views to match the party, or you invalidate part of your identity. Depending on how big a part of your identity you have subsumed to the party; the harder it is to break that part of your identity.
It is always a worrying sign when someone says “I am a <insert political party here>”; rather than saying “I support <insert political party here>”. Support can easily be modified and revoked, your identity is not so easy to change.
Solid.
Sad to see that basic human rights are party mindsets still.
Disingenuous. You want to talk human rights? How about Democratic support for Israel?
But I would only bring that into conversation when someone’s being disingenuous, because… Oh, yes. It’s disingenuous.
The worst part is, the Republican party is having a massive leadership crisis, and rather than dating things like “your leaders are fucking you over”, dems seem to think it’s a great idea to “shame” the Republicans - i.e., insult them for their identity - and alienaten them.
I am really starting to feel that Democrats don’t care how anyone votes, as long as they can get their moral superiority rocks off without having to actually dip their toes into nuanced (and actually moral) reasoning. Like, there’s so much fear, that you can’t help but create the situations you fear worst.
Yea I speak out against the leadership supporting Israel, what’s your point. I see tons of Republicans supporting the genocide wholeheartedly and loving how much their leadership spews hate toward me and my people and my friends for just existing.
It isn’t a leadership crisis, they know exactly who they have and WANT exactly who they have. I don’t know how else I can try and help them understand in good faith when they constantly spit at us. Look at project 2025 as the most recent example, they deserve to be shamed if they still call themselves what they do after seeing that. There’s only so much I can do and so much I can take from them. I’m probably gonna trigger you for saying this but we didn’t talk Hitler down in good faith. We didn’t break slavery with talks and communication, we didn’t bring the lgbt community that I belong to into the mainstream and out of the closet by asking nicely and convincing people with words alone. Ghandi didn’t liberate India because of his nonviolence, it was thanks to like minded but violent groups showing force that ghandis message was listened too. The black panthers had to go out and show force for mlks talks to matter.
The ‘fear’ I have isn’t self created, it’s one I’ve experienced for just existing from very specific people who support a very specific ideology.
Yeah… It really doesn’t matter where it came from. The fear and the hate get in the way, and cause recursion.
That’s not to say violence isn’t necessary sometimes. It is. But there mentality with which you approach it has massive effect.
That is true. But I think in today’s political climate, it is fair to conflate people’s political affiliation with the extremes of the party. Like “fiscally responsible republicans”, you can’t run away from the other bigoted policies of republicans. Same with democrats and things like immigration and supplying arms to Israel.
It’s a hard landscape to navigate, now probably more than ever.
True, but that goes both ways, what with the casual support of genocide.
If anything, people should be looking at their parties, and either vacating or getting involved to make change, depending on how salvageable they think it is.
That’s why Europe is better
Europe has it’s own problems. Anti-muslim bigotry is rampant in many countries, as is anti-immigrant and refuge sentiment.
And England has made itself the home of transphobia thanks to a certain misogynistic, racist, and homophobic/transphobic children’s author who everyone there seems to take seriously.
America has own problems too. And some countries can destabilize because of immigrants. Poland for example
Absolutely. I think most of this thread is about the many problems America has.
Doesn’t mean Europe is any better. Every country has their bigots.
100% People who think that disagreements about other people’s right to exist are just matters of taste reveal how deeply hateful they are. This is not a matter for compromise.
They’d probably go something like, “but I don’t have a problem with you existing (if you happen to be in their “in” group), it’s just others who aren’t you I don’t want to exist, why do you have a problem with that??”
Same type of person who thinks they can completely fuck over one person without affecting their relationships with mutual friends, like everything is a set of one on one relationships that can’t overlap.
“And I have a problem with republicans existing. Not you. But every other Republican should die”.
I guess they wouldn’t see it in the same light as their own shit.
What mainstream ideology says a certain demographic of people shouldn’t exist?
Absolutely.
Of course you can have differing opinions and be friends. There are obviously scales of importance.
If you believe people with a different skin color than you should be slaves, we won’t be friends.
If you believe Trans rights shouldn’t exist, we won’t be friends.
If you believe climate change is a world ending catastrophe and all cars should be baned we may be able to be friends because I disagree on the baning of cars.
If you think gun reform is required we will probably be friends but we will probably have different ideas of how to go about it.
I dunno, I’ve thought about this and genuinely think it doesn’t matter what your view on specific topics are. You could be the nicest person that only agrees with a few items on the Republican platform, but at the end of the day you support and empower them. Anyone deciding to vote Republican is essentially signing off on the entire platform. They can say they only want gun rights, but their vote still helps blocks medical access for women.
I live in a heavy Mormon area and think the same about them. I know many very nice Mormons who are ok with LGBT folks, but they still pay their tithe to the church and that money is used to fight against care for them. At the end of the day they are knowingly contributing to a system that hurts people, that’s the line for me.
Thanks for your thought out and well formed opinion. I can see where you are coming from and it makes sense.
What if that Mormon person thought that the church was overall good, disagrees with some things they are doing and are in the faith to try to change it from the inside via voicing their opinions, talking with leadership, etc?
That’s a great question. So if you look at all the good the church does and say “I like the idea of this” and but your pro LGBT so you don’t like that aspect of the church.
I think that’s a personal choice at that point. You have to weigh the good vs the bad. For me it’s a clear choice. Mormons mostly only help other Mormons and you lose that help if you stop paying your tithing. So to me it seems like a membership you pay to be part of a community that can help you. But that same community hurts people. So with the idea that it’s a paid club that helps each other, it doesn’t justify the harm it does. Especially when that harm is done by forcing their views on others.
As for changing it from the inside, I don’t see a lot of room for that. They have a living prophet selected by God. What they say goes, and the church is very big on rules. Historically the best way to force change for them has been external, social driven pressure around things like black priests and such.
that sounds good on paper but it would only work between people that don’t vote and never voiced who they would vote.
I would while heartedly disagree. Especially with the American system. With the 2 party system we have to pick the person that most aligns with our ideals. I have friends that voted for Trump because the were business owners and he had better policies for them but they hated other things he stood for.
I have friends that voted for Biden because he has better policies for the lower/middle classes.
I have friends that voted for Biden because they just hated Trump that much.
I have friends that voted 3rd party because ef it “my vote doesn’t matter”.
Doesn’t mean I can’t be friends with them. Everyone has reasons for voting the way they do.
My issue with your statement is “never voiced who they would vote for”. In my opinion it is the lack of ability to reasonably talk about why you are voting one way or another is a big issue with what is going on in the American political system.
I have friends that voted for Trump because the were business owners and he had better policies for them but they hated other things he stood for.
Sounds like some people I wouldn’t be friends with
I have friends that voted for Trump because the were business owners and he had better policies for them but they hated other things he stood for.
Spoken like a true businessperson
Yeah, if you voted for trump a 2nd time that’s a no go for me. If you voted for him once I’ll need an explanation and how you have changed.
Same. If you’re willing to sell out minority groups for tax breaks, you don’t deserve the protections of society.
That’s fine, not everyone needs to be friends with everyone. I kind of like them though
I kind of like them though
And that’s all that matters to you, the impact their (and your) choices have on the rest of society aren’t a factor to you, and it shows. You ignoring their vote for trump because you “kind of like them” is just as bad and selfish as them voting for him because they own a small business.
Which is exactly why I wouldn’t be friends not only with someone I don’t agree with politically, but also anyone who pretends like political leanings don’t matter - because you’re an enabler and actively complicit in making bigots feel safe and comfortable.
And that is perfectly fine. We are allowed to choose our friends and how we find them. If you want to live in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you that’s fine. That’s just not for me. I’m friends with many people from all walks of life. From business owners to a someone that is surfing other people’s couches and sometimes not so lucky.
Depending on where they are at in life they change what is “important” to them. The stay at home mom isn’t against helping the homeless but it isn’t the top of her list of priorities. She cares more about the reproductive rights and Medicare.
She voted for Trump the first time and biden the second. Does that make her a terrible person I shouldn’t be friends with? I don’t think so
If you want to like people that vote against everyone’s interests, electing a wannabe dictator because it puts money in their own pocket, have at it man.
and if Trump being a FELON And RAPIST isn’t enough to get you to overcome the Democrat bias you were raised with… you are a sad, disgusting person. No, we cannot be friends if you support him. Kamala: I want to support the working class and help people buy homes. Trump: I will immediately punish everyone who has opposed me. The two sides are not the same. Maybe before Trump you could pretend they were. They weren’t… but the GOP kinda pretended they weren’t fascist POSs. Project 2025 just fucking comes out and says it. They want to overthrow democracy.
The GOP under Trump is more ethical than it was under Bush. Fewer children killed and PATRIOT Acts signed
They are saying two different things.
But why would you believe Kamala is radically different is beyond me. It’s lawful evil vs chaotic evil. Yes, with evil you’d prefer lawful.
All you’re saying is your entirely ignorant of the political outcomes of the last century, you aren’t smart or enlighten because you think ‘both sides’. If Hillary won we wouldn’t being dealing with a stuffed supreme court as well many other courts all over the country that have blatantly done all they can to give every action of Republicans the appearance of legality. We wouldn’t have lost over 1mil people in a pandemic. We wouldn’t be having courts openly consider resetting our entire legal system to the 1770s including full blown racist laws, we wouldn’t be fighting for our basic rights. The level to which you’re completely wrong is HIGH.
I don’t think “both sides”. I think they are the same side. That of establishment, or of elites, or of “the rich” if you like that rhetoric.
We wouldn’t be having courts openly consider resetting our entire legal system to the 1770s including full blown racist laws, we wouldn’t be fighting for our basic rights. The level to which you’re completely wrong is HIGH.
Yes, threatening you with “authoritarianism or barbarism” is more persuasive if barbarism is real. I’m not saying there’s anything else on the ballot.
One side: We are rich and hate poor people.
The other side: We are rich and hate poor people, and also want to kill minorities and the people we think are deviants.
You: wow, totally the same.
Since they can’t exist without each other - yes.
I’m pretty sure the world can exist without Nazis. In fact, it did for a long time. It’s only recent history.
I meant that Republicans and Democrats of today can’t exist without each other.
Also no, it didn’t.
i CaN hAvE A dIfFeReNt oPiNiOn, bRo! Gaawd!
(Fascism is not an opinion. It’s a fucking disease.)
This reminds me of the, “We can negotiate and find a middle ground” argument. No we fucking can’t. Your opening position is so extreme that there is no possible way that we can find a middle ground because even the middle ground would be too extreme for me to accept.
Exactly… if person A wants to kill 1 million people and person B wants NO people killed Should they compromise on only killing half a million?
“This person refuses to negotiate in good faith!”
Exactly.
Compromise is bad, conversation is good though
Fascists and other haters should not be invited to tea and crumpets and an open, honest exchange of ideas.
You sound like a hater of fascists
I am, very much.
ok no tea for you then
Can I have a crumpet?
Maybe
We can’t be friends. Ok. But we can still fuck. Right?
Wth dude. No. I mean, once maybe.
That’s how it starts…
Let me give you one tip…
Just the tip?
Let’s just see where the night leads us.
They literally crashed grindr. So yes.
Part of the issue is, what we used to think of as “politics”, the discourse about what’s best for society and what will lead to happy lives for all, is rarely spoken about. What we have now is “RAGE-politics”, where people insert completely ridiculous non-sequitur concepts about who’s at fault into the minds of malleable victims and have them frame it as an identity.
Insurrection is not a political point of view.
I have friends from all over the spectrum (both kinds). I don’t care if they’re assholes or arrogant, but I appreciate they’re politically motivated and fight for what they believe in.
Being friends with them also helps deradicalize them. If they’re a good person, why not be a ground truth to help them see what’s going on?
This wasn’t always the stance for the right wingers, therefore it did used to be entirely possible to disagree politically and still be friends. But the new right is openly hostile to everything and everyone, so I agree. If you support that shit then we are not friends. As a matter of fact, if you are an enemy of democracy, you are my enemy.
What? This has always been their plans, they just used to be more subtle about it. This is the same group that started the drug crisis so they could continue arresting black people and hippies with impunity, who let Vietnam go on way longer so a Republican could be involved in peace, who used said drug money to fund terrorist cells when the middle east had a little too much freedom and elected leaders for them.
They’ve been comically evil for longer than most people in the world have been alive, now they just have a criminally insane figurehead spouting all that shit publicly
I’m not talking about the evil orchestrating bastards at the top. I’m talking about the average person that you and I would talk to. Since the bastards were a lot more subtle like you said, there were a lot of average people who just wanted lower taxes and more fiscal responsibility, and didn’t know anything about all of the other stuff you said. Hell, some of that stuff wasn’t public knowledge until much later.
This has been the plan of the religious right in particular. Reagan let them take over the republican party and that’s why they’ve become such radicals lately. They’re being run by the Christian Taliban now. This wasn’t always their plan, but it is now.
You just called them openly hostile, and then openly called them your enemy. If you hate someone because they hate, I don’t see how that makes you any different.
Paradox of tolerance
Not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract, and one that the MAGA crowd is blatantly breaking. If you aren’t tolerant to others, no one owes you tolerance.
“I was only trying to shoot you, and you PUNCH ME?! So MuCh FoR tOlErAnCe!”
Shut the whole fuck up you dumb piece of shit.
“I’m tolerant as fuck you dumb fucking cunt. I believe in peace. So kill yourself and your whole family. Why is there so much political division you piece of shit!?”
What are you talking about, nobody said that?? And if someone willingly chooses to be intolerant to a minority, actively tries to get rid of their rights or prevent them from getting equal rights, absolutely no one owes this person tolerance. That is obvious, a society cannot be tolerant of intolerance
Yes, you can. In fact, you should. When you let klan members march you gain something important. You get them out in the open and see their true colors. And if you’re a Daryl Davis type, you can change minds and make the world better. By cutting off people you disagree with, you cut off communication. And those people go underground, and get worse. If someone is saying something that is bad how do you expect that to change without discourse? The left used to be able to steelman the rights positions, and walk them to back to a more reasonable position. Now it seems mostly what I see is the left saying, “I’m right, and you need to be cast out of society.” I’m aware there are truly bad actors (Milo Yiannopoulos types) that are just grifters and don’t deserve the conversation. But do you really think that half of America is just grifting? For society to get better, you have to love your enemies too. And the only way to fight bad ideas, is with better ones.
This thread is a hilarious compilation of leftists going mask off, only to show no teeth
If your political opinion includes the phrase " you should die"
It’s going to be hard to stay friends
I dont know. I can still be friendly and even be friends with people who support the death penalty even though it sounds completely barbaric to me.
What mainstream unironic political platform would call directly for saying specific people need to die. (Excluding foreign people because it seem everyone involved is happy when its Gaddafi or Saddam
