Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I gradually shifted to the left because there were people willing to make real good faith discussion with me, and because they were able to so effortlessly chop up my arguments I gradually shifted to the left. If these people instead just called me a Nazi I'd probably be voting for Trump in 2024.
If your opinion changes because someone is willing to be nice to you, then you didn't have much of an opinion worth taking seriously in the first place. If you vote for the Nazi party because someone called you a Nazi, you might not actually be a good person.


The modern Republican party is garbage for sure, but strawman arguments and false claims taking the minority views of the party and pretending its a majority won't help you make a point.
This (and the accompanying spew) is utter horseshit, the majority of the party believes that elections don't count if a Republican doesn't win. As I've said before, Republican leadership is literally telling their supporters to fight political opposition in the streets. The most prominent Republican in media regularly hosts neo-Nazis and far-right radicals whose entire claim to fame is their belief in overthrowing the Constitution. The majority of the Republican Party is as (if not more) hostile to democracy as fucking 20th century communists. Fucking love that we're half a decade into this shit and there are still people insisting that Trump and Fox/Newsmax/OANN don't represent the "mainstream" Republican Party. :pip:
 
If your opinion changes because someone is willing to be nice to you, then you didn't have much of an opinion worth taking seriously in the first place.
Uhh yes, exactly. The vast majority of Republican voters aren't genocidal anti-democratic Nazis in bed with the Russians. They're just regular people who believe what they experience in their own bubble. People who grow up in small towns with Republican parents who get most of their news from local newspapers and the occasional local news network. Most people don't develop their views much deeper than "guns let me protect my family" or "15 dollars minimum because workers deserve a livable wage!". Ask any of these people to go deeper into their views, such as by providing evidence or arguments to counter the opposition and they usually don't have a good answer. They'll spit out low effort strawmans that they saw in low effort Facebook memes. Catch a person with undeniable proof that they're wrong, or that there is some validity to the opposition, and views can shift, or at least softened. Not everyone! But there will always be a relatively large percent who are just along for the ride who "don't talk politics" but still vote.

Most Americans aren't maliciously voting to hurt others. They're voting to help themselves, friends, families, and their community. Many people, especially young people can have their views shifted by honest conversation. But if they get aggressively rejected for opposing viewpoints, as so often happens in this thread, they just find communities that accept them, usually garbage like /r/conservative or worse. I think it's safe to say no one benefits from this.

And if, after all this, the CONG community doesn't want any Republicans and Moderates posting here at all then I suggest we change the name of this thread to "Leftists patting themselves on the back" because in all honesty that is the only conversation that people seem to want here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And if, after all this, the CONG community doesn't want any Republicans and Moderates posting here at all then I suggest we change the name of this thread to "Leftists patting themselves on the back" because in all honesty that is the only conversation that people seem to want here.
I dont wan't to get into the debate at hand because cba, I just want to add I have yet to see a leftist group that isn't filled with drama and arguing every 5 minutes. Trust me, they despise each other, the only common ground is despising right wingers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont wan't to get into the debate at hand because cba, I just want to add I have yet to see a leftist group that isn't filled with drama and arguing every 5 minutes. Trust me, they despise each other, the only common ground is despising right wingers.
It's because everyone and their mother think they're leftist because of one thing or another, so you have marxist-leninists in the same room as neolib centrists. That's like putting two badgers in a room and not expecting them to kill each other LOL

Won't lie libs piss me the fuck off but I already have my issues with brazilian libs to get into fights with american libs at this point. I'd just rather speak of the 2 things we have in common and peace out afterwards
 

Adeleine

after committing a dangerous crime
is a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
But if they get aggressively rejected for opposing viewpoints, as so often happens in this thread, they just find communities that accept them, usually garbage like /r/conservative or worse. I think it's safe to say no one benefits from this.
I see.

Right well, this is the issue. You think something (LGBTQ+ rights are) an human right, and half the country disagrees with you.
Your beliefs seem to be that LGBT people should be accepted in society... This may come as a shock, but many people do not agree with this views.
You seem to be of a particular persuasion here. Although I'm trans and non-straight, when someone tells me queer existence is subject to the will of the people, *cough*, you think my responsibility is to sit them down on a comfy chair, have a friendly chat, and try my darn hardest to save/reform/welcome them.

When they see queer persecution and proudly champion the freedom to persecute, that's okay enough, but when I outline how condoning persecution and bigoted hatred makes you a bad person, I'm being "shameful" and "aggressive."

Do what you want with the person. If you want to play nice, which I imagine is somewhat easier because the persecution doesn't involve you, you can, but it's not my job to play nice. Asking for my help in a way sympathetic to my harder position is one thing. But you don't get to demand that from me and chastise me when I don't do what you want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see.





You seem to be of a particular persuasion here. Although I'm trans and non-straight, when someone tells me queer existence is subject to the will of the people, *cough*, you think my responsibility is to sit them down on a comfy chair, have a friendly chat, and try my darn hardest to save/reform/welcome them.

When they see queer persecution and proudly champion the freedom to persecute, that's okay enough, but when I outline how condoning persecution makes you a bad person, I'm being "shameful" and "aggressive."

You're just wrong, and frankly you're offensively wrong. Do what you want with the person. If you want to play nice, which I imagine is somewhat easier because the persecution doesn't involve you, you can, but it's not my job to play nice. You don't get to demand that from me and chastise me when I don't fall in line.
Before you or anyone tries to mis-quote / strawman me, I fully believe trans people are people and have rights (all the same stuff you probably believe).

The person you quoted didn't say trans people don't have rights, he said half the country seems to not think so, or otherwise not understand the issue. Not ONCE did Koista12 suggest that Republican anti-trans agenda is valid (unless a post was edited, deleted, or I missed something). He just matter of fact said it's what the Republicans believe. This is objectively a fact.

If half this country seems to be anti-trans you can retreat to a little leftist safe zone and hope it works out, or you can actually engage with the other side and see what their stupid fucking problem is. Many Republicans have concerns regarding sports, as a person who went through male puberty can often out-perform biologically female athletes. Some Republicans are concerned about people with different genitals to them using their bathrooms. Some Republicans are worried about allowing pre-pubescents to transition. Some are afraid their little boy will wear a dress.

Are they right? No I think not (except the sports one which is obviously a very complex issue). But they're still real people who can vote, and there's enough of them to win elections. If you aren't willing to at least discuss these issues and help them understand why they're wrong then, surprise surprise, they're going to vote, and in a lot of cases they're going to win.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of your post was. Koista12, at least in the posts I read, doesn't appear to be anti-trans. He stated that like it or not some Republicans are, and it is an issue that needs to be solved if we want change. That change comes from understanding the other side so issues can be addressed.

For example if someone was to tell you trans women shouldn't be allowed in sports with those born biologically female because they are generally physically larger, what would your counter point be? Because trans women are definitely on average physically stronger, but they also have rights and should be allowed in sports. If your reaction is to say "fuck you bigot" well lol they probably won't spend much more time thinking about the issue. But is there a solution that involves weight classes, testosterone measurement or something else that can scientifically put athletes on even footing? I have no idea, as a trans person what do you think? How about someone concerned that someone born a different sex is using their bathrooms? Obviously trans people are no more dangerous than the average person but you can't just refuse to talk with someone. They have fears and maybe by engaging we can help alleviate those fears, and normalize the modern lgbtq movement just like we were able to do with gay marriage / rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Adeleine

after committing a dangerous crime
is a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Not ONCE did Koista12 suggest that Republican anti-trans agenda is valid (unless a post was edited, deleted, or I missed something). He just matter of fact said it's what the Republicans believe. This is objectively a fact.
Post from which I take this information.

Your beliefs seem to be that LGBT people should be accepted...We are simply in a period of changing social values and half the country agrees with these new values, and half doesn't. This does not mean the people who disagree with you are fascists; they just have a different moral code than you.

Them: Whether LGBT people are accepted is a matter of moral code.

(in federalism), as long each state abides by the Constitution, they are free to pass whatever laws they want that align with their citizens' moral code. If you don't like one state you are free to leave for another.

1. Federalism allows states to base laws on their citizens' moral code. So long as the very vague, contested, changeable, 1700s document isn't violated.
2. (Above) "Whether LGBT people are accepted is a matter of moral code."
Therefore, them: Federalism allows states to refuse to accept LGBT people. If you don't like it, just leave. (I could talk about how the "if you don't like it, just leave, ezpz" framing craps on people who are poorer and face other disadvantages, but I don't have enough time.)


I wonder how they feel about a system they outline as "one where states can refuse to accept LGBT people".

(This is where I'll shill for federalism again)
Ah.

(Am I taking their post out of context?) No. They shill for federalism because states can pass laws that align with citizens' moral code. In the same post, they make clear that "moral code" includes acceptance of LGBT people. I think you can connect the dots. (If you can't connect the dots, I'm not sure what you expect to happen when a person condones LGBT persecution, but they know that explicitly saying so will get them censured. This person got unusually explicit, all things considered, bagging a very rare public warn.)

Translation: "I'm so happy states have the ability to choose whether to accept LGBT people."

There's only so much energy I will have to surgically disassemble their intentionally muddied dogwhistles to personally assist you and overcome your oddly high benefit of the doubt, but I have it for the moment.


If half this country seems to be anti-trans you can retreat to a little leftist safe zone and hope it works out, or you can actually engage with the other side and see what their stupid fucking problem is.
It is out of touch and foolish to imply I haven't. I have for years.

I am glad you frame it as "figure out their problem" rather than the inferior "convince them" argument because, as we both know, the expected impact to my rights of persuading this one individual is minimal, and the success chance is low too.

If you aren't willing to at least discuss these issues and help them understand why they're wrong then, surprise surprise, they're going to vote, and in a lot of cases they're going to win.
Or maybe we don't know. Or maybe you expect me to devote hours a day trying to guide bigots to the light, which I'd need to do for a meaningful impact in state/national voter numbers. Not sure.

Anyway. I've put in much work into figuring out their problem, quite possibly more and more successfully than you. It's very complicated, as we both likely know, and again, I just don't have time to give that topic its due right now.

For example if someone was to tell you trans women shouldn't be allowed in sports with those born biologically female because they are generally physically larger, what would your counter point be? ... If your reaction is to say "fuck you bigot" well lol they probably won't spend much more time thinking about the issue.
I will look at the person and decide how to react.

If they are someone I care about and trust, I will likely create a careful and considerate argument. Not only do I care about them more, but I have more faith they will take the issue seriously

If they are an internet stranger who's bragging about their conservatism and dogwhistling against LGBT people, I do not care about them much, and my expected odds of conversion are minimal. So I'll pass on spending the careful, thoughtful energy.

But is there a solution that involves weight classes, testosterone measurement or something else that can scientifically put athletes on even footing? I have no idea, as a trans person what do you think?
Your desire for more perspective is appreciated. I will give you mine.

Athletes being on even footing is a myth. There are many boys who, just based on how they were born and their early life, will never realistically be able to compete in the NBA. Maybe they are too short, or too frail, or too weak in motor skills. Is this unfair? Perhaps. Is it widely accepted without challenge? Yes.

Women's sports are no different. The average height of a WNBA player is 6 feet tall. This is a tremendously rare mark for AMAB women. Obviously, not every WNBA player is 6'0'', but it's safe to say that most women have a seriously unfair height disadvantage, and some have a seriously unfair height advantage. That's just how it goes, we say.

It is strange and unfortunate how, when trans girls enter the conversation, this perspective is flipped on its head. Just like some girls happen to be born into 6'0 bodies through no work of their own, some girls happen to be born in AMAB bodies. If a girl happens to be born with the genes for a 7'2'' frame, like Margo Dydek, that's just how it goes, but if they just happen to get born with XY chromosomes, everything changes for some reason. It should be apparent that this "some reason," talking about influences on the discourse at large v. influences on any individual, is partially from overt and subconscious bigotry.

My perspective is, if we can have total confidence that an AMAB person is a trans girl, their default treatment should be the same default treatment as 7'2'' Dydek: acceptance without regard for "unfair advantage." HRT should not be required for the purpose of preventing "unfair advantage."

There are still potential obstacles. The most prominent I have seen is safety. Relevant rules, equipment, etc. should probably be altered to create a safe experience while minimizing discrimination against people. "What if someone pretends to be trans to get relatively better performance?" I'm sure there's a good way to mitigate this relatively minor problem, but I don't know what it is.

How about someone concerned that someone born a different sex is using their bathrooms? Obviously trans people are no more dangerous than the average person but you can't just refuse to talk with someone.
When it comes to bathrooms and different sexes, the people who have the most to fear are trans people. Trans people are liable for physical violence and mistreatment, no matter which bathroom they go in. A trans woman fears attack for going into the ladies' restroom and sexual assault for going into the mens'. I am less familiar with the trans man experience and don't' want to talk on their behalf, but I imagine they have similar worries. Even though I am not a passing trans women, I only use special "all-gender inclusive" bathrooms at my university (I am supremely grateful they exist) for my physical and mental well-being. That will likely not change as my passing-ness increases.

In fewer words: as concerns the bathrooms, our primary goal should be assisting trans people. Gender inclusive bathrooms have helped me a ton, but I'm not really well-versed on solutions here. I'm less concerned about the fears of cis people just because they have much less to worry about. I'm sure someone could construct a response to such fears, but it probably won't be me.

They have fears and maybe by engaging we can help alleviate those fears, and normalize the modern lgbtq movement just like we were able to do with gay marriage / rights.
Gay normalization, such as it is, did not come from gay people trying to Start The Conversation with bigots. Someone better informed than me can likely give a better account.
 
Last edited:

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Texts Reveal GOP Lawmakers Urged Trump to Declare “Marshall Law” to Steal 2020 Election

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics... https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature...

Damn. Are we allowed to call them (or a subset of them at least) Nazis now?

14 fascist feature check list
(remember you don’t need all, just wanting a lot of fascist features in government to be fascist):

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism ◎
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights△
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of \u201cneed.\u201d The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause◎
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military ○
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism◎
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media○ (exp: Fox)
Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security◎
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined◎
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected◎
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed◎
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts◎
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment◎
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption◎
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections◎◎◎
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.



edit: Also seems like there was quite a bit of moderation but I’d like to point out to MrHands/Koista that my earlier questions and specificity about them was to force clarity on whether Koista had substance/good faith. The fact he wasn’t able to answer with anything but empty rhetoric (claiming left radicals hate free speech but having no proof of anti-free speech policy from Bernie/AoC) is a failure of that rhetorical test and a clear indicator to me that there’s no need to believe good faith discussion is possible with this individual.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get into a back and forth with me arguing about a guy who I don't even know's opinion but right there he says:

Many people do not think we should present LGB lifestyles as something acceptable to children. (I personally am not one of those people opposing it)
Everything else in his posts appears to just be presenting the Republican opinion on things as it actually is.

Them: Whether LGBT people are accepted is a matter of moral code.
Well yeah. According to my moral code trans people are people and should be treated with respect. There are plenty of laws that protect or restrict groups based off our moral code. Polygamy isn't legal in the US. Relationships with teenagers under a certain age isn't legal. Interracial marriage was illegal for a long time. Gay marriage was illegal until recently, and this change coincided with gradual population support. In 2004 only 43% of Democrats supported gay marriage and 19% of Republicans did. Despite it being a reasonable basic right the population's moral code shifting is what finally convinced the US govt to take a long hard look at it. Trans rights and general acceptance over the last decades is so, SO much better than it once was. In the 2000s "chick with a dick" jokes were fine, today that same shit will get you cancelled.

1. Federalism allows states to base laws on their citizens' moral code. So long as the very vague, contested, changeable, 1700s document isn't violated.
2. (Above) "Whether LGBT people are accepted is a matter of moral code."
Therefore, them: Federalism allows states to refuse to accept LGBT people. If you don't like it, just leave. (I could talk about how the "if you don't like it, just leave, ezpz" framing craps on people who are poorer and face other disadvantages, but I don't have enough time.)
You shouldn't talk on behalf of people. He didn't say "if you don't like it, leave". He just explained the Republican viewpoints. He also said anti LGBT laws are authoritarian and unconstitutional, and have been ruled as such several times over the last few decades. I get the point you think he's making, but I don't think that's what he's saying.

The rest of your post on Koista12 is kind of the same and I'm too sober to actually reply to it all. But tl;dr as I see in his posts he's trying to present objectively the Republican views on issues. He didn't state he supported them, multiple times he even said the opposite.

Athletes being on even footing is a myth. There are many boys who, just based on how they were born and their early life, will never realistically be able to compete in the NBA. Maybe they are too short, or too frail, or too weak in motor skills. Is this unfair? Perhaps. Is it widely accepted without challenge? Yes.

Women's sports are no different. The average height of a WNBA player is 6 feet tall. This is a tremendously rare mark for AMAB women. Obviously, not every WNBA player is 6'0'', but it's safe to say that most women have a seriously unfair height disadvantage, and some have a seriously unfair height advantage. That's just how it goes, we say.

It is strange and unfortunate how, when trans girls enter the conversation, this perspective is flipped on its head. Just like some girls happen to be born into 6'0 bodies through no work of their own, some girls happen to be born in AMAB bodies. If a girl happens to be born with the genes for a 7'2'' frame, like Margo Dydek, that's just how it goes, but if they just happen to get born with XY chromosomes, everything changes for some reason. It should be apparent that this "some reason," talking about influences on the discourse at large v. influences on any individual, is partially from overt and subconscious bigotry.

My perspective is, if we can have total confidence that an AMAB person is a trans girl, their default treatment should be the same default treatment as 7'2'' Dydek: acceptance without regard for "unfair advantage." HRT should not be required for the purpose of preventing "unfair advantage.

There are still potential obstacles. The most prominent I have seen is safety. Relevant rules, equipment, etc. should probably be altered to create a safe experience while minimizing discrimination against people. "What if someone pretends to be trans to get relatively better performance?" I'm sure there's a good way to mitigate this relatively minor problem, but I don't know what it is.
All the research I've found on this has conflicting results, and all the papers seem to say the same thing: "we don't have enough data to present a conclusive answer". So I'll just say if it is found that someone born male who went through male puberty is found to have better "stats" on average then perhaps a solution needs to be found. If it can be demonstrated that trans women are physically on average no more competitive then great.

But unlike pretty much every other trans debate, this one isn't solely about morality. There's actual measurable sports stats and if the chemicals someone puts in their body gives them an advantage in sports, they usually are banned for it. Ironically hormone treatments make women weaker but I don't want to pick a side just because I'm pro LGBT.

When it comes to bathrooms and different sexes, the people who have the most to fear are trans people. Trans people are liable for physical violence and mistreatment, no matter which bathroom they go in. A trans woman fears attack for going into the ladies' restroom and sexual assault for going into the mens'. I am less familiar with the trans man experience and don't' want to talk on their behalf, but I imagine they have similar worries. Even though I am not a passing trans women, I only use special "all-gender inclusive" bathrooms at my university (I am supremely grateful they exist) for my physical and mental well-being. That will likely not change as my passing-ness increases.

In fewer words: as concerns the bathrooms, our primary goal should be assisting trans people. Gender inclusive bathrooms have helped me a ton, but I'm not really well-versed on solutions here. I'm less concerned about the fears of cis people just because they have much less to worry about. I'm sure someone could construct a response to such fears, but it probably won't be me.
See here's my issue. I agree with you here. You don't have to convince me. You don't have to convince anyone here. You have to convince the rural housewife who saw a lady with a deep voice enter the bathroom while she was changing her child and it made her uncomfortable. Is she wrong? Yeah, but from her perspective this is something outside of her comfort zone that used to be unacceptable, and suddenly the Democrats are suggesting that this is okay. Normalization is a process and it takes time, and it seems like the left is doing a great job normalizing trans people. You can't tell someone "they're more likely to be hurt by YOU" because while that might be factually accurate, it isn't going to alleviate their fears.

In the real world gender inclusive bathrooms and just gradual normalization will help a lot, but as long as people don't fully understand they will vote in opposition to protect themselves against a perceived threat. I guess all I'm saying is, lumping in everyone who votes Republican as a Nazi bigot isn't really helping anything. Things are very rarely black and white.

Gay normalization, such as it is, did not come from gay people trying to Start The Conversation with bigots. Someone better informed than me can likely give a better account.
That's ridiculous. Gay normalization came from millions of people working together to normalize gay love. The gay parades, countless LGBT clubs, fucking Big gay Al and Stan's gay dog. As I said before in 2004 most DEMOCRATS opposed gay marriage so clearly something changed from 2004 and I don't think it was just because of Obama's nice suit. When gay marriage was legalized in 2015 it was 60%. Today that number is around 75%, including more than half of Republicans. What changed? Well nothing really. Just a concentrated effort by millions of people to show the other side that respecting someone who is different isn't going to hurt anyone. It worked spectacularly. Recently there was even a bipartisan bill signed solidifying gay and interracial marriage as law instead of just a supreme court ruling.

Normalization of trans people isn't going to happen because of safe spaces or leftist bubbles, it's going to happen by engaging with uneasy Republicans until they finally accept that the trans community is here, it is harmless, and it isn't going away.
 
That's ridiculous. Gay normalization came from millions of people working together to normalize gay love. The gay parades, countless LGBT clubs, fucking Big gay Al and Stan's gay dog. As I said before in 2004 most DEMOCRATS opposed gay marriage so clearly something changed from 2004 and I don't think it was just because of Obama's nice suit. When gay marriage was legalized in 2015 it was 60%. Today that number is around 75%, including more than half of Republicans. What changed? Well nothing really. Just a concentrated effort by millions of people to show the other side that respecting someone who is different isn't going to hurt anyone. It worked spectacularly. Recently there was even a bipartisan bill signed solidifying gay and interracial marriage as law instead of just a supreme court ruling.

Normalization of trans people isn't going to happen because of safe spaces or leftist bubbles, it's going to happen by engaging with uneasy Republicans until they finally accept that the trans community is here, it is harmless, and it isn't going away.
This part of your post...

Just a concentrated effort by millions of people to show the other side that respecting someone who is different isn't going to hurt anyone.
... strongly seems to imply that gay rights movements and LGB people in public spaces are largely performative for the benefit of assuaging the fears of traditionalist scaremongers. I can assure you this is not the case; LGB sexuality is for nobody's benefit other than their own, just the same as anyone else. Adeleine is completely, 100% correct; the shaky, tentative LGB acceptance that has taken root in American sociopolitics did not come from people debating homophobes until they realized they were wrong. It did not come from avoiding calling regressive people mean names. It did not come from playing nice with "centrists" who wanted to compromise between LGB people who just want to exist and homophobes who want them dead, institutionalized, or at the very least socially repressed.

It came from LGB people simply existing. It came from organic interactions between people who previously held problematic beliefs and LGB people who did not fit into those beliefs. It came from the realization that Steve down the street isn't actually so different from them after all; maybe he likes cars, maybe he listens to the same music, maybe he even votes Republican. He just has a husband instead a wife, and really, what difference does that actually make?

Debate is only an effective way at reaching truthful conclusions when both sides engage honestly and in good faith. This is never the case in politics. The way normalization of trans people will come about is by trans people existing in public spaces, being themselves, and refusing to abide by conservative social standards. Assuming we don't end up with death camps first (an outcome that centrists are currently doing absolutely nothing to prevent, might I add), the same interactions between transgender, genderqueer, and other gender non-conforming people that drive normalization of LGB people will inevitably occur. People are not innately hateful, it takes rhetoric and indoctrination to make them so. Some people are so deeply entrenched in hateful doctrines that they might never change their minds, but the majority of people will as soon as they realize that everything they believe about LGBTQ+ people is founded on lies and propaganda. The way to lead them to this conclusion is not to debate them on the Internet.

Stop defending the people who push said rhetoric and indoctrination. The most effective way to fight it is not debating transphobes on the internet, it's not refraining from comparing Republicans to Nazis (these are actually very apt comparisons as has been explained to you in excrutiating detail at this point), and it's not to expect trans people to throw themselves into the meat grinder and be performatively trans for conservatives or whatever. It's to let LGBTQ+ people be themselves, for cishet allies to fight back against the people who push hateful rhetoric (including the people who defend them), and to support the LGBTQ+ community with direct action and community aid when necessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
It did not come from playing nice with "centrists" who wanted to compromise between LGB people who just want to exist and homophobes who want them dead, institutionalized, or at the very least socially repressed.

It came from LGB people simply existing. It came from organic interactions between people who previously held problematic beliefs and LGB people who did not fit into those beliefs. It came from the realization that Steve down the street isn't actually so different from them after all
That's a very interesting question that people are not really certain on whether acceptance was overall due to boomers dying (cohort effect) or people actually changing their minds (period effect). No study has been able to definitively answer either.
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/100/2/905/6109755?login=false

It is noteworthy, however, that estimates of period effects are relatively similar across the models, even if Model 1, as expected (see figure 2), estimates a much steeper overall trend than the other models. According to each of these models, social tolerance of homosexuality increased, net of generational replacement, between 1973 and 1976; decreased between 1976 and 1990; and increased again between 1990 and 2016.
Noteworthy that even with more young people entering the picture, anti-gay propaganda during the aids pandemic seemingly convinced people that gay = sin. So...there has to be _some_ way to convince people.
People are not innately hateful, it takes rhetoric and indoctrination to make them so. Some people are so deeply entrenched in hateful doctrines that they might never change their minds, but the majority of people will as soon as they realize that everything they believe about LGBTQ+ people is founded on lies and propaganda. The way to lead them to this conclusion is not to debate them on the Internet.
What is the exact way to lead them to reconclude, if it doesn't involve some level of engagement with particularly rhetorical people with particularly (instilled) violent views? You either interact with them (which they will usually want to make a debate themselves, facts and logic etc), or just ignore
 
it's a philosophical belief that life begins at conception, not one arrived at with science or rationality. we don't have a scientifically rigorous definition of when life begins, so it's not self evident that killing fetuses is equivalent to murder; certainly not to the point of being encoded into law. either state a case that there is a rigorous definition for when life begins, or don't present it as something worth defense.
I just wanted to point out that this logic regarding the beginning of life goes both ways. If we don't have a scientifically rigorous definition of when life begins, then it's not self-evident that killing foetuses is NOT equivalent to murder. After all, who's to say that the unborn child is not a person, if we can't come to an agreement on what constitutes a person in the first place? Trying to use this argument against pro-lifers does nothing but undermine your own position at the same time.

For the record, I'm pro-life, but I don't believe that overturning Roe vs Wade was the right move.
 
Noteworthy that even with more young people entering the picture, anti-gay propaganda during the aids pandemic seemingly convinced people that gay = sin. So...there has to be _some_ way to convince people.
I don't believe the best way to counter anti-gay propaganda is with pro-gay propaganda, if that's what the implication here is. I don't even think that's a correct way to frame the issue. For one thing, problematic beliefs about not just LGBTQ+ people but many other subjects as well are so deeply ingrained in the psyche of many white conservative Americans that they're effectively immune to propaganda that doesn't already confirm or is at least compatible with that which they've already consumed.

Maybe you can sway some of the next generation of would-be conservatives that way, but I'm not convinced we have enough time to simply wait for conservatives to die and hateful ideologies to burn themselves out before serious, widespread harm comes from them, and allowing the rampant spreading of propaganda and hateful conspiracy theories is completely counterproductive to that end either way. There are plenty of clueless young adults posting on alt-right websites and marching in far-right militias because they've bought into those conspiracy theories; "just debate them out of it" is not always (or even usually) a valid tactic. As I said, debate only works when both sides engage honestly and in good faith; that simply isn't what happens the overwhelming majority of the time.

What is the exact way to lead them to reconclude, if it doesn't involve some level of engagement with particularly rhetorical people with particularly (instilled) violent views? You either interact with them (which they will usually want to make a debate themselves, facts and logic etc), or just ignore
I believe I was quite specific about this, but to reiterate in perhaps more detail, the way to get them to reconsider is for LGBTQ+ people to simply exist in public spaces safely and unapologetically. Not to be performative, not to go out of their way to interact with conservatives to try and befriend them bring them over, or debunk their problematic beliefs, or any of that liberal meritocratic fantasy shit, but simply to exist. As I said, people are not innately hateful. There's no reason to be. It requires propaganda and rhetoric to propagate hatred; if you combat that rhetoric, the natural resting point for most people is acceptance. I suspect we (at least ostensibly) agree on this, and that the disagreement stems from tactics, although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's pretty damn near an objective fact that debate simply doesn't work if both sides don't engage honestly, in good faith, and with a genuine desire to find the truth, not advance their personal agenda or play for their side, and this simply isn't the case for most conservatives or centrists who seek debate (or most leftists either if I'm being 100% honest; online debates are just awful as a format).

In addition to that, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that cishet people have more social acceptance among centrists and conservatives, and are less likely to be violently victimized when interacting with outright fascists. I believe cishet people who consider themselves LGBTQ+ allies have an obligation to leverage that social acceptance to advance LGBTQ+ rights; in practice this often means acting as a front line against hateful rhetoric. Not only is hearing pro-LGBTQ+ talking points from a cishet person more likely to at least jostle the opinion of someone who is already prejudiced against members of the LGBTQ+ community and get them to at least think about their own positions, it protects LGBTQ+ people from violence and harassment as a consequence of directly interacting with people who wish to hurt them (and no, I'm not claiming that every conservative wishes for violence against LGBTQ+ people, but interacting with conservatives absolutely carries a higher risk of encountering the people who genuinely do).

Lastly, direct action is the most effective way to get sociopolitical change, and it should absolutely be used to defend the human rights of all marginalized people, including and especially LGBTQ+ people. Community aid, including direct defense against violence if necessary, is one form of direct action that will measurably improve the lives and safety of LGBTQ+ people. Protests and even general strikes (LGBTQ+ issues and economic issues are absolutely intersectional) are other ways to advance minority rights besides shouting against brick walls in a facade of a "facts and logic" debate.
 
Last edited:

Wigglytuff

mad @ redacted in redacted
is a Tiering Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
I just wanted to point out that this logic regarding the beginning of life goes both ways. If we don't have a scientifically rigorous definition of when life begins, then it's not self-evident that killing foetuses is NOT equivalent to murder. After all, who's to say that the unborn child is not a person, if we can't come to an agreement on what constitutes a person in the first place? Trying to use this argument against pro-lifers does nothing but undermine your own position at the same time.

For the record, I'm pro-life, but I don't believe that overturning Roe vs Wade was the right move.
the entirety of the pro-life argument for disallowing abortions hinges on whether what you're aborting is a "person" (as nebulously as you would like to define it) or not, so you have a burden of proof to make the case that it is, let alone enshrine it into law.

the arguments for pro-choice don't, because they are true whether or not what you're aborting is a "person". it's about the reproductive autonomy of women, because jerking off about first heartbeat, first toe development, etc is pointless.
 
Uhh yes, exactly. The vast majority of Republican voters aren't genocidal anti-democratic Nazis in bed with the Russians. They're just regular people who believe what they experience in their own bubble. People who grow up in small towns with Republican parents who get most of their news from local newspapers and the occasional local news network. Most people don't develop their views much deeper than "guns let me protect my family" or "15 dollars minimum because workers deserve a livable wage!". Ask any of these people to go deeper into their views, such as by providing evidence or arguments to counter the opposition and they usually don't have a good answer. They'll spit out low effort strawmans that they saw in low effort Facebook memes. Catch a person with undeniable proof that they're wrong, or that there is some validity to the opposition, and views can shift, or at least softened. Not everyone! But there will always be a relatively large percent who are just along for the ride who "don't talk politics" but still vote.

Most Americans aren't maliciously voting to hurt others. They're voting to help themselves, friends, families, and their community. Many people, especially young people can have their views shifted by honest conversation. But if they get aggressively rejected for opposing viewpoints, as so often happens in this thread, they just find communities that accept them, usually garbage like /r/conservative or worse. I think it's safe to say no one benefits from this.

And if, after all this, the CONG community doesn't want any Republicans and Moderates posting here at all then I suggest we change the name of this thread to "Leftists patting themselves on the back" because in all honesty that is the only conversation that people seem to want here.
40% of Republicans are willing to openly tell pollsters that they support political violence against opposition, and the vast majority of Republican media is normalising eliminationist rhetoric against minorities and political opposition, and/or outright endorsing anti-democratic philosophies. The United States is at the point where scholars of genocide are regularly warning that the Republican Party is conditioning itself towards committing atrocities. Civil conflict experts and fucking retired generals are telling Americans to prepare for future Republican insurrections. These are facts coming from relevant experts across the political spectrum, including from Republicans themselves, and no amount of anecdotal experience with Republicans in the town of Cousinfuck, Alabama is going to matter compared to that.

The expectation to acknowledge these facts isn't "Leftists patting themselves on the back." Whinging that this is some leftist circlejerk just because your opinion isn't being taken seriously when it's clearly divorced from reality says more about your own expectations for Cong as an echo chamber for your own views than it does anyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Maybe you can sway some of the next generation of would-be conservatives that way, but I'm not convinced we have enough time to simply wait for conservatives to die and hateful ideologies to burn themselves out before serious, widespread harm comes from them, and allowing the rampant spreading of propaganda and hateful conspiracy theories is completely counterproductive to that end either way.
I believe I was quite specific about this, but to reiterate in perhaps more detail, the way to get them to reconsider is for LGBTQ+ people to simply exist in public spaces safely and unapologetically. Not to be performative, not to go out of their way to interact with conservatives to try and befriend them bring them over, or debunk their problematic beliefs, or any of that liberal meritocratic fantasy shit, but simply to exist.
I just don't see how both of these ideals can exist together.
 
the entirety of the pro-life argument for disallowing abortions hinges on whether what you're aborting is a "person" (as nebulously as you would like to define it) or not, so you have a burden of proof to make the case that it is, let alone enshrine it into law.

the arguments for pro-choice don't, because they are true whether or not what you're aborting is a "person". it's about the reproductive autonomy of women, because jerking off about first heartbeat, first toe development, etc is pointless.
I'm sorry, but you can't keep ignoring the question of what actually constitutes a human being on the grounds that there are other arguments in favour of abortion. If an unborn child is a person, then that means that abortion is effectively murder. That claim, whether it is true or not, is so hugely important that it fundamentally needs addressing. If it is true, then it means that millions upon millions of human lives are being destroyed every single year. That would be a tragedy beyond words and would need immediate action (although, for the record, I don't actually think that banning abortion is the best way to do this). The scale of this claim is so large, and its results so horrendous if true, that it dwarves all other arguments both for and against abortion. The reproductive autonomy of women, on the scale of importance, does not even come close.

You can still be pro-choice if you wish, but that doesn't excuse you from personally deciding when a person comes into existence. To do so is to pick a side based on the (comparatively) minor arguments/claims against abortion, rather than the major, and by far the most important, one.

Just to reiterate, I am not advocating for banning abortion. I just think that there are far more effective ways of reducing abortion (better access to contraception, more sex ed, better social supports for new mothers etc.) that have less collateral damage (e.g. people self-harming because they can't access an abortion) than banning it outright.
 
I just don't see how both of these ideals can exist together.
I don't see where the contradiction is. Fight against anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and conspiracy theories, and LGBTQ+ people just be themselves and do their thing and allow organic interactions with them to erode prejudice against them. We've already seen this happen at least to some significant degree with specifically LGB people. Which part of these two prescriptions can't exist with the other? If anything, I think they're mutually necessary, we've been doing a fairly poor job with the former so far, and a not insignificant amount of blame for this can be laid at the feet of "centrists" forcing every conversation we try to have on the matter to the right.
 
Last edited:

Wigglytuff

mad @ redacted in redacted
is a Tiering Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
That claim, whether it is true or not, is so hugely important that it fundamentally needs addressing.
ok then u address it lol. come back and share with the class when you've got an answer. doesn't mean everyone else has to assume that the answer is "a fetus is a human as soon as conception/first heartbeat/first toe development/etc" in the meantime.

Just to reiterate, I am not advocating for banning abortion. I just think that there are far more effective ways of reducing abortion (better access to contraception, more sex ed, better social supports for new mothers etc.) that have less collateral damage (e.g. people self-harming because they can't access an abortion) than banning it outright.
i never understand how pro-life people make such a fuss about how fetuses are human from conception or whatever transparently arbitrarily picked point in time of the pregnancy, but then make concessions like this. if you genuinely think that human beings are murdered, then there is no room for utilitarianism. would you tell me we shouldn't ban murder (the real kind of murder lol.), because it'd be far more effective to give better access to self defense tasers and better social supports for low SES people that largely addresses the reason why they are driven to murder in the first place? no, because that would be insane
 
Most of our farming is subsidized by federal funding in order to remain solvent and it's been that way since the 1930s. They're pretty much nationalized in that respect.
American agriculture is one of the most egregious examples of private monopolization in the country I can think of, the government subsidizing key sectors of the economy doesn't mean they're nationalized. Would you consider the fossil fuel industry to be an example of nationalization?
 

Fishy

tits McGee (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)
I don't see where the contradiction is. Fight against anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and conspiracy theories, and LGBTQ+ people just be themselves and do their thing and allow organic interactions with them to erode prejudice against them. We've already seen this happen at least to some significant degree with specifically LGB people. Which part of these two prescriptions can't exist with the other? If anything, I think they're mutually necessary, we've been doing a fairly poor job with the former so far, and a not insignificant amount of blame for this can be laid at the feet of "centrists" forcing every conversation we try to have on the matter to the right.
you're basically saying the two ideas can only exist if everyone who isn't LGBTQIA forms an army of Gay Truthers who fight against the evil conservatives who can't help themselves but misgender trans people or swallow the Gays Groom Kids pill every sunday before church. if this is the case, then you're insinuating that the conservatives are going to view all these Gay Truthers as propaganda artists who aren't so much trying to meet common ground as they are trying to sway listeners to their side for [gain]. if the bigots weren't wary of people talking about gay rights and such in even the most innocent manner, why wouldn't they just listen and agree? what recourse does a bigot have besides choosing to be hateful? xenophobia isn't the same as being an asshole. do you really think gay people were hated in the past because they were being too gay? how many elbows do you have to bump with a gay person before you stop believing that they deserve less respect and rights than you do?

LGBTQIA people have only come so far because they chose to start parades and businesses and began wearing their pride on their sleeves or in their hair when they went to work or anywhere else outside the sanctity of their home or gay-coded spaces. they did not do this with the mere glee of existence, they did so with courageous, tireless effort to exist in a world with so much of the population telling them they're a disgrace to god, their parents, and even humanity itself. they sure as shit didn't wait until it was "safe."

it's infantilizing to anyone who identifies as queer that their best option is to do nothing but exist, and that their best chance to be respected is if they... meekly live their lives? while the straights banish all the anti-gay rhetoric? you say gay people need to exist without performance [of the gay agenda], but isn't the problem that many conservatives consider anyone who looks gay as promoting [the gay agenda]? how can you define someone's pride and self-love from a performance? the mere sight of a queer person sets some people into rages or rants, or they shoot up a night club. it's exhausting for minority groups to hear that they have to HOPE TO FUCKING GOD that the normies are going to champion them and set all the bad apples straight. this isn't community. this is segregation into strong and weak, and admitting that "sorry, only the STRAIGHT WHITES make the rules in these parts, but us good guys will go and handle the bad guys!"

idk what the magic formula for DeBigotry juice is, but it feels ick to act like you have to out-conspiracy the conspiracy theorist into believing in basic human rights for someone who isn't straight. it's even stranger assuming that queer folk's best interest is to forfeit agency in the name of passive pride. let's not do that, because if good straight people wanted to save the gays from the bigots, they would have done so already, and who-is-anyone to assign such a task in the first place !!
 
Last edited:

cityscapes

Take care of yourself.
is a Tiering Contributoris a Community Contributor Alumnus
All the research I've found on this has conflicting results, and all the papers seem to say the same thing: "we don't have enough data to present a conclusive answer". So I'll just say if it is found that someone born male who went through male puberty is found to have better "stats" on average then perhaps a solution needs to be found. If it can be demonstrated that trans women are physically on average no more competitive then great.

But unlike pretty much every other trans debate, this one isn't solely about morality. There's actual measurable sports stats and if the chemicals someone puts in their body gives them an advantage in sports, they usually are banned for it. Ironically hormone treatments make women weaker but I don't want to pick a side just because I'm pro LGBT.
see, with all normal people (very intentional use of words), they Care about these things, but only within their government-sanctioned frameworks...the other must always be on the outside, looking in. there's a reason why when sports debates pop up there are always a host of vitriolic normal people posting pre-transition names and photos of the athletes involved. this is to reinforce the othering of said athletes.

these frameworks stem directly from modernity and enlightenment thinking. taxonomy of the human, discourse policing the way the body can be and can love by wrapping all the way around it. the peripheries are well-defined. i read the foucault history of sexuality volume 1 and it was hard as hell to get through, don't really recommend it, but this is basically what he said as far as i can gather. this is also why we see trans-exclusionism wearing the cloak of progressivism-- fear of gender-variance is not a new or particularly western phenomenon, but modernity truly codified it (often in the legal sense).

there can be no debate, no anything, if we are not entitled to our names and our bodies. yet most self-professed "allies" still support government institutions in which the names and hormones of the t-word subject are meticulously policed. just in case. then they have the audacity to go on about "sports" and "pronouns" when neither them nor i actually care about sports, and half the time they don't get my pronouns right anyway.

it should be obvious that conventional politics aren't going to work when you're being assailed at every "debate" by normal people calling you a different type of sex pest every week and you have no strong dehumanization framework to counterattack them (despite numerous attempts). it should also be obvious that the so-called marketplace of ideas is and will always be septic. scientifically, we have proven beyond a doubt that racism for example is fucking stupid. that doesn't stop it from still being everywhere with no signs of dissipating. similarly even if the nice, meek, harmless t-words prove that they will lose at every sport and never have sex ever, i have a hard time believing that things will actually be much better.

This of course brings me to today's question, which is: How does the Republican Party plan to address the growing epidemic of me (and multiple other trans people) in the walls and sewers? The peripheries cannot be policed. The feds, for all their careful categorization, have still failed to accurately describe what we actually are. Every day we successfully pink-pill another disillusioned communist "boy" and produce new atrocious tracks in our pirated or FOSS music programs. And they were never able to do anything about the ones that passed flawlessly, even back in the day. In the end, theirs is a legacy of impotence, like all the ones that came before them.

The central modern-day conflict is not good versus evil, but rather alive versus dead. It's difficult to categorize things like the desire for state regulation on one's own body, or affirmations that one's identity cannot change from birth, as anything besides an outdated entity fighting for inertia, for everything to be frozen and sealed away. From my trans siblings I see affirmations of human life, of machine life, of inhuman life experienced as a human (this type the most under fire). I see artistic life and musical life and people hurting and loving. I see dead people with fucking neocities websites that simply continue to exist indefinitely into the future.

"Being a better ally" isn't about being a better person. That's politeness, which is a totally different scale. What really matters in the end is how alive you are...the normal person is sick in bed, the federal agent may as well be gathering dust. Food is not an issue--you can see the fruits of algorithmic complexity growing on every street corner. You just gotta have some fun with it, you know?
 
as a big US politics head i was wondering if we could change the topic to one of the following, ideally with less manic posting. sometimes you guys write like thesaurus' are going out of style and i gotta tell you that's not really how the real world works.

anyway, some current event topics:

- george santos's incredible gift for lying
- the massive 1.7T omnibus bill passing and the additional 44B for Ukraine
- the lack of any monetary policy being passed for americans as we are gearing up for a full recession
- american copaganda and fentanyl

:blobthumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top