The All Things Political Topic - new edition

[Chairchucker]

Gromnir you're on drugs and you should put them down. What I actually said: protesting is not censorship. What you somehow got out of that: violence is OK if I like the person doing it.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Gromnir you're on drugs and you should put them down. What I actually said: protesting is not censorship. What you somehow got out of that: violence is OK if I like the person doing it.

speaking o' people on drugs...

"It appears the 'violence' spoken of didn't happen until after the police went to try and disperse the protest, or as you might call it 'censor or ban their freedom of speech'. (Although that would in some ways be more accurate than the way you used it, since the police have got some kind of government connection going on.)"

you said the police actions amounted to censorship and you were pretty clear offering the the state sponsored censorship as an explanation for the violence.

so...

put down the pills, needle, pipe, etc. before it's too late.

btw, the logic fail is also a brain on drugs issue.  call something protesting does not result in the impossibility o' the protests rising to a level which makes it censorship. "protesting is not censorship." ignores the reality that protesting may indeed be censorship just as it can be violent or criminal.

there is indeed a fail wherein some people equate censorship with a violation o' the First Amendment. the dr. seuss estate may self-censor and it in no way results in a First Amendment violation. the uc davis story first amendment issues is different if the event happened at university of the pacific instead of uc davis, 'cause a private institution is not a state actor. etc.

all o' which ignores the point we keep coming back to and people miss so often. legal ≠ right. student protests meant to drown out messages they don't wanna hear is attempts at censorship, but they is not necessarily violative o' the First Amendment. legal or protected doesn't make 'em necessarily right neither. students who rage at any message they don't wanna hear, complaining o' the need for trigger warnings to prevent microaggressions and the demands for safe spaces is protected by the First Amendment as long as they peaceful make their demands, but am thinking is obvious not so settled that such efforts is right. 

and in spite o' the deflection again, am suspecting chair's defense o' the protesters woulda' been different if the victims o' police suppression were robed clansmen attempting to censor a trans speaker.  would chair have offered up the recognition that the proud boys and clansmen only resorted to violence after the police attempted to censor them as defense o' the actions by white supremacists? 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 29, 2023 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/5-dead-texas-shooting-suspect-armed-ar-15/story?id=98957271

Definitely should not approach your neighbours. Well, doubt the cops will be getting him alive

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/5-dead-texas-shooting-suspect-armed-ar-15/story?id=98957271

Definitely should not approach your neighbours. Well, doubt the cops will be getting him alive

the black humor being the no compromise gun rights folks see such incidents as further proof o' the need for more guns and greater gun protections. after all, if the victims had been better armed and trained, maybe they coulda' survived their encounter with a mexican national.

guns don't kill people...

incidents like these makes it all the more reasonable for people to be afraid o' their neighbors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/20/florida-sheriff-hate-crimes/

 

He’d been angry that no one called him when his parents got swatted. Luckily, the 911 dispatcher had thought the murder-suicide report sounded fishy and called his mother, who confirmed they were alive.

The police still sent over three officers. Chitwood’s father, unsure if they were real officers, had opened the door carrying his Smith & Wesson revolver.

“You should have called me, Dad,” Chitwood said, still in his cycling spandex, when his parents came over that evening for buffalo chicken and white pizza.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/15/police-shooting-wrong-house-video-new-mexico-dotson/

After the officers appeared to laugh at the notion that they mixed up the addresses, police backed away and shined a light on Dotson once he came to the door of what authorities thought was the house with the domestic violence report, video shows. But the officers were supposed to be at an address across the street, according to police. When Dotson opened the screen door and began to raise his firearm, police opened fire on the homeowner, who quickly fell to the ground, according to body-cam video.

'cause anybody could be armed, it is reasonable to afraid o' everybody... especial at night. fear is justification for using deadly force in self defense.

eventual the no compromise people is gonna recognize the insanity they embrace, right?

nope.

HA! Good Fun!

[Lexx]

Shame that there is nothing that can be done about this.

[BruceVC]

17 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Gromnir you're on drugs and you should put them down. What I actually said: protesting is not censorship. What you somehow got out of that: violence is OK if I like the person doing it.

But Chair you can see how Gromnir has clarified how the Charlie Kirk incident is indeed an example of the radical left using violence to try to stop someone they ideologically and or politically dont agree with

And yes freedom of speech  means people should be able to participate  at a seminar  without being subjected to intimidation and violence

All Im saying is let's  be consistent with our outrage and call it out instead of trying to defend or handwave it?

[majestic]

20 hours ago, BruceVC said:

All Im saying is let's  be consistent with our outrage and call it out instead of trying to defend or handwave it?

We could, but in doing so we risk creating an impression of moral equivalence where there is, and never should be, one. See, for instance, if we go back to the 70ies, we can take a look at raging homophobe and bigot concerned parent Anita Bryant who was leading the charge against rights granted to homosexuals. Look her up, take her rhetoric and arguments and simply substitute homosexuals with trans people, and you will find something very interesting to happen.

History repeats itself here. It is the same states, with the same arguments, and the very much the same rhetoric. Anita Bryant was publicly shamed, demonstrated against, her public appearances stormed and her dignity violated by a protester who gave her a banana cream pie facial (which, admittedly, is more stylish and less violent than pepper spray, but not much different in concept). She eventually lost her livelihood. All for exercising her right to state that the God damned (in a more literal meaning than nowadays) homosexuals should not be allowed to contaminate innocent children with their ideology.

Anita Bryant had an abusive father who would much rather had a son and an abusive husband, and all her pent-up rage went against a marginalized group whose, just like transgenders nowadays, threaten to erase the only piece of womanhood people like Anita Bryant can still cling to (instead of facing the actual monsters in their lives, i.e. abusive men): Being mothers*. Hence all this talk about fertility. Really, it is the same load of horse manure, just with a different group of people, and yes, you can find the same sort of rhetoric against raping butch lesbians and pederast homosexuals that is currently thrown against trans people.

It is hard to look at Anita Bryant and her life and not muster a modicum of empathy for the terrible things she went through in her life, but at the same time, I cannot sit here and pretend that she did not deserve everything she went through after projecting her trauma and rage onto homosexual people. Nobody forced her to become a raging homophobe and bigot concerned parent (well, deliberations of the existence of free will nonwithstanding, not the topic of this thread anyway). Current anti-trans rights champion J.K. Rowling mirrors Anita Bryant in more than rhetoric, having had an emotionally distance father who would have preferred a son, a history of sexual assault and an abusive and violent first husband. Now she projects her experiences against a marginalized group whom she sees as threatning her womanhood. She even - most likely inadvertantly - paraphrases Anita Bryant ("My father wanted a son, that is the sort of thing that could turn me into a homosexual" vs. "My father wanted a son, I can see myself transitioning for his sake if I were given the opportunity").

Looking at history, change is often messy - after all, it wasn't the Stonewall Debates that eventually led to Anita Bryant championing the counter movement to abolish the better rights and protections spawned from that event, was it? Women did not debate until they were granted the right to vote, indeed, they even got quite violent. Except perhaps in Switzerland, and you can see how well that worked. It only took them half a century longer than anyone else to grant women suffrage. Ah, well, let it never be said that the Swiss are quick with anything, yes**?

Let me ask you a question. Suppose we would be in the 70ies, and Anita Bryant just had her right to free speech tread upon by way of a banana cream pie. Would you, as a self-proclaimed friend to homosexual people everywhere, be morally outraged by the repugnant attack, or not? Just curious here, really. I know I would not, and I make no attempt to sugar coat this, as the resident far-left extremist and Cultural Post-Modern Marxist (whoever coined that idiotic term, I wonder?).

*Andrea Dworkin, Right Wing Women. Published in 1983, it appears to be more relevant than ever, in the face of people with vaginas like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Posie Parker, Maya Forstater and, well, sadly enough, J.K. Rowling. It is a fantastic read, if approached with care, Ms. Dworkin is not, say, entirely uncontroversial, for good reason.

**In case it is none too apparent, this is a joke.

Edited May 1, 2023 by majestic

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, majestic said:

We could, but in doing so we risk creating an impression of moral equivalence where there is, and never should be, one. See, for instance, if we go back to the 70ies, we can take a look at raging homophobe and bigot concerned parent Anita Bryant who was leading the charge against rights granted to homosexuals. Look her up, take her rhetoric and arguments and simply substitute homosexuals with trans people, and you will find something very interesting to happen.

History repeats itself here. It is the same states, with the same arguments, and the very much the same rhetoric. Anita Bryant was publicly shamed, demonstrated against, her public appearances stormed and her dignity violated by a protester who gave her a banana cream pie facial (which, admittedly, is more stylish and less violent than pepper spray, but not much different in concept). She eventually lost her livelihood. All for exercising her right to state that the God damned (in a more literal meaning than nowadays) homosexuals should not be allowed to contaminate innocent children with their ideology.

Anita Bryant had an abusive father who would much rather had a son and an abusive husband, and all her pent-up rage went against a marginalized group whose, just like transgenders nowadays, threaten to erase the only piece of womanhood people like Anita Bryant can still cling to (instead of facing the actual monsters in their lives, i.e. abusive men): Being mothers*. Hence all this talk about fertility. Really, it is the same load of horse manure, just with a different group of people, and yes, you can find the same sort of rhetoric against raping butch lesbians and pederast homosexuals that is currently thrown against trans people.

It is hard to look at Anita Bryant and her life and not muster a modicum of empathy for the terrible things she went through in her life, but at the same time, I cannot sit here and pretend that she did not deserve everything she went through after projecting her trauma and rage onto homosexual people. Nobody forced her to become a raging homophobe and bigot concerned parent (well, deliberations of the existence of free will nonwithstanding, not the topic of this thread anyway). Current anti-trans rights champion J.K. Rowling mirrors Anita Bryant in more than rhetoric, having had an emotionally distance father who would have preferred a son, a history of sexual assault and an abusive and violent first husband. Now she projects her experiences against a marginalized group whom she sees as threatning her womanhood. She even - most likely inadvertantly - paraphrases Anita Bryant ("My father wanted a son, that is the sort of thing that could turn me into a homosexual" vs. "My father wanted a son, I can see myself transitioning for his sake if I were given the opportunity").

Looking at history, change is often messy - after all, it wasn't the Stonewall Debates that eventually led to Anita Bryant championing the counter movement to abolish the better rights and protections spawned from that event, was it? Women did not debate until they were granted the right to vote, indeed, they even got quite violent. Except perhaps in Switzerland, and you can see how well that worked. It only took them half a century longer than anyone else to grant women suffrage. Ah, well, let it never be said that the Swiss are quick with anything, yes**?

Let me ask you a question. Suppose we would be in the 70ies, and Anita Bryant just had her right to free speech tread upon by way of a banana cream pie. Would you, as a self-proclaimed friend to homosexual people everywhere, be morally outraged by the repugnant attack, or not? Just curious here, really. I know I would not, and I make no attempt to sugar coat this, as the resident far-left extremist and Cultural Post-Modern Marxist (whoever coined that idiotic term, I wonder?).

*Andrea Dworkin, Right Wing Women. Published in 1983, it appears to be more relevant than ever, in the face of people with vaginas like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Posie Parker, Maya Forstater and, well, sadly enough, J.K. Rowling. It is a fantastic read, if approached with care, Ms. Dworkin is not, say, entirely uncontroversial, for good reason.

**In case it is none too apparent, this is a joke.

You have made a long post to ask me a question, are you asking me if I would support Anita Bryants right to freedom of speech and  homophobia in a modern world?

If you are my response will be the same, I dont  personally support anyone that peddles blatant bigotry. But I dont know exactly what she would say because I never heard of her until now. So under freedom of speech yes she a  legal right to say it but she doesnt have a right to hate speech 

And these are different, it depends on the speech and what she says?

And Im not talking about moral equivalence, Im talking about a world where people are going to have different views to you on  many subjects  and people must accept that other people have a right to hear what that person has to so say irrespective of what you personally feel about the likes of Charlie Kirk, he has a right to speak at the University . But if someone says "kill LGBT " there is no moral equivalence to that from the left as far as I know  and we must condemn that and call it out 

 

[majestic]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

You have made a long post to ask me a question, are you asking me if I would support Anita Bryants right to freedom of speech and  homophobia in a modern world?

Well, yes and no. This thread became more irritating than usual, which sometimes prods me to reply in the face of better judgment. The initial draft was much different, and a lot more mocking, and not directed at you in particular, just at the idea that there should be a cultured debate about everything, when historically, cultured debate nary made for change, while protests and people fighting for their rights in the face of bigotry and hate did. Eisenhower did not send a debate team to convince the bigotted concerned governor of Arkansas to desegregate schools when he refused, he sent the 101st Airborne.

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

If you are my response will be the same, I dont  personally support anyone that peddles blatant bigotry. But I dont know exactly what she would say because I never heard of her until now. So under freedom of speech yes she a  legal right to say it but she doesnt have a right to hate speech 

You can look it up, there is plenty of information available. It is simple to substitute homosexuals with trans persons in her speeches, and you will find that suddenly we arrive at the exact same talking points that concerned parents, feminists and conservatives (what an amazing time we live in, when an originally far-left idea proposed by extremist lesbians is co-opted and turned into a right-wing movement, and you have feminists joining in) spout these days when talking about the transgender liberation movement.

There is some bitter irony in all of this, back in the late 60ies, the feminist movement attempted to exclude lesbians, and the lesbians rallied and replied by staging aggressive and disruptive protests. Once accepted by the feminist movement, they then immediately proceeded to try and exclude trans persons, because never let it be said that "the left" or minorities are any better in learning from history. Here we are today, with people like Posie Parker being co-opted and funded by the conservatives in the weirdest unholy alliance ever. Left-wing fringes and right-wingers united in a common cause: dealing with the transgender menace (feminists used to call lesbians the lavender menace, by the way, a rather prominent one even going so far as to call lesbians a CIA psy-op to discredit feminism).

I would laugh, if it were not so dire.

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And these are different, it depends on the speech and what she says?

No, they are not. It is the same pushback against a liberation movement that has always come about in the face of liberation movements. The way these talking points are the same is quite scary, Anita Bryant was very vocal about homosexuals not being able to reproduce, while nowadays gay men argue that transitioning is bodily harm because people who are actually "just gay but confused" are castrated by the gender affirming treatments.

The amount of mental gymnastics necessary here is astounding. Gay men, arguing against trans liberation because it affects fertility.
Here, have a tweet by one of them. Spoilered because very graphic language.

Spoiler

 

 

 

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And Im not talking about moral equivalence, Im talking about a world where people are going to have different views to you on  many subjects  and people must accept that other people have a right to hear what that person has to so say irrespective of what you personally feel about the likes of Charlie Kirk, he has a right to speak at the University .

He has that legal right, yes, because from what I have read universities have no legal recourse to stop these student events, which is fine in and of itself. The problem we are now dealing with here, and that is thanks to the protest turned violent (although this is just one such event in a long list), is unfortunately that we are now at the stage where bigots who advocate transphobia are now "people with different views" in public discourse.

Sure is a different view all right. One that should not be accepted, of course, but sure is.

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But if someone says "kill LGBT " there is no moral equivalence to that from the left as far as I know  and we must condemn that and call it out 

I should have said false moral equivalence, as it was supposed to allude to the false equivalence fallacy, the idea that points of view are of equal merit even when they are not. Rallying protestors to stop Charlie Kirk from speaking is no different than rallying protestors to stop Anita Bryant from speaking, or rallying protestors to disrupt the Second Congress to Unite Women from speaking against lesbians in the feminist movement, doubly relevant because in this case, the "Lavender Menace" actually stormed a school auditorium and disrupted the talks.

In closing, here's a quote from Posie Parker, CPAC funded public "gender critical movement" face TERF:

Quote

 

“I’m talking about you dads, who maybe carry – I think that’s what you say, I’m so down with the American lingo.

“Maybe you carry, maybe you don’t. Maybe you consider yourself a protector of women, maybe you’re that sort of man.

“Maybe you have a daughter or a mother, or a wife, maybe you have a sister. Maybe you have friends, maybe you just think women are human and you don’t need any absolute connection with them to feel compelled to protect us.

“I think you should start using women’s toilets, men.”

 

Yes men, please, enter women's toilets and protect them from the lesbian transgender menace. If you happen to catch a couple of butch dykes in the crossfire, well, it is just back to the roots.

Just in case anyone considering themselves centrist wonder why people in the movement are so "hsysterical" about it, in the face of bigotry, instead of having calm debates. Hilarious, really, the people in the gender-critical movement are telling trans women, who they consider to actually be men, to be less hysterical, a trait historically ascribed to women.

And the politicians enacting the laws to counter trans liberation and inclusion in the US? Why, they're mostly men. Conservative men. Republicans. To use radical left-wing nomenclature: OLD WHITE MEN. Hey TERFs, I have a question for you: have you ever stopped and wondered why you're actually helping your sworn enemy here, the patriarchy? Over what, bathroom policing? Uhm.

Edit: There is some clarification necessary, I believe. Calm and measured debate and empathy are important to de-radicalize people, but this is a slow process and does not work with everyone, and most certainly not the instigators and bigots who are tirelessly working to change the political climate for the worse. If you think De Santis or Trump could be convinced to let go of their bigotry, then I have a bridge here I'd like to sell you. Only slighty used.

Edited May 1, 2023 by majestic

[majestic]

And for something different: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/austrian-communist-party-stages-major-comeback/

Völker, hört die Signale!

Funny, papers and online news portals have been running communist scare pieces ever since. Major wins for the Nazis? Ah, who cares about that. Quick, someone voted for communists. Yikes!

[Malcador]

Soon...

 

[Gfted1]

Whats worse to you Europeans, commies or nazis? Follow up question, are there any commienazis?

[Amentep]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

 

In closing, here's a quote from Posie Parker, CPAC funded public "gender critical movement" face TERF:

“I’m talking about you dads, who maybe carry – I think that’s what you say, I’m so down with the American lingo.

“Maybe you carry, maybe you don’t. Maybe you consider yourself a protector of women, maybe you’re that sort of man.

“Maybe you have a daughter or a mother, or a wife, maybe you have a sister. Maybe you have friends, maybe you just think women are human and you don’t need any absolute connection with them to feel compelled to protect us.

“I think you should start using women’s toilets, men.”

Yes men, please, enter women's toilets and protect them from the lesbian transgender menace. If you happen to catch a couple of butch dykes in the crossfire, well, it is just back to the roots.

Wait, so let me get this straight -

The TERFs don't want trans-women using women's bathrooms because they feel unsafe with people they believe can easily overpower a woman and thus makes the women's bathroom an unsafe space, and so to preserve the safe space and keep trans-women from using the women's bathroom, their solution is to <checks notes> invite armed men into those very same bathrooms...?  And that will make them feel safe?

Sheesh, with logic like that...

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

29 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Wait, so let me get this straight -

The TERFs don't want trans-women using women's bathrooms because they feel unsafe with people they believe can easily overpower a woman and thus makes the women's bathroom an unsafe space, and so to preserve the safe space and keep trans-women from using the women's bathroom, their solution is to <checks notes> invite armed men into those very same bathrooms...?  And that will make them feel safe?

Sheesh, with logic like that...

 

At this point I have taken so much psychic damage from TERFs that armed bathroom inspectors doesn't even surprise me. When you see people claim that the Fat Mac arc on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia was to cover up Rob McElhenney being pregnant.....yeah.

Meanwhile in Texas....

Cosplay Cowboy Gets Very Serious About Dress Codes

Corrupt Legislators Promote Their Business Interests At The Expense Of Tenants

Edited May 1, 2023 by PK htiw klaw eriF

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

Sheesh, with logic like that...

You wonder what's wrong with the US education system ?

[Gfted1]

11 minutes ago, Malcador said:

You wonder what's wrong with the US education system ?

SEE! The problem is the costs! If the US had UFE we would already be punching extraterrestrial in the face in the Alpha Centauri system. smh.

[Malcador]

4 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

SEE! The problem is the costs! If the US had UFE we would already be punching extraterrestrial in the face in the Alpha Centauri system. smh.

UFE is ? Universal Free Education ?  There's a public system in the US still no ?

Abbott couldn't help himself here.  Guess that killer's gone now, as well.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/greg-abbott-cleveland-mass-shooting-victims-17999913.php

[Bartimaeus]

36 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Abbott couldn't help himself here.  Guess that killer's gone now, as well.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/greg-abbott-cleveland-mass-shooting-victims-17999913.php

They were only slaves.

[Zoraptor]

7 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Follow up question, are there any commienazis?

Yes(ish), though not in Europe- the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party

The ish is because they're far more fasciocommies than commienazis; and get very upset if you get put the Socialist and Nationalist parts of their name around the other way.

[xzar_monty]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Yes(ish), though not in Europe- the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party

There's this (Northern?) European joke that whatever craziness you can come up with, there's bound to be an organization both in support of and opposition to it in the US. Commienazism may be an exception.

[Gorth]

10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Yes(ish), though not in Europe- the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party

The ish is because they're far more fasciocommies than commienazis; and get very upset if you get put the Socialist and Nationalist parts of their name around the other way.

Reminds me of this one...

 

[BruceVC]

22 hours ago, majestic said:

Well, yes and no. This thread became more irritating than usual, which sometimes prods me to reply in the face of better judgment. The initial draft was much different, and a lot more mocking, and not directed at you in particular, just at the idea that there should be a cultured debate about everything, when historically, cultured debate nary made for change, while protests and people fighting for their rights in the face of bigotry and hate did. Eisenhower did not send a debate team to convince the bigotted concerned governor of Arkansas to desegregate schools when he refused, he sent the 101st Airborne.

You can look it up, there is plenty of information available. It is simple to substitute homosexuals with trans persons in her speeches, and you will find that suddenly we arrive at the exact same talking points that concerned parents, feminists and conservatives (what an amazing time we live in, when an originally far-left idea proposed by extremist lesbians is co-opted and turned into a right-wing movement, and you have feminists joining in) spout these days when talking about the transgender liberation movement.

There is some bitter irony in all of this, back in the late 60ies, the feminist movement attempted to exclude lesbians, and the lesbians rallied and replied by staging aggressive and disruptive protests. Once accepted by the feminist movement, they then immediately proceeded to try and exclude trans persons, because never let it be said that "the left" or minorities are any better in learning from history. Here we are today, with people like Posie Parker being co-opted and funded by the conservatives in the weirdest unholy alliance ever. Left-wing fringes and right-wingers united in a common cause: dealing with the transgender menace (feminists used to call lesbians the lavender menace, by the way, a rather prominent one even going so far as to call lesbians a CIA psy-op to discredit feminism).

I would laugh, if it were not so dire.

No, they are not. It is the same pushback against a liberation movement that has always come about in the face of liberation movements. The way these talking points are the same is quite scary, Anita Bryant was very vocal about homosexuals not being able to reproduce, while nowadays gay men argue that transitioning is bodily harm because people who are actually "just gay but confused" are castrated by the gender affirming treatments.

The amount of mental gymnastics necessary here is astounding. Gay men, arguing against trans liberation because it affects fertility.
Here, have a tweet by one of them. Spoilered because very graphic language.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

He has that legal right, yes, because from what I have read universities have no legal recourse to stop these student events, which is fine in and of itself. The problem we are now dealing with here, and that is thanks to the protest turned violent (although this is just one such event in a long list), is unfortunately that we are now at the stage where bigots who advocate transphobia are now "people with different views" in public discourse.

Sure is a different view all right. One that should not be accepted, of course, but sure is.

I should have said false moral equivalence, as it was supposed to allude to the false equivalence fallacy, the idea that points of view are of equal merit even when they are not. Rallying protestors to stop Charlie Kirk from speaking is no different than rallying protestors to stop Anita Bryant from speaking, or rallying protestors to disrupt the Second Congress to Unite Women from speaking against lesbians in the feminist movement, doubly relevant because in this case, the "Lavender Menace" actually stormed a school auditorium and disrupted the talks.

In closing, here's a quote from Posie Parker, CPAC funded public "gender critical movement" face TERF:

Yes men, please, enter women's toilets and protect them from the lesbian transgender menace. If you happen to catch a couple of butch dykes in the crossfire, well, it is just back to the roots.

Just in case anyone considering themselves centrist wonder why people in the movement are so "hsysterical" about it, in the face of bigotry, instead of having calm debates. Hilarious, really, the people in the gender-critical movement are telling trans women, who they consider to actually be men, to be less hysterical, a trait historically ascribed to women.

And the politicians enacting the laws to counter trans liberation and inclusion in the US? Why, they're mostly men. Conservative men. Republicans. To use radical left-wing nomenclature: OLD WHITE MEN. Hey TERFs, I have a question for you: have you ever stopped and wondered why you're actually helping your sworn enemy here, the patriarchy? Over what, bathroom policing? Uhm.

Edit: There is some clarification necessary, I believe. Calm and measured debate and empathy are important to de-radicalize people, but this is a slow process and does not work with everyone, and most certainly not the instigators and bigots who are tirelessly working to change the political climate for the worse. If you think De Santis or Trump could be convinced to let go of their bigotry, then I have a bridge here I'd like to sell you. Only slighty used.

You make some good points, I agree with several of them 

For example you do have a reality  with real transphobes\bigots supporting legislation and concerns with people who are more uninformed. There are  people in the US who think  the left\democrats are  trying to force or encourage transitioning on normal kids who dont want to transition

So fearmongering and misinformation is also  shaping public opinion 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

It's not quite out yet, but @BruceVC is going to love the next honest government ads... taking on the Reserve Bank of Australia

(it was originally supposed to be about the state of affairs in Canada, but that's postponed until later)

Will post it here when it shows up

 

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Gorth said:

It's not quite out yet, but @BruceVC is going to love the next honest government ads... taking on the Reserve Bank of Australia

(it was originally supposed to be about the state of affairs in Canada, but that's postponed until later)

Will post it here when it shows up

 

Please do, it may be the first time I think the girls are being ....naughty, of course we dont really mind if they naughty  

[Katphood]

Katphood reporting here...

We are doing good.