Iowa's culture war: Pronouns, nicknames, and LGBTQ kids' rights
Iowa's culture war: Pronouns, nicknames, and LGBTQ kids' rights
Nick Covington: New school procedures for student nicknames will inconvenience many parents but could severely harm LGBTQ kids.
I'm not out to my parents as non-binary (they would reject it most possibly). I want to come out at school to all new teachers, that way i can just slowly come out. this law would be a disaster to any of my plans, which is why I find it scary to imagine me in Iowa.I'm not out to my parents as non-binary (they would reject it most possibly). I want to come out at school to all new teachers, that way i can just slowly come out. this law would be a disaster to any of my plans, which is why I find it scary to imagine me in Iowa.
If "First, do no harm" is a principle in caring professions, Iowa elected officials are demanding adults cause harm to vulnerable kids in schools, and teachers have an obligation to resist policies whose purpose is to inflict cruelty. In fact, we know that using chosen names can literally be life-saving for transgender kids, as being able to use chosen names is directly linked to a decrease in depression and suicide. As a basic human courtesy, it’s the bare minimum, costs us nothing, yet can mean everything.
I like Bleeding Heartland, but one criticism I have is how they don't actually ascribe motives to fascists. They still try to maintain this bizarre appearance of """neutrality""" by just presenting the facts and not actually examining our enemies.
The entire point is to harm queer children. They want us to commit suicide before we're old enough to vote against them or spread our deviant ideas to other children. They want to increase depression and suicide. "The cruelty is the point" is trite, they're not just meanies that want to hurt us.
They're fascists. This is social Darwinism.
You're viewing a single thread.
The best thing you can do is get you and as many people your age to get out and vote. GOP doesn't want to admit that you and your friends are the majority, they rely on you all to not show up and let the old boomers keep voting in incumbents.
I'm 35 now but I remember being 18, please make sure you drag your friends to the polls. Make a night of it, talk about the old crabby lady pollster who looked at you all weird, do your hair up to weird them out, just make sure to submit those ballots.
At the end of the day that's the only thing that will matter on proving to these old bigoted assholes that their time of misogyny, racism, and homophobia is ending.
I strongly disagree.
I'm 31. I got to watch the Dems torch our votes in the 2020 caucus when they fucked it all up with the Shadow App, and I'm convinced that's why Iowa stayed deeply red during the midterms when so many other states saw Republican losses. I'm going to keep voting (for whatever good that is) but for fucks sake don't act like voting is the best we can do. If that's the best we can do then we're already dead.
Voting is the least you can do. It is the easiest, smallest, simplest thing you can do. It's not nothing, but it's not the best we can do.
I'll agree with that, it is the least you can do, but in terms of getting new people in power it's the most we can do too. Kim doesn't care how many protests or signs we make, she's going to ignore all of that. She doesn't care how many marches, or speeches, or posts we make, because she'll get votes. The Dem party did royally screw you guys over, picket them, yell at them, demand better from them so when you all show up to the polls you actually move the needle and get Kim out of office.
I've definitely learned that you can choose not to vote, but that by choosing not to vote you've actually voted for the status quo. And I gotta say, compared to when we pushed the needle to go blue and we got gay marriage legalized... the status quo now really sucks. But it's not forever, if we don't let it be.
(and sorry idk why I assumed you were early 20s)
Politicians have never cared about protests or signs or marches or speeches or posts, but that's not the point!
Those things are for the People, to awaken the masses to struggle and to validate the shared experiences we all have of living in hell. This can be turned into votes as one tactic, but there are a lot of other things that can be done with a mass movement besides voting.
Simple and clean example: Kim has political donors. Those donors have business interests, which gives the masses leverage in the form of boycotts and strikes. They've especially vulnerable to anything that costs them money, and we can cost them a lot of money if we work together.
After a certain point you have to stop thinking like a voter and start thinking like a radical.
Not sure about your specific area, but I don't think the US, as a whole, is hungry enough to start doing mass strikes yet. By hungry, I mean lacking food to survive.
Maybe it's going to require mass hunger. I hope not, I don't think so, but maybe that's the only way to radicalize Americans.