You're viewing a single thread.
Call me radical if you want but, I don't think Subject A of our cause should be rights for a minority of our citizenry.
Those rights should be unspoken truths we uphold regardless.
The common man will walk by TRANS RIGHTS 4000 times before they walk by UNION STRIKE.
The left needs to go back to focusing on workers, unions, labor, taxes, fairness and sense. Trans rights are important, and topical, but I feel the sjw yelling pushes a lot of people away from what our side of politics is actually about.
There isn't a single person I work with that wouldn't toss a flier with 'trans rights' written on it in the trash the second it was handed to them.
What do you think of Sanders, he has spoken out in the past about how putting identity politics with regards to gender, race, etc ahead of economic issues isn't helping Democrats. That doesn't mean he's not staunchly in favor of supporting rights for those minorities though. Are you coming down on that side of the issue or are you saying eliminating the hard line on rights for minorities of all sorts as a party position/talking point would be favorable, and then once in power maybe resume supporting them?
Do you think Republicans using trans rights/bathroom bills as a wedge issue was effective in the last decade? There is something to be said for putting your best foot forward, using your most widely popular policies to run on being a strong winning strategy but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Is this another example of the new "when they go low, we go low" thought that's happening this week? Yeah weird times all around, my trans friends are looking a little scared.
You could not have missed the point harder
I'm taking points by consensus. Luckily, Lemmy has those built in and the congregation ain't with you, dog.
Yeah but the point is that if they hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
It's easier to ramp up an authoritarian regime if you start off bullying a group that's small and easy to marginalized. Then you work your way up from there.
What you're saying is like "All lives matter" compared to "Black lives matter". The point of BLM wasn't that Black lives are more important, per se, but that they need more attention right now.
Like if you've got two kids, and one scrapes his knee, and the other cracks his head open...obviously (hopefully) you love both of your kids, but one of them is clearly in more need of immediate attention. They matter more right now, in the current context.
I am someone who wouldn't give "T people" rights the time of day. It's absurd. If they're American, and a legal citizen, then they have the same rights as me. I don't have the time or patience to focus on a group that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. We have real problems.
I think you've misinterpreted the picture. These are supposed to be domino bricks. "trans rights" isn't the first brick because it is the most important - it's the first brick because it's the first that's going to fall.
I see your point but when basic human rights of a minority group are threatened, there is a moral imperative to organize to protect them, regardless of their popularity. There’s really no way around it. I think a framing that includes trans rights as only one aspect of a larger struggle for human freedom and dignity is the best strategy. Because there will need to be some discussion of trans rights if fascists continue to attack them. The alternative is to abandon a part of our community to violent oppression, which to me is unthinkable.
Moral imperative ≠ logical imperative. There's really no way around it.
People voted for Trump because he told them their issues are going to be addressed. You cannot tell someone that's willing to vote for a wannabe fascist that their rights are somehow being secured three dominoes removed from trans rights. That is an abstract concept. Despite the fact that children should be capable of understanding abstract concepts, these are people who clearly cannot.
You have to appeal to them first because there are more of them. They are selfishly stupid and the simple virtue of your message is not enough to persuade them.
The people you’re talking about also see things as adversarial when they don’t need to be. It’s just part of having a mind saturated in negativity. If we’re going to do something to help the trans people, it must mean we’re hurting everybody else somehow. By admitting their existence is valid, others are somehow diminished, in the eyes of the paranoid conservative.
that’s the importance of countermessaging. harris and walz had it right for 0.0076ms with their “weird” direction, like “look how fucking weird jd vance is for wanting to do genital inspections on every kid in order to make life harder for like 40 kids nationwide, what a freak!?!” and even some conservatives were like “yeah that’s a little far we don’t need to be doing all that.” that was a really successful strategy that had great potential.
…and then they dropped that like a month before the election in favor of courting suburban conservatives. from “weird” to “follow the law.”
Sorry now every time I see someone mentioning the "weird to follow the weird laws" pipeline I get unduly agitated at how fucking hard the DNC dropped the ball this cycle. Now I'm more than surprised as ever that Hilary won the popular vote with campaign managers like these.
literally no need to apologize! it’s absolutely fucked
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And fuck the very concept of "sjw", that shit isn't helpful
It sucks because I know a lot of people referred to as SJWs, myself among them sometimes, and my read is that what pisses people off about them is not exclusive to minorities or the left wing, but the label tends to just apply to people advocating for the oppressed, and the behavior often comes from pain and vulnerability.
A lot of marginalized people lack the space irl to be politically active in a meaningful way. This goes double if you're trans or closeted or showing up irl is dangerous in any way. Online, you have a platform and can speak your truth, but that's about it. Social media platforms are incentivized to put a bunch of chuds you don't agree with in front of you to keep you engaged, and so people end up angrier and angrier, stuck constantly responding to bigotry but never able to actually do much about it, or even hold a good faith conversation. Pet peeves become big sore spots because people keep poking at them and it feels like there's nothing that can be done to change how anyone feels. Small disagreements over language become big blowouts because it's probably the tenth time it's happened today and it might not feel like anyone's on your side.
Funny enough the person I know who fits this description the most is a right-wing incel, marginalized in some ways due to neurodivergence. He's prone to big conspiratorial blowouts at the mere mention of climate change or queer people because he sees it as necessary to "educate" people. I don't think most would call him an SJW yet his engagement with politics and the ways in which he pisses people off are exactly the same.
MSNBC agrees with you that the Democrats went too "woke"... while repubs dumped millions into trans panic ads. If "left" Democratic leaning media is willing to throw principles under the bus to capitulate on hand waving economic yabbering, then we need to stop associating them with leftist principles.
Again, repubs did all the sjw yapping about trans people, and other than the bare minimum the dems pretty much kept quiet while also not making moves on unions or anything the like. Shouldacouldawoulda, but they didn't. And trans people should not be brought to take the brunt of what lies ahead because of that.
I know its easy to say the dems should have done different, but DO NOT let rightwing narrative lead to you lapse in your principles, we're here because the Democrats couldnt stick to theirs regardless.
We're here now, so all you can do is protect your trans neighbors and friends. I, for one, certainly wouldn't want to be told my rights as an individual were focused on TOO MUCH by the only people willing to represent me.
by the only people willing to represent me.
Make more political parties viable by enacting state level electoral reform.
Seriously, we got one line of support from Walz and Harris' offer to follow the law, which is a far cry from supporting trans rights when you consider the laws being passed in many states.
Democrats who were pressed on trans rights this election cycle consistently backed down and conceded and moved towards discriminatory Republican positions.
I wish Harris had won, I would feel much more comfortable with the future prospects of my rights the next 4 years. But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.
But anyone who views the Democratic party as truly supportive of trans rights, certainly in any kind of national sense, is sorely mistaken.
It's ironic if we were to say this before the election, there would be a very different response. Now the ship is sinking so to speak, critique is more receptive.. just not when it counts.
For a split moment I figured the whole "weird" rhetoric would expand to actually describe how people are legitimately being discriminated against with legislation, but yeah just follow the laws.. even if they mean parental rights for rapists and fucking windows on school bathrooms. Never hoping for a political outcome again.
The entire point of the image is that protecting and engaging any and every marginalized community is a fundamental part of healthy democratic institutions. And part of the iterative process of improving and strengthening our democracy involves seeking out opportunities for creating egality. There is no singular perfect state where you just stop - you always need to be looking within for opportunities to make things better.
Don't think of it as just advocating for minority rights, think of it as advocating for human rights wherever that advocacy is needed.
So what you're saying is that you work with shitty individuals
Yep. NC.
It is what it is. You don't turn a wrench without seeing a few confederate flags on a few Dodge rams.
and you don't turn their money away, either. The Benji's didn't have swastikas on them even if his fenders did.
It was a distraction tactic and they fell for it brilliantly.
What you call a distraction, I and my fellow trans called a wave of violence. Just because it didn't effect you, doesn't mean there was not real world consequences. Many trans individuals suffered more hate, more violence, a few even died. That has become the new normal. Thanks.
If that's how they feel about basic human rights, then they don't deserve to have support for their union, either. They are both about respect, and if you're not willing to give it then you don't deserve to get it, either.
Ah yes, the leftists mortal enemy, the less-idealogically-pure leftist.
Of the people that care enough to vote, leftists are a clear minority. We need to find people to work with on specific, community-building goals, even if we can't agree with them on everything (or anything!) else.
Funny you say that, because I'm definitely not a radical leftist - except maybe somewhat for social justice. While I mostly agree with progressive ideals, I'm also pragmatic enough to accept that such drastic change can't realistically happen overnight - or, in many cases, even vaguely quickly. At least not without some rather significant, yet unnecessary upheavals in much of the general population's lives.
While I wouldn't stop supporting unions, I would most certainly be less sympathetic to those who expect sympathy, but aren't willing to give it. That's just being selfish, IMO, and I really don't care to deal with overly/unjustifiably selfish people. The Golden Rule is my primary guide to life, whereas it seems to me that most people preach it without truly following it themselves. It frustrates the fuck outta me.
I'm just tired of our side attempting to appeal to basic human decency when it's been more than proven that there isn't any.
Regardless of what you think about my or their vote, you need it. You don't have the luxury of being exclusionary when you're on the losing side and bleeding support.
Republicans were (in theory) on the losing side in 2022 - there was supposed to be a "red wave" that never materialized. They won (again) this time around by fully embracing being exclusionary. Seems to me Dems need to stop trying to attract those people (I think I read that Harris managed to get less than 5% of them, while losing something approaching 15% in Democrat voters), and instead focus on being an exclusionary antithesis to them. If we're going to be a two party system, then make them polar opposites rather than just a lite version of the same side (within practical limits, of course).