"I felt a grievance on behalf of mankind that these fascists had made such a mockery of us." Vasily Gromadsky's words will sit in my heart forever.
"I felt a grievance on behalf of mankind that these fascists had made such a mockery of us." Vasily Gromadsky's words will sit in my heart forever.
I don't see why. Again, he didn't extend empathy to his own children.
“You will never live in a society where you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. It’s worth it to have some gun deaths every single year so that we have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It’s rational.” - Charlie Kirk, 2023
"Conservatives aren't criminals" is perhaps the most atrocious symptom of brain poisoning I've ever witnessed. Nixon was President 50+ years ago. It's been an unbroken string of criminals and traitors since then. You have to stop huffing your own farts.
Getting rid of migrants Getting rid of legal protections for minorities Getting rid of abortion rights Getting rid of labor protections Getting rid of trans people They're conservative through and through. They're just criminals.
Don't vote for anyone else then, you prat
Buck up, Klepek. You can't let the Bears break you this early.
And you sit here, nine months removed from an election you put squarely in the hands of the fascists, and you tell anti-fascists that it's their fault. It's YOUR FAULT! You've had FORTY-FIVE fucking years to fight. Not one election! TWELVE elections! You've had GENERATIONS to fight!
The Democratic Party conceded the election to the fascists. Conceded it! I do not know how to get it into your skull - they told the country that the fascists were right! They agreed with fascists, they said they needed to work with fascists, they committed to supporting fascism internationally.
And then as you blunder into another election, your party is so riddled with fascism that it is proposing inhumane border control policies, boasting about having "the most lethal military in the world", and saying in televised "debates" that they agree with the GOP fascists on many issues!
I simply can't understand how whoever is advising the Dem leadership is _telling them to lurch rightwards_, in a time of absolute crisis. The problem is not antifascists. The problem is that you have tolerated fascism! Not only have you tolerated it, you let it take _your_ party too!
It feels insane to think about how imperative the need for a reset was. To look at how radicalized the GOP had become. And STILL, the administration was calling for bipartisanship, arguing that we need a "strong Republican party", refusing to prosecute those who acted to dismiss the election.
It is shocking, and demoralizing, to recognize how after the first Trump presidency, there seemed to be some recognition of the danger at hand. We watched an attempted insurrection play out. We had armed people hunting legislators. And then the administration _chose_ not to pursue justice.
We haven't been "too blinded to see it". We've known for generations what is happening, and yet we've seen the Democrats, who folks like yourself routinely prop up as the solution, lurch ever rightward the whole time.
Fish and chips night sounds like hell at the Tightpussy residence
Calm down, princess.
The only people who would argue that weekend deliveries are an "unnecessary expense" obviously don't work for a living.
It's realistic to deliver on Saturday because they're realistically doing it right now
"I'm not going to vote for you self-sabotaging cunts" is the message, take the plastic bag off your head
Why do smug cunts sound like this when any basic examination of the primary process would tell you an undemocratic organization is curating the potential candidates available? "Uniquely privileged"? Fuck off, guy.
Jesus.
A 400 page dossier?
I mean, let's be real, it took about a week after the election last November before the libs who just sunk the election to start selling trans people out. These aren't principled people.
Then it's cooked anyway and all the lecturing is redundant.
Well, the moderates should probably start moderating what kind of swivel-eyed psychopaths they're looking to boost up. Because if the choice is between second class citizenship and second class citizenship for trans people, trans children, then the moderates have taken all the impetus out of voting.
Our culture is Hills Hoists I mean, what the fuck
Good advice. Dem voters who fancy themselves liberals should have learned from November last year. They won't, but they should.
You still want to impose it! You're looking at a group of people and deciding that you have the power and the right to inhibit their lives! You've already engaged in a fascist mindset, and you're convincing yourself it's okay because you'll be a better, more lenient fascist. Don't be one at all!
So why are you participating in that mindset, where trans people's rights, freedoms, potentials, futures are restricted at a governmental level, on the basis that you'll think you've got a better chance of attaining power in doing so? "Oh but the restriction we want to impose isn't as severe"?
Only illiberal "liberals" are entitled to make generalizations, apparently
Then prove me wrong. Prove to me that trans girls are athletically capable as cis boys. I don't want to see "nuh-uh". Let's see your evidence. I don't want more exposure to your ignorant presuppositions, I want evidence.
To suggest this is something that will "take time" to learn is just a bald-faced lie. It's simple, pigheaded refusal to engage in an observable reality. It is an adherence to a false reality of one's own prejudiced mind. There is no excuse for not knowing history.
It won't "take time". It's a known fact now, today, this second, as it has been for decades. We've known this since trans inclusion in the most elite levels of competition was allowed. That's nearing 50 years ago. The only ignorance that can be demonstrated here is DELIBERATE, WILLFUL ignorance.
That's not something you can disagree with. You can look at every sporting achievement of any trans girl, and you can _observe_ that it is not on the level of cis boys. To dismiss this as a simple "lack of agreement" is to demonstrate your rejection of a shared observable reality.
If you can't be bothered to entertain the notion that we live in a shared reality with quantifiable indicators of ability, then I'm sorry, fobbing me off with nonsense arguments about "demanding agreement" are completely hollow. Trans girls are _observably_ not as physically endowed as cis boys.
It's so fucking _lazy_. Like, how dare you have an opinion on something as important as the EQUAL RIGHTS of other people, and be that lazy. How fucking dare you.
There is nothing I hate more, _nothing_, than people who talk down to me about how it's unfair that trans people, children, be _allowed_ to entertain the notion that they're equal people with equal rights, and then find out that their argument is reducible to "I just think trans girls are boys"
And relying on some form of mental shorthand to simply pretend that trans girls are indistinguishable from cis boys, despite all evidence that indicates otherwise, is prejudice grounded in transphobia. It's intellectual laziness pretending to be "common sense".
And subsequently, if you're seeking to distinguish differences between cis boys and trans girls, you can look at athletic performance of cis boys, and athletic performance of trans girls, and notice that they are _as dissimilar_ as between cis boys and cis girls.
Is it reasonable to believe, based on experience, that persons born male are all trans girls? Because it seems to me that if you can distinguish that all persons born male are not all trans girls, then it follows that you can also distinguish differences in cis boys and trans girls
You didn't respond. Multiple times, I asked you why it was supposedly unfair for girls to play with other girls in competition. Multiple times, you haven't responded.
Going by his radio silence on my questions, his answer's likely to be "..."
Rest in peace, Leelah. 11 years gone. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leelah_...
So why do you want to narrow it further? Why are all the things you consider to be politically unviable, things that _were_ viable in years past?
The science is the least of this "liberal's" concerns, Nick. He's much more interested in his ignorant assumptions.
You're not making that argument. You're making an argument that girls shouldn't be allowed to play with girls. Can you explain your reasoning for why girls shouldn't be entitled to the equal right to participate as other girls?
You'd expect that. But you're arguing that this is policy that Democrats and their voters should be willing to support, because you don't believe it's fair that girls are entitled to play with other girls, although you never explained your reasoning.
You never said why it's unfair that girls play with other girls. Why is it unfair that girls play in competitions with each other, something they are all entitled to do? bsky.app/profile/ndil...
Typically the strategy is to lie to that cohort beforehand, secure their vote, and then fuck them off after the election win. It's just mystifying why you'd be open about your lack of support for them upfront. It seems like a strategy guaranteed to eject them from the coalition ahead of time.
Like, I'm just wondering why you think, at a time when you need everyone to get on board in order to secure a winning coalition, why you think it's good strategy to tell a cohort in that supposed coalition that you don't support them and would in fact choose to impose segregation on them.
I refer you back to when you supported segregation for trans people, thus demonstrating your lack of principle in refusing support for equal rights.
Whoever wrote it, is counting on Democrats and those who support them to take the bait on embracing segregation for trans people. You took the bait. You're helping them impose their agenda. You've even argued here that this isn't segregation.
It hasn't stopped at sport. He already has an answer to that. He chose to ignore that and just talk about sport, because to him, equality and equal rights for trans people has to be portrayed as frivolous and not worthy of consideration.
He doesn't care about any of that. He's being reductionist on purpose, because he thinks segregation is something that trans people shouldn't be allowed to have a problem with. He thinks we should welcome being treated as second class citizens.
Why's it not fair to the other girls? Playing in competitions with other girls is what all girls are entitled to do. I think trans people are entitled to equal rights. I think anyone who characterizes that as "trans rights first and foremost" is living in a fantasy. Equal rights are equal rights.
In a time when trans people of _all_ ages are having their access to healthcare threatened, their right to personal ID removed, are being fired from the military and government employment, you going straight to sports as an issue of concern speaks volumes. I think you should have principles.
I think that your _immediate_, reduction of trans oppression to merely sports participation, at a time when 27 states and 40% of the population of trans children are prohibited by law from accessing gender affirming healthcare, speaks to the fact that you don't much care about trans people.
It's telling that all the positions you're willing to compromise affect other people. Do you have principles, or don't you? Because you've already demonstrated that the principle of equal rights is one you're willing to punt on, as long as it's someone other than you taking the hit.
Framing that as "absolutist" is alarming. It suggests that a state of equality, of equal rights, of equal inclusion, of equal possibility is something you oppose. I put to you that you don't support equal rights.
It's not absolutist to recognize that trans boys and girls are equal participants in society and are to be afforded the same possibilities to participate in society, all of it, as their peers. That's just a position of equal rights. That's a sensible, reasonable position that respects equality.
The reason why trans girls are entitled to play in girls competitions is because they're girls. The reason why trans boys are entitled to play in boys competitions is because they're boys. You're making an argument to separate trans girls and boys out of those competitions. That's segregation.
Repeating an incorrect statement does not make it correct, any more than arguing that a gay person not being able to marry their preferred partner is not segregation. You're repeating reactionary arguments. You're arguing explicitly that denying equal rights to trans people is acceptable.
It is definitionally a state of segregation. It is segregating trans people away from other people, and excluding them from equal participation in a common social activity. That's segregation. It's apparently just a form of segregation you're prepared to inflict.
Is the inference to be taken from your argument that trans people should be grateful for having a state of segregation imposed on them, if it meant the rights of others would be improved? Because that's an argument in favor of segregation, not equal rights.
You just stated that it's not fatal to impose a state of segregation on trans people. That is in direct contradiction to your subsequent claim to believe in equal rights. Do you believe in equal rights, or segregation? Pick one.
I'm not really interested in speculating as to what potential malice you can imagine motivated the inclusion of an edit. I think the edit communicates an understanding of the terminology issue and stresses a commitment to speaking to communities using their terms. Ascribing malice to that is weird.
So when someone throws accusations of racism at those who defer to this position, I don't think that's in good faith, I don't think that's grounded in a recognition of other perspectives, and it suggests someone is trying to assert a claim of universality when that's observably not the case.
I think that deferring to this position is reasonable. I think it's a position that seeks to find common ground amongst folks who may have a difference of opinion, and it stresses that best practice is to speak to particular communities in the manner they'd choose for themselves.
No, i don't believe in either of your suppositions. I believe the terminology used for indigenous peoples of the Americas is a matter on which there is some contention and some preference, I don't think anyone has a universal claim on what are legitimate and illegitimate terms.
So you don't believe in equal rights?
"Liberal" centrists:
This is going to be fucking evergreen, isn't it bsky.app/profile/juni...
I'm not "deciding to believe" that. I've witnessed a bunch of idiots making ridiculous assertions of racism, and then vanishing without trace when this gets put in front of them. They're entitled to their opinions. They can have stupid opinions.
"She did it for a reason, and it's probably connected to her refusal to address the criticism" I'm going to need you to explain how an edit in a video is connected to her alleged refusal to address the criticism... that occurred after the video was released. Time is linear.
It's not a pejorative. It's literally the term used to describe a story that you narrated.
So, is the National Museum racist too? You throw out dumbass accusations, I'm not going to be nice to you.
I'm being condescending because you wrote a narrative, and then went "it's bad faith to characterize my response as a narrative". Like, I don't know what to tell you. You wrote a narrative. That's what that is.
Well, if you want to be a reductionist twat, I don't suppose any amount of sense will stop you.
I said your response was a narrative because you literally said "Okay, so this just looks like..." and then wrote a fanfiction account of what you imagine happened. Love, that's a narrative. You wrote a narrative. You understand that you did that, right?
I'm going to say something that you're not going to like - randos on Twitter are perfectly capable of being unreasonable whether they're "white settlers" like yourself, or Indigenous folks. It's part of the human condition. And frankly, some of the critiques are fucking ridiculous.
I'm going to say something that you're not going to like - randos on Twitter are perfectly capable of being unreasonable whether they're "white settlers" like yourself, or Indigenous folks. It's part of the human condition. And frankly, some of the critiques are fucking ridiculous.
I've had someone today respond to that excerpt from the National Museum by asking "have you ever heard a rap song?" If you're smart enough to understand what they were implying in that question, you can probably recognize why it's a fucking terrible comparison to draw with an educational resource!
Because she's probably correctly identified that a lot of the criticism is from unreasonable people. Like, you literally invented a narrative and went "if that's true, that's really fucked up of her!" That's pretty fucking unreasonable! I personally don't think it's on her to put your mind at ease!
Okay, but it's paraphrasing the National Museum of the American Indian's resources for educators. So the little narrative you've cooked up here doesn't track when a national museum staffed by native scholars is providing educational resources that match that explanation.
Perhaps this is conspiratorial thinking on my part, but the fact that the trial has been postponed until the end of October really feels like he's been too observably crazy to maintain the illusion of the media narrative, and it needs a couple of months to reset everyone's memory.
bsky.app/profile/lumi...
Have you tried typing it into your search bar, or are you intentionally playing dumb still?
Okay, so why do "OP and several others" not seem to recognize that their perspective is not a universal constant? Like, if what Abby is doing is effectively paraphrasing the response the National Museum put on their public site as an educational resource, is what they're providing illegitimate?
Who's "they", specifically? This doesn't seem like a universally held position.
bsky.app/profile/lumi...
Have you ever answered whether these folks are incorrect? You were so forthcoming before about your racist aunt Karen. Why so shy now about a question with a yes or no answer?
Absolutely. Why would I stop? I think it's incredibly revealing that you stop acting the cunt as soon as you see a passage from an organization staffed with native educators that says basically the same thing. Are they incorrect?
Or was this just an opportunity for you to be a cunt?
Do you think the educators at the NMAI would empathize with your portrayal of them as no better than your racist aunt Karen? Have you sent them obnoxious, abusive emails as well? The email address is right there, I'm sure they're dying to get your input. Are they wrong? It's a simple question.
Haha, very funny. But seriously, is this incorrect?
So which body is it correct to defer to when discussing this topic? Who's the correct group or organization to contact, to speak to this terminology, specifically?
