General US Politics

[Quiyonce]

10 hours ago, Rezzy said:

A small minority of transgender people give the rest a bad name by either competing in sports where they have an advantage over biological women or suing salons for refusing to wax their genitals, so people think all trans people are like that.  There is also the controversy with bathrooms and giving kids puberty blockers or hormones.  Plus many people will only ever know one person who is trans, and if they're a crazy wacko, that's the impression they get.

 

Some also think people referred to as transgenders, rather than transgender people is a slur.

I'm pretty pro the trans people who want to compete in sports and use the correct restroom but I think there's at least some valid argument on both sides. The hormone issue I'm more iffy about.

However, there is some validity in the 'transgenders' complaint. Trans/transgender is an adjective not a noun. Taking away the following man/woman/person is reducing people to just their transness. I, personally, wouldn't say it's a slur but it's definitely dehumanizing. It's the same reason why the term 'Black people' isn't offensive but 'the blacks' teeters the line on racist speech.

6 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Not even the gays want to associate with trans people anymore.  There's been movements to kick the T out of LGBT, because they think it will make the rest more socially acceptable.

Remember how you said that a few radical trans people were giving the whole community a bad name? I think the same concept applies here. Maybe the queer communities I associate with are more accepting but I have yet to personally run into an LGB person who is also transphobic. I've honestly only heard that talking point from TERFs on social media.

[Tryhard]

I think the reasoning goes that lesbian, gay and bisexual are sexual orientation, while transgender is gender identity, so they view it as a significant enough distinction.

Search for 'Drop the T' for people that would support that.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Tryhard

[Excellen Browning]

In other news

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/politics/bolton-testify-impeachment-trial.html

Bolton says he'll testify if subpoenaed. I guess it's cool to hear it from the horse's mouth, but it's not going to matter.

[Quiyonce]

I'm aware of the argument, I was saying like how a few trans people can give the whole community a bad name, a few transphobic LGB people can make it seem like all cis queer people want to exclude trans people when that's not the case.

I think anyone who has actually done any research in queer history, at least queer American history, would know that the LGB and T past struggles are too intertwined to be disconnected now.

I heard of 'Drop the T' on tumblr first and I'm almost positive it was started by terfs.

[Shoblongoo]

59 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Sadly that's the case. Many trans people are afraid to come out due to the massive stigma attached.

Not even the gays want to associate with trans people anymore.  There's been movements to kick the T out of LGBT, because they think it will make the rest more socially acceptable. 

There's always a find line between pragmatism and moral cowardice.
 

[Tryhard]

6 minutes ago, Quiyonce said:

I'm aware of the argument, I was saying like how a few trans people can give the whole community a bad name, a few transphobic LGB people can make it seem like all cis queer people want to exclude trans people when that's not the case.

I think anyone who has actually done any research in queer history, at least queer American history, would know that the LGB and T past struggles are too intertwined to be disconnected now.

I heard of 'Drop the T' on tumblr first and I'm almost positive it was started by terfs.

I wouldn't separate them because I would say that I always understood it to be a social progress movement, not to the exclusion of one particular aspect of identity. 

I'd like to think most people could see the link of having empathy for groups that may be undermined the same way you are, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to resonate with some.

8 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

There's always a find line between pragmatism and moral cowardice.

Perhaps a reading of MLK Jr's writings on frustration with white moderate liberals of the time should be in order.

[Quiyonce]

7 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I'd like to think most people could see the link of having empathy for groups that may be undermined the same way you are, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to resonate with some.

I agree, but that's what happens when a community is linked by such a wide blanket such as race or sexual/gender identity. There's always gonna be quite a few rotten apples. That's why I think it's important to label what talking points these bad individuals use to make sure their ideas are ostracized from the core movement.

11 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Perhaps a reading of MLK Jr's writings on frustration with white moderate liberals of the time should be in order.

I think this also applies to the current 'white feminism' phenomenon. Intersectionality should be a crux when people are truly trying to study and implement equality for all, not an afterthought.

[Shoblongoo]

41 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Perhaps a reading of MLK Jr's writings on frustration with white moderate liberals of the time should be in order.

Even with MLK--you had the civil rights coalition that he put together based around the Black Churches and the idea of nonviolent civil disobedience.

And then you had the Macolm X / Black Panthers / Nation of Islam side of the civil rights struggle--the more militant side.

And you had people within MLK's movement who didn't want to be associated with them + wanted to take sole ownership over the movement--didn't want any Black Panther of Nation of Islam face on it--because they thought it would make their cause more socially acceptable to god-fearing white america if they could tie a pretty little Christian Bow around the entire thing. 

(and the stuff the militants were more directly fighting while MLK was breaking down segregation were the issues with racist police brutalizing their communities and literally getting away with murder that persist to this day--but hey--white America wasn't ready to have that conversation yet)
______
 
I feel like thats the kind of thing that happens pretty frequently in civil rights movements.

They always come to a crossroads of so now that we're actually starting to make some gains and go mainstream here; do we go for mass appeal and move away from the stuff the general public is still iffy about. Or do we hit the gas.  

Speaks to how far the LGBTQ movement has come that "LGB"s feel sufficiently mainstream enough now to start throwing shade on the "T"s

But yeah...obviously more work to be done there...  

Edited January 6, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Rezzy]

2 hours ago, Quiyonce said:

 

Remember how you said that a few radical trans people were giving the whole community a bad name? I think the same concept applies here. Maybe the queer communities I associate with are more accepting but I have yet to personally run into an LGB person who is also transphobic. I've honestly only heard that talking point from TERFs on social media.

It seems to mostly be TERFs, but there are some gay guys who also want to kick out the trans people.

2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I think the reasoning goes that lesbian, gay and bisexual are sexual orientation, while transgender is gender identity, so they view it as a significant enough distinction.

Search for 'Drop the T' for people that would support that.

There's significant overlap between the groups, since most trans people are either bisexual or start or end up gay.  There are some people who start and finish what would be considered straight, but that seems to be the exception.  Plus there's the issues of straight people thinking dating a trans person of the opposite gender would make them gay.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

There's always a find line between pragmatism and moral cowardice.
 

Or people can go, " Hey I'm gay, but at least I'm not trans."

[Lewyn]

13 hours ago, Rezzy said:

A small minority of transgender people give the rest a bad name by either competing in sports where they have an advantage over biological women or suing salons for refusing to wax their genitals, so people think all trans people are like that.  There is also the controversy with bathrooms and giving kids puberty blockers or hormones.  Plus many people will only ever know one person who is trans, and if they're a crazy wacko, that's the impression they get.

 

Some also think people referred to as transgenders, rather than transgender people is a slur.

I think you hit the nail on the head, those are all the hotly contested/controversial issue.  It feels as pushing for those is stepping on the rights of other people.  

Sports, men are separate from women for a reason and that is cause hey have a massive physical advantage.  Besides the hormones, muscle, there is also bone mass, the skeletal structure (the hip/waist ratio), joints, and men having a substantial size advantage as well.  Women train just as long and hard as men, many dedicating their entire lives/lifestyle to it.

With bathrooms, I don't think men care who uses their bathrooms.  I assume the problem is how women feel about it.  With good reason, many women don't want to have men in their bathrooms so then how they view MtF transgender would likely be the key here.  

The kids hormones/blockers thing, cause people feel kids don't have the knowledge responsibility to make a permanent decision such as this.  I am not familiar with details, but I heard this is sort of a permanent decision, like if you stop puberty you can stop it permanently and hormones will never be the same?  Any expert on this I would welcome explanation.

I hadn't heard about the wax genitals thing, but looking it up I would go with the salons.  Seems like a delicate operation and if not having experience with male genitilia would be unsafe to try.  I guess they could specify wax for vaginas only or something.

I think another thing is the 'woke' culture, and that even comedy is being attacked.  Or that are we being overly PC? Many comedians have spoken on this, and think it has been taken way too far. 

All of this is unfortunate and it does allow the right to just say these social issues and thus dismiss everything of the left and turn people against them.  

[Quiyonce]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

and the stuff the militants were more directly fighting while MLK was breaking down segregation were the issues with racist police brutalizing their communities and literally getting away with murder that persist to this day--but hey--white America wasn't ready to have that conversation yet)

You could argue that they're still not ready for that conversation.conversation.

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

It seems to mostly be TERFs, but there are some gay guys who also want to kick out the trans people.

 

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

Or people can go, " Hey I'm gay, but at least I'm not trans."

That's such a gross mindset. I don't see how members of a community that banks on a bunch or different identities banding together can't muster up basic compassion or empathy.

 

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

With bathrooms, I don't think men care who uses their bathrooms.  I assume the problem is how women feel about it.  With good reason, many women don't want to have men in their bathrooms so then how they view MtF transgender would likely be the key here.  

I think what most people don't consider is the other side of the issue. When trans people are forced to use the restroom that doesn't coincide with their gender, they are more at risk of facing assault, especially trans women. There's a lot of violence against trans women in the States and forcing them to use men's restroom will only make that issue worse.

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

I think another thing is the 'woke' culture, and that even comedy is being attacked.  Or that are we being overly PC? Many comedians have spoken on this, and think it has been taken way too far. 

I'm not too sure on this one. On one hand, some people can go too far when it comes to what is and isn't offensive. On the other hand, I don't think comedians should be above critique just cause they can make derogatory language sound funny. To top it all off, the comedians being 'attacked' aren't suffering any real consequences. Ricky Gervais and Kevin Hart in particular are still getting booked and making money despite being 'called out' and 'canceled.' Which, to me, really makes the arguments against political correctness and 'cancel culture' a non-issue.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I'd have more sympathy towards those bitching about the more toxic aspects of Political Correctness and "woke culture" if not for the fact that these same people tend to ignore Trump as well as try to the minimize the danger of people stuck in the right-wing media bubble which has consistently produced mass shooters and violent attackers. Shitting on the toxic left is super easy and there's a huge audience for it on youtube but those that are siding with the right (Hunter Avallone, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, etc) never want to look at the asinine shit they're producing in their echo chamber.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Hanes]

9 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Shitting on the toxic left is super easy and there's a huge audience for it on youtube but those that are siding with the right (Hunter Avallone, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, etc) never want to look at the asinine shit they're producing in their echo chamber.

*sigh* never thought I'll post here...

But I agree, I can't help but laugh when the right says the left does this and this and that and forgets its own problems. Like I agree bashing on toxicity but doing so shouldn't make you toxicity itself.

I used to watch Hunter Avallone and Ben Shapiro once, and PragerU but then realized they were full of crap and left them, the amount of brainlet followers they have is honestly surprising given their repetitive content.

[Shoblongoo]

25 minutes ago, This boi uses Nino said:

I used to watch Hunter Avallone and Ben Shapiro once, and PragerU but then realized they were full of crap and left them

...Good for you...

You gotta look far-and-wide to get quality commentary these days, and take it where ever you can get it. Too many bullshitters. Too many hucksters and entertainers character-acting as fact experts and policy wonks. And too many suckers who can't tell the difference. 

And I do quite literally mean where ever you can get it. 

Because you can seriously get better policy analysis these days from an exceptionally well-written children's cartoon than from youtube, social media, and cable news:
 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Etrurian emperor]

9 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I'd have more sympathy towards those bitching about the more toxic aspects of Political Correctness and "woke culture" if not for the fact that these same people tend to ignore Trump as well as try to the minimize the danger of people stuck in the right-wing media bubble which has consistently produced mass shooters and violent attackers. Shitting on the toxic left is super easy and there's a huge audience for it on youtube but those that are siding with the right (Hunter Avallone, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, etc) never want to look at the asinine shit they're producing in their echo chamber.

It becomes even more amusing when you consider that this supposedly dangerous left doesn't have any real power. Few if any politician actually represents ''woke culture'' and even fewer of them get elected to positions of powers. The far left has a lot of bark but pretty much zero bite. 

But the far right does have a lot of power. In a lot of countries populist demagogues are increasingly creeping up into leadership positions and they already claimed the Presidency of the United States, the most powerful position in the world. 

Whatever real or imagined danger the left poses isn't a problem because they have no power. But the danger that the far right poses is very real because they are in real positions of power. 

[Hanes]

2 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Too many bullshitters. Too many hucksters and entertainers character-acting as fact experts and policy wonks. And too many suckers who can't tell the difference. 

Lol, it's like their appeal is being triggered, which is half the stuff right-wingers use as an argument against the left. It's so hypocritical.
 

1 minute ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But the far right does have a lot of power.

It does actually, and why call them far-right? They're still neo-nazis, just a kinder word tbh. Anyways, ironically, Poland has been dominated by a neo-nazi faction for the last few years and double ironically is that they are called "Pis" and it's pronounced "Pees".


Also if anyone here would like a centrist's view on stuff, KnowingBetter is a good option (they are more education-based than politics though)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8XjmAEDVZSCQjI150cb4QA

(Finally, are there any right-wingers in here? I fear this to become an echo chamber)

 

[Etrurian emperor]

5 minutes ago, This boi uses Nino said:

It does actually, and why call them far-right? They're still neo-nazis, just a kinder word tbh. Anyways, ironically, Poland has been dominated by a neo-nazi faction for the last few years and double ironically is that they are called "Pis" and it's pronounced "Pees".

I generally don't like Nazi comparisons since they are pretty ineffective. The Nazi regime has become such an example of the ultimate evil that using them as a comparison usually comes off as more hysteric than insightful. 

I also think that demagogue is a much more apt and nuanced description. Trump, Erdogan and PIS aren't what they are because they looked at Hitler and considered him a great guy, nor do they have much of an ambition to go commit genocide(except Erdogan) which was a pretty key characteristic of the nazi regime. Hitler, Trump, Le Pen and Erdgoan are all demagogues and that is where their similarities come from. The characteristic they share with Hitler aren't Nazi ones but characteristics that are inherent to demagogues.That's why the resemblance is there. The Nazi's aren't really an ideology of themselves as much as they are populist demagogy taken to its most extreme form. 

[Rezzy]

8 minutes ago, This boi uses Nino said:

 

(Finally, are there any right-wingers in here? I fear this to become an echo chamber)

 

Ironically, I'm considered right by some. I'm a libertarian.

The problem with the Right is that many will take crappy stuff some trans people do to bash on ALL trans people, which makes it not surprising that many get driven to the left.  I'm a pretty independent thinker, but when one side tells you you're an abomination, it takes a strong character to not dismiss everything they say out of hand.

Wanting to see what one side thinks, and then seeing them rant about the trannies is somewhat disheartening.

[Shoblongoo]

10 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I'd have more sympathy towards those bitching about the more toxic aspects of Political Correctness and "woke culture" if not for the fact that these same people tend to ignore Trump.

 

27 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

 Few if any politician actually represents ''woke culture'' and even fewer of them get elected to positions of powers. 

This is all you need to know about "political correctness," and the right's complaints about it.

For almost the entirety of human social and political history, restrictions on public speech (i.e. 'censorship') has been associated with the political right. Its subject matter has been heresy, blasphemy, obscenity, pornography, sedition, and material deemed generally adverse to 'public morality.' In The West in particular they were primarily associated with The Church, and with the prudish sensibilities of religious conservatives. 

It has been a relatively recent advent of the modern era--only about the past 3 decades are so--that the subject matter of restrictions on public speech has shifted to disfavoring utterances deemed offensive to racial and sexual minorities. 

And the political right's newfound distaste for restrictions on public speech has arisen completely in tandem with that advent. (which is to say it is not their pretextual aversion to the concept of public speech restrictions that really bothers them; it is the subject matter of what is being restricted)
_____

When The Right says: "Political Correctness is bad."

What it really means is: "I just want to express racist and sexist views without being called a racist or sexist." 
 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Hanes]

6 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

The problem with the Right is that many will take crappy stuff some trans people do to bash on ALL trans people, which makes it not surprising that many get driven to the left.

I mean that happens with everybody. Not to forgive the terrible trans, gay, lesbian, straight and other social movement people's terrible behaviours, I mean just look at how the feminists cucked Mexico city! But I know it doesn't represent the full picture, which is why I will say it right now. I'm kinda centrist I guess, agree on the right and agree on the left I dunno.

On that note, anyone know why the US in general hates centrism?

[Tryhard]

33 minutes ago, This boi uses Nino said:

(Finally, are there any right-wingers in here? I fear this to become an echo chamber)

I'd say anyone who goes into an area where their views are controversial or uncommon would think it to be an echo chamber. It's not uncommon for conservative thought to be congregated in certain areas of the internet.

If I started espousing social democratic views in The Donald subreddit, I wouldn't expect to be well-liked or to stick around long.

19 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

Ironically, I'm considered right by some. I'm a libertarian.

The problem with the Right is that many will take crappy stuff some trans people do to bash on ALL trans people, which makes it not surprising that many get driven to the left.  I'm a pretty independent thinker, but when one side tells you you're an abomination, it takes a strong character to not dismiss everything they say out of hand.

Wanting to see what one side thinks, and then seeing them rant about the trannies is somewhat disheartening.

The part I don't understand: when someone says that they are now a left-winger or a right-winger because of other people.

Does that mean they have changed their opinion on abortion? On gay marriage? On immigration? On gun control? On healthcare? On government social welfare? On foreign policy and diplomacy? On religion?

I find it unlikely that a person would immediately switch their entire philosophy based on not liking other people that may be part of their political opinions. No matter what policies I support, there would always be people I dislike that would be under the same umbrella as me.

Now, a general wave of hateful and bigoted rejections of who you are as a person, that may just do it...

Edited January 7, 2020 by Tryhard

[Etrurian emperor]

14 minutes ago, This boi uses Nino said:

On that note, anyone know why the US in general hates centrism?

I think ''centrism is for pussies'' mindset has a lot to do with it. Each side likely sees the centrists of their party as capitulating to the other. Politics in general has become a lot more fanatical and since the two sides already see their opposing side as the ultimate evil they are unlikely to look any kinder on those in their ranks that seek to compromise with them.

[Shoblongoo]

13 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The part I don't understand: when someone says that they are now a left-winger or a right-winger because of other people.

Does that mean they have changed their opinion on abortion? On gay marriage? On immigration? On gun control? On healthcare? On government social welfare? On foreign policy and diplomacy? On religion?

Who you affiliate with and count among your political allies vs. who you stand against and count among your opposition is as much a part of political identity as your stance on the issues. 

At the ideological poles its a distinction-without-a-difference.

But when you start getting into the grey area of the more centrist ideologies--really--the only difference between a 'leftward  leaning Republican' vs. 'a rightward leaning Democrat' or w/e  is who's lunatic fringe you find less insufferable. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, This boi uses Nino said:

(Finally, are there any right-wingers in here? I fear this to become an echo chamber)

Outsiders would probably see this as an echo chamber specially when people bring up right-wing talking points and get scrutinized for it because as I've mentioned before, right-wing talking points are idiotic and cause people to support things they don't necessarily agree with. Folks that identify themselves to be on the right or right-leaning that have posted in this thread also tend to just assume that those perceived as leftist here just blindly loved Obama.

Personally, I don't really see where I fall on the political spectrum or really care. Despite the the notion that a "central government shouldn't have too much power" resonates with me, When it comes to US politics, I'm typically more supportive of the left-leaning policies because...

1. Proponents of deregulation are typically doing it under the Southern Strategy umbrella which effectively means "trick the stupid racist whites into hurting themselves but be okay with it by hurting non-whites even more". As an example, just about any move Trump has done that involves the EPA. The Southern Strategy should be political suicide at this point in time as the GOP even apologized for using it a decade ago but they still do and the echo chamber on the right is now trying to say that it's not a real thing.

2. The politicians on the right are effectively being regressive in that they're doing shit that sane people don't care about like the anti-abortion push to overturn Roe v Wade and do-nothings when it comes to things like Climate Change and Income Inequality. If the voters of these politicians believe they're doing the right thing, then they should try not paying their bills for a while and see how the strategy of ignoring a problem works out. At the end of the day though, it primarily stems from our politicians being bought.

3. The right's arguments are dumb ("It's your fault that your wages are bad" - Ben Shapiro) as shit and as already mentioned, they ignore the asinine mass shooters they're creating as well as flirt with the Nazis that are White Nationalists. They also fail to realize that the unfettered Capitalism they're trying to enable is bad for them too, under today's politicians, I'd be surprised to see the Poison Squad succeed in its attempts at making the food that's sold healthier.

4. The left is proposing things that work in other countries. Folks on the right argue that "it works in those countries because they are homogeneous and mostly white".

5. The right's obsession with religion, specially Christianity.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Lewyn]

21 hours ago, Quiyonce said:

 

 

I think what most people don't consider is the other side of the issue. When trans people are forced to use the restroom that doesn't coincide with their gender, they are more at risk of facing assault, especially trans women. There's a lot of violence against trans women in the States and forcing them to use men's restroom will only make that issue worse.

I'm not too sure on this one. On one hand, some people can go too far when it comes to what is and isn't offensive. On the other hand, I don't think comedians should be above critique just cause they can make derogatory language sound funny. To top it all off, the comedians being 'attacked' aren't suffering any real consequences. Ricky Gervais and Kevin Hart in particular are still getting booked and making money despite being 'called out' and 'canceled.' Which, to me, really makes the arguments against political correctness and 'cancel culture' a non-issue.

The other side of the issue isn't heard which is why it isn't considered.  We hear all the time of women being raped/assaulted, so it is easy for people to play up that fear that if say MtF transgender people were allowed to use womens restrooms, there would be an epidemic of rape.  This is why fear mongering is so effective for the right, people are afraid of change and the 'new' and they are experts at manipulation.

Maybe unisex bathrooms are the solution.  I think another proposed solution was a specific bathroom for non cisgendered people.  

I personally think comedy is a safespace.  I mean no you can't go we should start lynching black people, or appear in blackface and all that.  However I think the PC stuff has gone way too far.  Seinfeld spoke on it a few years ago about his French gay king joke, and I think that was a great example.  

Alright left vs right.  

The left contains the scientists, the artists, the educated, humanitarians, environmentalists.  Essentially the heart and brains of humanity.

The right contains racists/misogynists, businessmen/women, religious.  So the greed and scum of society, and people who believe in fiction stories over scientific fact.

That this is even a battle at all is just sad.