This implies itās falling on its own.
There should be a mass of red hats trying to push it over.
āBut Trump said heād magically make eggs cheaper!!!11!!ā
Reduced demand. Dead and deported people prefer plain toast for breakfast
Bought some yesterdayā¦ The box we buy went up 3 dollars since the election.
Nope, the president wakes up every morning and sets the price based on how many times he had to get up in the middle of the night to pee.
If you donāt stand for the rights of others, thereāll be nobody left to stand for yourās - so get standing!
Bet you they try to repeal Loving v. Virginia too. Theyāll āleave it up to the statesā Iām sure, so that them and their rich buddies can keep their partners. Looking at you, Mitch.
I am emptied of all faith in their humanity or good sense.
Why are all basic civil rights not enshrined in laws, but instead resting on brittle law precedents in the US?
Because itās all imaginary and I canāt believe people seek comfort in a piece of paper and the concept of rule of law.
A strongman, such as potentially trump but it could be any authoritarian in any country - will just wipe his ass with the constitution and do whatever the fuck he wants. Itās not like the law is going to stop him. Heās a convicted felon and heās still going to be president despite that. And the J6 case (the only one with any real merit, IMO) that they had four years to prosecute is now dropped.
Laws donāt matter. Laws donāt protect you. Laws exist to protect the in group and punish the out group.
I see it as less about punishing the out group and more about controlling them instead.
Thatās not really an answer to their question. Canada (with the exception of Quebec), also operates on the English Common Law model, but weāve passed specific laws that intentionally codify things like abortion and minority rights. Just recently we added āgender identity and gender expressionā as specific categories on which it is illegal to discriminate.
So, unlike the US where the right to gay marriage is the result of a court case, in Canada gay marriage started out that way, but was then codified in law with the passage of the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. And speaking of English Common Law, the same is true in England, where gay marriage was legally enshrined in 2014.
So itās perfectly valid to ask why the US government has consistently failed to do this.
Privileged people like him will certainly expect there to be workaround and loopholes. Heād just get a marriage cert in a state that allows it. Depend on it.
In the abortion ruling, Thomas listed off a whole bunch of civil rights-related rulings he wanted to revisit. Obergefell (gay marriage) was among them. Loving, however, was conspicuously absent, and thereās a pretty obvious reason why.
Heāll be asked (forced) to step down during this Republicanās Presidentās term, and heāll be replaced by a christian nationalist white dude. And then theyāll overturn Loving v Virginia.
Nah heāll get declared an āHonorary Aryanā so the marriage remains legal.
Then when the 2028 auto-coup happens, heāll get purged like what happened with the Jewish Nazis.
It will be known as the the Night of the Long Knives AR-15s
Leopardā¦ Faceā¦ ye know
š¤¦āāļø
āLeaving it up to the statesā is how we ended up with gay marriage being legalized federally by the scotusā¦.
Call me radical if you want but, I donāt 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 isnāt a single person I work with that wouldnāt toss a flier with ātrans rightsā written on it in the trash the second it was handed to them.
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. Thereās 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 ā logical imperative. Thereās really no way around it.
People voted for Trump because he told them their issues are going to be addressed. You cannot tell someone thatās 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 youāre talking about also see things as adversarial when they donāt need to be. Itās just part of having a mind saturated in negativity. If weāre going to do something to help the trans people, it must mean weāre hurting everybody else somehow. By admitting their existence is valid, others are somehow diminished, in the eyes of the paranoid conservative.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And fuck the very concept of āsjwā, that shit isnāt 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 youāre trans or closeted or showing up irl is dangerous in any way. Online, you have a platform and can speak your truth, but thatās about it. Social media platforms are incentivized to put a bunch of chuds you donāt 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 thereās nothing that can be done to change how anyone feels. Small disagreements over language become big blowouts because itās probably the tenth time itās happened today and it might not feel like anyoneās 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. Heās prone to big conspiratorial blowouts at the mere mention of climate change or queer people because he sees it as necessary to āeducateā people. I donāt 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.
thatās the importance of countermessaging. harris and walz had it right for 0.0076ms with their āweirdā direction, like ālook 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!?!ā and even some conservatives were like āyeah thatās a little far we donāt need to be doing all that.ā that was a really successful strategy that had great potential.
ā¦and then they dropped that like a month before the election in favor of courting suburban conservatives. from āweirdā to āfollow the law.ā
Sorry now every time I see someone mentioning the āweird to follow the weird lawsā pipeline I get unduly agitated at how fucking hard the DNC dropped the ball this cycle. Now Iām more than surprised as ever that Hilary won the popular vote with campaign managers like these.
MSNBC agrees with you that the Democrats went too āwokeāā¦ while repubs dumped millions into trans panic ads. If āleftā 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 didnāt. 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, weāre here because the Democrats couldnt stick to theirs regardless.
Weāre here now, so all you can do is protect your trans neighbors and friends. I, for one, certainly wouldnāt want to be told my rights as an individual were focused on TOO MUCH by the only people willing to represent me.
Seriously, we got one line of support from Walz and Harrisā 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.
Itās 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 receptiveā¦ just not when it counts.
For a split moment I figured the whole āweirdā rhetoric would expand to actually describe how people are legitimately being discriminated against with legislation, but yeah just follow the lawsā¦ 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.
Donāt think of it as just advocating for minority rights, think of it as advocating for human rights wherever that advocacy is needed.
What you call a distraction, I and my fellow trans called a wave of violence. Just because it didnāt effect you, doesnāt 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.
Iām taking points by consensus. Luckily, Lemmy has those built in and the congregation aināt 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.
Itās easier to ramp up an authoritarian regime if you start off bullying a group thatās small and easy to marginalized. Then you work your way up from there.
What youāre saying is like āAll lives matterā compared to āBlack lives matterā. The point of BLM wasnāt that Black lives are more important, per se, but that they need more attention right now.
Like if youāve got two kids, and one scrapes his knee, and the other cracks his head openā¦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 wouldnāt give āT peopleā rights the time of day. Itās absurd. If theyāre American, and a legal citizen, then they have the same rights as me. I donāt 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.
If thatās how they feel about basic human rights, then they donāt deserve to have support for their union, either. They are both about respect, and if youāre not willing to give it then you donāt 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 canāt agree with them on everything (or anything!) else.
Funny you say that, because Iām definitely not a radical leftist - except maybe somewhat for social justice. While I mostly agree with progressive ideals, Iām also pragmatic enough to accept that such drastic change canāt 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 populationās lives.
While I wouldnāt stop supporting unions, I would most certainly be less sympathetic to those who expect sympathy, but arenāt willing to give it. Thatās just being selfish, IMO, and I really donāt 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.
Iām just tired of our side attempting to appeal to basic human decency when itās been more than proven that there isnāt any.
Regardless of what you think about my or their vote, you need it. You donāt have the luxury of being exclusionary when youāre on the losing side and bleeding support.
Republicans were (in theory) on the losing side in 2022 - there was supposed to be a āred waveā 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 weāre 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).
Iām not saying ignore it, Iām saying quit using it to appeal to people who donāt give a fuck.
Thatās not going to win their votes or even their support. It doesnāt help, benefit, or even involve them from their perspective.
Or just keep yelling at them and calling them bigots.
That works, I guess.
(It doesnāt)
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 isnāt helping Democrats. That doesnāt mean heās 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 Iām not sure how I feel about it. Is this another example of the new āwhen they go low, we go lowā thought thatās happening this week? Yeah weird times all around, my trans friends are looking a little scared.
