Yes, I think you're correct. The activists who chased Riley Gaines, who threaten JK Rowling, who dox people--those actions shouldn't be laid at the feet of trans ppl (the actions of a few should not be used to scapegoat everyone in that group), but rather, an intolerant ideology. There's a lot of confusion; people (even many adults--see Mike Figeuredo, if you must. He has this boring podcast, Secular or Atheist something or other, & calls himself "queer," but he's just a fucking boring Democrat. If anyone could make radical politics boring, it's that annoying dweeb.) ID themselves as "queer" as synonymous with gay, but don't necessarily share or even understand what queer theory and politics are. I don't even think the early queer theorists' writing was without merit, but what it is has morphed into--especially in early childhood education (!) is something else entirely.
I'm not speaking from a conservative POV, though the woke insanity makes me feel like I'm turning into a conservative, though culturally maybe I am, somewhat--at least compared to the extremes.
One of the poisonous aspects of woke ideology is that it obstructs other, important political projects. Podcasters like Jimmy Dore get called transphobic or rightwing for making fun of wokeness. Dore, who led the charge for M4A, rails against the MIC, the "rapacious oligarchy," etc. Hardly a right-winger, whatever you think of him. (There aren't many lukewarm opinions of him.)
But that is getting way off topic, I realize. I feel like it's important to point out that not all left politics is woke politics, and there is a divide among those who ID as "left" or "on the left"--the issue is not really about the content/substance but comes down to woke virtue-signaling. That is why I brought up Jimmy Dore, and why he is hated by the "boutique left" (Marxists call them the bourgeoisie or PMC--professional management class, which is basically the same thing.) or "shit libs."
But the hard-core woke leftists, like those in that 30-hour long Transgender Marxist video (I tried but couldn't bring myself to watch the whole fucking thing, sorry! lol. I feel bad, because Dr. B watches all of these, & I'm not sure how she does it.) I do still have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that those insane, Foucault-worshipping motherfuckers have made such inroads into early childhood ed. It is almost too much to believe, and easier for people just to say, "Nah, that can't be really happening." But it is.
The cultural agenda that these people have is something the vast majority of people want nothing to do with. What I'm sure a lot of people have trouble grappling with (and is totally understandable) is the difference between what these psychos want to do, and those who think of themselves as nonconformists, rebels, misfits. The crucial difference is that the latter value individuality, while the former prize the opposite--conformity, for a political agenda, which is collectivist.
Unlike many on the left who genuinely want to help people in need,, address poverty, get people health care, actually good things, these people use dishonest means (stealth tactics--exactly the tactics the Christian Right activists were long criticized for, ironically by some of the same people) to indoctrinate children. And in the process, they also take a wrecking ball to the nonwoke, non-crazy left who (like many others NOT on the left) actually want to make the world a better place, but without indoctrination and authoritarianism.
They make us all look like a bunch of freaks. So naturally many of us on the left wonder, "Do I even WANT to identify as being on the left?"
Also, doing "good things" like animal rescue, I should have added. (Please adopt or foster a rescue pet if you can! The shelters are crowded & many pets are needlessly euthanized.) And of course, helping and protecting children. Any decent person should want to protect children from being medicalized. (Before trans-ing kids, there was medicating them into oblivion, which is still an issue.)
You are dead right. Queer no longer means what it used to mean, and most people just don't understand that. Once they do, it's obvious the Q destroys everything it touches.
Oh, pretty sure this is a typo: "There is no reason to exclude them and treat them as leapers." I'm pretty sure you meant 'lepers'.
I agree. While 20 or more years ago, the T wasn't all that accepted openly by the others, things had lightened up somewhat. I quit the Pride thing after the 90's b/c I personally didn't feel I had to find friends who "understood" me when I was doing pretty well among the mainstream and I had friends who were straight, both okay and not okay with gays and lesbians. I wasn't discriminating, LOL. I just wasn't ever into arguing about what's right or wrong and I never felt like anyone (of any worth to me) excluded me for being "different" (mainly b/c I wasn't really doing anything overtly strange).
Indeed, I never was a flag-waver of any sort, and I worked as a supervisor most jobs I've had. I appreciated good honest work from people more than whateverthefuck they were into in their personal lives, FFS. I give zero fuques what you do so long as it doesn't affect your job performance.
Similarly, I give zero fuques what you do so long as you don't hurt me, rob me, slander me... and herein comes the logical reasons why I do not appreciate the Leftist who becomes the mouthpiece for any group. They ALWAYS fuck it up for everybody. They are the thing which touches something and it turns to absolute SHIT. They ruin people's morale #1. After that, all bets are off.
I never cared for the uppitiness among the members of any Pride org from the time it became overtly political around the end of the AIDS crisis. I think the major cities were always somewhat more political, but the outside counties and states around say NYC were just Pride groups that were more about community and friendship, doing things together, and enjoying events. Sure, there were some political types. And even in those days (1990's) I recall the more bloody-mouthed ones always had a certain look and attitude about them. Never cared for that, and they never seemed like people I could have any close friendship with. They were always depressed and angry and somehow not right in the head... like paranoid that people were always out to get them.
Since I'd been long gone from Pride orgs, I saw the changes heading way toward the extreme. I'm just glad I got out of there sooner. I know me. I would have been extremely unpopular, to say the least.
Let me say it like this: Family members who are both religious and non were against me at the start of my transitioning. After six months of not getting upset or in their face, and just respecting of their comfort level, they all came around and are wonderful to me. It really is true that if you DON'T shove this stuff in their faces and down their throats, most people are okay and will let you live your life... and even be part of your life as friends and family. I see that with my church as well... not all know, but those who do have not abandoned me or told me I was going to Hell. These are conservative people, BTW. I lived down South for 13 years... same thing. I got along better with the Right than the Left. The Left always wanted me to be siding with their shenanigans, and I always refused. I'm just not a protester or into defacing property, sorry. And I won't say bad things about religious people just to pass some hazing test for them. To me, they always seemed to be the dimmest bulb in the room, with all their fancy words. I was never impressed by them. (Sorry for the long post, again.)
"I know me. I would have been extremely unpopular, to say the least."
A sign of integrity and being comfortable with yourself!
Defacing property--and on a larger scale, tearing things down--for its own sake doesn't really seem revolutionary to me, tbh. Not only doesn't it improve things, it tends to make things worse for everyone. It's nihilistic. Some of its practitioners may see it as accelerationism (if they are thinking at all) but it's misguided.
I believe there are things worth protesting over--but it really should have a purpose, and end goal, aimed at changing whatever it is you are protesting.
Hell, at least The Weather Underground was trying to stop the war. Animal Liberation Front probably saved some animals, though..(Dear FBI: No, I do not support ALF. Do not flag email. Do not send agents...)
But a lot of people do what they do out from a place of deep unhappiness, desperation, or illness as the case may be.
There is no shame in standing up & walking away from the madness of the crowd.
I don't see it as a bad separation. It does kinda jar those who call themselves Allies, possible jars them, making them question why some gays-- or even trans-- don't want to be kept under the same, ever expanding acronym.
Either way, it won't work. The separation won't happen. How are they going to market to just the T or just the LGB? That's why they won't ever separate; marketers need it easy.
A larger issue is our common humanity (I would add nonhumans to this, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll stick to humans), a universal value to which idpol is hostile. The very idea of "this community" or "that community" is wearing thin to most of us, including those who get lumped into the increasingly long acronyms.
And think about all the problems, in the U.S. and much worse elsewhere (though for a 1st world nation, you might think we could agree on getting health insurance coverage--for U.S. citizens, at least, if you want to exclude illegal immigrants, but I don't want to go off on that tangent. Enough tangents for one post.) Think of all the poverty, abuse, illness (physical, mental, drug addiction, & for that matter, our 21st addictions like porn, internet, gaming--seems trivial, perhaps, but it really isn't, when you look at how it affects people & their families). How many people dead in Ukraine? (and again, not going into detail so as not to derail the point, but just consider the suffering--human and nonhuman, not to mention the potential for nuclear confrontation between US & Russia).
We have really serious fuckin' problems in the world, & this woke bullshit just makes it all harder to address it, AND causes real, serious problems of its own.
This is the appeal of Dr. Cornel West. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in running for POTUS, but here is someone who is, yes, a radical Marxist, but who talks about real suffering and wants to unite people rather than divide them. (I don't agree with West on all things, but more so than with any other candidate, including RFK Jr.--aside from COVID, on which West screwed the pooch, praising Fauci in late 2020. Whoops!) Point being, there is a real hunger for recognizing our commonalities and working to solve problems rather than destroy in the utopian delusion of rebuilding from scratch, as the hard-core wokesters wish to do. You can't just destroy the good along with the bad & expect to be able to usher in your utopia, which most people aren't even going along with to begin with because they don't trust you (because you are an authoritarian douchebag).
On that last point, Russell Kirk was probably onto something. Just as right could learn from the left, the left needs to learn from things from their purported enemies, too, because even if it's a broken clock that's only right 2x per day, those 2x might be more important than you realize. (Trump is a good example of this. He's full of shit most of the time, sure, but when he's right about really important things, like ending the war in Ukraine, he nails it. And CNN, MSNBC, all those paid lying shill assholes scumfucks want you to think everything he says is all bad, even though THEY, if they were real news networks, which they are NOT, would be acknowledging. At the very least, the fucking cowards wouldn't mute his speech & talk over him, like that ridiculous, overpaid hack Rachel Madcow, sanctimoniously saying, "Oh, he LIES! So we aren't going to air his speech. No, Rachel, YOU lie, and you get paid millions to sit there and scream, "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!" on repeat for 7 fucking years, you piece of SHIT!)
so sick of that fucking bitch Rachel Maddow, even tho (perhaps esp tho) because she's part of my "community." Seriously, I am so done with that garbage person spewing her lies and getting paid millions for it. I would laugh my ass off if she got Tucker Carlson-ed (which will never happen), or Don Lemon-ed, because you know she'd cry like a baby & her simps would be all over Twitter, "ohhhh, noooo, Rachel!" Fuck her. But that would be so hilarious.
The T is not like the others. You already explained that. Just because they would be excluded doesn't mean they would be treated as lepers.
If everyday trans adults are anti-woke, they don't need to gain as much power as possible, so they don't need to be associated with LGB. You made the point that LGB is stronger with the T. Less power would be a good thing, and it would align with their anti-wokeness (anti-authoritarianism.)
There is no reason to separate from people if there is not a problem. By separating, you’re saying they’re a problem and you think they’re still going to want to help you? You spit in their faces. Do you like it when people spit in your face?
You got me thinking about times in my life when I've separated from others and it not being a problem.
My first job was working at a grocery store. I eventually left that job because I got a computer programming job after getting my computer science degree. I didn't leave my job at the grocery store because it was a problem, but something better suited for my skill set came about.
It was a one-man company. He took on a bigger project than he was capable of handling on his own. I worked there for about a year and a half. We finished the project. He had something else lined up, but it fell through. He couldn't afford to pay me, so I was laid off. I guess you could say that separation occurred because of a problem (lack of money) but that's not the point I'm making.
Years later, he emailed me out of the blue and asked me if I'd be willing to help him with another project part time. I had an established full-time job, so leaving that to go back to work for him full time was off the table. I was happy to help him out.
I don't know. Maybe I'm different, but I would, and did help someone after a separation.
People separate all the time, even if there aren't problems. I'm not saying they're a problem. I'm saying T doesn't say anything who a person loves/sleeps with. It doesn't fit.
I just don't interpret separation as spitting in their faces.
As far as if I like it when people spit in my face, I'm just numb to it at this point. Low self-esteem, probably.
When we have low self-esteem (& I get it, believe me) it's easy to scapegoat others. Not saying you are doing that (I don't really have a comment on your points, it's your opinion & you're entitled to it). But I don't like the anti-trans rhetoric. Similarly, I don't like hearing all Trump voters being called "fascist." I have a serious problem with people being demonized & cast out. We don't burn witches at the stake any more. We just push for them to be deplatformed & be hounded out of their jobs, or generally un-personed.
And the same goes for leftists. Or centrists (even "shit libs.") Whatever the label, there is this tendency to point to someone and say, "You're (this) and I don't like you, fuck off and die." (I've spent too much on Twitter. lol.)
I don't think the answer is to "separate" from each other. Just the opposite is what is needed. But there's a caveat (I always worry I'm going to completely contradict myself): We can separate ourselves from destructive ideologies. Not the same as trashing people simply for thinking differently, but saying "No!" to those who have agendas like the 'Woke" movement. "No, not going along with that."
Which brings me to a final point: the distinction between "anti-woke" and "unwoke," as Dr. B astutely frames it. As Dr. B has explained, you don't defeat a destructive ideology by screaming, bitching, & fighting it, but by exposing it, & depriving it of oxygen. (No, I'm not talking about depriving people of oxygen. lol. I hope that's obvious.)
Although, that being said, there are times you do need to stand up and fight when it's appropriate. ("There is a season..." turn, turn, turn)
I guess I'm not good at anticipating how others will interpret my words. For what it's worth, I've taken no actions to back up those words, so they are just words.
I don’t think Jesus would have rejected trans people outright. I truly believe you have to look past that. Christian values are about love, forgiveness, helping each other, etc.
You don’t think . . . Have you read the Bible? Have you studied it? Religion is complex, and Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. You help people with mental disorders. You do not sacrifice the entire society to accommodate their illness.
I'll say they need to do that when you say that conservatives need to stop whining and hero worshiping and do what is required to win. That means they need to denounce the christian nationalists who have hijacked the political right. Deal?
I do belive they should do what is needed to win. I'm not sure about the Christian nationalists, as I don't see or have contact with many of those people. Nor do I see them often. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Is it a Christian who is a nationalist? Or, is it a specific type of Christian or all Christians?
Exactly who are the Christian Nationalists? This is a nee term for me and I see it being used by the left , seemingly to mean everyone either right wing or Christian
Not to quibble, but I think of Fuentes as in a category of his own. Maybe "neo-Nazi incel who is confused or in denial about his sexuality"? Lol. Not sure. It's kind of hard to tell. What I don't get about that guy is how anyone can follow him, given that there is something clearly not right about him!
I do think many paint with a very broad brush; someone who is Christian, and conservative, isn't necessarily a Christian nationalist. On Fox News, liberals get called "far left," and on Vox, HuffPost, DailyBeast and other shit-lib sites (as I refer to them) they call fairly mainstream conservatives "far right." It's very, very annoying.
There have been a lot of books lately written about Christian nationalism. I would read the ones written by political scientists, who--though they tend to lean leftward--at least have some empirical basis for their definitions and descriptions. Reading the work of actual Christian nationalists, or conservatives who understand it (John Fea comes to mind) is helpful too.
I'm very opinionated myself--aren't we all--but it annoys me to no end to see all conservatives, liberals, leftists, or any group placed into one large basket. (But enough about Hillary Clinton and her "deplorables"!)
No, I don't think it's fair to demand that one group condemn another group, or individuals within that group, necessarily, because that deprives those people of their individuality by lumping them together with the group. It is playing into the collectivist mindset, which treats people as part of the group instead of individuals. In fact, it doesn't just play into it, it mimics and reproduces it.
Yeah, that's a tough one. I often feel bad after trying to point out stuff on social media. We all have friends who might take it the wrong way, esp if they're involved in show biz around that fanbase, or marketing that has to do with LGBT stuff, etc. People are not just activists in that "community" (for lack of a better term). It's a market-share, and real people service it, legitimately who also are members. They're not into the extremist stuff, and likely are tired of the combativeness too. But they're going to defend their own turf.
I've questioned a of things over the last couple of decades or so. I think I've been moving toward an anti-identitarian perspective. But perhaps it needn't be framed negatively but positively--maybe universalist. CRT opposes the concept of "colorblindness"--not just in practice, but in theory. The theory part is where I depart. Yes, of course there is still racism, and bigotry of all kinds, but (contrary to the
"anti-racist" grifters and caterwauling activists) I believe anyone can be racist. And yes, you can be racist toward us white devils, too. (To some, that is a racist statement in itself.)
I feel like telling the anti-racist twats, "you're not anti-racist, you're just racist. Also authoritarian. Also assholes."
I'm not trying to derail the thread. Every time I start to address the topic, I get onto something else that seems related.
Yes, I think you're correct. The activists who chased Riley Gaines, who threaten JK Rowling, who dox people--those actions shouldn't be laid at the feet of trans ppl (the actions of a few should not be used to scapegoat everyone in that group), but rather, an intolerant ideology. There's a lot of confusion; people (even many adults--see Mike Figeuredo, if you must. He has this boring podcast, Secular or Atheist something or other, & calls himself "queer," but he's just a fucking boring Democrat. If anyone could make radical politics boring, it's that annoying dweeb.) ID themselves as "queer" as synonymous with gay, but don't necessarily share or even understand what queer theory and politics are. I don't even think the early queer theorists' writing was without merit, but what it is has morphed into--especially in early childhood education (!) is something else entirely.
I'm not speaking from a conservative POV, though the woke insanity makes me feel like I'm turning into a conservative, though culturally maybe I am, somewhat--at least compared to the extremes.
One of the poisonous aspects of woke ideology is that it obstructs other, important political projects. Podcasters like Jimmy Dore get called transphobic or rightwing for making fun of wokeness. Dore, who led the charge for M4A, rails against the MIC, the "rapacious oligarchy," etc. Hardly a right-winger, whatever you think of him. (There aren't many lukewarm opinions of him.)
But that is getting way off topic, I realize. I feel like it's important to point out that not all left politics is woke politics, and there is a divide among those who ID as "left" or "on the left"--the issue is not really about the content/substance but comes down to woke virtue-signaling. That is why I brought up Jimmy Dore, and why he is hated by the "boutique left" (Marxists call them the bourgeoisie or PMC--professional management class, which is basically the same thing.) or "shit libs."
But the hard-core woke leftists, like those in that 30-hour long Transgender Marxist video (I tried but couldn't bring myself to watch the whole fucking thing, sorry! lol. I feel bad, because Dr. B watches all of these, & I'm not sure how she does it.) I do still have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that those insane, Foucault-worshipping motherfuckers have made such inroads into early childhood ed. It is almost too much to believe, and easier for people just to say, "Nah, that can't be really happening." But it is.
The cultural agenda that these people have is something the vast majority of people want nothing to do with. What I'm sure a lot of people have trouble grappling with (and is totally understandable) is the difference between what these psychos want to do, and those who think of themselves as nonconformists, rebels, misfits. The crucial difference is that the latter value individuality, while the former prize the opposite--conformity, for a political agenda, which is collectivist.
Unlike many on the left who genuinely want to help people in need,, address poverty, get people health care, actually good things, these people use dishonest means (stealth tactics--exactly the tactics the Christian Right activists were long criticized for, ironically by some of the same people) to indoctrinate children. And in the process, they also take a wrecking ball to the nonwoke, non-crazy left who (like many others NOT on the left) actually want to make the world a better place, but without indoctrination and authoritarianism.
They make us all look like a bunch of freaks. So naturally many of us on the left wonder, "Do I even WANT to identify as being on the left?"
Also, doing "good things" like animal rescue, I should have added. (Please adopt or foster a rescue pet if you can! The shelters are crowded & many pets are needlessly euthanized.) And of course, helping and protecting children. Any decent person should want to protect children from being medicalized. (Before trans-ing kids, there was medicating them into oblivion, which is still an issue.)
You are dead right. Queer no longer means what it used to mean, and most people just don't understand that. Once they do, it's obvious the Q destroys everything it touches.
Oh, pretty sure this is a typo: "There is no reason to exclude them and treat them as leapers." I'm pretty sure you meant 'lepers'.
I agree. While 20 or more years ago, the T wasn't all that accepted openly by the others, things had lightened up somewhat. I quit the Pride thing after the 90's b/c I personally didn't feel I had to find friends who "understood" me when I was doing pretty well among the mainstream and I had friends who were straight, both okay and not okay with gays and lesbians. I wasn't discriminating, LOL. I just wasn't ever into arguing about what's right or wrong and I never felt like anyone (of any worth to me) excluded me for being "different" (mainly b/c I wasn't really doing anything overtly strange).
Indeed, I never was a flag-waver of any sort, and I worked as a supervisor most jobs I've had. I appreciated good honest work from people more than whateverthefuck they were into in their personal lives, FFS. I give zero fuques what you do so long as it doesn't affect your job performance.
Similarly, I give zero fuques what you do so long as you don't hurt me, rob me, slander me... and herein comes the logical reasons why I do not appreciate the Leftist who becomes the mouthpiece for any group. They ALWAYS fuck it up for everybody. They are the thing which touches something and it turns to absolute SHIT. They ruin people's morale #1. After that, all bets are off.
I never cared for the uppitiness among the members of any Pride org from the time it became overtly political around the end of the AIDS crisis. I think the major cities were always somewhat more political, but the outside counties and states around say NYC were just Pride groups that were more about community and friendship, doing things together, and enjoying events. Sure, there were some political types. And even in those days (1990's) I recall the more bloody-mouthed ones always had a certain look and attitude about them. Never cared for that, and they never seemed like people I could have any close friendship with. They were always depressed and angry and somehow not right in the head... like paranoid that people were always out to get them.
Since I'd been long gone from Pride orgs, I saw the changes heading way toward the extreme. I'm just glad I got out of there sooner. I know me. I would have been extremely unpopular, to say the least.
Let me say it like this: Family members who are both religious and non were against me at the start of my transitioning. After six months of not getting upset or in their face, and just respecting of their comfort level, they all came around and are wonderful to me. It really is true that if you DON'T shove this stuff in their faces and down their throats, most people are okay and will let you live your life... and even be part of your life as friends and family. I see that with my church as well... not all know, but those who do have not abandoned me or told me I was going to Hell. These are conservative people, BTW. I lived down South for 13 years... same thing. I got along better with the Right than the Left. The Left always wanted me to be siding with their shenanigans, and I always refused. I'm just not a protester or into defacing property, sorry. And I won't say bad things about religious people just to pass some hazing test for them. To me, they always seemed to be the dimmest bulb in the room, with all their fancy words. I was never impressed by them. (Sorry for the long post, again.)
"I know me. I would have been extremely unpopular, to say the least."
A sign of integrity and being comfortable with yourself!
Defacing property--and on a larger scale, tearing things down--for its own sake doesn't really seem revolutionary to me, tbh. Not only doesn't it improve things, it tends to make things worse for everyone. It's nihilistic. Some of its practitioners may see it as accelerationism (if they are thinking at all) but it's misguided.
I believe there are things worth protesting over--but it really should have a purpose, and end goal, aimed at changing whatever it is you are protesting.
Hell, at least The Weather Underground was trying to stop the war. Animal Liberation Front probably saved some animals, though..(Dear FBI: No, I do not support ALF. Do not flag email. Do not send agents...)
But a lot of people do what they do out from a place of deep unhappiness, desperation, or illness as the case may be.
There is no shame in standing up & walking away from the madness of the crowd.
No need to apologize for a long post when it's that great and on point!!
:O I hope it wasn't TMI. Thank you! :)
Of course not!
Karlyn,
A great article.
I don't see it as a bad separation. It does kinda jar those who call themselves Allies, possible jars them, making them question why some gays-- or even trans-- don't want to be kept under the same, ever expanding acronym.
Either way, it won't work. The separation won't happen. How are they going to market to just the T or just the LGB? That's why they won't ever separate; marketers need it easy.
A larger issue is our common humanity (I would add nonhumans to this, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll stick to humans), a universal value to which idpol is hostile. The very idea of "this community" or "that community" is wearing thin to most of us, including those who get lumped into the increasingly long acronyms.
And think about all the problems, in the U.S. and much worse elsewhere (though for a 1st world nation, you might think we could agree on getting health insurance coverage--for U.S. citizens, at least, if you want to exclude illegal immigrants, but I don't want to go off on that tangent. Enough tangents for one post.) Think of all the poverty, abuse, illness (physical, mental, drug addiction, & for that matter, our 21st addictions like porn, internet, gaming--seems trivial, perhaps, but it really isn't, when you look at how it affects people & their families). How many people dead in Ukraine? (and again, not going into detail so as not to derail the point, but just consider the suffering--human and nonhuman, not to mention the potential for nuclear confrontation between US & Russia).
We have really serious fuckin' problems in the world, & this woke bullshit just makes it all harder to address it, AND causes real, serious problems of its own.
This is the appeal of Dr. Cornel West. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in running for POTUS, but here is someone who is, yes, a radical Marxist, but who talks about real suffering and wants to unite people rather than divide them. (I don't agree with West on all things, but more so than with any other candidate, including RFK Jr.--aside from COVID, on which West screwed the pooch, praising Fauci in late 2020. Whoops!) Point being, there is a real hunger for recognizing our commonalities and working to solve problems rather than destroy in the utopian delusion of rebuilding from scratch, as the hard-core wokesters wish to do. You can't just destroy the good along with the bad & expect to be able to usher in your utopia, which most people aren't even going along with to begin with because they don't trust you (because you are an authoritarian douchebag).
On that last point, Russell Kirk was probably onto something. Just as right could learn from the left, the left needs to learn from things from their purported enemies, too, because even if it's a broken clock that's only right 2x per day, those 2x might be more important than you realize. (Trump is a good example of this. He's full of shit most of the time, sure, but when he's right about really important things, like ending the war in Ukraine, he nails it. And CNN, MSNBC, all those paid lying shill assholes scumfucks want you to think everything he says is all bad, even though THEY, if they were real news networks, which they are NOT, would be acknowledging. At the very least, the fucking cowards wouldn't mute his speech & talk over him, like that ridiculous, overpaid hack Rachel Madcow, sanctimoniously saying, "Oh, he LIES! So we aren't going to air his speech. No, Rachel, YOU lie, and you get paid millions to sit there and scream, "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!" on repeat for 7 fucking years, you piece of SHIT!)
OK, that's it for now. :)
so sick of that fucking bitch Rachel Maddow, even tho (perhaps esp tho) because she's part of my "community." Seriously, I am so done with that garbage person spewing her lies and getting paid millions for it. I would laugh my ass off if she got Tucker Carlson-ed (which will never happen), or Don Lemon-ed, because you know she'd cry like a baby & her simps would be all over Twitter, "ohhhh, noooo, Rachel!" Fuck her. But that would be so hilarious.
Well, I can dream!
Am I being too harsh? lol.
Nah. Seems accurate to call out Rachel Maddow as such.
lol, no offense to any Maddow fans, if there are any. I used to like her, but that was a long time ago.
The hilarity (if you share my disdain) starts at 3:48.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYsIMJd2QjQ
"Silence is violence, Rachel!"
LMFAO!
Sorry for veering way off topic.
"One Of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)"
The T is not like the others. You already explained that. Just because they would be excluded doesn't mean they would be treated as lepers.
If everyday trans adults are anti-woke, they don't need to gain as much power as possible, so they don't need to be associated with LGB. You made the point that LGB is stronger with the T. Less power would be a good thing, and it would align with their anti-wokeness (anti-authoritarianism.)
There is no reason to separate from people if there is not a problem. By separating, you’re saying they’re a problem and you think they’re still going to want to help you? You spit in their faces. Do you like it when people spit in your face?
You got me thinking about times in my life when I've separated from others and it not being a problem.
My first job was working at a grocery store. I eventually left that job because I got a computer programming job after getting my computer science degree. I didn't leave my job at the grocery store because it was a problem, but something better suited for my skill set came about.
It was a one-man company. He took on a bigger project than he was capable of handling on his own. I worked there for about a year and a half. We finished the project. He had something else lined up, but it fell through. He couldn't afford to pay me, so I was laid off. I guess you could say that separation occurred because of a problem (lack of money) but that's not the point I'm making.
Years later, he emailed me out of the blue and asked me if I'd be willing to help him with another project part time. I had an established full-time job, so leaving that to go back to work for him full time was off the table. I was happy to help him out.
I don't know. Maybe I'm different, but I would, and did help someone after a separation.
This is not the same thing.
I can't force you to interpret my words to mean what I meant, but I meant the two scenarios to be the same.
I have no malice or ill-intent toward the T. I apologize to anyone who interpreted my comment differently.
People separate all the time, even if there aren't problems. I'm not saying they're a problem. I'm saying T doesn't say anything who a person loves/sleeps with. It doesn't fit.
I just don't interpret separation as spitting in their faces.
As far as if I like it when people spit in my face, I'm just numb to it at this point. Low self-esteem, probably.
When we have low self-esteem (& I get it, believe me) it's easy to scapegoat others. Not saying you are doing that (I don't really have a comment on your points, it's your opinion & you're entitled to it). But I don't like the anti-trans rhetoric. Similarly, I don't like hearing all Trump voters being called "fascist." I have a serious problem with people being demonized & cast out. We don't burn witches at the stake any more. We just push for them to be deplatformed & be hounded out of their jobs, or generally un-personed.
And the same goes for leftists. Or centrists (even "shit libs.") Whatever the label, there is this tendency to point to someone and say, "You're (this) and I don't like you, fuck off and die." (I've spent too much on Twitter. lol.)
I don't think the answer is to "separate" from each other. Just the opposite is what is needed. But there's a caveat (I always worry I'm going to completely contradict myself): We can separate ourselves from destructive ideologies. Not the same as trashing people simply for thinking differently, but saying "No!" to those who have agendas like the 'Woke" movement. "No, not going along with that."
Which brings me to a final point: the distinction between "anti-woke" and "unwoke," as Dr. B astutely frames it. As Dr. B has explained, you don't defeat a destructive ideology by screaming, bitching, & fighting it, but by exposing it, & depriving it of oxygen. (No, I'm not talking about depriving people of oxygen. lol. I hope that's obvious.)
Although, that being said, there are times you do need to stand up and fight when it's appropriate. ("There is a season..." turn, turn, turn)
I yield.
I meant separation as being in a different context and not really belonging together.
Do the LGB need to distance themselves from the T? No. Does everyone need to distance themselves from the Q? Most definitely.
I guess I'm not good at anticipating how others will interpret my words. For what it's worth, I've taken no actions to back up those words, so they are just words.
I should point out that the Q needs to be separated from everything, for obvious reasons.
Your point makes a lot of sense Karlyn. Thank you for enlightening me!
You hit the nail on the head there Karlyn
I can agree with this assessment.
So what values are considered specifically Christian? And based on what?
I don’t think Jesus would have rejected trans people outright. I truly believe you have to look past that. Christian values are about love, forgiveness, helping each other, etc.
You don’t think . . . Have you read the Bible? Have you studied it? Religion is complex, and Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. You help people with mental disorders. You do not sacrifice the entire society to accommodate their illness.
I have no issue with this, but. . . If that us truly the case, the T needs to step up and condemn the extremism and the Q. No?
I'll say they need to do that when you say that conservatives need to stop whining and hero worshiping and do what is required to win. That means they need to denounce the christian nationalists who have hijacked the political right. Deal?
I do belive they should do what is needed to win. I'm not sure about the Christian nationalists, as I don't see or have contact with many of those people. Nor do I see them often. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Is it a Christian who is a nationalist? Or, is it a specific type of Christian or all Christians?
Exactly who are the Christian Nationalists? This is a nee term for me and I see it being used by the left , seemingly to mean everyone either right wing or Christian
Nick Fuentes, Charlie Kirk, anyone who argues in favor of a nation built on legislating Christian values
Not to quibble, but I think of Fuentes as in a category of his own. Maybe "neo-Nazi incel who is confused or in denial about his sexuality"? Lol. Not sure. It's kind of hard to tell. What I don't get about that guy is how anyone can follow him, given that there is something clearly not right about him!
I do think many paint with a very broad brush; someone who is Christian, and conservative, isn't necessarily a Christian nationalist. On Fox News, liberals get called "far left," and on Vox, HuffPost, DailyBeast and other shit-lib sites (as I refer to them) they call fairly mainstream conservatives "far right." It's very, very annoying.
There have been a lot of books lately written about Christian nationalism. I would read the ones written by political scientists, who--though they tend to lean leftward--at least have some empirical basis for their definitions and descriptions. Reading the work of actual Christian nationalists, or conservatives who understand it (John Fea comes to mind) is helpful too.
I'm very opinionated myself--aren't we all--but it annoys me to no end to see all conservatives, liberals, leftists, or any group placed into one large basket. (But enough about Hillary Clinton and her "deplorables"!)
Amy recommendations?
No, I don't think it's fair to demand that one group condemn another group, or individuals within that group, necessarily, because that deprives those people of their individuality by lumping them together with the group. It is playing into the collectivist mindset, which treats people as part of the group instead of individuals. In fact, it doesn't just play into it, it mimics and reproduces it.
Well, fair point. Hadn't thought of it that way. I definitely do not want to accidentally get myself into a collectivist mindset. Not for any group.
Yeah, that's a tough one. I often feel bad after trying to point out stuff on social media. We all have friends who might take it the wrong way, esp if they're involved in show biz around that fanbase, or marketing that has to do with LGBT stuff, etc. People are not just activists in that "community" (for lack of a better term). It's a market-share, and real people service it, legitimately who also are members. They're not into the extremist stuff, and likely are tired of the combativeness too. But they're going to defend their own turf.
I've questioned a of things over the last couple of decades or so. I think I've been moving toward an anti-identitarian perspective. But perhaps it needn't be framed negatively but positively--maybe universalist. CRT opposes the concept of "colorblindness"--not just in practice, but in theory. The theory part is where I depart. Yes, of course there is still racism, and bigotry of all kinds, but (contrary to the
"anti-racist" grifters and caterwauling activists) I believe anyone can be racist. And yes, you can be racist toward us white devils, too. (To some, that is a racist statement in itself.)
I feel like telling the anti-racist twats, "you're not anti-racist, you're just racist. Also authoritarian. Also assholes."
I'm not trying to derail the thread. Every time I start to address the topic, I get onto something else that seems related.