Varysblackfyre321

My fear is he’ll just be replaced with someone as genocidal but more savvy and less corrupt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-s-message-to-mike-pence-after-he-drops-out-of-2024-race/ar-AA1j1rri?OCID=ansmsnnews11 Trump really wants Pence to go “I’m reek!”

Okay we agree on this I think shouldn’t be that controversial point. If the “radical” position is the default one it’s not radical. I do agree too many people think deviance from the status quo in even aesthetics is praiseworthy and worth alignment. So those other ones look practical and moderate one. Listen Obama when he was campaigning expressed his desire for civil unions over same-sex marriage, it was the electorally effective strategy for him and I don’t begrudge him for it. That was the moderate position and easier to sell at the time. If the consensus amongst gay rights activists that Obama’s initial position was the most sensible one and anything beyond it would be detrimental we probably wouldn’t have gotten a lot of the gay rights we enjoy today. She doesn’t. On what specific ly? That she attacked AOC for something she didn’t say, and/or thinking birthing person is a slur? Eh sometimes the accommodation sought after genuinely is unreasonable. If a straight person objects to being called straight and would be preferred to as not affiliated with same sex attraction or normal I probably won’t do it. Yes and other progressive activist leaders and politicians who aren’t acting the caricature terfs present the modern left as being the caricature some women who aren’t terfs buy into. I’ve seen progressive trans woman say they’ve experienced more racism in progressive communities than rural conservative America and gay women say all the lesbians are turning into trans men and pointing to some in her friend group doing such. People can honestly give their negative anecdotal experience and over extrapolate broad social trends concerning a topic. Notice how you’re not giving something more substantial than anonymous anecdotes. Like a prominent feminist group titled “x women rights or thing” being changed to “x birthing bodies or pregnant people or people who menstraute thing” Is there a seriously women’s rights organization pushing for the women’s march to renamed XX chromosome march or do we just have some concerns that someone might. “Suspicious” “moral orthodoxxy” Jesus Christ, please I haven’t even accused her of being a grifter or calling her a right wing hack. I said she’s wrong and how she’s expressing her wrong opinion is unproductive—you know actually saying she’d refuse to platform any leftist outside her organization or being unwilling to have a dialogue over comments with anyone who doesn’t already agree with her(which unsurprisingly tends to be people on the right). You make it sound as though I demanded she be burnt at the stake when all i did was offer the most mild of negative reaction instead of treating it as substantive and worth absolute respect and belief. Sounds like I offended your “moral orthodoxy” a bit heh? I kid

Okay we can agree on that. Now can you concede that sometimes the radical position on a current issue is the right one and sometimes it’s good to push for that one? Not really. All her previous hostile rhetoric around the issue correlates with her genuinely thinking “birthing person” is a slur that shouldn’t be uttered by anyone ever. AOC far as I know didn’t even do it and she still got attacked. Not a gaffe and Of course it is okay to criticize her for her criticism. How far are we taking this reluctance? How many cristism must never be explored or questioned and If a normally progressive objects to the push for a society that only views rape as something with penises can do, goes onto right wing podcasts to complain about the language shift, should everyone never criticize the stance? Yes, this also isn’t happening. Eh sounds to me like they’re older cis women with a reactionary blindshot and are insulted over something that’s not really happening, that being to do away with the term women in women’s rights. They may not be terfs themselves but have unfortunately bought into the fearmongering. Hey not everyone is perfect I have family who straight up vote for progressive causes and candidates but still listen and repeat hotep lies. In the context over more the packaging of my criticism than the actual substance. I asked you how can I use more honey here while still giving over my honest thoughts on the moral ethicacy of her position and rhetoric. Though it legitimately sounds like to me now, you believe it’d be best to simply not voice the thought in any form. It’s not reasonable. She’s been invited on multiple left wing shows from people who disagree with her to discuss her grievance and she already has large platform. In response she’s stated she wouldn’t platform anyone not affiliated with TYT. But she does appear to want a hug box where she’s merely told that she’s right. Broadly and in specific circumstances i can concede that can happen. in this specific case I genuinely don’t feel that’s the case here given the level of attempts at politely rebuffing her and desire for most people—except her—to move past the issue. I’m not sure what’s your prescription. Are people allowed to disagree with such sentiments? If so how? If not you also must understand that’s also producing people silently seething.

Everyone has a goddamn podcast these days. I’d love to listen to a trump podcast.

Tbf I also provided a specific example of radical republicans who went beyond the moderate abolitionist positio which was to free the slaves gradually and eventually relocate them somewhere else(Lincoln’s position while campaigning), and pushed for empantipation and give freed slaves full citizenship. Like can we as modern men say those people were good to push an agenda that was for their time radical? I think we can. Anyway Kasparian compared this admittedly awkward sounding term—birthing person—to the n word. It’s fine that she doesn’t like the term being applied specifically to her in a personal setting. the problem is her treating it as an attack on all women and exaggerating the commonness of its use and insinuating there is no context where it’s supposed to be used as a referent even going as far as attacking AOC for supposedly using it and progressive organizations like the ACLU. I don’t believe saying “able-bodied” is comparable to saying the n word. To be clear in these sorts of conversations the inclusive language is more for trans mascs and men who are a lot harder to frame as threats to women and girls. Trans women don’t mind getting called women generally and won’t ever be the particular people when people use pregnant person, person who menstruates, or even birthing bodies. I don’t suspect her being a right wing propaganda hack. yet at least though it’s not the first time Tyt turned out such a thing(see Dave Rubin whose fallen out of favor for deciding to have children). a leftist or someone on the left can have a reactionary bent in a specific area and have their advocacy aid in a reactionary movement and not be in my eyes personally on the right or even disgenuine. Forgive me but I genuinely see me giving as much honey without being willfully dishonest. Because looking at the first post it’s pretty tame I think. I neither accuse her of being an clear-cut outright transphobe, nor even a grifter, just expressed why I believe grievance with the inclusive language is faulty, and how she’s choosing to communicate her grievance is harmful because what she represents to people. Should I not even words such terms such as disappointment? If you’re more outraged at the packaging of arguments than my substance how do you think I can communicate the substantnce of my complaints against her—that she’s over-exaggerating the harm of inclusive terminology such as birthing person on right wing platforms?

Most political activists that come from Canada that I immediately think almost always tend to be far right. Gavin Mcnis, Stephen crowder, Lauren Southern, Peterson. Why can’t they send us the good Canadians?/jk lol. That’s fair to bring up. though In my defense my use of random was in comparison to a political commentator well known in more progressive and activist circles.

Ehhh, that’s a bit too hasty generalization,. I’ll admit some stunts are optically and even morally bad and can make people more sympathetic towards the opposition. Though some attempts are worthwhile and are necessary. Ehhhhh, depends on the situation. They’re more willingly to trot out queer conservatives when wanting to trick liberals into bashing non-white immigrants and immediately bar those queer conservatives from having a table at the actual point constructing policy. There’s no contradiction in wanting to radicalize someone to your favorable outlier position and thinking you’d catch more flies with honey. I feel this response is due to you projecting your own grievance on who’d you define as a leftist radical and what that entails onto my lukewarm statement.

Yes in some directions and avenues I do and I don’t respect “moderation” or “centrism” by itself. In the 1860s full abolition along with equal rights to African Americans was the more radical position. Eventually when you get enough people to become radicalized a certain view the view is no longer rationally what can be dubbed the radical.

When stated like this I don’t view burning the statue as that bad.

Jorden Peterson was just a random lying and/or paranoid person before he went viral for lying about the ramifications of gender identity becoming a protected class. He was boosted tremendously by the right, who recognized his use of a good propaganda tool, useful for the grander narrative, A lone college professor standing up for free speech against the SJW mob(woke of course not entering the Right’s lexicon yet, showcasing society acclaim of the trans(and probably non-heterosexuals), has gone too far. You ask Excellent and fair question. Kasaparian is political pundit and co-host to probably the biggest progressive independent organization on social media In some fashion it’s more dangerous when she herself fear mongers about this benal stuff than say Sarah Huckbe Sanders, or Ben Shapiro orsome other right wing theocrat, gets people into thinking wholistic politically, there’s something wrong by itself to not simply use women when describing people who have particular attributes that aren’t a determiner of who is a woman and this opens the door for other uglinesses. I do think the political forces on the left have been really slow to exploit social media and see the potential use for radicalization to the the extent the right has. It is and Hopefully it will remain so yes. though I’ll be honest I fear things like this will get all of the attention but the institutional backlash to anyone who’d give a bare bones statement of support Palestine won’t get any and be framed as if it’s equally harmful as the rhetoric Israel has promoted and western governments have are cheered on or failed to condemn.

That sounds bad. How many died in Beirut?

It’s really disappointing she keeps dredging this issue up on right wing platforms and keeps equating the term birthing people with women, and not every who can give birth is a woman, and not every woman could give birth.

I’m tired of this notion progressives must agree with whatever military response Israel shows Hamas else they’re hypocrites.

I’ve seen on Reddit someone postulate Israel’s poor handling of optics and social media warfare, is due to Netanyahu’s hard right populist approach. Perhaps this is to humanity’s benefit more “liberal”, socially aware and clever people directing propaganda apparatus wouldn’t do things like like this or try to things like this:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/with-new-speaker-us-house-passes-measure-backing-israel-in-barbaric-war-launched-by-hamas/

That’s fine but I will never forgive you for our disagreements on ASOIAF. Because I don’t know what they were/s Anyway I too think people—including myself— have been too quick to count the hostages as good as dead. If Israel shows restraint think they can be saved.

I apologize for my dismissive comments towards you.I was trying to promote caution because often times there’s a lot of misinformation pursuant to these conflicts so it’s best to keep one’s bias in mind, but looking back I feel I wasn’t taking your ideas on Israeli lack of care of hostages seriously enough.

I’d settle for Containment in the immediate term. More Strategic bombings, even use of special forces, things they’re already presumably doing. A ground invasion in the time frame Israel is proposing probably would get far more people killed than Hamas has killed in much of its existence. I don believe anyone here seriously thinks Hamas is an actual existential threat to Israel so I can’t see the risks associated as good enough. Forgive me I just read the a ground invasion as mainly being critical to satiate Israeli bloodlust and to try and save Netanyahu’s and the idfs image of strength after their negligence allowed Hamas to kill hundreds of people.

I’m hoping Israel calls the invasion off, if releasing more and more hostages increases this outcome I approve.

It does kinda lend credence to their claim that Israel refused hostages outright.

Idk if those goals need all the hostages to remain in hamas’s hands and die sounds like they need better goals.

h I think I really underestimated the current regime’s and Israeli military’s bloodlust