Lurker > SunburnCostanza

so you agree that trans people shouldn't be forced to wait until 18 to start transitioning?

You say shit like this as if they haven't been trying every reasonable and legal means to challenge the 1% every day for decades only to be forcefully and often violently ignored

You push people into a corner until a minority of them snap and do something dumb, then use that as justification to keep pushing them into that corner and keep licking the boots of billionaires

its maddening.

"optics" my ass, you don't give a shit and never did.

Remember how a few years ago this would have been seen as a fascist move by Trump?

This is dumb, but I'm not sure I understand the "It's so easy to get purg" argument.

Why would you even bother?

I'm pretty much concerned for the entire section of the left that behaves this way. It really does hurt our image in the view of the general public.

I feel like you guys don't realize how out of touch you are with general society when you call JK Rowling a Holocaust denier. I put it in the same category as "Defund the police" meaning "redistribute the money to other services meant to fight crime" and saying racism doesn't apply to white people because it's a combination of prejudice and power or whatever.

We don't get to just redefine words and phrases that clearly mean one thing to umbrella over a bunch of things because you think it sounds good or inflammatory or engaging or fits your cause. Just say she's a terf and she doesn't like trans people, it's bad enough. You don't have to try to and pretend she doesn't think the Holocaust happened.

I'm not saying she should. She's hyper focused on removing Trans people and only trans people. As so her denial is hyper focused just on ignoring the Nazi's tried to kill them. I'm sure she sees what the Nazis did to all those other groups as a horrible thing. And would never deny that it happened.

Do you think that makes it better?

Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, communists, basically anyone they disliked they ether locked up, killed or both.

So she only did a "little bit" of Holocaust denial?

Yes she is denying that trans people were targeted (along with many other groups) during the holocaust.

She literally doesnt believe part of it happened now STFU.

The trans genocide carried out by Nazis was part of the Holocaust.

Something tells me you aren't so concerned for the trans movement that you're worried the language they use is causing them to lose followers. You defended pedantry earlier as being accurate with your words: it is accurate to call this Holocaust denial, regardless of whose feathers get ruffled in the process.

Mod came into the topic and did nothing about it lol.

Thus making this the third topic about this, unless you've got me on Ignore. (I mean all you folks gotta do is type rowling into the search bar, goodness knows I did)

Anyway...

This is the end result of her presuming that any information about the history of trans people delivered by someone who dislikes her must in fact be a lie or extremely exaggerated or taken out of context simply due to the nature of the source presenting it. She ended up being flatly wrong.

To tack on top of that, she engaged in several further bad faith tweets, not to retract her original statement about believing trans persecution by the Nazis was a "fever dream", but instead to move the goalposts and imply that she was still "right" only very tangentially by proxy by tacking on extra conditions.

What comes of a life on Twitter of trying to "one-up" someone else, in this case, ends in denial of an event that occurred in the Holocaust.

That is, in fact, Holocaust denial.

You don't have to say "it didn't happen" to be a denier. Saying "it wasn't all that bad" or in this case "those people weren't targeted (despite there being evidence they were)" is still denial.

So change Holocaust denial to Trans Genocide denial if you want to be pedantic about it

It might be time for you to quickly read up on what Holocaust denial is.

One can defend Jews and engage in Holocaust denial, dude. This is a really weird look.

I feel like a little bit of "both sides"ing can be an effective tool to sway fence sitters. You go too hard on Trump(even though he absolutely deserves every single bit of criticism) he comes off looking like a bullied underdog in their minds. You ease them into it, presenting both sides as imperfect and building trust in the idea that you're unbiased, and gradually convince them that Biden is overall better.

Then you've actually done something useful rather than just shitting on Trump constantly and appeasing...who? The people who already know he's the fucking worst.

I don't know if that's what Stewart is doing, but if it is I think it's a decent strat.

Jon was comparing a genocidal zionist protestant to a genocidal zionist catholic.

Yeah I saw the backlash. It was ridiculous. He said mild things about Biden while showing that Trump is awful. People are dense.

See, as always, it's not actually about the wording. You have a different and fundamentally incompatible political position than them. That is and has always been the issue, it's not marketing, phrasing, or any of that. You are simply to the right of them on policing and don't want their desired policy outcomes.

Same with the BLM issue. They just didn't want those specific pro-black and anti-police policies, and didn't consider police to be a fundamentally racist institutions or think issues of policing were connected to economics.

You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter". You're arguing that the slogan is worded poorly, but you and other diehard democrats don't care for directing funding meant for police to social services that would better serve situations that police aren't capable of handling properly. Biden came out and said that we shouldn't defund the police and that we should actually do the opposite and be funding the police MORE, as if they don't get enough funding.

I was talking about the issue with Porter, not defunding the police. Maybe that was unclear.

I don't dispute that most people weren't on board with defunding the police because they were essentially hearing the idea for the first time, out of context, heard it refracted through hostile sources, and were unfamiliar with all the ideological underpinnings of the idea. You'd see a similar pattern with any radical idea.