Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 449: Birthright Citizenship? I hardly know her!

(+) Yeah! (+)

canadian kids the world over believed in house hippos because an ad told us to

ignore the fact that the point of the ad was "don't believe everything you see on tv" and we believed the thing they made up to make that point

Grimlyn posted...

canadian kids the world over believed in house hippos because an ad told us to

ignore the fact that the point of the ad was "don't believe everything you see on tv" and we believed the thing they made up to make that point

We had the same ad.

Lopen posted...

No shit the media is trying to sow discord among people.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4d1f3130.png

The disconnect is your argument was presented as not affecting young people.

Lopen posted...

But yes this is a frivolous discussion

No shit the media is trying to sow discord among people.

This is a problem I have with your statements, though. You say things that are agreeable, because they're vague and general, about the elite and the media, and when other people probe what you mean because every faction says that stuff with its own meaning, you argue until it gets narrowed down to something like "campaign ads are not responsible for establishing the entire political narrative" which isn't really even a political issue. It's just knowing that other forms of propaganda exist.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4d1f3130.png

The disconnect is your argument was presented as not affecting young people.

To clarify

It manipulates their discussion points not their beliefs outright. The discussion points are presented in a way where it is easy to disagree and to fight. I would say social media specifically, and the people themselves, are doing the heavy lifting there in terms of actually changing viewpoints and causing a divide.

The actual traditional "the media is directly brainwashing people" is generally the news yes. It's the platform where the time and nuance is present to actually put the thoughts in people's heads. And that's going to be older people more than younger.

Anyway I will accept this wasn't led down the wrong path entirely by your fault but... if you actually read my posts you'd know I didn't disagree on that.

There is a machine that political parties pour money into that spreads and strengthens their ideology and leads to more votes. Whether you call that ads or media or whatever is not really important.

There is no question that anti-trans rhetoric has galvanized people into an anti-trans rage that didnt exist before right before a Trump presidency. Im still wondering why if both sides are the same behind their smokescreen why would you choose the smokescreen that is dead trans people if you werent a terrible person.

As far as I can tell there is no doubt whatsoever that racism, homophobia, and to a possibly lesser extent misogyny all played a massive role in Trump's election victory in 2016. Bigotry overall seemed to be a significantly lesser factor in his election victory this time given the main issue he did well on was economy, which he actually LOST in 2016 (which makes sense IMO, as why would they trust a super-capitalist businessman with the economy less than a decade after the Great Recession?) to Hillary Clinton and his top issues that time were immigration (again) and terrorism. The problem is Hillary Clinton didn't do terribly well on anything which gave enough of an opening for the Donald.

Regarding Trump poisoning the well for kids with bigoted rhetoric...I'm not terribly sure how much of a role that plays overall, given the massive youth turnout against him in 2020 which then successively gave the presidency back to him four years later. Gee, I wonder if there was an unpopular left-wing administration in the meantime? While Trump's rhetoric didn't have NOTHING to do with this, economic anxiety fueling misogyny amongst young men who feel increasingly left behind by their female counterparts (who also shifted Republican this election compared to 2020, although not to anywhere near the same extent) was at least as big a factor if not more. As far as I can tell it's more societal reasons that lead young women to far outpace their male counterparts (to put it simply, most traditionally male jobs being increasingly automated leaving them fewer jobs, meaning they spend less time with women and are less likely to know or care how to treat them with respect), and I'm absolutely sure the economic pressures under the Biden administration (which as far as I can tell are at least as much Trump's fault as his, but he gets the blame for them happening under his administration) totally don't exacerbate this!

*takes slight break from politics*
*comes back*
*Sees Trump's team wants to eliminate FDIC*
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-more-fdic-trump-team-175422412.html

Also apparently RFK JR's lawyer wants to get rid of the polio vaccine. I guess when they wanted to go back to the 1860's they really wanted to go back to the 1860's.

And fuck Biden for pardoning the Cash for Kids judge. It was a blanket pardon, but he should have absolutely been excluded.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Im still wondering why if both sides are the same behind their smokescreen why would you choose the smokescreen that is dead trans people if you werent a terrible person.

How do you feel about those who keep voting Democrat because they are better for trans in the short term, thus enforcing a status quo that makes significant improvement to trans rights impossible?

wanting to get rid of the polio vaccine is wild because it clearly worked

PerfectChaosZ posted...

There is no question that anti-trans rhetoric has galvanized people into an anti-trans rage that didnt exist before right before a Trump presidency

It didn't? Sounds like revisionist history

Trans people are just the new gay people. Gay people got too popular so the ghouls moved on

There was obviously anti-trans sentiment long prior to Trump but the anti-trans rage did not exist in its current form until 2015-ish.

Trans people were rarely talked about and mostly just a crossdressing punchline back when gay marriage was the hill to die on. Which is still shitty of course, just less shitty than the current active attempt of getting them murdered.

Kenri posted...

There was obviously anti-trans sentiment long prior to Trump but the anti-trans rage did not exist in its current form until 2015-ish.

It's almost like when gay marriage was federally legalized a switch was flipped

red_sox_777 posted...

Ads have massively diminishing returns - the Kamala campaign outspent the Trump by miles running ads and more ads and it got them nowhere.

in fairness, she ran some really shitty ads. hell, the one ad that scored extremely well and resonates well with people, addressing rent and groceries right in the first line, was barely used. on this end she absolutely had a terrible campaign because she couldn't escape being viewed as more of the same, despite having ads that could've suggested she was better than that.

https://lore.capital/f/vid/yHz4DJk2s30ccorJ92OEv7drGDzH0PqkieHTMQ.mp4

have a lol at peter thiel sweating like a bitch and babbling like a dipshit

Capitalism is dumb and I don't understand how anyone could be susceptible to being influenced by an ad. But I guess people are even dumber.

Kenri posted...

There was obviously anti-trans sentiment long prior to Trump but the anti-trans rage did not exist in its current form until 2015-ish.

With all due respect, this exact type of rage has always been a thing, from elected officials to the legal system to the general public. Like at the end of 2011 a state senator from Tennessee proudly declared his intent to assault any trans woman he saw entering a bathroom or dressing room:

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jan/13/bill-affecting-transgender-use-restrooms-and-dress/

"It could happen here," Floyd said. "I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there - I don't care if he thinks he's a woman and tries on clothes with them in there - I'd just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.

"Don't ask me to adjust to their perverted way of thinking and put my family at risk," he said. "We cannot continue to let these people dominate how society acts and reacts. Now if somebody thinks he's a woman and he's a man and wants to try on women's clothes, let him take them into the men's bathroom or dressing room."

(The article was posted in 2012 as an update to a bathroom bill, but the quotes I'm referencing were from 2011 as far as I can tell.)

I'll admit things improved for trans rights for a while & that America is quickly regressing, but we still haven't regressed to the "elected official vows to assault trans women on sight" level. ...Most likely heading that way, but we're not there yet.

2011 also saw CeCe McDonald being assaulted for being transgender & arrested for defending herself:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/cece-mcdonald-transgender-hate-crime-murder/

So anti-trans rage was strong enough for trans women to be attacked on sight & also it was illegal for trans women to defend themselves. Apparently she was legally obligated to let herself be murdered.

Going back a bit farther, 2008 marked the premeditated murder of an LGBT student, Larry/Latisha King.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Larry_King

There is debate on if King was transgender, however "In addition to dressing in feminine clothing, King had begun to ask to be called Latisha in the week and a half prior to the shooting". At the very least, King's feminine mannerisms were a motive for their murder, so regardless of where King fell under the LGBT umbrella the story was heavily tied to trans rights.

In July 2008, Newsweek reported that a day or two before the shooting, King walked onto the basketball court in the middle of a game and asked McInerney to be his Valentine in front of the team members who then made fun of McInerney. Just after lunchtime on February 11, King passed McInerney in a corridor and allegedly called out, "Love you, baby." Later that day King was seen "parading" back and forth in high-heeled boots and makeup in front of McInerney. According to a teacher, a group of boys were laughing at McInerney who was getting visibly upset and assistant principal Joy Epstein, noticing McInerney's reaction, wagged her finger at him.

When McInerney endured teasing because of the incident, he attempted to recruit other students to assault King but no one expressed interest. He then told one of King's friends to say goodbye to him "because she would never see [King] again".

On the morning of February 12, 2008, McInerney was witnessed repeatedly looking at King during a class in a computer laboratory. At approximately 8:15 a.m. local time, McInerney drew from his backpack a .22-caliber revolver belonging to relatives and shot King twice in the back of the head.

A tragedy, but what I really wish to do is look at everything that happened in the aftermath. For starters, King's family blamed the school, alleging that them allowing King to wear feminine clothing was to blame:

In August 2008, King's family filed a claim against E.O. Green Junior High School at Ventura County Superior Court, alleging that the school's allowing King to wear makeup and feminine clothing was a factor leading to his death. According to the California Attorney General's Office, however, the school could not legally have stopped King from wearing girls' clothes because state law prevents gender discrimination.

According to a Newsweek article published on July 19, 2008, some teachers at E.O. Green alleged that assistant principal Joy Epstein was "encouraging King's flamboyance to help further an 'agenda' ".

A child was executed for not conforming to gender norms and the immediate response was to declare that it should have been illegal to dress in non-conforming ways & to imply that any faculty supporting the student were pushing an agenda.

And the trial quickly turned into asking if it was really murder:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080907180855/http://www.bilerico.com/2008/05/lawrence_king_deserved_to_die.php

The defense attorney, William Quest, said, "administrators were so intent on nurturing King as he explored his sexuality, allowing him to come to school wearing feminine makeup and accessories, that they downplayed the turmoil that his behavior was causing on campus."

https://www.susans.org/index.php/topic,103011.msg766855.html#msg766855

The article I wish to cite isn't archived anywhere I can find, but someone did post a relevant quote from one of the non-supportive faculty:

"My comment was that if something wasn't done soon, Larry would be taken behind the back shed of the P.E. area and be beaten to death," Brown said. "I said something to the effect of, 'Gay rights? What about the rights of the sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders who come here and are not ready for this information?'

And there are many more horrible things from that trial, if I were to spend enough time going through Susan's archives to find the links. But the worst part is that the jury couldn't reach a verdict... with the majority agreeing that it could not be considered a murder:

The trial ended without a verdict and was declared a mistrial by the judge, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell, on Thursday, September 1, 2011, after the jury reported that they were hopelessly deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous verdict. [...]

The last vote was split between seven jurors voting for voluntary manslaughter and five jurors voting for either first-degree or second-degree murder.

So please, don't tell me that anti-trans rage didn't exist in its current form before Trump. Someone announced their intention to commit murder & waited a full day before carrying out their plot and the majority of people felt it could not be classified as a murder because the victim was exploring their gender identity. And that was in California, so you can imagine how well trans acceptance was going in less progressive areas. Things right now are horrible and getting worse, but I haven't seen a story as bad as that travesty in a while.

EDIT: I will admit the sheer volume of anti-trans bills being pushed is new. So I'm not saying things aren't escalating in some ways. Just saying I don't think rage itself is new.

Dems spent more on ads this cycle but it wasn't that far apart. It was like $1.8b v $1.4b at the presidential level.

If you take out the PACs (which I think would be disingenuous framing) the gap is a bit bigger I think (Harris outspent Trump 2:1 if you do this, but it's still like $880m v $440m)

There wasn't anti trans rage before 2015 because it was simply casual to murder trans people. Like how we casually used gay as an insult 25 years ago. Requiring anger to kill trans people is a massive upgrade. That puts trans people in line with other murder victims of passion, like spouses. Although I don't think we are fully there yet, it's still too casually accepted.

Raetsel_Lapin posted...

So please, don't tell me that anti-trans rage didn't exist in its current form before Trump.

I see what you're saying but I also think it's much more at the forefront these days, and has more governmental weight behind it now. Like there's always been trans rage but it wasn't previously a major plank of one of the parties (y'know, the one with complete control of the government next month), or the entire personality of the world's most popular author. The legislative deck has always been stacked against us, but they weren't actively gunning for us this hard, even when we didn't have much in the way of rights.

foolm0r0n posted...

There wasn't anti trans rage before 2015 because it was simply casual to murder trans people.

That... actually makes sense.

AriaOfBolo posted...

The legislative deck has always been stacked against us, but they weren't actively gunning for us this hard, even when we didn't have much in the way of rights.

True, the number of attacks has ramped up and I don't intend to downplay the current situation. I just disagree with the idea of the rage itself being new; Nancy Mace having someone arrested for a handshake & Floyd vowing to assault any trans woman he sees come from the same hatred that was always there. The claims that teachers are turning kids trans as part of an agenda were always there. And the stories I linked were hardly isolated cases.

But... I suppose I'm just overreacting and arguing against points that aren't actually being made. No one's arguing things weren't **** back then & I don't think bringing up decade+ old traumas is really beneficial for anyone (or offering much to discuss). So apologies for that.

i think it might be more accurate to say that there is a /new/ kind of anti-trans rage that's been born out of a reaction to trans people finding marginal levels of acceptance in the mainstream. now that it's not taken for granted that everyone thinks we're freaks, the people that do think that way are getting more riled up about even small amounts of pushback on transphobic speech and behavior

this new kind of rage was also being really effectively called out and mocked during the "weird" phase of the harris campaign and is another reason i'm still frustrated at how bad they fumbled

ivysnow posted...

this new kind of rage was also being really effectively called out and mocked during the "weird" phase of the harris campaign and is another reason i'm still frustrated at how bad they fumbled

They didn't fumble anything with that. That legimitately did not resonate with average people.

People were either convinced trans people were infiltrating womens sports or getting surgeries in schools or they did not give a fuck. There weren't many people outside those two camps.

People gave no fucks about anything other than the price of gas and groceries being too high.

Interesting low level data about urban vs rural demographics that seems to have a lot of downstream effects in politics, media, etc. Basically, rural identification is a huge part of American urbanism and thus a huge portion of non-rural population.

https://youtu.be/6q_BE5KPp18?si=ZVO_rlifWO1MIT3V

absolutely a ton of people in suburbs who consider themselves "rural"

vote to impeach yoon suk seol passes in south korea

Wanglicious posted...

in fairness, she ran some really shitty ads. hell, the one ad that scored extremely well and resonates well with people, addressing rent and groceries right in the first line, was barely used. on this end she absolutely had a terrible campaign because she couldn't escape being viewed as more of the same, despite having ads that could've suggested she was better than that.

Im sure Musks ownership of Twitter/X didnt help at all. Not to mention that Harris campaigned primarily on preserving democracy and abortion rights instead of things like oh I dont know, economy and foreign policy?

And I hope I dont sound transphobic, but given how comparatively few transgender people there are I think its at least understandable people would be unlikely to care about transgender rights.

I guess some of the buzz can be attributed to this as well:

Preemptive Pardons

I heard Biden/[everyone else working for him with their recommendations to him] is looking to issue about 1500 of these. [That's the number I've heard circulating around in the news.]

Secondly: Drones flying around New Jersey, with some even suggesting they are not drones at all. Very fishy, especially with the US government essentially giving the answer of almost saying they have no clue or answer of what's going on.

Assuming that's about what Biden did the other day he only pardoned 39 people. The 1500 were commuted sentences that had to do with people who were released from prison to home confinement back during the pandemic for health reasons (prisons obviously being super spreader sites) because I think there was talk from Trump/his team of imprisoning them again.

AP says his advisors are considering blanket pardons to those who are thought to be part of Trump's retribution campaign (like Jack Smith, Fauci, Adam Schiff, or Liz Cheney) to short-circuit it but I haven't seen a number attached to that in terms of how many.

foolm0r0n posted...

How do you feel about those who keep voting Democrat because they are better for trans in the short term, thus enforcing a status quo that makes significant improvement to trans rights impossible?

Its enforced by a Conservative Party that insists on 75%of its messaging be trans people dont deserve to exist. Once we make the baseline that human rights are important different issues will be okay to focus on, but until then human rights must continue to be the issue and one of the two parties wants to limit human rights so its an easy choice. We would make this the baseline by voting against a party that makes 75% of its messaging about trans people not deserving to exist so that they would stop saying that and move to a more neutral position while the other party would move in a better direction. But the opposite happened.

Thorn posted...

AP says his advisors are considering blanket pardons to those who are thought to be part of Trump's retribution campaign (like Jack Smith, Fauci, Adam Schiff, or Liz Cheney) to short-circuit it but I haven't seen a number attached to that in terms of how many.

It would be insane for him to do these.

Let Trump try and fail in court.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It would be insane for him to do these.

Let Trump try and fail in court.

You say that like being forced through the criminal justice system isn't already a huge punishment. Winning in court eventually won't erase whatever happens before that or get back the time/money spent on the trials.

Xeybozn posted...

You say that like being forced through the criminal justice system isn't already a huge punishment. Winning in court eventually won't erase whatever happens before that or get back the time/money spent on the trials.

ok but I care more about the damage it would cause to pre-emptively pardon all these people to stick it to Trump than the inconvenience of a bunch of wealthy politicians

LinkMarioSamus posted...

And I hope I dont sound transphobic, but given how comparatively few transgender people there are I think its at least understandable people would be unlikely to care about transgender rights.

You don't sound transphobic, but I do want to hammer this point: the candidate who focused on trans people was Trump, not Harris, and he won the election. If Harris had won I'd be much more likely to agree with this analysis, that people don't really care.

Kenri posted...

You don't sound transphobic, but I do want to hammer this point: the candidate who focused on trans people was Trump, not Harris, and he won the election. If Harris had won I'd be much more likely to agree with this analysis, that people don't really care.

Exactly. Trump just said she did and everyone believed him. Not a single Kamala ad said anything about trans people but more than half of Trumps did and trust me both of them played constantly.

I still think there's a strong "meh whatever" median that doesn't really care about trans people either way, but the phobes are very energized and there isn't a strong ally push to counter it, and lord knows shouting ourselves blue trying to drum up people to care hasn't been working

Kenri posted...

If Harris had won I'd be much more likely to agree with this analysis, that people don't really care.

Confirmation bias here. Plenty of reasons for Harris to lose that have little to nothing to do with that.

Read more carefully, I'm not saying anything in that post about why Harris lost.

Trump's own campaign thought that the anti-trans ads attacking Harris were their most effective so they clearly felt they had something there.

Mind you, if we were putting together a list of "reasons Harris lost" I'd probably have something like this:

1. Dissatisfaction with Inflation/Cost of living/Corporate price gouging
2. Anti-immigration sentiment (There's at least two prongs here - I'd argue the larger one is a direct symptom of the above, with immigrants being used as a scapegoat like always. But there's also a very real white nationalist strain in the alt-right that fuels this as well)
3. Sexism (People not wanting to vote for a woman to be head of state)
4. White grievance/victimization complex (Been simmering since the Civil War of course, this current flashpoint being a prolonged reaction to Obama's election. But you see this in the vitriol the right has towards addressing systemic racism and how they insist that actually we fixed everything already everyone is equal it's all fair and actually you're putting "them" over "us" by trying to address these issues)
5. Anti-trans sentiment
6. Overseas wars/international order (Israel/Gaza, Ukraine, NATO, etc.)

or something idk probably a few other things I could add. Anti-trans sentiment isn't in the top 3 but it is also very much a thing they used to drive the base and while you can't ever really *know* what drove people and how much it certainly wasn't repudiated or drove people away who "don't want to hear about/talk about/care about that." Because as said, it was Trump and the right who made it an issue, Harris was basically silent on it beyond some early "I was following the law, Trump did the same thing as POTUS." It's certainly on the list IMO.

And Gaza

Missed the edit

Corporation controlled media probably belongs high on that list. I think it's a bigger problem than everything else.

Big_Bob posted...

Corporation controlled media probably belongs high on that list. I think it's a bigger problem than everything else.

Potentially a bigger problem than everything else combined. It cannot be overstated how detrimental that intentionally biased media narratives are to any left-wing endeavor.

Was cracking up at the several people earlier in this topic acting like they were immune to propaganda.

you're lumping x in with that, I assume

Yeah. Taken individually, I think mainstream media is still a bigger deal (lots of old people out there who watch the news every single) but social media narratives & algorithms are very very rapidly gaining influence.

Right-wing media is obviously a huge problem, but I'm inclined to think it mostly only catches people who have a dormant right-wing worldview already. It's always been very unclear to me why anyone would accept the premises or solutions it offers, otherwise.

ivysnow posted...

absolutely a ton of people in suburbs who consider themselves "rural"

Interestingly where I am and I expect a lot of other places suburban doesnt even exist as an official classification. Youre either urban or rural with no inbetween, although the threshold for urban is super low at 1500 per settlement. So yeah I can absolutely see this.