|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 06 2026 02:18 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 01:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 06 2026 01:46 Billyboy wrote:On September 06 2026 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 06 2026 01:15 Billyboy wrote:
What do you mean by joining? All I mean by that is that you just called GH by their preferred pronoun, as opposed to refusing to do so. Which is something I never did. I also think as long as GH, chooses to not put it out there via signature, you or anyone else that "corrects" someone who is not using GH's preferred is hurting not helping. These are the types of activities that create enemies not allies. Fleetfeet said to you "Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it." I think Fleetfeet was just giving you a heads up as gently as possible, and even proactively offering that you surely weren't being malicious. Why do you think that hurts (not helps) or creates enemies (not allies)? Why would being informed of something like that - especially in such a tactful manner - be taken negatively instead of neutrally or positively? LS is giving you a good set of reasons why. And given GHs history what do you think GHs intentions are? Why won’t GH put it in his sig, instead of of GHs sweet own the lib current one? What actually matters to GH. Since you don’t seem shy on giving advice let me give you some, because it is extremely painful to watch your continuous interactions with GH, it feels like watching an emotionally abusive relationship. GHs questions for you are are never legitimate, GH does not care about what you think and never has. It will either be to set you you up for whatever burn he wants to land or as a disingenuous lead to bring you to his conclusion. And at some point in the conversation you realize this and get upset. Save yourself the pain and the rest of the bad feels and just don’t interact with GH, or at the very least ask a question yourself and don’t move on to Gags next step until he answers you directly. Care about yourself and don’t let GH keep making you a victim, it sucks to watch.
Thank you for your advice.
|
This video kind of sums up my general opinion on what happens with the left with any protected group.
https://youtube.com/shorts/OSgU8QUDwfg?si=aXuqanJn6HaDNWSD
Spoiler for those who don’t want to watch
+ Show Spoiler + basically it is saying that in trying so hard to be accepting the people who want to be allies are glazi mg over, or even encouraging the bad behaviours. Treating people normally means calling out all groups equally and not giving a pass, even if they are gay, non binary, Muslim, black, indigenous, or whatever.
|
On September 06 2026 02:26 WombaT wrote:
I’d somewhat disagree with that characterisation of me and the Arsch effect, indeed I’d say your talking out of your Arsch there
This is a banger. Props.
|
Northern Ireland27325 Posts
On September 06 2026 02:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:26 WombaT wrote:
I’d somewhat disagree with that characterisation of me and the Arsch effect, indeed I’d say your talking out of your Arsch there This is a banger. Props.
I do have my moments
|
On September 06 2026 02:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:43 Billyboy wrote:On September 06 2026 02:26 WombaT wrote:
I’d somewhat disagree with that characterisation of me and the Arsch effect, indeed I’d say your talking out of your Arsch there This is a banger. Props. I do have my moments
You're certainly having a moment.
|
Northern Ireland27325 Posts
On September 06 2026 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:26 WombaT wrote:On September 06 2026 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2026 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 06 2026 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2026 00:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 06 2026 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 10:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2026 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It really is and the ensuing discussion there wasn't very uplifting.
They're just "pronouns" not "preferred pronouns" nowadays (you can't read my tone but it's pleasant, not demeaning). I like people using GreenHorizons/GH. "they" would be a welcome alternative as well.
Gotta say I don't feel particularly safe making a point of this but it felt like a bit of an obligation and I really appreciate you doing something to makes me feel at least a little bit safer. Which point don't you feel safe making, and why? That you like people using GreenHorizons/GH and that they/them would be a welcome alternative (because you don't think we'll do that, or for some other reason)? Or that nowadays a person's pronouns are described as "a person's pronouns" and not "a person's preferred pronouns" (because some people were trivializing semantics earlier with the woman vs. female conversation, so they might also be dismissive of whether or not using "preferred" is a big deal, or for some other reason)? Or a different point? All of the above+? Several people have already continued using "he/him" after I mentioned being genderqueer and pointed out that them failing to respect that was indicative that they were not actually engaging in good faith. Pretty sure someone tried to gaslight me about it too. I'm already the defacto "Black council" here. ZerO could be included if/when they participate. It's not exactly helpful that the sort of phenomena I was describing in the beginning pushed ZerO to get banned so they can't right now. I don't want to end up the "chair of the genderqueer council". I don't like that this is opening myself up for endless sealioning, bad faith "oopsies", and too much more to list in this moment burying any sincere attempts at growth. ZerO (and some others) could probably speak well to the danger of just expressing the kind of vulnerability required to convey that there's something wrong. Particularly for Black people AMAB. @Fleet No worries mate! I appreciate the recognition on the leaving an out thing, and while scary, I'm thankful you asked in thread. Yeah, this went about as well as I imagined. I can't relate to being in your position right now, but please let me know what you think about this: I feel like there are currently four* hypothetical categories of readers/posters here, especially since not everyone reads every page in this thread: 1. Those of us who had read that July conversation and became aware that you prefer they/them, and are trying to honor your preferred pronouns; 2. Those of us who had read that July conversation and became aware that you prefer they/them, but are not interested in honoring your preferred pronouns; 3. Those who were unaware of your preferred pronouns up until now, and from now on will make an effort to honor your preferred pronouns; 4. Those who were unaware of your preferred pronouns up until now, but still don't care and won't honor your preferred pronouns. I've thankfully seen a lot more people in #1 than in #2, and I hope that those who are just now learning of your preferred pronouns choose #3 over #4. *There are surely other occasional lurkers or future posters that will miss both July's and today's conversation, so they might incorrectly assume the wrong pronouns. And then we'll educate them again, and hopefully they'll choose new category #5 (being supportive) over new category #6 (not being supportive). It sounds true but incomplete? Part of the problem I predicted and we're seeing displayed is the hopeless parsing of whether someone is in 2/4 but masquerading as oblivious/accident prone 1/3's to be petty and poke. There was also the more recent reference. The " what you allow around you" part was particularly noticeable during this whole thing. It's been fascinating to see you, Wombat, and others trying to tightrope your convictions with the in-group dynamics. I know it isn't easy to overcome the Asch effect (as many, including myself, have failed many times before) and I appreciate when anyone is able to. Sure, that's definitely a fair concern. That must be exhausting to worry about, too. My understanding of the Asch effect is when someone knows a correct answer but changes their mind and picks a wrong answer because they notice that everyone else has picked that wrong answer. Conforming to the group, even when it's already known that the group is wrong. Like if someone asked me what 2+2 is, and I know the answer is 4, but I noticed that a whole bunch of my friends are saying that the answer is 7 for some reason so I join them in answering "7" instead of "4". Social pressures and whatnot. When you say that we're "trying to tightrope [our] convictions with the in-group dynamics", are you still referring to gender identity and preferred pronouns, or some other topic? (If I'm trying to apply the Asch effect to your preferred pronouns in this thread, then I feel like that's saying that I know you prefer they/them, but a whole bunch of other people are referring to you incorrectly, so I just give up on referring to you as they/them and I just repeat whatever incorrect labels other people are using for you?) Yeah, it (just misgendering in general) sorta came up at Queeraoke last night I recognized I'm enduring relatively lightwork so, but for the grace of God go I. Understandably so, you're thinking a bit too literally/mathematically. The Asch effect is why Wombat (who is ostensibly in group 1) read: On September 03 2026 09:29 Billyboy wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? Because his actual intentions are to make himself seem important not gain political allies or the bs revolution he knows nothing about. If it was not only would he act different, but protests and not supporting and using the king capitalists manipulation tool wouldn’t be too inconvenient for him. He’s full of shit, it’s too bad some people believed him, but it’s not a bad thing to be trusting. And didn't address it. It's also part of why people have allowed JimmiC/Billyboy to say unhinged things about me for years without correcting them like you just did here. I’d somewhat disagree with that characterisation of me and the Arsch effect, indeed I’d say your talking out of your Arsch there Asch*  What's your understanding of why?
I haven’t, nor will I shift my positions to bend to the general public will, whatever that may be.
I may accept some dilution because well, that’s the world we all live in, that’s just basic pragmatism
Your contention is as per usual as patronising as it is insulting, well done
|
On September 06 2026 02:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2026 02:26 WombaT wrote:On September 06 2026 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2026 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 06 2026 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2026 00:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 06 2026 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2026 10:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Which point don't you feel safe making, and why?
That you like people using GreenHorizons/GH and that they/them would be a welcome alternative (because you don't think we'll do that, or for some other reason)?
Or that nowadays a person's pronouns are described as "a person's pronouns" and not "a person's preferred pronouns" (because some people were trivializing semantics earlier with the woman vs. female conversation, so they might also be dismissive of whether or not using "preferred" is a big deal, or for some other reason)?
Or a different point? All of the above+? Several people have already continued using "he/him" after I mentioned being genderqueer and pointed out that them failing to respect that was indicative that they were not actually engaging in good faith. Pretty sure someone tried to gaslight me about it too. I'm already the defacto "Black council" here. ZerO could be included if/when they participate. It's not exactly helpful that the sort of phenomena I was describing in the beginning pushed ZerO to get banned so they can't right now. I don't want to end up the "chair of the genderqueer council". I don't like that this is opening myself up for endless sealioning, bad faith "oopsies", and too much more to list in this moment burying any sincere attempts at growth. ZerO (and some others) could probably speak well to the danger of just expressing the kind of vulnerability required to convey that there's something wrong. Particularly for Black people AMAB. @Fleet No worries mate! I appreciate the recognition on the leaving an out thing, and while scary, I'm thankful you asked in thread. Yeah, this went about as well as I imagined. I can't relate to being in your position right now, but please let me know what you think about this: I feel like there are currently four* hypothetical categories of readers/posters here, especially since not everyone reads every page in this thread: 1. Those of us who had read that July conversation and became aware that you prefer they/them, and are trying to honor your preferred pronouns; 2. Those of us who had read that July conversation and became aware that you prefer they/them, but are not interested in honoring your preferred pronouns; 3. Those who were unaware of your preferred pronouns up until now, and from now on will make an effort to honor your preferred pronouns; 4. Those who were unaware of your preferred pronouns up until now, but still don't care and won't honor your preferred pronouns. I've thankfully seen a lot more people in #1 than in #2, and I hope that those who are just now learning of your preferred pronouns choose #3 over #4. *There are surely other occasional lurkers or future posters that will miss both July's and today's conversation, so they might incorrectly assume the wrong pronouns. And then we'll educate them again, and hopefully they'll choose new category #5 (being supportive) over new category #6 (not being supportive). It sounds true but incomplete? Part of the problem I predicted and we're seeing displayed is the hopeless parsing of whether someone is in 2/4 but masquerading as oblivious/accident prone 1/3's to be petty and poke. There was also the more recent reference. The " what you allow around you" part was particularly noticeable during this whole thing. It's been fascinating to see you, Wombat, and others trying to tightrope your convictions with the in-group dynamics. I know it isn't easy to overcome the Asch effect (as many, including myself, have failed many times before) and I appreciate when anyone is able to. Sure, that's definitely a fair concern. That must be exhausting to worry about, too. My understanding of the Asch effect is when someone knows a correct answer but changes their mind and picks a wrong answer because they notice that everyone else has picked that wrong answer. Conforming to the group, even when it's already known that the group is wrong. Like if someone asked me what 2+2 is, and I know the answer is 4, but I noticed that a whole bunch of my friends are saying that the answer is 7 for some reason so I join them in answering "7" instead of "4". Social pressures and whatnot. When you say that we're "trying to tightrope [our] convictions with the in-group dynamics", are you still referring to gender identity and preferred pronouns, or some other topic? (If I'm trying to apply the Asch effect to your preferred pronouns in this thread, then I feel like that's saying that I know you prefer they/them, but a whole bunch of other people are referring to you incorrectly, so I just give up on referring to you as they/them and I just repeat whatever incorrect labels other people are using for you?) Yeah, it (just misgendering in general) sorta came up at Queeraoke last night I recognized I'm enduring relatively lightwork so, but for the grace of God go I. Understandably so, you're thinking a bit too literally/mathematically. The Asch effect is why Wombat (who is ostensibly in group 1) read: On September 03 2026 09:29 Billyboy wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? Because his actual intentions are to make himself seem important not gain political allies or the bs revolution he knows nothing about. If it was not only would he act different, but protests and not supporting and using the king capitalists manipulation tool wouldn’t be too inconvenient for him. He’s full of shit, it’s too bad some people believed him, but it’s not a bad thing to be trusting. And didn't address it. It's also part of why people have allowed JimmiC/Billyboy to say unhinged things about me for years without correcting them like you just did here. I’d somewhat disagree with that characterisation of me and the Arsch effect, indeed I’d say your talking out of your Arsch there Asch* What's your understanding of why? I haven’t, nor will I shift my positions to bend to the general public will, whatever that may be. I may accept some dilution because well, that’s the world we all live in, that’s just basic pragmatism Your contention is as per usual as patronising as it is insulting, well done
I don't think I've clearly communicated what I meant to you.
I'm saying you didn't address something you otherwise would object to there (but did later, maybe snarkily, hence the "tightroping") because of a well known and pretty ubiquitous systemic phenomena (noting I've also succumbed to the Asch effect).
I was asking what you thought happened instead?
|
On September 06 2026 02:42 Billyboy wrote:This video kind of sums up my general opinion on what happens with the left with any protected group. https://youtube.com/shorts/OSgU8QUDwfg?si=aXuqanJn6HaDNWSDSpoiler for those who don’t want to watch + Show Spoiler + basically it is saying that in trying so hard to be accepting the people who want to be allies are glazi mg over, or even encouraging the bad behaviours. Treating people normally means calling out all groups equally and not giving a pass, even if they are gay, non binary, Muslim, black, indigenous, or whatever.
Suffering is bad and being a good person means trying to prevent, mitigate, and understand other people's pain. Politics can be used to do that when the cause of people's suffering is financial and/or social, such as poverty and systematic discrimination. It is not the only means of doing so, but it's easily the most consequential, which is why people have strong feelings about politics.
Unfortunately some people aren't interested in politics because they want to live in a better world, but for self interest, or boredom, or fetish fulfillment, or a lot of other unsavory reasons. But they'll never admit as much because they won't be taken seriously, so they'll be very performative about wanting a better world while actively working to make it worse by encouraging bigotry, apathy, grudges, willful ignorance, and so on.
Since we don't live in a simple world where people with rotten motives are honest about them, the only solution is to apply critical thinking in good faith until their duplicity is beyond reasonable doubt. At that point, continuing to treat them in good faith is detrimental to a better world, much like how overdosing on medicine is harmful even though medicine is a good thing in itself.
It's good to be attentive to marginalized voices. It's not a good thing to stand idly by while someone uses their experiences as a minority as a weapon against other minorities. That is making the world a worse place.
|
On September 06 2026 03:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:42 Billyboy wrote:This video kind of sums up my general opinion on what happens with the left with any protected group. https://youtube.com/shorts/OSgU8QUDwfg?si=aXuqanJn6HaDNWSDSpoiler for those who don’t want to watch + Show Spoiler + basically it is saying that in trying so hard to be accepting the people who want to be allies are glazi mg over, or even encouraging the bad behaviours. Treating people normally means calling out all groups equally and not giving a pass, even if they are gay, non binary, Muslim, black, indigenous, or whatever. Suffering is bad and being a good person means trying to prevent, mitigate, and understand other people's pain. Politics can be used to do that when the cause of people's suffering is financial and/or social, such as poverty and systematic discrimination. It is not the only means of doing so, but it's easily the most consequential, which is why people have strong feelings about politics. Unfortunately some people aren't interested in politics because they want to live in a better world, but for self interest, or boredom, or fetish fulfillment, or a lot of other unsavory reasons. But they'll never admit as much because they won't be taken seriously, so they'll be very performative about wanting a better world while actively working to make it worse by encouraging bigotry, apathy, grudges, willful ignorance, and so on. Since we don't live in a simple world where people with rotten motives are honest about them, the only solution is to apply critical thinking in good faith until their duplicity is beyond reasonable doubt. At that point, continuing to treat them in good faith is detrimental to a better world, much like how overdosing on medicine is harmful even though medicine is a good thing in itself.It's good to be attentive to marginalized voices. It's not a good thing to stand idly by while someone uses their experiences as a minority as a weapon against other minorities. That is making the world a worse place.
Well said. The bolded part feels like what I wanted to say, so I appreciate that you were able too.
It’s a complicated world, grace for the ignorant is important because we are all ignorant of things, but once it changes to malice than regardless of the source it needs to be addressed ( often by the more mature and more helpful way of leaving or cutting them off). This doesn’t change if some one is, for example non Binary. The hard part is if they have truly lived, they are going to have experienced a lot of accidental and on purpose hurt. Therefor it only makes sense to give them more grace, but that can’t be unlimited as there are bad actors who abuse it on purpose and of course no matter the group there are simply bad people that are part of it.
|
Canada11604 Posts
|
I'll just repeat what someone else said the last time this was mentioned.
If I end trade with the grocery store, i would save multiple thousand € a year.
|
If anyone had any questions about whether or not musk was a supporter of Pedo’s or we’re not sure how awful he was. He is putting big money behind Paxton in Texas.
|
Calling all tournaments male or female is actually more inclusive than not. Especially in esports you have the common sight of players under 18, which are refered to as boys and girls, while you have people over 18 to be called men and women.
Trying to make issues out of non issues by henpecking stupid things like that is a sigh of bad faith you see a lot in the anti trans community. See the two retired NBA players who think its funny to declare themselves women so they can declare themselves for the WNBA draft.
On September 06 2026 03:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:42 Billyboy wrote:This video kind of sums up my general opinion on what happens with the left with any protected group. https://youtube.com/shorts/OSgU8QUDwfg?si=aXuqanJn6HaDNWSDSpoiler for those who don’t want to watch + Show Spoiler + basically it is saying that in trying so hard to be accepting the people who want to be allies are glazi mg over, or even encouraging the bad behaviours. Treating people normally means calling out all groups equally and not giving a pass, even if they are gay, non binary, Muslim, black, indigenous, or whatever. + Show Spoiler +Suffering is bad and being a good person means trying to prevent, mitigate, and understand other people's pain. Politics can be used to do that when the cause of people's suffering is financial and/or social, such as poverty and systematic discrimination. It is not the only means of doing so, but it's easily the most consequential, which is why people have strong feelings about politics.
Unfortunately some people aren't interested in politics because they want to live in a better world, but for self interest, or boredom, or fetish fulfillment, or a lot of other unsavory reasons. But they'll never admit as much because they won't be taken seriously, so they'll be very performative about wanting a better world while actively working to make it worse by encouraging bigotry, apathy, grudges, willful ignorance, and so on. Since we don't live in a simple world where people with rotten motives are honest about them, the only solution is to apply critical thinking in good faith until their duplicity is beyond reasonable doubt. At that point, continuing to treat them in good faith is detrimental to a better world, much like how overdosing on medicine is harmful even though medicine is a good thing in itself. + Show Spoiler +
It's good to be attentive to marginalized voices. It's not a good thing to stand idly by while someone uses their experiences as a minority as a weapon against other minorities. That is making the world a worse place.
This is why I'm not just going to go out of my way on GH's pronouns.
|
On September 06 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2026 22:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2026 22:18 oBlade wrote:On September 05 2026 19:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2026 17:36 Simberto wrote:As todays WTF, i present you the white house arcade: https://www.whitehouse.gov/arcade/Who didn't want to build the wall in a tetris clone, or deport brown people in a snake clone on a government website. Clearly this is what a sane government does. Ugh these are so dumb and cheesy, trying to market racism and failed policies towards children. Among healthy school lunches, seed IRA accounts for children, and keeping the border secure, which ones do you consider failed? All three. The first two (healthy food and financial stability for families) have taken significant hits under the Trump administration, rolling back better standards from Obama's and Biden's eras and not measuring up to what Harris had proposed to do if she had become president. That's funny you can't say Trump accounts, which didn't exist before, are a good policy, you had to divert to the alternate timeline of Harris and "financial stability for families." As though one of her stated policies was Kamalaccounts (she never proposed any such thing, and you'd have to admit such a thing was good to begin with, which you're not capable of evaluating). What school food standards? The exact same sugar and sodium and saturated fat standards are still in place. The differences are encouraging protein, not banning 2% and full fat milk, and less processed foods. Show nested quote +On September 05 2026 22:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As for the third one... Trump never got around to building that wall (and having Mexico pay for it), so that's a failure even by his own standard. Right his own standard. Which is unlike your standard, because you don't like walls, making it a success by your standard? Or which is also your standard, because you really want to build walls, so you think he failed. In which case I am here to reassure you. Don't worry, there are hundreds of miles of wall. Under the non-invasion-encouraging actual president who won in 2024, who allows DHS to perform their actual function, there are fewer than 10,000 border encounters per month. When Weekend at Biden's had that many per day. Let us know how to be even more successful if you please.
This is such a bizzare series of sentences. The Trump accounts are a lazy excuse to pump more money into the stock market. It helps no one but rich people and will just go into peoples student debt if they're lucky to graduate when we're not in a recession. Its not going to help feed them or keep them healthy growing up, its not going to help their education or their outcomes, its not going to help increase the birth rate by making them less expensive to raise. At best it's straight inflationary, just on a delay for after Trump is dead. At worst its a rich persons attempt to replicate trust fund kid culture but for poor people.
Yes, Trump has failed his promises. His attempts to "secure the border" have resulted in children being kidnapped and trafficked over state lines, American citizens being killed, and his desire to throw people into a Central American prison. "there are hundreds of miles of wall" would be a hilarious line to anyone who can look at a map and find out how much border there is.
He can be a lot more successful by working toward immigration reform and funding the asylum courts that are the cause of so many people here past their visas. We had that during the election last year and trump said that he'd rather keep the suffering going so he can use it for political points. He will keep the situation horrible and keep the status quo to use for political points going forward.
|
On September 06 2026 06:13 Sermokala wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Calling all tournaments male or female is actually more inclusive than not. Especially in esports you have the common sight of players under 18, which are refered to as boys and girls, while you have people over 18 to be called men and women. Trying to make issues out of non issues by henpecking stupid things like that is a sigh of bad faith you see a lot in the anti trans community. See the two retired NBA players who think its funny to declare themselves women so they can declare themselves for the WNBA draft. On September 06 2026 03:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2026 02:42 Billyboy wrote:This video kind of sums up my general opinion on what happens with the left with any protected group. https://youtube.com/shorts/OSgU8QUDwfg?si=aXuqanJn6HaDNWSDSpoiler for those who don’t want to watch + Show Spoiler + basically it is saying that in trying so hard to be accepting the people who want to be allies are glazi mg over, or even encouraging the bad behaviours. Treating people normally means calling out all groups equally and not giving a pass, even if they are gay, non binary, Muslim, black, indigenous, or whatever. + Show Spoiler +Suffering is bad and being a good person means trying to prevent, mitigate, and understand other people's pain. Politics can be used to do that when the cause of people's suffering is financial and/or social, such as poverty and systematic discrimination. It is not the only means of doing so, but it's easily the most consequential, which is why people have strong feelings about politics.
Unfortunately some people aren't interested in politics because they want to live in a better world, but for self interest, or boredom, or fetish fulfillment, or a lot of other unsavory reasons. But they'll never admit as much because they won't be taken seriously, so they'll be very performative about wanting a better world while actively working to make it worse by encouraging bigotry, apathy, grudges, willful ignorance, and so on. Since we don't live in a simple world where people with rotten motives are honest about them, the only solution is to apply critical thinking in good faith until their duplicity is beyond reasonable doubt. At that point, continuing to treat them in good faith is detrimental to a better world, much like how overdosing on medicine is harmful even though medicine is a good thing in itself. + Show Spoiler +
It's good to be attentive to marginalized voices. It's not a good thing to stand idly by while someone uses their experiences as a minority as a weapon against other minorities. That is making the world a worse place.
This is why I'm not just going to go out of my way on GH's pronouns.
Not sure what "going out of my way" is supposed to mean, but you and dyhb depriving us of your collaborative explanations for why we should rally behind Amy Klobuchar for president in 2028 is the real crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
