Aside - this is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in months.
This stuff is tricky, because he did say things that were genuinely appalling. But the article is also spreading misinformation.
If you watch the video, it’s obvious he brought up the verse on stoning gays to highlight the fact ‘Ms Rachel’ was picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow. The beliefs he expressed himself are basically the cliched “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing that many Christians say. And that’s confirmed by how he acted, eg sharing a stage with a gay Republican.
He didn’t say trans people are to blame for inflation, and he didn’t blame all trans people for the recent attack on a Catholic school. He didn’t say Imane Khelif and trans people are “pure evil”, he said ‘trans ideology’, ie a set of beliefs, was pure evil.
They accuse him of calling to “overturn hate crime convictions”, and then admit it was of people convicted for the terribly serious crime of doing donuts over Pride flags painted on public streets.
Why isn’t it enough to let the things he said stand on their own? The media does this with Trump, too, and all it does is confirm liberals in hating Trump, and conservatives in believing the ‘mainstream media’ is spreading fake news.
This is an almost meaningless distinction. Just like “the homosexual agenda” was the big boogie man for them, which was just “let’s make a world where gay people aren’t hated and don’t have to hide all their lives”, “trans ideology” is just the ability to be trans without oppression or harrassment. There’s basically no difference between homosexuals and trans people wanting to be able to live their lives and “the homosexual/trans agenda”
These “ideologies” were basically invented so you could claim you were attacking some sort of nebulous plot and not people directly, but it was always bullshit. It’s just a cover for attacking people for being different.
Yes, the trans agenda is literally, “please leave us alone and let us live our lives in peace”. Opposing that is supporting violence against trans people. There’s really no way to redeem it as anything less nasty.
He called Khelif “a man who beats up women for sport.”
Because the right is currently whitewhasing not only what he said, they are whitewashing the repression groups like Turning Point are enhancing.
BTW, it is clear that the right wing sources skipped the washplaining to the racism and sexism examples, not enough white wash from the right wing sources to cover those up.
Yeah, i really don’t know what you can do about an expression of concern that your pilot is Black. That’s just ugly racism.
He could have chosen the Leviticus verse about mixing fabrics, but he purposefully decided to choose to broadcast the idea of stoning gay people as God’s perfect law. To people who like God and want to follow his laws. He did this to clap back at someone who said to love thy neighbor.
Bullshit. This is something the left always does, conflating differences in political or religious beliefs with hating people, in order to promote their own ideology.
I think it’s bad to oppose gay marriage or condemn gay relationships as a sin, but it’s not the same as hating gay people. And I think it’s bad to support bathroom bills or to say “people can’t change sex”, but it’s not the same as hating trans people or wanting to kill them, as many activists like to imply.
No doubt some people who say things like this really do hate gay and trans people (it’s pretty plausible that Charlie Kirk hated at least the latter), but it’s not all, and it doesn’t erase the distinction.
Conflating opposition to particular beliefs with hating the people those beliefs are about is a fallacy. I don’t know if it has a formal name, but that’s what it is, and the left uses it constantly.
No it isn’t. If you think about it, you’ll realise that’s not true. It’s “accept us as the gender we understand ourselves to be - including by working to change your own internal feelings, and our culture’s collective understanding of what sex/gender even is (something that is fundamental to human beings, and to most people’s identity) - and change the rules of society to accommodate this whereever necessary, irrespective of the impact on everyone else”.
Besides achieving specific policy goals, some of which do and some of which do not affect other people, the ‘gay and trans agenda’, such as it exists, is to get approval and acceptance from everyone in society, because being tolerated or left alone isn’t enough. That’s not a bad thing to work towards, but let’s be honest about it.
Which is a cruel and unfair thing to say. But it’s still not the same as saying she’s pure evil.
So if you want them to go back into hiding, not be whole they are, not be able to be with someone they love, to be shamed, to be miserable, to be oppressed — that has nothing to do with hating them. You could totally love them and yet want them not to have the basic freedoms that other people have and for their lives to be miserable and oppressed. This is your position?
Being gay or being trans or being a woman or being black isn’t a belief. It’s a state of being, an identity, an inherent trait. You don’t make it an “agenda” by wanting equality and non-oppression for your kind. This is absolutely entirely about people being able to hate others and feel like they’re the good guys by directing their hate at an “agenda” rather than real human beings that are suffering because of them.
When did we hit that point where you can make that distinction?
I think i hang out with a lot more trans people than you do. Some of “letting us live our lives in peace” does require changing the rules of society. For instance, to give trans people a safe place to pee in public. (And enough trans people really look like their gender that “use the room that matches what you were assigned at birth” is NOT safe. There are lots of places where it’s just not safe for a guy, someone who looks like a guy, to walk into the ladies room to use the facilities.)
Similarly, misgendering people and using their deadnames is not “leaving people to live in peace”. I go by the same gender i was assigned at birth, but i happen to have a “dead name”. It used to be my legal name, although no one who cared about me ever used it. I legally changed my first name to my real name when i got married. Every so often, someone unearths my dead name and uses it. It’s really unpleasant. Even with no real baggage attached. (It’s an ordinary name.)
I don’t actually think most trans people care deeply about your internal understanding of gender, so long as you leave them alone and let them live their lives in peace.
He’s obviously calling her a sadistic abusive person when he says that. There’s no other interpretation.
I don’t give a fuck about anybody’s internal feelings or anyone’s collective understanding about what sex/gender is.
Step #1 - Treat transgender people with the respect they deserve as human beings. Use the names and pronouns they tell you apply to them. Let them use the bathroom they want to use. Let them get the medical care their physician says they should have.
That’s it, there doesn’t need to be a Step #2. However…
Step #2 - Stop acting like some random kid being bumped from 4th to 5th in a sporting event you never heard of or cared about for even one second of your entire life is the single most important issue to be tackled by our government. If you want to discuss this AFTER STEP #1 is entrenched as a societal standard, I’m willing to talk.
Yes, it is.
Signed, a gay person who has encountered this in the wild.
You might be confusing things by focusing on the emotion your hater feels, which is probably pretty far from hatred, just like racists don’t necessary feel animus towards other races. But from the other side, the side who is told we are sinful and immoral and unnatural, it is absolutely hatred.
The key difference is that if you oppose “trans ideology” then you not only get to fight against trans people but also anyone else who supports them, as well as any anti-discrimination laws or actions.
Yes, casting something as an “ideology” expands the range of what can be tied in to it.
Which is one thing that works in favor of the promoters of the opression: based on the use of the word “hate”, which as you point out can be understood as an internal emotion, their public can be comforted that they may sincerely say to themselves “But I don’t want to hurt them — I just don’t approve and I don’t want to be told I must act like I do.” And be receptive to hearing it’s the others who are being unreasonable.
Getting back to Kirk, his widow is the new boss at TP. I wonder if she was ever suspected? Hypothetically, of course. And how they’re weaving in some weird religious theory into his death and an earthquake.
First, even if that was true it’s irrelevant. If somebody acts in a way indistinguishable from hatred, then it matters not at all if they don’t really hate the people they are persecuting. Actions are what matter, we aren’t telepaths.
And second; “the cruelty is the point”. The Right does in fact hate those people, because hatred and cruelty and malice are the essence of their entire ideology. Hatred is the point. And bending over backwards to pretend otherwise is one of the reasons we’ve ended up sliding into fascism.
And the Right knows it too. Look at how they are browbeating everyone into pretending that Charles Kirk was something other than a monster; they are just leveraged decades of habit, Kirk was right wing and therefore by American political orthodoxy he must have been a secretly well meaning person. Since admitting what the Right is actually like is taboo.
Christofascist Barbie’s numerological geophysics analysis seems totally legit, no peer review needed. I can’t wait to see her thesis on the unification of eschatological cosmology and sacerdotal quantum field theory. Get that lady the Nobel Prize in Physics now!
Stranger
I usually read in awe of @Stranger_On_A_Train posts, but normally because they deal with technology beyond my understanding
This post is outstanding.