I agree. The bad taste is not that while not wrong per-se, it’s just reduces a complex issue into “red bad” while wholly failing to acknowledge that Democrats have been complicit in facilitating the Overton Window this far.

“Progressives” are really hard on the “REPUBLICANS DID THIS!” and never really pick up on the “and Democrats met them half way.”

This blue no matter who reduction hopes to hide liberalism is the slow road to fascism.

The problem isn’t meany racist MAGAts. It’s the entire system spending decades working overtly toward fascism with a bunch of clueless fucking rubes staring complacently.

Idk, I think it’s VERY SPECIFICALLY about trans rights, but I just can put my finger on why…

Anti Trans bills running totals

656 bills

49 states

13 passed

621 active

22 failed

I know the media will never report on most of this if any of it, but it’s no secret the party that currently has control of three branches of government, including the most blatantly corrupt supreme court in US history, is actively trying to make trans people illegal, illegal to exist, or to be recognized, illegal to be publicly trans, and legal to deny medical treatment towards.

I don’t blame you if you missed this movement happening right now, as it’s not widely reported, but it’s a huge problem and the cartoon is explicitly a MAGA republican stabing a trans person and calling it ‘‘just politics’’ and telling them to not take it personally.

Isn’t it totally obvious what the comic is critiquing? There are too many people out there who vote for racist parties that want to eliminate people in their social circle and that are totally butthurt when they get called out for that and are bitter when those people don’t want to have anything to do with them afterwards. “It’s just politics”

Also “this worked up”, lol.

Just curious, exactly how worked up do you think a person must be to undertake the Herculean effort of making a drive-by Lemmy comment?

Yes clearly this is consuming the whole of my being.

Yeah, passivity in the face of decline has always been the preferable option. Protecting our sacred decorum is so much more important than maintaining a critical eye and standards. Great take.

I appreciate that but I do want to be clear, I do not care if pizzacake has an onlyfans or uses her comics to advertise said onlyfans. I am sex positive, and aggressively pro-sex worker, so I will never disparage pizzacake or anyone else for their sexuality or participation in sex work of any kind.

This is not my objection to pizzacake and I strongly agree with those who rightly call out the criticism of her which boils down to judgement of her for her onlyfans. My issues is with the comic content she makes, how she conducts herself online, and mostly with her army of sycophants.

I personally wish pizzacake nothing but success in her onlyfans endeavors and she deserves to be as free from misogynistic comments wrongfully judging her for her sex work as anyone else.

Reddit is far from a right wing hell hole. I haven’t logged on in over a year but jumping to the front page is 4/5 push back against the right with the other 1/5 just “am I over reacting” posts with a sprinkle of cats and everyday humor.

Maybe you’re referring to ownership?

You’re not wrong. The fact that I’m fighting a knowing losing battle doesn’t make it less meaningful in my eyes, however.

I’d be interested in the cost analysis of lives saved from MAGA’s hate crimes vs lives lost to inability to vaccinate.

Fortunately it’s just daydreaming as no one has control of this runaway cart.

False equivalency. Categorizing all MAGA like the portrayal in this political cartoon is not the same as categorizing a whole type of people as some stereotype.

Stereotypes are not factual. Some may have a basis in reality, many have no basis in reality. In almost all cases stereotypes are degrading, and statistically impossible to apply to all members of a certain group, despite people using verbiage in the stereotypes indicating it is inherent to all members (e.g. “All Asians are bad drivers”)

MAGA as portrayed here is categorically factual. By definition MAGA supports Trump and his policies. His policies are harmful to trans people. Therefore, all MAGA are harmful to trans people strictly because of the policies they support.

Bringing it back to the “all Asians are bad drivers” example, if we modified it to say “all bad drivers are bad drivers”, then that would be more of an equivalent to the categorization of MAGA depicted. Because the categorization is the definition of the group, rather than taking a group and assigning it an attribute totally unrelated to its definition (e.g. race, gender, even political party as not all republicans are on board with maga)

If someone isn’t comfortable speaking from their main account (which apparently isn’t the case here) then that’s more of a sign the community needs to change and be more open to differing points of view. It’s not always a problem with the individual, and implying that to be the case when it clearly isn’t is a toxic thing to do.

This is my only account and not sure what your eluding to here honestly. I don’t comment often nor do I spend much time on social media as I have a career and family to tend to. I still stand by my comment and have nothing to hide.

Ugh, I hate Right Wing Youtubers. You can see Google’s political bias on full display with them. I always find it suspicious that non-political youtubers can’t say “Kill” in ANY context without it being counted as a swearword on par with the N-Word…

But Right Wingers can say the most hateful shit and are still allowed to have a channel with PragerU platforming LITERAL CHILD ABUSE yet still being allowed to do a show targeted at kids.

There was this DBD Youtuber who was spitting straight facts about the horrible decisions made with the game, and then he moves from his first point (bullshit nerfs that feel so random that it’s likely play testing wasn’t done with them) to talking about how the game is “Unrealistic” and to that I said

“Okay… it’s a dark cartoony game where you play Hide and Seek with Freddy Krueger and the Xenomorph, it 's not meant to be reali… Ah THERE we go.”

Why did I say “THERE we go!” Because he immediately jumps to “Like 1/5 of the cast is canonically gay! But there’s only like .0001% of people who are gay in real life”

And I had to point out that “You were cooking… until you got really homophobic.” in the comments

He actually responds to me and gets into a shouting match.

He goes on and on about how the character David King was “Clearly intended to be a straight man”, because his backstory “Had him be VERY manly!”, and that it was an attack on him personally that he was “Changed to be gay”

I calmly told him that the devs can do whatever they want with their characters. I mean yeah if they said “Oh , btw, Laurie Strode’s a lesbian”, that’d be bad because the job of the guest characters is to show them as they were IN THEIR ORIGINAL FILMS! But… they didn’t make Laurie Strode gay, they made David King, a character Behavior created themselves, gay.

He gave me the same bullshit about “David King’s original story had him being manly!”

I pointed out that David King’s CURRENT story still had him be manly, and that manly men exist in the gay community (With David being something of what they call a “bear” in the gay community), oh and the big one… this wasn’t some recent out of nowhere Overwatch-style retcon, he’d been hard confirmed as gay VERY early on… So, wasn’t sure why he was complaining.

Because I knew that (very common and well-known piece of information), I outted myself to him as “ONE OF THEM!!111”, and he said something to me I’ll never forget.

That I was one of the “queers” ruining America, who was as he put it “Offended by Everything and Ashamed of Nothing!”

Now that was the most mask off he’d been all conversation.

I simply asked what was it he felt that I had to be ashamed of… Never got an answer, so I can only assume he didn’t know himself.

Later I found I was subscribed to him, likely had done so early on in his vid. He was live-streaming killer and complaining about a well-known Youtuber who exposes Toxic Players in the DBD community… The whole stream it was nothing but shitting on this Youtuber for, and get this, defending gay gamers from homophobic bullies instead of “Letting them get what they deserve for shoving it down people’s throats.”

When I realized this I left the stream, downvoted, and unsubscribed.

I wish him well and hope he changes, but since I know he’s unlikely to, deep down I hope he’s having a rusty nail shoved up his dickhole and that it gets infected.

I’ve sadly since learned that the homophobe not only was still at the homophobia game, but had gotten the slogan “Ally to the Community” trending through the Toxic Side of the community as a backhanded way of insulting… anyone Pro-LGBT affiliated with DBD.

My point is, I just hate people who do nothing but hate and how they that despite being the clear aggressor, seem to believe they’re never the ones in the wrong.

Nyway, I should lay down for bed, but before I go I must say

inb4

“If they have a problem with things being shoved down their throats they shouldn’t deepthroat so fucking hard.”

I chuckled at the “I just ate, so there’s no hunger example” because I have a conservative-leaning friend who was of the “it just rained, so there’s no drought” mentality.

What can someone self identify as though, can I self identify as a specific race, species, nationality, etc… where does one determine where to draw the line?

Clearly its going to be an issue that leads to some disagreement as it is open to ambiguity. If anything can self identify as anything would that be the middle path?

Obviously it has real implications in reality as well, like grants and shelters that go towards a specific demographics that are disproportionately disadvantaged. If people can self identify then it is obviously ripe for exploit, and how do we police that outside of the same witch hunts the anti-trans people are on, so how do we solve this one?

human and civil rights aren’t “politics”

You will agree that human and civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, is not politics? If you disagree, why is your preferred civil rights not politics, but other’s preferred human and civil rights are?

If politics includes the realm of persuading enough people and institutions to adopt or forget laws and standards, however moral of immoral they are, then rights of any kind are political.

Rights aren’t given in society for nothing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights were created following WWII in which we saw the greatest political conflicts in the modern, technological age. Civil rights, at least in the US, have taken many acts as well as background political pressure to get to where we are today, and this institutionalizing of equal rights among American citizens only started after the US Civil War, the only civil war that country had ever experienced at that point.

Everything is politics.

why not? What definition of politics are you using

Just wanted to say thank you. I never explicitly thought of it this way. Just that human and civil rights are important. I’m going to start framing it this way because it’s the truth.

I guess you’re right.

I was at a loss as to what to do when a few of my friends were expressing support for Trump, knowing that he plans on cutting aid to Ukraine (as well as other fucked up shit).

Isn’t that the saddest thing? Imagine being motivated by hatred. Feels like such a shitty thing to live for.

Pretty much every damn thing is political.

“it’s just politics” is such an empty statement.

It’s so easy to ignore how one of Biden’s final acts as president was to deny Transgender Americans healthcare through TRICARE.

Anti-LGBT bills have been flooding state and federal legislatures, and only a handful of Democrats have been brave enough to oppose them.

Pretty much every damn thing is political.

“it’s just politics” is such an empty statement.

It was actually about my job (I work for the federal government), but same issue. He, my mother, and my brother voted for something that directly impacts me.

There’s a guy up thread saying I shouldn’t take it personally, but how can I not? They’re the ones making jokes about how hard I don’t work.

Even the non-apology “apology” is unacceptable!

If the Medicaid and social security things go through, it’ll be much sooner than that. My brothers and I paid for a new hvac system for their house last year, which gives an idea of the financial issue they are likely to face.

This is democracy manifest!

As a leftist feet guy who is regularly chewing on toes I can confirm.

The term paradox was used because it comes from the “so much for the tolerant X” instances during mid XXth century. It’s the incorrect assumption that tolerance is somehow a foundational principle of some ideology, mainly left, socialist and communist ideology; just because they were protesting intolerant policy and stances from the right. The right stupidly believes that this means that the left advocates for unlimited tolerance of everything as an extension of fundamental freedoms, like free speech and free thought.

This was at a time when the debate on the lawful limits of freedom in democracies was raging. In comes Karl Popper and produces the formal philosophical formulation of the paradox. He starts at freedom and demonstrates that in order for a free open and peaceful society to exist, then they must be tolerant, but, they must not held tolerance as a tenet, instead being intolerant of any intolerance. It is important as the first philosophical formulation of liberal democratic thinking. It actually distances itself from communism because, according to Popper, communism and even socialism will always end up in bloodshed, violence, and suffering.

The concept of social contract was not unknown to Popper, but it was not necessary for his argument to make sense. For, since Weber, it’s understood as a given that wherever humans happen to live in community, some form of social contract will exist. Popper is not concerned with the existence of the contract, but to argue about its content.

This here - the social contract view needs to be widely adopted

That realization was life-changing for me. It finally gave me the clarity to walk away from toxic relationships, knowing they were the ones holding back any real growth.

The only downside is that trying to explain this to someone intolerant just gets you labeled, quote, “a stupid science removed who can’t make them smarter.”

Yeah i originally was going to write “seemingly paradoxically” but it made it seem more like I was saying “seems to demand…” And I wanted to make sure it came across as a definite, if you know what i mean.

I have a theory about lactose intolerance. You now how humans in general just struggle with digesting lactose unless the body has built up enzymes over time. I think lactose intolerant people are just dairy addicts haha.

Those are ok, they can stay.

As MartianSands pointed out, tolerance is not a philosophy; it is a social contract. When intolerance breaks that contract, the tolerant are under no obligation to tolerate it.

You don’t tolerate it…? Is this supposed to be a trick question? Sometimes when you don’t tolerate something, you are largely powerless against it and it still happens. Sucks, but that’s life. You don’t have to roll over and present your balls to the bat though.