The Slow DeCentis

[Nazi Flower Power]

Well, it kind of is as the GOP is anti-democratic and theocratic, and is making sure the suppress the vote. Not that I am a fan of the Dems, but they are better.

Same here. The democrats have problems and there definitely are some democrats I don’t like, but I would much rather live in a democratic state with freedom of sexuality and religion than in a Christian theocracy ran by Desantis.

Same. The Democratic Party can be very cringe on certain subjects, but the Jan 6 apologist election-denying types are worse, and the sane Republicans are all getting run out of town by the nutbars.

[Valles Marineris Mining co]

My dude conservatives calling what they don’t like “socialist/communist” is the same thing as progressives/liberals calling whatever they don’t like “fascism”

Calling desantis a fascinating is an extreme exaggerating and is why people is “Literally 1984” ironically nowadays.

[Drongonia]

You know what I meant.

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

Oh my fucking god. What am I supposed to call you then? You're being obtuse on purpose and its just lame and annoying. Very lousy debate/deflection tactic.

What I meant, if you truly needed to be told, is that Ron DeSantis would prefer a Christian theocracy over a fascist dictatorship.

[Nazi Flower Power]

America doesn’t really have that many old-fashioned early-mid 20th century European fascists though, we have a bunch of people living in a schizophrenic media ecosystem creating their own personal ideological dreamworlds, and then labeling themselves as this or that— psychologically and aesthetically, it seems very similar to left-wing idpol tbh. “I’m a right-wing evangelical” who fucks around and does coke, “I’m a paleoconservative” who eats tacos and is in an interracial relationship, “I’m a fascist” who also believes the government should leave me and my money alone under absolutely all circumstances, etc. ad nauseum. A lot of people who I’d describe as our version of fascists do think DeSantis might be their guy. Fascism, both in general through history and specifically in the US in this moment, is so ideologically slippery, and its adherents so ideologically incoherent, that it’s often only once a regime consolidates and carries out large-scale atrocities that people realize they’d been talking about it and laying the groundwork for years.

Also, can’t believe I didn’t catch this earlier, but there are a shitload of fascists who would do silly stunts like trying to pray a hurricane away! This is America honey!

Set pronouns to stun

Fascists in Germany (including neo-Nazi groups) attempted to launch a Coup based on the Jan 6th Capital Attack.

The reason we don't have mid 20th century fascists anymore is because it is the 21st century, and the different political landscape has changed many ideologies, including most forms of fascism.

Some fascists might long for the 20th century version but they are the minority.

Some of them still want the CSA back too, but you can't just come out and say, "Yeah, I want to bring back to slavery" and expect to get elected. You need to repackage the shit and trick people into thinking it's something new.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

Oh my fucking god. What am I supposed to call you then? You're being obtuse on purpose and its just lame and annoying. Very lousy debate/deflection tactic.

What I meant, if you truly needed to be told, is that Ron DeSantis would prefer a Christian theocracy over a fascist dictatorship.

Theocracy is not incompatible with Fascism.

Ever heard of Clerical Fascism?

[Nazi Flower Power]

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

Oh my fucking god. What am I supposed to call you then? You're being obtuse on purpose and its just lame and annoying. Very lousy debate/deflection tactic.

What I meant, if you truly needed to be told, is that Ron DeSantis would prefer a Christian theocracy over a fascist dictatorship.

Fascism and Christian theocracy can both exist at the same time.

It's not a good idea mind you, but it is possible.

[Senkaku]

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

Oh my fucking god. What am I supposed to call you then? You're being obtuse on purpose and its just lame and annoying. Very lousy debate/deflection tactic.

What I meant, if you truly needed to be told, is that Ron DeSantis would prefer a Christian theocracy over a fascist dictatorship.

Fascist sentiment in the US has almost always been tied to religion, specifically to Christianity, because of the American right’s perception of America as having been founded as a Christian state and the dominance of right-wing evangelicals and Catholics within the contemporary movement. A Christian theocracy in America will not be distinguishable from any other type of fascist regime except in the ideological window-dressing it uses; much as Japan, Germany, Italy, and North Korea shared tactical and organizational methods but not ideological justifications for their regimes’ continuation.

[Hispida]

Oh my fucking god. What am I supposed to call you then? You're being obtuse on purpose and its just lame and annoying. Very lousy debate/deflection tactic.

What I meant, if you truly needed to be told, is that Ron DeSantis would prefer a Christian theocracy over a fascist dictatorship.

Fascism and Christian theocracy can both exist at the same time.

It's not a good idea mind you, but it is possible.

not necessarily. one of the end goals of fascism is the replacement of religion with fascism. mussolini, for instance, paid lip service to religion when it suited him (be it the vatican or declaring himself "defender of islam"), and the nazis were actively anti-religion and persecuted christianity.

[Saiwana]

not necessarily. one of the end goals of fascism is the replacement of religion with fascism. mussolini, for instance, paid lip service to religion when it suited him (be it the vatican or declaring himself "defender of islam"), and the nazis were actively anti-religion and persecuted christianity.

Well, it just doesn't do to have an alternative power people have loyalties to that rival or overshadow the strength, stability, and security of the Empire? In contexts where the state is all consuming- the end goal is for it (in part) to become the religion of the people unto itself.

[Urkennalaid]

Fascism and Christian theocracy can both exist at the same time.

It's not a good idea mind you, but it is possible.

not necessarily. one of the end goals of fascism is the replacement of religion with fascism. mussolini, for instance, paid lip service to religion when it suited him (be it the vatican or declaring himself "defender of islam"), and the nazis were actively anti-religion and persecuted christianity.

I think you misunderstand how dumb neo-nazis are. There absolutely can be christian fascists. It doesn't matter if the og nazis were anti-religion, fascists use fascism to get whatever they want and don't care.

[Hispida]

not necessarily. one of the end goals of fascism is the replacement of religion with fascism. mussolini, for instance, paid lip service to religion when it suited him (be it the vatican or declaring himself "defender of islam"), and the nazis were actively anti-religion and persecuted christianity.

I think you misunderstand how dumb neo-nazis are. There absolutely can be christian fascists. It doesn't matter if the og nazis were anti-religion, fascists use fascism to get whatever they want and don't care.

you can have christian fascists, sure. but fascism and religion of any kind -- excluding fascism itself -- are inherently incompatible given fascism's end goal.

[El Lazaro]

I think you misunderstand how dumb neo-nazis are. There absolutely can be christian fascists. It doesn't matter if the og nazis were anti-religion, fascists use fascism to get whatever they want and don't care.

you can have christian fascists, sure. but fascism and religion of any kind -- excluding fascism itself -- are inherently incompatible given fascism's end goal.

I’m not against calling fascists dumb or hypocritical when it comes to religion, but you, a Christian Marxist-Leninist, might be in the wrong position to point out that Christianity and fascism are mutually incompatible.

[Drongonia]

I think you misunderstand how dumb neo-nazis are. There absolutely can be christian fascists. It doesn't matter if the og nazis were anti-religion, fascists use fascism to get whatever they want and don't care.

you can have christian fascists, sure. but fascism and religion of any kind -- excluding fascism itself -- are inherently incompatible given fascism's end goal.

Correct. Christian "fascism" is a real thing (see - non-liberalism), but Christian Fascism is hardly ever a thing.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm maybe we should start investigating the Florida politicians?

Bryan Slaton was the anti-grooming, drag shows are grooming events crusader in Texas.

Turns out he was a closeted groomer.

A committee just recommended expulsion

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/06 ... stigation/
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politic ... stigation/

Don't forget Kent Stermon

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -girl.html

I did forget about him. The scary thing was he served on serval boards for groups that help kids.

[La Xinga]

1. You literally said "yes" when I asked you if the people you agree with should be allowed to protest in capitol buildings but the people who you disagree with should not. How are you advocating for democracy?
2. My bad, we are a Republic. My point still stands.

You expect me to accept the laughable premise that it was an "insurrection!" I do not. Please tell me how the protesters planned to instate Trump as president. What process would they use? Would they just shout "Trump is the president!" in the capitol and expect all of the United States to bow to them?

By stopping the electoral certification, and killing Pence or any other politician that tried to stop them. Would that have actually worked? Maybe not, but the point is that they thought it would.

My position is that they were an angry ununified protester group which got violent, not a planned insurrection by the president or anything of the sort. You seem to be fluctuating between "IQs of goldfish unplanned mobbers" and "highly sophisticated planned group attempting to overthrow the most powerful government in the world.

No I'm not. I'm saying that they were a goldfish IQ mob who were dumb enough to try it. I don't know why you think it takes brains to just think you are capable of doing something, and thus try to do said something.
And we know that Trump was egging them on, don't even try to deny it.

Did Lee Oswald attempt to overthrow the United States Government? I don't think so.

It's almost like that was an entirely different set of circumstances or something. Is this supposed to be some kind of rebuttal?

Following the trail of quotes, it seems you're referring to me saying that it should be equally as "psychologically damaging" to not call me by the name which I want to be called as to not call me by the pronouns which I wish to be called.

Well, your actual name, sure. As far as your username on some country RP website? Who the fuck cares? If you were a boy named James and yet everyone around you called you Kimberly and exclusively referred to you as a girl, don't you think that would wear on you?

I obviously cannot speak for the entire Republican party, but I can say that I do not want trans people to be excluded from society in any way. My qualm is with the trans ideology.

...What the fuck is "the trans ideology"

I, like LCDB, completely hate this quote craziness, so I'm just doing one, two, etcetera.

1. They'd be able to reconvene a different time. It may be completely horrible, but it's not a threat to American Democracy!
   Yes, there's no way of knowing the thoughts of the protesters.
2. Ah yes. "Protest peacefully" means "KILL THE REPRESENTATIVES"!
3. Does killing government officials equate to overthrowing the Federal Government?
4. True, true. How about your race? Let's say I decided that I feel Filipino. I wasn't born that way, but say I feel that I was born in the wrong body. Am I a Filipino?
5. The belief that a person may change their sex/gender.

My bad, we are a Republic. My point still stands.

Representative democracy with an elected head of state is a form of democracy.

Then my point is even stronger.

1. He had two full-on fatal strokes which came from an event where he wasn't injured? Sounds.....interesting. Then again, anyone can be lying.

Question: Are you focusing on “Natural Causes”. I remember a couple political blog/commentators were arguing his death had nothing to do with Jan 6th as he died of natural causes…..

(I'm sorry that I missed this. )
Please, would you be able to tell me what you mean by "natural causes"? It is a possibility that he died due to events that occurred by Jan. 6th, but the medical examiner concluded that there was no evidence of injury infliction on his body.

1. You literally said "yes" when I asked you if the people you agree with should be allowed to protest in capitol buildings but the people who you disagree with should not. How are you advocating for democracy?

because fascists and their allies shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech. i'm a communist. my definition of "democracy" is probably different from yours. liberal democracy isn't democracy. paradox of tolerance and all that, as well.

Then to get this straight: You believe that the arresting of these protesters constitutes a free speech violation, but "Fascists" shouldn't be able to speak at all? Who decides who is a Fascist? You probably believe that Trump and all of his supporters are Fascists, which would make almost have of the country lose the right to speak freely.

2. My bad, we are a Republic. My point still stands.

not really, no.

america is not "by the people, for the people, of the people" like lincoln claimed. it was never intended to be. the american political system was explicitly designed to keep the common people out of the political process, even for liberal standards (which is already an inherently exclusionary and anti-democratic system). your beloved american "republic" is only a republic because we don't have a monarch. the people have no say in america. we were never intended to.

This isn't the Roman Republic. Any person who's not a criminal and over the age of 18 can vote. You can vote for whomever you like. What other system do you want to put in place which is more "for the people"? It seems your proposal calls for a more Authoritarian United States, where certain people lose the right to speak based on whom you believe is a "Fascist".

[United Calanworie]

This isn't the Roman Republic. Any person who's not a criminal and over the age of 21 can vote. You can vote for whomever you like. What other system do you want to put in place which is more "for the people"? It seems your proposal calls for a more Authoritarian United States, where certain people lose the right to speak based on whom you believe is a "Fascist".

First off, over the age of 18.

Secondly, the independent state legislature theory does in fact mean that people are actively trying to strip the vote from their opponents.

Thirdly, yes, fascists deserve every single last bit of "fuck you" we can give them, and if it means that they lose any shred of political power whatsoever, I will shed zero tears. I will advocate for stripping them of any political power that they may gain through whatever means are necessary to stop them. Because anybody who promotes the white replacement theory or who calls for the "eradication of transgenderism," or who says all gay people should be "shot in the back of the head" or who calls for gays to be executed for an "AIDS free Christmas" or who targeted gay people and laughed at them dying of AIDS, and the list goes on, but anybody who falls into those groups needs to have their power in this country stripped away, by any means necessary. Because if they don't, they will try to kill me and my friends for the "crime" of existing.

And I can't stand that happening any more than it already is.

[La Xinga]

This isn't the Roman Republic. Any person who's not a criminal and over the age of 21 can vote. You can vote for whomever you like. What other system do you want to put in place which is more "for the people"? It seems your proposal calls for a more Authoritarian United States, where certain people lose the right to speak based on whom you believe is a "Fascist".

First off, over the age of 18.

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

Secondly, the independent state legislature theory does in fact mean that people are actively trying to strip the vote from their opponents.

Thirdly, yes, fascists deserve every single last bit of "fuck you" we can give them, and if it means that they lose any shred of political power whatsoever, I will shed zero tears. I will advocate for stripping them of any political power that they may gain through whatever means are necessary to stop them. Because anybody who promotes the white replacement theory or who calls for the "eradication of transgenderism," or who says all gay people should be "shot in the back of the head" or who calls for gays to be executed for an "AIDS free Christmas" or who targeted gay people and laughed at them dying of AIDS, and the list goes on, but anybody who falls into those groups needs to have their power in this country stripped away, by any means necessary. Because if they don't, they will try to kill me and my friends for the "crime" of existing.

And I can't stand that happening any more than it already is.

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?
Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

[Jellian Federation]

First off, over the age of 18.

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

Secondly, the independent state legislature theory does in fact mean that people are actively trying to strip the vote from their opponents.

Thirdly, yes, fascists deserve every single last bit of "fuck you" we can give them, and if it means that they lose any shred of political power whatsoever, I will shed zero tears. I will advocate for stripping them of any political power that they may gain through whatever means are necessary to stop them. Because anybody who promotes the white replacement theory or who calls for the "eradication of transgenderism," or who says all gay people should be "shot in the back of the head" or who calls for gays to be executed for an "AIDS free Christmas" or who targeted gay people and laughed at them dying of AIDS, and the list goes on, but anybody who falls into those groups needs to have their power in this country stripped away, by any means necessary. Because if they don't, they will try to kill me and my friends for the "crime" of existing.

And I can't stand that happening any more than it already is.

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?
Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

The people who fought the fascists with their own blood were also largely opposed racial integration.


If transgenderism is an ideology than straightisim is also an ideology.
If you don’t want to eradicate the nazi ideology, why should any other ideology be eradicated.



A tolerant society has to be intolerant of intolerance.

The only intolerance allowed in a tolerant society.

[Necroghastia]

First off, over the age of 18.

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

Secondly, the independent state legislature theory does in fact mean that people are actively trying to strip the vote from their opponents.

Thirdly, yes, fascists deserve every single last bit of "fuck you" we can give them, and if it means that they lose any shred of political power whatsoever, I will shed zero tears. I will advocate for stripping them of any political power that they may gain through whatever means are necessary to stop them. Because anybody who promotes the white replacement theory or who calls for the "eradication of transgenderism," or who says all gay people should be "shot in the back of the head" or who calls for gays to be executed for an "AIDS free Christmas" or who targeted gay people and laughed at them dying of AIDS, and the list goes on, but anybody who falls into those groups needs to have their power in this country stripped away, by any means necessary. Because if they don't, they will try to kill me and my friends for the "crime" of existing.

And I can't stand that happening any more than it already is.

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?

This is a distinction without difference. It's like saying you don't want to eradicate gay people, just homosexuality. It makes no goddamn sense.

Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism.

Well, about that...

Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

"LGBTers," that's a new one.
And sure, maybe you don't wish death. Maybe that's a step too far, for you. Abject misery, however... that's not a dealbreaker for your support of those that DO wish us death.

[United Calanworie]

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.

I 'unno man, you look at that district and tell me that's not an attempt to disenfranchise voters *right now*. God only knows what they'll do once they get to do whatever they want with no judicial oversight. And yes, it's a active SCOTUS case as we speak.

To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt. Sure. Definitely. We can toooooootaaaallllyyyyy split the difference between "I think that we need to prevent people from transitioning and being who they are" and "I want to kill them all," because we definitely don't have research showing that 40%+ of transgender individuals have had suicidal ideation at least once in their lives and that appropriate care (allowing them to transition) reduces the risk of suicide by 70-80%. Definitely. Totally not "let's have them kill themselves" dressed up.

You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?

No. Everyone who opposes trans rights is a rectangle. Fascists are a square.

Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

I've attempted to phrase this in the best way I can for the last bit. The paradox of tolerance states that in order to have a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance. Whenever I have a conversation with conservative people, I always wind up having to discuss this, so I've kind of got a spiel at this point. I fundamentally believe that conservative politics are bad for society. We do nothing but cause harm through regression and an attempt to "return to the good old days," because the "good old days" were never actually that good, it's just that the people who were harmed couldn't speak up about it. So yes, if your hypothetical were to happen and right-wingers were to be barred from voting because they wished to suppress the rights of minorities to exist, I doubt I would shed a single tear at their loss. If you happen to fall into that group because you don't like "the gays," or have a problem with trans people existing beyond what their AGAB allows, I will shed no tears for your loss either.

[Urkennalaid]

First off, over the age of 18.

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

Secondly, the independent state legislature theory does in fact mean that people are actively trying to strip the vote from their opponents.

Thirdly, yes, fascists deserve every single last bit of "fuck you" we can give them, and if it means that they lose any shred of political power whatsoever, I will shed zero tears. I will advocate for stripping them of any political power that they may gain through whatever means are necessary to stop them. Because anybody who promotes the white replacement theory or who calls for the "eradication of transgenderism," or who says all gay people should be "shot in the back of the head" or who calls for gays to be executed for an "AIDS free Christmas" or who targeted gay people and laughed at them dying of AIDS, and the list goes on, but anybody who falls into those groups needs to have their power in this country stripped away, by any means necessary. Because if they don't, they will try to kill me and my friends for the "crime" of existing.

And I can't stand that happening any more than it already is.

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?
Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

Oh you know EXACTLY what he meant by saying he wants to eradicate transgenderism. That goes hand in hand with being transgender. Also, the OG fascists, the nazis, literally targeted trans people. They burnt books on trans healthcare, since the Weimar Republic was pretty tolerant of trans people, even for the 20s and 30s. The first ever bottom surgery occurred during the Weimar Republic. Also, it's pretty obvious the type of rhetoric fascists use.

It's always funny how, "the left calls everyone a fascist" is now being used for people who are out and about fascists. Like they can deny it(simply because everyone knows the nazis are bad, even nazis who want a platform know they can't openly declare themselves as nazis). This discussion is also about Desantis, and there is gearing up of genocide against trans people.

Genocide didn't start out by immediately throwing people in camps. It started through the process of dehumanization, laws making it illegal to own property or to be in public, etc. Like professors and researchers of the subject of genocide or the holocaust always state how there's 10 steps of genocide and how each process goes further and further. It's a pretty well known thing.

[Urkennalaid]

I've attempted to phrase this in the best way I can for the last bit. The paradox of tolerance states that in order to have a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance. Whenever I have a conversation with conservative people, I always wind up having to discuss this, so I've kind of got a spiel at this point. I fundamentally believe that conservative politics are bad for society. We do nothing but cause harm through regression and an attempt to "return to the good old days," because the "good old days" were never actually that good, it's just that the people who were harmed couldn't speak up about it. So yes, if your hypothetical were to happen and right-wingers were to be barred from voting because they wished to suppress the rights of minorities to exist, I doubt I would shed a single tear at their loss. If you happen to fall into that group because you don't like "the gays," or have a problem with trans people existing beyond what their AGAB allows, I will shed no tears for your loss either.

I've grown so tired of right-wing politics in America and the way our country has been for centuries that I can't even act like I care about what the right cries about anymore. They're intolerant of us. I see right-wingers out here calling lgbtq people pedos, I see them calling a homeless black man "bum floyd" like why should I give a shit if they get banned off the internet or don't have a platform? As an autistic bisexual black young man, I don't give a fuck, my rights aren't up for debate. The Democrats keep trying to do civility politics, but like, the Republicans would melt the Democratic party if they had the chance. I won't be tolerant to right-wingers, especially considering I have to actively figure out which states are red enough that might be a danger for me.

Completely agree with the sentiment here.

[Page]

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

The Night of Long Knives was just about the only thing the nazis did right, but unfortunately the knives weren't long enough for them to turn around and stab themselves too.

[Beric]

...

Snipped

So, it's in a sense more discriminatory towards teachers, as while students can still offer up their pronouns on their own inititative, teachers are prohibited from doing so outright.

I realize this is for K-12, I'm having difficulty finding a bill referring to college policy atm

Many thanks for posting that. And the college part was my own interpretation so may not be involved.
So people feel that teachers should have more freedom of expression in regard to pronouns.and i deed they seem to retain them. Nothing in the above prohibits them from doing so in private or with peers. It only refers to what teachers can say to students which actually seems in keeping with freedom of speech laws in regards to teachers historically.

So... say there's a trans man teacher. Big burly bearded guy. That teacher is forced to use the title of "Ms." or "Mrs." and use female pronouns, no ifs ands or buts. Is that... not a problem?

Self expression is important as is freedom of speech and any infringement of these rights on a person in a non public setting is cause for concern. But there are and have been laws that limit what a person says when public facing. What the teachers refers to themselves as in private should not be infringed upon. But what they say when public facing does come with certain regulations. Just like a representative for a company is constrained by law not to release material inside information unless they are empowered to do so. So the question becomes is the regulations and requirements issued legitimately by representatives and policy makers empowered to do so? If yes, then no problem.

Yeah, it does seem weak if you just look at one or two, not the entire god damned slew of laws, and the legislators that are outright calling trans people less than human and outright demonic.

-->I inquired about the text of the laws. Asking what was objectionable. -->You provided objectionable text of the law and how it is discriminatory. -->I reviewed and responded to said text believing it was within the confines of law.-->You say. Yes, that text is weak but if you take into account everything that I didn't say it is bad.

[The Astral Mandate]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.