The Slow DeCentis

[El Lazaro]

El Lazaro, please! It is time to take your medicine. These "boogeymen" you speak of... these "fascists", they haunt your every waking moment!

Do you rather mean........freemasons?

/ignorethispost

General is IC and generally confined to frivolous discussion, unlike F7. The vast, Freemasonic subterranean conspiracy is a more serious, OOC issue that is not to be discussed on this forum.

[Jellian Federation]

Calling avowed Nazis “fascists” is not “schizo” as you would like to believe.

El Lazaro, buddy, buddy. I think I explained in a large, very clearly defined and worded post, riiiight up there, which explained why the idea that the Strasserists- just because they are classified as "Nazis"- were fascist, is incorrect, based on their political beliefs, their economic ideals, and the fact that their beliefs directly contradicted with the most basic definition of fascism.

But once again, you are incapable of actually coming up with any sensible argument against me, so as always you have to resort to... well, the usual. FASCIST! GRRRAWRGH!!

Nazis are the textbook fascists.
You are trying to massage the definitions but it doesn’t matter.
Pedagogy aside,
Fascist means nazi, and not the other way around.

[El Lazaro]

Calling avowed Nazis “fascists” is not “schizo” as you would like to believe.

El Lazaro, buddy, buddy. I think I explained in a large, very clearly defined and worded post, riiiight up there, which explained why the idea that the Strasserists- just because they are classified as "Nazis"- were fascist, is incorrect, based on their political beliefs, their economic ideals, and the fact that their beliefs directly contradicted with the most basic definition of fascism.

But once again, you are incapable of actually coming up with any sensible argument against me, so as always you have to resort to... well, the usual. FASCIST! GRRRAWRGH!!

They were fascists, and so are you. Fascism isn’t just a specific economic model with no other political implications, and redefining it as such just makes you look silly and desperate.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

El Lazaro, buddy, buddy. I think I explained in a large, very clearly defined and worded post, riiiight up there, which explained why the idea that the Strasserists- just because they are classified as "Nazis"- were fascist, is incorrect, based on their political beliefs, their economic ideals, and the fact that their beliefs directly contradicted with the most basic definition of fascism.

But once again, you are incapable of actually coming up with any sensible argument against me, so as always you have to resort to... well, the usual. FASCIST! GRRRAWRGH!!

Nazis are the textbook fascists.
You are trying to massage the definitions but it doesn’t matter.
Pedagogy aside,
Fascist means nazi, and not the other way around.

It kind of does? Because Strasserists are not Nazis. The two actually share virtually nothing in common aside from 3 things, of which Nazism is far, far more extremist about.

[Necroghastia]

I think it’s telling we are talking about nazis in the Ron desantis thread.

It's off topic, I will engage in it no longer

There is no correlation to DeSantis and the GOP with Hitler and the Nazis, these are just emotional insults; can we take our chill pills for a moment and acknowledge that DeSantis is a good guy who means well along with the GOP who are our friends and noble opposition.

Just a good guy with good intentions with no parallels to the Nazis, who used a moral panic over LGBT people to oppress them and ignored/outright quashed any actual data that proved their dogshit (on multiple fronts) wrong.

Man you can't even actually argue the GOP means well, we're talking people that call children mutants and literal goddamn demons.

[El Lazaro]

Nazis are the textbook fascists.
You are trying to massage the definitions but it doesn’t matter.
Pedagogy aside,
Fascist means nazi, and not the other way around.

It kind of does? Because Strasserists are not Nazis. The two actually share virtually nothing in common aside from 3 things, of which Nazism is far, far more extremist about.

K. Sure. You’re totally not just saying this to cope and remain in denial.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

El Lazaro, buddy, buddy. I think I explained in a large, very clearly defined and worded post, riiiight up there, which explained why the idea that the Strasserists- just because they are classified as "Nazis"- were fascist, is incorrect, based on their political beliefs, their economic ideals, and the fact that their beliefs directly contradicted with the most basic definition of fascism.

But once again, you are incapable of actually coming up with any sensible argument against me, so as always you have to resort to... well, the usual. FASCIST! GRRRAWRGH!!

They were fascists, and so are you. Fascism isn’t just a specific economic model with no other political implications, and redefining it as such just makes you look silly and desperate.

You're right. Fascism ISN'T just a specific economic model with no other political implications. Except I didn't explain it as just an "economic model". It's okay, hun. Marxist talk like "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" is confusing .
Again, I have to wonder- how am I a fascist? You like throwing that word around a lot, but I can't help but wonder if you just apply that to everybody you don't like a-la all leftists or "liberals".

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

It kind of does? Because Strasserists are not Nazis. The two actually share virtually nothing in common aside from 3 things, of which Nazism is far, far more extremist about.

K. Sure. You’re totally not just saying this to cope and remain in denial.

I mean, I'm going to continue to deny your idea that the Strasserists were fascists until you actually provide a proper rebuttal... which you have yet to do. That's like, how debates work my guy. You have to actually bring in your argument.

[La Xinga]

Why not? Take the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews: They wished to eliminate Judaism, not the Jewish people themselves. It is possible to eliminate an "ism" without murdering the people who practice said "ism".

Cool story. Still genocidal.

I'm assuming then, that under you definition of genocide, it does not involve exclusively murder. Either way, it is just semantics.

Perhaps those times were when this thing began, but that doesn't mean the majority of people, including the soldiery, supported it. For example, your first example was denied a marriage license. Your first example's "spouse" also lost his job when it was found out what happened.

So? The government was run by conservative loons. Besides:

Jorgensen was an instant celebrity when she returned to New York in February 1953. A large crowd of journalists met her as she came off her flight, and despite the Danish royal family being on the same flight, the audience largely ignored them in favor of Jorgensen.[18] Soon after her arrival, she launched a successful nightclub act and appeared on television, radio, and theatrical productions. The first five-part authorized account of her story was written by herself in a February 1953 issue of The American Weekly, titled "The Story of My Life." In 1967, she published her autobiography, Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Autobiography, which sold almost 450,000 copies

And in case you missed it, she was literally in the military in WW2.

"Conservative loons." Your opinion on Conservatives revealed there!
You also seem to be making contradictory points: When I showed examples of your examples having their preferred identity being rejected, you responded with "The government was run by conservative loons," although when people buy the book, that must mean that they support said person, rather than just being interested.
Also, your first example served in the army before the "transition"!

Your second example was arrested for cross-dressing. Your third example had a mob of students attack the institute in which your third example stayed.

You mean literal goddamn Nazis. A mob of students composed of honest to god, no bones about it, Nazis.

That does not change my point that there are people who did not accept it at the time. Not only Nazis, but, from the other examples which I gave, the government itself, which is elected by the people.

I don't know, that's the term I use to encompass the whole movement.

Well, it's fucking stupid. Like, what does it even mean? How does the suffix "-er" which means "does [x] thing" make sense connected to an acronym like that?

Well, they do indeed do LGBT stuff, like pride parades and sticking it in their bio, or surgeries or the activities of the Ls and the Gs and the Bs....
If it would make you happier, I can say LGBTists.

And what's this "step too far"? You seem to be suggesting that I do want to kill them, which I denied.

No, I'm suggesting that you care so little for LGBT people that supporting people that do want them eliminated is not a dealbreaker, at least as long as they don't say the quiet part out loud.

You know that they wish for them to die how, exactly? It's easy to say, after all, "He said this, but he really means this! Trust me!"

And will any person really be in "abject misery" for people denying that he is the opposite sex/gender?

Jesus Christ, YES. Fucking obviously. Do you know anything of psychology?

I do indeed remember the massive amounts of suicide in history by people who thought they were the opposite sex.

The other alternative is people being forced to lie to themselves, or at least what they believe is lying to themselves. Seems to be as equally painful.

How the fuck do you get that? Do you think flat-earthers or antivaxxers are as valid, despite them being grounded in reality as much as transphobes? ANd what part of that would be fundamentally denying a part of their own goddamn identity? How in the hell do you think that that is at ALL equivalent?

I disagree with your "grounded in reality" premise, but I will say that I will not force flat-earthers to recognize the earth is round in any way, despite how blatantly true it is.
Having to, each time your refer to a person, call them by what pronoun the speaker does not want to say, as it's false, is denying truth. What shows that denying what someone claims is their identity is more "traumatic" than being forced to lie to oneself every time one speaks about one of these "trans people".

I'm fine with someone being opposed to racial integration not being labled a Fascist. I undoubtedly believe it's wrong, but it's not Fascist. It's pointless labeling everything which you don't like "Fascist", like Hispida did.

Well shoot dang, it's good that we're not doing that.

You do claim that you can tell what is in a man's mind, so I'm not surprised if you wish to censor people who really aren't Fascists.

What is this "equating denial with death"? If I disagree that a man could become a woman, the person who wants to do that will kill himself/herself/whatever, heaven forbid. If you knew someone who is White but claims to be Taiwanese, would you engage in the lie to make him feel comfortable? How about a thirty year old who claims to be seventy? What if any of these two people would commit suicide if not recognized by every single person that they are what they claimed to be? Should the latter person receive retirement benefits for the amount he worked?

Again, you are doing nothing but demonstrating that you know nothing of the actual science of being trans, if you think these are remotely good equivalences.

You've still never explained this, just repeatedly stating, "You know nothing!"

I also fail to see how, by not referring to the students by their preferred pronouns, DeSantis is murdering these students.

DeSantis is doing a hell of a lot more than that, which you would know if you bothered to actually pay attention to anything. Also, again, denial of a fundamental part of their identity, etc etc.

Once again, "You know nothing! Trust me!"
You still have not explained why denying what they claim is their identity equals death. If someone really believed that I was Filipino and had it in his mind and out of his mind that I was, that would not lead to death.

You're not going to claim that this is a Republican-only thing, right? Have you seen the Maryland districts from the last decade?

Some obvious words-in-mouth up there.
And what's the source for that? It better not be the Trevor Project or anything of the sort.

Oh, great. What do you have against them of all people?

They are obviously a biased source. You're not going to deny that, are you?

And furthermore, although I obviously do not want these people to kill themselves, to what extent must I lie to make people not commit suicide? Do I have to recognize someone as a fish if he claims that he will kill himself if he's not recognized as a fish?

Who said anything about lying? By acknowledging a trans person's gender you are only acknowledging reality.

Another "Accept this premise which I have not proven"?

I think your metaphor is suggesting that there are no Fascists who do not oppose trans rights; am I correct?

I have nothing wrong with those people who identify themselves as transgender existing.

Your whole post demonstrates this to be a lie. Ironic, since you have whined so much about "being forced to lie to yourself."

Why does everything have to be with you, "You believe this! You don't know this!"? I know what I believe in and what I know.

You're not going to claim that this is a Republican-only thing, right? Have you seen the Maryland districts from the last decade?

lmfao no, I will not. Both parties in power are doing this, but only one is doing it and then pursuing legislation that targets me personally, so... I don't really care that the dems are doing it as well. Mostly because they aren't out to strip me of my rights or hypothetical children.

Ah, it's only okay when our party takes advantage of loopholes. Besides, transgenderism wasn't the issue here, if you follow the quotes.

Some obvious words-in-mouth up there.
And what's the source for that? It better not be the Trevor Project or anything of the sort.

It's not words-in-mouth. It's them not saying the quiet part out loud. Source on suicidal ideation and risk, sure:
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, DOI 10.1177/0886260520915554:

Abstract:
Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth.

Sorry, I was seriously understating the problem.

JAMA Network Open, DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0978

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, we observed 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated PBs or GAHs compared with youths who had not. There was no association between PBs or GAHs and anxiety (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41, 2.51).

PBs = puberty blockers, GAHs = gender-affirming hormones

Ignoring the biases of JAMA Network Open, the study was conducted at a gender-affirming clinic. It's obvious that whatever comes from those patients who seek to receive "care" there that it'll be in support of the transgender ideology.
Besides, why do I have to call them by false pronouns so they will not commit suicide? I obviously do not wish for them to kill themselves (heaven forbid!), but I do not have to lie to myself to ensure that. Also, I wonder where all the suicides for not being "gender-affirmed" were before the year...2010?

I have nothing wrong with those people who identify themselves as transgender existing. You still have not defined who the Fascists will be who you will disenfranchise, and I have a feeling it will be something along the lines of "people I disagree with".

I don't have a particular list off the top of my head, but no, I have no interest in disenfranchising groups simply because I disagree with them. I do, however, have an interest in preventing groups from holding power who wish to kill others, or for others to die. Any group. Not just ones who would target me. If there's a group that would target people on the basis of their political affiliation, I don't want them to hold power either

Nobody wants LGBT people to die! Name one currently-serving national politician who advocated the death of LGBT people (and not "He claimed that a person cannot be transgender and thus advocated for them to die a painful death!").

Very interesting you conveniently ignore the part where we say how fascists, like the literal nazis held the same views on trans people and some of the first books burned in nazi germany was books relating to trans medical research.

Both sides held that people cannot "change their gender", obviously. I don't think even you would deny that.

Also, gotta love the same argument every transphobic right-winger brings up, "oh, you can change your gender but what happens when someone changes their race?" Almost like ethnicity is a biological factor and gender is a societal construct which has changed throughout history.

How is it a societal construct? When a cow gets born, you can tell if it's a male or a female. No one is questioning that (or at least, I hope). We can reliably assign it a gender without asking for its opinion. In fact, we can't, because it's a cow. Yet, when it comes to humans, we suddenly must respect whatever they claim their gender is, despite the biological facter.
You can argue that sex and gender are different (which I've seen some on the left do and some on the left do not), that sex is biological and gender is what a person feels, but then which one do I have to respect? If you'll argue that while gender and sex are both to be respected, but pronouns are to be dependent on gender, then why can I reliably call some cows "he" and some cows "she"?

Also, in the poll, can there be an option for supporting some but not all of Ronald DeSantis' actions?

If that option was only now to be put in the poll, the entire poll would be reset.

[La Xinga]

Do you rather mean........freemasons?

/ignorethispost

General is IC and generally confined to frivolous discussion, unlike F7. The vast, Freemasonic subterranean conspiracy is a more serious, OOC issue that is not to be discussed on this forum.

Which is why I placed a "/ignorethispost" on it. It was just a little joke to lighten up the discussion somewhat, that's all.

[El Lazaro]

They were fascists, and so are you. Fascism isn’t just a specific economic model with no other political implications, and redefining it as such just makes you look silly and desperate.

You're right. Fascism ISN'T just a specific economic model with no other political implications. Except I didn't explain it as just an "economic model". It's okay, hun. Marxist talk like "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" is confusing .
Again, I have to wonder- how am I a fascist? You like throwing that word around a lot, but I can't help but wonder if you just apply that to everybody you don't like a-la all leftists or "liberals".

You just never stopped being one. It’s telling that you’re defending Strasserites on the basis that self-proclaimed socialists can’t be fascists, while you also claim you stopped being a fascist when you became a Marxist-Leninist even though you’re pro-Russia and hold ultranationalist views. You also seem to have an embarrassingly rudimentary (not even, at times) understanding of anything on the topic of Marxism. Maybe Strasserism wouldn’t be such a touchy subject for you if you weren’t thinking about your not being a fascist depending on them not being fascists either, even though they quite clearly were.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

You're right. Fascism ISN'T just a specific economic model with no other political implications. Except I didn't explain it as just an "economic model". It's okay, hun. Marxist talk like "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" is confusing .
Again, I have to wonder- how am I a fascist? You like throwing that word around a lot, but I can't help but wonder if you just apply that to everybody you don't like a-la all leftists or "liberals".

You just never stopped being one. It’s telling that you’re defending Strasserites on the basis that self-proclaimed socialists can’t be fascists, while you also claim you stopped being a fascist when you became a Marxist-Leninist even though you’re pro-Russia and hold ultranationalist views. You also seem to have an embarrassingly rudimentary (not even, at times) understanding of anything on the topic of Marxism. Maybe Strasserism wouldn’t be such a touchy subject for you if you weren’t thinking about your not being a fascist depending on them not being fascists either, even though they quite clearly were.

Aah... yes. The ideology which very clearly stated over and over again, despite overwhelming opposition within the party that was fascist, that they were socialist, adhered to Marxism and believed in Marxism (if not a statist form of socialism)... were not socialist, because... uhm... they were fascist.
This is very good logic! Except it is not. This is not an explanation of why the Strasserists were fascists. Simply saying "This is true" is not a sufficient argument.
I can also go even further considering that the Strasserists, which were dominant in the Sturmabteilung, often challenged attempts by the German government to break up workers' strikes and also called for an alliance with the communists... they also split off from the Nazi Party directly with their own party, etc. etc...
... Meanwhile you here have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Again! This is debate 101. One cannot simply say "X is true" without backing it up!

And again, boogeymen... boogeymen. I'll entertain these thoughts.
- I am no longer a Marxist-Leninist. I rejected the fundamental state capitalism and state socialism of the Soviet Union and Stalin months ago.
- It's true, guys. I mentioned the fact that Ukraine's actions before 2014 were partially to blame for the start of the Donbass war, thus I am pro-Russia!
- Ultranationalism...? Ironically, to make Europeans mad about America sure. But I stopped that LARPing shit ages ago. At the most I'd consider myself a subscriber to the idea of "socialist patriotism" or left-wing nationalism. I lost any and all resemblance of nationalism or patriotism to America ages ago.

Strasserism isn't a touchy subject for me. It's just that I am a huge fucking nerd (LOSER!) and feel the need to correct people to feel better about myself.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

You just never stopped being one. It’s telling that you’re defending Strasserites on the basis that self-proclaimed socialists can’t be fascists, while you also claim you stopped being a fascist when you became a Marxist-Leninist even though you’re pro-Russia and hold ultranationalist views. You also seem to have an embarrassingly rudimentary (not even, at times) understanding of anything on the topic of Marxism. Maybe Strasserism wouldn’t be such a touchy subject for you if you weren’t thinking about your not being a fascist depending on them not being fascists either, even though they quite clearly were.

Aah... yes. The ideology which very clearly stated over and over again, despite overwhelming opposition within the party that was fascist, that they were socialist, adhered to Marxism and believed in Marxism (if not a statist form of socialism)... were not socialist, because... uhm... they were fascist.
This is very good logic! Except it is not. This is not an explanation of why the Strasserists were fascists. Simply saying "This is true" is not a sufficient argument.
I can also go even further considering that the Strasserists, which were dominant in the Sturmabteilung, often challenged attempts by the German government to break up workers' strikes and also called for an alliance with the communists... they also split off from the Nazi Party directly with their own party, etc. etc...
... Meanwhile you here have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Again! This is debate 101. One cannot simply say "X is true" without backing it up!

And again, boogeymen... boogeymen. I'll entertain these thoughts.
- I am no longer a Marxist-Leninist. I rejected the fundamental state capitalism and state socialism of the Soviet Union and Stalin months ago.
- It's true, guys. I mentioned the fact that Ukraine's actions before 2014 were partially to blame for the start of the Donbass war, thus I am pro-Russia!
- Ultranationalism...? Ironically, to make Europeans mad about America sure. But I stopped that LARPing shit ages ago. At the most I'd consider myself a subscriber to the idea of "socialist patriotism" or left-wing nationalism. I lost any and all resemblance of nationalism or patriotism to America ages ago.

Strasserism isn't a touchy subject for me. It's just that I am a huge fucking nerd (LOSER!) and feel the need to correct people to feel better about myself.

But Strasserists are still antisemitic, right?
Strasserists are still authoritarian, right?
Strasserism was still German, right?
Strasserism still took from Nazism, right?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Aah... yes. The ideology which very clearly stated over and over again, despite overwhelming opposition within the party that was fascist, that they were socialist, adhered to Marxism and believed in Marxism (if not a statist form of socialism)... were not socialist, because... uhm... they were fascist.
This is very good logic! Except it is not. This is not an explanation of why the Strasserists were fascists. Simply saying "This is true" is not a sufficient argument.
I can also go even further considering that the Strasserists, which were dominant in the Sturmabteilung, often challenged attempts by the German government to break up workers' strikes and also called for an alliance with the communists... they also split off from the Nazi Party directly with their own party, etc. etc...
... Meanwhile you here have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Again! This is debate 101. One cannot simply say "X is true" without backing it up!

And again, boogeymen... boogeymen. I'll entertain these thoughts.
- I am no longer a Marxist-Leninist. I rejected the fundamental state capitalism and state socialism of the Soviet Union and Stalin months ago.
- It's true, guys. I mentioned the fact that Ukraine's actions before 2014 were partially to blame for the start of the Donbass war, thus I am pro-Russia!
- Ultranationalism...? Ironically, to make Europeans mad about America sure. But I stopped that LARPing shit ages ago. At the most I'd consider myself a subscriber to the idea of "socialist patriotism" or left-wing nationalism. I lost any and all resemblance of nationalism or patriotism to America ages ago.

Strasserism isn't a touchy subject for me. It's just that I am a huge fucking nerd (LOSER!) and feel the need to correct people to feel better about myself.

But Strasserists are still antisemitic, right?
Strasserists are still authoritarian, right?
Strasserism was still German, right?
Strasserism still took from Nazism, right?

- The Strasserists were antisemitic yes, but they did not believe that the Jews were an "inferior race" or wished to kill them en-masse. The antisemitism of the Strasserists was purely economic in nature- they thought that the Jewish population had far too much influence and power within the management and running of the economy. Key word here is "thought"... because yes indeed while the Jewish population in Germany was a minority but influential, they did not have as much influence as the Nazis believed.
- Yes, Strasserim is authoritarian. But their authoritarianism was based on the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the larping totalitarianism of the Nazis.
- ... I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean 'Strasserism originated from Germany', then you are correct! It did. If you mean 'Strasserism is solely a German ideology and is directly tied to Germany, and cannot be removed from it'... you are... partially correct, actually. Yes, Strasserism believed in Pan-Germanism like Nazism. But it also believed in a form of pan-nationalism where each ethnic group deserved their own workers' state... they believed in right to self-determination, surprisingly, which is something the Nazis did not share.
- Once again, no. The Strasserists did not "take" from Nazism. The ideologies developed independently from one another- antisemitism, authoritarianism and pan-German thoughts were already present in the preceding Deutsches Arbeiterpartei (DAP) before Hitler even stepped foot in there.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

But Strasserists are still antisemitic, right?
Strasserists are still authoritarian, right?
Strasserism was still German, right?
Strasserism still took from Nazism, right?

- The Strasserists were antisemitic yes, but they did not believe that the Jews were an "inferior race" or wished to kill them en-masse. The antisemitism of the Strasserists was purely economic in nature- they thought that the Jewish population had far too much influence and power within the management and running of the economy. Key word here is "thought"... because yes indeed while the Jewish population in Germany was a minority but influential, they did not have as much influence as the Nazis believed.
- Yes, Strasserim is authoritarian. But their authoritarianism was based on the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the larping totalitarianism of the Nazis.
- ... I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean 'Strasserism originated from Germany', then you are correct! It did. If you mean 'Strasserism is solely a German ideology and is directly tied to Germany, and cannot be removed from it'... you are... partially correct, actually. Yes, Strasserism believed in Pan-Germanism like Nazism. But it also believed in a form of pan-nationalism where each ethnic group deserved their own workers' state... they believed in right to self-determination, surprisingly, which is something the Nazis did not share.
- Once again, no. The Strasserists did not "take" from Nazism. The ideologies developed independently from one another- antisemitism, authoritarianism and pan-German thoughts were already present in the preceding Deutsches Arbeiterpartei (DAP) before Hitler even stepped foot in there.

At this point I feel like that all of us are running around trying to prove if one dead ideology is the same as another dead ideology or not.

Let's just agree to disagree, and get off of the subject. Already we have got so off topic I'm surprised a mod hasn't gotten involved yet.

[Necroghastia]

Cool story. Still genocidal.

I'm assuming then, that under you definition of genocide, it does not involve exclusively murder. Either way, it is just semantics.

Note that the UN Genocide Convention's definition also does not necessitate murder.

So? The government was run by conservative loons. Besides:

Jorgensen was an instant celebrity when she returned to New York in February 1953. A large crowd of journalists met her as she came off her flight, and despite the Danish royal family being on the same flight, the audience largely ignored them in favor of Jorgensen.[18] Soon after her arrival, she launched a successful nightclub act and appeared on television, radio, and theatrical productions. The first five-part authorized account of her story was written by herself in a February 1953 issue of The American Weekly, titled "The Story of My Life." In 1967, she published her autobiography, Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Autobiography, which sold almost 450,000 copies

And in case you missed it, she was literally in the military in WW2.

"Conservative loons." Your opinion on Conservatives revealed there!

Yeah, is it not loony what they did?

You also seem to be making contradictory points: When I showed examples of your examples having their preferred identity being rejected, you responded with "The government was run by conservative loons," although when people buy the book, that must mean that they support said person, rather than just being interested.

A populace can have a differing attitude from the government, you realize.

Also, your first example served in the army before the "transition"!

...and? Your point was that "bluh bluh the people fighting fascists wouldn't approve either bluh bluh" and yet, here we are, a person who fought fascists who not only approved of being trans, but was trans herself.

You mean literal goddamn Nazis. A mob of students composed of honest to god, no bones about it, Nazis.

That does not change my point that there are people who did not accept it at the time. Not only Nazis, but, from the other examples which I gave, the government itself, which is elected by the people.

It absolutely changes your point when you tried to imply it wasn't just fascists but regular ol' student groups acting out.

Well, they do indeed do LGBT stuff, like pride parades and sticking it in their bio, or surgeries or the activities of the Ls and the Gs and the Bs....
If it would make you happier, I can say LGBTists.

You could just say "LGBT people" or something instead of sticking some weird, nonsense suffix on there where it doesn't belong.
Also, lol, complaining about bios? really?

No, I'm suggesting that you care so little for LGBT people that supporting people that do want them eliminated is not a dealbreaker, at least as long as they don't say the quiet part out loud.

You know that they wish for them to die how, exactly? It's easy to say, after all, "He said this, but he really means this! Trust me!"

Says the guy trying to claim Michael Knowles didn't mean what he said outright.

Jesus Christ, YES. Fucking obviously. Do you know anything of psychology?

I do indeed remember the massive amounts of suicide in history by people who thought they were the opposite sex.

Then you should know not to ask such stupid question.

How the fuck do you get that? Do you think flat-earthers or antivaxxers are as valid, despite them being grounded in reality as much as transphobes? ANd what part of that would be fundamentally denying a part of their own goddamn identity? How in the hell do you think that that is at ALL equivalent?

I disagree with your "grounded in reality" premise, but I will say that I will not force flat-earthers to recognize the earth is round in any way, despite how blatantly true it is.

Why do you disagree? And what about antivaxxers, then?

Having to, each time your refer to a person, call them by what pronoun the speaker does not want to say, as it's false, is denying truth.

No it's not. Referring to a person by the pronouns they use for themselves is the truth. Any other position is blatantly nonsensical.

What shows that denying what someone claims is their identity is more "traumatic" than being forced to lie to oneself every time one speaks about one of these "trans people".

Virtually every study regarding trans people, depression, suicidality, etc. Fucking obviously.

Well shoot dang, it's good that we're not doing that.

You do claim that you can tell what is in a man's mind, so I'm not surprised if you wish to censor people who really aren't Fascists.

Where have I claimed that? Who is talking about minding reading now, lmfao

Again, you are doing nothing but demonstrating that you know nothing of the actual science of being trans, if you think these are remotely good equivalences.

You've still never explained this, just repeatedly stating, "You know nothing!"

It's almost like there have been plenty of studies posted for you to peruse that you have evidently refused to. Not my problem. But I'll throw you a bone.

DeSantis is doing a hell of a lot more than that, which you would know if you bothered to actually pay attention to anything. Also, again, denial of a fundamental part of their identity, etc etc.

Once again, "You know nothing! Trust me!"

It's almost like there have been plenty of news stories and bills posted for you to peruse that you have evidently refused to. Not my problem. But I'll throw you a bone.

You still have not explained why denying what they claim is their identity equals death. If someone really believed that I was Filipino and had it in his mind and out of his mind that I was, that would not lead to death.

"wHat tHeY cLaIm"
Again, you can't see why repeatedly denying a person's identity, forcing them off medication, trying to separate families, and being cast as a pedophile and rapist-in-waiting would wear on people?

Oh, great. What do you have against them of all people?

They are obviously a biased source. You're not going to deny that, are you?

This is like claiming the National Institute of Mental Health is biased against Scientologists. Dumb as shit my guy.

Who said anything about lying? By acknowledging a trans person's gender you are only acknowledging reality.

Another "Accept this premise which I have not proven"?

What premise? That gender is a thing and it can be incongruent with sex? The one backed by an overwhelming amount of science?

Your whole post demonstrates this to be a lie. Ironic, since you have whined so much about "being forced to lie to yourself."

Why does everything have to be with you, "You believe this! You don't know this!"? I know what I believe in and what I know.

I calls em as I sees em. It's obvious that you don't know or don't care about the scientific data, otherwise you wouldn't make these weird posts bending over backwards for your right to misgender people.

lmfao no, I will not. Both parties in power are doing this, but only one is doing it and then pursuing legislation that targets me personally, so... I don't really care that the dems are doing it as well. Mostly because they aren't out to strip me of my rights or hypothetical children.

Ah, it's only okay when our party takes advantage of loopholes. Besides, transgenderism wasn't the issue here, if you follow the quotes.

It's not words-in-mouth. It's them not saying the quiet part out loud. Source on suicidal ideation and risk, sure:
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, DOI 10.1177/0886260520915554:

Abstract:
Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth.

Sorry, I was seriously understating the problem.

JAMA Network Open, DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0978

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, we observed 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated PBs or GAHs compared with youths who had not. There was no association between PBs or GAHs and anxiety (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41, 2.51).

PBs = puberty blockers, GAHs = gender-affirming hormones

Ignoring the biases of JAMA Network Open, the study was conducted at a gender-affirming clinic. It's obvious that whatever comes from those patients who seek to receive "care" there that it'll be in support of the transgender ideology.

"The study was conducted at an infectious disease clinic. It's obvious that whatever comes from there will be in support of the jabber ideology"

Besides, why do I have to call them by false pronouns so they will not commit suicide? I obviously do not wish for them to kill themselves (heaven forbid!), but I do not have to lie to myself to ensure that.

Seriously? Again, YOU are the one wanting to use false pronouns.

Also, I wonder where all the suicides for not being "gender-affirmed" were before the year...2010?

Still there.

I don't have a particular list off the top of my head, but no, I have no interest in disenfranchising groups simply because I disagree with them. I do, however, have an interest in preventing groups from holding power who wish to kill others, or for others to die. Any group. Not just ones who would target me. If there's a group that would target people on the basis of their political affiliation, I don't want them to hold power either

Nobody wants LGBT people to die!

quit fucking lying if you're going to throw a fit over being "forced to lie."

Name one currently-serving national politician who advocated the death of LGBT people (and not "He claimed that a person cannot be transgender and thus advocated for them to die a painful death!").

love those narrow ass goalposts, keep em moving babe

Very interesting you conveniently ignore the part where we say how fascists, like the literal nazis held the same views on trans people and some of the first books burned in nazi germany was books relating to trans medical research.

Both sides held that people cannot "change their gender", obviously. I don't think even you would deny that.

The fuck do you mean "both sides," we are literally talking about an institute that specialized in research regarding LGBT people and, because of said research, supported them.

Also, gotta love the same argument every transphobic right-winger brings up, "oh, you can change your gender but what happens when someone changes their race?" Almost like ethnicity is a biological factor and gender is a societal construct which has changed throughout history.

How is it a societal construct? When a cow gets born, you can tell if it's a male or a female. No one is questioning that (or at least, I hope). We can reliably assign it a gender without asking for its opinion. In fact, we can't, because it's a cow. Yet, when it comes to humans, we suddenly must respect whatever they claim their gender is, despite the biological facter.
You can argue that sex and gender are different (which I've seen some on the left do and some on the left do not), that sex is biological and gender is what a person feels, but then which one do I have to respect? If you'll argue that while gender and sex are both to be respected, but pronouns are to be dependent on gender, then why can I reliably call some cows "he" and some cows "she"?

Cattle are not sapient. Cattle do not have society and do not have as complex brains as we do. Fucking duh.

[United Calanworie]

It's not words-in-mouth. It's them not saying the quiet part out loud. Source on suicidal ideation and risk, sure:
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, DOI 10.1177/0886260520915554:

Abstract:
Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth.

Sorry, I was seriously understating the problem.

JAMA Network Open, DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0978

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, we observed 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated PBs or GAHs compared with youths who had not. There was no association between PBs or GAHs and anxiety (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41, 2.51).

PBs = puberty blockers, GAHs = gender-affirming hormones

Ignoring the biases of JAMA Network Open,

What biases? I find it to be a relatively good journal, it's open-access (a major plus), has an impact score of about eight... ranked somewhere in the top 400 journals... it's a decent source. It's the American Medical Association. The only thing it's biased towards is proper healthcare.

the study was conducted at a gender-affirming clinic. It's obvious that whatever comes from those patients who seek to receive "care" there that it'll be in support of the transgender ideology.

If you take this out of the context of gender affirming care, it reads so ridiculously. "the study was conducted at an oncology clinic. It's obvious that whatever comes from these patients who seek to receive "care" there that it'll be in support of killing cancer." Come up with something better, please, I'm begging you.

Besides, why do I have to call them by false pronouns so they will not commit suicide? I obviously do not wish for them to kill themselves (heaven forbid!), but I do not have to lie to myself to ensure that.

What harm does it cause you to use somebody's proper pronouns? Does it cause you physical pain? If so, you should probably get that one checked out.

Also, I wonder where all the suicides for not being "gender-affirmed" were before the year...2010?

How's "Trends in suicide death risk in transgender people: results from the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria study (1972–2017)" sound as a data set to you? DOI 10.1111/acps.13164, by the by.

Or perhaps DOI 10.1300/J485v08n02_06, DOI 10.1080/09540120412331299825, or really, just scroll through this list, lots and lots of studies in there. Quite a few of them pre-2010!

[Urkennalaid]

Transphobes love using the 40% statistic as if that isn't because of how much trans people are harassed and prevented into being who they want to be. Saying trans people kill themselves off of the virtue of being trans would be like cis people killing themselves off the virtue of being...cis. Which we all know doesn't happen.

Also, I love how we're calling scientists who study in biology and or gender affirming care "biased." That's...how science works? The scientific theory isn't a thing because scientists NOT involved in that specific thing didn't cover what they were best at. Also, I am curious what sources La Xinga is using for their own rhetoric. I wonder if they have totally unbiased sources. Maybe we should ask Fox News, considering they don't have the experience or knowledge in gender affirming care so SURELY they are less biased than the sources we brought up..

[El Lazaro]

You just never stopped being one. It’s telling that you’re defending Strasserites on the basis that self-proclaimed socialists can’t be fascists, while you also claim you stopped being a fascist when you became a Marxist-Leninist even though you’re pro-Russia and hold ultranationalist views. You also seem to have an embarrassingly rudimentary (not even, at times) understanding of anything on the topic of Marxism. Maybe Strasserism wouldn’t be such a touchy subject for you if you weren’t thinking about your not being a fascist depending on them not being fascists either, even though they quite clearly were.

Aah... yes. The ideology which very clearly stated over and over again, despite overwhelming opposition within the party that was fascist, that they were socialist, adhered to Marxism and believed in Marxism (if not a statist form of socialism)... were not socialist, because... uhm... they were fascist.
This is very good logic! Except it is not. This is not an explanation of why the Strasserists were fascists. Simply saying "This is true" is not a sufficient argument.
I can also go even further considering that the Strasserists, which were dominant in the Sturmabteilung, often challenged attempts by the German government to break up workers' strikes and also called for an alliance with the communists... they also split off from the Nazi Party directly with their own party, etc. etc...
... Meanwhile you here have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Again! This is debate 101. One cannot simply say "X is true" without backing it up!

And again, boogeymen... boogeymen. I'll entertain these thoughts.
- I am no longer a Marxist-Leninist. I rejected the fundamental state capitalism and state socialism of the Soviet Union and Stalin months ago.
- It's true, guys. I mentioned the fact that Ukraine's actions before 2014 were partially to blame for the start of the Donbass war, thus I am pro-Russia!
- Ultranationalism...? Ironically, to make Europeans mad about America sure. But I stopped that LARPing shit ages ago. At the most I'd consider myself a subscriber to the idea of "socialist patriotism" or left-wing nationalism. I lost any and all resemblance of nationalism or patriotism to America ages ago.

Strasserism isn't a touchy subject for me. It's just that I am a huge fucking nerd (LOSER!) and feel the need to correct people to feel better about myself.

If I provide any evidence, you’ll start screaming at me and have a breakdown in the thread, so how about nah?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Aah... yes. The ideology which very clearly stated over and over again, despite overwhelming opposition within the party that was fascist, that they were socialist, adhered to Marxism and believed in Marxism (if not a statist form of socialism)... were not socialist, because... uhm... they were fascist.
This is very good logic! Except it is not. This is not an explanation of why the Strasserists were fascists. Simply saying "This is true" is not a sufficient argument.
I can also go even further considering that the Strasserists, which were dominant in the Sturmabteilung, often challenged attempts by the German government to break up workers' strikes and also called for an alliance with the communists... they also split off from the Nazi Party directly with their own party, etc. etc...
... Meanwhile you here have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Again! This is debate 101. One cannot simply say "X is true" without backing it up!

And again, boogeymen... boogeymen. I'll entertain these thoughts.
- I am no longer a Marxist-Leninist. I rejected the fundamental state capitalism and state socialism of the Soviet Union and Stalin months ago.
- It's true, guys. I mentioned the fact that Ukraine's actions before 2014 were partially to blame for the start of the Donbass war, thus I am pro-Russia!
- Ultranationalism...? Ironically, to make Europeans mad about America sure. But I stopped that LARPing shit ages ago. At the most I'd consider myself a subscriber to the idea of "socialist patriotism" or left-wing nationalism. I lost any and all resemblance of nationalism or patriotism to America ages ago.

Strasserism isn't a touchy subject for me. It's just that I am a huge fucking nerd (LOSER!) and feel the need to correct people to feel better about myself.

If I provide any evidence, you’ll start screaming at me and have a breakdown in the thread, so how about nah?

And what makes you think that? Past experiences with people? You know that refusing to show that you're willing to have a level-headed conversation only hurts you and your reputation, right?
I mean sure, I've been a little cocky, but I've never refused once in this thread to engage with you. I've invited you numerous times as a matter of fact to present your evidence. But yet you still do not because of your stubbornness. I implore you! I invite you! Open yourself up to new opinions and open me up to new opinions. None of us get hurt aside from maybe getting butthurt from being wrong- but nobody likes to be wrong. What is stopping you from doing something as simple as simply explaining your opinions?

[El Lazaro]

What is stopping you from doing something as simple as simply explaining your opinions?

Your borderline unhinged behavior on this site is, actually.

[Makko Oko]

I don't know if this belongs in its own thread but today the Protections of Medical Conscience Act got signed into law in Florida, allowing doctors to refuse to provide medical treatment based on their own morals or ethics. The news is saying LGBTQ+ people could be severely affected by this. I am concerned though, doesn't the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act state that you can't legally deny treatment to anybody in the event of an emergency? What other federal laws might that conflict with

[El Lazaro]

I don't know if this belongs in its own thread but today the Protections of Medical Conscience Act got signed into law in Florida, allowing doctors to refuse to provide medical treatment based on their own morals or ethics. The news is saying LGTBQ+ people could be severely affected by this. I am concerned though, doesn't the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act state that you can't legally deny treatment to anybody in the event of an emergency? What other federal laws might that conflict with

If you have “ethical views” with contradict medical ethics, maybe you should reconsider becoming a doctor.

[Hispida]

I don't know if this belongs in its own thread but today the Protections of Medical Conscience Act got signed into law in Florida, allowing doctors to refuse to provide medical treatment based on their own morals or ethics. The news is saying LGBTQ+ people could be severely affected by this. I am concerned though, doesn't the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act state that you can't legally deny treatment to anybody in the event of an emergency? What other federal laws might that conflict with

physicians should heal themselves, should they not?

[United Calanworie]

I don't know if this belongs in its own thread but today the Protections of Medical Conscience Act got signed into law in Florida, allowing doctors to refuse to provide medical treatment based on their own morals or ethics. The news is saying LGBTQ+ people could be severely affected by this. I am concerned though, doesn't the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act state that you can't legally deny treatment to anybody in the event of an emergency? What other federal laws might that conflict with

Yeah, EMTALA overrides that shitty state law. Can't refuse care just because you don't think the person deserves it, that's illegal. Per CMS, any hospital with an emergency department must "provide necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor within the hospital’s capability and capacity."

If you don't, you're violating EMTALA, and you're fucked if the feds find out. Which they will, because you're required to report every single time you deny treatment. And if you don't report it, you're even more fucked if they find out.