7 ms·

> I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many ot

by m52go 9y ago

> I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics. > Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? > Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. Another instance of the first point. Who's saying they shouldn't? Again, the other side wants the same thing--they simply disagree with means to achieve it. But you happen think those means are 'sanctioning violence' against them. And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this? The left always tends to fall back on this argument of 'basic human rights' as if the sky is falling because the right wants to take them all away & punish anyone who isn't a straight white male. It's just a ludicrous mindset that, again, makes it almost impossible to have a rational debate. The nonsensical language in your comment makes that clear.

cookiecaper 9y ago
Yes, while the grandparent accuses others of "institutionalized violence", who advocates the use of government force to ensure that the bureaucrat's definition of an ideal sexual and racial distribution is achieved? Who says that people should be jailed for advocating policies with which they disagree? Who leads campaigns to see corporate force exerted against their political opponents, and to hyperbolize benign, even obvious and commonly-believed, statements into threats of genocide? Suggesting that hires be made based on merit and function rather than the "diversity quota" published by some federal bureaucrat trying to justify their department's existence is so far away from threatening anyone's "right to exist" that they're not even in the same universe. People holding such distant frames of reference cannot have a reasonable conversation. And that's exactly the point.
AnotXOR 9y ago
Calling your opposition Hitler makes you a pretty strong candidate for sympathy votes. You may not get Hitler assassinated, but you might just get a few programs through that much easier. Think about it.
ltrcola 9y ago
> Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? A lot of opinions around trans people are centered around it being a mental delusion that shouldn't be accommodated. That leaves them unable to transition and live in society without mental harm. If that isn't persecution, not sure what is!
- RaleyField 9y ago
  > around it being a mental delusion But those people aren't Fortune 500 material so not pertinent to the discussion. Those people are on the extreme side of the right. It wouldn't be fair if I started to draw conclusions about the left from what you hear people say on /r/latestagecapitalism either.
  - m52go 9y ago
    Yeah that's another problem. People immediately assume the worst as soon as you say something even the least bit supportive of 'the other side'. Trump tries to get rid of unnecessary regulations "Guys, I think Trump might actually have a point here..." "OH MY GOD YOU MUST BE A CLIMATE DENIER!"
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Hahaha! That's the first good laugh I had in this thread. I had a few other laughs, but then I realized the people weren't joking...
  - halostatue 9y ago
    These people are state and federal legislators. They are making laws based on their bigotry.
- weberc2 9y ago
  That's not persecution and it's certainly not "opposition to their right to exist", which was the original bullshit claim. Anyway, the APA (a very left leaning organization) diagnosis for transsexuality is Gender Identity Disorder (GID).
Aloha 9y ago
Historically in America, the right was the home of authoritarianism - I fear greatly I'm whitnessing the birth of an authoritarian left. The thing that concerns me is the authoritarian left groups have been historically better able to organize than right wing ones.
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  There is certainly an authoritarian left trying to form in the u.s. They have formed elsewhere, e.g. Eastern Europe : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X11000493 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X11...
- parasubvert 9y ago
  An authoritarian-leaning right currently runs most branches of government in the USA. Is the fear that the majority changes their mind, or that someone else gets to set policy? Keep in mind that authoritarianism isn't "people I disagree with that have power", it's when democratic elections stop mattering.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Yes, the masses revolted against the liberal elites which run virtually every prominent institution (media, arts, education, tech, and most non-elected government positions), but that hardly means the right has any sort of power (especially given that Trump won by appealing to liberals). But to your point, authoritarianism is thrown around too often. Better terms for the identity-politicking left include "repressive" or "censorious".
- meddlepal 9y ago
  Someone who I cannot remember the name of once said conservative/right-side politics trends towards Authoritarianism while liberal/left-side politics trends towards Totalitarianism. Pick your poison.
  - weberc2 9y ago
dguaraglia 9y ago
> The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics. Please, remind me how "being able to have visitation rights to the person you love" or "being able to vote while black" are "special privileges"? > Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? Yes, let me introduce you to the Republican Party: - http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/04/05/va-gop-gubernatorial-candidates-make-anti-trans-comments/ http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/04/05/va-gop-gubernatori... - http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-platform-takes-harsh-stance-against-lgb http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-... - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-27/republicans-see-opportunity-in-trump-s-transgender-ban https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-27/republica... > And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this? Let me guess: you'd feel pretty upset if all the people in HN today that you are persona non-grata and that they'll make sure not a single person they know hires you. Would you say that removing your ability to make a living doing what you love is violence? Violence doesn't need to mean "punching in the face." > punish anyone who isn't a straight white male. And yet, straight white males are the only ones whose rights are never in question. When was the last time you heard of an anti-white male legislation passing in the Deep South? And yet here they are, full internet forums complaining about their waning rights in the hands of females/blacks/LGBT/immigrants. Makes you wonder, huh?

by m52go 9y ago

cookiecaper 9y ago

Yes, while the grandparent accuses others of "institutionalized violence", who advocates the use of government force to ensure that the bureaucrat's definition of an ideal sexual and racial distribution is achieved? Who says that people should be jailed for advocating policies with which they disagree? Who leads campaigns to see corporate force exerted against their political opponents, and to hyperbolize benign, even obvious and commonly-believed, statements into threats of genocide? Suggesting that hires be made based on merit and function rather than the "diversity quota" published by some federal bureaucrat trying to justify their department's existence is so far away from threatening anyone's "right to exist" that they're not even in the same universe. People holding such distant frames of reference cannot have a reasonable conversation. And that's exactly the point.

AnotXOR 9y ago

Calling your opposition Hitler makes you a pretty strong candidate for sympathy votes. You may not get Hitler assassinated, but you might just get a few programs through that much easier. Think about it.

ltrcola 9y ago

> Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? A lot of opinions around trans people are centered around it being a mental delusion that shouldn't be accommodated. That leaves them unable to transition and live in society without mental harm. If that isn't persecution, not sure what is!

RaleyField 9y ago
> around it being a mental delusion But those people aren't Fortune 500 material so not pertinent to the discussion. Those people are on the extreme side of the right. It wouldn't be fair if I started to draw conclusions about the left from what you hear people say on /r/latestagecapitalism either.
- m52go 9y ago
  Yeah that's another problem. People immediately assume the worst as soon as you say something even the least bit supportive of 'the other side'. Trump tries to get rid of unnecessary regulations "Guys, I think Trump might actually have a point here..." "OH MY GOD YOU MUST BE A CLIMATE DENIER!"
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Hahaha! That's the first good laugh I had in this thread. I had a few other laughs, but then I realized the people weren't joking...
- halostatue 9y ago
  These people are state and federal legislators. They are making laws based on their bigotry.
weberc2 9y ago
That's not persecution and it's certainly not "opposition to their right to exist", which was the original bullshit claim. Anyway, the APA (a very left leaning organization) diagnosis for transsexuality is Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

Aloha 9y ago

Historically in America, the right was the home of authoritarianism - I fear greatly I'm whitnessing the birth of an authoritarian left. The thing that concerns me is the authoritarian left groups have been historically better able to organize than right wing ones.

chillingeffect 9y ago
There is certainly an authoritarian left trying to form in the u.s. They have formed elsewhere, e.g. Eastern Europe : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X11000493 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X11...
parasubvert 9y ago
An authoritarian-leaning right currently runs most branches of government in the USA. Is the fear that the majority changes their mind, or that someone else gets to set policy? Keep in mind that authoritarianism isn't "people I disagree with that have power", it's when democratic elections stop mattering.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Yes, the masses revolted against the liberal elites which run virtually every prominent institution (media, arts, education, tech, and most non-elected government positions), but that hardly means the right has any sort of power (especially given that Trump won by appealing to liberals). But to your point, authoritarianism is thrown around too often. Better terms for the identity-politicking left include "repressive" or "censorious".
meddlepal 9y ago
Someone who I cannot remember the name of once said conservative/right-side politics trends towards Authoritarianism while liberal/left-side politics trends towards Totalitarianism. Pick your poison.
- weberc2 9y ago

dguaraglia 9y ago

> The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics. Please, remind me how "being able to have visitation rights to the person you love" or "being able to vote while black" are "special privileges"? > Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? Yes, let me introduce you to the Republican Party: - http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/04/05/va-gop-gubernatorial-candidates-make-anti-trans-comments/ http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/04/05/va-gop-gubernatori... - http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-platform-takes-harsh-stance-against-lgb http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-... - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-27/republicans-see-opportunity-in-trump-s-transgender-ban https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-27/republica... > And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this? Let me guess: you'd feel pretty upset if all the people in HN today that you are persona non-grata and that they'll make sure not a single person they know hires you. Would you say that removing your ability to make a living doing what you love is violence? Violence doesn't need to mean "punching in the face." > punish anyone who isn't a straight white male. And yet, straight white males are the only ones whose rights are never in question. When was the last time you heard of an anti-white male legislation passing in the Deep South? And yet here they are, full internet forums complaining about their waning rights in the hands of females/blacks/LGBT/immigrants. Makes you wonder, huh?