5 ms·

Probably a reference to Knowles. > During his speech on Saturday, Knowles told the crowd, “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from pub

by dahdum 4y ago

Probably a reference to Knowles. > During his speech on Saturday, Knowles told the crowd, “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.” Knowles subsequently claimed that “eradicating” “transgenderism” is not a call for eradicating transgender people and demanded retractions from numerous publications, including Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-spe...

klyrs 4y ago
Bull. Shit*. One does not simply "eradicate" an "ideology" when that so-called ideology is practiced by people. If I called for the eradication of Judaism, and demanded people retract their claims that I'd called for the eradication of Jewish people, would that demand be taken seriously? * this directed at Knowles, not dahdum
- dahdum 4y ago
  He's a provocateur who likely carefully chose his words knowing the backlash would raise his personal profile, while giving just a bare thread of deniability about what he really meant. I have no doubt he's relishing the attention.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    And the crowd ate it up. One dude talking shit in isolation is one thing. The audience reaction is another thing altogether.
- erenyeager 4y ago
  Eradication does not mean violence needs to be committed. For example, eradicating poverty. Eradicating hatred. These speak to changing peoples’ mindsets. This is also how I read Knowles, he is not wanting to physically harm people per his speech, rather he is disagreeing with a worldview.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    That's a bit disingenuous when it's coupled with the current legislative push that's taking place contemporaneously.
  - becquerel 4y ago
    Disagreeing with a worldview that says a class of people have a valid ontological existence is disagreeing with the existence of those people. Disagreeing with the existence of a class of people is the intellectual foundation for genocide. Wanting to reduce the number of trans people in the world is genocide, whether it's by bullet or conversion therapy. Trans people are not a problem that need to be solved.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      I hate to stick up for some right-wing pundit, but I think you're assuming his position to be much more extreme than it is. Suppose there's a person who doesn't believe in feminism, and wants to go back to the "good old days" of the 1800s and before when women were second-class citizens, and didn't have many rights: they couldn't own land, they couldn't choose their profession (if they were educated, they were stuck with nursing or teaching until they got married, at which point they weren't allowed to work usually), etc. Such a regressive person might say he wants to "eradicate feminism", but that doesn't want to mean he wants to eradicate women! He just wants to remove their rights and make them subservient again. This person saying he wants to "eradicate transgenderism" I believe means the same thing basically. He doesn't want to murder all trans people, he just wants to eliminate society recognizing transgenderism as a valid condition, eliminate any rights or protections extended to people with that status, etc. Basically, he wants to go back to how it was in the 1950s or before, when society simply didn't recognize it. You don't need conversion therapy to eliminate transgenderism; you just have to stop recognizing it at all, and treat people based on their biological sex. I'm not actually agreeing with this, but I do believe this is his position.
      - dighp 4y ago
        > You don't need conversion therapy to eliminate transgenderism; you just have to stop recognizing it at all, and treat people based on their biological sex. That does sound very compelling, when the alternative is what we are witnessing today, with males gaining access to what were previously female-only spaces, disregarding the boundaries of women and girls where they are most vulnerable. It's becoming increasingly clear that transgenderism is a form of male dominance over women, and should be opposed like other forms of sexism. Women are being made second-class citizens again, but this time it's being touted as progressive.
- giardini 4y ago
  [flagged]
bufferout 4y ago
For a professional politician, it was a pretty irresponsible wielding of the language.
- dahdum 4y ago
  He's not a politician, he's a political commentator for The Daily Wire. Incendiary language is how he sells books and ad clicks.
suzzer99 4y ago
This thread is a great resource on specific laws that are being passed behind all the rhetoric, and the devastating effects they will have on real people. https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1633113967185870850 https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/163311396718587085...

by dahdum 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

Bull. Shit*. One does not simply "eradicate" an "ideology" when that so-called ideology is practiced by people. If I called for the eradication of Judaism, and demanded people retract their claims that I'd called for the eradication of Jewish people, would that demand be taken seriously? * this directed at Knowles, not dahdum

dahdum 4y ago
He's a provocateur who likely carefully chose his words knowing the backlash would raise his personal profile, while giving just a bare thread of deniability about what he really meant. I have no doubt he's relishing the attention.
- klyrs 4y ago
  And the crowd ate it up. One dude talking shit in isolation is one thing. The audience reaction is another thing altogether.
erenyeager 4y ago
Eradication does not mean violence needs to be committed. For example, eradicating poverty. Eradicating hatred. These speak to changing peoples’ mindsets. This is also how I read Knowles, he is not wanting to physically harm people per his speech, rather he is disagreeing with a worldview.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  That's a bit disingenuous when it's coupled with the current legislative push that's taking place contemporaneously.
- becquerel 4y ago
  Disagreeing with a worldview that says a class of people have a valid ontological existence is disagreeing with the existence of those people. Disagreeing with the existence of a class of people is the intellectual foundation for genocide. Wanting to reduce the number of trans people in the world is genocide, whether it's by bullet or conversion therapy. Trans people are not a problem that need to be solved.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    I hate to stick up for some right-wing pundit, but I think you're assuming his position to be much more extreme than it is. Suppose there's a person who doesn't believe in feminism, and wants to go back to the "good old days" of the 1800s and before when women were second-class citizens, and didn't have many rights: they couldn't own land, they couldn't choose their profession (if they were educated, they were stuck with nursing or teaching until they got married, at which point they weren't allowed to work usually), etc. Such a regressive person might say he wants to "eradicate feminism", but that doesn't want to mean he wants to eradicate women! He just wants to remove their rights and make them subservient again. This person saying he wants to "eradicate transgenderism" I believe means the same thing basically. He doesn't want to murder all trans people, he just wants to eliminate society recognizing transgenderism as a valid condition, eliminate any rights or protections extended to people with that status, etc. Basically, he wants to go back to how it was in the 1950s or before, when society simply didn't recognize it. You don't need conversion therapy to eliminate transgenderism; you just have to stop recognizing it at all, and treat people based on their biological sex. I'm not actually agreeing with this, but I do believe this is his position.
    - dighp 4y ago
      > You don't need conversion therapy to eliminate transgenderism; you just have to stop recognizing it at all, and treat people based on their biological sex. That does sound very compelling, when the alternative is what we are witnessing today, with males gaining access to what were previously female-only spaces, disregarding the boundaries of women and girls where they are most vulnerable. It's becoming increasingly clear that transgenderism is a form of male dominance over women, and should be opposed like other forms of sexism. Women are being made second-class citizens again, but this time it's being touted as progressive.
giardini 4y ago
[flagged]

bufferout 4y ago

For a professional politician, it was a pretty irresponsible wielding of the language.

dahdum 4y ago
He's not a politician, he's a political commentator for The Daily Wire. Incendiary language is how he sells books and ad clicks.

suzzer99 4y ago

This thread is a great resource on specific laws that are being passed behind all the rhetoric, and the devastating effects they will have on real people. https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1633113967185870850 https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/163311396718587085...