What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Hygro]

Cis/trans is the proper "us vs them", dualistic, confrontational, "black and white", absolutist, biformal, twofolded, bipolar neo manichean term

Take a drink.

 

[Berzerker]

Truth. It's like my 32nd biggest fear.

They're coming for yer guns

All this impressive revisionist history!

None of that stuff was this simplistic. The US is definitely a highly militaristic nation. It’s whole history has been that way.

The Democrats didn't destroy Libya and Syria?

Well, in terms of Korea, it was the McCarthyist/HUAC/Red Scare faction, which had large numbers of members in BOTH main parties at that time, that demanded military action be taken to counter North Korea's invasion of South Korea. Neither Truman nor Eisenhower, as Presidents, were really personally that enthusiastic about it - the Witchhunters of the perceived (and blown way out of proportion) numbers of "Communists" in the U.S., Witchhunters in both Congress and the Military - who, as I just said, came from both main parties in large numbers - were frothing and chomping at the bit for the war.

Not only that, but I have a bomb making factory in my district

 

[Birdjaguar]

Historians often look at root causes of a war as JUST as relevant as the one who actually starts it. And, as an armchair historian myself, that's how I look at things. Virtually every war in history would seem inexplicable and arbitrary, otherwise.

Yes, but someone is first to pull the trigger. In Korea, the situation might have been ripe for war, but something motivated Kim Il sung to do so on his own. His ready army? Desire for power? He thought it would be easy?

Archival material suggests[47][48][49] that North Korea's decision to invade South Korea was Kim's initiative, not a Soviet one. Evidence suggests that Soviet intelligence, through its espionage sources in the US government and British SIS, had obtained information on the limitations of US atomic bomb stockpiles as well as defense program cuts, leading Stalin to conclude that the Truman administration would not intervene in Korea.[50]

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Cloud merely points out that people should deal with fallout if they decide sacrificing trans rights is worth their personal enrichment. This seems mostly fair. Cloud is trans, so it's obviously personal for her to be told her rights are optional so long as someone's wallet is a little heavier.

The counterargument that some have given, that you can not support some of a candidate's views but still vote for them because of the benefit they bring you, does not mean as much as people think. That these aren't deal breakers for you (general you) is the issue, as you're making the definitive statement that a demographic's oppression is ultimately less meaningful to you than some other benefit you expect to receive from supporting that candidate. You are consciously deciding that one group's misfortune is worth whatever it is you expect to gain.

Everyone, to an extent, makes these calculations. Someone mentioned Biden. Most of the big names have things they fall on the wrong side of, and everyone has to make a decision what they're willing to accept in exchange for a perceived benefit. Cloud is trans and faced with people telling her that laws and state-backed sentiments against people like her is acceptable to them. Is it truly so unreasonable that she insists people be forced to face that while engaging with her? It is not a debate of two detached positions. This isn't a marketplace of ideas where everything is merely theory. It's Cloud being threatened by another's position, even if that person isn't directly trying to harm Cloud. Their actions, voting for and supporting a candidate with anti-trans sentiment, enable harm to come to Cloud. It seems both logical and understandable for Cloud to not take this on the chin with a smile.

You don't have to put trans rights on a pedestal. But you can't comment on trans issues and trans identities with any sort of benefit of the doubt if you openly profess to considering their empowerment to be optional and unimportant. You can't defend your support of someone or something by citing your own assumed tolerance and acceptance if your support of that someone or something directly leads to harming those you claim to tolerate or accept. That you didn't vote for them because of their intolerance is irrelevant; you don't pick and choose what things of a candidate you allow. If you support a candidate who hates the gays but lowers your taxes, but you yourself profess to like gay people, you're still telling those gay people that their rights are less important than your taxes. And this, obviously, is harmful, even if you aren't directly intending to harm them.

I'm not diplomatic, not at all to those that continue to assume they're somehow neutral in this discussion and certainly not to those that won't at the very least acknowledge that voting for certain parties is Inherently harmful to minorities as a whole.

To those complaining; if the context was an African American complaining about a white Republican supporting a candidate or party that has historically (and even currently) discriminated and despises them, would you be so quick to dismiss their very real, very valid feelings?

If the problem you have with me is that I don't hold back or subscribe to the level of decorum you are used to from a minority, then I implore you to ask yourself why it is that such a thing bothers you; I'm merely standing up for my own interests, the Democrats and GOP don't have those in mind or even truly care so I must be hypervigilant and I must use what little power I have, in the form if shaming and reminding others that there is a cost to their votes even if that isn't something they necessarily consider.

I mean to be frank, I literally can't go to the bathroom of the gender I've spent years transitioning too without the very real threat of being:

* Harrassed
* Assaulted
* Arrested
* Potentially even killed
* Fired

How is this tenable or acceptable? This is my real life that I have to deal with on a daily basis and yet there are those that are quick to assert that I'm not actively discriminated against. The GOP has literally made it their mission to oppose any and all social and legal changes that could ameliorate this issue for transpeople.

They're literally refusing to let me use the right toilet. That's a basic human right.

If that isn't a form of discrimination then your definition is so narrow as to be worthless.

This is why I am so full of "hate" towards a party that denies me even the most basic of amenities and services, @rah and @civvver can complain all they want about my tone but if they won't acknowledge my very real concerns and issues then the dialogue will never progress and I'm not willing to give up my basic human right to use the toilet without bring assaulted just to make others feel comfortable with their political decisions and opinions.

That is the very definition of being privileged and in any other context would be dismissed as being morally untenable.

I didn't want to get as base as this but some of you don't seem to get it and that frustrates me when I'm accused of being hateful when all I want to do is to be able to do something as simple, as basic, as affirming as using the toilet without having to worry about my safety.

 

[Patine]

I'm not diplomatic, not at all to those that continue to assume they're somehow neutral in this discussion and certainly not to those that won't at the very least acknowledge that voting for certain parties is Inherently harmful to minorities as a whole.

To those complaining; if the context was an African American complaining about a white Republican supporting a candidate or party that has historically (and even currently) discriminated and despises them, would you be so quick to dismiss their very real, very valid feelings?

If the problem you have with me is that I don't hold back or subscribe to the level of decorum you are used to from a minority, then I implore you to ask yourself why it is that such a thing bothers you; I'm merely standing up for my own interests, the Democrats and GOP don't have those in mind or even truly care so I must be hypervigilant and I must use what little power I have, in the form if shaming and reminding others that there is a cost to their votes even if that isn't something they necessarily consider.

I mean to be frank, I literally can't go to the bathroom of the gender I've spent years transitioning too without the very real threat of being:

* Harrassed
* Assaulted
* Arrested
* Potentially even killed
* Fired

How is this tenable or acceptable? This is my real life that I have to deal with on a daily basis and yet there are those that are quick to assert that I'm not actively discriminated against. The GOP has literally made it their mission to oppose any and all social and legal changes that could ameliorate this issue for transpeople.

They're literally refusing to let me use the right toilet. That's a basic human right.

If that isn't a form of discrimination then your definition is so narrow as to be worthless.

This is why I am so full of "hate" towards a party that denies me even the most basic of amenities and services, @rah and @civvver can complain all they want about my tone but if they won't acknowledge my very real concerns and issues then the dialogue will never progress and I'm not willing to give up my basic human right to use the toilet without bring assaulted just to make others feel comfortable with their political decisions and opinions.

That is the very definition of being privileged and in any other context would be dismissed as being morally untenable.

I didn't want to get as base as this but some of you don't seem to get it and that frustrates me when I'm accused of being hateful when all I want to do is to be able to do something as simple, as basic, as affirming as using the toilet without having to worry about my safety.

My issue is that there should be more than two parties who ever win, and that the two monstrous, lying, and highly unethical choices by the GE in the 2016 election should not have been the only two choices. American voters are cheated by their rigged and corrupt electoral system, and both the Republicans and Democrats are part of that travesty, because they both benefit unjustly from it. As a Canadian, I've never been eligible to vote in a U.S. Presidential election, but if I had eligible to vote in 2016, I probably would have made a protest vote for a Third Party or Independent candidate or make a cheeky write-in rather than choose between the Swarmy Demon Lord and the Duchess of Hell. That's my point, at least, on the issue.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

We're talking past each other here; I'd love for there to be a viable, progressive 3rd party but to be frank our only options are the gop or democrats.

 

[Patine]

We're talking past each other here; I'd love for there to be a viable, progressive 3rd party but to be frank our only options are the gop or democrats.

Well, I'm afraid as long as the corrupt party bosses, plutocratic donors and special interest groups, and manipulative media outlets, pundits, and sensationalist endorsers run the elections, and not the actual voters, there will be more "pick-between-two-monstrous-and-horrid-evils," elections like 2016. There was already 2004 in that vein in living memory. Things are not going to meaningfully, solidly, and permanently get better in the United States, except at a glacial pace of "establishment clawback," until the firm and Mafia-family-like grip on political power the Duopoly holds is broken, and real choice, and with it, accountability, of government is achieved. Until then, every achievement is a handprint in the mud that a single switch of governing party can (and often will) undo.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Okay.

So what do you want me to do? I'm forced to work within the system we have

 

[Patine]

Okay.

So what do you want me to do? I'm forced to work within the system we have

You are, as an individual. The American people shouldn't have to. The common American people should take back their nation and government from this corrupt political Mafia through a legislative revolt similar to Italy's "Clean Hands" event (basically all incumbent party candidates voted out in the same election - or nearly so, even putting untested nobodies in office, to send a message), or even an "American Spring." As long as Americans vote for their corrupt and criminal domestic political oppressors - both parties of them - they'll feel validated in continuing their reign of tyranny. And, your biggest concerns, as well as the actions of those who most excoriate, is the clear sign of a despicable tactic they use to stay in power you not have considered - and vicious and nasty social "divide and conquer" between their separate constituencies to keep polarization high, which benefits the retention of a sharp political Duopoly. The problems in your nation run a LOT deeper than you seem to think.

 

[Gorbles]

Saying roughly 99% of the general population is a “unique category” as much as a fringe minority of the general population is disingenuous.

"I don't like it when people use a prefix to single out a group of people, so long as I'm in that group."

Is a lot of what I'm hearing, here. The point about inclusivity is that you should strive to make marginalised groups not feel marginalised. Adopting a similar, scientifically-accurate label to help normalise "trans" in everyday discussions is an easy, zero-cost thing to do. Being offended that you're being labelled such is irony that, if captured in an engine, would solve our Mars transport problems in an instant.

 

[Estebonrober]

They're coming for yer guns



The Democrats didn't destroy Libya and Syria?



Not only that, but I have a bomb making factory in my district

No

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The whole conversation around pronouns, names and toilets is emblematic of how transpeople are treated in America as well as how far removed the critics of transpeople are from the reality we face each day. I've been Harrassed and assaulted for using the female changing room and during my early stages of transitioning going into the male toilets wasn't just awkward or uncomfortable, it posed serious risk to myself, I've been lucky to leave with only a kicking but I know others who weren't so lucky and that only involves the simple, basic human right of using the toilet, it doesn't get much better when the issues of race, income, housing, religion or education are involved.

I'm really lucky to be white, if I was a black transwoman I'd probably be dead by now, given how low their life expectancy is (mid 30s) but that's by the by because overall transpeople are treated like **** in this country and no amount of whataboutism changes that fact.

We're the scapegoats for society's issues, often compared to pedophiles and rapists in rhetoric by conservatives, looked upon as freaks by the neutral public and even viewed with pity by those that profess to be allies until they're "confronted" with what transpeople have to deal with.

So when I hear people tell me how I supposedly have it good I have to ask what alternative universe or reality they inhabit because everything I've been through says otherwise, nevermind other transpeoples experiences.

 

[luiz]

The whole conversation around pronouns, names and toilets is emblematic of how transpeople are treated in America as well as how far removed the critics of transpeople are from the reality we face each day. I've been Harrassed and assaulted for using the female changing room and during my early stages of transitioning going into the male toilets wasn't just awkward or uncomfortable, it posed serious risk to myself, I've been lucky to leave with only a kicking but I know others who weren't so lucky and that only involves the simple, basic human right of using the toilet, it doesn't get much better when the issues of race, income, housing, religion or education are involved.

I'm really lucky to be white, if I was a black transwoman I'd probably be dead by now, given how low their life expectancy is (mid 30s) but that's by the by because overall transpeople are treated like **** in this country and no amount of whataboutism changes that fact.

We're the scapegoats for society's issues, often compared to pedophiles and rapists in rhetoric by conservatives, looked upon as freaks by the neutral public and even viewed with pity by those that profess to be allies until they're "confronted" with what transpeople have to deal with.

So when I hear people tell me how I supposedly have it good I have to ask what alternative universe or reality they inhabit because everything I've been through says otherwise, nevermind other transpeoples experiences.

In how many countries do Trans people have it better than in America, though? Not a lot, Trump or not. Don't act as if America is particularly horrible in that regard; it's actually particularly tolerant.

How has life for trans people gotten worse recently? I mean there is this military thing but let's be honest, it's very very minor compared to the issues you are raising in this very post. These issues long predate Trump and are not even related to Republicans in general, as the exact same things, only usually much worse, happen in pretty much every other country on earth.

Awareness around trans issues are quite recent, and trans rights go against cultural-religious beliefs that people have held for millenia. Attitudes are changing pretty fast given the baggage. And they won't change any faster, particularly for you, if you treat everyone who is not 100% aligned with your views as some enemy to be disposed of. Your attitude is toxic and you won't really make any friends (or "allies" as you say in your war-obsessed vocabulary) outside of those who are already of the faithful.

 

[Gorbles]

So in a thread ostensibly about the MAGA hat, we now have the somewhat endless Off Topic discourse of "how trans people are acting badly", by the same people sticking up for the MAGA hat. I wouldn't be so tired (as a cis dude myself), except that the Venn diagram is a circle, every time.

 

[luiz]

So in a thread ostensibly about the MAGA hat, we now have the somewhat endless Off Topic discourse of "how trans people are acting badly", by the same people sticking up for the MAGA hat. I wouldn't be so tired (as a cis dude myself), except that the Venn diagram is a circle, every time.

I don't think anyone said "trans people are acting badly" in general. At least I didn't. There is one trans person with a particularly toxic attitude and who is only capable of thinking in the most dumbed-down, binary terms imaginable, making any debate all but impossible.

There are other trans people on this very forum who have a very different outlook. A single individual does not speak for anyone other than herself.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, but someone is first to pull the trigger. In Korea, the situation might have been ripe for war, but something motivated Kim Il sung to do so on his own. His ready army? Desire for power? He thought it would be easy?

Stalin approved the NK invasion of South Korea but only after Kim Il-sung had convinced him the US would not intervene. Given that the US hadn't intervened to help Chiang Kai-shek and Dean Acheson had excluded SK from US sphere of influence in a speech on 12/01/50 he probably thought the assumption was safe enough. Even so he removed all Soviet military advisers from NK before the attack began to ensure the USSR didn't become directly involved. The invasion was pretty easy and initially successful. What wasn't expected was the rapid and strong US response.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't think anyone said "trans people are acting badly" in general. At least I didn't. There is one trans person with a particularly toxic attitude and who is only capable of thinking in the most dumbed-down, binary terms imaginable, making any debate all but impossible.

There are other trans people on this very forum who have a very different outlook. A single individual does not speak for anyone other than herself.

Except you tied these personal attacks to the greater subject of trans rights, and in your apparently informed opinion, how to succeed at improving them. So, yes, you made it a general case. There are plenty of people whose attitude would put you off, but when you make the attitude an excuse for not engaging with their points, that's on you, not them. It's tone policing.

EDIT

And to be clear, I was absolutely being general. I didn't mean to single you out specifically. This is an ongoing trend, and I want to highlight it.

 

[rah]

by the same people sticking up for the MAGA hat.

I love how people generalize here. Many of the people aren't sticking up for the hat, but just saying it doesn't necessarily mean you're a racist. Especially after saying they don't own one and wouldn't wear one.
But then certain people equate the two to insult them. Typical.

 

[El_Machinae]

How has life for trans people gotten worse recently? I mean there is this military thing but let's be honest, it's very very minor compared to the issues you are raising in this very post.

We'd need a trans person who wanted to go military to really have this discussion. Right now it's something we're discussing hypothetically.

BUT, since #MAGA appeared, would you predict whether violence has trended upwards or downwards? Not compared to to decades past, but in comparison to recent history?

Would we think that (if #MAGA was toxic), violence would increase?

 

[Gorbles]

I love how people generalize here. Many of the people aren't sticking up for the hat, but just saying it doesn't necessarily mean you're a racist. Especially after saying they don't own one and wouldn't wear one.
But then certain people equate the two to insult them. Typical.

At what point did I generalise about racism to the extent you felt you needed to reply? People are sticking up for the hat. If you're not one of those people, or don't consider yourself one of those people, good for you. I'm not particularly interested in your moaning about generalisations, because you're always selective with regards to what generalisations you moan about.