Based on the 2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Via a former conservative on Reddit:
- The government won’t allow you to get an abortion even if giving birth would kill you (p.449 - 503)
- The government won’t let you buy condoms or plan b (p.449)
- The government will give more free money to the ultra-rich and the largest corporations (p.691)
- The government will not allow for workers to be protected at work (p.581)
- The government will steal your social security (p.691)
- The government will take away Medicare (p.449)
- The government will not let you find affordable healthcare (p.449)
- The government will refuse to help educate our children (p.319)
- The government will give your tax money to private schools for christians (p.319)
- The government will force public schools to become religious schools for christians (p.319)
- The government will fire you for the color of your skin (p545 - 581)
- The government will tell you what you’re allowed to think (p319)
- The government will sell our land to be permanently destroyed (p417)
- The government will sell the arctic to oil companies (p363)
- Big business and oil will be allowed to do whatever they want without consequences (p.363)
- The government will tell you what a family is supposed to look like. Anything else is a crime. (p.545 - 581)
- The government will make us deaf/blind to attack by destroying the FBI and Homeland Security (p.133)
- The government will build concentration camps to get rid of anyone deemed un-American (p.133)
- If you’re born in the United States you are not automatically a citizen (p.133)
- The government will make it legal for food to be poison (p.363 - 417)
Claims without a citation yet:
- The government will not let you get a divorce without “proof” of wrongdoing
- Your taxes will go up
- The government will not let you retire
- Drugs will cost more
- The government will let your kids go hungry while they are forced to attend these schools
- The government will tell you what you’re allowed to read and burn the rest
- The government will freely kill citizens they disagree with
- The government will attack single mothers because that’s not a “traditional” family
- The government will order our active-duty military to attack us if we protest
- The government will make being muslim on American soil a crime
- The government will make sure all judges are more loyal to the party than they are to the country
Looks like we’re gonna have to kill some fucking Nazis again
Guess im buying some more guns and ammo before November.
Protect yourself and your loved ones. This shit is straight up tyranny.
It is part of what 2A was actually meant for.
Would be interesting to see who comes out on top in a battle. A Gravy SEAL or a yoga instructor. One has gun accuracy, the other has everything else.
But I’m sure by day 30 everyone’s over it after another country swoops in to annex during the instability. It’s not like allies can do anything until that point, and then there’ll be that whole rule of engagement where they can’t involve or engage with any Gravy SEALs or yoga instructors unless fired upon first. Which I imagine would happen a lot since the militias have never been “well regulated” and are in no way ready for combat, let alone identifying what’s friendly or foe.
“Whoah! Stop shooting! We’re England!”
“The hell you boys doin’ 'ere?”
“The annexation.”
“The wha?”
“You’re losing your country to Russia and China for like eight months now.”
“We are?”
“Yeah, most of the west coast is already their’s. We’re trying to hold them off-”
“California too?”
“Yes. That’s where they landed.”
“Buddy, that is great news! I gotta report this to HQ.” crosses street to Taco Bell “Captain Grand Wizard, we fuckin’ did it!”
Add drone and 3D printer etc etc
Sorry, the most useful ones have been banned. Governor Inslee of Washington State banned literally every single semi-automatic center fire rifle this year, including sporting and target rifles.
Upvoted because you have a point. This is literally why we need the 2A and “assault weapons”. At least, for now, but it will be a long time and a lot of work before the US can be the utopia people wanting to ban guns think it would be.
This time the Americans are the Nazis.
always were, if you ask the natives, the global south, black folk
Good thing that USA is spending as much on their military as during the height of WW2, so they can come and help. Wait a moment…
I just don’t really get why people even get behind stuff like this. There’s just nothing for anyone to really gain and a whole lot for everyone to lose…
Even the mega rich and the corporations have to recognize that an unstable world isn’t really a great place to live or do business right? Or is it just that they’re so far removed from everything that they don’t have to care?
By the time you’re benefiting from this in a non-symbolic way, your net worth is more than you can conceivably spend in a lifetime… Go home, you’re done!
They’ll have a care once they hear that guillotine blade start its decent
They are only thinking of “Me” now, or “Me and my kids”, they will be dead when society collapses and they don’t care. But yes, the obscene amassed wealth is insanity, it means nothing to your lifestyle at some point. And will be useless at death.
I think it’s short term thinking. Probably something similar to the way investors think when they’re on a mission to earn money, but end up causing enshittification
deleted by creator
As I intentionally filter out as much US politics as I can, this has come out of nowhere for me.
Australia has a couple of really simple things baked into its electoral system to resist something wildly unpopular like this from getting in power:
- Compulsory voting. These MAGA crazies are not and will never be the majority. If everyone had to vote, they’d never get in.
- Proportional voting. We vote for multiple candidates. If our first choice doesn’t get in, our vote goes to our second choice. Then third etc. we aren’t forced to vote for a lizard just to prevent the worse lizard getting in (it still almost always comes down to two parties, though).
I know these are total non-starters for our American friends. “You can’t make me vote, that’s against the constitution or something”.
As an American, I think I’d support compulsory voting… But the right would fight that with everything they had, because if everyone had to vote, they’d never win with their current stances.
Yeah, these have saved us on a lot of issues I feel. It’s simply a much more representative system than what the Americans do and it helps keep a lot of fringe ideologies at the fringes, where they usually belong.
Minor correction, we have preferential voting not proportional.
What’s Australia’s stance on immigration?
Mixed, as it is in every wealthy country that has more people wanting to move here than move away from here. Because we have such a large migrant population though it is difficult for politicians to gain traction by being outright anti-immigrant.
How about Coal?
Ranked choice voting (proportional) is still making its way slowly into the mainstream, but with very little reason the change the main political parties torpedo it when they can.
I prefer approval voting, it’s easier to explain and at least as good. Most voting systems also have support for it already.
Easy to teach people new to it too, just pick everyone you are ok with winning.
Most commonly suggested voting systems are better than FPTP, usually by a lot.
Yeah, nearly anything is better than FPTP. But approval voting in particular is simple to explain and basically already supported by nearly all voting equipment out there.
Basically instead of picking one person, you pick everyone you’re OK with. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If the election is for multiple seats then the top X people for most votes wins. No ranking order, no multiple rounds, no way to fill out a ballot wrong, it’s utterly simple.
Compulsory voting is definitely intriguing…even if you had the option to vote “null” meaning not vote for anyone but at least you had to make the effort to say something. The crazies I think are a relatively small portion of the US, they’re just SO much louder than everyone else
A null vote here is a option. Colloquially called a Donkey Vote, or statistically reported as an Informal Vote, you can write nothing on your voting slip and put it straight in the box. Also since voting is compulsory it is held on a Saturday, there are usually sausage sizzles, there must be enough polling places open so you’re not in line for more than 30 minutes, and early voting is a viable option.
A Donkey Vote isn’t the same thing as an Informal Vote. A Donkey Vote means simply numbering the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. In other words, a thoughtless vote that any donkey could do.
This is why there’s a benefit to appearing in the first spot and why the impartial and independent Australian Electoral Commission (another invaluable aspect of Australian democracy) randomly determines candidate order.
Wouldn’t it be easier just to move to North Korea? There you can enjoy those perks from day one.
Plus you’ll lose weight!
As a non american, is this funking real? Not a shitpost? Holy shit the more i read, the worse it becomes. Wtf.
This is very real. You can read it here: https://www.project2025.org. You can google multiple right wing websites commenting on it for yourself.
Or you can watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp_s
Believe people when they tell you who they are.
I was thinking surely there must be at least one positive bulletpoint reading that shyte
There is! … If you’re an ultra conservative right wing trump supporter
Defunding the FBI and Homeland Security sounds like a good idea.
I find it amusing that you’re being downvoted by people who likely also claim ACAB and want to “defund the police”, since DHS and FBI are federal law enforcement, aka federal police.
I didn’t downvote, but the optics are very different on those groups. Jane and John Smith are much more likely to have a terrible experience with local police than federal police. I would like to think they operate under different standards, but I admittedly know very little about how the FBI functions.
They serve a purpose. Definitely need a restructuring though.
Sorry FBI is useful. DHS is tedious, but it would just get rolled into another agency if it shuttered.
Another way to look at this plan is: how to create an unstable and globally uncompetitive workforce.
America will become a shithole country where no one will want to live or work. The rich will send their children to study and work elsewhere.
When America is inhospitable to everyone except to multi-millionaires or billionaires (who live elsewhere rn anyways, btw as they have multiple nationalities and passports), the rest of the upper class will jump ship to other countries, where they will always get to enjoy the progressive policies and culture they deprive others of.
Remember: if the daughter of a rich person will get pregnant, she will have access to abortion
If the children of the rich want to have sex, they will have contraception
The rich will choose to live in countries with Medicare and other social programs
The rich will always have access to rights, and would straight up be able to “buy justice”, like in countries like India, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil etc
The rich will always be able to afford clean water and air
Project 2025 isn’t about race or lgbt or “fambily vablues” as the mealy mouthed hypocrites would have you believe. It’s straight class warfare.
All Americans are a target of the class warfare, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Even the rich are worse off because they get to enjoy the judicial process here in America, as opposed to getting robbed by the state as in Russia or China.
In short, project 2025 is a dumb cunt plan of no foresight or insight, and definitely not written by anyone who has goodwill towards Americans or any patriotism
But you’re not thinking about the short term gains for the 1%!
I honestly don’t even think the people who came up with this are thinking about that. Like nifty said, these policies will create a brain drain that will be bad for the U.S. economy, including the assets of the rich.
This is just some christofacist shit. I don’t think they gave a thought to anything else.
Do you honestly think a significant amount of skilled workers will leave America? Do you think other countries would take us?
Like, I get it. I’ve humored moving to Canada, but it ain’t easy to just up and leave everything. Especially when most people can barely achieve $5k in savings.
If this shit goes ahead you’re about to get a whole new insider perspective on refugees, son.
I apologize in advance for sounding like a dick here, reducing people to dollars and cents. But that’s how the people we’re discussing see us.
It’s not the ones who don’t have 5k and/or marketable skills that would harm the economy by leaving. If you’ve got something to offer and a company to sponsor you immigration is relatively easy. I’ve spent part of my career working in other countries, and I’ve known many others that have as well. What we have in common is we’re all educated professionals with lots of disposable income. We would harm the economy if we left in larger numbers and stayed away en masse. Although some stay, for the most part we come home. It’s nice to go home. If it’s not nice to come home, we’ll take our education and skills and stay somewhere that is nice. That’s why it’s called a brain drain and not a ditchdigger drain.
And then there are refugees. Countries don’t take refugees because they want them. They do it because it would be inhumane to not at least have a process, even if many countries make the process as onerous as they can.
As we see in the news the move toward the far right is a global phenomenon not just a US thing. Jumping ship is difficult already and there will be fewer desirable countries to go to, as various countries are infected with varying levels of far right. Most Americans don’t understand that you cant just pack up and move to another country. Socially progressive countries have difficult and lengthy immigration processes, and caps. Only the very rich and the lucky few will have that agency annually. Other countries wont be entertaining 10s of thousands of potential American immigrants. If project 2025 is what the younger generations see fit to vote into power then they can reap what they sow.
Far right is on decline in countries with progressive policies, like the Nordic model
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
And it also got the boot out the fucking door in worst defeat in history in the UK recently
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/uk-general-election-results-2024-intl/index.html
People who live under far right policies fucking hate them. Ask anyone living in Russia or Brazil
Brazil GDP has gone down since 2010: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/BRA/brazil/gdp-gross-domestic-product since Lula was voted out
Context about Lula now: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/30/americas/brazil-election-lula-da-silva-wins-intl/index.html
The far right is a nothing burger w.r.t race and culture, it’s always been about class warfare
Edit: yeah, useful idiots will buy into the racism spiel of these ideologies, but they’re just being fooled by their upper class masters
Only here to add onto the UK thing, a big part of the reason the conservatives lost in the UK is because a new-ish party which leans much further right (the reform party) got decently popular, draining away a large proprtion of the voter base.
While the reform party got the same amount seats in parliament as a left leaning but still small party (green), their share of the vote was much larger. So the UK is not neccesarily sick of the far right, just the tories. Its possible the new government will be effective enough to keep the right at bay, but the current state of the labour party is one of a once centre left party sliding further and further right with their leader’s policy on things like the EU and certain marginalised minorities.
My overview is quite biased as i am a left leaning person, and i have ignored things such as the lib dems who gained massive popularity but could’ve split the left wing vote in turn. Its possible that the lib dems could represent the new left of the UK, or that the combined lib dem and labour vote is what we should consider the left.
Fair point, but so far history has shown such people riding in on a wave of economic misery or promise to resolve economic misery (which they previously created), and then getting the boot. I guess there’s more history to be observed ahead
Oh, and I guess Italy under Meloni: https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/italy-gdp-unexpectedly-shrinks-blow-meloni-2023-07-31/
Couldn’t possibly be related to the policies of the last 25 years in these countries. It’s a mystery why people will turn to any change that seems viable.
Condemn single mothers while promoting only “traditional families.”
Should be: Condemn single mothers instead of absent parents.
Nice work!
I hear he’s saying he doesn’t know who came up with it. Here’s what Wikipedia says:
Project 2025 partners employ over 200 former officials from the Trump administration.[55] Notable authors of the project’s Mandate for Leadership include many officials and advisors from the Trump administration, including Jonathan Berry, Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, Thomas Gilman, Mandy Gunasekara, Gene Hamilton, Christopher Miller, Bernard McNamee, Stephen Moore, Mora Namdar, Peter Navarro, William Perry Pendley, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Kiron Skinner, Roger Severino, Hans von Spakovsky, Brooks Tucker, Russell Vought, and Paul Winfree.[56] Former president Trump has not publicly endorsed Project 2025, and his campaign said such recommendations from “external allies” are just “recommendations.”[57]
Vought was named policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee in May 2024.[58]
At the 2023 Iowa State Fair, the leaders of Project 2025 began recruiting people for future government posts in the event of a Republican victory.[59]
On July 5, 2024 Former President Trump expressed his disagreement with Project 2025 in a statement: “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”[60][61]
How would he “disagree with some of the things they’re saying” when he "know(s) nothing about Project 2025?
It is such a a simple and impossible to miss thread of logic, isn’t it. Something noone could possibly miss, no?
Infuriating
This is exactly why Trump is the best case scenario for all this ugly shit coming to its battle. Think about if they went to all this trouble of laying the groundwork and rigging the media coverage so everyone spends the whole time talking about how Biden’s old and jerrymandering and overriding vote totals with the state legislature and killing the post office and intimidating voters and running multi billion dollar explicitly seditionist media networks and whatever else and what the hell, it works, and he gets a second term.
And then he says, fuck that, we hate Project 2025 now, if I do that then people won’t like me
It’s the same reason some spy agencies put a kibosh on the idea of killing Hitler… like actually, we looked at it, and this guy’s a seriously mentally ill stimulant-addicted megalomaniac in addition to a stone cold moron who refuses to listen to anyone smarter than him, I think we actually want him to be the one in charge of the whole operation.
No, he’s saying he doesn’t agree with all of it so that any Trump supporter who looks at the list and finds something they don’t like will think “Oh yeah, this is the thing Trump won’t like either, same as me”.
It’s a mental trick to stop the supporters from getting hooked into details.
That too, yes. But my main point is that Trump is such a disorganized moron that I think it’s possible that having him at the helm will undo a lot of the potential effectiveness of Project 2025. Having almost anyone else in charge of its implementation will amp up the terrifyingness level by quite a bit, and it already wasn’t small.
Did you seriously write all that and not once think of all the collateral damage? I mean, Hitler didn’t personally execute millions of Jews. A conservative administration will pack the courts, weaken voter rights, and put sycophants in key positions they will hold for years. Just for starters.
If even half this agenda gets acted on we’ll be fucked for decades.
Wait, hang on. I didn’t mean I want Trump to win. Trump in charge is a global catastrophe. I’m just saying that Ron DeSantis or something, in charge of the machine that’s now been created for Trump, would be a several times worse catastrophe.
I’m saying that defeating Trump is absolutely vital, and that we’re a little bit lucky that it’s Trump, because he’ll be a lot easier to defeat than a lot of other people that might have been in charge of all this stuff that’s been building ever since Roger Ailes had his bright idea, now that it’s come to its fruition.
Damn, I can’t even see the goal posts anymore. Well done!
I think you’re under the impression that the figure head or president is the only one who can do damage. 11 million people were killed in torturous holocaust camps, far more in the actual war, and that’s not getting into injuries and social damage.
Claiming this is the best alternative because he is foolish and vain, is unwise. It might be better to treat this as a training session, and assume that the next time they come and attempt this, they’re going to know what they’re doing and send competent and deceptive people who will be more successful at it…
…and then you look at who “we” sent, and have… And it becomes obvious the only option is cultural/social. We have to make the people so informed, empathetic, politically active and aware that no one will be able to think of trying anything like this again.
…but we also have to do this for both sides, which means getting both sides talking to each other respectfully. Mom and dad are fighting, it’s getting violent and only the children can intervene.
This is what the bots here don’t want you voting against. Vote like lives depend on it!
I’m the OP, and I also post in [email protected]. I’m a human who’s been called a bot, and an advocate for Ukrainians and Russians against colonization and tyranny who has been called a Russian puppet.
Whether you vote or not isn’t important to me as long as whoever gets elected, you continue to fight for a better world via direct action. We’re in exactly this situation because people’s political resistance begins and ends with voting, and that means the people who get the ‘progressive’ vote merely have to be the least worst fascist on the ballot. Totalitarian tyranny isn’t built on the virtues of the tyrants, but the failures of the liberals. The Democrats created this situation, and they deserve to face consequences for it.
Blaming bogey-men like Russian bots and scapegoating politically ‘unsophisticated’ leftists only puts off the self-reflection that needs to happen so that if the United States survives this election, they won’t be back in exactly this situation with a new fascist threat in another 4 years.
We’re in this situation because people don’t vote.
All other forms of political activism, aside from murder, exist to convince people to vote.
Activism without voting is worthless.
You want more progressive candidates? Vote for Democrats until Republicans are forced to move to the left, and then Democrats will be able to move to the left as well.
That’s how the Overton window works.
The Overton window is a measurement of acceptable political discourse. You shift it by vocally expressing unpopular public opinions in the public sphere, not by voting. Voting is supposed to be an expression of popular public opinion, not the other way around.
Sometimes the most effective way to change things is by threatening not to vote and convincing other people to do likewise. The most famous use of this tactic was by the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
In the 1960s black people were much more actively discriminated against on a systemic level, practically prevented from voting in many of the states in the southern United States. The president at the time was the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, and was facing the much more racist Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. While the black vote was suppressed in the south, there was a significant voting block in the north of black people and their allies whose main issue was civil rights. Civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, met several times with LBJ, who coaxed them to tone down the direct action protests and criticism until after the election, as he claimed to we willing to negotiate with them once the threat to his power was diminished. Instead, civil rights protests increased. The leaders, probably correctly, determined that once the election was over, they would have less leverage. Even though losing the election meant having an enemy in the white house, having a ‘friend’ who continued to delay essential concessions did not further their cause. People were actively being murdered by the ‘Jim Crow’ apartheid regime, and delays and half-measures were not sufficient.
Thanks to the pressure of millions of people engaged in direct action and open criticism of the president, the Civil Rights Act was passed before the 1964 election. LBJ won by a landslide due to the popularity of the legislation, but suffered the severe political consequences Democrats were trying to avoid through their strategy of placation and delay. The 1964 election was the last where Democrats got the majority of the white vote, and electing politicians in the southern states became much more difficult for their party. Palestinian Americans and their allies now face a similar situation. Democrats will continue to ignore the genocide in Gaza unless there are real political consequences to their actions. While Donald Trump would be a significantly worse candidate, the logic of a two-party system requires that they be willing to risk a worse political situation if they are to hold any political power at all.
Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King are regarded as heroes today, but at the time, they were reviled by both Democrats and Republicans as a force of chaos that acted out of ignorance of the political system. If LBJ had lost the election to Goldwater, perhaps their legacy would be considered differently. But it would not change the fact that the cause they were fighting for was just, and they were able to wield political power in a system that was designed to marginalize them.
Whether you vote or not isn’t important to me as long as whoever gets elected, you continue to fight for a better world via direct action.
If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.
The Democrats created this situation,
100% true
and they deserve to face consequences for it.
Along with millions or potentially billions of others, who didn’t do anything wrong?
If Trump gets elected, you may start getting shot for fighting for a better world via direct action. Or for many other things.
I’m OP; I posted the list. Yeah, I know. We’re already dodging police tear-gas canisters fired at head-level and Zionist vigilantes, I expect bullets next.
So you know that Trump has plans to start shooting protestors on purpose with live ammunition, but you also think that whether you vote or not isn’t important? Not just “accidentally” crush some eyes or testicles or skulls from time to time, but just outright gun people down en masse, and you’re okay with not doing anything to stop that escalation until the Democrats clear your bar for goodness?
(Actually, more accurately, he has plans to remove the things that stopped the order from getting carried out, when last time he said he wanted them to shoot protestors with live ammunition.)
I’m not trying to be rude about it or harp on this one thing when we seem like we should be allies, but your viewpoint on that sounds shockingly naive. You also didn’t answer my question. If you (or I) are one of the people getting shot, a year from now, because you want to organize for a better world, will you in your words deserve to face those consequences?
I’ve written in another thread about why someone who thinks Donald Trump is significantly worse than Joe Biden would still choose not to vote for Joe.
This part doesn’t seem totally crazy to me. Actually, Ralph Nader, who has quite a history of getting good outcomes to pop out of the pig’s ear (to put it pretty fuckin charitably) that is Washington, expressed his anger and frustration with people who were seeing injustices like Gaza and not doing anything to threaten the Democrats into better behavior about it. Like I say, not totally crazy.
I feel like the needed additional part for that, though, is some concrete action to induce the change you are aiming for from the Democrats. That’s the part that the civil rights movements had. If you’re just saying “not good enough yet” as a general thing, and encouraging others to do the same, then I think that ramps up the unlikeliness of it producing any good policies, and also ramps up significantly the likeliness of it producing death camps instead.
Not saying you’re doing that; I haven’t gone back and taken any kind of deep dive. But I’ve been conversing with you and I haven’t happened to run across anything that stuck out that looked like “I don’t want to vote for the Democrats unless X Y Z and you shouldn’t either.”
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me.
This reads a lot like bothsidesism. And frankly it’s utter horse shit. And the clowns in Notvoting need to open a history book and try and find a single moment in history where NOT voting in an election created positive change.
I’ll save you some time:
Not once has it happened. If you don’t vote- you don’t get to influence any part of any change you’d like to see, but others do. And if you don’t vote, you have no control over what changes. It probably fits without saying, but maybe let everyone over there know that the election is going to happen with or without their influence.
So folding your arms and pouting is going to do nothing at all- and it’s going to say nothing at all- to no one that cares or is even willing you pay attention.
All you’re doing is removing the power you have to ever see the changes you want.
Yeah. That’s not how this works. If your argument is that both sides are the same- you get accused of arguing for both sides.
Is this real? Did they just sit down and brainstorm how to be as evil as possible without diving right into genocide?
This is just the latest draft. It’s been building up since before the John Birch Society.
I mean, there’s already broad bipartisan agreement on genocide.
Notably absent: ending gender transition care for all ages and erasing transgender people from existence under the law.
Not really relevant to their actual goal of destroying democracy, just a little culture war to throw a minority under the bus so the masses squabble over it instead of the broader, more universally opposed changes.
Don’t you dare minimize this. It’s not a “little culture war,” it’s deliberate cruelty to a people that neo-nazis and Cristian-nationalists see as subhuman. It’s evil and intentional.
Yeah but it also gets used to sweep normal people into all that neo-nazism because they’re poorly educated and will believe whoever they think has authority to speak on the subject. The GOP can’t be defeated by calling them evil. They have to be defeated by stopping away their authority and exposing, in plain and simple terms, how they’re all hypocrites and that they will throw ALL OF US into the fire, not just the people whose identities are confusing.
The hate they are engineering is deliberate, but it isn’t because they all personally hate queer people. It’s because they do not care about any of us, and queer people are the easiest group to misinform the public about, so they can fear-monger and keep us putting out fires.
I’m not saying we should stop putting out the fires, I’m saying we should recognize that the fires aren’t the goal.
Cruelty is happening to whomever is easiest to target for cruelty. Conservativism always leverages that to allow for hate to take deeper roots. Because people who operate solely off of hate are the easiest to control of all
Yeah but [wall of text]
it also gets used to sweep normal people into all
Trans people are “normal people.”
but it isn’t because they all personally hate queer people
Oh, but they do. They do. From the death threats to the “oh no I kissed a trans person gag sounds” “joke” to the existence of the Trans Panic defense. The ones who use us are also deadly serious with hate.
Look, I get it, your heart is in the right place. But when a minority tells you, straight out, “hey, this is not okay,” pay attention, and put those hand-wavy digits in your pockets for a while.
Then let’s all go fight fascism.
- Normal people in this context CLEARLY means “not fascist” not “not queer”, stop being intentionally obtuse. Queer people can be normal or not normal, and so can straight cis people. They’re all individuals who decide for themselves how they want to live. Fascism is never normal though.
- I’m not talking about the uneducated right-wing populace when I say “they don’t personally hate trans people”. I’m talking about the leadership of the conservative fascist movement who recognize that generating hate towards queer people will further their goals. Some of them do it because they hate trans people, others do it because it’s easy to manipulate people to hate each other for things they don’t understand, and hateful people are less likely to think critically about a government that affirms their hatred.
Fascism is a multi-headed hydra, and queerphobic rhetoric is only one head. We need to defeat the whole dragon to stop the head from regrowing, and the first step to accomplishing that is to recognize the dragon as a whole.
You’re still doing it.
Blocked.
Leftist infighting continues :/
Edit: this whole interaction seemed weird to me, I’m not sure if I was dealing with a troll or a kid but I found a recent comment that gives me a bit more context to who this person is: https://lemmy.world/comment/10757207
I don’t really feel too bad about being blocked by someone like this
Some of the “claims without a citation” are things that were done under the first Trump administration.
-
taxes did go up for most Americans under the last tax bill. It’s safe to say that if Republicans need to raise taxes it’ll be through the lower and middle class.
-
kids go hungry or into debt for school lunches today because of how little some families make. Trump admin agnostic but definitely a feature for the Republican party and not a bug.
-
books are being banned in the US at an alarming rate, look at Florida as a prime example. Trump admin agnostic but definitely a party priority.
-
trump suggested multiple times as president that people should just be shot, killed, or executed for things as benign as protesting outside the Whitehouse. He didn’t do it, but it’s a pretty short distance between “the president wants to kill you” and “the president is having you killed”.
-
the president did send in national guard and other militarily equipped groups to beat and pepper spray journalists and protestors while president.
-
trump appointmented judges clearly lack the experience, qualifications, and apolitical-ness expected of a normal judge. You can see that in the supreme Court and you can see that at the federal judge level.
-
I think the pure length of it introduces enough delay before encountering the really terrifying parts and might interfere with the punch of the message. I might try to do a modified version with some bold text and larger sections so some of the strong full impact comes across right away, without trying to reduce the detail or the scope
Also, I think it is relevant to repeat the founders’ feeling on it. The “government” doesn’t “let” you do anything. Everyone’s just born into the earth into this wild and semiorganized place, as weird social beings that are half monkeys and half made up of something a lot more inspirational. And from time to time, they want to set up a system they all agree on so they can have clean water and roadways and courts and someone centrally in charge of the economy, things like that. But, sometimes like a few thousand people put temporarily in charge of all that start to look around at all the guns and money in their command and get confused and think they have the right to tell 400 million other people “hey check it out you have to do what I say, I DGAF what you think or of it’s right, that’s just what’s up.” And then when that happens it is the job of the 400 million to re educate them on what’s up.
And you could say that if they don’t, they deserve what happens. But honestly it’s not even a statement of deserves or not, or right and wrong. It is simply a statement of the reality of what happens. Most of things like the bill of rights is understood today as like, what the government is “allowed” to restrict and not, but the founders’ view of it was a lot more akin to, these are some examples of what people will do as inherent parts of their nature and God help you if you try to tell them they can’t, and they become alert and organized.
