No we shouldn’t Sarah this giving ground bullshit is how we got here.
If you replace trans people with any other protected group you’d have your career ruined.
We aren’t talking about weather or not the government should pay for our healthcare. We are talking about if our healthcare should even be legal. We are talking about if legally changing your name, which anyone can fucking do, is no longer available. We are talking about legislation that decides what fucking clothes we’re allowed to wear, imagine if they said women can’t wear jeans or pants at all? We’re talking about states deciding that existing is a felony Sarah.
This isn’t a game we’re not playing “but the moderates” those don’t exist in this country. They literally don’t have a position because we’ve slid so far right that either your with the corpo Nazis or you’re not.
No.
Nazis. Democrats should be more open to Nazis. Fuck off, Nazi scum.
You know what they call a party where they don’t kick out Nazis and fascists?
A Nazi party.
I don’t think she’s saying this because she prefers it, but rather because she sees it is necessary.
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
She is clearly arguing that its more effective to be open to a range of ideas than to not so.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
Politics is a strategic war. Its very simple to be 100%, non-compromising, in-support of something. But is that the most effective path forward?
I mean, I think you should take this the wrong way, but this sounds like something a fascist apologist would say.
One could make similar statements (and some do), about voting for the democrats over a better farther-left party. The defenders of voting Democrat would likely tell you the same thing: “Its our only chance at winning.”
Are you voting for genocide if you compromise and vote for the Democrats? Or are you merely making the best of a broken system?
You decide.
So, the problem you have with this pitchfork, and I’ll accept the fallacy for the purpose of exercise, is that it isn’t happening in a vacuum. We actually have the receipts for exactly what you outline.
Voter were told “Its our only chance at winning.” They were being asked by Democrats to compromise and vote for genocide. And the Democrats lost in spectacular fashion.
Acting like you are trying to make the best of an imperfect system, when what you are really doing is creating the permission structure for it to get continuously worse: this approach to electoralism loses elections.
We have the receipts. We don’t need to run the experiment again. We know, unequivocally, that if we ask people to compromise on something that they know is deeply immoral, we will lose.
Its not only that its deeply immoral: Its also bad strategy. Compromising on issue like trans rights, the march towards fascism, genocide: This loses you elections. You are asking someone to become a worse, lessor person, to adopt a strategy that won’t even win. And this is the crux of it.
Democrats as politicians can-not continue to ask their voters to expect less of them. Not only because the things their asking for are deeply immoral, but in doing so, they’ve adopted a strategy which will lose them their race.
Its less important to me that its less strategic than it is less immoral. But this rotten brain worm that “compromise” will get you what you want; that if we can just convince people if they vote “strategic” enough, eventually, maybe after decades of voting, they’ll get what they need to be considered human (gay marriage, civil rights, trans rights, women rights, social safety nets, minimum wage, on and on; almost none of the progressive policies we’ve ever accomplished have been achieved through bipartisan compromise).
Compromise in this context is the second stroke of the ratchet mechanism that has locked America into a frog march towards fascism. Compromise is the song of Martin Luther Kings “white moderate”; the greater obstacle than those directly advocating towards a negative peace, rather than accepting the tension of a positive peace that fosters justice.
That compromise is what you advocate for.
I reject it.
They want to eliminate trans people, so let’s compromise and only eliminate half. Hooray! We’re civil!
I see value in being uncompromising (look at Richard Stallman in Free Software). I also see value in giving a little in the right areas for a net gain.
I don’t think McBride thinks that this is the ultimatum given at the moment (100% vs 50% of trans people die), that would explain why she is willing to compromise.
If she did see it that way, she would probably do the same as you.
Her wanting to compromise at this moment does not mean she would compromise in the worst of moments.
I don’t think McBride thinks that this is the ultimatum given at the moment
It’s not, but the whole point is erosion of civil rights by generating hate then just swinging for the fences. I was gonna say death by a thousand cuts but it’s not even that anymore.
What does she expect to compromise on? Trans athletes? It doesn’t matter. We’re past that point already. Trans people can’t even get a proper passport anymore.
deleted by creator
That sentence isn’t making sense to me.
She’s not saying anything negative about human rights at all. She’s saying that to get what we want (human rights), the path forward is one not so simple that we can just support it unconditionally, “excommunicating”[1] those not in lock-step with our ideas, and get everything we want.
You may shoot for the stars, and get nothing. Or you may shoot for a more reasonable goal and make meaningful progress.
[1]: See the original thread comment. Nazi scum? Is that directed at the trans rep who wants to help? This is a prime example of something I would consider not helpful to the cause.
I don’t see how this can lead to anything good.
The democrats have given ground on immigration every damn election. What it’s ‘won’ is base level of support to put brown people in concentration camps across the political spectrum. The whole “I love immigrants, but if they come here illegally they deserve to be punished” argument can’t stand up to the truth that the inhuman conditions in these camps are far in excess of justice.
On paper I understand that the democratic party can’t guarantee that every member holds the same view on trans rights. In practice we already have evidence that yes, the slope is indeed quite slippery.
What the fuck is wrong with her?
I don’t think she’s saying this because she prefers it, but rather because she sees it is necessary.
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
She is clearly arguing that its more effective to be open to a range of ideas than to not so.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
NO.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. This isn’t politics; it’s a matter of morality.
There is no place in a civilized society for behavior that unpersons fellow human beings. Ever. Full stop. We do NOT need to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of people who want to be cruel to others for no damn reason. We need them to change, or leave.
She’s either short sighted or suicidal.
Short sighted: she recognizes that what she’s saying is correct in that it would lead to short term gains for the party but fails to recognize the long term effects that allowing “sidelining minorities for political gain” to regain steam it has lost over the past few decades.
Suicidal: she recognizes all of the above is actually absolutely the correct direction for any non-trans democrat who only cares about building party influence to push at this moment and for some god damn reason she’s telling the evil fucks all about it in plain English.
Not too surprising from a pro-Israel candidate.
Sure, and who should the Dems throw under the bus after that?
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
“I do think I understand, as a trans person, how to meet people who aren’t trans where they are, and how to find commonality with people,” she said. “Part of that is creating room for a lack of understanding, for disagreement, for grace and, therefore, to create room for growth.”Sarah McBride should suck the corn out of my backside
