Jedeed, I gotta trust you are the best manager of your precious time, yet it seems you are spending a bunch of it banging your head against concrete. Maybe you just need to keep your polemical blades sharp, which they are. Great to see street fighting skills in the same holster as skilfull diplomacy and compassion. Gonzo journalism revisited and exceeded.
What do you mean by the "logical final step of white supremacy"? On the surface, it seems clear that in a world where the reality is ethnic pluralism, a racial supremacy necessarily leads to oppression and violence.
However, you then claim that gender ideology does not have this conclusion, which skips the messy implication of how the ideal is to come about and goes to the utopia of free gender expression. If you treated the white supremacist ideal in this same way, then the logical final step of the white supremacist is a unified race free of racism.
I might think you were implying that trans ideology can be achieved through non-violent means, but when I was a leftist in many intersectional circles violence was always part of the vision we had for the immediate future. By day we were organizing food pantries and by night we planned arson. We understood that the struggle to liberation on the gender front was necessarily tied to the struggle against capitalism, and since we were heavily influenced by Marx, the breakdown of capitalist society was to be expiated though violence, not through voting at the polls.
In both of these cases, it is force which can approach the ideal, which might be a bleak statement, but I'm also counting the imposition of the law as force. If trans policy is to be implemented at the level of the law, then there is necessarily a force behind it. The same could be said of white supremacy. In the same way, transgender ideology could be propagated in lawless ways, as could white supremacy.
So, I do not see how the logical step of either of these ideologies is not necessarily violence, and if we said that one would not necessarily lead to violence it seems we would have to say that about the other.
The problem is your trans “rights” require my acquiesce to your ideology and participation in it, I do not consent I will not participate and trans activists believe I should be subject to violence for my failure to affirm, prance around in your little dress in your disgusting woman face display or exercise your sexual fetishes in public, I’ll laugh and point, you have no right to compel me to do otherwise, but lord knows you think violence is justified in trying to
What you have done here is regurgitate Matt Walsh's talking points word for word. You have not made the argument you think you have; all you have done is proudly display your inability to think for yourself
Society requires basic politeness to function; for time immemorial we have understood that if you pick a fight at a bar, you might get punched in the face. That's a basic fact of human interaction that predates the trans movement by thousands of years, it has always been that way and always will. If you don't understand the hazards of rudeness generally, I can only conclude that you're either too young or too boring to socialize with adults in a public setting
Beyond that, though, you people are not just demanding the right to say "no." You don't want people to talk about transness or be visibly trans in public. Your side vocally wants to prevent trans youth from accessing gender affirming care. It wants to ban gender affirming care for adults as well. It wants to ban drag, which falls under freedom of expression. No one is forcing you to go to drag shows, but I have every right to go to one
Your side is the one conflating transness with pedophilia. This is not the passive resistance you claim. It is disingenuous to pretend you aren't at war with the concept of trans people. Your people would like transness to no longer exist at all. Your people have explicitly said this
I fully expect you to reply to this comment with more plagiarized Walsh, and I want you to know that no one is impressed or persuaded by your mimicry. The only way you can win this war is by force, which is why your side is so hell-bent on portraying transness as inherently violent so you have the excuse to be violent in return. Those of us who care about human rights will continue to resist your efforts to do this.
But by all means, prove me wrong by expressing a single original thought. We'll be here all day
All day Laura? You seem to have run away ragged and quickly its weird that you accuse me of regurgitating talking points, as I don’t see anyone else anywhere talking about your personal behavior your actions and how those actions demonstrate just how fucking full of shit you are..:.you are fucking
Loving these dead Christian children but I live in Portland where leftists more honest than you are openly celebrating…but of course those comrades play a different role than you in the leftist project don’t they?
Lol the window smashing Antifa mob wants to lecture me about politeness…the people who shout down and assault anyone who speaks up in Portland…and your obsession with Matt Walsh is your problem not mine, but thank you for introducing me to him I’ve been following you far longer then I’ve been aware of him… I don’t care what you think of my opinions or their origins I care about the fact you punched me in the face …I care that you want to hurt my children to advance your ideology and its utopian BS ….there is no such thing as “gendered affirming care” you can mutilate yourself to your hearts content that’s your right and my right to laugh at you for dong so and I will never affirm your beliefs , I will never go along with leftism ever
Saying that your ideology does not accept trans people is like your ideology not accepting left-handed people. Both have been considered wrong for long periods of history, but biology says they are very real people and enjoy fundamental rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If your ideology requires denying that all men created equal, then we’ve got a bigger problem, and the United States might not be the right place for you.
Ms. Jedeed, I do not identify myself as conservative, though I suspect that you might so identify me.
«If you’re a conservative and you’ve made it this far, I want you to know something very important. I do not hate you. I do not think you’re demonic or that your soul is bad. I know most of you do the things you do in an effort to save this dying world, that you expend all this energy to push your agenda because you care deeply about this country, just as I do.»
May I ask how you reconcile your closing words with the sentiment, "Eat the rich," that you have previously expressed and which, to my knowledge, you still hold?
From where I'm standing, I very much feel like it would be appropriate to say to you, "But that's not what you're actually doing. And I am begging you to see that before it's too late."
I think of "eat the rich" as a patently absurd statement and a humorous way of saying "no one should be this wealthy." Like, if I said "murder all billionaires," that's a thing with historical precedence, but eating the rich? I hope you don't think I'm actually hungry for human flesh.
That being said, if it isn't coming across that way, that's important to know.
No, I don't take you literally. It's an expression. I'm given to understand that the full expression is something like "when the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich". My interpretation of it, which I assume is the most common, is that if the rich "abuse" and "hoard" their wealth and "privilege" then the poor will rise up against the alleged injustice and relieve the rich of their wealth, etc. Personally, I regard it as a euphemism for, ultimately, murder. I came to this conclusion after seeing the expression associated with images of the guillotine. Perhaps I am mistaken in this impression.
However, even if I am mistaken in regarding it as a euphemism for jealous violence, I don't think that detracts from my point, which is that you lack a certain credibility when you tell conservatives that their demonization of a marginalized class will lead, ultimately, to a holocaust. The same could be said of the call to divest the productive (not all rich are idle, in fact most aren't) of their wealth.
I know that from where you stand it looks very much like all private wealth was unjustly acquired and that, loving this country as you do, you think you are trying to "save this dying world", but demonizing the wealthy for being wealthy is the same "sin" you described in this article and will reach the same end as the one you warn conservatives about.
"I came to this conclusion after seeing the expression associated with images of the guillotine. Perhaps I am mistaken in this impression."
You've never looked up the origin of "eat the rich"? I mean, it's easily googleable. It is attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau from a speech issued in 1793 by the president of the Paris Commune, 5 years after a *horrible* famine that very directly helped kick off the French Revolution.
Whether Rousseau actually said it or not is questionable but it literally links back to famine and the leveraging of that famine by speculators to achieve political and economic power. The greater point isn't that the mob is coming to murder the wealthy, it's that the wealthy class may think that they're disconnected from the masses but in the end they are not, and that the masses will consume what they need to in order to survive. Keeping people fed keeps the people from turning on the wealthy.
Put into context, "eat the rich" is not a threat to inflict violence, it's the promise of reprisal after the wealthy have used their wealth to threaten and attack the people. They literally were threatening to take away food from the people of Paris in order to gain political power, and "if you take away our food we'll eat you" was the response. Yes, there is inherent and even explicit violence in the statement, but there is inherent and even explicit violence in the inciting act.
Rough translation of the passage (Google translate so it's rough but you get the idea):
Attorney-General Chaumette made a fulminating speech on this subject against the merchants.
"We remember," he said, "that in '89 and the following years, all these men carried on a very large trade, but with whom? with the foreigner. We know that it was they who caused the assignats to fall, and that it was by means of speculation on paper money that they enriched themselves. What did they do after their fortune was complete? They withdrew from trade, they threatened the people with the shortage of goods; but if they have gold and assignats, the republic has something more precious, it has arms. Arms and not gold are needed to set factories and factories in motion. Well! if these individuals abandon the factories, the republic will seize them, and it will requisition all the raw materials. Let them know that it depends on the republic to reduce, when it wishes, to mud and ashes the gold and the assignats which are in their hands. The giant of the people must crush the mercantile speculators."
“We feel the evils of the people, because we are people ourselves. The entire council is made up of sans-culottes, it is the legislator-people. It matters little to us that our heads fall, as long as posterity deigns to pick up our skulls.... It is not the Gospel that I will invoke, it is Plato. He who strikes with the sword, says this philosopher, will perish by the sword; whoever strikes poison, will perish by poison; famine will suffocate whoever wants to starve the people.... If the food and goods run out, who will the people blame? to the constituted authorities? no... At the convention? no... He will go after suppliers and suppliers. Rousseau was a people too, and he said: When the people have nothing left to eat, they will eat the rich.” (Commune of October 14.)
«Put into context, "eat the rich" is not a threat to inflict violence, it's the promise of reprisal». Indeed, thank you for demonstrating my point. Switch the target (perhaps to "groomer") and it might have been uttered by an anti-trans conservative.
Ms. Jedeed called conservatives to task for demonizing an entire class of people via hysterical rhetoric. She hastened to add that she doesn't regard conservatives as subhuman. And yet, "eat the rich" does indeed convey that very sentiment. "Some rich have harmed us, therefore all must go," sounds a lot like what conservatives are saying about trans people, swapping one classification for another.
To this I say judge the individual, not the class, and take care to apply a just standard.
Except that this factually not true. You can't point to some grand "trans groomer" conspiracy in reality. If you're going to go after groomers and be honest about it, then the Boy Scouts and most organized religions should be sweating because I can point to *thousands* of documented and tens of thousands of accused groomers there and nobody says anything about it when invoking the specter of "groomers". The same people invoking the boogeymen of "grooming" also actively vote to retain child marriage. This is about political power pure and simple.
Eat the rich was invoked on the threat of inflicted punitive action. That's a demonstrable point. Conservatives media and politicians and influencers are saying that trans people need to go away. Matt Walsh literally says that trans people are the most evil facet of our society today. That is a demonstrable point. Michael Knowles literally called for as much at CPAC regardless of the parsing he did afterwards. These people are not the sans-coulottes in this example.
And I'm focusing on the people creating the argument in bad faith, not the people who get scared or angry by it. As Laura mentions, I understand that. Sometimes I get angry at something that turns out to be a manipulation at the end of the day. It's something I work at to try to minimize. They aren't the ones creating the bad faith arguments.
edit: I'm also going to say that this:
"To this I say judge the individual, not the class, and take care to apply a just standard."
is precisely what people like Matt Walsh or the others Laura cited are *not* doing. They are condemning all trans people, to the point of saying they should go away or be eliminated. Mat Walsh is saying that all trans people and even the *idea* of a trans person is the greatest evil in our society. That's not judging the individual. What is your opinion on that?
I'm getting the impression that you aren't discussing in good faith, or at least that you are ascribing to me a position that I do not hold.
Nothing in what I said implied that I think "groomer" is a valid accusation. You seem to be under the impression that I'm not perfectly aware that the term was chosen to stir hysteria among religious conservatives. That said, just because the accusation of "groomer" is baseless doesn't mean it isn't referring to a real, if innocuous, movement. All the people who want to perform in drag, and all the people who just want to be trans in public, and all the people who support them, they are the movement. That the wicked label the conservatives have chosen to apply to them is demonizing is my point.
My point isn't "The one side says potato while the other says potahto." I do think "groomer" is a wicked and deceitful label. But the movement is very real and the conservatives to whom the label appeals do believe drag and public transness are bad things. I think that was Ms. Jedeed's point in her closing remarks. I think that is what she meant when she said she doesn't believe all conservatives are bad people, only that by pursuing the course they are on they can only cause great harm.
*My* point is simply that employing the expression "eat the rich" is of the same kind of epithet. I didn't want to have to say it explicitly because I am trying to be respectful both of her and of her platform, but she has not further replied to me directly and she has hit the like button on your reply without also doing the same to mine (not to mention responded to a heckler who patently did not deserve a response), so I can infer her intention. Therefor I will say it explicitly: I think Ms. Jedeed, by uttering "eat the rich", is hypocritically engaging in the same demonizing behavior that she is calling out conservatives for.
Just as what the conservatives are doing by verminizing trans people is wrong, so is taking the attitude, via the expression "eat the rich", that all the rich are guilty simply by the fact of being rich. I think it's a bit of a motte and bailey to use the expression on Twitter where everyone is nudging and winking at each other and it is a veiled reference to class warfare and violence and then to tell me that it's merely an absurd frivolity that, regardless of the means by which it occurs, extreme wealth acquisition is to be eschewed.
I agree with you that the conservative rhetoric is calling for blanket, collective condemnation. I'm saying that "eat the rich" is also a collective condemnation.
«I know that from where you stand it looks very much like all private wealth was unjustly acquired and that, loving this country as you do, you think you are trying to "save this dying world", but demonizing the wealthy for being wealthy is the same "sin" you described in this article and will reach the same end as the one you warn conservatives about.»
I think you're wrong on the merits, but I more or less agree with your argument. Your argument doesn't take into consideration the context in which speech is produced, received, and made material, in particular it ignores power relations and agency. However, your logic is sound, and I think it's a point worth conceding. I, personally, avoid saying things like "eat the rich" or "all cops are bastards" because I know that people on the other side interpret them in a way that I would never intend, and while I disagree with those interpretations, I think they're valid and made in good faith. I don't think it's worth arguing about it when we can just use better rhetoric.
You don’t think her souls is bad? Ask her about rioting until the streets are full of glass…if I did to her what she did to my community you’d call it a hate crime
Remember everything these people and their comrades Say is a lie, Laura and her cohorts are dedicated to destroying our society, her role is to obfuscate that reality and provide plausible deniability, but I’ve seen her behavior IRL and if you watched as they smashed my home town to pieces it will never be able to put back together you’d understand that to
Aah yes, more regurgitated talking points. You're a very boring person. Terminally stuck in the past and unable to keep up. Other people--those who are able to read--can judge for themselves what my work is actually doing
What a lazy come back Laura you’re not nearly as smart as you’d like to think you are …you’re preaching to your choir , I’m sure you receive all the dick sucking your narcissism demands …your “work” laura is to claw and tear at the fabric of western civilization anyone who thinks other wise is a sycophantic fellow traveler
Are you replying to me? If so, please know that I take Ms. Jedeed at her word, firstly that she loves this country and wants good things for it, and secondly that she doesn't believe most conservatives are bad people, only that they are dreadfully misguided.
I must confess to not understanding why she bothered to reply to your unproductive remark given that you believe her to be a liar and a nihilist.
The truth is always productive, if you are duped by this woman I pity you, but you are correct she does want “good things” for this country. She just happens to think that means tearing it down to. nothing and building her leftist utopia in this place…and I find her ideas of a “better world” to be pure nightmare fuel …because I can see what that world looks like all around me after what her and her comrades did to my community
Excellent post. Thank you.
The two Walsh posts that matter most show up as "Image not found" to me.
Shit, let me see what that's about...thank you for letting me know
I think I've fixed it--are you seeing the pics now?
Yeah, that worked!
Excellent writing. Bravo.
Jedeed, I gotta trust you are the best manager of your precious time, yet it seems you are spending a bunch of it banging your head against concrete. Maybe you just need to keep your polemical blades sharp, which they are. Great to see street fighting skills in the same holster as skilfull diplomacy and compassion. Gonzo journalism revisited and exceeded.
While I admire your empathy and your insight, your flair for putting words together is needlessly delicious.
Another fine piece. Thank you.
What do you mean by the "logical final step of white supremacy"? On the surface, it seems clear that in a world where the reality is ethnic pluralism, a racial supremacy necessarily leads to oppression and violence.
However, you then claim that gender ideology does not have this conclusion, which skips the messy implication of how the ideal is to come about and goes to the utopia of free gender expression. If you treated the white supremacist ideal in this same way, then the logical final step of the white supremacist is a unified race free of racism.
I might think you were implying that trans ideology can be achieved through non-violent means, but when I was a leftist in many intersectional circles violence was always part of the vision we had for the immediate future. By day we were organizing food pantries and by night we planned arson. We understood that the struggle to liberation on the gender front was necessarily tied to the struggle against capitalism, and since we were heavily influenced by Marx, the breakdown of capitalist society was to be expiated though violence, not through voting at the polls.
In both of these cases, it is force which can approach the ideal, which might be a bleak statement, but I'm also counting the imposition of the law as force. If trans policy is to be implemented at the level of the law, then there is necessarily a force behind it. The same could be said of white supremacy. In the same way, transgender ideology could be propagated in lawless ways, as could white supremacy.
So, I do not see how the logical step of either of these ideologies is not necessarily violence, and if we said that one would not necessarily lead to violence it seems we would have to say that about the other.
The problem is your trans “rights” require my acquiesce to your ideology and participation in it, I do not consent I will not participate and trans activists believe I should be subject to violence for my failure to affirm, prance around in your little dress in your disgusting woman face display or exercise your sexual fetishes in public, I’ll laugh and point, you have no right to compel me to do otherwise, but lord knows you think violence is justified in trying to
What you have done here is regurgitate Matt Walsh's talking points word for word. You have not made the argument you think you have; all you have done is proudly display your inability to think for yourself
Society requires basic politeness to function; for time immemorial we have understood that if you pick a fight at a bar, you might get punched in the face. That's a basic fact of human interaction that predates the trans movement by thousands of years, it has always been that way and always will. If you don't understand the hazards of rudeness generally, I can only conclude that you're either too young or too boring to socialize with adults in a public setting
Beyond that, though, you people are not just demanding the right to say "no." You don't want people to talk about transness or be visibly trans in public. Your side vocally wants to prevent trans youth from accessing gender affirming care. It wants to ban gender affirming care for adults as well. It wants to ban drag, which falls under freedom of expression. No one is forcing you to go to drag shows, but I have every right to go to one
Your side is the one conflating transness with pedophilia. This is not the passive resistance you claim. It is disingenuous to pretend you aren't at war with the concept of trans people. Your people would like transness to no longer exist at all. Your people have explicitly said this
I fully expect you to reply to this comment with more plagiarized Walsh, and I want you to know that no one is impressed or persuaded by your mimicry. The only way you can win this war is by force, which is why your side is so hell-bent on portraying transness as inherently violent so you have the excuse to be violent in return. Those of us who care about human rights will continue to resist your efforts to do this.
But by all means, prove me wrong by expressing a single original thought. We'll be here all day
All day Laura? You seem to have run away ragged and quickly its weird that you accuse me of regurgitating talking points, as I don’t see anyone else anywhere talking about your personal behavior your actions and how those actions demonstrate just how fucking full of shit you are..:.you are fucking
Loving these dead Christian children but I live in Portland where leftists more honest than you are openly celebrating…but of course those comrades play a different role than you in the leftist project don’t they?
Lol the window smashing Antifa mob wants to lecture me about politeness…the people who shout down and assault anyone who speaks up in Portland…and your obsession with Matt Walsh is your problem not mine, but thank you for introducing me to him I’ve been following you far longer then I’ve been aware of him… I don’t care what you think of my opinions or their origins I care about the fact you punched me in the face …I care that you want to hurt my children to advance your ideology and its utopian BS ….there is no such thing as “gendered affirming care” you can mutilate yourself to your hearts content that’s your right and my right to laugh at you for dong so and I will never affirm your beliefs , I will never go along with leftism ever
Saying that your ideology does not accept trans people is like your ideology not accepting left-handed people. Both have been considered wrong for long periods of history, but biology says they are very real people and enjoy fundamental rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If your ideology requires denying that all men created equal, then we’ve got a bigger problem, and the United States might not be the right place for you.
Ms. Jedeed, I do not identify myself as conservative, though I suspect that you might so identify me.
«If you’re a conservative and you’ve made it this far, I want you to know something very important. I do not hate you. I do not think you’re demonic or that your soul is bad. I know most of you do the things you do in an effort to save this dying world, that you expend all this energy to push your agenda because you care deeply about this country, just as I do.»
May I ask how you reconcile your closing words with the sentiment, "Eat the rich," that you have previously expressed and which, to my knowledge, you still hold?
From where I'm standing, I very much feel like it would be appropriate to say to you, "But that's not what you're actually doing. And I am begging you to see that before it's too late."
I think of "eat the rich" as a patently absurd statement and a humorous way of saying "no one should be this wealthy." Like, if I said "murder all billionaires," that's a thing with historical precedence, but eating the rich? I hope you don't think I'm actually hungry for human flesh.
That being said, if it isn't coming across that way, that's important to know.
No, I don't take you literally. It's an expression. I'm given to understand that the full expression is something like "when the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich". My interpretation of it, which I assume is the most common, is that if the rich "abuse" and "hoard" their wealth and "privilege" then the poor will rise up against the alleged injustice and relieve the rich of their wealth, etc. Personally, I regard it as a euphemism for, ultimately, murder. I came to this conclusion after seeing the expression associated with images of the guillotine. Perhaps I am mistaken in this impression.
However, even if I am mistaken in regarding it as a euphemism for jealous violence, I don't think that detracts from my point, which is that you lack a certain credibility when you tell conservatives that their demonization of a marginalized class will lead, ultimately, to a holocaust. The same could be said of the call to divest the productive (not all rich are idle, in fact most aren't) of their wealth.
I know that from where you stand it looks very much like all private wealth was unjustly acquired and that, loving this country as you do, you think you are trying to "save this dying world", but demonizing the wealthy for being wealthy is the same "sin" you described in this article and will reach the same end as the one you warn conservatives about.
"I came to this conclusion after seeing the expression associated with images of the guillotine. Perhaps I am mistaken in this impression."
You've never looked up the origin of "eat the rich"? I mean, it's easily googleable. It is attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau from a speech issued in 1793 by the president of the Paris Commune, 5 years after a *horrible* famine that very directly helped kick off the French Revolution.
Whether Rousseau actually said it or not is questionable but it literally links back to famine and the leveraging of that famine by speculators to achieve political and economic power. The greater point isn't that the mob is coming to murder the wealthy, it's that the wealthy class may think that they're disconnected from the masses but in the end they are not, and that the masses will consume what they need to in order to survive. Keeping people fed keeps the people from turning on the wealthy.
Put into context, "eat the rich" is not a threat to inflict violence, it's the promise of reprisal after the wealthy have used their wealth to threaten and attack the people. They literally were threatening to take away food from the people of Paris in order to gain political power, and "if you take away our food we'll eat you" was the response. Yes, there is inherent and even explicit violence in the statement, but there is inherent and even explicit violence in the inciting act.
Rough translation of the passage (Google translate so it's rough but you get the idea):
Attorney-General Chaumette made a fulminating speech on this subject against the merchants.
"We remember," he said, "that in '89 and the following years, all these men carried on a very large trade, but with whom? with the foreigner. We know that it was they who caused the assignats to fall, and that it was by means of speculation on paper money that they enriched themselves. What did they do after their fortune was complete? They withdrew from trade, they threatened the people with the shortage of goods; but if they have gold and assignats, the republic has something more precious, it has arms. Arms and not gold are needed to set factories and factories in motion. Well! if these individuals abandon the factories, the republic will seize them, and it will requisition all the raw materials. Let them know that it depends on the republic to reduce, when it wishes, to mud and ashes the gold and the assignats which are in their hands. The giant of the people must crush the mercantile speculators."
“We feel the evils of the people, because we are people ourselves. The entire council is made up of sans-culottes, it is the legislator-people. It matters little to us that our heads fall, as long as posterity deigns to pick up our skulls.... It is not the Gospel that I will invoke, it is Plato. He who strikes with the sword, says this philosopher, will perish by the sword; whoever strikes poison, will perish by poison; famine will suffocate whoever wants to starve the people.... If the food and goods run out, who will the people blame? to the constituted authorities? no... At the convention? no... He will go after suppliers and suppliers. Rousseau was a people too, and he said: When the people have nothing left to eat, they will eat the rich.” (Commune of October 14.)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10953/10953-h/10953-h.htm
«Put into context, "eat the rich" is not a threat to inflict violence, it's the promise of reprisal». Indeed, thank you for demonstrating my point. Switch the target (perhaps to "groomer") and it might have been uttered by an anti-trans conservative.
Ms. Jedeed called conservatives to task for demonizing an entire class of people via hysterical rhetoric. She hastened to add that she doesn't regard conservatives as subhuman. And yet, "eat the rich" does indeed convey that very sentiment. "Some rich have harmed us, therefore all must go," sounds a lot like what conservatives are saying about trans people, swapping one classification for another.
To this I say judge the individual, not the class, and take care to apply a just standard.
"Switch the target (perhaps to "groomer")"
Except that this factually not true. You can't point to some grand "trans groomer" conspiracy in reality. If you're going to go after groomers and be honest about it, then the Boy Scouts and most organized religions should be sweating because I can point to *thousands* of documented and tens of thousands of accused groomers there and nobody says anything about it when invoking the specter of "groomers". The same people invoking the boogeymen of "grooming" also actively vote to retain child marriage. This is about political power pure and simple.
Eat the rich was invoked on the threat of inflicted punitive action. That's a demonstrable point. Conservatives media and politicians and influencers are saying that trans people need to go away. Matt Walsh literally says that trans people are the most evil facet of our society today. That is a demonstrable point. Michael Knowles literally called for as much at CPAC regardless of the parsing he did afterwards. These people are not the sans-coulottes in this example.
And I'm focusing on the people creating the argument in bad faith, not the people who get scared or angry by it. As Laura mentions, I understand that. Sometimes I get angry at something that turns out to be a manipulation at the end of the day. It's something I work at to try to minimize. They aren't the ones creating the bad faith arguments.
edit: I'm also going to say that this:
"To this I say judge the individual, not the class, and take care to apply a just standard."
is precisely what people like Matt Walsh or the others Laura cited are *not* doing. They are condemning all trans people, to the point of saying they should go away or be eliminated. Mat Walsh is saying that all trans people and even the *idea* of a trans person is the greatest evil in our society. That's not judging the individual. What is your opinion on that?
I'm getting the impression that you aren't discussing in good faith, or at least that you are ascribing to me a position that I do not hold.
Nothing in what I said implied that I think "groomer" is a valid accusation. You seem to be under the impression that I'm not perfectly aware that the term was chosen to stir hysteria among religious conservatives. That said, just because the accusation of "groomer" is baseless doesn't mean it isn't referring to a real, if innocuous, movement. All the people who want to perform in drag, and all the people who just want to be trans in public, and all the people who support them, they are the movement. That the wicked label the conservatives have chosen to apply to them is demonizing is my point.
My point isn't "The one side says potato while the other says potahto." I do think "groomer" is a wicked and deceitful label. But the movement is very real and the conservatives to whom the label appeals do believe drag and public transness are bad things. I think that was Ms. Jedeed's point in her closing remarks. I think that is what she meant when she said she doesn't believe all conservatives are bad people, only that by pursuing the course they are on they can only cause great harm.
*My* point is simply that employing the expression "eat the rich" is of the same kind of epithet. I didn't want to have to say it explicitly because I am trying to be respectful both of her and of her platform, but she has not further replied to me directly and she has hit the like button on your reply without also doing the same to mine (not to mention responded to a heckler who patently did not deserve a response), so I can infer her intention. Therefor I will say it explicitly: I think Ms. Jedeed, by uttering "eat the rich", is hypocritically engaging in the same demonizing behavior that she is calling out conservatives for.
Just as what the conservatives are doing by verminizing trans people is wrong, so is taking the attitude, via the expression "eat the rich", that all the rich are guilty simply by the fact of being rich. I think it's a bit of a motte and bailey to use the expression on Twitter where everyone is nudging and winking at each other and it is a veiled reference to class warfare and violence and then to tell me that it's merely an absurd frivolity that, regardless of the means by which it occurs, extreme wealth acquisition is to be eschewed.
I agree with you that the conservative rhetoric is calling for blanket, collective condemnation. I'm saying that "eat the rich" is also a collective condemnation.
This is a really interesting question/topic that I should write about sometime
This is a really interesting question/topic that I should write about sometime
«I know that from where you stand it looks very much like all private wealth was unjustly acquired and that, loving this country as you do, you think you are trying to "save this dying world", but demonizing the wealthy for being wealthy is the same "sin" you described in this article and will reach the same end as the one you warn conservatives about.»
I think you're wrong on the merits, but I more or less agree with your argument. Your argument doesn't take into consideration the context in which speech is produced, received, and made material, in particular it ignores power relations and agency. However, your logic is sound, and I think it's a point worth conceding. I, personally, avoid saying things like "eat the rich" or "all cops are bastards" because I know that people on the other side interpret them in a way that I would never intend, and while I disagree with those interpretations, I think they're valid and made in good faith. I don't think it's worth arguing about it when we can just use better rhetoric.
You don’t think her souls is bad? Ask her about rioting until the streets are full of glass…if I did to her what she did to my community you’d call it a hate crime
What is the troll? I just want you to know this woman is a violent extremist who has engaged in repeated attacks on my community
My bad, I realize now that I misread the email notification I received. I thought you were responding to me.
Remember everything these people and their comrades Say is a lie, Laura and her cohorts are dedicated to destroying our society, her role is to obfuscate that reality and provide plausible deniability, but I’ve seen her behavior IRL and if you watched as they smashed my home town to pieces it will never be able to put back together you’d understand that to
Aah yes, more regurgitated talking points. You're a very boring person. Terminally stuck in the past and unable to keep up. Other people--those who are able to read--can judge for themselves what my work is actually doing
What a lazy come back Laura you’re not nearly as smart as you’d like to think you are …you’re preaching to your choir , I’m sure you receive all the dick sucking your narcissism demands …your “work” laura is to claw and tear at the fabric of western civilization anyone who thinks other wise is a sycophantic fellow traveler
Are you replying to me? If so, please know that I take Ms. Jedeed at her word, firstly that she loves this country and wants good things for it, and secondly that she doesn't believe most conservatives are bad people, only that they are dreadfully misguided.
I must confess to not understanding why she bothered to reply to your unproductive remark given that you believe her to be a liar and a nihilist.
The truth is always productive, if you are duped by this woman I pity you, but you are correct she does want “good things” for this country. She just happens to think that means tearing it down to. nothing and building her leftist utopia in this place…and I find her ideas of a “better world” to be pure nightmare fuel …because I can see what that world looks like all around me after what her and her comrades did to my community