losthighway wrote:We came out of a LONG post Civil Rights Amendment period where the popular perception was that anti-racism was color blindness. Most people hated hate, tried "not to see color" and felt great about themselves. I don't know if later (painfully late) developments with gay rights could be grouped in with that or not.

This premise was (or is) simply not true.
I am not sure where or when you grew up.
The above may apply to a liberal subset of white people, but it doesn't apply to where I'm from, where even those people are definitely way in the minority.
I grew up in rural Northwest Ohio, born in 1974, moved there in '77, meaning I mostly grew up in the 80s (school, socialisation).
It was very white, totally white dominated, and hella racist, against all kinds of people who weren't white, near and far.
That didn't change in the time I spent there, nor was it different in the white suburban or rural spaces I lived in or spent considerable time in due to my long-distance dad's work across the Midwest, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Those places were not integrated in any significant way and probably are not particularly different now from what I gather from friends who stayed or made the choice to go back and start families etc.
What changed radically, and only really of late, is that the wider culture has become more integrated, the way our culture is mediated, more representative. And they, my old neighbours,or many of them, are uncomfortable with that, the snowflakes. It is not flattering to them, or many of them.

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 2:52 pm

Gramsci wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 1:35 pm

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 1:01 pm

I'm trying to understand: so we the people can talk about these issues or we can't? It's healthcare, care that the privileged can navigate with ease as if the barriers are non-existent because they are.



Imagine what it must feel like to those going through it!

I'm not calling you or anyone else heartless, but when I read things like hysteria surrounding trans issues is crazy, or it's a niche of a niche issue, those perspectives are worrying to me.

Talk about whatever you want. I’m not here to police anyone. I’m pointing out my own personal philosophy regarding politics. Let’s take healthcare, namely public healthcare in the US. A public system would significantly positively impact the lives of everyone. But importantly the people it would serve the most are the people of minority communities like trans people. To get something like a public healthcare system in the US would require mass mobilisation of working people. That’s the frame, public healthcare for all, not just trans because that will happen when the first thing happens.

But that is not happening. It literally is not happening, and I also think your perspective might be damaging to the trans community by implying fault within the community for why universal healthcare doesn't get passed. We have the Equality Act that expands Titles II and VI of the Civil Rights Act, specifically Title II which in part prohibits discrimination in health care, but aside from the question posed to Kamala Harris in the debate I haven't seen or read about her being laser-focused on trans issues.

But don't you remember when Hillary and then Obama pushed public healthcare through the niche issue of trans rights!?! Why are they always doing that!?!

Sorry for the sarcasm. It's not a thing. It's a thing that he's making up to have permission to scold people on here and maybe elsewhere, repeatedly.

Just because you can now hear trans (and ally) voices online does not mean that anyone with clout is pushing policy from a trans angle. Quite the opposite, sadly.

jimmy spako wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 3:17 pm Sorry for the sarcasm. It's not a thing. It's a thing that he's making up to have permission to scold people on here and maybe elsewhere, repeatedly.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing trans healthcare as being a major part of the Harris/Walz platform. That's why I was initially vexed with the niche of a niche issue and hysteria comments. Like, people are out there just talking about barriers to their healthcare. I shudder to think how people might react if she alluded to the systemic racism inherent in healthcare. Life expectancy for black people is something like 5 years shorter compared to white people, but that shouldn't get talked about because of the bigger picture? Doesn't the bigger picture include black people whose lives are 5x shorter? The USDA is giving over $2 billion in direct payments to black farmers for discrimination, but our leaders shouldn't be talking about reparations? Now more than ever is the time for radical progress! If one is going to give one's vote to Trump just because Harris wants healthcare for transgender prisoners or is considering slave reparations then that's pretty messed up. And if one doesn't think these issues should be broached then that's equally messed up. If not now when? The time has never been more timely.

Tangent oopsie

Universal healthcare would be amazing for me and my community. But I’m not sure what the point of this argument even is when the dems aren’t pushing for that at all. Right now what’s happening with state-sponsored healthcare is gender clinics being shut down in the UK alongside relentless attacks on trans people that includes the Labour party, trans healthcare being removed from Medicaid coverage in states in the US, some trans healthcare being downright made illegal in states. Over 1500 anti-trans bills have been introduced in state legislatures since 2020. The Republicans are putting out ads attacking opponents for their support of trans rights and the Dems seem terrified to speak out in support of us beyond vague statements about being pro-LGBTQ. This was the first year since 2012 that not a single trans speaker was featured at the DNC and trans people only mentioned twice, which is astonishing to me given the current climate unless they are deliberately trying to distance themselves from supporting us. Meanwhile at the RNC at least a dozen speakers disparaged us. It’s fucking terrifying right now and it feels like previous “allies” are quickly abandoning us when it becomes too inconvenient for them to support us.

If I may be so bold: there seems to be a subset of former (online) militant atheists who once took pleasure (and meaning and sense of self) in scolding people for believing in God who have shifted over the years to taking pleasure in scolding people for (from their point of view) "worshipping at the altar of identity".

jimmy spako wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 3:12 pm
This premise was (or is) simply not true.
I am not sure where or when you grew up.
The above may apply to a liberal subset of white people, but it doesn't apply to where I'm from, where even those people are definitely way in the minority.
I grew up in rural Northwest Ohio, born in 1974, moved there in '77, meaning I mostly grew up in the 80s (school, socialisation).
It was very white, totally white dominated, and hella racist, against all kinds of people who weren't white, near and far.
That didn't change in the time I spent there, nor was it different in the white suburban or rural spaces I lived in or spent considerable time in due to my long-distance dad's work across the Midwest, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Those places were not integrated in any significant way and probably are not particularly different now from what I gather from friends who stayed or made the choice to go back and start families etc.
What changed radically, and only really of late, is that the wider culture has become more integrated, the way our culture is mediated, more representative. And they, my old neighbours,or many of them, are uncomfortable with that, the snowflakes. It is not flattering to them, or many of them.

Yeah, I grew up surrounded by semi liberal Clinton Democrats and Reagan reformed hippies who went fiscally conservative/corporate yuppie. The west. With some exceptions our biases were subconscious hypocrisy, unexamined assumptions and a smug sense of "I have a minority friend/coworker".

I suppose this was the weakness of the old milquetoast social liberals, which is an upgrade from the klansmen of other parts but not a force for change.

Mar-A-Lago should be shelled for him spewing the lies about cat-eating Hatians. His lunatic followers are calling in bomb threats there. I love how there are no consequences for him for anything. If only one of the grills had exploded on the set of a Trump Steaks infomercial.

That’s what bothers me the most about things. Trump’s words and actions have caused massive amounts of suffering and death, his supporters are emboldened to commit racist, sexist, transphobic violence, and Dems have absolutely fucking nothing to offer us other than sternly worded “tut-tuts” to the people killing us and yelling that the victims who have had fucking enough need to be “civil”. Sure, they might not pass explicit anti-trans legislation (unless the Republicans sneak it into funding bills and then it’s “the greater good” bullshit), but neither would a fucking houseplant. If these assholes face continue to face absolutely no consequences, why the fuck would they ever stop?

I think it’s a harsh reality that there are just way too many people that are straight up terrible. I don’t think it’s their fault they’re terrible—no one chooses the circumstances of their genetics and environment—but we have a huge fucking problem when so many people can be swayed so easily into supporting politicians and systems that only hurt them on the basis of lies and directing hatred towards marginalized groups. And this isn’t just a problem on the right—there’s massive transphobia and sexual abuse issues in a lot of left-wing orgs that isn’t adequately dealt with on the basis of not wanting to alienate or cause rifts among portions of their members or people they are trying to appeal to.

Splitting the left is the enemy's entire strategy.

Fuck the Pope and his "both sides are evil" shit. Fuck the Pope anyway, I think Christianity is silly at best and Catholicism is far worse than its best, but... I don't want Democrats to issue a statement denouncing the Pope and I would encourage any atheist Democrats running for office to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to their beliefs in old beardy. NO WAY would I want a Democrat running for office to publicly express atheistic beliefs similar to mine, at least not in 2024.

And that sucks, but hey so does the entire American electoral system and if Christians feel like they can't vote for Democrats then Democrats will lose and actual fascists will be in power. A lousy position to be in but here we are. So I hope Americans will also have the sense to use their vote tactically and not as a vehicle to express their personal feelings, Pennsylvania Muslims voting for Jill Stein.

If people want to prioritise expressing their political differences with the mainstream left over stopping Trump, then that just seems narcissistic to me. You have to play the hand that's dealt, not the one you wish you had. The way the American Green Party plays the game, anyone would think they were being funded by the GOP.