Every Leftist accusation is a confession. DARVO is the name of the game. The core strategy is "first to accuse, first to earn the whataboutism defense."
Every Leftist accusation is a confession. DARVO is the name of the game. The core strategy is "first to accuse, first to earn the whataboutism defense."
A person being rude to another is not an infringement on their rights until someone passes such laws and calls them rights.
If someone tried to make a law to enforce referring to cisgender people by their legal names/pronouns, such a someone should be ridiculed and their proposed law vehemently opposed and prevented.
Rights are only necessarily a legal construct within the framework of certain select philosophies. Some* of them are *sometimes encoded and defended because a government could otherwise infringe on them. Others are person-to-person.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Hurt feelings are not a metric for silencing speech. You've been bad faith from the start so you can spare me your double-think.
You're completely aware that none of us act in good faith because you've been brainwashed to believe it as such. Your responses make this extremely obvious to me. Conservatism has many inherently good aspects to it. You are part of a cult that got duped into thinking conservatism is evil.
There is no point in continuing this conversation since you have a pseudo-religious de-facto beliefs. Basically, you're too lost in the sauce.
The right that was put forth was "to be recognized as their preferred name, pronouns." It was not put forth as "to be recognized by legal name change processes."
It did not distinguish between civil/social interactions and legal/governmental documents/processes. You're sticking to the 'legal name change' aspect while I've been talking about the 'social interaction' aspect. The aspect of 'if someone tells you to refer to them by something and you don't, you've violated their rights.'
You'd be better off building a steelman framework instead of a strawman framework. I'm not interested in running defense for every false accusation that someone levies at me, especially when it's so ridiculous as a Cathy Newman style "so you're saying."
In the United States, shouting slurs at people is generally not illegal and is protected by the First Amendment, even if it is offensive or hateful. You're exactly the type of person that is undereducated on these topics and will, through toxic empathy, attempt to undermine democracy and individual liberty in pursuit of saving people from getting their feelings hurt.
You don't even comprehend the difference between compelled speech and banned speech.
no u
And what you are completely blind to is the fact that right-wingers frequently invite left-wingers onto their platform. Left-wingers disproportionately refuse to do so - and likewise disproportionately refuse to platform right-wingers. Because the entire ideology is rotten with the concept of isolating its members.
They say "if we platform them we give them power" as a guise for the reality of "if we platform them, their argument might be better than ours and we'll lose our grip over members."
I'm sure that's what your slogan-swallowing dogma-riddled brain loves to come up with as a caricature for anyone right-of-center. It's unfortunate that you're this lost in the sauce.
Another example for you
Again you're completely off base and engaging in Cathy Newman style strawmanning.
no u
You do realize that there are over 40 million registered voters in the US that share many of my views, right? Just because some people have stopped talking to you doesn't mean you should project the same outcome on those you disagree with.
Indeed.
And you have not even considered the logical conclusion of your own argument.
Only in a leftist dystopia does a child owe no debt to a parent because of not being asked to be created. Congrats on insulting dozens if not hundreds of foreign ethnic cultures, though.
You mean the misdemeanors that got upgraded to felonies by an ideologically captured judge that deliberately added broad strokes to the jury's decision making process? The ones where the jury didn't even need to agree on what Trump did, just that he did 'one of several possible things'?
It was rigged in favor of Harris. You know how? Because if a genuine primary had been held, Bernie Sanders would have gotten 2000+ delegates and Kamala Harris would be lucky to get 100.
One of the most effective tactics that a cult can employ in the pursuit of indoctrinating its members with unquestionable dogma - is to isolate them from their friends, their families, and anyone else that might break them out of their brainwashing.
Yet even more effective is when the cult manages to convince the cultist to do this isolation and segregation of their own accord. It turns into a positive feedback loop. "Ignore all messaging from the other side."
You might be in a cult.
No u
And I have no doubt in my mind that if the Dumbocrat elite had decided to hold a genuine primary with all those names in the pot, Sanders would have not only won the primary but also defeated Trump in the general election. But they picked the worst possible candidate and paid the price for it.
And you're wrong about the last part as well. We who have the capacity to think beyond first order - are able to extrapolate, deduce, predict, and make informed assessments of both theoretical and hypothetical scenarios. But I get that not everyone is capable of higher order thinking.
All that to say: In the 2020 Democratic primary's pledged delegates, Biden got the most. Bernie Sanders got 2nd. Warren 3rd. Bloomberg 4th. Buttigieg 5th. Klobuchar 6th. Even Tulsi Gabbard got 7th. Kamala? Zero.
Biden absolutely stepped down; he ran right up until he got ousted for his mental decline, which leftists were concealing all throughout its onset.
We have it on record that on April 25, 2023,Biden announced that he'd seek re-election in 2024. She wasn't handed the presidency, yes. She was handed the primary - because again, leftists were going with plan Biden right up until Trump's debate with him proved how far gone he really was. Then they claimed there was "no time to hold a primary."
Because the prevention of compelled speech is a sacrosanct cornerstone of democracy and individual liberty. You can ask me to use your preferred name/pronouns and I may choose to do so voluntarily. But if you demand that I use them by trying to vote in the threat of governmental retribution against anyone who doesn't? That's not 'live and let live' anymore. That's control and domination.
Rights are only rights if they're protected by nonconsensual force. Otherwise they are just suggestions.
How did you possibly get "nobody should ever be allowed to change their name" from what I said?
And for pronouns, you seem to have constructed an 'evil goblin' caricature of me in your perceptions, for you to think that I'm somehow bothered by the usage of a trans person's preferred pronouns to the point of recoiling from their accidental usage.
Huh. That's a rare perspective to see on here. I'd be willing to make this trade deal.
You're an AI bot
Considering you say things like "death is too good for him," I'd say this is heavy projection.
I only pointed out inconvenient facts of hypocrisy. If there existed an option to anoint a king, with the process immediately ending the presidency, democrats would jump at the chance to crown an end to Trump.