As far as I see that instance is a far-right cess pool. Everything I’ve got from that instance were low-quality transphobic “news articles”.
Soooooo here’s a helpful hint to tamp down that utter confusion you seem to be having:
The guys who want armed guard genital inspectors in front of every bathroom are the bad guys.
Who exactly holds the authority to label ‘the bad guys’? Sure, some actions are undeniably harmful, but does that warrant placing all perceived wrongdoers in the same category, from internet trolls to murderers? Is there no nuance or room for varying degrees of transgressions? I hope you can ask yourself if you’re always on the side of righteousness, or might you be perceived as 'the bad guy" from another perspective? It’s important to understand that the world is not simply binary, and such a mindset can dangerously oversimplify complex issues.
Who exactly holds the authority to label ‘the bad guys’?
People who don’t get their rocks off by investing more effort into hating the marginalized.
This isn’t about me and this isn’t about subtlety. On the whole LGBT+haters are nazi adjacent and they get a kick out of hating the marginalized, and they do it VERY LOUDLY.
Like literally it’s the AMERICA FIRST!ers here that are now specifically hating on like the two or three trans people in each state who play sports, and like the maybe handful of total trans people in each state in comparison to state population.
Sounds to me like you group everyone who has an even remotely different viewpoint than you in to one category so you can easily hate and discredit them all without ever actually thinking critically.
You’re just bringing up ideas you don’t like and then creating a strawman character that you can hate. You know they think the same way about you right? Do you not see how this leads to misinformation and unnecessary hatred? Solving nothing and creating even more division is not something I will stand behind.
What you are suggesting is that we, as a society, are incapable of discerning right from wrong and enforcing societal norms at all ever. Because who knows? Who has the power to determine these things?? hand wringing, pearl clutching
Let me tell you who: Anyone with two brain cells and a heart. Fascism has a clear definition. People who are being called Nazis because they openly hate and advocate for the genocide of trans people are being called Nazis because THEY ARE ACTING LIKE NAZIS.
We absolutely have no obligation to air their bigoted, make believe grievances in public. We have every right to shut them down and shut them up to protect vulnerable minority populations.
Stop JAQing off and pretending otherwise.
Nazis exist, and they are abhorrent. But is it fair to label the entire community of exploding-heads as such? Or, is it that the platform tolerates a broader range of discourse than you are comfortable with? Yes, Nazis may be part of the mix, but so too might be their staunch opponents. Assigning people to preconceived boxes based on assumed beliefs isn’t conducive to understanding. While we concur on opposing Nazis, I refuse to disregard an entire group’s perspectives because I may disagree with some. It’s crucial to engage with opposing views for a balanced discourse, a principle applicable to everyone.
Right, they never stated otherwise, but transphobic measures doesn’t necessarily make one a nazi. It makes you awful but there are different kinds of awful than just nazism. The risk of calling everyone a nazi is that you dilute what the word actually means so that you risk generalizing and uniting the awful people instead of separating them based on their various horrendous opinions.
transphobic measures doesn’t necessarily make one a nazi
True but neither ideology deserves a spot at the table of civilized discourse. So it’s a bit of a moot point.
It’s not a moot point when we consider the fluidity of language and the potential for any group to manipulate terms to suit their interests. If someone can blanket-label their opposition as a ‘transphobe’ or, more extreme, a ‘Nazi’, it bypasses meaningful debate and eradicates the chance to understand differing viewpoints. This not only oversimplifies complex discussions, but it also fosters a lazy and destructive discourse that can fuel animosity rather than understanding. We need to be challenged. A tree that grows without wind will not have the strength to stand in a storm.
