you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 62 points 2 days ago (31 children)

Oh look. Yet another article post primary election to convince people not to vote so the Republican wins the general election.

If you don't vote you're a moron.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago

    Republicans taking extreme stances on identity politics was always just bait to drag their opponents to their own court. And it worked beautifully. For the past ten years or so, it’s all been like that. Affordability, healthcare, work rights, all have been eclipsed by fucking identity politics, and I’m tired of it.

    Why are we even focusing on performative bullshit when the vast majority of people are hurting in very specific and actionable ways? And by “we” I mean anyone left of center.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (28 children)

    "Calling out transphobia is bad" - you, probably

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (8 children)

    This article suggests that you should avoid Xavier Becerra (essentially in favor of Steve Hilton) because he (correctly) pointed out the CA state constitution doesn't protect trans people playing in sports.

    You can go ahead and look up what Becerra has done in support of trans people vs what Steve Hilton has done. Spoilers: Steve Hilton referred to trans people playing in the CIF championship as a 'violation' of the state constitution and held a 'Save Girls Sports' conference. He is outright anti-trans.

    Adam Gray (D) is essentially an anti-trans centrist piece of shit, however whatever he's done pales in comparison to what Kevin Lincoln II's (R) stated position on trans people is.

    So no, this isn't 'calling out transphobia' - this is more DSA brainrot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 22 hours ago (7 children)

    What does this have to do with DSA?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago (6 children)

    DSA types only swing at Democrats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

    DSA are Democrats, just progressive ones like Bernie AOC Mamdani etc. They literally run as Dems and would never discourage you from voting. Activism is a big part of their brand.

    If you’re talking about the chucklefuck reactionary edgelords and ID-politic protest non-voters on Lemmy, I dont know if these have a name. Accelerationist doomers describes some. Hardline single issue voters would probably describe the rest who aren’t bots or feds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

    Here's the thing, Hasan Piker explicitly did not support Kamala during the 2024 election cycle. Hasan Piker is one of, if not the biggest, DSA proponent.

    I simply disagree with the idea that DSA types would 'never discourage' me from voting. That just isn't true.

    I think you're spot on about the accelerationist doomers and whatever other adjectives you'd like to describe the people here with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

    Sorry for delay. Not on twitch and had to read up on this guy. He has no DSA affiliation, certainly nothing formal. He appears to be politically aligned but his wiki makes no mention of DSA and his influence appears to be primarily in online/streaming spaces rather than in traditional political organizing or offline movements.

    The reason I say DSA won’t discourage you from voting is because they are a political organization with a strategy built around reform, which is impossible with single-issue purity testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

    Trying to suggest that Hasan Piker isn't heavily associated with the DSA means that you really just don't know anything about the man. He is absolutely their biggest voice, even if he isn't technically an accredited member.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    lol I literally just said I didn’t know him slick

    OK so I’ll make a twitch channel dedicated to telling everyone what great friends you and I are. I’ll talk you up every chance I get. We’ll just be inseparable in the twitchy verse, you dig? I’ll become your spokesperson to all the twitches on there, and say whatever I want on your behalf because seriously, what twitcher is interested in who you actually are if you’re not even on the twitch?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    Dude, this is such a small brained take.

    You need to understand that news takes place where people are engaging. This is why Facebook, Xitter, Twitch, YouTube, TikTok and whatever other popular social media are where most people get their news nowadays. Behaving like one of the most popular news spaces for young people in the U.S. is inconsequential is so god damn devoid of any thought it makes me angry that I need to engage with such a stupid fucking take.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    If this article was before the primaries it would be more helpful and get the right people elected.

    Since this article came out after the primaries and two months before the general it serves only one purpose.

    And it appears your dumbass is taking the bait.

    "I'm not voting because no candidate is perfect and I'll let the party that views me as property win." - your dumbass, without a doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    I never said I wouldn't vote for the Democrats if I could, the article doesn't say you shouldn't either, just that the author personnaly wouldn't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    the article doesn’t say you shouldn’t either,

    The article literally says:

    Many, myself included, have argued against voting for the worst offenders on this list even where it means a Republican takes the seat.

    What part of that says to you "This is what I'm doing, but you shouldn't do that." - particularly with the second part of the sentence where it's clear they are talking about more than a single vote (their vote).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -11 points 1 day ago

    You're right that the article doesn't say "you shouldn't do that" but that's not what I'm claiming, I'm saying the article says it's up to the readers to consider if transphobia is a deal breaker, if it is then I would say the blame is more on those Democrats for being transphobic, than on the people that are against transphobia

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 days ago (12 children)

    I'm sure the Republican opponents in these states will be much better for Trans rights.

    In fact, if we just allow another Republican majority in the legislative branch, they'll probably just fix the whole thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 days ago (11 children)

    I never called to vote for Republicans, I didn't even say you shouldn't vote for those Democrats and neither does the article.

    All the article says is that those Democrats are transphobic and that the author, and that's only his view, wouldn't vote for them. I, myself would probably vote for them if I could vote in the US, but I can still understand why the author wouldn't.

    If there was an election between Hitler and Stalin, would you have voted for either one because he was slightly less worse than the other one? I personally wouldn't have, if that is your case too then clearly there is a point where a candidate can be so bad you wouldn't even vote for them if their opponent is worse, that threshold is just different for everyone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    This article does argue for abstaining, it's literally the entire point of writing this article just before midterms:

    Many, myself included, have argued against voting for the worst offenders on this list even where it means a Republican takes the seat. A Republican victory costs the community one seat for one term.

    And it's such a fucking idiotic take.

    It's an article calling out politicians for their answers on "gotcha questions" like 'do you want biological males playing women's sports'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 day ago (9 children)

    It's interesting you quote that without showing the previous sentence

    What you do with this information is up to you.

    Also, these politicians didn't just answer poorly to gotcha question, they actively helped pass bills that took away the rights of trans people

    Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell [...] Voted yes [for a bill] banning gender-affirming care for transgender service members

    Mary Peltola [...] One of only six Democrats to vote for [a bill] which contained severe anti-trans and anti-DEI amendments.

    Adam Gray [...] One of only three Democrats to vote for a bathroom ban on military bases for transgender people, along with a sports ban, a gender-affirming care ban, and several other anti-trans amendments to the NDAA.

    Should I keep going or do you think all these bills that marginalize trans people were only "gotcha questions"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    It's interesting you quote that without showing the previous sentence

    Oh please... Just because the author framed the statement with some weasel words doesn't make the intent any less clear. "I'm not telling you what to do, but..."

    Rob Sand, Democratic nominee for governor. Actively opposes transgender participation in sports, answering “no” when a conservative radio host asked whether “biological males” should play women’s sports.

    When you pile weak examples like this into your list, it's clear that you're just trying to discredit any Democrat and discourage voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    Taking away an oppressed minorities right is "weak", what would you consider strong evidence of them being transphobic then? Would they have to start directly beating trans people while calling them slurs? Because if you don't consider taking away trans people rights transphobic then you don't have any right to say who trans people should vote for.

    Edit: Also I'm not trying to discredit all Democrats, only the transphobic ones

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    The right to play women's highschool sports isn't the one we're fighting for right now. Yes, it's a long road to acceptance, yes we have to pick our battles.

    No, opening that can of worms on a low rent conservative talk radio show is not worth jeopardizing a Democratic politicians' overall viability with the general voting public.

    Beyond that, the sports issue does have nuance, and for the 95% people in Iowa who've never had a conversation with a person they knew was trans, and the 68-80% of the state who can't read at a highschool level... Yes nuance in the subject doesn't really exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I'm not talking about the right to play women's sports being discussed on radio though. I'm talking about the votes that you seem to be ignoring that are meant to take away access to trans healthcare or restrict access to bathrooms or force trans women to go into men's prisons where they are at a higher chance of being raped. You say the rights to play women's sports isn't the one you're fighting for, but these people aren't fighting for any transgender rights and are actually taking them away, a fact that you have not yet talked about other than calling it ''weak" even when it makes the lives of trans people miserable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    More than half of the people listed in this article are solely on it for trans sports issues (15 out of 27).

    It's an article who's sole purpose is discouraging Democrats from voting in the midterm.

    The author is likely not even a real person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    How many of those bills do you think would have even been up for consideration if republicans weren't the majority?

    Yeah, democrats could be a lot better, but of the two options we have, a democrat majority is clearly the better choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago

    But neither me nor the article is saying to vote for Republicans, it's just showing that these democrats voted for transphobic laws, if readers decide that that makes them not want to vote, then maybe the blame should be on the Democrats that willingly took away the rights of an oppressed minority and not on the people that don't want to compromise on trans rights

  • source
  • parent