Right?

Being a man = you just get to be that and no one really has to define what it is because its rude to suggest that you aren't a man so its just whatever, no one really cares except other dudes and they mostly only care about themselves.

Being a woman = EVERYONE gets to have input on what that means.

Yeah, and I don't know what I'm talking about really, but I thought sadism was normally on a smaller scale. This seems like a different thing than your average sadist. "I need thousands of people to be miserable!" Is different than "somehow I get off on seeing a person suffering"

Honestly yeah, that feels pretty on point.

Something that was brought up in a video I recently watched.

It's become easier than ever to offload a growing business. The private equity market has really grown over the last few decades. That means that anyone starting aw business now has the opportunity to sell that business and cash out, at any point from initial founding to a billion dollar company.

Think of the kind of person that would turn down a billion dollars just to maintain control over their company or work of fiction. Enough money to never have to work again and for you and your descendants to live in absolute luxury. Spend the rest of your days doing literally anything you want.

Think of that. And now think of what kind of person would turn down such an offer and say, "actually, I want even more money and power. I'll keep running the company."

We've made it so easy to cash out that only the real weirdos keep going.

That's a huge simplification, though. It's not meant in a literal sense. Nobody wants to actually off this person. It's like saying "Nobody should be allowed to shoplift" and "Nobody should be allowed to hoard power and control over things we need, so we therefore need to shoplift" are the same opposing statements. The action against each statement, or the action each statement is advocating for are inherently different, though, similarly as the original statement.

No shoplifting looks like a surveillance state and increased police presence. No hoarding resources looks like flipping the power by electing politicians who don't accept bribes (lobbying) and therefore serve the resource hoarders, and then taxing (with probably a few insistent pushes along the way).

Jks idiotic rhetoric asks similarly increase surveillance and police presence. Not allowing her to exist, means extricating any one person's ability to have this level of harmful power over any demographic, similarly voting for people who will use the wheels of power to stop her using her money to cause this influence. But it's just easier to shorten that and say she shouldn't exist.

That said, I'd add a caveat that, historically it's taken blood to change the direction of things that be, if that's their terms, then that's their terms. If we leave them to be, they extract the blood of trans people, and trans women, of course including cis women. So there is already blood. Their way proposes harming, hugely, already. So if she won't leave by progressive means, she'll leave by her own devised means.

We leave her to go about her ways = blood.

We stop her with politics = no blood. We are unable to stop her with politics = blood.

Trying to stop her only equates a 50% chance cloudy with a chance of blood.

So even if we choose blood. It's still less blood than she is already proposing.

And also, Luke I am your father.

she and musk love each others company, both are anti-trans rich people.