It's a case of "follow the leader". Whenever a candidate wins in a democratic or semi-democratic system, all other candidates become more likely to lean more towards the winning candidate's positions on issues, either in the hope of peeling off votes or preventing defections from their own moderates.
If only there was some way we could have went the other direction on the issue. Maybe a candidate who wasn't a openly raging transphobe.
"I'm only trying to be critical" is also a canard of chuds who want to pretend that there are 'two sides' to settled or unambiguous issues, like climate change, or genocide.
I was lucky enough to have several passionate history teachers through my school years. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are putting history memes up on the projector at this point. XD
Brave only when a man is trapped, and they have a whip in their hand.
Explanation: The Ottoman Empire is known for, amongst other things, their massive, onion-like turbans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcaspian_Government
Autonomous sentiments were developing amongst the local Turkmen population, with the formation of the Turkmen National Army (TNA) in February 1918. Concerned about this, the Bolshevik Ashgabat Soviet appealed to Fyodor Kolesov [ru], leader of the Tashkent Soviet for military support and declared it would carry out a census of all arms-bearing men in the Russian majority town on 17 June 1918. However, this sparked off two days of rioting.
The Tashkent Soviet dispatched some Red Guards led by V. Frolov and a Cheka contingent who arrived on 24 June and disarmed the Turkmen Cavalry Squadron, which was the core of the TNA.[2] Frolov declared martial law and personally shot the five members of a delegation of railwaymen that had tried to present a petition to him.[3] He proceeded to Kizyl-Arvat to continue restoring Bolshevik control but local railway workers had heard of the events and armed themselves. Frolov and a number of his bodyguards were shot and the remainder disarmed.[4]
Explanation: While later Christian apologetics often focus heavily on a narrative of orthodoxy-mandated imperial Roman persecution, the reality of Roman persecution of Christians is much more complex. The Romans, generally, were not overly concerned with what people believed, nor what religious practices they engaged in in most cases.
The Christians met an unfortunate junction of several circumstances which led to intermittent localized persecutions.
First, that they were almost always on bad terms with the local Jewish community. The Romans generally preferred to let peoples take care of their own affairs, and this went double for the Jewish community, whom the Romans did not always fully understand the nuances of. This meant that the normal exemptions available to the monotheism of the Jews were not available to the early Christians - as the local Jewish community was generally quick to repudiate them as weird foreign cultists, not Jews. Interestingly, there is some speculation (though far from a settled conclusion) that the option of paying the Jewish Tax - what the Jews paid the Roman Empire in lieu of making sacrifices - was available to Christians, but Christians did not avail themselves of it, possibly because they insistently did not see themselves as Jews, and thus could not countenance declaring themselves as such to pay the tax.
Second, that their secretive nature - primarily to avoid local prejudices, especially from the Jewish communities that they took many of their early converts from - rumors spread very easily about their practices. One of the earliest Roman accounts of Christians, by Pliny the Younger, records rumors that they engaged in cannibalism and incest - most likely due to the metaphor of the eucharist ('consuming the body and blood of Jesus Christ') and the tendency of them to refer to one another as 'brother' and 'sister'. To Pliny's credit, he determines that these rumors are baseless, and all that the faith is is some obscure, seemingly harmless superstition, and wrote to the Emperor to ask for further instructions. These rumors would not die with this early disproval, however, and lasted all the way until Christianity took over the Empire entirely.
Third, that they regarded the normal rituals of the Roman state to be pagan and unlawful for them to engage in. This is not something the Romans encountered often - most ancient faiths had no issue performing rituals to other gods, so long as it didn't violate any other taboos. To the Romans, this was the equivalent of refusing to pledge loyalty to the Roman state - if you will not make your loyalty oaths by the gods, clearly you are planning on breaking or ignoring the oath!
Fourth, that in most cases, Christians were not Roman citizens in the early years of Christianity. This meant that their rights were the rights of provincials - and thus very... limited. 'Obstinacy' was a common charge leveled against Christians in this early period - which sums up to "A filthy provincial refusing to listen to a Roman official." An executable offense!
And fifth, that like most minorities, they were easy scapegoats for local discontent. Mobs and governors alike found them convenient to blame local problems on, whether natural or social.
The incidents of actual imperial persecution - in which some manner of Empire-wide censure was placed on Christians - are actually very few, and all of them not long before Christianity took over the Empire itself.
The first being under Decius in 251 AD - possibly accidentally. Emperor Decius demanded that all the subjects of the Empire sacrifice, in the name of the Emperor, for the health of the Empire. This was a means of reinforcing loyalties, as Decius had only recently usurped the position of Emperor. Unfortunately, Christians did not particularly care for sacrificing in the name of the Emperor, regarding it as a pagan practice. Many refused to perform it, and were subject to punishments. Whether Decius intended this is unknown, as he died in battle very shortly afterwards.
The second being under Valerian in 257 AD. This one was undoubtedly intentional - demanding that Christian clergy and any high-ranking Christians make sacrifices to the gods to prove their loyalty, or else be executed.
The third, and most severe, being under Diocletian. It stretched a number of years and disadvantages, but the worst period being from 303 AD to 306 AD, wherein several thousand Christians were executed for no other reason than their faith. After this final persecution, the Emperor Constantine I came to power, and made Christianity the religion of the Empire - against the will of the majority of its inhabitants.
Shortly before the US Civil War, this event happened in the US Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks
Brooks [a slavery advocate Congressman] confronted Sumner [an abolitionist Congressman], who was seated at his desk, writing letters. He said, "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks hit Sumner over the head several times with his cane, made of thick gutta-percha with a gold head. Sumner was trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to strike Sumner until Sumner wrenched the desk from the floor in an attempt to escape.[2]: 9 By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood. He staggered up the aisle and collapsed unconscious.[2]: 9 Senator John J. Crittenden, Representative Ambrose Murray (R-NY), and others attempted to restrain Brooks before he killed Sumner but were blocked by Keitt, who brandished a pistol and shouted at the onlookers to leave Brooks and Sumner alone.[2]: 9 [24] Brooks continued beating Sumner until the cane broke, then quietly left the chamber with Keitt and Edmundson.[2]: 10 Brooks required medical attention before leaving the Capitol, because he had hit himself above his right eye with one of his backswings.[2]: 10
...
American Party Congressman Anson Burlingame publicly humiliated Brooks in retaliation by goading Brooks into challenging him to a duel, accepting, and then watching Brooks back out.[29] After Burlingame made provocative remarks, Brooks challenged Burlingame, stating he would gladly face him in any "Yankee mudsill" of his choosing.[30] Burlingame, a well-known marksman, eagerly accepted, choosing rifles as the weapons and the Navy Yards in the border town of Niagara Falls, Canada, as the location to circumvent the U.S. ban on dueling.[29] Brooks, reportedly dismayed by both Burlingame's enthusiastic acceptance and reputation as a crack shot, backed out by citing unspecified risks to his safety if he was to cross "hostile country" (the Northern states) to reach Canada.[29][31]
Isn't that a warcrime!?
Man, when I was in high school, smartphones were getting big, but the school always tried to crack down on their very existence in school grounds (much less usage).
Got my first cell in the 8th grade. Never been fond of the things.
Criticizing Comrade Trump is now forbidden