Look at it this way, though: You have a system which limits the progress of far-right populists. Great! We don’t. But if we try to explain how the system screws us over, it’s just “excuses.” And our protests that get people out in the streets are “ineffective.”
We’re doing the same as you, which is everything legally and procedurally possible, and protesting, too. A little empathy, and understanding the limits of our system would be nice.
It didn’t take long for you turn into an ass, though, did it?
Ditto.
Yes, that is my point, too. Notice how the excuses start to fly when I apply the same (warranted) criticisms to other countries that so many non-Americans lob at the U.S. It doesn’t feel good, and doesn’t help anything, does it? Everybody should knock it off, and work together instead of basking in self-righteousness.
I do, it’s a legislative body comprised of elected representatives from geographic areas, often based on proportional representation. But that shouldn’t prevent the French people from doing something about right-wing populism, and Le Pen in particular, any more than the U.S. system prevents Americans from doing something about it.
But she holds national office. Why don’t French people “do something” about it?
Funny, though, I’m just repeating back word-for-word what other countries tell us Americans.
Oh, prance around with some signs on a Saturday when they’re off work. So effective! /s
Sounds familiar.
“Something.” Whatever it is we’re supposed to do, do it, so she doesn’t get elected.
We’re told to “do something” about our President constantly. Do that.
This criticism would hit so much harder if, say, the people of France would do something about the hard right, but, oh look, Marine Le Pen can run for president again? Sounds familiar.
As you point out, the fascists are rounding up immigrants into concentration camps. We keep losing rights by the week. And it didn’t start with trans people? Then why did it get as far as them? So far, we have failed to stop any step in the process. It’s understandable, because when anybody’s rights are contingent rather than inalienable, we can always rationalize why it’s okay to abandon the next group.
Not all at once, of course. But, reading the news, it sure looks to me like the erasure is proceeding apace.
But, you can only tell that because one used sunscreen, and one didn’t. Otherwise they’d look exactly identical. /s
Not sure how to parse this comment. The point here is that, as a practical matter, no one’s rights are safe unless everybody’s rights are safe, and AOC is correct that Democrats are wrong to disengage on trans rights, because it’s ultimately abandoning everybody’s rights, which is the end of democracy.
Do you know anyone in the LGBTQ+ community? Are they shoving things in your face?
This reminds me of:
Here’s the thing: That’s total bullshit. Just like my comment above, if you’re willing to compromise a little bit on people’s basic human dignity, where’s the line?
(Also, gender-affirming, permanent surgery performed on children describes circumcision. People pretending to be concerned about it on principle are lying.)
So where does it end? If you compromise on somebody’s rights with the justification that you need to protect everybody else, where’s the line you don’t cross? There’s no principle built in to that approach. Theoretically, you can justify throwing all people of color under the bus in order to protect white women, with that logic.
If Democrats abandon trans people now, the fascists won’t be satisfied. Who’s next?
On second thought, do let the door hit you on the way out.