If DeSantis wins

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
Huh? DeSantis isn't overly authoritarian. Just because he's a republican that gets national coverage doesn't mean he's authoritarian.
No indeed, you're absolutely right. Lots of Republicans are not unusually authoritarian - some are even downright libertarian and strongly opposed to authoritarianism. But Trump put authoritarian attutides firmly in the driving seat of the current Republican party ideology, and De Santis is absolutely in with that.

Kids not being able to play in the park is fucking authoritarian, there ain't no way in downplaying that.
No, it isn't (necessarily) authoritarian, that's the point. It's the lazy, peanut gallery assumption of what authoritarianism is, and the sort of error that real authoritarians gleefully exploit to attain power. The opposite of "liberty" is not "authority". I'm aware of the somewhat semantic nature of that argument, but it kind of really does illustrate the point.

Authoritarians can offer their people considerable liberties, as long as those liberties do not conflict with the authority's power and control. Restricting kids from playing in a park to prevent disease spread means pretty much nothing at all to an authoritarian, because it makes basically no difference to them. Banning political activists from assembling in a park for a protest, however... that's totally the realm of authoritarians.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
Still b!tching about SCOTUS?
Yes. You are remarkably blase for a man who claims to be sort of left-ish considering that the conservatives have granted themselves privileged control of interpretation of law. Roe v. Wade is merely a single example of a much, much wider problem. I'm also astonished that a man who expresses so much cynicism about government is so blase about a political party rigging the legal system in its favour.

Again, what you need to do here is look at textbook authoritarian treatment of courts. In the traditional model of government, there is the legislature, executive and judiciary, which balance each other. The judiciary has the power to block the actions of the legislature or executive. The aim of an authoritarian is therefore to stop the courts from doing so. Therefore, they stack them with cronies or ideological bedfellows, or otherwise cripple their ability to impede the executive / legislature. Once the judiciary is weakened or subordinated, it removes a potential source of opposition to the authoritarian.

Remember, the judiciary is notionally supposed to be politically neutral. (This is why in many countries the government does not appoint judges.) Overtly stacking the courts for political purposes damages or even destroys that neutrality. Currently, conservatives have granted themselves the ability to facilitate conservative law, impede non-conservative law, and re-interpret previously established law: even if that represents minority legal interpretation and overall national political will.

Courts should, in theory, arguably be undemocratic, by refusing to allow even the democratically majority to enact illegal law. But if the court is to be politicised, for it to be politicised in a manner oppositional to democratic sentiment manages to be even worse.

Just as a note here, De Santis has stated he thinks SCOTUS is not stacked enough: he wants 7-2.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Because DeSantis is *TOTALLY* a fascist... This is why we can't actually have discussions in this country anymore.
Oh whiney whiney.

He is and if you support him so are you. Beyond the play on words, the hypocrisy on denominations, the US politics debates are right now exclusively on whether fascism is good or bad. Also Republicans want to eradicate trans people as subhuman aberrations just like nazis wanted to eradicate Jews among others. But hey, the word "fascism" in pop culture means "wants to infringe on my freedoms of mine" and you see no problem with authoritarianism that doesn't target you therefore can't be. You're just very fine people, at the extreme-right of the extreme-right.

That being out of the way, my point was specifically about the stupidity if your argument, claiming that someone isn't an authoritarian because you cherry pick one obligation he doesn't enforce, and you cherry pick the stupidest (public health policies during a worldwide pandemic). That's exactly like saying that Hitler wasn't an authoritarian because he didn't forbid beating up jews in the streets. Yeah cool he didn't. What a beacon of democracy.

You people are disgusting.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
You're right, it doesn't, the laws he passes do.


Look, you need to find and display the actual cropped text of the bills themselves so that Phoenixmgs can say that objective observed reality isn't happening based on his interpretation of legal text.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
Also Republicans want to eradicate trans people as subhuman aberrations just like nazis wanted to eradicate Jews among others.
If the Nazis were just telling people "you're not actually Jewish", I'm not sure history would even remember it.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
If the Nazis were just telling people "you're not actually Jewish", I'm not sure history would even remember it.
You kinda forget the "or else". Assholes have many rhetorical ways to annihilate existing populations and publicly deny them the right to exist. Such as Iran and Chechnya claiming there are no homosexual on their grounds. Genocide and denial go hand in hand, sometimes the human group is invisibilized, which allows for violence on "no object", and sometimes the whole obliteration process is denied, they've been none if the group never existed. Ethnocide and forced assimilations, in Nazi Germany and in Greece (both nowadays and in the Metaxas era) were based on the deliberate denial of ethnicities. In any cases, the point is that a group decides, as you are doing, with whichever mean at hand, that the other isn't allowed to exist, conceptually and physically.

That being said, maybe you shouldn't interject yourself in conversations about Nazism given your own advocacy for Nüremberg-like laws to target homosexuals (basically stitching a pink triangle on them as a discriminatory tool for employers and landlords). But of course, you're incapable of seeing anything awkward in that. Neither you nor your idols are capable of shame on such matters.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,717
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
That's why they get stuck renting. What did you do before you bought? Lived with your parents? Not everyone has that option?

Because they can't save up a deposit! What do you propose people do while they save up a deposit? Live in a box? Like are you capable of a coherent series of thoughts?

What are you talking about?!
It's the same or less to own per month. You have to save up some for renting too. Also, you can rent short-term with a roommate or perhaps a friend is ok renting out a room to save up money. Renting shouldn't be something you're doing long-term. Most people are just horrible at saving money and actually differentiating needs vs wants. I have a few friends that live with their parents (nothing wrong with that) BUT they complain about bills and not enough money to go to a bar or restaurant at times when they have no housing bill. With that type of spending, how are they gonna afford a housing bill (renting or owning)? One of them just had their car totaled and got a 2020 car and is already complaining about the car payment, they could've got an older car. They also make more money than I do.

For example @5:33 in this video, why is this lady paying $280/month for a phone bill? It cost $15/month per line for a cell phone. Also, she makes at least twice what I do (not even counting her spouse's income either).

You said all the stuff I was saying about diet was right-wing rhetoric for some reason.

Explain why you think everybody is lying first
Twitter is hardly everyone... It's something like only 10% of people actually use Twitter and like 90% of tweets come from 10% of Twitter users. Twitter is not nearly close to "everybody".

You're right, it doesn't, the laws he passes do.


DeSantis saying that the state is done wasting money on DEI bullshit is authoritarian? Just because a law is "controversial" doesn't mean it's authoritarian. One of the laws in there for guns is providing more freedom to gun owners, how is that authoritarian? The fact that the 2nd article starts with Mussolini shows it's just a over-exaggerated hit-piece to not be taken seriously.


No indeed, you're absolutely right. Lots of Republicans are not unusually authoritarian - some are even downright libertarian and strongly opposed to authoritarianism. But Trump put authoritarian attutides firmly in the driving seat of the current Republican party ideology, and De Santis is absolutely in with that.



No, it isn't (necessarily) authoritarian, that's the point. It's the lazy, peanut gallery assumption of what authoritarianism is, and the sort of error that real authoritarians gleefully exploit to attain power. The opposite of "liberty" is not "authority". I'm aware of the somewhat semantic nature of that argument, but it kind of really does illustrate the point.

Authoritarians can offer their people considerable liberties, as long as those liberties do not conflict with the authority's power and control. Restricting kids from playing in a park to prevent disease spread means pretty much nothing at all to an authoritarian, because it makes basically no difference to them. Banning political activists from assembling in a park for a protest, however... that's totally the realm of authoritarians.
You provided nothing showing DeSantis being any more authoritarian than the average politician.

Kids playing in the park didn't cause covid spread... Banning ideas from being spoken is not authoritarianism?

Yes. You are remarkably blase for a man who claims to be sort of left-ish considering that the conservatives have granted themselves privileged control of interpretation of law. Roe v. Wade is merely a single example of a much, much wider problem. I'm also astonished that a man who expresses so much cynicism about government is so blase about a political party rigging the legal system in its favour.

Again, what you need to do here is look at textbook authoritarian treatment of courts. In the traditional model of government, there is the legislature, executive and judiciary, which balance each other. The judiciary has the power to block the actions of the legislature or executive. The aim of an authoritarian is therefore to stop the courts from doing so. Therefore, they stack them with cronies or ideological bedfellows, or otherwise cripple their ability to impede the executive / legislature. Once the judiciary is weakened or subordinated, it removes a potential source of opposition to the authoritarian.

Remember, the judiciary is notionally supposed to be politically neutral. (This is why in many countries the government does not appoint judges.) Overtly stacking the courts for political purposes damages or even destroys that neutrality. Currently, conservatives have granted themselves the ability to facilitate conservative law, impede non-conservative law, and re-interpret previously established law: even if that represents minority legal interpretation and overall national political will.

Courts should, in theory, arguably be undemocratic, by refusing to allow even the democratically majority to enact illegal law. But if the court is to be politicised, for it to be politicised in a manner oppositional to democratic sentiment manages to be even worse.

Just as a note here, De Santis has stated he thinks SCOTUS is not stacked enough: he wants 7-2.
Where are these examples of the current SCOTUS making decisions that are directly leading to US to authoritarianism? The democrats stack the court as liberal when they can as well. Why is this ok for one side but the "end of democracy!!!" when the other side does it?

Would you let kids play in the park while criminals are shooting it out with police next door?
Bad faith argument

Oh whiney whiney.

He is and if you support him so are you. Beyond the play on words, the hypocrisy on denominations, the US politics debates are right now exclusively on whether fascism is good or bad. Also Republicans want to eradicate trans people as subhuman aberrations just like nazis wanted to eradicate Jews among others. But hey, the word "fascism" in pop culture means "wants to infringe on my freedoms of mine" and you see no problem with authoritarianism that doesn't target you therefore can't be. You're just very fine people, at the extreme-right of the extreme-right.

That being out of the way, my point was specifically about the stupidity if your argument, claiming that someone isn't an authoritarian because you cherry pick one obligation he doesn't enforce, and you cherry pick the stupidest (public health policies during a worldwide pandemic). That's exactly like saying that Hitler wasn't an authoritarian because he didn't forbid beating up jews in the streets. Yeah cool he didn't. What a beacon of democracy.

You people are disgusting.
Can you all stop with the fucking bullshit that ain't happening? Republicans don't want to eradicate trans people, that is just absurd. Comparing anything going on to Hitler's Germany is so eye-rolling. Do you see me using such exaggerate messaging when talking about the bad things democrats do? Nope, because I'm not here posting in bad faith, I'm not trying to win debate with pure rhetoric, I care about he facts (which is why I bring up the democrats horrible track record on housing vs say comparing them to some horribly failed socialist leader for pure shock value). DeSantis isn't authoritarian because he's not authoritarian. The fact that he didn't take advantage of such a situation where people were fearful is a good sign whereas democrats totally took advantage and extended their power and control. Not that that proves DeSantis wouldn't become authoritarian or that democrats are authoritarian by any means (because that would exaggerations), but I don't know how in the world you can look at what the democrats did with regards to covid and think that was good by any measure.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Also, you can rent short-term with a roommate or perhaps a friend is ok renting out a room to save up money. Renting shouldn't be something you're doing long-term. Most people are just horrible at saving money and actually differentiating needs vs wants.
Just that easy, is it?

You have absolutely zero understanding-- or willingness to understand-- the lived reality that other people are in. I'm a graduate, with a relatively large amount of savings. Owning is out of reach.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
Twitter is hardly everyone... It's something like only 10% of people actually use Twitter and like 90% of tweets come from 10% of Twitter users. Twitter is not nearly close to "everybody".
That's not an explanation
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,571
2,277
118
Country
Ireland
It's the same or less to own per month. You have to save up some for renting too.
You have to save up a security deposit. So one month's rent.To get a mortgage I would need to save up a 20% deposit or somewhere in the region of 50K because I would be buying by myself. Also you can only take out a mortgage of around 4 times your annual income and the average house price currently sits at about 9 times the median income. So for the vast majority of first time buyers the most they could get a mortgage for is about 140k in a country where the median house price is 305k. And I already know you're going to say "well there are homes below the median" so preemptively I will point out that there is not enough for all the people earning less than the 60k a year needed to get a mortgage at that price. So there is literally not enough affordable housing for all the people who need it. Are there houses for 168K that the median earner can buy? Yes. Is there enough for all of them? Not even fucking close. My mother just sold her house about a week after it went on the market because the demand is that high. The reason buying is on the back burner for me personally is because it's literally more achievable to save up the money to start my own business than it is to get a mortgage.

Literally every renter in the developed world has been saying for years that their rent is more than they would pay on a mortgage but they can't get approved for a mortgage largely because they can't get a deposit together because rents are so high. It's called the rent trap for a reason.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,603
2,828
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
You kinda forget the "or else". Assholes have many rhetorical ways to annihilate existing populations and publicly deny them the right to exist. Such as Iran and Chechnya claiming there are no homosexual on their grounds. Genocide and denial go hand in hand, sometimes the human group is invisibilized, which allows for violence on "no object", and sometimes the whole obliteration process is denied, they've been none if the group never existed. Ethnocide and forced assimilations, in Nazi Germany and in Greece (both nowadays and in the Metaxas era) were based on the deliberate denial of ethnicities. In any cases, the point is that a group decides, as you are doing, with whichever mean at hand, that the other isn't allowed to exist, conceptually and physically.

That being said, maybe you shouldn't interject yourself in conversations about Nazism given your own advocacy for Nüremberg-like laws to target homosexuals (basically stitching a pink triangle on them as a discriminatory tool for employers and landlords). But of course, you're incapable of seeing anything awkward in that. Neither you nor your idols are capable of shame on such matters.
I mean, you missed the part where it wasnt about being 'not jewish'. It was about them not being human (or at least the worst human) so the Nazis could murder them. If anything, the Nazis were trying to PROVE people were Jewish

Making a claim that Nazis were trying to tell people they weren't Jewish misses what actually happened
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,603
2,828
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
You have to save up a security deposit. So one month's rent.To get a mortgage I would need to save up a 20% deposit or somewhere in the region of 50K because I would be buying by myself. Also you can only take out a mortgage of around 4 times your annual income and the average house price currently sits at about 9 times the median income. So for the vast majority of first time buyers the most they could get a mortgage for is about 140k in a country where the median house price is 305k. And I already know you're going to say "well there are homes below the median" so preemptively I will point out that there is not enough for all the people earning less than the 60k a year needed to get a mortgage at that price. So there is literally not enough affordable housing for all the people who need it. Are there houses for 168K that the median earner can buy? Yes. Is there enough for all of them? Not even fucking close. My mother just sold her house about a week after it went on the market because the demand is that high. The reason buying is on the back burner for me personally is because it's literally more achievable to save up the money to start my own business than it is to get a mortgage.

Literally every renter in the developed world has been saying for years that their rent is more than they would pay on a mortgage but they can't get approved for a mortgage largely because they can't get a deposit together because rents are so high. It's called the rent trap for a reason.
So, some dodgy stuff is happening with renting in Australia at the moment. Many landlords are now demanding a deposit of a full year of rent.... then you get to start paying rent. Sydney rents went up 5%... just in May.

Homelessness is currently skyrocketing because many people are just being priced out of renting

My house price went up about 200k in five years. At a 20% deposit, you have to save 8K per year just to keep up with inflation let alone making up the deposit
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
I mean, you missed the part where it wasnt about being 'not jewish'. It was about them not being human (or at least the worst human) so the Nazis could murder them. If anything, the Nazis were trying to PROVE people were Jewish
Making a claim that Nazis were trying to tell people they weren't Jewish misses what actually happened
The direct analogy is that nazis wanted the Jews to cease to exist ("or else", yes). They went with the stick-a-label visibility route - although you could argue that there was an invisibilization in cultural reappropriations, when they "aryanized" works made by or representing jews, yet that they wished to keep, but that's not even what I meant. When I talk of "ethnocide and forced assimilation", I refer to a Nazi dream of germanic homogeneity that didn't start and stop with antisemitism. Nazis were re-cutting, re-defining, rearranging cultural identities in (mostly Eastern) Europe according to their mapping of germanism, hierarchizing, pushing away, killing, whatever wouldn't accept or fit in that imposed classification. And, again, it's not even specific to Nazi Germany. Greece did deny and "physically adjust" the existence of many human groups that didn't fit (religiously/linguistically/ethnically) in its national narrative, effectively erasing them from the national self-perception. It's always the same logic, of pre-deciding an allowed reality, and constructing a path to enforce its self-fulfillement. Modalities vary, but the action is the same : an ontological denial, the cancellation of the right to exist, the definition as an aberration to resolve.

Heck, sometimes it's even just as basic as the denial of being part of the local : a simple arbitrary otherization is its the most mundane form, nowadays - like the true scotsman-ish "you cannot be both european and muslim because that does not exist" type of discourse of christian nationalists, adjacent to other regions' "we have no gays here, therefore if they are gays then they are not ours". It's a very short continuum of rhetorics, fulfilling the same function, and ending with the transphobic (and occasionally ethnic) disqualification.

Republicans don't want to eradicate trans people, that is just absurd.
You people want them to not exist, that's all. Because they conflict with your traditional beliefs about what sex and gender is, and updating this view is blasphematory to you. So you shoehorn real life back into these pre-defined categories with all the required violence, crushing (legally, socially, medically, phychologically) whoever needs crushing for that. And also throwing a carpet over it, because god (literally) forbids if gender studies seep into in common knowledge. The biblical cultural categories need to be inculcated young with a creationist's zeal, the prejudice maintained, and the knowledge kept as far as schools as possible - or else oh no all your little world falls apart, destruction of family structure and therefore civilization and therefore mankind and whatnot. But thankfully you have a candidate running a true crusade for the american theocracy. Your totally not authoritarian taliban will make sure Jesus stays proud of America, its obediently breeding women, its comfortably deniable queers, its lucrative climate destruction, its rightfully unchecked pandemics, its unquestioned systemic racism, its glorious cult of violence and its venerable 19th century beliefs.

Seriously, I could have a modicum of respect for republicans if they had had the decency to support something more humane than a trump or a de santis. But your spiralling down towards the trashiest trash is inexcusable. I say it again, you people are absolutely vomitive. And you had a lot of choice, outside this race to the extreme. You are what you decided to be. You play the victim, like "oh it's just because we are republicans of course they call us names" but no, you opted to become that. You 100% own the fascist label. You won't normalize your new standards.

What you'd really need at this point is a historical mirror. But I suspect a lot of you would be perfectly proud of what they'd see in it.

No, you've imagined the "or else" in your perpetual fever dream.
A lot of real life blood magically spills out of this "fever dream", apparently. Unrelated to trans people's refusal to cease to exist despite your injunction, I assume. But it always comes down to that, you dream up a world devoid of a certain category, and you're ready to destroy all the lives that too persistently refuse to fit in the remaining slots. Because religious fanatics of your ilk are fundamentally incapable of experiencing empathy outside your subcultural bubble.

Heck, you're perfectly fine with "be heterosexual OR ELSE be denied job, healthcare and housing". So, what's your "or else" concerning trans people who persist to be regardless of your denial of their existence, already ?

Implicitely, the exact same one as the 1930s nazi supporters when it came to Jews still being there. "Remove them from our horizon, I don't want to know how, I trust you'll do the necessary". The tstorms will go "Just make the laws", the phoenixmgs will go "Just apply the laws", and both pairs of hands will be super clean.

All in all, the platform of transphobia is as politically efficient as antisemitism used to be, and spins the same cogs. In the same kind of people.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
But it always comes down to that, you dream up a world devoid of a certain category, and you're ready to destroy all the lives that too persistently refuse to fit in the remaining slots.
I promise, if you try, you can see the difference between "there's no such thing as witches" and "we need to hunt down and murder all the witches". I guarantee, you do not believe in witches in the conventional magical sense. There are still many people who call themselves witches. Your denial of their magical nature does not in any way indicate a desire to murder them.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,571
2,277
118
Country
Ireland
So, some dodgy stuff is happening with renting in Australia at the moment. Many landlords are now demanding a deposit of a full year of rent.... then you get to start paying rent. Sydney rents went up 5%... just in May.

Homelessness is currently skyrocketing because many people are just being priced out of renting

My house price went up about 200k in five years. At a 20% deposit, you have to save 8K per year just to keep up with inflation let alone making up the deposit
And yet everyone I know is moving to Australia which should give a clear picture of how fucked everything is in Ireland if that's considered at least slightly less fucked.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,717
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Just that easy, is it?

You have absolutely zero understanding-- or willingness to understand-- the lived reality that other people are in. I'm a graduate, with a relatively large amount of savings. Owning is out of reach.
I've never made over 40K in a year and don't have any money from any inheritances either.

That's not an explanation
People on Twitter is not everyone. And people on Twitter usually don't tweet in good faith either. Twitter is a cesspool plain and simple. All you have to do is literally quote the text from the bill/law that says what you say it does, why can't you simply to do that? Probably because it doesn't exist.

You have to save up a security deposit. So one month's rent.To get a mortgage I would need to save up a 20% deposit or somewhere in the region of 50K because I would be buying by myself. Also you can only take out a mortgage of around 4 times your annual income and the average house price currently sits at about 9 times the median income. So for the vast majority of first time buyers the most they could get a mortgage for is about 140k in a country where the median house price is 305k. And I already know you're going to say "well there are homes below the median" so preemptively I will point out that there is not enough for all the people earning less than the 60k a year needed to get a mortgage at that price. So there is literally not enough affordable housing for all the people who need it. Are there houses for 168K that the median earner can buy? Yes. Is there enough for all of them? Not even fucking close. My mother just sold her house about a week after it went on the market because the demand is that high. The reason buying is on the back burner for me personally is because it's literally more achievable to save up the money to start my own business than it is to get a mortgage.

Literally every renter in the developed world has been saying for years that their rent is more than they would pay on a mortgage but they can't get approved for a mortgage largely because they can't get a deposit together because rents are so high. It's called the rent trap for a reason.
You don't have to put down 20% to buy. My condo cost 4.6 times my annual income and I was also pre-approved for 5.9 times my annual income. The condo I bought was 170K and IIRC, I was pre-approved for 220K as you don't know how much you're going to need to bid obviously. It kinda funny that when I did my pre-approval request, I literally put down no assets or collateral because I did it via my Chase login on their site and figured they would just pull my accounts but they called me the next day asking about it. I didn't necessarily say buy a house. I said you can buy an equal or better condo that costs the same amount to own per month than a similar apartment. Like I said, a guy a work rents an apartment that's smaller than my condo for more per month than my mortgage and HOA fees are.

You people want them to not exist, that's all. Because they conflict with your traditional beliefs about what sex and gender is, and updating this view is blasphematory to you. So you shoehorn real life back into these pre-defined categories with all the required violence, crushing (legally, socially, medically, phychologically) whoever needs crushing for that. And also throwing a carpet over it, because god (literally) forbids if gender studies seep into in common knowledge. The biblical cultural categories need to be inculcated young with a creationist's zeal, the prejudice maintained, and the knowledge kept as far as schools as possible - or else oh no all your little world falls apart, destruction of family structure and therefore civilization and therefore mankind and whatnot. But thankfully you have a candidate running a true crusade for the american theocracy. Your totally not authoritarian taliban will make sure Jesus stays proud of America, its obediently breeding women, its comfortably deniable queers, its lucrative climate destruction, its rightfully unchecked pandemics, its unquestioned systemic racism, its glorious cult of violence and its venerable 19th century beliefs.

Seriously, I could have a modicum of respect for republicans if they had had the decency to support something more humane than a trump or a de santis. But your spiralling down towards the trashiest trash is inexcusable. I say it again, you people are absolutely vomitive. And you had a lot of choice, outside this race to the extreme. You are what you decided to be. You play the victim, like "oh it's just because we are republicans of course they call us names" but no, you opted to become that. You 100% own the fascist label. You won't normalize your new standards.

What you'd really need at this point is a historical mirror. But I suspect a lot of you would be perfectly proud of what they'd see in it.
What fuck are you going on about? I don't even care about transgender people (not literally obviously, but in the sense that I don't care what your gender is). I'm not a republican, I'm not a Christian, I've never even been to church outside of funerals/weddings (btw, I'm atheist). Sex is not some belief, it is just what it is; man: adult male, woman: adult female. It's super fucking simple. Gender, I couldn't give 2 shits about outside of dating/relationships and thus gender is not something even mentionable in like 99.99999999% of human interactions.

DeSantis has a better record than most governors during the same time frame as far humaneness goes.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,275
6,751
118
Country
United States
People on Twitter is not everyone. And people on Twitter usually don't tweet in good faith either. Twitter is a cesspool plain and simple. All you have to do is literally quote the text from the bill/law that says what you say it does, why can't you simply to do that? Probably because it doesn't exist.
Yep, everybody you don't agree with is constantly lying. That's the only reasonable explanation