Being excluded from women's sports is equivalent to being killed for your political affiliation?
Maybe give this one another try and we’ll call this post a mulligan to save you some embarrassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Well, winning has become a matter of global security, global economic stability and the sovereignty of nations is at stake. So, yeah, we need to be coldly strategic to ultimately move things in a direction that is safer, more equal and better for all.
Trans athletes in women's sports is not the hill to die on.
Letting them ban trans women from sport has no effect on global security.
“We” doesn’t exist. You’re willing to concede on certain trans issues because it doesn’t personally impact you, which is fine, but you don’t get to decide what people should care about. If resources were infinite and they were using 90% of them fighting the dismantling of trans rights, sure, but that’s not how the world works. You can fight on however many political and ideological fronts you need to fight on.
Do you honestly think they’ll stop at that or concede anything else if you let them “have” it? Did you read the story in the Alberta politics thread about how things like GSAs, being called preferred names at school, and not having teachers have to report to parents being removed took away their only safe spaces from a toxic home? Did you read that they killed themselves?
It’s easier to say things that aren’t “rights” aren’t a big deal. They aren’t to you, fine. They can be a massive deal to the people they actually impact. And if they don’t impact you, recognize your extreme privilege in standing in a place of safety and we should just concede on them.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Maybe give this one another try and we’ll call this post a mulligan to save you some embarrassment.
I'm comfortable with my point about your false equivalency. Maybe you can explain why I'm wrong?
Quote:
Letting them ban trans women from sport has no effect on global security.
“We” doesn’t exist. You’re willing to concede on certain trans issues because it doesn’t personally impact you, which is fine, but you don’t get to decide what people should care about. If resources were infinite and they were using 90% of them fighting the dismantling of trans rights, sure, but that’s not how the world works. You can fight on however many political and ideological fronts you need to fight on.
Do you honestly think they’ll stop at that or concede anything else if you let them “have” it? Did you read the story in the Alberta politics thread about how things like GSAs, being called preferred names at school, and not having teachers have to report to parents being removed took away their only safe spaces from a toxic home? Did you read that they killed themselves?
It’s easier to say things that aren’t “rights” aren’t a big deal. They aren’t to you, fine. They can be a massive deal to the people they actually impact. And if they don’t impact you, recognize your extreme privilege in standing in a place of safety and we should just concede on them.
"We" doesn't exist, but "They" do? Who are the "They"?
I am of the belief that Democrats doubling down on trans-women in female sports (generally unpopular) has led to a downturn on the support of the issues you've mentioned (that support had been trending upward on).
I haven't seen where you lay out how continuing to fight this battle will lead to a scenario that help protect the rights of the general transgender population.
GOP strategists love when Democrats run on protecting transwomen in women's sports. Backing off of that is not giving the GOP a win.
Letting GOP go crazy with trans bans in female sports leading to genital checks on their middle school daughters is how the pendulum swings back.
I'm comfortable with my point about your false equivalency. Maybe you can explain why I'm wrong?
Because at no point did I suggest they were equal in any way, whether literal or abstract, and only a literal moron would read it that way and I don’t think you’re a moron so I assume you’re trolling me.
Maybe you don’t understand the message of the original quote. I don’t know where you’re starting, but you should probably get a little less comfortable and hit the books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
"We" doesn't exist, but "They" do? Who are the "They"?
Don’t know how to use context clues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
I am of the belief that Democrats doubling down on trans-women in female sports (generally unpopular) has led to a downturn on the support of the issues you've mentioned (that support had been trending upward on).
That’s because you’re looking for a scapegoat and it’s easy to pick on trans people and throw them under the bus when you didn’t care about them in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
I haven't seen where you lay out how continuing to fight this battle will lead to a scenario that help protect the rights of the general transgender population.
If you allow them to become second class citizens in small ways, you make it easier for people to make them second class citizens in others. Conversely, I haven’t seen you… ever… lay out any approach that actually helps trans people in any way. In fact, I’ve only ever seen you talk about them in context of trans women in sport.
Many years on this board, many conversations on the topic. Not a bother to weigh in on any but the one topic you’ve conveniently played devil’s advocate on, and are now too happy to give Republicans a win on. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
GOP strategists love when Democrats run on protecting transwomen in women's sports. Backing off of that is not giving the GOP a win.
Letting them pass anti-trans laws is. But maybe you think it’s win-win?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
Letting GOP go crazy with trans bans in female sports leading to genital checks on their middle school daughters is how the pendulum swings back.
And if a few kids and young adults kill themselves in the process, it was worth it! Am I right my progressive brother?
Because at no point did I suggest they were equal in any way, whether literal or abstract, and only a literal moron would read it that way and I don’t think you’re a moron so I assume you’re trolling me.
Maybe you don’t understand the message of the original quote. I don’t know where you’re starting, but you should probably get a little less comfortable and hit the books.
First they come for the communists... and then the socialists was the origin of your quote. The implication was that the Germans should have spoke up when they were taking away the communists and socialists and executing them for their political affiliation (as communists and socialists.) and not ignored it because they weren't part of those groups.
I read your quote as creating an equivalency between the plight of transgendered athletes being removed from women's sports to the the plight of communists and socials being taking away and killed.
Where were you going with that?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
First they come for the communists... and then the socialists was the origin of your quote. The implication was that the Germans should have spoke up when they were taking away the communists and socialists and executing them for their political affiliation (as communists and socialists.) and not ignored it because they weren't part of those groups.
I read your quote as creating an equivalency between the plight of transgendered athletes being removed from women's sports to the the plight of communists and socials being taking away and killed.
Where were you going with that?
You seem to have answered your own question in the first paragraph so give it a college try and see if you can figure it out (don’t worry, no trans athletes with an unfair advantage to stop you here).
I read your quote as creating an equivalency between the plight of transgendered athletes being removed from women's sports to the the plight of communists and socials being taking away and killed.
Where were you going with that?
Do you honestly believe the attack on trans women in women's sports is an earnest and sincere defense of fairness in women's collegiate athletics?
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Trump is actually a decent golfer for 78 and I don’t know anything about his golf club but I would hazard a guess he’s not playing in the most competitive flight during club champs. I have no doubt he probably does win club champs for his flight.
Trump is actually a decent golfer for 78 and I don’t know anything about his golf club but I would hazard a guess he’s not playing in the most competitive flight during club champs. I have no doubt he probably does win club champs for his flight.
Sure, and with a generous handicap that I wouldn’t trust.
Couple of foot wedges, a caddy that 'finds' every ball, several mulligans and a complete disdain for the rest of the rules of golf and anyone can win.
Its long established that, like in everything else, he cheats at golf.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
“I’ve always said golf is like bicycle shorts. It reveals a lot about a guy,” Reilly joked during his appearance. “And what it reveals about this guy is that he cannot lose. He has to win and he will do anything to cheat.”
"And I know because I played golf with him and he took seven mulligans. He took a 'give me chip-in.' I’ve never even heard of a 'give me chip-in,'" he added.
Quote:
“What he does [is] he just calls in and goes, ‘I usually beat that guy, give me the trophy,’” Reilly alleged.
“And I know this because when I play with him, he goes, ‘You know what I do to win these championships, don’t ya?’ and I go, ‘Please tell me. Give it to me.’ And he goes, ‘Anytime I buy a new course, I play the first round all by myself and then I declare myself the club champion,’” Reilly continued. “So that’s what kind of guy this is.”
Plenty more cheating anecdotes in the article. It should come as no surprise that the guy who fails in business repeatedly and claims to be the best businessman alive also does the same thing for golf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
When you’re speaking to the type of person who can’t wrap their head around around a plan explained in more than three words you should assume that even if they read your post the chances of them being able to understand it and then go the extra step of responding to the thing they read is about as near zero as it gets.
Thanks for this. I almost responded to a GS post. Then I read this and went on with my life, mostly after this post. Shiver...
Trump is actually a decent golfer for 78 and I don’t know anything about his golf club but I would hazard a guess he’s not playing in the most competitive flight during club champs. I have no doubt he probably does win club champs for his flight.
Watch this and tell me you still think he's decent enough to achieve what he claims.
