• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I think most commenters here are missing the point.

    There is a more extreme reaction to transgender people as opposed to gay or lesbian people, because of issues like sports and bathrooms. And that hits at people’s sense of injustice. For example if you have a young daughter, a lot of people will hate the idea of a person with a penis going into the women’s room and being around there little girl. Or if that daughter grows up and joins a sports team, the idea of somebody who is hormonally male and thus naturally more muscular competing against your daughter is unpleasant.

    Put differently, I think a lot of people we now classify as ‘transphobic’ don’t actually have much problem with trans people themselves. Rather, with how the efforts to ensure trans people receive the full treatment of their chosen gender can affect the rest of society.

    For me personally, I don’t know what the answer is. I generally don’t care which bathroom you use as long as you wash your hands. I have no problem with anyone presenting themselves to the world as whatever they wish, if it makes you happier than by all means. At the same time though, I don’t think it’s transphobic to point out that somebody who is largely or entirely biologically male will have a natural competitive advantage in the field of sports.
    So while I certainly don’t want to exclude anybody, I think there is at least a little justification for restricting some women’s sports to those who are genetically female.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I think the part people don’t realize is that like a lot of top athletes just have oddities - higher muscle building hormones, circulatory systems that work better under stress, more cellular receptors for triggering muscle building etc. And at the same time sex hormones aren’t the only chemicals that affect these things so there’s also a plethora of performance enhancing drugs cascading out of labs at the same time which is genuinely pumping out hulked up muscle freaks (see Liver King’s 12k steroid shots per month scandal)

      At some point it would just make more sense to just classify sports by weight and build and remove the genital inspection element.

    • CitricBase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think that one thing you and other centrists are missing is that any kind of regulation isn’t just a regulation on trans women, it’s a regulation on ALL women. It won’t be just trans women that will be put in a position of constantly having their genitals checked.

      Be it for bathrooms, sports, whatever, you’re opening us up to a world where anyone that fancies themselves an authority will feel empowered to sexually assault any women they want. That’s what’s at stake here. This is a women’s issue, not just a trans issue. Hell, even men will end up getting harassed in bathrooms.

      Meanwhile, actual trans people are going to by and large steer clear of segregated contact sports like they’ve always done, feeling the pain of exclusion and marginalization while deserving none of it.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think I’ve heard there are a lot of genetically male, but born female people in sports. I wonder if the same people are against those people playing in sports.

      Idk how many transphobic people just care about specific issues. There’s a lot of “groomer” rhetoric, hate, and general disgust. It’s easy to get people to hate what they don’t understand; and a lot of media is trying their hardest to cultivate hate against trans people to create an out-group, so they can control the in-group.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        create an out-group so they can control the in-group

        That’s not just the media. It’s basically everyone in power. Media, politics, government, corporations… Everyone.

        It applies to the Democrats too. Especially in the 2016 election, they managed to successfully make Republicans the out-group. But I believe that was hugely damaging to the country, it created a lot more division when what is really needed is unity to focus on the issues that most people can agree on.

        Because here’s the cold truth- there is a body of policies that probably 80% of Americans would agree on. Things like efficient government, ending government corruption, reducing corporate control over government and elections, reducing income inequality, etc.
        To quote Dylan Ratigan’s famous rant, the United States is being extracted. And I think most people would like to stop that extraction.
        But no major candidate stands for that. Bernie did, but the DNC iced him out because their wealthy corporate donors didn’t want Bernie.

        And that in my opinion is why Trump won. Harris certainly didn’t push any major message of radical reform, just a bunch of the usual ‘help the middle class’ talk. Trump may be terrifying, but he does push a message of radical reform and changing the system.
        To write that off and say half the country is racist or misogynist is to avoid learning from this situation.

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      LoL at thinking Republicans don’t want people with Penises in their Daughter’s Restroom! Conservatives are LITERALLY making it ILLEGAL for people with Penises and Beards to use anything BUT their Daughter’s Restroom!

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I don’t think anyone really cares about sports or bathrooms when it comes down to it It’s all about the patriarchy. Not a single person I’ve met has mentioned a woman who became a man going into a men’s restroom as a problem. Or them entering mens sports outside of the dimly vieled “oh well they could get hurt and a man needs to protect them from making their own decisions”

      It all comes back to people thinking men have to take care of women because they can’t take care of themselves without assistance.

      It is a reflection of how weak the people who think such are. And projecting and trying to control others lives because they don’t believe they can take care of themselves.

      If you believe in people having freedom, stop trying to fucking chain them to your ideals. (Not aimed at you specifically)

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    They’re an easy minority to scapegoat. In the US they make up between 0.5% and 1.6% of the population. A sizable portion of straight people associate being transgender as something sick and weird and a sexual deviancy, so it’s easy to target them and to try to associate them with actual objectively bad things (ie pedophilia). They’re just people trying to find their place in the world and live their lives, same as most of us.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      A sizable portion of straight people associate being transgender as something sick and weird and a sexual deviancy, so it’s easy to target them and to try to associate them with actual objectively bad things (ie pedophilia).

      I find that disgusting and totally incorrect, but actually I would be fine if that’s what they thought and that’s where they stopped.

      But they want to pass laws telling other people how they have to behave, and how they have to do things.

      The most unamerican and unpatriotic, anti-freedom thing that I can possibly think of, is people passing laws to define something as intimate and personal as gender identity and family planning. Like can’t they just fuck off and let people be how they want?

      It’s extremely weird. And these fucking bigots think because they won the election they’re not weird anymore, but most of the country did not vote. These people are still weird as fuck. If everyone voted they would get crushed and laughed out of town.

  • josefo@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Conservatives are afraid of change, because they control current status quo. They can’t let people escape from that control, so every nail that is a little outside it’s hole gets hammered.

    In short, they rather prefer trans (and broadly queers) to hide or die, unless they can control them. Everyone different from what they can control is a big danger. Imagine if everyone could be like they feel like? Conservatives see this as chaos, they are the guardians of peace and good values, so anything not already controlled by them is the opposite, chaos, destruction, fire.

    That’s why they rarely present anything new, their policies and general opinion tend to fight the natural evolution of civilization. USA, as obviously all of the American Continent, was built by immigrants (and slaves). Now they fight immigrants, undocumented ones mostly, because they can’t control them. And we know what happened when ‘the libs’ back then tried to end slavery, you know, other people that they CONTROLLED.

    Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

  • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because queerness (trans, gender non conforming, gender fluid, agender, bigender and related) threatens hierarchy.

    In western society regardless of how ‘progressive’ some parts of it have gotten, for the majority there’s still a strict hierarchy. Man most important, then woman, then children first boys then girls. Trans people completely disrupt this hierarchy by being able to change what they are and those who cling to hierarchy freak the fuck out over it.

    Then there’s the sexual panic, a straight man who’s insecure is gonna freak out if the woman they think is cute actually has a penis.

    • GiveOver@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      If that were true, then it would be trans men getting the most attention because they’re the ones cheating their way up this hierarchy. In my experience, 99% of the hate is directed at trans women.

      • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        If the transphobes thought trans men were men then your comment would be accurate. But they just see them as confused women and easy to just ignore them like they ignore cis women.

        (You are right about trans women bearing the brunt of the hate, and I think so much of that is sexual panic from cishet men about finding a penis owner attractive)

    • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Meh, I don’t know if it’s strictly a hierarchy thing. I think it’s probably more “just” a heteronormative thing. Closed-minded people who don’t like things or people that are different. Fear of difference. I’m just speculating, here.

      I can also see the sexual panic aspect.

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s cuz it isn’t hierarchy, it’s tradition. People have a hard time warming up to things that are very different from the norm.

    • Steak@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t agree. For ages in any life or death situation it is woman and children first. Men are the strongest of the bunch, any respectable man is putting his children and wife onto a lifeboat before themselves. You’d have a hard time finding a father/husband who wouldn’t.

      • CitricBase@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Your little scenario explicitly presumes that the man would be the one in charge, making this decision.

        • Steak@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          Who else would be in charge of a man making the decision to let others go ahead of himself? It is a self made decision, and a selfless one. So of course he is the one making the decision. A woman could just as easily make this decision, if she did would you still be saying “well of course she did, she’s the one on charge!”. I hope not. You just don’t like the fact that when shit hits the fan, oftentimes men are the ones who step up and help others and even sacrifice themselves. Have whatever qualms you will with men, but at least give them credit where they deserve it.

  • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Materialist answer (inspired by a video called Why The Political Compass is Wrong: Establishing An Accurate Model of Political Ideology, by breadtuber Halim Alrah… and also Jane Elliott’s famous experiment)

    Business owner makes money by paying workers to produce widgets at $6 / unit. Owner sells these widgets at $10 / unit, making a $4 profit each sale.

    Before long, the workers catch on to the reality of the situation: the owner could be making a lot less and still be able to provide “leadership” (or whatever it is he provides). They decide not to work for less than… $8 per unit. With this price, the owner will still be wealthy (the business makes hundreds of widgets, after all). But now, so will the workers.

    So the workers save up money and use it to go on strike.

    However: business owner comes up with a better solution to the problem: he divides the workers into brown-eyed workers and blue-eyed workers. He then uses his money to discriminate against the brown-eyed workers. His cronies in government make it legal to deny brown-eyed workers jobs and housing. His cronies in the media write hysterical anecdotal stories about various brown-eyed rapists, thieves, and murderers.

    Terrified mobs – stoked into a frenzy by the business owner’s well-funded propaganda – tear down brown-eyed people’s homes and food supplies, leaving them destitute before the strike is done.

    The brown-eyed workers now must choose between returning to work for the business owner at $5 / unit… or starving to death.

    The blue-eyed workers, meanwhile, have just been tricked into betraying their own team. Some were not tricked, but simply unprepared. These unprepared workers stood by in either shock, uncertainty, or laziness, unable to comprehend how their fellow blue-eyed workers could have become so foolishly self-defeating and cruel.

    But now the business owner can put up the illusion of no longer needing the blue-eyed workers. He can run his factory on a skeleton crew of desperate, brown-eyed workers, and say to the blue, “uh oh! Looks like the brown-eyed workers just stole your jobs!”

    Much like the brown-eyed workers, the blue-eyed workers have a restricted set of choices: A) admit they were suckers --fooled into attacking their own team – and try to apologize and rebuild their union, B) double down and blame brown-eyed people for undercutting them… but reluctantly return to work, because the strike is broken, or C) just like the brown-eyed workers, they can choose to starve to death.

    (A) will be the most difficult. As Mark Twain said: “it’s easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.”

    The business owner wins, and now society has an eye-color-discrimination problem. Eye color was an arbitrary characteristic. Yet now it decides where someone lives, who they spend time with, and what kinds of opportunities they have access to.

    The business owner can rinse and repeat for: skin tone, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. As the saying goes,

    “Divide and conquer.”

    You asked why trans people are currently the subject of fear and hysteria? No reason. Not any new reason at least. Trans people are different. Any and every difference between workers is an opportunity for those fatcats rich enough to own “The Daily Mail” and the “The New York Post” to separate us into camps and drain us dry, one camp at a time.

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I find this disingenuous, infantilizing. Racial discrimination and warring has been happening since the beginning of (recorded) time. It stems, among many, many other things (this thing is incredibly complex), from the fear of the other’s “unknowns”, a somewhat justified fear of others, given humanity’s penchant for conquering the neighbors. Another factor is the use of each own’s feeling of superiority over the other’s, to cover for one’s underlying fear of inferiority in some way. Take the example (one of many, not singling out here) of the Jews assertion that they are god’s chosen people, thus everyone else being inferior.

      While divide and conquer has been used since the dawn of time, and adapted by the capitalists, the sad and simple fact is that people fear that which doesn’t conform to their comfortable life scheme, that people want certainty, and having a “different” is unsettling for many, and demonization is an easy way to prop one’s belief structure. People who exchange critical thinking for a “safe” belief structure, find it threatening to have others challenge that, so they fight back, to try to have that attack defeated. This can be exploited by others, to rally against that perceived common enemy. Wave a flag, and all who have a common belief of that flag representing their values will rally.

      People don’t want to think, and/or challenge their beliefs. It’s a comfort thing.

      • Bacano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I like your answer too. While I strongly believe the trans talking point is being amplified almost exclusively to fuel culture wars between the working class, your point on out-group mentality is a DNA encoded reality, from what I remember reading.

        I think the two compromise the bulk of the answer along with the culture war fuel dumped by foreign entities interested in destabilizing the US.

        The only remedy is education. Something that is sadly on the decline.

  • auzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    We have a lot of LGBTI people in our climbing group

    I have never had an issue with any of them

    But the people trying to be hyper masculine? Yep…

    I feel like it’s because they never left high school. A lot of them are simply trying the same thing that worked when they are a kid. Everyone else grows up

  • klemptor@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    For a simple example: my mother is Catholic and until Trump came along, a lifelong single-issue Republican voter who always said she would be a Democrat if it weren’t for abortion. She attends church in an extremely progressive, famously LGBTQ-friendly town.

    There’s a transwoman who attends her church (let’s call her Rita). This lady is probably in her mid-50s to mid-60s and has been a fixture at the church for at least 5 years. My mom has been in choir and bible study groups with her for years now. She still just can’t see Rita as a woman. Treats her politely but behind her back refuses to call her “she” and says she’s a “man in a dress”.

    She’s really offended that Rita uses the ladies’ room. I’ve asked her why and she can’t articulate it, she just feels like it’s an invasion of her privacy, because men don’t belong in the ladies’ room. And when I point out that Rita isn’t a man, she just rolls her eyes. I’ve asked her if she’s worried that Rita is in there for predatory purposes and she admits that she doesn’t think Rita intends any harm. I’ve asked her how she’d feel if she were forced to use the men’s room and she says “but that’s different!”

    My mom prides herself in being a moral person, and still can’t manage to get past her bigotry to see Rita as a woman. There are just too many mental blockades against it. But since she thinks she’s so highly moral, she thinks she must be correct in this situation. It excuses her from finding empathy and bettering her attitude toward trans folks.

    My longwinded point is that when people who consider themselves highly moral are bigoted, there’s almost zero chance of getting through to them. And I think a lot of the people who are bigoted against trans folks feel that morality is on their side and being trans is morally deviant, so they think they’re justified in their prejudice.

  • PagingDoctorLove@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Their systems of power rely on having an “in” group and an “out” group. Overt racism is less acceptable these days because now there are brown Republicans, but transphobia? Very in.

    They’re just choosing a new group to “other” so that we don’t realize they’re coming for everyone who doesn’t fit into their narrow worldview.

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t encounter a lot of ads but I was just listening to the Economist talk about this one which the trump campaign played over and over again and it struck me as a small window of an answer to your question.

    The ad strikes me as cruel but the thrust (and I imagine there’s a blend of fact and fiction) is that Harris used tax money to pay for a woman’s sex change after being convicted of first degree murder and serving life in prison. They also have Harris saying she was using her power to “push forward the movement and the agenda.”

    Even for supporters of trans rights, I imagine not everyone loves having to defend using tax money to pay for expensive gender surgery, especially on criminals.

    So I could see people, who might otherwise be supportive of trans folks in their own lives, being “against trans people” on an issue framed like this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel

  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Conservatives come in two types. The rich ones who want more and more money. And the poor ones who also want more money but are unable to obtain it because the rich hoard money.

    The rich conservatives need to stop the poor conservatives from realizing the rich are why the poor can’t get money. So they make up vulnerable groups to blame for the poor’s problem, and the poor are generally too poorly educated to catch on to this game.

    Different groups have been the scapegoat. Women, blacks, the italians, the irish, asians, gays, and now it’s transgender people.

    The good news is transgender people WILL get full rights in about 20-30 years if you look at historical cycles. The bad news is it will be a fight and many will die before they get treated as human beings by these asshole conservatives.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago
    1. People fear new unknown things (as perceived by the individual), especially when it comes to bodies and human form, instinctively.

    2. It doesn’t conform to their strict societal standards as crafted by thousands of years of culture and history. The authorities have always persecuted and cracked down on anything that threatens the patriarchal standard.

    3. Minorities make the easiest targets. Trans people are an extreme minority.

    4. Some people think it has more to do with sexuality and sexual urges, so their perception is that it is perversion.

    • UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Projection is also a common way for people to deflect blame for societal ills. Religious zealots will ignore and even shield sexual abusers present in their own institutions and divert that animosity to outside groups that make convenient targets. They are ok with the abusers within their walls because they are seeking absolution through religious systems. They are not ok with queer people because they need to scapegoat a group to explain why things don’t seem to be getting better.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    They are just propagandized. In general, it’s so much like racists - they may know trans people and just think they are the exceptions, like them as individuals and still think they hate them as a group. They are intentionally riled up by being forced fed edge cases and disinformation.

    Trans people are just people. They aren’t angels who are never criminals and they aren’t degenerates who are always criminal, they are a diverse group like all of us are. But you can bet your ass that whenever a trans person does something criminal it will be blown up so big in conservative media and used to paint them all as criminals. It’s just the right wing media machine.

  • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    As someone who grew up in a conservative household in a deep red state, I think that part of it is that a lot of people are letting Lizard Brain dictate their response to transgender people.

    Let me give you a personal example. A while back, I went to a social dance, and there was a trans woman there. Before the dance starts proper, the couple that runs it will teach a dance lesson, and we rotate partners while that’s going on. Eventually, I was rotated into being her partner. For some background, she was obviously early on in her transition; she still looked like a dude in a dress, she didn’t quite have the appearance down yet. But she gets huge props for not only having the bravery to go out as herself, but doing it in fucking Arkansas.

    So I rotate over to her, and it dawns on me that she’s trans. In my head, Lizard Brain immediately starts screaming. “WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?! THIS PERSON IS OBVIOUSLY A DUDE IN A DRESS, HE MUST BE UP TO SOMETHING IF HE’S DRESSING AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE IS! RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE”

    Keep in mind, where I grew up, you just didn’t see trans people, and even now, it still tickles that primal part of my brain that was trained to be uncomfortable around people who aren’t white and straight.

    The difference between me and many of the people I grew up around is that I recognize that it’s happening and try to tone Lizard Brain out when it starts screaming. A lot of other people listen to it and don’t care that the person that it’s screaming about is exactly that: a person.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      This is so real. It takes a LOT of effort and time to train this out. If someone isn’t willing to go through that then it makes sense that it would fester.

      I had lots of times when i was younger learning about queer culture when i got mad at things. Especially after an overly polite and patient person took the time and effort to explain something to me. Unlearning hate is painful. Learning to liberate yourself is painful.

      I think a lot of people feel that pain and decide to run from it and double down on the hate because that way they don’t need to learn and change or pry open their mind to an alternative.

      Then there’s the whole fear of conflicting with your own community as a factor.

        • untorquer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Many conversations with many different people. I can’t recall as this was mostly a decade ago, before it all clicked for me that humans are diverse and nuanced and it’s fine. My guess would be pronouns and wide net incel stuff. Not that i was particularly bad but deprogramming a Catholic suburban upbringing in american masculinity culture and propaganda is a monumental feat.

          I think the fact that i was willing to listen, think critically, and engage in self doubt is what invited the conversations. Still, they were being very charitable with their energy and time.

          I’m really grateful for that, especially after recognizing in not as cishet as i thought i was.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Excellently said!

      The only thing I have an issue with, and it’s a small issue at that, is:

      Keep in mind, where I grew up, you just didn’t see trans people,

      You most assuredly did see them. You just didn’t realize it because they were forced to hide who they really were.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      I remember reading that when people have racist reactions like what you’re describing it’s like a different part of their brain triggers and then their frontal lobe (for higher logic) sort of suppresses it. I really wish I could remember more about this but I definitely remember learning about this in psychology. Something like when a baby sees someone of a skin color they haven’t seen before they get nervous, but when they’re older different parts shut it down. The memory is very fuzzy.

  • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    279
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Because stirring up hate against vulnerable minorities, by positioning them as a threat is a well tested and effective technique for the power hungry to gain and retain power. And it’s effective, because it works by pulling people in and making all of the conversation about whether or not it’s right to hate on the group they’re targeting.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Hell we used to genocide and enslave the people we looked down on. Talking ill of them on Fox News is a step up, my friend.

      • resin85@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists

        In an essay published in the New York Review of Books, Umberto Eco distilled the 14 typical elements of “Ur-Fascism or Eternal Fascism,” while warning that, “These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”

        • The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”

        • The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”

        • The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.” Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”

        • Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.” Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.

        • The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”

        • The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

        • Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”

        • Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

        • Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”

        • Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”

        • Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

        • Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

    • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Spot on. The fucking bathroom issue I keep hearing kills me. They are in there to take a shit Karen not to pass you brownies though the stalls and play a game of peak a boo above the stalls

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I still don’t understand their claims that bathroom segregation makes anyone “safer”

        Do they think there’s some kind of law on the books that says “Anyone who matches the gender on the sign can diddle anyone inside they want!” cause that’s how they act…

        Personally I find it silly that bathrooms are segregated at all when stalls exist.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Personally I find it silly that bathrooms are segregated at all when stalls exist.

          You mean the 3-foot particle board separator with a 2-foot gap at the bottom and a solid inch of space around the entire door, the gap large enough to make eye contact with someone at the sink while you’re sitting with your pants down?

          Because that’s what passes for a “stall” in 99% of America. Privacy never even came into the conversation when they designed those damn things. They are designed to give the bare minimum illusion of privacy while still being easily stared through to make sure no one is doing drugs in your bathroom. At any point in time any employee of any company has a right to come into the bathroom, peer through the crack in the door and make sure you’re in there dropping a dook properly and not say, shooting up heroin. And you can’t stop them even if you wanted to, the stalls are designed to make that possible.

          So, with that knowledge, I sort of almost understand the people that get all up in arms about this. Because there is almost NO expectation of privacy in ANY American public bathroom. If we had European style stalls this would never have been a problem in the first place. But because anybody can just walk up and literally make eye contact from outside the stall while you’ve got your pants down, some folks can be understandably concerned about that.

          That doesn’t excuse any of this mess and it doesn’t make them correct, but non-americans don’t realize how shoddy our typical public restroom is. The anger at trans folks should instead be directed at the cheap-ass building contractors that mandate bathrooms that don’t give you privacy.

          Edit: These are what I’m used to seeing.

          If you’re tall, your eye level is over the top of that door. If you’re a young kid, the bottom of the door doesn’t even start until your chest or shoulders. If you’re medium height the gap around the door is your peephole, whether you want it to be or not.

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      It is also exceedingly important to note that plenty on the Right don’t explicitly hate Trans people. That’s a rhetoric. They may be worried about some of the news “reports” and “”“stories”“”, had to triple quote that one, and yes the radical Right and MAGA do buy in hard and hate due to racial and superiority bullshit. What so many on the Right who are on the fence about these things are truly scared of…

      Is having an opinion that deviates from the people around them who they’ve known probably all their lives. Unlike us on the Left who hiss and spit at one another every time one of us has a family gathering, many on the Right fear alienating their social circles.

      If you ever want to change the mind of someone on the Right you really just need to soothe their rabid, horrid, twisted by those around them, frothing soul of an angry jackass and make them feel as if they can actually believe something else could be the truth.

      But by GOD can it be tiring.