> I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence
The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment
as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics.
> Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate.
Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted?
> Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate.
Another instance of the first point. Who's saying they shouldn't? Again, the other side wants the same thing--they simply disagree with means to achieve it. But you happen think those means are 'sanctioning violence' against them.
And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this?
The left always tends to fall back on this argument of 'basic human rights' as if the sky is falling because the right wants to take them all away & punish anyone who isn't a straight white male.
It's just a ludicrous mindset that, again, makes it almost impossible to have a rational debate. The nonsensical language in your comment makes that clear.
Historically in America, the right was the home of authoritarianism - I fear greatly I'm whitnessing the birth of an authoritarian left. The thing that concerns me is the authoritarian left groups have been historically better able to organize than right wing ones.
An authoritarian-leaning right currently runs most branches of government in the USA. Is the fear that the majority changes their mind, or that someone else gets to set policy?
Keep in mind that authoritarianism isn't "people I disagree with that have power", it's when democratic elections stop mattering.
Yes, the masses revolted against the liberal elites which run virtually every prominent institution (media, arts, education, tech, and most non-elected government positions), but that hardly means the right has any sort of power (especially given that Trump won by appealing to liberals).
But to your point, authoritarianism is thrown around too often. Better terms for the identity-politicking left include "repressive" or "censorious".
Someone who I cannot remember the name of once said conservative/right-side politics trends towards Authoritarianism while liberal/left-side politics trends towards Totalitarianism. Pick your poison.
What a great quote. I find myself fearing the left more than the right because the left can actually execute. They have Hollywood, the newsmedia, the arts, academia, the entire public education system, etc, and they're routinely infringing on people's rights. The right? They can't even enforce bathroom rules in their own backyard.
This is exactly my point. Currently the right can't even agree what it is to be a member of the right - while the left pulls of a full on shunning for not carrying the party line - as a minority of sorts (and someone who has lots of opinions, and who is generally liberal minded) - this scares the snot out of me. Reaching the point where even questioning dogma is considered a form of attack is scary. Don't get me wrong, the right has it too - every time the christians scream persecution this comes into focus - but as you adroitly pointed out - the right can't find its ass with two hands and a flashlight.
> Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted?
A lot of opinions around trans people are centered around it being a mental delusion that shouldn't be accommodated. That leaves them unable to transition and live in society without mental harm. If that isn't persecution, not sure what is!
That's not persecution and it's certainly not "opposition to their right to exist", which was the original bullshit claim. Anyway, the APA (a very left leaning organization) diagnosis for transsexuality is Gender Identity Disorder (GID).
Your information is out of date. Being transgender itself is no longer considered a mental disorder. Gender dysphoria, discomfort and dysfunction caused by society and by being in the wrong body is the diagnosable condition. Once transgender people have been treated, there isn't any more dysphoria and there is no disorder.
Right, they rebranded last year or whenever. I'm sure for completely apolitical reasons. If you're familiar at all with the APA, you know what a joke that is.
I don't really care about their politics, this particular case seems accurate. It's pretty clear that gender incongruence is a medical issue, but trans people are perfectly capable of leading happy and productive lives as long as they receive the proper treatment and aren't subject to abuse for being who they are. I've literally seen that with my own two eyes.
But those people aren't Fortune 500 material so not pertinent to the discussion. Those people are on the extreme side of the right. It wouldn't be fair if I started to draw conclusions about the left from what you hear people say on /r/latestagecapitalism either.
Calling your opposition Hitler makes you a pretty strong candidate for sympathy votes. You may not get Hitler assassinated, but you might just get a few programs through that much easier. Think about it.
Yes, while the grandparent accuses others of "institutionalized violence", who advocates the use of government force to ensure that the bureaucrat's definition of an ideal sexual and racial distribution is achieved? Who says that people should be jailed for advocating policies with which they disagree? Who leads campaigns to see corporate force exerted against their political opponents, and to hyperbolize benign, even obvious and commonly-believed, statements into threats of genocide?
Suggesting that hires be made based on merit and function rather than the "diversity quota" published by some federal bureaucrat trying to justify their department's existence is so far away from threatening anyone's "right to exist" that they're not even in the same universe.
People holding such distant frames of reference cannot have a reasonable conversation. And that's exactly the point.
> The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics.
Please, remind me how "being able to have visitation rights to the person you love" or "being able to vote while black" are "special privileges"?
> Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted?
Yes, let me introduce you to the Republican Party:
> And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this?
Let me guess: you'd feel pretty upset if all the people in HN today that you are persona non-grata and that they'll make sure not a single person they know hires you. Would you say that removing your ability to make a living doing what you love is violence? Violence doesn't need to mean "punching in the face."
> punish anyone who isn't a straight white male.
And yet, straight white males are the only ones whose rights are never in question. When was the last time you heard of an anti-white male legislation passing in the Deep South? And yet here they are, full internet forums complaining about their waning rights in the hands of females/blacks/LGBT/immigrants. Makes you wonder, huh?
The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics.
> Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate.
Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted?
> Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate.
Another instance of the first point. Who's saying they shouldn't? Again, the other side wants the same thing--they simply disagree with means to achieve it. But you happen think those means are 'sanctioning violence' against them.
And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this?
The left always tends to fall back on this argument of 'basic human rights' as if the sky is falling because the right wants to take them all away & punish anyone who isn't a straight white male.
It's just a ludicrous mindset that, again, makes it almost impossible to have a rational debate. The nonsensical language in your comment makes that clear.