Rules:
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
Oh no. You made a deal with the devil and it didn’t work out for you!? Who could have possibly seen that coming!?
Sucks to suck
Alice Weidel is shocked the fascist Höcke, being friends with nazis, doesnt like her and wants to get her "out of the way"
Separate marriage and state. The government should treat everyone the same whether they are single or married, gay or straight, or anywhere in between.
Total POS. There do exist certain white queers who like waving the rainbow flag and yet exclude nonwhites from their happenings.
Republicans: We think Queers should DIE!
Reid Newton: Wow these people SPEAK my Language!
When people marched in NYC after Stonewall, it was the whole community: LGBTQ. Once the police let off, all of the LGB types abandoned the rest of the community and went back to their well-paying jobs. This author is just like one of these unempathetic sorts.
She sounds like a terrible person, friend, and relative. Maybe it's for the best people left her side. Now the leopards can feast in peace. Never comfort a fascist, racist, transphobe, or bigot.
If you think identifying with marginalized groups grants you knowledge, you're going to be a traitor to those groups. Queerness exists in a significantly different cultural and social context from twenty (even ten) years ago, and many privileged queer people have never had to feel the full force of oppression that this system wields. I cannot emphasize how many white, middle-class queer traitors I have met who believe that being queer has granted them some sort of moral clarity despite their subscription to the maintenance of a system that oppresses them because it has afforded them toys and comfort.
Look at all of these problems for decades, all because we decided that GOVERNMENT should have any say in who we do or do not marry.
Government shouldn't have any say or opinion, marriage (or any other relationship) is not their business.
I wonder how many billions of dollars have been spent on this absurdity? How many tens of thousands of hours were thrown away protesting, legalizing, enforcement? All stupid and rather silly if you think about it.
She's an awful libertarian, well most of them are, but very hypocritical on her part.
Many on the cultural right are forgetting something critical: same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s rights. A crucial argument against gender ideology was the infringement on women’s rights. But unlike trans edge cases such as women’s sports or prisons, marriage isn’t a zero-sum issue. There isn’t a finite number of spots on the “marriage team.” My getting married takes nothing away from straight couples.
It's too bad they're both too incurious to think for themselves and so media-illiterate that they haven't read The Handmaid's Tale... Obviously lesbian couples can be broken up and forced into miserable straight marriages and this is precisely what the right would want to do! (It's even part of the American past that MAGA wants to return to!)
Andrea Dworkin is spinning in her grave. There's something extra tragic about adopting the token persona for someone at the intersectionality of two identities that the right hates.
the problem with tokens is that sooner or later they get spent.
It was an interesting read.
By the way, the paragraph you quoted is oddly cut. The whole paragraph reads:
When the “woke” mania swept the country in 2020, I took a step back and reevaluated where I stood and why I stood there. To my surprise, I found that I agreed with conservatives and libertarians on a number of issues. I opposed childhood gender transitions, unlawful and divisive DEI mandates, and the excesses of Critical Race Theory. I argued against biological males competing in women’s sports and being housed in women’s prisons. I did so loudly and publicly, losing many friends along the way. My stance wasn’t rooted in hate or fear but in a commitment to reason and fairness. My loyalty was to the truth, not to political tribes. Maintaining my integrity cost me greatly, but I believed it was worth it.
Later on she says:
The conservative movement has a choice to make: will they stay true to their promises of liberty and limited government, or will they use the levers of power to impose their preferred moral order? I joined forces with them because I believed in the former. I fear they are choosing the latter.
which highlights are key internal division in republicans: small government (i.e. being consistently liberal) or imposing one's own moral order?
The article seems to imply that some people vote republican because they think it's a vote for liberalism, ironically.
That's the raw problem: they don't question what “small government” means, all the while she praxied big government praxis:
- I opposed childhood gender transitions, 2) unlawful and 3) divisive DEI mandates, and the 4) excesses of Critical Race Theory. I argued 5) against biological males competing in women’s sports and being 6) housed in women’s prisons. 7) I did so loudly and 8) publicly
She‘s incapable of retrospecting she is in favor of big government over-reaches because she wants those rulings against others, not herself. “Law for thee, not me”
So the issue is having two leopards. We live in a zoo.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}