• ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?

    In this climate, when we are under direct and active attack? Fucking yes.

    I’m all for trans rights, but I don’t bring it up in every conversation I have about politics.

    Gotta love the overinflated ego, but you aren’t trying to win an election to run a fucking country, your conversations aren’t relevant.

    Hypothetically, what if talking about trans rights turned off more voters than it brought in? What if that led to trump getting elected? Would it have been better to not mention it in the first place, or was the morality of mentioning it more important than trying to get elected during an election speech?

    If you prioritise winning over bigots over your morals, and are willing to further compromise the safety of marginalised people for the sake of furthering your career - you are just as much of a bigot, and again - have no moral, only self interests.

    Claiming that supporting trans rights will get trump elected is flat out manipulative bigotry, and makes you a liar, because you’re not all for trans rights, you’re only for trans rights when it’s convenient for you.

    You are being the “white moderate” that causes more harm than the outright bigot does, because you pretend to support the cause, but are happy to tell others to wait for their liberation until it’s more convenient for you.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do you know what the word hypothetical means? While you’re searching for that, loik up what a false equivalence is as well, so that maybe you can stop using them.

      It’s possible for a person to not mention something during a speech and still fight for that cause. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.