If Republicans had their way, she’d be making the men in her party sandwiches and otherwise staying silent.
Women, racial minorities, and log cabin Republicans are a special kind of “do you know who you’re standing with?” oddity.
But then again Jews for Nazism(Association of German National Jews) were a thing too, until they’d outlived their usefulness as misleading tokens and it was their turn for a train ride and suddenly they weren’t.
She’s not a republican, and the last bit of the quote that everyone seems to be ignoring kinda makes it clear she’s not being misguided.
You have a point, still, but yeah. That’s not her.
The full quote, my emphasis;
I’ve had conversations with colleagues about many of the bills that are coming before us, and certainly have heard from some colleagues who, like me, are mystified that this is a priority for a Republican conference that is entering a Republican trifecta, that this is an issue that they prioritize,” [stuff] “And it defies understanding, except for the fact that it’s a pretty obvious part of a politics of misdirection and distraction.
If the Republicans had their way she’d be dead.
I think @Allonzee might have been talking about the woman (Nancy Mace) that started all this aimed at one trans female in Congress.
Nah, they need brood mares. Once they come for the other scapegoat groups in order of size from smallest to largest, then they’ll take the women’s autonomy, demote their tokens back to nothing, and make women second class citizens again, treated as children under the “care” of their fathers, husbands, and brothers.
That’s the fascist playbook, you don’t start with half the population, too much pushback. You pick off any potential resistance in order of the weakest, smallest groups first. It warms up their lynch mob and gets them into “git em” training with those that mob is least likely to have an “well I know some good ones I’m out” reaction.
But they don’t even see her as a woman.
They needed an “other” to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn’t seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.
And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets. Trans folks are an easy target because they seem so different and hard to understand. Surgeries, hormone treatments, bathrooms… Obviously interfering with ‘gods biological plan’ for themselves etc etc.
It’s sickening. And once society manages to begin clearing the trans hurdle they will find another minority to target.
And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets
And if you lived through those fights and were paying attention, you can hear the exact same arguments again, just with the details filed off.
They needed an “other” to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn’t seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.
Winning can be the worst thing that happens to fascists. They defeated that enemy, and if they don’t find another, they may have to solve actual problems for a change.
Oh, they will definitely find another. They reverted 50 years of law in this land. You can expect that they’ll be going on and on about what the trans people are doing to them and about caravans heading to the border.
They, really, desperately, want to be able to roll back any gay rights. I think they are using trans (and “but the children!” arguments) as a wedge to do so.
I think what gets them so very spun up is that culture changed, at least in their view. And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so “culture” here means tv/movies/games. I sometimes wonder at the thinking behind this, it doesn’t seem to be helping them financially. It certainly seems to be building up a LOT of resentment and it shows up in our politics. Sure, maybe some of these big companies lose money on it in big ways with gigantic flops, but they can make it up elsewhere. I don’t know if the motivation is to annoy a large percentage of the country, knowing full well there is really nothing they can do about it, or if the motivation is worse than that, and if some of the big money wants to annoy enough deplorables that they’ll come out and vote for the likes of donvict, because it’s not like these deplorables have the power to change the content of movies/tv/games, and man, do some of them really, really resent that. It’s kind of bizarre because they blame Hollywood for having certain attitudes that they hate, but really, Hollywood doesn’t have nearly as much power as they seem to think…
And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so “culture” here means tv/movies/games
LGBT people are something like 10-20% of the population. It would be insane for them to not be in a movie that has more than a handful of cast members. Why do you want your movies to show some weird unrealistic version of reality, one where queer people are just mysteriously absent? That’s pretty fucked up.
I mean, sure, I could maybe see the argument for a period piece. Maybe it’s not too realistic to have a bunch of out queer characters in a drama set in Elizabethan England. But in something modern? Again, one in ten to one in five people is queer to some degree or another. Statistically speaking, if you select a cast at random of anything other than a handful of people, you’re going to have some queer people in that sample.
Why do you want your movies/games to be less diverse than reality? Do you really need to live out some straight fetishistic fantasy that badly?
The reason studios put LGBT content in movies and games is that a lot of people in the real world, aka their customers, are LGBT. If a studio rarely if ever did so, they would quickly and rightfully be labeled as “that bigoted studio that likes to pretend queer people don’t exist.”
But on the other hand, over half my friends are queer and it rarely comes up. Maybe if your movie is a romance it would be relevant who is fucking who, but if you wouldn’t make it relevant for a straight person, why focus on it for a gay person? Like, gay James Bond would have to be fucking hot dudes left and right, obviously. But gay
Robin HooderrIndiana JoneserrShrekerrBarry B. Benson… Why the fuck do they all have romantic plotlines??Every movie nowadays has a shitty romance subplot tossed into it
Then she needs to brush up on her Fascism 101. Targeting marginalized groups to oppress and blame problems on is standard operating procedure.
Her full quote:
I’ve had conversations with colleagues about many of the bills that are coming before us, and certainly have heard from some colleagues who, like me, are mystified that this is a priority for a Republican conference that is entering a Republican trifecta, that this is an issue that they prioritize, [snippy.] And it defies understanding, except for the fact that it’s a pretty obvious part of a politics of misdirection and distraction.
(Emphasis mine,) I think she could teach the course.
Suuuuure, and next you’re going to tell me the Nazis killed Jews and water is wet.
The Nazis also killed trans/queer people, but that fact always gets glossed over for some reason
It’s glossed over because the entire LGBTQ+ community weren’t seen as valid to the Christian anglosphere, and neither were the gypsies or disabled really. This is at the time when sodomy was illegal in most of the west — you could be fired or arrested for being presumed gay — immigrants, the disabled, and poor were all completely ignored, and the majority couldn’t have cared less.
Not a whole lot has really changed sadly.
