the tl;dr is that they are not really feminists, and they use feminist-sounding rhetoric to justify anti-trans views, they’re basically just anti-trans activists.

For more rabbit-hole, ContraPoints has a video about “Gender Criticals” (synonymous with TERF): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pTPuoGjQsI

Her video on JK Rowling would be a good follow-up.

in case you weren’t aware, Reason is a right-wing publication whose foundation is primarily funded by one of the Koch brothers

Her steps to the right might earn her votes from the educated white neoconservative crowd, I don’t think moving further to the left aligns her with swing state voters even if I wish that were the case.

uh, my brain is thinking the one about Slurms MacKenzie, I think there was a sewer in that one?

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry_and_the_Slurm_Factory

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZAbKU-JzE

I see propublica, I upvote

I think it’s important to clarify what is left or right because that’s how people talk and think - a lot of political language is warped or difficult to clarify. When I explain what liberals are to people in the U.S. they simply refuse to believe me. They think “liberal” can only mean “the left” and this has a whole set of assumptions built into it. When I ask them about the Liberal party in Australia they legitimately don’t understand it, and it seems like people are extremely stubborn around political topics and unwilling to believe you when you say something so against their understanding.

I think whether a “communist” or “socialist” is left-wing depends on a few things, I don’t consider Marxist-Leninism a left-wing movement or ideology for example.

I also tend to be skeptical that ideology is relevant to political movements, and that most of the time politics is reduced to the struggle of different constituents who pragmatically use ideology to manipulate people into supporting that constituency. Much like racism was leveraged to get the agrarian, southern whites in the U.S. to vote for the interests of wealthy landowners in that region, I think ideological promises or affiliations are often used to whip up support and then dropped once elected in favor of whatever is needed to get things done.

Sometimes I think ideology applies, it’s hard to understand the particular flavor of George W. Bush’s imperialism without understanding the Christian motivation to wage a religious war, but even that is ultimately more about civilizational struggle" than it is about any particular religious or theological belief.

Anyway, I just mean to say that most political language sabotages political understanding, and that maybe understanding is a tricky endeavor.

I don’t really see what is wrong with authentically egalitarian politics, so I’m inclined to think the “center” is just a euphemism for right-wing.

If a left wing movement fails in its egalitarianism, like when the USSR had slave camps, then I think we should not think of that movement as left wing at all, it just fails the definition of being left wing.

The common response to this is that it is a form of no true scotsman fallacy, which I think could be a legitimate concern since you might define a left wing ideal as the definition and anything failing to live up to the perfection of that ideal is not “left”. But on the other hand, I don’t know how else to consider some politics authentically egalitarian and worth supporting and others inauthentic or corrupt and embodying hierarchical or right-wing tendencies. Maybe there is no bright line we can draw or reduce to a logical equation, but I would like to think there is still some value in evaluating which politics to support (i.e. which politics are furthering egalitarian means or ends).

yeah, definitions are hard, but in general I tend to think of the right as promoting traditional hierarchy and the left as being egalitarian.

I think being afraid early ballots won’t be counted is just playing into their hand because it prevents you from voting early - they probably want as many people to wait for election day as possible so people will bail on extremely long lines, they can try to shut down polling locations, they probably hope that people have emergencies or other issues that prevent them from voting, etc.

This is just classic voter suppression.

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that Republicans are pushing early voting this year, so they are unlikely to throw out early ballots as a strategy (whereas that seemed like a strategy they were trying to pull in the past, hence the flip-flopping on whether to vote early when in the past they encouraged only voting on election day).

Either way: please, please guarantee your vote is counted, do not risk it.

let’s keep it that way, the right-wing should be unwelcome everywhere

Who did she vote for?

Yes, lots of trans people live in Texas and Florida, that’s exactly what is terrifying about these laws - there are real victims.

If you’re in a swing state I encourage you to find a way to vote early, waiting for election day is an unnecessary risk. (A lot of places have in-person early voting, for example.)

If you’re not in a swing state, admittedly it matters a lot less what you do.

I’m in one of the worst states, I’m scared about where things are going …

FYI Texas has been marked as a “do not travel” state on Erin Reed’s trans risk map: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/final-pre-election-2024-anti-trans

100% agreed and a good call-out, thank you

It is Francis Ford Coppola’s film, when I take delight in the failure of the movie it is because of how it impacts its creator (not because I’m trying to shift blame away from him onto his film).

The film is also garbage, but more importantly several critics have noted the film is sexist, like Maureen Lee Lenker’s review which mentioned “troubling gender roles and gross sexual dynamics at play”. Is it that surprising the film made by the man sexually assaulting people on set is also itself sexist?

I agree that it’s worth specifically calling out Francis Ford Coppala and to put the blame where it belongs, and this is why I linked to the article about his specific misdeeds. At first I assumed most people knew about this already, which was maybe a bad assumption. I didn’t even link my message at first thinking it was too obvious.

Works on my machine.

Here is the intended link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalopolis_(film)#Allegations_of_misconduct

good, fuck that movie