You are viewing a single wall comment. View the full wall.
Sign in to join the conversation.
Delete this post?
Are you sure you want to delete this post? This cannot be undone.
You are viewing a single wall comment. View the full wall.
Sign in to join the conversation.
Are you sure you want to delete this post? This cannot be undone.
142,044 Literary Works • 676,444 Reviews
mainstream media is trying increasingly hard to divert to culture war right now by creating some WNBA trans athletes controversy that was resolved almost 2 years ago, and doing their absolute best to find every sliver of slightly problematic news that they could use to "cancel" progressive candidates, when in reality, progressivism & socialism (despite a ton of minor setbacks) is flourishing in the US.
(i thought the rational and reasonable opinion to hold on that is pretty simple, hereby: 1. who gives a fuck, this literally affects nobody at the moment and 2. we are talking hypotheticals upon hypotheticals upon hypotheticals 3. this conversation quickly escalated from one interview and trans people in sports to the existence of trans people altogether, which is NOT okay and also incredibly bad-faith, and 4. it is practically impossible to create a trans-exclusionary sports policy without excluding cis or nonbinary women as well or just women who don't conform biologically or physically and finally 5. if we're just talking about high school college sports, genuinely who CARES except for some butthurt parents? the odds of you going pro are so miniscule, just enjoy the damn sport! i've rowed with trans people before and nobody cried wolf or raised a massive protest about it-)
I've seen so many false equivalence (DSA = leftist MAGA, socialist = communist), etc, thereby creating a 2-party horse race again and furthering a gap in the DNC. i was especially shocked to see a USA Today opinion blogger bringing back the old "nazis were socialist" argument to try and imply that socialists will take control of the government , notwithstanding that one principle of socialism is to allow for indivdual freedom by holding those who try to restrict it and commoditize it accountable, AND that histocially, the Nazis used the name of socialism (a tactic described by multiple german historians) to elevate theur party, although in reality they explicitly opposed socialists/leftist immediately prosecuted socialists & SDP (social democrats) before any other group, making said commentator's implication incredibly and deliberately misconstrued.
What else?
it means progressives are starting to deliver wins to their communities and the general democratic party is losing their grip on establishment candidates. It means that voters are sick of the same old recycled neoliberal policies, and want true social change, not just empty words of affirmation. If it's true that leftist candidates will fail, you would think they wouldn't try as hard to stop them. notably, of course, i don't think there's a catch all. the democraitc party is a big tent party, so it's not unreasonable to imagine that those more fiscally conservative democratic candidates can keep holding down the fort in more purple areas. Still, it's certainly never a long stretch to imagine a progressive dem winning in a mixed area -- take a look at james talarico and abdul el-sayed's senate campaigns, for example, both in historically red or purple states that have been ravaged by redistricting.