457
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
457 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy.ca's Main Community
3712 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the lemmy.ca/c/main community!
All new users on lemmy.ca are automatically subscribed to this community, so this is the place to read announcements, make suggestions, and chat about the goings-on of lemmy.ca.
For support requests specific to lemmy.ca, you can use !lemmy_ca_support@lemmy.ca.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Allowing people to hear different opinions is not unlimited tolerance.
Allowing a MAGA forum to coexist here isn't simply allowing "differing opinions" - their "opinion" is known, and it invariably moves us up the rungs on the ladder toward genocide. I say this as someone whose own parents are in the MAGA cult: defederate. Don't allow that ideology to fester in your community. Have individual discussions with the people in your own life to pull them back from the brink, if you feel safe doing so, but don't allow that growth in the petri dish that is your collective, or you will wake up with an infection. Set boundaries or get taken over.
Wow, that is a damn crazy assertion. And exactly why more discussion is a good thing.
Yeah, maybe you should open your eyes and see what trans people and immigrants in this country see: the clear escalation towards genocide both in their rhetoric, and in public policy aimed at separation and detention of the target groups.
I'm sorry, this sort of hysteria and screaming genocide is partially why people discredit the Left even when there are actual, real problems.
Is the treatment of illegal immigrants under Maga awful? Absolutely. But screaming genocide because it's the worst thing you know, well goddamn, now we just sound dumb. This ain't moving us to a place where we can figure things out. (You probably can't have everyone in the world who wants to go to America in America. Conversely, they are still humans and even if they are illegally in the country, sending them to an El Salvadorean prison is heinous.) If we aren't there to make the reasonable case, no one makes it.
It's like how the right complains that Christianity is under attack etc and they are persecuted for it. Is that true? No and it makes them sound insane. Are there actual arenas wherein things are harder or tricky for religious folks? Sure! (If you believe the Pope and feel abortion is murder, pretty hard to reconcile that with funding abortion etc.)
I will just leave you with the fact that the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has issued a warning for the US, and alsp has issued a particular warning for trans people in the US. If you're familiar with the stages of genocide, that may also help you to see clearly what is going on.
Whether you believe me or think I'm hysterical, i will still be preparing to leave this country at a moment's notice and be prepared to submit an asylum claim upon arrival in Canada. I don't think it gets more real than that.
Admittedly, the Lemkin institute is being pursued in court for misusing the Lemkin name and fragrant misuse of the word genocide. (They are also claiming there's now a genocide red alert in the UK for trans people.)
You could cite multiple groups like the heritage foundation etc that would strenuously deny anything of the sort is taking place.
I could certainly cite the Heritage Foundation, who are currently pushing for the FBI to define all transgender people as terrorists and lock us all up. That would definitely destroy any argument that anybody's trying to do a Genocide here, right?
When you hear a wild claim like that, it's worth double checking a primary source or, failing that, a reputable second hand source.
From page 3 of the full memo:
While I don't particularly agree with their take, what's actually being proposed is adding transgender based violence to existing categories. The current categories are: race based, anti government/authority, animal rights/environmental, abortion and other.
Now, as far as I understand, vegans are not being locked up for being vegan, racists are still allowed to be racist, environmental activists are still okay to protest etc.
Could this be abused? Absolutely! And that is why it is stupidly important to be accurate. When we claim hysterical untrue shit, it makes everyone less likely to listen when things are actually dangerous. (We spent 4 years screaming fascist starting in 2016 and now when shit's actually getting scary, it is much harder to get people to listen because they've tuned us out. Boy who cried wolf etc.)
Edit: And like a goof, I forgot to link the primary source!
https://itsyourgov.org/investigation/oversight-project-unveils-case-for-new-fbi-domestic-terrorism-designation/
I get that's what they're saying right now. And I even get how one might be able to go along with labeling "violent" rhetoric from trans people (with the particular example being those who believe that opposition to their existence is a violent threat) as terrorist. But I also have studied history and understand very well that this is one of the more common ways that the path towards atrocities begins, and that it's not just coincidentally possible for these policy proposals to be abused, it's likely the intent.
Why else would they also seek a blanket revocation of our right to bear arms?
I would also suggest looking at some of the talking heads who cheerlead for this sort of thing: people like Nancy Mace who use the word "Tranny" to refer to us, makes no distinction when calling all of us a threat, and openly call for us all to be institutionalized. Two sitting members of Congress have called for that, by the way. They're going well past the Heritage Program's proposal, because those mouthpieces' purpose in the propaganda machine is to prime the public for the next steps on the ladder. First the targets are rhetorically marked with rhetoric that depicts us as a risk to others, then we are subtly pushed out of public life - through things like bathroom bans and the repeal of discrimination protections, making it more and more difficult to go out in public or hold down a job; Then, the rhetoric begins depicting us as not just a risk, but as violent and dangerous, and the laws proposed are things that a "moderate" could feasibly entertain - just arresting members of the target group who might have used violent language, or might be involved in resistance activities against the government. Simultaneously, the loudest mouths start ramping up rhetoric calling for the removal of all of the target group from society, either by putting them in prisons or institutions or "camps". <--- you are here.
Not calling it what it is, is either a shameful act of cowardice or a pitiful display of ignorance. I just hope more people figure out what's going on before we start getting put in institutions.
By the way, by admitting that what I see happening looks a lot like historical examples of the steps towards genocide, it is possible to paint me as a terrorist under the proposed TIVE categorization. Just because I have an interest in staying alive and use my first amendment rights to call out this shit.
Is this an actual serious proposal by the administration, or more "well, a couple of the lunatic fringe in Congress have put it forward" or "well, I could seeeee this happening."
So, when you wrote this, did you actually mean "okay, they aren't doing it now but they might in future!" or did you not know what was actually being proposed?
Because this is the key. There is a huge difference between the worst case scenario I can imagine and what is happening.
Consider the flip side. When the Right says that the Democrats are just one step away from communism because folks like AOC say there shouldn't be billionaires or Mamdami wants to run government grocery stores, I would imagine you see those as pretty nonsensical claims. But, they're doing the exact thing you are, where they're taking a handful of proposals, grossly misrepresenting the content and saying it's a path to ruin. So, we tend to tune them out.
Or, you could look at trump 2016. There were some worrying parallels between him and fascist beginnings but at the end of the day, an election was held and, despite his best efforts he left. And now, the mainstream is pretty suspicious of us when we scream fascist at the actual scary stuff.
Read the section I quoted again and you'll see this isn't the case unless you ignore a large swathe of it. Again, being able to imagine something is not the same as it being true.
This is a good point. At first I was thinking it is good to know what is going on and hear what they have to say, but now I think this is a stronger arguement. I just really thought we should not discriminate based on differences, but in this case I think maybe we should defend our community health, which actually will decrease if we do not defederate. On the other hand, knowing what is going on is invaluable, but if we wanted to see a bunch of toxic shitty rage bait, we could just go to r/conservative. Anyways, not sure this impacts my instance, but it will surely come up if the instance is legitimate.
Is that the only thing you can rebut out of all of that?
It is the only relevant part.
Are these the kind of meaningful debates you have with MAGA?
Yeah, I get similarly silly stuff from the right, where they have readnheard of something but don't quite understand how it applies, eg:
"I guess you haven't read the Constitution!"
"Free speech is about government, not public outcry."
Such is life.
What's silly about the paradox of intolerance? Why does it not apply to defederating here? I don't grasp it's purported lack of relevance.
You are misunderstanding.
I'm not calling the paradox (or the constitution) silly, I'm saying they don't apply in this scenario.
From the snippet above:
In other words, yeah, if that instance starts getting people to be assholes to everyone etc, sure, tolerance does not mean we should let them do so here, that's the point of the paradox. But, as the author states, suppressing them without cause etc would be most foolish. Far better to try and discuss with rational argument first before resorting to "well, we don't want to talk to you because my MAGA uncle is a dick."
I disagree with you on this and various other points you've made here, but I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate your viewpoint.
Thanks!