463
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
463 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy.ca's Main Community
4053 readers
8 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.