#like what the hell you actually believe in trans people?

[sammygender]

me when my dad is actually like weirdly supportive abt the trans thing (to an extent) and weirdly open to learning abt it and all it takes is… me directly communicating it! who the hell would have thunk

[moongothic]

Seen quite a few people comment how they believe it's more likely the Dragodile Divorce happened due to ideological differences rather than because Dragon was too straight to stay with Crocodile, and. Like I did suggest that (or at least tried to) in my Crocodad Giga Thesis (really I should've been more clear about it in my essay so I wouldn't be writing this now lol), but like yes, Dragon and Crocodile absolutely have drastically different beliefs on How One Overthrows The World Government. And that absolutely could have contributed to the two separating and/or Crocodile deciding to go his own way instead of becoming a proper Revolutionary

Because like, as I tried to imply in the essay (but failed to deliver); if Crocodile's goal had always been to get Pluton so he could just nuke Marijoa off the face of the earth by himself and end it all in one go, then Crocodile and his way of thinking could work as this, like... contrasting opposite to how Dragon believes things should be done. Some fans (unfairly imo) call Dragon a "fraud" because over the past 20+ years he has only attacked Marijoa and the WG directly just once, and even when he did, instead of doing something to stop their corrupt reign for good... the Revs destroyed... the Tenryuubito's... food storage..? Like. Sure, that'll bother them for a little while, get their panties in a good twist etc, but in the end they're just going to demand more tributes and more free food. The Revolutionary Army may be successfully inspiring more people and more countries to rebel against the World Government's corrupt rule, but the Tenryuubito are still in power and will continue to be in power for a long time. And that's kind of how Crocodile would greatly complement Dragon within the narrative. Dragon being arguably "too soft" with his slow, methodical way of overthrowing the WG, while Crocodile would just kill them all without mercy, even if it meant hurting innocent people in the process. The two would act as the opposite sides of the same coin, the different extremes of the same spectrum. Crocodile would become like a response to the complaints people have against Dragon.

And yeah, the two having such wildly different ideological views could VERY EASILY contribute to a divorce, for sure.

My thing is that... If (and this is an if) Crocodile is meant to go a character arc and grow as a person, if we're meant to see him as a sympathetic character at all and maybe even feel bad for him... It'll be much harder to write that if the Dragodile Divorce happened only because of the two having ideological differences. Like who's going to feel bad for Crocodile if the two got divorced because Crocodile wanted to mass murder people and Dragon wasn't okay with it? That's not a tragedy, that's not a situation where we as the readers would feel for Crocodile and want to root for him. That's not something that would give a character unprocessed emotional trauma to heal from and overcome. He'd just be a villian who'd need to have his beliefs changed.

Where as, if The Divorce was caused by Dragon and Crocodile no longer being compatible due to Dragon being straight while Crocodile transed his gender... Even in the most respectful of scenarios that is a heartbreaking situation, a painful thing to go through. That is a tragedy without bad guys, a story where you could feel bad for Crocodile and want to root for him. That is a situation that would give him trauma to heal from.

And that's kind of why I so strongly believe in Crocodile's transition being a more important, contributing factor in The Divorce. Again, this does absolutely depend on what Crocodile's actual role in the story is going to be and whether or not he's even meant to go through a character arc at all. Like if he's not going to be that important and if he isn't meant to go through an arc then sure, Crocodile's transition doesn't have to matter one fucking bit. But if he is meant to go through an arc, if we are meant to feel bad for him and find outselves rooting for him eventually... From a writing perspective, that'll be far easier to do if we can find ourselves sympathizing with him even just a little bit.

Also like. Yes, you can have queer characters who are just queer for the sake of being queer, their queerness does not have to be an important aspect in them or a huge plotpoint in their story at all. Crocodile could be queer just for the sake of being queer. Because that's what it's like being queer, you just are what you are. At the same time, from a writing perspective. What would even be the point of making him queer if it didn't matter to his character at all and have an impact on his character?

Also while Crocodile and Dragon clearly have very different beliefs on how the WG should be dealt with right now, we don't really know when Crocodile came to his beliefs. Like for all we know Crocodile could've formed his worldview years after the divorce. Hell, based on the way he spoke to Vivi about her ideals, and how we know he spent over a decade in utter emotional solitude, his current worldview could have been partially born from resentment towards Dragon (and his ideals) that's been simmering away over the years.

All of this to say; yes I think the two's beliefs could have been a contributing factor in The Divorce, but from a writing perspective (and based on the direction I personally want to see the story go), I find it far more likely if Crocodile's transition was the main cause, one way or another.

[dream-sans-mogai]

This will probably get looks from performative and ultimately harmful non-transfems despite my being transfem but-

Some y'alls only interaction with feminist history and theories, radical feminism regardless of its intersectionality and really any feminism deeper and louder and meaner than blatant choice feminism like the barbie movie and whatever TF taylor swift thinks shes got going on is through your occasional and short interactions with terfs and it shows. You call vagina art terfy and it fucking isnt. Its feminist art. Your brainrot is making you a fucking mra. The fact y'all think talking about the man vs bear situation is about/started/ran by terfs (and encouraged some really questionable other transfems shitting on it despite it clearly just being about women's safety and yes all men, not transphobia.), everything from questioning wether certain groups belong in our community to thinking a word is a slur or having a lesbian icon (I have sources don't test me) or not to not liking a certain band has been called "terf rhetoric". I'm all for us Transmascs talking about how terfs affect us cause they absolutely do and their harm to the transmasc community can not be understated but like.... Y'all are not allowed to call Jack shit terf rhetoric anymore. Like nothing. You don't know what it means, you litterally call transmedicalism and sysmedicalism terf rhetoric. Do you mean exclusionist? Say exclusionist. Terfs are not the end all be all hate group. They have a very specific complex mindset that affects so many people in specific ways. Someone hating Neopronouns is not fucking terf rhetoric. It's nbphobia. Holy fuck. Learn what words mean.

(intersectional trans radfems exist, radical feminism isn't terfs and swerfs and historical radfems would laugh in their faces for their idiocy)

[supersecretnerd]

Ok so these designs are cute as hell, the Internet is just mean

I have too many thoughts about a game I still need to watch

[22degreehalo]

I'll say it as many times as it needs to be said. There is absolutely miniscule actual harm that comes from engaging with Harry Potter in 2024. JK Rowling does not need money. Anything sent her way is less than a rounding error. And the book series was literally EVERYWHERE in the 90s and 2000s. Like it or not, it DID impact a whole generation of people - pretending that never happened is completely absurd, if not outright irresponsible. It happened. It's just a fact. Harry Potter is mainstream. There is nothing that can be done to 'promote' it. It's already there.

What all this obsession with HP on tumblr is about? An easy way to smugly define Good People from Bad People. Because if you *really* cared about trans people enough, you'd hate everything associated with Harry Potter. Regardless of how much you adored it when you were 8 and went to Harry Potter parties with your family all dressed up quoting book lines at one another in your most precious childhood memories because for once your special interest actually aligned with the people closest to you. No, all those positive associations should have been deleted instantly. If you *cared enough*, it would just *happen*.

Which is why a whole slew of people who previously had earnestly reblogged posts about Moral OCD and how bad tumblr can be about it were suddenly cackling about how buying Hogwarts Legacy was comparable to *refusing to throw The One Ring into Mordor, starting a war that would kill millions.* And how donating to a pro-trans charity (an act that would have VASTLY more impact than aforementioned rounding error) is comparable to 'donating to a pro-elf charity' in the wake of that.

Because tumblr doesn't actually give a shit about autistics or OCD sufferers. When we complain about stuff that they also dislike, they proudly reblog that and rage in the notes about how selfish and cruel and Individualist those other people on tumblr are!!! But the *second* they get to paint themselves as the ones with '''''good thoughts and feelings'''''' they take it, and make up posts about how HP likers 'believe they're the main character and everything should revolve around them.'

Is it actually about whether something causes harm? Or is it about dividing the world into Inherently Good People and Inherently Bad People? Is it actually about doing real good for the community and making the world a better place? Or is it about shaming people with the Wrong Emotions until they fucking hate themselves and spend hours upon hours ruminating on end trying to change themselves because their inability to let go of positive Harry Potter feelings is OBVIOUSLY evidence of a truly inescapably evil and cruel and wretched identity that the world would be better off without?

Which is it, actually? When it actually feels a little bit good to feel like you're on the Right Side of all of this, for once?

[chaoticbathwater]

stressed out of my mind because a guy i know is transphobic and very misinformed on the topic and ive been trying my very best to explain things to him but its not been very effective so far and he keeps talking to trans kids and shit and in an effort to "help" them he straight up recommends conversion therapy and other things like that, and making those people extremely uncomfortable!! and because ive talked to him multiple times i feel like its my responsibility to get him to stop doing that somehow but ive literally no idea what to do!!!!! what the hell man!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chaotic-history]

i am. thinking about the barbie movie

[genderfreakxx]

Bigots are so fucking stupid. They’re so fucking nonsensical. At their CORE.

[hoodie-rabbit]

Oh yay! A post about older trans fems

This is my Dad, Jo (any pronouns), age 52 now (her birthday was recently). She started E like around a year ago, and I’m really happy to have her in my life. I love my Dad a lot, and to see her express herself and such over this past year has really been incredible. Trans people can be older parents with adult children. Trans people can be parents with children who are brilliant people.

we DO grow old and happy. btw.

[hiiragi7]

Feeling extremely disappointed in the community response to Trump's gender order regarding X gender markers on documents. Can y'all quit with the victim-blaming and "I'm so glad I don't have an X gender marker, I knew it was a bad idea" statements for two seconds to support those of us who are targeted by this?

I have X on all of my documents. Birth certificate, passport, ID, you name it I have an X on it. I'm intersex & trans. I'm percieved as ambiguous 100% of the time and I can't pass for shit. Stealth is not an option for me, I am visibly intersex/trans no matter what.

Having either M or F on my documents wasn't any more feasible than having an X on everything at the time I got my documents. Which I had to work my ass off to get, by the way, because I was homeless and had no documents and I needed to obtain everything from scratch, which of course is made as hard as possible to do. (How do you provide proof of identity without any identity documents? How do you provide proof of address without an address? How do you pay for any of this when you can't even afford your own groceries and you get all your needs met through local mutual aid? How do you drop anything off or attend interviews or court without transportation?)

Goddamn right I was getting an X on my documents after having to go through hell to obtain them. If I had to work that hard for them, my documents were going to be how I wanted them.

Now I'm being told the president is trying to invalidate my documents, that depending on how things go I may be held if I try to go anywhere due to my passport having an X gender marker, that we don't know the ways this will be enforced and whether I will still be able to use my documents or not, and my trans community is saying it's actually my own fault for having an X gender marker in the first place and that I was just begging to be discriminated against by having one.

I am in a very vulnerable position and I should be supported by my own community when anti-trans anti-intersex discrimination targets me and people I care about. Y'all are dropping the ball and abandoning your siblings when we need each other most.

Also, for the record, I believe that no documentation should have gender markers. However, the US requires gender markers on documentation at the moment and that fucking sucks. It seems like this will be the case for the foreseeable future. The way people have been saying "nobody should get an X gender marker because gender markers shouldn't exist" just feels very "your strategy pales in comparison to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebombing a Walmart. While we can and should work towards gender markers not existing in the future, people with X gender markers exist right now and maybe y'all should support us instead of constantly throwing us under the bus.

[doomdoomofdoom]

Kamala Harris does want "transgender surgery on illegal aliens that are in prison", btw.

So since Trumpists are getting mad enough about the jokes to actually cite their sources, I thought I'd put the source out into my left extremist commie faggot echo chamber, too.

The claim originates from an ACLU questionnaire she filled out for her 2020 presidential candidacy, specifically this section:

She wasn't given a new questionnaire for 2024, and has stated that while her policy on some things may have changed, her values had not. (This most likely means she moved more to the center to appease larger demographics and cut corners to reach compromises. The basic politician stuff.)

It boils down to this: If you're in prison, whether for "illegal" immigration or other crimes, you rely on the state to provide you with necessary amenities, like food and health care. Her argument isn't "hell yeah everyone in prison should get sex changes for free". It's "gender affirming surgery is a necessary medical procedure. If you are in the states care while this becomes necessary, the state should provide it." If you're outraged by your tax money being used on this, consider the massive amount of people being incarcerated in for-profit prisons, on your dime. Then ask yourself if maybe a prison reform might be in order.

Worth noting: In 2015, while Attorney General, Kamala Harris actually argued against providing gender-affirming surgery to an incarcerated trans woman, claiming that HRT and psychotherapy were sufficiently covering her medical needs. She has since obviously changed her stance and assumed responsibility. (I would like to take this moment to remind my fellow left extremist commie faggots that "willingness to learn and rethink your views" is infinitely more valuable than "perfect from the start and unwilling to listen to anyone")

Also found in the source: This image of Kamala Harris participating in the 2019 San Francisco Pride Parade, wearing what I believe to be a sequin rainbow embroidered denim jacket.

I encourage you to read the provided CNN article and the answers to the ACLU questionnaire, as they give great insight into her values.

TLDR: Based.

[innuendostudios]

New Alt-Right Playbook! This one was co-written with, and narrated by, Abigail Thorn of PhilosophyTube. We talk about the feint wherein a person is somehow rhetorically stronger being wrong on two fronts instead of one.

If you think this is good work and would like to see good work compensated, you can back me and/or Abi on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

Say, for the sake of argument, you’re having a discussion with a coworker about healthcare. (Actually, let’s go ahead and drop the pretence: you’re having a discussion about trans healthcare.) He says puberty blockers should be banned because some study said they're dangerous. And you’re a thoughtful person, so you look it up.

Only when you do, you find the study doesn’t say what he said it does. Maybe it says something close, maybe it says the total opposite! But more than that, you realize - even if it said what he said it did, that still wouldn’t support his argument. “Dangerous” could mean a lot of things - a little? a lot? low risk, high risk? Maybe one study isn’t enough to go on. Hell, maybe it’s bogus for a whole host of other reasons! Maybe it’s written by people with an obvious agenda, or contradicted by a better study he’s ignoring. So you go back and tell your coworker, “Hey, the study doesn’t say that, and even if it did, y’know…” But he simply repeats “The study said they’re dangerous.” He’s not just wrong… he’s 

DOUBLEWRONG

Institutions create policy documents all the time. Anti-bullying policies, climate policies, DEI policies - your job probably has a bunch of them. But a lot of the time these documents exist not to be read or followed, just pointed to. If someone is bullied, harassed, or discriminated against, managers might point to a policy that says, ‘We are committed to not doing that.’ And… that’s it. The more you insist, ‘Hey, these policies aren’t being followed, the problem still exists!’ the more you become the problem.

The document is a dummy argument, a substitute for the real one: ‘There’s a problem’ Vs ‘No there isn’t.’ This isn’t a conversation about what some document says or doesn’t say; it’s a conversation about power.

When your coworker cites a study that doesn’t support his argument, he’s using that document in a similar way. He’s not reading it; just pointing to it. ‘This piece of paper means you have to listen to me.’ The study could be about plankton, or Henry VIII, or squirrel poop for all the difference it makes. (Okay, maybe it matters a little: it has to at least look semi-legit at a glance.) He’s not using evidence to inform his position; he’s decided what his position is and he’s pantomiming evidence to support it.

It’s almost as if we’ve stumbled into The Sorcerer’s Apprentice! Little Mickey’s put on the hat and declared, “I know how this works! You stand up, all big and tall, and say ‘I have a study that says you have to do what I tell you!’ That’s how you always play it. Well, this time I’ve got a study, so you have to do as I say!”

And you can tell him, “That’s not how this works, Mickey: it’s a study, not an incantation. It has to actually say what you claim, and it has to be a good study.”

“Ohhh, look at you moving the goalposts! Look at you gatekeeping! Deciding which studies count and which ones don’t. Well I believe this one’s every bit as good as yours, and I believe it proves me right!”

And is that what he believes? Maybe. Maybe not. Remember: The Card Says Moops - you can’t prove he doesn’t believe that. And for the purposes of ‘You have to listen to me’ that’s all he needs. This is a battle of wills now, not information, each half of the doublewrong argument functioning as both motte and bailey. If you successfully expose that study as bogus he’ll move on to another, and you’ll only be undermining the scientific method in his view: if studies aren’t always to be trusted, if even quack science can get peer-reviewed, who’s to say your studies aren’t as bogus as his? And that’s if he doesn’t change evidence entirely - ‘Okay maybe I can’t prove puberty blockers are dangerous, but this study says trans kids have high regret rates; this one says they’re unhappy; this one says they’re brainwashed!’ 

He’s understood the rhetorical function of science, but not the substance. Or perhaps he’s understood the rhetorical function all too well, enough to know, for the purposes of argument, substance rarely matters.

From here, you can chart the course of the entire conversation stretching out before you: You might rush in, hold the document under his nose and say, ‘Look! It doesn’t say what you said it does! What’s the matter, can’t read?’ Which might be satisfying, but does make you look the pedantic asshole.

Or you can reject his so-called evidence as patently false, inadmissible, and leave yourself vulnerable to being obliterated the moment you make an honest mistake with a citation.

Or you can research every single shred of information he puts in front of you, so you can thoroughly debunk each and every one, which means he simply keeps putting bunk in front of you and drowns you with homework.

And he must see it, too, the conversation laid out in front of him. He hasn’t positioned himself to persuade you, but to ensure neither of you ever persuades the other. What is the purpose of this debate, then? This ritual? What is it you’re really arguing about?

Well, your coworker believes that the government (or a doctor doing what the government tells them) should force citizens from a minority to do something with their bodies they don’t want to do. But he won’t say that out loud because he knows that’s socially unacceptable. ‘I want the government to force people to do what I want with their bodies no matter how many of them die in the process,’ is an opinion that isn’t likely to make friends. So he substitutes the document for the thing he really believes. “It’s not me. It’s just science.” He is appealing to facts when, truthfully, this is a difference in values.

Doublewrong is a rhetorical technique to catch you out, to hide the real argument from you and leave you chasing the substitute. It also protects him.

People deploy these kinds of irrational, paradoxical moves to stop themselves thinking about topics that make them uncomfortable. If your coworker interrogated his values about the proper relationship between the government and minorities he might find he’s not the person he thought he was, or that his friends and colleagues expect him to be. (And you might too - let’s not pretend Leftists and Liberals have the moral high ground all the time - interrogating your fundamental values is an uncomfortable experience for most people.) He probably wants to think of himself as a good person, and yet he also believes (maybe not even consciously) that the government should own the bodies of at least some citizens. He knows he’d probably hate that if it happened to him, but he still wants it to happen to others. Doublewrong relieves him of the burden of forming a rational position. The document is his nice big safety blanket.

This plays on a human weakness that spans the entire political spectrum: we all wrap ourselves snug in faulty information from time to time. We share studies without reading because the abstract conforms to our assumptions; we treat a supposition that is likely as though it’s a proven fact. And this is, after a point, necessary: as informed as you are, you do have to stop researching somewhere. You do, at some point, have to go on assumptions, take someone’s word, trust that a pattern holds, because the video’s due before the end of the month if you want to charge your patrons and make rent!

…sorry.

But we do, sometimes, treat research as a ritual rather than a method. Because, often, we want to appeal to facts, papers, authorities, without having to do any of that pesky reasoning. But that is exactly what leaves us open to a doublewrong attack. The flaw with your coworker’s study is he’s using it to claim trans healthcare is dangerous, and he’s wrong. He has a comeback for every way you could try to convince him, but he’s still wrong. You can’t prove trans healthcare is safe by gesturing at studies, because the opposition won’t read them. And will write their own studies. You can’t prove it with peer review, because they’ll game peer review. You can’t call them liars because they’ll insist they’re sincere. There is no rule they can’t pervert, no system they can’t twist to their advantage. You can’t just appeal to things that signify “reason,” at some point one of you will have to do some actual reasoning to figure out who’s making sense, and, well, it’s not going to be them.

Remember: this is a conversation about values. Presuming you know what yours are, you may have to speak them aloud.

‘I think people should do what they like with their bodies without politicians interfering, and even if I thought puberty blockers were dangerous (which by the way they’re not because on the off-chance you actually care about evidence here’s all the good stuff) I think people have the right to make risky decisions about their healthcare too. If there was a drug with a 1% chance of healing your terminal cancer and a 99% chance of dangerous side effects I’d support your right to take it if you wanted.’ Now you’ve avoided the trap of arguing about what some document says. You’re focusing on the second, deeper part of the doublewrong instead of the first. You’ve also put him on the back foot: now he has to justify his values, which is exactly what he wanted to avoid!

Of course, he may just repeat himself: ‘The study says they’re dangerous!’ This is not a technique for winning arguments. It’s a technique for starting them.

[just-a-little-unionoid]

okay, realistically an unknown proportion of people who voted "only if-" did so because they thought about qpr, this proportion could be close to 100% for all I know, so let's ignore this one stat

so far 7.5% of people voted "yes", or roughly that on 13 people asked, 1 person said they would do that

do you think that, on Tumblr, for a similar pool of voters as for this poll, a similar proportion would vote "yes" to "there is a new character, she's a lesbian and specifically only interested in women*, it's in the content, she said the words... do you ship her with a male character"? (*note: not a "bi lesbian" or whatever, she specifically says either "I'm only into women" or "I'm not into men")

remember, it's not about weither people can, as in, "have the right to" ship her with a man, it's about whether or not do they do it

I agree that there is technically no wrong in doing it, characters are dolls we're meant to play with, and I won't prevent anyone from playing with their dolls any way they want, even when that's not my jam or when it straight up disgust me

but

the proportion of people doing something is definitely telling on the general view on it, specifically in regard to the proportion of another, similar, practice

if the proportion of people shipping a lesbian character with a man, or a gay character with a woman, are similar to the proportion of people shipping an aroace character, then okay, that means that's just something fandom do

but if the proportions are significantly different that means people perceive those things as different, and so, that they perceive aroaceness differently than other orientations

it's telling about our bias

also, if you voted "yes" for this poll but wouldn't for a poll about a lesbian or a gay character, ask yourself why do you perceive aroaceness differently than other sexual orientations? why are you not consistent in your answers? (or if any of those answers are differents btw, like if you're okay with changing one but not the others or not okay with one but okay with the others)

remember this is still not about whether or not something should be allowed but about whether or not you do it

Let’s see

[hieronymus-nosk]

💥Spoilers ahead💥

Honestly the one thing I adore about Hakita and ULTRAKILL itself, is that most interpretations a person could have of the game is completely valid. He himself said so and there are many canonical backings to most headcanons/theories.

I will use Gabriel being revealed to be canonically genderless and the common trans fanon as an example.

In the game, the council is shown to have referred to Gabriel as an "it" and according to the dev stream, pronouns in Angel culture are tied to their rank, how important they are. My interpretation is that not only is this an official way to demote him, but to strip him of pronouns that he earned. That he likely had to fight for.

More Info revealed about the council is that they weren't actually malevolent, they were only doing what they thought was right (not defending them lol) and that Gabriel only killed them because there was not enough time to change the way they think. My new idea is that if you believe the fanon that he's trans, the council was the type of "I am literally afraid of this and don't understand it" transphobic. So calling him an "it" had two meanings. Both rooted in power/ the loss of it. They could have changed, but there was literally no time for change to happen.

Gabriel knew that Heaven and hell were in absolute shambles, and there was nothing left for him to do.

His secondary arc, canonically speaking, was and is an allegory for coming to terms with being queer.

Having Gianni and parts of the dev Team lean into it is pretty fucking rad, too lmao

The game is about a sentient hell wreaking havoc and there are in game explanations as to why the graphics are low poly. Crazy shit happens in this game and Hakita loves our creativity.

I've dedicated thousands of words to this game in the form of writing and it's extremely validating that the people behind it are so supportive of us as a community.

[lycandrophile]

if you had to live even one day as a biological homosexual male (don't play dumb or smart, you know what i'm referring to), you'd fucking k!ll yourself once you realize how miserable it is.

right, because trans people have famously never had to survive being so miserable that we feel like we’d be better off dead, and transphobia totally doesn’t compound with homophobia to make life even harder. i mean, fuck intersectionality, right? obviously being trans on top of being gay would make things easier, not harder. silly me. my stupid little female brain just can’t possibly comprehend how hard your life must be. of course i would be too fragile and weak to survive the hardships that you and only you experience. really, we should all give you a standing ovation for surviving more suffering than anyone else on the entire earth has ever had to experience.

…anyway, this whole stolen valor angle of anti-transmasculinity is weird as hell. big “back in my day we had to walk to school up hill both ways in the snow” energy. have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you don’t have some sort of monopoly on suffering? because believe it or not, finding community with other people who have faced similar hardships is actually a really healing experience when you let yourself do it, and would definitely be far healthier than whatever the fuck you’ve got going on here. i’d strongly recommend trying it sometime. if you get the stick out of your ass, you’ll realize we’re in this together, and that’s an incredibly powerful thing.

[oliviawebsite]

as a communist who actually does work in my community i'm interested to hear why you think not voting in an effective manner against project 2025 is a logical and helpful course of action.

i doubt you asked this in good faith but ill entertain you just this once

1) i live in california. biden will win this state easily. my vote LITERALLY does not matter.

2) to say im "not voting against project 2025" is disingenuous as all hell. im obviously opposed to that platform and i intend to vote down-ballot for candidates who would oppose its measures in congress. also joe biden has done NOTHING to protect trans people. look at how his admin has recently dropped all support for youth trans healthcare. he is not fucking helping us. honestly not a fan of the way you worded this its deeply condescending.

3) i intend to cast a vote for a candidate who will not use our military force and imperalist wealth to exploit and murder people all over the world. i am opposed to united states imperialism before anything else and believe this country needs to stay out of everyones business. im sick of seeing our "leaders" excuse the ceaseless murder of palestinians with a smile on their face. as a "communist" this should be your main driving force as well anon, tbh. as long as democrats run imperalist candidates i will not vote for them

4) if biden somehow manages to win this year, the dems are still famous for their concessions to the right. what makes you think he wouldnt sign half of proect 2025's policies into law for the sake of "reaching across the aisle" or some bullshit. plenty of dems have given up on protecting trans right because its a "bad look" and they are the party of spineless cowards setting that aside the right just regroups and makes project 2029, 2033 and so on. to blame individuals for "not voting effectively" (are you sure youre actually a commie anon lmao) is missing the forest for the trees. fascism is already entrenched in every aspect of american politics. this is a cultural sickness enabled by a system that allows hatred-as-politics to thrive. its the fault of the monsters who want to do this in the first place not some internet tranny in a blue state who wants to at least try and vote my true conscious.

there is no moral justification to vote for biden. to blame me and people like me for project 2025 is honestly disgusting. you should be ashamed of yourself and never send me or anyone else an ask like this again. if you are really a "communist" sit down and think about what you are REALLY supporting when you chastise people for not wanting to vote for EITHER of the Senile Genociders being presented by the 2 party partnership. see ya