I guess we'll get to see if this project 2025 is going to be at all an issue for "creators like me".

AlsoSprachOdin said:

I guess we'll get to see if this project 2025 is going to be at all an issue for "creators like me".

Did Trump start his first term with supporting LGBTQ people? Didn't he exit Paris Climate Accords too? And started trade war with China and EU? Maybe Vance is better? Or maybe Trump changed radically? Nah, it's obvious, even if it's not actually project 2025... women, immigrants and queer people of US will be attacked by upcoming Trump's administration and republicans according to their own campaign promises.

The USA are really an idiocracy.

Gardares said:

Did Trump start his first term with supporting LGBTQ people? Didn't he exit Paris Climate Accords too? And started trade war with China and EU? Maybe Vance is better? Or maybe Trump changed radically? Nah, it's obvious, even if it's not actually project 2025... women, immigrants and queer people of US will be attacked by upcoming Trump's administration and republicans according to their own campaign promises.

I'm calling you a dumbass right now to save me time doing it later.

Gardares said:
women, immigrants and queer people of US will be attacked by upcoming Trump's administration and republicans according to their own campaign promises.

Which promises?

AlsoSprachOdin said:

Which promises?

Kamala's for they/them, Donald Trump is for you
I will launch the largest deportation program In American history
I'm gonna protect the women whether they like it not

Well enjoy it guys when Trump bans pornography and probably blocks this website too, except you porn addicted chuds are all terminally stupid and will probably just blame it on the "woke librul sjws!!" or whatever. You made your bed now lie in it, no sympathy

Trump isn't going to do anything. Just like his first term.

Gardares said:
Kamala's for they/them, Donald Trump is for you
I will launch the largest deportation program In American history
I'm gonna protect the women whether they like it not

I didn't mean to ask about the immigrants, I think I got the bit about deporting the ones without a visa sometime the first time around.
But as for the queers those links seem to be about transsexuals, and I thought those were either two different things or the trans were a small part of the queer demographic (wikipedia: "Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender"), not the queers as a whole. And it's only the minors who'd be kept from having surgeries, which is probably just erring on the side of caution. You make it sound like more than it is.
As for the women, I don't see what you mean, maybe you should write more than just the links: Protecting women "whether they like it or not"? Some of them voted for Kamala, that seems to be all that was about. Protecting women from terrorists, criminals and belligerent foreign nations is just some feminist rhetoric, because it would have the same effect on men in the US too (unless there's a draft). So what do you mean?

AlsoSprachOdin said:

But as for the queers those links seem to be about transsexuals, and I thought those were either two different things or the trans were a small part of the queer demographic (wikipedia: "Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender"), not the queers as a whole. And it's only the minors who'd be kept from having surgeries, which is probably just erring on the side of caution. You make it sound like more than it is.

Gender affirmation surgery was already restricted for adults (except for intersex kids, and these new laws make an exception for them). Some of these bans also restrict gender-affirming care as a whole, which means medical professionals can’t even provide counseling services without fear of losing their license.

Read the GLAAD link (“Donald Trump is for you”). These bans will cover much more than surgeries on minors.

Steak said:

Trump isn't going to do anything. Just like his first term.

Didn't he repel Obama's healthcare or something? Among some other things, but that one, I remember because a lot of my friends got in trouble because of it.

AlsoSprachOdin said:

...as for the queers those links seem to be about transsexuals...

For context, the artist prefers they/them and cares about LGBTQ.

And it's only the minors who'd be kept from having surgeries, which is probably just erring on the side of caution.

Have you decided to ignore the whole list and choose one item? :)

Protecting women from terrorists, criminals and belligerent foreign nations is just some feminist rhetoric.

This 'feminist' rhetoric doesn't seem liberal as soon as "whether they like it or not" is inserted, and Donald Trump has a certain history with women and the restriction of women's rights. I think it would be too optimistic to expect that Trump wouldn't make any attacks on women's rights, especially after his victory against Roe v. Wade. If Trump really cared about women's issues, he clearly wouldn't have offered RFK the post, let alone talking that he will give him carte blanche, though Trump could always dump his promise to RFK and assign some loyal trumpist which isn't exactly better.

hakoebi said:

Well enjoy it guys when Trump bans pornography and probably blocks this website too, except you porn addicted chuds are all terminally stupid and will probably just blame it on the "woke librul sjws!!" or whatever. You made your bed now lie in it, no sympathy

If this was just what he is going to do to the USA, it will be already bad, but this is what he is going to at the international that it's terrifying, especially with Ukraine and climate change.

The yankees have really shit the bed this time.

Blank_User said:

Gender affirmation surgery was already restricted for adults (except for intersex kids, and these new laws make an exception for them). Some of these bans also restrict gender-affirming care as a whole, which means medical professionals can’t even provide counseling services without fear of losing their license.

Read the GLAAD link (“Donald Trump is for you”). These bans will cover much more than surgeries on minors.

No, instead of me reading it and having to guess what you're talking about, just quote the relevant bit and maybe explain why that's so bad yourself, please.

Gardares said:
Have you decided to ignore the whole list and choose one item? :)

Well. I assumed it wasn't "Using the government to investigate and potentially halt trans health care", because just examining the issue isn't exactly "attacking" anyone, and "maybe" halting trans healthcare depending on such studies is specifically not a (campaign) promise to come after the transsexuals. It's like the opposite of a promise.
Ceasing “all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.” also isn't exactly an "attack" on transsexuals, because you hardly need someone else to tell you if you feel you're one gender or another. And passivity is a long way from an attack.
And so on the list goes. So yeah, point out something in particular.

AlsoSprachOdin said:

No, instead of me reading it and having to guess what you're talking about, just quote the relevant bit and maybe explain why that's so bad yourself, please.

No, you should actually read it, analyze and try to understand it by yourself (do your research or try to give yourself a what-if challenge "I want to change my sex"). Because, for example, for me that "you hardly need someone else to tell you if you feel you're one gender or another" sounds too presupposing that everyone should know concepts of gender, sex, sex change, sexual orientation, etc by default. There's a special term ("Egg") in trans-community for people that showing signs that their gender/sex is different but doesn't know this yet and this term exists for good reasons. For example, Сhristian society for centuries taught everyone something like "you born man, you should behave like man, have one wife and not make love before marriage" and everyone had to guess for themselves if something in that dogm is wrong or true for them. The problem may be unknown if no one even knows about the problem. Damn, to be honest, until I became like 19 years old Internet gaslighted me that you just need to pay approximately 10 000 dollars to doctors and they magically change your sex as if it's some genderswap manga.

Sorry, I just don't feel like writing an essay on this topic especially since I don't really know what exactly you don't understand or what information you lacking of. For me discourse alone is more often than not is enough to understand a person's political views and we can't really talk about future deeds now. My words are literally within the realm of prediction, as Trump is known as "Mr. Vague" and "Mr. Broken Promises", not as "Mr. Said and Did", but I can definitely say that it is much easier to attack transgender people than to stop wars in 24 hours before he even become president. It's obvious and logical scenario for me that Trump could easily attack minorities, LGBTQ, migrants, especially in relatively moderate, non-radical way... and it's unbelievable scenario if his administration will fulfill his most radical or contradictory promises like I'm not going to start wars but it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels.

Monsieur_Safior said:

If this was just what he is going to do to the USA, it will be already bad, but this is what he is going to at the international that it's terrifying, especially with Ukraine and climate change.

The yankees have really shit the bed this time.

The fact you fell for this nonsense is why modern education is so bad.

@cd_young: Shut up bigot, you never wrote nothing of value.

Monsieur_Safior said:

@cd_young: Shut up bigot, you never wrote nothing of value.

I rest my case.

@cd_young : That you are a bigot ? That will be your downfall.

Monsieur_Safior said:
you never wrote nothing of value.

Reading comprehension is also a necessary skill now a days.

Monsieur_Safior said:

@cd_young : That you are a bigot ? That will be your downfall.

also, don't threaten me. the mods can see this conversation smartass.

Gardares said:
Sorry, I just don't feel like writing an essay on this topic

I didn't ask for an essay but you're halfway there already. It's just that you said that "women, immigrants and queer people of US will be attacked by upcoming Trump's administration and republicans according to their own campaign promises". I asked you what these promises this were and I didn't see anything I thought qualified as such in the article you posted. (except for the immigrant deportation which I didn't mean to include in my question, deporting someone is definitely harsh enough to qualify as an "attack" in my book).
Look, I'll try to help you along here: Do you actually consider the promise of "Ceasing all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age" to be an attack on transsexuals? And what were the campaign promises to attack women? What exactly do you think he'll do to women and why?
And now you add "relatively moderate, non-radical way" as a qualifier. Moderation is not what comes to mind when you use words like "attack". It feels like you overstated the matter and are backtracking a bit now.

AlsoSprachOdin said:

Do you actually consider the promise of "Ceasing all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age" to be an attack on transsexuals?

Yep.

And what were the campaign promises to attack women? What exactly do you think he'll do to women and why?

I'm not answering the second question. This is a question in which I will always be wrong or I will regret that I was right. I already answered on the first question with RFK appointment and "protecting women whether they like it not". If you want more, there are also his constant calls to attack and restrict the radical left (which Trump uses to describe literally everyone who is against him despite political views). Considering that another women's march is likely just around the corner...

Moderation is not what comes to mind when you use words like "attack".

There is a difference between cutting off an arm and slashing it with a knife, cutting just a few veins, but it will be an attack either way.

It feels like you overstated the matter and are backtracking a bit now.

To be really honest, I feel like I'm understating the matter, trying to completely ignore the Project 2025 and referencing only Trump's official sources.

because the women are too 'uppity' now, you vote for the party with an agenda to eradicate minimum wage.

because the blacks are taking white jobs, you vote for someone who will violently crush white worker's unions at your nearest Amazon fulfillment center.

because the gays/transes/nonbinaries must be disgusting groomers, you vote for the party to legalize child marriage and force child rape victims to carry their worst nightmare to term.

I hope you enjoy getting your union busted and all your wages siphoned to billionaires while Beff Jezos laughs his stupid bald face off. this is the future you wanted. this is the future you truly deserve.

Tsumikiss said:

because the women are too 'uppity' now, you vote for the party with an agenda to eradicate minimum wage.

because the blacks are taking white jobs, you vote for someone who will violently crush white worker's unions at your nearest Amazon fulfillment center.

because the gays/transes/nonbinaries must be disgusting groomers, you vote for the party to legalize child marriage and force child rape victims to carry their worst nightmare to term.

I hope you enjoy getting your union busted and all your wages siphoned to billionaires while Beff Jezos laughs his stupid bald face off. this is the future you wanted. this is the future you truly deserve.

I have no idea what party you're angry at.

Gardares said:
Yep.

Okay, then. There's this saying that goes around on the right, which I think is pretty cringe and partisan, but it seems to fit here: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
Having your ideology actively promoted on the tax-payer dime in public schools must be regarded as being given *positive* treatment. Having your ideology actively suppressed in the same manner is obviously *negative* treatment. Not being addressed, either positively or negatively, is thus *neutral* treatment - but it can be regarded as discriminatory in the sense that OTHER ideologies may be given preferential treatment, and YOUR ideology doesn't.
Surely, you wouldn't want to be forced by the state to fund with your tax dime "programs that promote the concept of there only being two genders", right? That *would* be an attack on transsexualism, whereas simply not supporting transsexualism is the absence of either attack or support.
Right?

Gardares said:
I already answered on the first question

And I already explained why I didn't think it amounted to a promise to attack women. I was hoping you'd keep this in mind and either point to something else or explain why I am wrong to not think it's a promise of offensive action. But I'll try to explain it again:
"Whether they like it or not" can mean anything from (some) women having preferred Kamala protecting them instead, cracking down on crime (a lot of women disapprove of such aggression), or restricting immigration (a lot of women also disapprove of that). It could also be an indication that Trump actually wants to put all women in padded concentration camps (though that seems implausible).
The promise to "protect women whether they like it or not" is so vague that you essentially have to interpret what it could mean. And because it relies on interpretation it cannot considered more than a *potential promise* to attack women, but no more so than it can be considered a *potential promise* to actually protect women. So ultimately it means nothing.
And a bunch of women already marched in protest against Trump the first time, but a bunch of women have also voted for Trump. And Trump didn't do anything the last time, so why would he do something this time?
And I don't know why an RFK appointment would be such an attack on women, either.

But by all means, go ahead and talk about this Project 2025, I'd like to hear what's so bad about that.

AlsoSprachOdin said:

(first ton of text)

I don't want to get off topic. You've gone from my thesis "This is attack on trans people" to an attempt to make me change my mind about >supporting< trans people when I >haven't even expressed< my views. Speaking as broadly as possible, restricting certain propaganda related to a social group is an attack on that group. You can feel good or bad about this social group, but you shouldn't deny the fact of the attack. You either support the attack, or you don't support the attack, or you don't have an opinion about it, maintaning status quo. If state stopping a support of something that already being supported, it changes status quo, it's not neutral deed.

I don't know why an RFK appointment would be such an attack on women

Making a well-known anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist taking care of healthcare is like making a flat earth believer taking care of public education. This is already an attack on common sense of everybody, but Trump specifically single women out.

"Whether they like it or not" can mean anything (and another ton of text)

Words are words, deeds are deeds. If you just taking Trump's words, all of them mean nothing. But when words are connected with past or current deeds (like attack on abortions), they acquire a clearer meaning. I'm not talking about Trump's attack on women without looking back at his past, recent actions.

bunch of women already marched in protest against Trump the first time, but a bunch of women have also voted for Trump.

Women are not a single consciousness. Who said that some people will not support the attack on their own rights? :)

But by all means, go ahead and talk about this Project 2025, I'd like to hear what's so bad about that.

Bad? Ha, if I'm referring to the project 2025, then I have a bunch of MUCH more solid arguments. The problem is that I also read your very first comment as "What if the project 2025 means nothing at all, simply spreading as if conspiracy anti-Trump theory and Trump's administration will completely ignore it?".

@Gardares: You are wasting your time, AlsoSp is clearly one of this "enlightened centrist", aka right-winger who pretend to not be right-winger but neutral, who are suspiciously very critical to anything down by the "left" but forgive all the horrible deeds of the rights.

You can't have a good faith discussion with such dishonest person.

Why did I read any of this

Monsieur_Safior said:

AlsoSp is clearly one of this "enlightened centrist", aka right-winger who pretend to not be right-winger but neutral,

Not quite. From comment #2466397:

AlsoSprachOdin said:

I'm personally rather right wing, as you may have surmised, and I consider [Trump] a filthy centrist.

Monsieur_Safior said:

If this was just what he is going to do to the USA, it will be already bad, but this is what he is going to at the international that it's terrifying, especially with Ukraine and climate change.

The yankees have really shit the bed this time.

yeah sucks that the whole world has to get hurt because of the stupidity of american voters

AngryZapdos said:

Why did I read any of this

Because you're a fan of self-flagellation?

hakoebi said:

yeah sucks that the whole world has to get hurt because of the stupidity of american voters

You're all braindead.

[deleted]

@blank_user: Then I stand corrected.

Damn, this Project 2025 stuff looks pretty bad!

fortunately, Nothing Ever Happens.

wadahishi said:

Damn, this Project 2025 stuff looks pretty bad!

fortunately, Nothing Ever Happens.

Well this shit didn't age well.