The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
jfc you just adore strawmen so much i'm going to call you dorothy from here on out
CBC published it? Radio Canada did in french ? I am sure that will reach the masses in Canada
They are the ones who did that investigation. They did the investigation and they published it. Now you are going to condemn everyone in the world who didn't publish it? That's the goal post shifting thing. You were thinking some libs did an investigation, found something they didn't want to find, and then wouldn't publish it. Just admit you were wrong. It's not that hard. You can even stop being a conservative/reactionary if you want. It's a choice you're making.
Ok, back to the law one more time:
Since neither you nor rickroll has provided a single example in the history of the CBC over multiple governments of all stripes where some sort of undue influence has affected the editorial independence enshrined in law, I'm going to presume this "alternate universe" theory of rickroll's that it is theoretically possible is a universe that is very much not our own.
There is a really good book out there you should read about when someone repeatedly lies called The Boy Who Cried Wolf and apply it top our PM
Why not just apply it to yourself and your ****-posting?
What does that gibberish even mean?
Why don't you take the parable from the boy that cried wolf and apply it to your own posting?
What does that gibberish even mean?
Why don't you take the parable from the boy that cried wolf and apply it to your own posting?
you are, subjectively speaking, a terrible poster.
there are many people on here i disagree with but you generally add nothing of value to any conversation. no humor, no insight, no stupidity to mock. nothing but "you suck," aimed at people at least voicing an opinion.
Ah, maybe Oz is the alternate universe you are talking about where your hypothetical actually happens! I'm sure lozen would appreciate calling his nemesis Trudeau the wicked witch.
I say this genuinely, you are not a good person
you are a bigot
but you think you are a good person, which makes you so dangerous
Neither "Corporatist" (though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that) nor "war hawk" really go into determining how far left or right someone is in the modern day US.
There have always been hawks and non-interventionalists in both major parties (or at least for the last 100 years).
Culture war idiots don't get to decide what left and right mean.
That is incidentally exactly what the corporatist warhawks would like you to believe.
This is exactly right. Luckbox may think conspiracies are involved, but it's just that war and corporate rights and concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy and large corporations are things that are in the interests of a lot of powerful people and entities. These entities own a lot of stuff like corporate media. The entities love nothing more than the population dividing up into two groups who fight about who uses what bathroom and vote based on issues that don't affect their power or wealth.
So, one group of rich people/groups that culture war morons think are leftists donate a lot for abortion rights and another group of rich people/groups who culture war morons (correctly) think are right-wing donate a lot of money to the opposition. While you're distracted then send in lobbyists to write corporate law and the tax code.
you are, subjectively speaking, a terrible poster.
there are many people on here i disagree with but you generally add nothing of value to any conversation. no humor, no insight, no stupidity to mock. nothing but "you suck," aimed at people at least voicing an opinion.
I know that you losers don't like it being pointed out that you are losers. Bigots don't like it being pointed out they are bigots. And stupid people don't like their own words being used against them. You must be miserable here.
Research shows that people with personalities that fall in the the extremes also have politics that fall in to the extremes. They also have higher instances of mental health issues
As you can see, our local communist just had a little meltdown and equated my single quoting of a poster to "buddying up with a mass murder supporter" or whatever attack they could loosely tie together in in some unhinged way
And if history has shown anything, I'm
This sounds so much like iHIV. Please let it be true - to be honest it’s been a little stale around here and the exchanges between him and GB back in the day were nothing short of amazing
This is exactly right. Luckbox may think conspiracies are involved, but it's just that war and corporate rights and concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy and large corporations are things that are in the interests of a lot of powerful people and entities. These entities own a lot of stuff like corporate media. The entities love nothing more than the population dividing up into two groups who fight about who uses what bathroo
So, you don't think abortion rights should matter to voters? Or thousands of deaths of innocent babies should matter to the other side?
All voters should care about is being anti-corporatist, which is because that's what you care about? Even if the corporatist system has resulted in higher standards of living for everyone in the US?
So, you don't think abortion rights should matter to voters? Or thousands of deaths of innocent babies should matter to the other side?
All voters should care about is being anti-corporatist, which is because that's what you care about? Even if the corporatist system has resulted in higher standards of living for everyone in the US?
Lol. Quit trying to draw conclusion maybe because you're not good at it. Yeah, abortion is important and no being anti-corporatist is not the thing I care about the most. That doesn't change the fact that the American public right now are basically pawns for people dividing things up along an axis that doesn't affect their position.
My preferred definition is something related to the origin of the terms. Do you even know where they come from?
Yes, I know it started because of the sides different factions sat in the French parliament around the time of the revolution. Other details have escaped me 35 years after my western European History class.
But hey, definitions often change over 250 years. Any definition which calls 99% of people in a country "right wing" is useless as a term. Maybe 1% of the country actually would be left wing by your definition. I know that angers you, so I guess you take out your anger on the people who use the modern US definitions of left and right.
Imagine being "anticorporatist" when your savings are invested in stocks roflmao
Lol. Quit trying to draw conclusion maybe because you're not good at it. Yeah, abortion is important and no being anti-corporatist is not the thing I care about the most. That doesn't change the fact that the American public right now are basically pawns for people dividing things up along an axis that doesn't affect their position.
You just used the abortion issue as an example that distracts people from seeing who their real enemy and how they're being divided. Anyone would draw the conclusion that you don't find it to be important. But if you actually do think it's important, then you have just invalidated your previous argument.
Yes, I know it started because of the sides different factions sat in the French parliament around the time of the revolution. Other details have escaped me 35 years after my western European History class.
But hey, definitions often change over 250 years. Any definition which calls 99% of people in a country "right wing" is useless as a term. Maybe 1% of the country actually would be left wing by your definition. I know that angers you,
Again you're trying to draw conclusions and you're not very good at it. No, I would not call supporting only the 3% of Nobles and the wealthy who were going to gain power in the French Revolution leftist in the current sense. But I'd derive it from that concept rather than just make up something new and just call everything you don't like leftist or Whatever-Marxism.
At any rate, I don't think anyone gets to just define the terms, but if you are going to use some definition of them you should be able to explain how you aren't being really dumb about it.
You just used the abortion issue as an example that distracts people from seeing who their real enemy and how they're being divided. Anyone would draw the conclusion that you don't find it to be important. But if you actually do think it's important, then you have just invalidated your previous argument.
No, you're not good at determining things like what makes arguments valid or not. Just live with that.
It's important to me. It's more important to the women who are more directly affected. It's even important to billionaires and people on corporate boards. Still, like other culture war issues, it wasn't the chief way political factions were divided in this country until pretty recently and didn't just happen accidentally.
The Koch Network for one thing donated to anti-abortion groups despite the fact that the Kochs were/are libertarians who personally supported choice.
Yes, I know it started because of the sides different factions sat in the French parliament around the time of the revolution. Other details have escaped me 35 years after my western European History class.
But hey, definitions often change over 250 years. Any definition which calls 99% of people in a country "right wing" is useless as a term. Maybe 1% of the country actually would be left wing by your definition. I know that angers you,
I know saying this won't make you believe me, but I'm not the least bit angry. Mostly bored. This isn't great entertainment or anything, but it's better than scrolling through YT shorts.
