Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

"A lot of conservatives are Nazis/fascists/racists? That's an unfair generalization and ridiculous! But anyway, trans people are sexual predators!"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Charlie Kirk's record shows this isn’t just about a neutral "mental health" framing, and that's why the analogy to psychopaths doesn't really capture what's going on. A few examples (not exhaustive):

• Propaganda framing: He has pushed the false claim that trans people are overrepresented in mass shootings. That isn't about "mental illness," it’s about manufacturing fear.
• Targeted insults: He has said (paraphrased): "Adults who think they're the opposite sex are mentally ill. Minors who think they're the opposite sex mean their mothers are mentally ill." That's not a diagnosis--it's an intentionally demeaning soundbite for his base.
• The 1950s-60s remark: He explicitly said trans people should be "taken care of" the way they were in the 50s and 60s. As noted before, this has become a political issue only in the early 2000s. So Kirk could have appealed to the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but he specifically chose the 50s and 60s. So, this is not modern institutionalization. In that era, "care" often meant forced sedation, lobotomies, electroshock "aversion therapy," or indefinite confinement. Outside institutions, it also meant criminalization, police harassment, job loss, ostracism, and physical violence.

So when you compare trans people to psychopaths in this context, you're repeating one of the core pieces of propaganda--that trans people are uniquely dangerous to society and must be controlled. The analogy breaks down, because psychopaths are defined in part by their lack of empathy toward others. Trans people are not.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

No...

So, then, you don't actually care about women...

You just hate trans people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's the position we're in though.

They want bloody conflict. They advocate for it publicly and unmistakably through their rhetoric. Even the most uneducated, alcoholic whoremonger has been told they're in God's army. Got Wit Uss. History is replete with bloody examples of what happens when God is on your side.

Democrats have a hand in this too. Seriously, Democrats have spent nearly a decade constantly telling the public that Republicans are fascists - loudly, on TV, over and over again. Their supporters, including several on this site, have spent more than a decade insisting that conservatives and even sometimes independents are nazis, or at least nazi adjacent.

That is false.

Also, as a reminder, the W Admin tortured detainees, used a fake Terror Threat alert system to protect itself, and lied the US into an invasion of Iraq that got thousands of US military personnel killed or seriously maimed (not to mention destabilizing an area that saw over 1 million people become displaced).

Trump comes in, anti-Semites went marching in Virginia with one running over a person killing them. Trump provided a pardon to everyone that stormed the US Capitol building in a Fascist attempt to steal an election, after of course, failing to steal the election by holding fake Legislature meetings and claiming in public (but not court) the election was fraudulent. And right now, Trump is running the US Government solely from the Executive Branch, breaking laws on trade and spending.

What in the heck do you want to call these actions?

The right is on a bender, but so is the left.

As you like to say, that is a Moore-Coulter.

And if you don't think that Democrats are partially responsible for the state we find ourselves in, then you are naively and blindly partisan.

HAW!

 

[Jarhyn]

And if you don't think that Democrats are partially responsible for the state we find ourselves in, then you are naively and blindly partisan.

HAW!

Well, certain classes of mealy-mouthed "centrist" Democrats who didn't do the needful and actually step up against the administration and the captured press, sure.

They are responsible for not doing enough.

And because Emily claims not to be a Nazi but a Democrat of some variety, and she is clearly not doing anything useful but spitting Whataboutisms, the Venn diagram between the "Democrats" who are "partially responsible" for this and the "Democrats" that Emily represents looks... Pretty much like a simple circle.

 

[WAB]

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

No...

So, then, you don't actually care about women...

You just hate trans people.

Wow! Way to quote someone! Lol.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

No...

So, then, you don't actually care about women...

You just hate trans people.

Wow! Way to quote someone! Lol.

Generally the first statement is the most important, with the remainder providing caveats and details.

The remainder that followed was more dismissal of the idea that we need to care about women being assaulted by people using a pretense to excuse access to victims.

That she thinks we need to do something about a something even more rare than something she completely ignores is the point I am making.

She led with "no" to a plain question. That's enough of her bullshit as I'm going to repeat.

And no, psychopathy is not a mental illness.

Nor is schizophrenia.

Nor is most of the other bullshit Emily talks about categorically.

I would say FALSE REPRESENTATION of what makes something a mental illness, posing it as intrinsic to the structure of the mind rather than the consequences of the behavior, is itself a mental illness (as it is entirely bound to visible harms to pathologize people in such a way).

Many people, even paranoid schizophrenics, live harmless lives with strong social integration and support, and without any sort of ongoing medical or psychological treatment other than being embedded in a culture that allows them to function harmlessly.

Emily, by this measure, is mentally ill moreso than any paranoid schizophrenic I have ever met, as her worldview would have her foisting "treatment" on the paranoid schizophrenic even if they are harmless and integrated.

Her beliefs are insane, and moreover religious in shape, even if she claims not to be religious. What else could they be called, since they are clearly not based on need and function?

It is the harmfulness that makes the illness, and the conditions she discusses are not intrinsically harmful.

 

[WAB]

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

No...

So, then, you don't actually care about women...

You just hate trans people.

Wow! Way to quote someone! Lol.

Generally the first statement is the most important, with the remainder providing caveats and details.

The remainder that followed was more dismissal of the idea that we need to care about women being assaulted by people using a pretense to excuse access to victims.

That she thinks we need to do something about a something even more rare than something she completely ignores is the point I am making.

She led with "no" to a plain question. That's enough of her bullshit as I'm going to repeat.

Um, no. She led with a 'no' to your loaded question, and the rest of that sentence was a clarification of that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

No...

So, then, you don't actually care about women...

You just hate trans people.

Wow! Way to quote someone! Lol.

Generally the first statement is the most important, with the remainder providing caveats and details.

The remainder that followed was more dismissal of the idea that we need to care about women being assaulted by people using a pretense to excuse access to victims.

That she thinks we need to do something about a something even more rare than something she completely ignores is the point I am making.

She led with "no" to a plain question. That's enough of her bullshit as I'm going to repeat.

Um, no. She led with a 'no' to your loaded question, and the rest of that sentence was a clarification of that.

It wasn't loaded. It was straightforward.

The problem is that it shows how much of a hateful hypocrite she is. It was "loaded" with the reason she is wrongheaded and with the hypocrisy of her position.

 

[Politesse]

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Charlie Kirk's record shows this isn’t just about a neutral "mental health" framing, and that's why the analogy to psychopaths doesn't really capture what's going on. A few examples (not exhaustive):

• Propaganda framing: He has pushed the false claim that trans people are overrepresented in mass shootings. That isn't about "mental illness," it’s about manufacturing fear.
• Targeted insults: He has said (paraphrased): "Adults who think they're the opposite sex are mentally ill. Minors who think they're the opposite sex mean their mothers are mentally ill." That's not a diagnosis--it's an intentionally demeaning soundbite for his base.
• The 1950s-60s remark: He explicitly said trans people should be "taken care of" the way they were in the 50s and 60s. As noted before, this has become a political issue only in the early 2000s. So Kirk could have appealed to the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but he specifically chose the 50s and 60s. So, this is not modern institutionalization. In that era, "care" often meant forced sedation, lobotomies, electroshock "aversion therapy," or indefinite confinement. Outside institutions, it also meant criminalization, police harassment, job loss, ostracism, and physical violence.

So when you compare trans people to psychopaths in this context, you're repeating one of the core pieces of propaganda--that trans people are uniquely dangerous to society and must be controlled. The analogy breaks down, because psychopaths are defined in part by their lack of empathy toward others. Trans people are not.

Mentally ill people are also subject to a lot of very real cruelty and bigotry, including just about every form of government oppression imaginable. What the fuck good is it to a crazy person if Emily "doesn't mean them any harm" as she checks them into a life in prison?

 

[WAB]

It's loaded because Emily is not concerned about "predator 'women' " (Jarhyn's phrase), but predator men. Primarily because men are usually much stronger and wield more force.

This is in response to post 1409.

 

[WAB]

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Charlie Kirk's record shows this isn’t just about a neutral "mental health" framing, and that's why the analogy to psychopaths doesn't really capture what's going on. A few examples (not exhaustive):

• Propaganda framing: He has pushed the false claim that trans people are overrepresented in mass shootings. That isn't about "mental illness," it’s about manufacturing fear.
• Targeted insults: He has said (paraphrased): "Adults who think they're the opposite sex are mentally ill. Minors who think they're the opposite sex mean their mothers are mentally ill." That's not a diagnosis--it's an intentionally demeaning soundbite for his base.
• The 1950s-60s remark: He explicitly said trans people should be "taken care of" the way they were in the 50s and 60s. As noted before, this has become a political issue only in the early 2000s. So Kirk could have appealed to the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but he specifically chose the 50s and 60s. So, this is not modern institutionalization. In that era, "care" often meant forced sedation, lobotomies, electroshock "aversion therapy," or indefinite confinement. Outside institutions, it also meant criminalization, police harassment, job loss, ostracism, and physical violence.

So when you compare trans people to psychopaths in this context, you're repeating one of the core pieces of propaganda--that trans people are uniquely dangerous to society and must be controlled. The analogy breaks down, because psychopaths are defined in part by their lack of empathy toward others. Trans people are not.

Mentally ill people are also subject to a lot of very real cruelty and bigotry, including just about every form of government oppression imaginable. What the fuck good is it to a crazy person if Emily "doesn't mean them any harm" as she checks them into a life in prison?

Prison??

Not only that...Emily was talking about what KIRK believed. As Bomb did, and he got fucked for it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's loaded because Emily is not concerned about "predator 'women' " (your phrase), but predator men. Primarily because men are usually much stronger and wield more force.

This is in response to post 1409.

The point would be that predator women are a threat, but not a common one... much like transgender predators. Women face problems from normal males all the time. Emily Lake, as per the norm, concentrates on the less common or trite things for whatever reason. Tens of thousands of men in jail for rape... because we need to has threads about a handful transgender rapes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Charlie Kirk's record shows this isn’t just about a neutral "mental health" framing, and that's why the analogy to psychopaths doesn't really capture what's going on. A few examples (not exhaustive):

• Propaganda framing: He has pushed the false claim that trans people are overrepresented in mass shootings. That isn't about "mental illness," it’s about manufacturing fear.
• Targeted insults: He has said (paraphrased): "Adults who think they're the opposite sex are mentally ill. Minors who think they're the opposite sex mean their mothers are mentally ill." That's not a diagnosis--it's an intentionally demeaning soundbite for his base.
• The 1950s-60s remark: He explicitly said trans people should be "taken care of" the way they were in the 50s and 60s. As noted before, this has become a political issue only in the early 2000s. So Kirk could have appealed to the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but he specifically chose the 50s and 60s. So, this is not modern institutionalization. In that era, "care" often meant forced sedation, lobotomies, electroshock "aversion therapy," or indefinite confinement. Outside institutions, it also meant criminalization, police harassment, job loss, ostracism, and physical violence.

So when you compare trans people to psychopaths in this context, you're repeating one of the core pieces of propaganda--that trans people are uniquely dangerous to society and must be controlled. The analogy breaks down, because psychopaths are defined in part by their lack of empathy toward others. Trans people are not.

Mentally ill people are also subject to a lot of very real cruelty and bigotry, including just about every form of government oppression imaginable. What the fuck good is it to a crazy person if Emily "doesn't mean them any harm" as she checks them into a life in prison?

Prison??

Have you ever been inside a mental illness hospital? They are much closer to prisons than hospitals.

 

[WAB]

Yes. Twice, as a patient.

 

[WAB]

It's loaded because Emily is not concerned about "predator 'women' " (your phrase), but predator men. Primarily because men are usually much stronger and wield more force.

This is in response to post 1409.

The point would be that predator women are a threat, but not a common one... much like transgender predators. Women face problems from normal males all the time. Emily Lake, as per the norm, concentrates on the less common or trite things for whatever reason. Tens of thousands of men in jail for rape... because we need to has threads about a handful transgender rapes.

Em has so much difficulty here because she's the only woman who dares to be transgender critical. Her posts are continually misrepresented and often deliberately. Also, people cannot seem to track an argument very well. Not to mention that any deviance from accepted points of view are met with severe rebuke.

My own posts have been butchered to fuck in the past, but things are worse now.

 

[Toni]

Something that the males posting in this forum do not completely understand is that girls and women are conditioned to fear sexual assault from a very young age. I think most of us are aware of ‘the talk’ parents of black sons have to give their sons regarding the very legitimate fears of violence and victimization they face at the hands of law enforcement and society in general. Few of us do not understand the necessity of this

Most of the women posting anywhere in these fora have been sexually assaulted. So have some of the men. Not all of the perpetrators have been male.

Of course, men and boys are also sexually victimized. That is just less talked about, under reported and less recognized. We believe it is less common but given the fact we know sexual assault of males is under reported, it is difficult to accurately know how much greater is the risk of victimization for females compared to males.

LGBTQIA persons are more likely to be victims of sexual violence compared with cis straight persons. They are not more likely to commit sexual assaults.

No one should be subjected to sexual violence or assault. No one should be preyed upon.

Individuals identified at birth as male are statistically much more likely to commit sexual assault compared with those identified as female, as far as we know based on statistics gathered. The difference may be smaller than we now believe, but we can only rely on what we actually know.

 

[Politesse]

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Charlie Kirk's record shows this isn’t just about a neutral "mental health" framing, and that's why the analogy to psychopaths doesn't really capture what's going on. A few examples (not exhaustive):

• Propaganda framing: He has pushed the false claim that trans people are overrepresented in mass shootings. That isn't about "mental illness," it’s about manufacturing fear.
• Targeted insults: He has said (paraphrased): "Adults who think they're the opposite sex are mentally ill. Minors who think they're the opposite sex mean their mothers are mentally ill." That's not a diagnosis--it's an intentionally demeaning soundbite for his base.
• The 1950s-60s remark: He explicitly said trans people should be "taken care of" the way they were in the 50s and 60s. As noted before, this has become a political issue only in the early 2000s. So Kirk could have appealed to the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but he specifically chose the 50s and 60s. So, this is not modern institutionalization. In that era, "care" often meant forced sedation, lobotomies, electroshock "aversion therapy," or indefinite confinement. Outside institutions, it also meant criminalization, police harassment, job loss, ostracism, and physical violence.

So when you compare trans people to psychopaths in this context, you're repeating one of the core pieces of propaganda--that trans people are uniquely dangerous to society and must be controlled. The analogy breaks down, because psychopaths are defined in part by their lack of empathy toward others. Trans people are not.

Mentally ill people are also subject to a lot of very real cruelty and bigotry, including just about every form of government oppression imaginable. What the fuck good is it to a crazy person if Emily "doesn't mean them any harm" as she checks them into a life in prison?

Prison??

Without a doubt. If anything, our involuntary residential care facilities are often worse than your average prison. They are there to make money, not treat patients, and it shows in just about every aspect of their "care". At least in prison there are things to do to break up the monotony.

Which is not to say that all mental health care facilities are bad, what they really are is nearly unregulated, so it matters a lot what your family is willing to pay, especially if you're talking a short term stay that includes therapy, medication, and so forth. But I guarantee you that facility to which a person is sent to for life as a punishment for a crime is going to be distinguishable from jail in any appreciable degree. No facility that offers that "service" is going to be anything less than a horror show, because no reputable mental health care professional would ever work for such a facility.

 

[Politesse]

LGBTQIA persons are more likely to be victims of sexual violence compared with cis straight persons. They are not more likely to commit sexual assaults.

More likely is an understatement. I don't know any queer people who were out as a youth, and didn't get sexually abused by soneone close to them.

 

[Politesse]

Em has so much difficulty here because she's the only woman who dares to be transgender critical.

Yet, she claims that her arguments are "how women feel", and that anyone who disagrees with her does so because they "hate women".