You completely misunderstand the comparison.
You want to effectively ban them from society because you are afraid of some of them. Exactly like wanting to remove the bad parts of town.
-
Features
Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
You want to effectively ban them from society because you are afraid of some of them. Exactly like wanting to remove the bad parts of town.
1) It would have pretty much zero effect on sexual assault as toilets are not a common venue in the first place.
2) It probably would increase voyeurism and exhibitionism.
However, we are arguing for said person being female-presenting and with an ID that says F. That will basically screen out the perverts.
And you still haven't adequately addressed the male-presenting people that you are requiring to use the women's. You can quickly identify a FtM vs a M?
Are you not aware of Antifa being designated as a terrorist organization? Despite the fact that it's not even an organization in the first place.
The J6 pardons are not remotely like typical pardons. When has there ever been a blanket pardon of participants in a specified criminal act?
And the J6 pardons gave a strong indication that if you're doing what Hair Fuhrer wants you'll be pardoned.
Not "just like". He's going far, far further than they did.
A bunch of undercover agents at a protest says nothing about whether the agents were part of the group that attacked.
J6 was a lot more violent than the 2020 protests. Look at the ratio of deaths to participants.
GenesisNemesis
I am a proud hedonist.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 5,905
- Basic Beliefs
- In addition to hedonism, I am also an extremist- extremely against bullshit.
These disingenuous fucks tend to not be aware of the most recent events (or just ignore them) and then claim we're just making things up.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,264
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Exactly, mob-speak.
Yes, the US isn't a fascist nation at the moment. Trump's actions are definitely trending that direction. If in four years with no election, it is, there wouldn't be a surprise. And then Emily Lake would be saying, 'but where are the detention camps?"
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Emily Lake, your counter-arguments and snarky quips are shallow and arbitrary — they don’t engage with the actual evidence being discussed. They read more like gaslighting than reasoning.
Fascism doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a gradual process — a sliding spectrum of escalation. You don’t wake up one morning with a dictatorship; it happens through a series of increasingly normalized steps. As Gospel already pointed out, the rhetoric comes first. Trump identifies targets rhetorically, then mobilizes supporters to harass or attack them, and eventually uses state power or legal pressure. The key pattern is escalation — in both scope and intensity — against broader categories of opposition.
Your question artificially narrows the focus to “politicians,” but “political opposition” is far broader. It includes journalists, judges, military officials, career civil servants, NGOs, and ordinary citizens who stand in the way of Trump’s ambitions. This isn’t hypothetical — it’s observable.
Many officials who could act as institutional checks on him have been purged, had security clearances revoked, or been targeted by false accusations. Former FBI Director James Comey is an obvious example — publicly accused, investigated, and vilified after refusing political loyalty. Figures like Chris Christie face continual public smears that serve as warning shots to others. Trump’s system tests obedience, punishes dissent, and rewards submission — classic features of authoritarian consolidation.
Trump also sought to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed military use against civilians without state request — a clear violation of democratic norms and the Posse Comitatus Act. His rhetoric toward political leaders like the mayor of Chicago and the governor of Illinois, calling their governance “illegal,” fits into this same escalation pattern: delegitimize opponents rhetorically, then criminalize them legally.
Meanwhile, Trump’s national security directives increasingly use vague, sweeping language. He’s labeled ideological enemies like George Soros and his affiliated organizations as threats to the nation — another hallmark of creeping fascism, where the line between dissent and treason blurs. Declaring Antifa a “terrorist organization” is part of this same pattern. Whether or not one supports Antifa’s tactics, the move itself expands executive power to treat political opposition as a national security threat.
Invocation of the Insurrection Act is looming and more groups and individuals will be labeled, whether it is by the term terrorist or insurrectionist or traitor is irrelevant as they are functionally equivalent under the umbrella of the fascist momentum.
Would you also dismiss Hitler’s early legal maneuvers as “just enacting laws?” I’m not comparing Trump directly to Hitler, but your argument ignores context. You’re treating all pardons as equal when they’re clearly not. The January 6th pardons and promised future ones involve people who acted — or were prepared to act — as his personal enforcers during an attempted coup d’état.
These weren’t ordinary political allies or corrupt associates; they were participants in a violent attempt to overturn an election. Trump publicly told groups like the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” and they did — waiting for his signal. That’s not “business as usual” in presidential pardons. It’s the use of state clemency to protect one’s own paramilitary wing.
Even if other presidents have abused the pardon power, none have used it to reward participants in their own coup attempt. That alone marks a qualitative shift toward authoritarianism.
Failed coups followed by electoral comebacks are often the turning point toward fascism — history gives us multiple examples, from Mussolini’s 1922 march on Rome to Hitler’s 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, which he later reframed as patriotic martyrdom. Yes, his own Day of Love. Trump’s playbook mirrors that trajectory: delegitimize elections, glorify violence, punish dissent, and purge institutions that resist him.
Fascism doesn’t require a swastika or formal declaration — only a leader who replaces rule of law with loyalty, and citizens willing to excuse it one step at a time.
Fascism doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a gradual process — a sliding spectrum of escalation. You don’t wake up one morning with a dictatorship; it happens through a series of increasingly normalized steps. As Gospel already pointed out, the rhetoric comes first. Trump identifies targets rhetorically, then mobilizes supporters to harass or attack them, and eventually uses state power or legal pressure. The key pattern is escalation — in both scope and intensity — against broader categories of opposition.
Your question artificially narrows the focus to “politicians,” but “political opposition” is far broader. It includes journalists, judges, military officials, career civil servants, NGOs, and ordinary citizens who stand in the way of Trump’s ambitions. This isn’t hypothetical — it’s observable.
Many officials who could act as institutional checks on him have been purged, had security clearances revoked, or been targeted by false accusations. Former FBI Director James Comey is an obvious example — publicly accused, investigated, and vilified after refusing political loyalty. Figures like Chris Christie face continual public smears that serve as warning shots to others. Trump’s system tests obedience, punishes dissent, and rewards submission — classic features of authoritarian consolidation.
Trump also sought to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed military use against civilians without state request — a clear violation of democratic norms and the Posse Comitatus Act. His rhetoric toward political leaders like the mayor of Chicago and the governor of Illinois, calling their governance “illegal,” fits into this same escalation pattern: delegitimize opponents rhetorically, then criminalize them legally.
Meanwhile, Trump’s national security directives increasingly use vague, sweeping language. He’s labeled ideological enemies like George Soros and his affiliated organizations as threats to the nation — another hallmark of creeping fascism, where the line between dissent and treason blurs. Declaring Antifa a “terrorist organization” is part of this same pattern. Whether or not one supports Antifa’s tactics, the move itself expands executive power to treat political opposition as a national security threat.
Invocation of the Insurrection Act is looming and more groups and individuals will be labeled, whether it is by the term terrorist or insurrectionist or traitor is irrelevant as they are functionally equivalent under the umbrella of the fascist momentum.
Would you also dismiss Hitler’s early legal maneuvers as “just enacting laws?” I’m not comparing Trump directly to Hitler, but your argument ignores context. You’re treating all pardons as equal when they’re clearly not. The January 6th pardons and promised future ones involve people who acted — or were prepared to act — as his personal enforcers during an attempted coup d’état.
These weren’t ordinary political allies or corrupt associates; they were participants in a violent attempt to overturn an election. Trump publicly told groups like the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” and they did — waiting for his signal. That’s not “business as usual” in presidential pardons. It’s the use of state clemency to protect one’s own paramilitary wing.
Even if other presidents have abused the pardon power, none have used it to reward participants in their own coup attempt. That alone marks a qualitative shift toward authoritarianism.
Failed coups followed by electoral comebacks are often the turning point toward fascism — history gives us multiple examples, from Mussolini’s 1922 march on Rome to Hitler’s 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, which he later reframed as patriotic martyrdom. Yes, his own Day of Love. Trump’s playbook mirrors that trajectory: delegitimize elections, glorify violence, punish dissent, and purge institutions that resist him.
Fascism doesn’t require a swastika or formal declaration — only a leader who replaces rule of law with loyalty, and citizens willing to excuse it one step at a time.
Last edited:
Elixir
Made in America
Believe or not, these things are but subtleties to conservotards. “A pardon is a pardon, these thugs were on our side, and that’s the only reason you’re complaining … “
Disgusting.
The death of a nation never happens if you look the other way for long enough.
Elixir
Made in America
He even issues threats to designate non-existent organizations as “terrorists” so he can persecute whoever he wants, by saying they’re a member.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,969
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
One characteristic of an authoritarian regime is laws that make anyone a criminal, as needed by the authorities.
Once everyone can be convicted of breaking the law regardless of what they did (or didn't) do, arrest ceases to be a consequence of antisocial behaviour, and instead becomes a consequence of the whims of the authorities.
In a free country, you commit an offense, and then get arrested. In an authoritarian dictatorship, you get arrested, and then get assigned an offense.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,438
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Exactly what part of my views can be interpreted by a reasonable and rational person as wanting to ban transgender people from society as a whole? Be specific.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,438
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Alright, so it will increase voyeurism and exhibitionism. Do you think it's a good idea to create policies that increase the likelihood of women being subjected to voyeurism and exhibitionism? What benefit is gained that offsets the harm done to women?
There are several things in here that you seem to be assuming without evidence.
First, you're assuming that they have an ID that has an F on it... and you're assuming that their ID will be requested.
Second, you're assuming that someone spending 30 minutes at the DMV to change their ID will screen out perverts.
Third, you're assuming that "female presenting" is somehow required.
Fourth, you're assuming that perverts would never, ever put on a skirt if it let them engage in *legally sanctioned* voyeurism and/or exhibitionism.
I don't actually care what risks FtM women choose to take for themselves. If they wish to use the men's room, I don't care.
If the hen wants to toss on a fur coat and go hang out in the fox den, I'm not going to stop her. If the fox glues feathers to his head and waltzes into the henhouse, I think he should be evicted immediately. The situations are not equivalent, and the risk exposures aren't the same. The hen-to-fox transitioner is taking on risk only for herself - she is no danger to the foxes. The fox-to-hen transitioner places all hens at risk.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,438
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Is antifia a political party now?
Up until recently, we've also never had a president preemptively pardon someone for crimes that haven't yet been discovered either.
I actually oppose ALL presidential pardons. I think it's a disastrous notion and is likely to be abused in horribly partisan ways. But it exists, and it's been practiced to varying extents for a long time. I'm not going to cherry pick which pardons I think are good and which are bad, when they're all cases of the executive branch overriding the judicial.
Sure, and Biden's pardons gave a strong indication that if you're related to a president, you can do whatever you want with no consequences.