(To be clear, Gavin Newsom would not. He is literally working with Elon Musk right now to shield right-wing billionaires in Cali from accountability)

Requires Dems to actually punish them for all this shit though

Otherwise I've got a feeling the fash billionaires will just buy even more of the media to tell people fascism is great

Tucker Carlson: I'II be tormented for a long time by the fact that I played a role in getting Donald Trump elected. We're implicated in this. I misled people.

It'd sure be nice if Kamala Harris' campaign organization wouldn't constantly promote Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Megyn Kelly, and whatnot. But oh well.

Beth worked as a doctor for years until a transphobe turned up. Now, she's had to leave her job, leave her home, move to the other side of the world and is still being hounded and harassed by the media and cult.

She did nothing but exist as trans in the orbit of Sandie Peggie.

Messages tested

Message persuasiveness

The road to winning back the Biden skippers

And more importantly, I think, how to win them back:

Probably the most dramatic self-destruction of a political party I've ever witnessed

"What if instead of appealing to any particular group of voters we just faffed about and then whine when they say they won't vote for us"

Especially as the Greens outpace them in the polls and they can't play the "it's us or Reform" card anymore, and they just insist it's vaguely unfair to support the Greens over them for unspecified reasons

There's something deeply, darkly amusing about UK Labour impotently whining about how unfair it is for voters to defect to the Greens, like they're simply not *allowed* to not vote for them

I've been saying this lol

A lot of liberal YIMBYs are reflexively hostile to the Left regardless of whether we are actually NIMBYs

Critics of new bill say Ohio women would be banned from sports bras, bikinis in public 'The peak of fear mongering.'

Media needs to stop with "critics say" and just quote the actual language of the bill.

HB 249 creates a new category of "seminudity" which can be used to arrest women who aren't nude, but are wearing clothing — leggings, t-shirts without bras — that religious groups feel is too provocative.

I think it's really obvious that what people actually care about is whether the book is about an F/M romance or an F/F one, not whether the protagonist technically belongs to a specific queer identity - they're not a real person!

I think the problem with this becomes really obvious when you replace "sapphic" with "bisexual"

What does "bisexual romance" mean? How is the romance itself bi - does it just mean one of the characters is bi? Do we particularly care about the declared identity of a character if it's never shown?

At this point I think "sapphic" in book marketing is just a way for authors to try to trick lesbians into reading f/m books, lmao

"Sapphic" continues to be useful as a personal identity, but TERRIBLE as a marketing designation.

"Identity encompassing lesbian and bisexual women" is great, but when applied to book marketing it just means you can label books about m/f relationships "sapphic" because the woman is technically bi

The aim of the organised transphobic movement is to mandate trans people out of existence, they won't be happy until their targets are dead, it's a movement motivated by genocidal mania, and the cruel, vindictive, hateful bigotry extends from there.

Tweet by Martina Navratilova. "Predator. That is how he should register. A sexual predator…" quote-tweeting a tweet by "Biology Rules OK" about Dr. Beth Upton, a trans woman

This tweet is highly defamatory and Martina Navratilova should be fired from BBC Sport for it.

It demonstrates an horrendous level of hatred for a trans woman (who was cleared of all wrongdoing in a recent tribunal) because she is a trans woman.

Like, you have to consider that serial killers are also much more common in the USA than in other countries, even though what they do doesn't necessarily involve guns.

They're a product of a society that lets wealthy white men hurt those below them without consequence

School shooters aren't just a product of poor gun laws; they're a product of a culture of impunity, where anyone can do anything to anyone as long as the aggressor is higher on the social totem pole than their victim.

No one has imposed consequences on them before; why would this be different?

School shooters aren't just a product of poor gun laws; they're a product of a culture of impunity, where anyone can do anything to anyone as long as the aggressor is higher on the social totem pole than their victim.

No one has imposed consequences on them before; why would this be different?

They think it's a great way to get their name and face on the news, to broadcast the manifesto they wrote for whatever obscure far-right ideology they've adopted.

They think the other guys got capital punishment for it, but it'll be different for them - they are, after all, untouchable.

"Mental health" is incredibly prominent a diagnosis as to shooter motives, and people genuinely believe your archetypical school shooter is a bullied kid taking revenge for how they were treated, when the reality is literally the opposite:

School shooters ARE bullies, not their victims.

These are white boys who think they're invincible; who have gotten away with hurting others for their whole lives, who have become convinced they can do anything to anyone with no consequences.

Eventually, they think they can kill a bunch of kids without real consequences, too.

Look into the history of just about any prominent school shooter and you'll see it - a history of bullying other kids, often violently, in school; a history of violence against women and children as teenagers and adults; association with far-right ideologies.

"Mental health" is incredibly prominent a diagnosis as to shooter motives, and people genuinely believe your archetypical school shooter is a bullied kid taking revenge for how they were treated, when the reality is literally the opposite:

School shooters ARE bullies, not their victims.

I think the prominence of gun control in left-wing/liberal discussions of mass shootings, while deserved, also obscures some important points about mass shootings and effectively cedes discussion of e.g. shooter motives to the Right

(Now, do I think mainstream Dem rhetoric on trans issues has failed? Yes, if you're talking about "it's a distraction"-type rhetoric. They should be doing far more to stress the negative impacts of these policies - saying "do parents really want genital inspections on their children?" etc.)

Even Black people with conservative political views largely support Democrats. Why? Because "rights for Black people" is the thing most important to them.

It's the same with LGBTQ+ people, and trans people in particular. Supporting our rights comes before whatever other views we have.

It's like these liberals have entirely forgotten the lesson that built the modern Democratic coalition: "supporting minority rights is a political winner even when they are broadly unpopular, because they are always the most salient issue for that minority, regardless of their individual views"

It's like these liberals have entirely forgotten the lesson that built the modern Democratic coalition: "supporting minority rights is a political winner even when they are broadly unpopular, because they are always the most salient issue for that minority, regardless of their individual views"

You can really tell that these people's internal thought process is "every trans person is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal activist who probably dyes their hair blue, so they'll just vote for us anyways even if we don't promise them anything"

And I have to tell y'all that is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE