I get that you’re angry and certainly have a right to be angry. You have let your anger blind you to reason though. You comment reads like you didn’t actually read mine at all. Or if you did, then your anger wouldn’t allow you to at least understand what the main point was.
But tldr: the bigots are lost. The people who aren’t strongly aligned can be convinced to vote, but hostility towards people who aren’t being hostile towards trans rights is driving them away even if it isn’t directed at them. It’s not your job to win them over, but it would be effective at the polls.
To clarify your opinion for myself: the most common reason cited by moderates for opposing the 1960s civil rights campaign was “I agree racism is bad, but why can’t black people be civil and polite when asking for equality?” Do you agree or disagree with that opinion?
I agree racism is bad, but why can’t black people be civil and polite when asking for equality?
The thing is that these people aren't being honest when they say things like that. They're lying, but they're often lying to themselves as much as to others. They always have some objection or another to opposing bigotry. Because the reason they're giving is just a post hoc justification for opposing progress.
Think back to the George Floyd protests. People said the exact same thing, that they oppose racism, but they can't abide riots (even though the overwhelming majority of the protests were not violent). Then later, an NFL player kneeled during the anthems, literally the tamest, most inoffensive protest I can imagine. And people lost their minds.
It doesn't matter how disruptive or civil the protest is, it will never be inoffensive enough, they will always oppose it. And if you somehow do find a form of "protest" so inoffensive that they accept it? Then they'll ignore you.
Are you saying the Martin Luther King and his strategy was bad for the civil rights movement???
Seriously though. These kinds of trap questions are pointless and counterproductive.
MLK Jr has pretty famously discussed the issues with respectability politics wrt white moderate. He also shifted his beliefs towards socialism and realizing the necessity of violence to the success of the civil rights movement before being assassinated so… even MLK didn’t think his original strategy was going to succeed.
Nearly all of the accomplishments of the civil rights movement occurred during MLK’s non violent strategy. The switch to a more violent philosophy was not successful.
But more importantly, we’re not talking about violence. If trend supporters can force change through violence, then maybe it’s a successful strategy. But at the moment, the only strategy we have is legislative. And turning off the undecided instead of bringing them on board to vote with you is foolish and counterproductive.
I get that you’re angry and certainly have a right to be angry. You have let your anger blind you to reason though. You comment reads like you didn’t actually read mine at all. Or if you did, then your anger wouldn’t allow you to at least understand what the main point was.
But tldr: the bigots are lost. The people who aren’t strongly aligned can be convinced to vote, but hostility towards people who aren’t being hostile towards trans rights is driving them away even if it isn’t directed at them. It’s not your job to win them over, but it would be effective at the polls.
To clarify your opinion for myself: the most common reason cited by moderates for opposing the 1960s civil rights campaign was “I agree racism is bad, but why can’t black people be civil and polite when asking for equality?” Do you agree or disagree with that opinion?
The thing is that these people aren't being honest when they say things like that. They're lying, but they're often lying to themselves as much as to others. They always have some objection or another to opposing bigotry. Because the reason they're giving is just a post hoc justification for opposing progress.
Think back to the George Floyd protests. People said the exact same thing, that they oppose racism, but they can't abide riots (even though the overwhelming majority of the protests were not violent). Then later, an NFL player kneeled during the anthems, literally the tamest, most inoffensive protest I can imagine. And people lost their minds.
It doesn't matter how disruptive or civil the protest is, it will never be inoffensive enough, they will always oppose it. And if you somehow do find a form of "protest" so inoffensive that they accept it? Then they'll ignore you.
Are you saying the Martin Luther King and his strategy was bad for the civil rights movement???
Seriously though. These kinds of trap questions are pointless and counterproductive.
MLK Jr has pretty famously discussed the issues with respectability politics wrt white moderate. He also shifted his beliefs towards socialism and realizing the necessity of violence to the success of the civil rights movement before being assassinated so… even MLK didn’t think his original strategy was going to succeed.
Nearly all of the accomplishments of the civil rights movement occurred during MLK’s non violent strategy. The switch to a more violent philosophy was not successful.
But more importantly, we’re not talking about violence. If trend supporters can force change through violence, then maybe it’s a successful strategy. But at the moment, the only strategy we have is legislative. And turning off the undecided instead of bringing them on board to vote with you is foolish and counterproductive.