Are TERF-centric magazines allowed on this insurance?

CptVimes@kbin.social to /kbin meta@kbin.social – 0 points – 1 years ago

https://kbin.social/m/modernmisogyny
I ran across that magazine recently and every post is transphobic af. Does that fit within kbin.social's code of conduct?

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

... did you link to the wrong article by mistake? that article doesn't really have anything to do with fascism, except insofar as most fascists also happen to be racists.

I could link articles all day but I have better things to do than entertain (presumably) a cis guy while he plays devils advocate about the people who want my friends thrown in camps not being fascists.

that's literally the first article you linked to. Do you have a point at all? You can link to articles all day, but only two of them, and only one that argues for your point at all, which I've already addressed?

I'm not advocating for terfs or fascists, they're both villains, but to say they're the same is like saying the KKK and the muslim brotherhood are the same. Just because they're both evil and there are some common threads between their ideas doesn't mean they're the same. I think we should learn how to talk about the terrible groups out there instead of just equating all of them and dancing around our own ignorance. I'm not advocating them, I'm advocating against them as strongly as I can, and you're promoting ignorance instead of responding to the one damn point I've made.

that's literally the first article you linked to.

Yeah I thought maybe you would read it this time.

I read it, and responded to it. You've been ignoring my response because you don't have an answer to it. So again. The core argument that terfs are fascists is:

To that end, Butler does a good job of laying out that the anti-trans movement ultimately is about strengthening government oversight — restricting access to medical care and generally seeking to ban LGBTQ+ people from the public sphere, which fits pretty neatly into just about every standard definition of fascism. That includes gender critical feminists, the self-professed “leftist” equivalent of the more extreme right-wing fundamentalists.

Which, again:

Pretends the entire social-focused aspect of the anti-trans movement doesn't exist, when it obviously does, and there are obviously many, many terfs focused on non-governmental oppression. The article itself describes governmental forms of oppression, but this does nothing to imply that the anti-trans movement is actually all about focusing on government oppression
identifies an extremely superficial relationship between two positions as both being statist and therefore being the same. The police state is also about increasing government oversight. A command economy is about increasing government oversight. The founding of the CFPB was about increasing government oversight. Having courts is about increasing government oversight. These are not all forms of fascism.
fails to describe fascism at all. Fascism is a specific thing with a specific definition, it's not just the idea of having an active government. Fascism is a form of nationalism with a dictatorial government, a strong military focus, a hard command economy that exists to support the state and the military, expansionist policies, suppression of opposition to the government, denigration of the individual in favor of the collective in the form of the state... Now, the terf movement, overall, is doing some of those things, but the article doesn't reference any of them.
fails to establish that most terfs, or the core proponents of the terf movement, or terfs in general, are fascists, let alone that a terf is categorically a type of fascists.

If you have a point, then instead of linking to the same article again or linking article that isn't about fascism, please make your point.

Why are you "Well, actually..."ing fascists? Who gains there?

who gains from making up a new definition of fascism? why do you want people to be ignorant?

know thy enemy.

I'm not nitpicking here, I'm not being pedantic, your article didn't even vaguely touch on what fascism is. Maybe the underlying article did, but I'm having trouble imagining what the point is.

Does it piss you off you spend all this effort flailing about defending fascists and I still tell you (correctly) you're wrong and spend a fraction of the effort?

where the fuck do you see me defednding fascists?

does it piss you off that you don't have any response to anything I've actually said? does it piss you off to discover that this publication you like just published a point it didn't understand at all? does it piss you off to see a person argue that we should attack terfs for being terfs and fascists for being fascists and not just assume that all bad people are the same kind of bad person?

is that why you're afraid to read any of my comments?

Having no time for a jackass in a month old thread dredging up his lack of reading comprehension and pathological need to defend fascists from true accusations of being fascists is very much different than being afraid.

You are correct that I am not reading your replies at this point, nor is anyone else.

stop saying that I'm defending fascists, asshole.

you didn't read any of my replies, and you kept accusing me of shit I'm not doing, because you are, in fact, not interested in defending your bullshit. Blaming me for that is sad.

also... I just found this thread today, how did that happen?

I'll stop saying it when you stop doing it.

Why are you advocating for the KKK?

show me a place where I implied that Fascists might not be complete pieces of shit. Show me one place.

You admitted to not reading my comments, you're nothing but a troll. This is serious. Go fuck yourself.

2 more...