What groups you are unwillingly associated with? How you handle it?

EvilZionistEatingChildren@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 89 points –

I ll start : I have been following a pretty known tech/Linux journalist, and always found he is a fun dude to listen to, with interesting tech takes

The fact that he is also very openly "american conservative" (aka, religious & weapon nut, anti abortion, etc) annoys me, but i keep those things separate. And he does keep it separate too (politics channel vs tech channel), which is a great decision.

117

I own a gun and I strongly think that you SHOULD be able to own one IF you meet the qualifications. But I think those qualifications should be more strict and the penalty for being unsafe with your guns should be to lose them. Forever.

Violent crimes in the past including domestic? Say bye bye to your guns. Can't pass a background check? No exceptions.

Guns should be accessible to those who can pass strict check and removed permanently for behavior that is indicative of a potential problems.

But because I support the owning of guns I'm assumed to be one of .... them. Ugh. Yucks.

I handle it by showing my disgust and trying to explain that just because I support something doesn't mean that I fall in on a survey.

The entire gun "culture" is just toxic as fuck. To the point that if we ever do lose the right it will be their unwillingness to bend that causes it.

I wish the Democrats in the US were less willfully ignorant about firearms so they'd pass less stupid and ineffectual legislation out of fear and/or pandering.

Every time California passes an "assault weapons ban" that targets a specific ergonomic feature (pistol grips, removable magazines, what the hell ever they're focusing on now) and gun manufacturers find a work around before the bill even comes into effect, I just roll my eyes.

At this point I'm forced to assume it's purely performative.

Case in point. Great video of all the work the manufacturer made to keep the gun compliant. Its quite funny when you look at it.

https://youtu.be/CcNS4JdprWc?si=1_MiJQ-DjyxUmLze

ForgottenWeapons and InRangeTV are the only channels I still subscribe to, because they're not constantly bitching about gun laws and parroting conservative talking points.

The one time I've actually seen Ian make a statement about pending legislation, and he's coming at it from a very respectable angle, saying basically "this law is poorly worded and over-inclusive and I think it's going to cause some serious issues": https://youtube.com/shorts/aMHGtM051jc?si=nvB2q2vktbwBuULq

I mean, it's exactly what I was talking about. Politicians pushing terrible firearms legislation out of willful ignorance.

All it does is annoy and inconvenience lawful gun owners, and push the center-right further towards the MAGA crowd.

It doesn’t matter. If liberals and centrists did nothing, they’d just fabricate that they were coming for guns. It’s a cult. Facts and Reason don’t come into it.

Can't they just ban auto/semi-auto? Or if those aren't strict categories, define them, eg. "cannot shoot more than x bullets / second"? That one would likely be too broad but you get the idea.

Banning semi auto would ban like 90 percent of guns :/

I feel an urge to say "oh well" but that's my own bias shining through lol

Banning would piss off a lot of people. It'd be better to just place more restrictions on semi autos. Outright bans are very politically expensive.

Auto is banned. Everything is semi auto except bolt action rifles. All handguns are semi auto.

I too wish they could pass real gun control legislation that would result in less weapons on the streets and in people's homes.

Unfortunately, all we can ever get passed are bs laws that gun nuts won't bother to fight against, considering the massive amounts of political spending on "single-issue" voters that care more about being able to shoot their neighbors than they care about living under a democratic-elected government.

I mean, who needs functioning institutions when you have a fuckin gun?

The Russians. I'm against war, not living in Russia, working and paying taxes elsewhere. It was hard to make peace with myself, as you have to rip the vision of your country into two pieces - the first is the culture, places where you lived, your friends. The second is an insane killing machine called "the state". Have to learn not to associate yourself with that second half.
The support from many people, from here and from other countries, including a couple of Ukrainian friends (takes time to prove that you're "normal"), really helped.
Sorry for everything, I hope the old man will die soon.

Я сам русский и таже история. Путен сдохнет и мы будем ссать на его могилу! Слава Героям 🇺🇦

I'm frequently accused of being a white person by people who are looking directly at me and seeing my tan skin and my shoulder blade length dark brown hair.

And I don't really know what to say. Like, thank you for letting me enjoy the white privilege card, but it doesn't really do me any favors because in most areas the native American privilege card outweighs the white privilege card.

On the other hand, I am occasionally accused of being a Mexican even though I'm 6 ft 1 and speak very fluent English without a identifiable accent.

And old people have handed me things written in Spanish and asked me to translate it for them because it's my native language and it's fucking not, but then, since I can usually figure out what written Spanish means I still tell them the answer but I feel weird about it and I don't want to be made to feel that way.

Went to my regular Mexican place the other day and the waiter starts rattling off Spanish to my wife. My wife is Pilipino.

She didn't know what was going on and replied with the handful of words she knows. I was LMAO internally.

I find the simarities between the Phillipines and Mexico pretty interesting. I guess being fucked by the Spaniards will do that to cultures.

Like what? I've barely known any Mexicans and am just now learning about Filipinos. Great cultures in either case.

We have a fair bit of shared last names and words.

I do hear a good bit of Spanish when my wife is speaking Tagalog. Don't know why I found that surprising. And yes, both her maiden and middle names are Spanish.

Funny how people expect them to have "foreign" names. Nah. It's all, Amy and Rob and Antonio and Phillip and such.

Im like 94% percent mexican, but im 5’10” and speak fluent english with arguably the most neutral english accent, and speak next to no spanish (just a bit i learned in highschool)

People always assuming i speak spanish…

outweighs the white privilege card

What benefit outweighs never having to think about race or be impacted by it?

Strange how you're getting downvoted and mocked, but nobody seems to have an answer. I too am rather curious where in the actual fuck being considered native-American outweighs white privilege! On a reservation?

 

(I'm not sure if I have to clarify, as this isn't Reddit, but here goes: I do NOT agree with the current state of race relations and abhor the fact that "being white" is considered the best.)

I'm a large, unpleasant looking man living in a red state who has a pickup truck, and a harley. I'm married to a methodist lay speaker. I have a few firearms.

So naturally I must be the biggest trump supporting, red-hat wearing, religious conservative twatwaffle in existence, there is no other option.

As a result, the actual redhat cockwombles I work with think I'm going to be OK with their racist comments, and are shocked when I'm not. The thing that helps me with these guys is the fact that they are having to work from prints that have my initials on them so they can whine about the LiBuRl all they want, and I'll still be helping them get their jobs done.

The traits they are assuming make me One of Them™ are just incidental things. I have a battered old truck because my wife and I have either a large garden or a small farm, depending on how you look at it. A Honda Civic won't carry the stuff I need. (Neither will a van) I have a harley because the local motorcycle dealers are pretty terrible tp deal with, but the harley dealer is nice, helpful, and act like they want to sell a bike. I'm large and unpleasant because of genetics. And I have firearms because for most of my adult life I have lived somewhere that has an hour's response time for law enforcement, and I've had to defend myself in the past. None of these things made me hate any particular group of people.

1 more...

I'm very much into guns, have 35-45 or so, depending on your definition of "gun". I particularly like buying old crappy ones and fixing them up. They aren't "safe queens" either, I shoot every one of them at times, and shoot almost every weekend at my camp in the swamp.

I am liberal in about every other aspect and given the GOP's behavior since Obama took office, I'm voting straight ticket D till the day I die. I loathe being lumped in with the right-wingers and their attitudes.

Hello fellow liberal gun owner! It's good to see more of us out here. It fucking annoys me to no end whenever we get lumped together with that nonsense.

I'm a man, which means I am part of "men."

Lots of men are predatory, objectify women and scoff at feminism. Being a man, people just inherently assume I'm like that too.

I deal with it by engaging only with people who demonstrate the ability to listen and withhold judgment.

That is as sexist as it gets from whatever dumb people think about literally 50% of the world's population as a monolith

Indeed. Oftentimes they kinda resolve their cognitive dissonance by saying 'Ah, you got a fiance, you have to say that wink'. As if there is no other logical explanation.

I'm unwillingly associated with the U.S. Democratic Party only because I'm uncompromising in my beliefs of equality and antifascism, but disagree with almost other policy of theirs^1

  1. This doesn't mean I agree with the only other major US party.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm anti-Republican. As soon as there's another actually viable option, or ranked choice voting, the Dems will never see me again.

This is the correct answer. Pretending there are more than two choices doesn't stop Roe from being abolished. You have to play the hand your dealt, etc.

None. I have self-respect. For example. My own MAGA worshipping Trump-humping father demanded that I apologize for telling him that America sucks (in regards to healthcare). I was told to either apologize or to never talk again.

I said we’d never talk again. And we haven’t.

Transmeds. Trans folk who gatekeep other trans folk, and think they can say who is "really trans" and who isn't.

I do think it would be helpful to have more clarity on the definitions of terms for different states of transitioning/non-transitioning but unfortunately that's outweighed by the privacy concerns and the infighting and effort it would cause

Why? What language are we lacking that would help if added, that wouldn't just lead to more gatekeeping?

We already have the language to talk about various elements of social and medical transition.

It's less about having the language and more about agreeing on the specifics of what language we do have. That's not gatekeeping, just categorization. Mildly useful but people calling it "gatekeeping" is exactly why it wouldn't be helpful to try to define it in practice (don't mean to attack you, just taking an example).

As I said though, what language are we lacking that we don't already have?

Well, the easiest example is that some people use "trans" to mean anyone who has physicslly started to transition, others consider someone to be trans when they decide to broadcast their new gender identity, and others consider them to have always been trans. The opinion on which one is correct is often quite strong.

You could define it as "anyone who says they're trans is trans" and avoid this entire issue, which is largely what the relevant laws do (unless they're weirdly invasive), but that opens up the system for abuse by bad actors looking to false flag the trans community.

Well, the easiest example is that some people use “trans” to mean anyone who has physicslly started to transition, others consider someone to be trans when they decide to broadcast their new gender identity, and others consider them to have always been trans. The opinion on which one is correct is often quite strong.

Yep. People have strong feelings about their own journeys and identities. They're welcome to do that. But when they start having strong feelings about other people's journeys and identities, when they feel like that get to decide who isn't and isn't trans based on whatever criteria they particularly feel to be important, then they're gatekeeping.

Those are the truscum and transmeds I want nothing to do with.

but that opens up the system for abuse by bad actors looking to false flag the trans community.

No it doesn't. That's just an excuse people use to post hoc validate their gatekeeping.

Gatekeeping as I'm using it in this context is the act of unnecessarily excluding someone from a community or diminishing their attempts to participate*. That's why I think the best definition of most personal identity terms is a permissive one, eg. "anyone who decides to transition is trans". But opening up that definition means we need another way to refer to people who are physically transitioning, because there are meaningful differences in their experiences and needs. ("Physically transitioning" honestly suits this purpose fine IMO.)

But there's nothing wrong with choosing a narrower definition if you don't use that to discriminate or exclude non-physically-transitioning trans people from spaces that could apply to them. It's not a good idea because that message is easily able to be twisted to be exclusionary, but there's nothing inherently gatekeeping about it; the term that would be common use would likely just become the one that refers to all types of trans people. Defining "trans" to be narrower than the wider definition is only wrong because we're attached to the current definition. Which is a very good reason to keep that word defined as the broader group, but again someone who isn't familiar with this would rightly see it as a valid definition.

  • note that the precise definition matters here, as I believe it does with a great many things

But opening up that definition

It's not "opening up" a definition. It is the definition.

But opening up that definition means we need another way to refer to people who are physically transitioning, because there are meaningful differences in their experiences and needs.

No we don't. Not everyone who undergoes medical transition undergoes the same journey. Some folk want surgery, some folk want HRT, some folk want both, some folk want one but not the other. Some folk want to micro dose, some folk want to replicate cis hormone levels.

There is no meaningful catch all term that summarises the needs of all of those folk. Trying to find a single term to capture that spectrum leads to a single narrative of what medical transition looks like, and makes it harder for people to transition on their own terms.

The language we need to talk about these things already exists, and is improving and changing with time. Nothing is gained by returning to the old days of binary terms and all or nothing language.

there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it;

Yes there is. It's defining folk who medically transition as being a different class of trans folk. We're not a different class. We all of us have unique needs, and the language should focus on those individual needs, whether they're medical, social or other.

Defining “trans” to be narrower than the wider definition is only wrong because we’re attached to the current definition

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original reply. I'm a binary trans woman, who medically transitioned with all of the bells and whistles, and so I get lumped in with people who genuinely believe statements like this.

I actively, loudly and strongly disagree with what you've said here, and I hate that people often assume I share beliefs like that. Defining the term trans to be narrower than it is is gatekeeping, end of story. It denies people the right to their own identity. That is inherently bad. People define for themselves, even in a hypothetical scenario where bad faith actors try and fuck it up

So I agree with the first half pretty well, you make some good points. But:

there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it;

Yes there is. It’s defining folk who medically transition as being a different class of trans folk. We’re not a different class. We all of us have unique needs, and the language should focus on those individual needs, whether they’re medical, social or other.

In general, just because everyone has unique needs/qualities/etc., that doesn't mean that it's not useful to have categories anyways. Although in this case perhaps you're right, the situations are often complicated enough that it would be too reductive. In extending my wider pro-categorization stance to this issue in particular I may have ignored the naturally complex nature of it.

I get lumped in with people who genuinely believe statements like this.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, and you reacted differently enough compared to the rest of what I said that I think you may have misinterpreted my stance here?

It denies people the right to their own identity. That is inherently bad.

And that's why I started this off by saying that it wouldn't be productive to argue for this. Even if I were correct in theory*, nobody who this matters for would ever accept my definition, or any definition, other than the one that they believe to be true. You cannot force someone to accept a label that they don't want, even if there would be benefits to using it. Although given what you said I'm not sure now that there would be benefits anyways.

*as far as that could apply to language, anyways

someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth

I haven’t seen any gatekeeping to exclude those that haven’t gone through physical transition, but I guess there are assholes everywhere.

I haven’t seen any gatekeeping to exclude those that haven’t gone through physical transition

There's a whole branch of trans gatekeepers called transmed/truscum that do exactly that!

I've been called a tanky, neolib, fascist, radfem, misogynist, racist, "woke", republican, Democrat, religious nutjob, and militant athiest over my time on Reddit and I wouldn't really agree with any of those descriptors lol. People just assume that if you have an even remotely nuanced opinion on a topic then you must belong to the "other side". I don't really care most of the time. I know what I believe and I don't let it be defined by tribalism.

Haha as well. I've been called chauvinist, fascist and other words associated with the super far right, even though I'm center left on the compass. It's impressive how utterly extinct nuance is in social media and traditional news.

I feel for you here. I think of myself as left of center but it is funny how much one side or the other treats the center like the hardest core of the other end. Its funny because I way back when I had started at a catholic college where I seemed waaayyy left but then transfered to the state school where I seemed centerist or at best kinda left and if you compared me to the school population then right of center. I did find the liberal state school seemed to have more of self awareness that the environment was skewed left whereas the catholic institution viewed itself as more center.

That’s a wide spectrum of associations. Have you ever considered you may be bad at articulating your views?

More like interactions would play out thusly:

Them: All X is Y

Me: hmm, it may not be helpful to paint with such a broad brush. Sometimes X isn't Y. (Gives example)

Them: wow, sounds like something a (insert opposing tribe here) would say.

Basically, this

Using that as an example, if you spend a lot of most of your time let’s say defending little details about bad people it can come off as someone muddying the waters on purpose to downplay the awful things they do.

Or maybe your just on some shitty subs full of dumb people 🤷‍♂️

You're assuming I spend my time defending bad people, which I don't do. I just use critical thinking and point out logical fallacies. I believe fallacies are always bad, even if they support a position I agree with.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If a lot of your comments are pointing out logical fallacies against bad people then it looks like you're muddying the waters. For example pointing out logic fallacies in arguments against conservatives but not doing the same against liberals wouldn't make you wrong outright, but you'd be wrong by omission.

I bet you even try to “just ask questions” too… disgusting.

Neckbeards, because I fit some of the stereotypes.

I'm interested in roleplaying and videogames, so people assume I'm one of those gatekeeping basement dwellers that mock "girl gamers" and play WoW and weird hentai games 23 hours a day. Honestly, I couldn't care less about what other players have in their pants or which games they like as long as everyone is having fun.

I own two swords, so people assume I'm one of those "leave the multibillion dollar company alone" fedora-wearing m'lady incels who pose with their katanas for sh*tty profile pics and think they look like ninjas or something. The thing is, me and two buddies did show fights for medieval faires for a couple of years, so the weapons aren't just decoration / dumb tokens to make myself feel cool. Granted, the "fights" were more or less scripted, but it still had to look convincing enough to entertain the masses.

It's especially annoying when actual neckbeards think I'm "one of them" and are then surprised that I don't share any of their cringey, prejudice-laden, condescending world views.

2 more...

am asked if i was russian bot once

Were you pushing Russian talking points? If so, what’s the difference?

US political parties.

Because I live in and enjoy living in Chicago, am socially liberal, an ardent feminist, an aspiring antiracist, people assume I'm a Democrat. Honestly, even the first alone is usually enough to trigger this assumption.

Because I'm politically conservative, respect religious freedom, respect the second amendment, and oppose stacking the Supreme Court, people assume I'm a Republican; even though the GOP hasn't respected religious freedom or been politically conservative in general in decades.

And when I tell people that I'm not registered with a party, won't vote along party lines, and won't vote the lesser evil, I'm assumed to be politically inactive, apathetic, or ignorant. Whereas I'm very active, always vote, usually campaign for favored candidates and against corrupt incumbents.

The "team sport" mentality of FPTP political systems is absolutely terrible, honestly.

Im curious what you are politically conservative on? I don't see religious freedom as being conservative nowadays. Like respecting tst stuff. maybe the second amendment but like bernie is pretty good with that. honestly the supreme court stacking I only hear from an extreme side. EDITED - see if Im fast enough to sneak this in. How the heck does one even register for a party in chicago? I mean im not going to but is that even a thing?

Illinois has open primaries and you don't need to register a party when you register to vote; but you can still register with the parties themselves. I also grew up in South Dakota, which has closed primaries, and you do fill out an party (or not) when you register to vote there, or at least when I turned 18 you did.

I'm conservative in the sense of opposing change, especially to our political system. Not all change, but my default stance is "don't fuck with it".

Ah. An actual conservative like from the pre 80's. I keep telling folks that conservatives used to be quite different.

Would you mind elaborating on "change...to our political system" perhaps with some examples and your stance on them? I'm exhausted and struggling to understand and find any examples aside from stacking the courts.

If not no worries, I'll be chewing on this for a while. I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to share it.

For example: eliminating the Electoral college, term-limiting senators, declaring an official language, limiting jus soli citizenship, granting senatorial representation to the federal district... there are others that don't come up as often that I can't remember now.

I do have things I think should be changed or reformed, of course, as everyone does, but I'm very much against change for the sake of change. Society can be dynamic, the government should be stable.

I’m confused. Is this a bit? You’re essentially describing the Democratic Party and all the things progressives complaining about the party “really being conservative” compared to the rest of the world.

The Democrats have a big problem with "solutions" that either don't address the problem or create worse problems in doing so. And maybe I'm biased by dealing with the Chicago Machine, but there's too much corruption as well. And don't even get me started on the corporatism.

The DNC is pretty left socially on a global scale, which I approve of, but just all over the place in terms of economic policy, and I think that axis is where they get labelled as centrist or even right-leaning globally. Though, yes, Secretary Clinton in 2016 was the most conservative candidate with any real support, partly because she was the most experienced in actual governance.

The alternative is a party only focused on making the rich richer and staying in power even if they have to kill democracy to do it. I’d take partial solutions or failed attempts at doing the right thing every time over that. We don’t have other realistic options. From time to time we get populists who are mostly talk.

The word corruption gets thrown out far too much too. Those that break the law should be punished, but simply adding something to a bill to benefit your constituency is literally the job, and far too often I hear people say that’s corruption. It’s compromise.

Good post, glad to hear others who are not Trumptards also support all of our Constitutional rights.

I always vote against anyone who proposes to limit freedoms or rights of Americans, so I don't usually end up with many good candidates to vote for.

What do you mean "politically conservative"?

Edit: more to the point, political conservatism is characterized by the opposition to social transformation, yet you also say of yourself that you're an ardent feminist and aspiring antiracist. Which seems like a contradiction to me.

I'm also confused by this very narrow definition of conservative. The poster went on to say they are against "changes....to our political system" which honestly makes it even more confusing, as if the difference between liberalism and conservatism has no social facet.

Liberal here. I don't care how it changes, but it'd better be changing. No change = boring 🥱🥱🥱

/s

1 more...

I find myself agreeing with the libertarian socialist school of thought, which means in debates I get accused of a lot of opinions I don't agree with, because I disagree with things using socialist language or libertarian points.

I live in Singapore, and because of that, I'm associated with Singaporeans.

I hate it because they're generally spoilt af, complaining all the time. They also tend to make fools of themselves overseas by being noisy and difficult. We're probably like this because Singapore is run in a really great way, and when compared to other countries, things may be slower or just done differently.

I try my best not to be like that and I will actively avoid Singaporeans if I see them overseas (you can tell by their accent and loud voices).

And how much they say "La" in a passive aggressive way. Man, I'm tolerant to it because I don't know the culture that well, but it still annoys the shit out of me.

To be fair, we use lah in almost every context, not just passive aggressiveness. But yeah singaporeans tend to be passive aggressive af, now that you mention it.

Yeah someone tried to explain le, lah, leh to me one time but I didn't understand the nuance. They all sound kinda whiny to me tbh. Not trying to sound like an asshole, I don't look negatively on people who use it, but for some reason it bothers me. I guess I just don't get it lol

Nah don't blame yourself for not understanding. You pretty much have to live here your whole life to really "get" it naturally.

Fun fact, Malaysians do the lah leh lor too. But their meaning and intonation is just slightly different.

Yes I've noticed it from Indonesians as well, but less so. Anyways I just chalk it up to me being an ignorant foreigner. It rubs me the wrong way for whatever reason, but I'm sure it's just because I don't understand it. I don't let it affect my judgement of people. Thanks for your candid responses

Gun ownership.

I really enjoy the sport of shooting. I don’t hunt. I don’t have a problem with people hunting so long as they eat what they shoot, hunt responsibly, and trophy hunters can get fucked. I like guns. I also think that people should have access to them.

That immediately seems to lump me in with the psychotic idiocy popularized by gun owners today. I despise those people. I have incredibly strong opinions about who should have access to guns, how guns should be stored, and how gun ownership should be licensed, insured, and actually monitored. The way the second amendment has been so woefully and foolishly written as to be vague and completely anachronistic by today’s standards it is doing far more damage than good, and the people that claim it’s to protect themselves from government are the very authoritarians trying to overthrow it.

So yeah, it sucks to want to participate in a sport full of asinine wingnuts or be associated with them. So I keep my mouth shut about owning guns.

I’m unwillingly associated with Nazis often when I disagree with people online. I deal with it by going on with my day, since there’s nothing else I can do about it.

The PMC. I'm a professional worker from a rural upbringing and a lot of my coworkers came from wealthier backgrounds with highly educated parents. I don't really do anything to "handle it" it's just noticeable cultural differences.

What's pmc?

A bit tongue in cheek reference but professional-managerial class. Essentially people who work for a living but make above average salaries and don't really associate, and/or consider themselves superior to, more industrial or blue collar working class. Working class but adopt more bourgeoise values.

Religious people are as stupid as flat earthers. I can’t stand either.