Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the from-the-mouths-of-commenters dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side Rico R. with a comment about the Surgeon General’s call for a warning label on social media:

Bullying somewhere does not make that place bad for kids

Surgeon General Warning: Enrolling your child in a public school can increase issues with your child’s mental health due to peer pressure and bullying. Homeschooling is advised.

See how ridiculous that sounds? I was bullied WAY more in school than I was on social media growing up, and yet I don’t see the Surgeon General demanding warnings on school enrollment forms.

And if some troll says, “School is mandatory, but social media is not,” let me ask you why is school mandatory? Because of its net benefit to society. A good quality education is important. Yet, whenever someone points out how social media can be beneficial to teens (i.e., helps them express themselves, get help when needed, feel like they belong, etc.) and research backs up that this is the case, such studies are hand-waved away as irrelevant.

Social media isn’t the boogeyman many claim it is. It reflects real life, and real life has good and bad things about it. It can build people up or bring people down. So can social media. So don’t write it off as “all bad” for kids.

In second place, it’s an anonymous comment about the fictional crime wave:

There’s another factor underlying this

A lot of the people wailing about “a historic crime wave” don’t care about preventing crime – at all. They care about pandering to their base (in the US: old racist white people in suburbs who think cities are hellholes) and ensuring that their supporters (like police unions) are well-funded.

Unsurprisingly, these are the same people who vociferously oppose every proposal to stop crime well before it happens. They campaign/vote against school lunches, education programs for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, lead paint/pipe removal (yes, it’s linked to crime rates), youth recreational programs, substance abuse help, mental health counseling, offender rehabilitation, etc. – every possible thing that could actually help people so that they’re not so desperate that they resort to crime.

So every time you hear someone trumpeting “law and order”, know that what you’re really hearing is a vicious, sadistic thug who is willing to doom tens of millions of people to miserable lives in order to pander to the wealthy and privileged.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment about the Surgeon General’s concerns, this time from an anonymous commenter:

In my experience, it largely seems to be ostensible adults who are brain damaged from social media.

Next, it’s That One Guy with a comment about the attacks on the Internet Archive:

Names to remember and avoid

Hatchette
Harper Collins
John Wiley
Penguin Random House

Any time those publishers try to claim that they have no problem with libraries the only response should be pointing to their actions here, where they’ve made crystal clear that if they could they would absolutely destroy the very concept of libraries and require anyone who wants to read a book to buy their own copy to do so.

Those publishers are friends to neither readers or authors, and should be avoided by both as a result.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about a reference we made to people who cry libel every time they are insulted:

Giving them way too much credit here, Tim. As often as not, they cry “slander” rather than “libel” when encountering written words that upset them.

In second place, it’s tanj with a comment about New York’s “save the children” bill:

Blame Canada

He’s blaming The Internet when he should be blaming Canada.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more comment from tanj, this time about all the dastardly pirates defending the Internet Archive:

You pirates also think the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authord and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries rather than enriching publishers.

Finally, it’s an anonymous comment about the lawsuit against Martin Shkreli over the Wu Tang album:

Watch your step, Shkreli,
Protect ya neck, kid.

That’s all for this week, folks!


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
127 Comments
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

One of tanj's funny comments

I’m surprised that this comment from tanj-

You pirates also think the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authord and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries rather than enriching publishers.

-didn’t make the top two for funny. Oh well, I’m happy it made an Editor’s Choice this week, as it certainly deserved to be up there!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

It feels like the TD community is increasingly not rewarding satirical and subtle humor. I’m not able to see anything, but my feeling is that it’s receiving more user engagement (beyond just the trolls and Nazis.)

Satire and subtlety depend on the audience having a shared understanding up-front. Poe’s law hits especially hard during extreme political polarization. And frankly, a lot of folks just stop reading after the first handful of words from an apparent copyright maximalist, Nazi, etc. They’ve all been saying the same shit for almost a century, and it’s all dumb. Just flag and move on.

No doubt, things that would have played well here 10 or 20 years ago don’t play as well now. The audience just isn’t as limited to people who understand those subtleties as it used to be. At a certain level, that’s why we’re still here trusting these editors to a degree, and they’re taking the time to look and curate the culture to be something different from Reddit or Stormfront.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I had to reread the comment several times to check if it was satire.

Sorry, but what’s happening now in America and the world used to be considered satirical, not reality, and no amount of vicious mockery or satire is going to change that.

And after Jan 6, there’s no point in hoping for the best anymore.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“All these people are in a cult. They all think the same things. They think the earth is round. They think the sun is a giant ball of helium and hydrogen. They think Trump lost the 2020 election. See? Cult-like behavior! Echo chamber! Groupthink! Sheeple!”

“Whereas I am an independent thinker, which is why I understand the health benefits of drinking my own urine.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

No one is arguing that, at least with our current medical technology, AMAB men (outside of certain intersex men who were assigned “male” at birth but have a functional uterus) can get pregnant. When literally anyone says “men can give birth”, they are never talking about non-intersex trans women or non-intersex cis men but rather AFAB trans men (and maybe certain rare intersex conditions), and it’s facetious to pretend otherwise. Unless and until we find a way to implant a functional uterus into a male body, there simply is no getting around that, not even through artificial insemination.

Indeed, the idea that some AFAB men can get pregnant but no non-intersex AMAB men can is pretty much the one thing that no one disputes. No one seriously disputes that trans women who didn’t have one of certain specific intersex conditions that gives them a working uterus while also giving them external traits that would cause doctors to believe them to be male are or will be able to get pregnant, either (at least not with our current technology). The dispute about the statement, “Men can get pregnant,” is primarily about the definition of “man” as it relates to non-intersex trans and cis people and secondarily (and far less than the primary issue) about certain intersex conditions that grant someone a fully functional uterus (if not working ovaries) but which creates the appearance at birth that they are male and so are typically assigned male at birth and whether or not they are a man.

Given all of that, barring some major advancement in technology (like being able to take stem cells from an AMAB patient and cause them to develop into a fully functional uterus that can then be implanted into the original patient, which would at least potentially allow them to get pregnant via artificial insemination), there is no reason for Samuel here to recant their statement nor anything for you to object to in that statement as it stands. As such, your response is nonsensical.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Setting aside from the fact that no one is claiming that anyone born without a functional uterus that has remained present and functional to the present can get pregnant (at least not without some major advancement in our current technology) and so the only part you could be objecting to there is whether or not non-intersex trans men who haven’t had their uteruses removed are “men” along with whether AMAB men with an intersex condition that gives them a functional uterus (even if not functional ovaries) are “men”, what does this have to do with anything said in the comment you’re responding to or any of the comments in this thread posted prior to the comment you’re responding to was posted?

This has nothing to do with transgender people. This is about the objective facts about wild conspiracy theories, not simply everything that the left and Republicans disagree on that (at least to you) is absurd that there even is a disagreement as to whether it’s true or false.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Florida has recently passed legislation to enable putting the homeless into camps. At the same time, they’ve passed legislation requiring schools to out LGBTQ+ youth to unsupportive families, which often leads to homelessness among other things.

The legal pipeline already exists in Florida, echoing Hitler’s final solution for homelessness.

That said, our prison-industrial complex has been in place a long time. There’s no shortage of official torture cages already present in this nation.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

This is why we need to strike preemptively against the MAGAts.

How, pray tell, would the commission of mass murder for political purposes make you any better than the people you want to kill? And don’t tell me “I don’t want to kill them”. Nobody says “we need to strike preemptively” when they’re talking about passing legislation.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Yeah, no, that’s some right-wing-ass projection. Right wingers have pulled that shit since the Obama years: “He’s gonna put Christians in jail for being Christian! He’s gonna kill his political rivals! He’s gonna be a tyrant!” And all the while, Republicans have been attacking the rights of non-Christians, defending the idea of a Republican president having the immunity necessary to kill a political rival, and actually acting like theocrats and dictators.

You’re going to keep trying to needle me into agreeing with a statement such as “the mass murder of Republican lawmakers and voters is morally righteous”. I will never agree with such a statement. I will never believe that violence is the first, best, and only answer to any political problem. And I will never be fooled by your “I’m so extremely left wing, I eat and shit out a copy of The Communist Manifesto every day” schtick. You can’t persuade me to join your cause when you act like a right-wing shitbird; whatever the blue fucking blazes made you think acting like an extremist left-winger could ever work, it only made you stupid.

I know this is rich coming from me, but: Go touch grass. For the rest of your life.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Steven, it’s ok if it makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that Republicans, straight people, and definitely all old, rich, white men need to be systematically targeted for repression if minorities, queer, and neuro-divergent people are to thrive in this backwards-ass country. This just means you have humanity, unlike all the MAGAt rightoid scum.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

uncomfortable to acknowledge

Acknowledging and agreeing with any of that wouldn’t make me uncomfortable. But it would make me a liar, a sociopath, a troll, and someone who would probably end up on a watchlist sooner or later.

You’re not going to get me to say the things you want me to say in the context of agreeing with and endorsing those ideas. Pressuring me by way of bringing up my queerness, acting like my stance somehow makes me a “traitor”, trying to inflame my emotions with the usage of my name (government or screen), or any other such bullshit measures will not work here. I already commit all the violence I want to commit⁠—and that amount is zero. You’re not going to change that no matter how hard you troll me in particular or this site in general.

You can no longer be saved by touching grass.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You’re not going to get me to say the things you want me to say in the context of agreeing with and endorsing those ideas.

Stephen, it’s ok man. I don’t expect you (or any other good people) to publicly endorse or affirm my radicalism. I’m just expressing my belief in the righteousness of extralegal and inter-social violence in the context of the current Western political landscape.

i.e., it’s ok to bash a fash.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I don’t expect you (or any other good people) to publicly endorse or affirm my radicalism.

No, you do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t keep espousing it and targeting your rhetoric at me.

I’m just expressing my belief in the righteousness of extralegal and inter-social violence in the context of the current Western political landscape.

Congratulations: You’re giving cover to right-wingers who believe their violence against any group of people deemed a Repugnant Cultural Other is morally righteous because they believe that group is a danger to “the current Western political landscape”. Which, I have to assume, is the entire point of your schtick: You want someone like me to say “violence is good” in the context of agreeing with your extremist rhetoric so you can go back to your favorite right-wing shitpit, say “look, look, they want to kill us first, let’s beat them to the punch”, and start plotting violence you believe is “justified” as “cultural defense” or some shit.

I can’t fathom how fucking stupid you think I am. Seeing a left-winger who is in favor of violence as a political problem-solver is already rare enough. Did you really think I would believe you’re a radical left-winger who believes in indiscriminate terroristic violence that would absolutely be characterized as such in even mainstream media?

Cat_Daddy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Hi, I’m a liberal who is queer and neurodivergent. You do not represent me.

You’re downright psychotic. And completely at odds with the goals of the left. The end goal is to ensuring equality amongst all. By saying that all white, straight, cis-gender, and/or republicans need to be oppressed, you’re retroactively invalidating their biases against minorities. MAGA is an ideology that needs to be defeated, but not in the way you’re professing, you Crypto-fascist.

You seriously need help, I think you’re just one step from making a manifesto.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Funny how stupid people like you are hung up on what other people do to their bodies except when it comes to the most pervasive type of “mutilations” which people subject themselves to which you conveniently ignore.

I have to ask, did you flunk school or did your parents indoctrinate you into a cult perhaps? The outcome is the same though, your are provable stupid.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

At most, only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of pro-trans activists even support the right to perform SRS on children or any other surgery that removes genitals, gonads, or breast tissue from children (excluding cases where it has something like cancer, a bad infection, or necrosis that will kill the patient if not amputated, certainly not just to affirm one’s gender identity), let alone support the decision to actually do so, let alone wanting to force others to do so or considering those who refuse to do so to be immoral or bad parents. The vast majority of trans people and the vast majority of pro-trans activists discourage and/or would support a ban on such surgeries being performed on people at such young ages even if they are trans and want such treatments.

Similarly, HRT isn’t performed on younger children, and it wouldn’t be mutilation in even the loosest sense of the term, nor are the puberty blockers or other forms of GAC (changes to names, pronouns, and other gendered nouns used to refer to them; fashion changes; changes to which gender-segregated public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms they use; etc.) that actually get used on younger children (with puberty blockers only being used around or after the time their puberty did or would have started) are even further from mutilation than even HRT.

On top of that, essentially no one (other than trolls or ignorant people, usually anti-trans, with almost all of the rest being neither trans nor pro-trans activists) is saying that every single transgender person wants to or should fully transition. Some stop with mastectomies or breast implants (or something else that causes the loss or gain of breast tissue). Some stop with HRT. Some don’t even go as far as HRT, but still alter their gender expression in other ways beyond changes in name and pronouns. And some don’t even do any real transitioning at all, just changing their name and maybe their pronouns. It’s different for different people.

With that said, strictly speaking, receiving that sort of surgery would not be them mutilating themself even if it was mutilation at all. (Calling it “mutilation” doesn’t make it so.) After all, they aren’t the one doing the cutting; that would be the doctor(s) “mutilating” them at their own request. At best, you mean, “wanted to get themself mutilated,” which isn’t quite the same thing as saying they “wanted to mutilate themself.”
I recognize this may be a bit of a nitpick, but it shows just how much of a strawman this is when you make errors like this that are errors even within your anti-trans worldview, even if they may be relatively minor.

Finally, what does this have to do with the comment you responded to?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Jazz Jennings, like all the rest, needs to use a dilator to keep the wound open or it would heal. There is no vagina. There is a wound that is intentionally kept open. For the sole purpose of inserting a penis.

Jazzs’ mother used to wake her in the night and threaten to insert the dilator herself if Jazz didn’t. Sounds like abuse to me.

“Finally, what does this have to do with the comment you responded to?”
Reread the comment I responded to and see if you can figure it out. I’ll give you a hint:
they’ve passed legislation requiring schools to out LGBTQ+ youth to unsupportive families

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Jazz Jennings, like all the rest, needs to use a dilator to keep the wound open or it would heal. There is no vagina. There is a wound that is intentionally kept open. For the sole purpose of inserting a penis.

Irrelevant. Also untrue, as not all trans women have any desire to have sex with men in the first place, so that isn’t the sole purpose for the surgery. But even if it was true, so what? What is that supposed to prove?

Jazzs’ mother used to wake her in the night and threaten to insert the dilator herself if Jazz didn’t. Sounds like abuse to me.

[citation needed]
Also, a single anecdote is not evidence of a trend. If true, the mother was wrong, and essentially every pro-trans activist would agree she was wrong. However, I have no reason to believe it’s true, and it still wouldn’t prove that this is common enough to require restrictions on people who don’t act that way.

“Finally, what does this have to do with the comment you responded to?”
Reread the comment I responded to and see if you can figure it out. I’ll give you a hint:
they’ve passed legislation requiring schools to out LGBTQ+ youth to unsupportive families

Yeah, still not relevant. Teachers cannot force children to have surgery in the way parents sometimes can. The alleged problem would be neither helped nor hurt by outing LGBT youth to their families. So, again, how is that relevant to the comment you’re responding to?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

So it’s only mutilation if people do it to themselves? What about cases of medically unnecessary labiaplasty or circumcision? At least only fully consenting adults (18+) undergo surgical transition. Medically unnecessary circumcision and labiaplasty are done all the time to unconsenting children, often within just a few days of birth.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Not everyone that regards law and order as something important is a vicious thug.

The people who make a huge deal out of the concept⁠—to the point where they keep suggesting things like, say, “let’s have the UFC make migrants fight each other”⁠—are vicious thugs who revel in violence inflicted upon their Repugnant Cultural Other of choice. A significant number of those kinds of people tend to identify as conservative/right-leaning in their political beliefs.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

where the athletes would be well-compensated and achieve incredible fame

Given who suggested the idea and the general tenor of his rhetoric about migrants and immigration in general, I doubt a fighting league made of migrants would be well-compensated⁠—or voluntary, for that matter. Also, given that it sounds a lot like Christians being thrown to the lions in the Roman Empire, one would hope people who profess to hold Christian values would actually denounce the idea instead of cheering it on.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

given that [Trump’s Migrant UFC plan] sounds a lot like Christians being thrown to the lions in the Roman Empire, one would hope people who profess to hold Christian values would actually denounce the idea instead of cheering it on.

There’s nothing Christian about Christian Nationalism or Christian Fascism. It’s basically National Socialism carrying a cross.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

That you think your “look at me, I’m an extreme leftist” sockpuppet act is actually working and that you think we believe you’re not the same dude doing the “look at me, I’m an extreme right-wing” act where you post racial slurs and demanding the execution queer people? That speaks poorly of you. Nobody here with a working brain thinks you’re two different people. Hell, I’m pretty sure you’re also the dipshit who does those stupid one-liner posts in all lowercase letters because you really do want to farm engagement for a microdose of dopamine that you can’t even get from 4chan any more. Trolling is an addiction; I suggest you seek help for it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

You’re presenting a false dilemma. I don’t have to have a grand plan to point out the immoral and impossible nature of yours. We don’t have to go along with immoral calls for violence even if no one comes up with what you might consider a better plan. There are healthier ways to deal with corrupt systems and injustice that don’t require signing up for misdirected and irrational calls for violence. Find one or several.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I’m not convinced that society needs to be “queered” for a more vibrant and inclusive ethos to grow in the first place; I think that’d actually be counterproductive since that’d still be exclusive, not inclusive. There are conservatives who even argue in favor of more inclusivity for LGBT folks.

In other words, I reject your contention that we need a plan to “defeat” all conservatives (reactionary or authentic) to have a more vibrant and inclusive ethos in the first place. We only need to get the more radical conservatives to no longer have enough power to prevent it. There are plenty of ways to accomplish that, like education, pushing for social changes, voting, pushing for legislation that makes the system more democratic and protects queer people, etc.

On top of that, one does not need an alternative plan to condemn yours. The ends simply don’t justify the means, so even if there isn’t an alternative, your plan is still wrong and worse than maintaining the status quo for everyone, including other LGBT people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

I’m not convinced that society needs to be “queered” for a more vibrant and inclusive ethos to grow in the first place; I think that’d actually be counterproductive since that’d still be exclusive, not inclusive.

Excluding intolerant non-queers is part and parcel of creating a more inclusive society. What’s the alternative? Let them run us out of town? Oh wait, that’s literally what we lived through for millennia. And now you want the genie to be stuffed back into the bottle?

Pride should be a year long thing, not just for a month.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Not wanting to force MAGAts into modern-day gladiator matches is not inconsistent with “calling for the expulsion of MAGAts from civil society”, and “defending” ≠ “supporting”, either, so even by your own BS logic and absurd definition for “supports them” that no sane person would agree with, that still wouldn’t mean Mr. Wilson here is defending traitors by not wanting to force MAGAts into modern-day gladiator matches even if we may agree that all MAGAts are traitors.

Seriously, the number of false equivalences in your comments is simply staggering.

But yeah, only a troll or someone who has lost all perspective on the issue thinks that not wanting to expel all MAGAts from civil society is supporting them, so what is considered supporting someone “as far as you’re concerned” is completely meaningless. It only serves to show that you aren’t capable of having a reasonable discussion and have nothing to say that is worth considering.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

So, you’re willing to pay for all that training real UFC fighters have to go through? All the manager costs, booking fees, etc, etc, etc?

Do I even have to remind you that a good chunk of real UFC fighters are minorities and foreigners?

Your idea is even more insulting than the actual gladiatorial bloodsports in Rome.

Especially when I suspect you’re more interested in turning it into something akin to an underground dog-fighting league.

Undocumented immigrants are NOT dogs. And dogs should never be treated like that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, they’re actually telling the truth (for once).

Well, they might be the same troll rather than two different trolls, but it is true that, in the replies to a flagged comment above, someone proposed throwing all straight people into camps, and someone said that all Trump supporters should be killed. Whether they genuinely think that or not and whether they are the same person or not, they are still trolls who said pretty much exactly what this person claims they said in response to a flagged comment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Look man…Fascists will eventually use violent means against us no matter what–it’s part of what makes them fascists.

They’re counting on us to be soft (since we’re the side that’s open to tolerance) and not say or do anything because we aren’t directly affected by their persecuting undocumented migrants, trans women, Blacks, Palestinians, etc.

So, since we’re damned if we do or don’t, we might as well employ righteous violence to resist American fascists (i.e., Republicans, Christians, cis people, etc.).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

So, since we’re damned if we do or don’t, we might as well employ righteous violence to resist American fascists (i.e., Republicans, Christians, cis people, etc.).

And this is how we know you’re a troll—by including cis people in a Venn diagram of fascists. 97% of the population is fascist? GTFO with that bullshit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Cis isn’t a synonym or useful stand-in for heteronormative. Not all cis folk are heteronormative. Plenty of cis folk are not hetero.

Again, you’re cosplaying and you don’t know the source material. You’re using the terminology all wrong like someone who thinks just dropping the words in a sentence is all that matters. You’re espousing actions that contradict the values. You’re a how do you do fellow kids meme in real life.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

“Heteronormative” ≠ “cis”, “heteronormative” ≠ “cisheteronormative”, and “cis” ≠ “cisheteronormative”

Yet another false equivalence and hasty generalization. Plenty of cis people oppose heteronormativity (and plenty of those people also oppose cisheteronormativity). Heck, plenty of cis people aren’t even heterosexual to begin with!

As such, it makes precisely zero difference whether heteronormative people are or can be authoritarian or hateful at all, let alone “some of the most authoritarian or hateful people out there”; that still wouldn’t justify lumping in cis people with fascists. You are taking characteristics of one group and applying it to another group that isn’t wholly within the first one. It’s like when transphobes justify anti-trans or anti-gay legislation on the basis that grooming and pedophilia are bad even though those aren’t even remotely the same thing, or when some people call either all atheists or all Christians fascists solely because Nazis were genocidal fascists. Okay, but this still doesn’t tell us anything about the group we were talking about.

And, of course, this all assumes that all authoritarians are fascists (which is false; there are multiple kinds of authoritarianism, and fascism is simply a kind of authoritarianism) and that all heteronormative people are authoritarians (which doesn’t even necessarily follow from your own claim, which only says that they can be, not that all of them are). That’s two more skipped steps, false equivalences, and/or hasty generalizations.

Still, since those two things are hardly the most egregious cases of just those specific fallacies in just this thread alone (or even in just that one sentence), I’m willing to let them slide for now and focus on the fact that nothing you’ve said thus far, even if true, justifies your inclusion of all cis people in your examples of fascists.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

since we’re damned if we do or don’t, we might as well employ righteous violence

And what do you think will happen if you start killing people indiscriminately over politics? Because I can assure you that being called “freedom fighter” or “savior” is way down at the bottom of that list and being called “domestic terrorist” or “mass murderer” is right at the top.

I recognize that violence being met with non-violence can be seen as a stupid decision. But meeting non-violence with violence⁠—especially lethal violence⁠—is a far worse decision. For all your bluster about fascism and violence and moral righteousness, you’re still suggesting that preëmptive physical violence (up to and including murder) is the first, best, and only solution to the existence of people who hold even the most slightly conservative views. I mean, you literally condemned to death cisgender people and Christians, two groups that happen to contain a lot of queer people and people of color. You’re not even trying to hide that you’re a right-wing extremist who is projecting your views about violence onto anyone even one millimeter left of the political center because you’re desperate to believe “let’s kill every cis person” is something that actual queer people actually believe so you can justify killing them in “self-defense”.

Seriously, man, the “radical extremist” sockpuppet schtick gives you away every time you post regardless of whether you’re acting like a right-winger or a left-winger. Get some professional psychiatric help for your trolling addiction, son. Save yourself before you end up hurting yourself.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Look man…Fascists will eventually use violent means against us no matter what–it’s part of what makes them fascists.

Even assuming that’s true, we aren’t talking about fascists here; we’re talking about straight white people, most of whom are not fascists.

They’re counting on us to be soft (since we’re the side that’s open to tolerance) […]

Correction: Most LGBT people and most pro-trans activists are on the side that’s open to tolerance. What you’re proposing is intolerance not just of others’ intolerance (which is fine) but of an entire demographic, many of whom are also open to tolerance. As such, you are not on the side that’s open to tolerance; you’re on the side that’s given up on tolerance.

[…] and not say or do anything because we aren’t directly affected by their persecuting undocumented migrants, trans women, Blacks, Palestinians, etc.

Except that Stephen isn’t saying to not say or do anything; he’s just saying that what you are advocating for goes too far.

You also assume that Stephen hasn’t been directly affected by that persecution. I seem to recall him saying that he’s gay, and he may also be black (IDK), so it wouldn’t surprise me if he was directly affected. And there are some straight white guys who aren’t cisgender or who fall under another persecuted demographic (like autism or mental illness or homelessness) and so could be directly affected by that persecution.

So, since we’re damned if we do or don’t, […]

You’re not.

[…] we might as well employ righteous violence to resist American fascists (i.e., Republicans, Christians, cis people, etc.).

Lots of Christians and cis people are not fascists or even Republicans. (İ mean, for one thing, Stephen is cis, and he’s definitely not a fascist.) Heck, not even all white, cis, straight, male, Christian conservatives are fascists or Republicans, and not all white, cis, male Christians are even conservatives. You’re engaging in hasty generalization, which is a fallacy.

Moreover, your proposal isn’t “righteous violence”; it’s disproportionate, improperly targeted violence. And it’s not just to resist fascists; it’s to oppress them. What you’re advocating is just another form of unjust oppression, no better than the system you want to replace. Injustice against you doesn’t justify injustice against your former oppressors, let alone against people who never oppressed you to begin with and even supported the end to your oppression but just so happen to have some characteristics in common with them.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Stephen isn’t saying to not say or do anything; he’s just saying that what you are advocating for goes too far.

For the record: I advocate for non-violence in regards to achieving political goals. Violence doesn’t redeem people and it only ever creates more problems than it solves. My advocacy for violence, then, is done in the context of a problem where violence has become the only possible solution. And I would only advocate for lethal violence in a context where that level of violence is the only reasonable way to end a violent situation.

You also assume that Stephen hasn’t been directly affected by that persecution.

To be fair here, I am not a…let’s say, very social person (and that’s being exceptionally charitable!), so while I haven’t experienced any direct persecution, I am very much against the idea that queer people in general should face any kind of persecution for being openly queer.

I seem to recall him saying that he’s gay, and he may also be black (IDK)

Again, for the record: I’m bisexual (I sit between a 1 and a 2 on the Kinsey scale) and I’m White. The whole “he’s Black” thing was borne from some dumbass troll who…well, I don’t know why they started believing I was Black, but I’ve never once said (or tried to imply!) that I’m Black.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Elevating queer people and minorities necessarily entails repressing straight white people.

No, no it does not. Removal of the privilege to repress others is not itself repression, nor is removal of the benefits that one has due to others being repressed is not itself repression.

Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it’s what needs to happen.

No, it doesn’t. You’re just claiming that it does, and pointing out that you’re wrong here isn’t being done to avoid uncomfortable truths; it’s because you’re wrong.

They’ll never take the boot off our necks otherwise.

Except that several places have removed the boot from your necks without repressing anyone else. Sure, there’s still a long way to go, and there are plenty of areas where the boot is still firmly in place, but the point is that it can be done without being as bad as if not worse than your oppressors by engaging in repression yourself.

Anonymous Coward says:

AC said:

This is why we need to strike preemptively against the MAGAts. It kinda worked against Trump w/ the politically-motivated felony prosecutions, but more active means are required against his supporters.

No, we need to strike back retroactively. With better laws. Striking back with violence, as you suggest, makes you worse than the people you’re striking back against, and striking back pre-emptively leads to the whole problems of pre-crime, which no one can actually prove because such activity may be for purposes other than crime (e.g., I once ‘planned’ a murder for a story I wrote in English class).

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...