COMMUNITY/MODS: want this post gone, it’s gone - would remove ASAP.
Please be excellent to each other here. We have to self moderate or I’ll delete without being asked. Assume good intent.
I’m pro human which is why I’d rather have some people in office here in the US than others, and why I’m pro human rights.
Trans rights are human rights.
After reading criticism of the dems, this question resurfaced in my mind. I know we don’t have time machines, I know it’s easy to claim a false equivalency is being drawn. So note this question doesn’t represent reality. It represents a curiosity of a hypothetical.
Trans rights are human rights! Thank you.
PS: I hope neither this post nor its comments represent/produce any content that bad people will use to make arguments to further evil causes. Have I already erred? Yes I’m worried, I’m also curious enough to hit this post button here… gulp
alt text of featured screenshot
Imagine you have a time machine that lets you peek into the future, specifically the 2024 election. You can see two possible pathways:
Pathway 1: Democrats go all-in on trans rights.
They champion inclusive policies, fight for trans healthcare, and actively challenge anti-trans legislation. However, this galvanizes the opposition and they lose the election.
Pathway 2: Democrats stay completely silent on trans rights.
They avoid the issue entirely, focusing on other policy areas. This strategy helps them win the election, but trans rights are left in a vulnerable position.
The question is: which pathway would you choose?
Would you prioritize a Democrat win, even if it means sacrificing progress on trans rights? Or would you fight for trans rights, even if it means risking a loss?
This kind of post just shows why I think politicians are spineless cowards. If winning is everything to anyone, they should stick to investing in a stock market.
But American politicians can invest in the stock market with insider knowledge.
The politicians may want the win for selfish reasons. You just want the best representatives for yourself, your loved ones, and your country.
This hypothetical allows you to weigh a party taking the moral high ground against representatives the average Lemming does not want making four years of policy decisions being in a position to do so.
You can give the party you want to win a spine, but it comes at a cost.
Your final claim is the one that's in question. You think it's true, but maybe it's totally false. For example, I think Al Gore and Hillary Clinton got the results they got because of their spinelessness, in part.
To some degree, the principle that I'm talking about is quite clear. In a situation where a large percent of the population doesn't vote at all, it's the candidates job to get people excited enough to cast their vote. One way of doing that is to have a firm position, to show that you have integrity, to show that your values mean something. Of course when people get elected then they might have to cut deals in order to pass legislation, and we all understand that, but if you throw your values out the window before the election even happens, I'm not going to vote for you.