Zenlitened
Zenlitened's JournalI'm certain their "objections" are not genuine at all.
I'm certain that this all a tactic they deploy: Phony Outrage.
Newt Gingrich built his whole career on this kind of shit back in the 1990s.
Screeching and squawking, boo hoo hoo-ing over every little thing.
Blowing even the most minor comment massively out of proportion.
Squealing "it's reprehensible!!!" and demanding constant apologies.
The goal: Knock your opponent back on his heels, get him reacting to nonsense instead of pressing his own attack.
Sidetrack the conversation, get people all riled-up and arguing over anything but the hard truths we as a people have to face, the important decisions we need to make.
Gingrich injected this toxic technique into our national discourse decades ago. And he's still at it now.
I'm convinced there's no "why" to this latest criticism of Pres. Obama, because there's no sincerity to it at all.
It's just intended to fuck things up. That's what they do.
"...find ways to slow, stop or counter the insidious, right-wing meme machine"
Agreed, this needs to be a top priority.
Should've been for about two decades, now, at least.
I think the first step is for us all, especially those in a position to make themselves heard, to be willing to call a lie a lie.
That goes for the Democrats we elect as leaders, certainly.
No, they can't go spouting off like we do on a message board.
But they need to recognize moments when the studied etiquette of the Senate floor, for example, just doesn't get our message out.
Not when it's up against the kind of deliberate, unrelenting, reality-warping propaganda the rightwing spews daily, exactly as you describe.
Excellent, excellent post.
Please consider turning it into an OP.
They have taken the "Big Lie" technique and mated it to a stunningly cruel and cynical sadism, to produce something monstrous.
Truly monstrous.
Yeah, I find that phrase galling. Like, here's a fact:
I'm not a sinner.
And I'd go a step further: There's no such thing as "sin."
Only cruelty, so reflexive and habitual, so casual in its contempt and so satisfied amid the harm it causes, that it rises to the level of Evil.
Real evil.
Which is an entirely human attribute or artifact, no god or gods required.
How Not to be Defensive When Accused of Transphobia (A Guide For Cis People)
By Lisa Harney
QuestioningTransphobia.com
5) Don’t Make It About Your Accuser. ...Don’t tell them they’re trying to silence you – they’re not, they’re trying to tell you how your words and actions hurt them. Don’t tell them they’re driving you away. Don’t make the accusation that “any disagreement with a trans person is labeled as transphobia.” None of these things are true, and trying to claim they are is simply an attempt to stop others from pointing out your transphobic behavior. ...
6) Don’t "Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner." Don’t try to justify your actions by claiming you’re opposed to transgender politics. Just don’t. You’re rationalizing your transphobia and imposing your worldview on trans people, by assigning motives and politics to them that they may not themselves have. ...You’re not dealing with theory, you’re dealing with human beings, and their lives. To you, the question as to whether trans people have valid identities may be a matter of theory. For trans people, it’s a matter of life and death.
Link:
http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2632
"Feels like home: Helping homeless LGBT youth"
If your faith in humankind has been... um... ebbing lately...
By Mona Iskander
January 13, 2012
This week, as part of our ongoing effort to shed light on under-reported issues, we focus on a problem a surprising number of young gay people experience: homelessness — often because of rejection by their families.
Need to Know correspondent Mona Iskander traveled to Minneapolis recently. There she met one young man who made it up from the streets thanks to a small innovative program now drawing attention across the country.
Video available at link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-feels-like-home-helping-homeless-lgbt-youth/12835/
May be more accurate to say "crossdresser" is a subset of "transgender."
"Transgender" (abbreviated TG) is kind of a blanket term for all people around the issue of gender expression.
Some within the TG community feel it is overly broad, too encompassing, and they prefer terms that communicate something more specific.
But overall I think there is a fairly clear consensus that TG is a good you-get-the-idea sort of term, and that specifics can be added as needed, like in any conversation.
Regarding implications of pathology, that is exactly the issue in the evolution of some of these terms.
In this case, though, both "crossdresser" (abbreviated CD) and "transgender" ARE the new terms, meant to replace the old, medical terms that, as you point out, seem to imply pathology.
"Crossdresser" replaces "transvestite," while "transgender" sort of replaces "transsexual" (abreviated TS).
I say sort of, because "transgender" didn't just replace, it was also meant to be more inclusive, more encompassing. And "transsexual" is still used at times, primarily by folks who plan to have or have had genital surgery.
I guess you could say a TS person is TG, but a TG person is not necessarily TS. While a CD person is also TG, but might not prefer to be called TG lest someone think they are TS, though they won't really take offense and will simply correct you. And, of course, someone who is TS will almost always prefer not to be called CD, although TG is pretty much fine and no offense will be taken.
Does that clear things up?
Uh, yah, no... no it doesn't at all! 
Thus "transgender."
Simple, easy to remember once you get the hang of it, and safe to use in pretty much all occasions when the conversation turns to gender expression.
What are DU3's Community Standards? What do we want our CS to be?
Perhaps we should "convene" right here in Help and Meta to begin drafting, by consensus, a document to encapsulate the various ideas people have about CS.
Something that would give future jurors a clearer sense of the community's sentiment.
It's true we no longer have a set of Rules handed down from On High. As I understand it, that's by design, and IMO it's a good approach. One that will require some time and patience to nurture.
Others, however, feel it's become a free-for-all here, and that bad precedents are being set, an overall poor standard emerging already. And they're concerned it may become irrevocable at some point.
I don't favor a new set of rules created by admins. I think it would be more in keeping with the intent (as I understand it) of the new DU, and make better use of it's still-unexplored potential, if the members themselves held a summit or conference open to all, to attempt to express the various wants and don't-wants of the community present right now.
Maybe start from scratch, maybe begin with existing guidance from the admins... I dunno. We'll see what emerges, or begins to emerge, I suppose.
What do you think?
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Massachusetts
Home country: USA
Member since: Fri Dec 3, 2004, 02:09 PM
Number of posts: 9,488
