Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

the lies are in his constant mischaracterization that an "opposite reaction" to historic injustice is what's being sought. Nobody is looking to take away white peoples' rights, and nobody has argued for that.
He's also repeatedly conflated consequences for expressing bigotry/belittlement in certain situations (i.e.: workplaces) as "criminalizing" those expressions.
And of course there's always his denial of emotional damage as even existing, let alone that it can be caused by verbal and emotional abuse.

Denying and distorting truth is the same as lying. /shrug

I play along because I have to be patient with the circular rationalizations of simpletons in the real world, but not so much here. For a guy who doesn't believe it therapy, he's actually quite useful for it.

The ONLY reason to believe that shit is from propaganda meant to scare you into voting Republican.
UA doesn't vote.
There's no reason to listen to their shit.
That's another thing; he thinks it's not GOP if it just trickles three Kevin Bacon steps away.
Or else he thinks that's plausible enough deniability to confuzzle us, cuz "libs are so dumb".
I used to struggle over which, now I don't even care.

Anyway! It's a tactic that goes all the way back to "if we free the slaves, they'll kill us!! ".
Hell, some crazy motherfuckers are still waiting for the big race riot to end all race riots.

You are now just being overtly dishonest, ignoring half of what I sat and distorting the rest. You may go eat crayons in the corner with Spacet

No, genius. The implication was that it was that job or prison FOR YOU. Maybe after being a patient a few times.

I guarantee you I give more than I get, but that social contract is a figment of your imagination anyway. Not binding until I say it is, on MY terms.

Cite one inaccuracy.

Prove one lie. Show your work. None of this "every post you've ever made" lazy fucking copout. Put up or shut up if you've actually got the goods.

Oh, get fucked with your hacky fucking "mock trial" routine. Your brand of bad faith distortion isn't the least bit impressive.

I do vote, and you are well aware.

Lie some more.

If you could ever refute anything, you wouldn't fall back on your "attack the source " routine. It doesn't matter who says it if it's true.

Again, as I said to RickDeckard, "Bad faith" implies I am trying to reach since accord with you. I'm not.
I think this persona here, it's as genuine as a pro wrestler. There is no way, none whatsoever, that someone with THOSE opinions can get married to not one, but two different women with diametrically opposing viewpoints unless you are a vastly different person in your day-to-day life.
So there's no point in trying to reach accord with you. And thus no bad faith. But your talking points, such as they are, have been stated seriously by right-wing nutcase across the country, so it's enjoyable to bounce logic and decency off of it.

1. It's not though.
2. Hitler said don't smoke. If I'm an ad exec, I'm not putting Hitler in my PSAs. It does fucking matter.
3. See 1 again.

Logic?

You spew boilerplate bumper sticker crap and misrepresent other people's words to fit those sentiments.

Back in the corner with the crayons.

Because you say so, and that's the end of it.
Get fucked.

Right to Hitler. Hallmark of a good faith reply.

I'm being dishonest by asking a question?
I'm not ignoring a thing. I'm just wondering why, exactly, you are so vehemently opposed to the acknowledgement of trans people in school classrooms. I'd say if you really think that way, the only one ignoring what you've said is...you.

One more chance for you.


What I am vehement about, what I'll accept, accommodate or even validate, are all off the table unless everyone is given a CHOICE.

If you seek to abuse any level of authority to force compliance, you're done. You've ceded all legitimacy in favor of "might makes right."

Al, I am sorry if I've misrepresented you. Truly, I am. Let's start over.
Do you think teachers should be banned from talking about trans people in the classroom?
That should clear everything up.

Asked and answered. Follow the fucking conversation.

Oh, look. ASKED AND FUCKING ANSWERED.

Okay, well, now this we can work with.
What would categorize as "forcing" compliance? Because, really, that covers a lot of ground. One could say Obergefell V. Hodges forces compliance. On the other hand, one could say DOMA forced compliance. Or Title 9. Or pretty much every civil rights law ever.
So how would you define it in this instance?

Okay. Well, if you were to say one was "required" to treat someone equally, is that telling them what to think about it?

You will not compel participation in wish magic fairy tales. That covers religion and "gender ideology."

I'm not sure what gender ideology would even be in this case.

Imagine a circle of kids gathering around a trans kid, and going "where do you think YOU'RE goin' tranny? ".
Now imagine a principal holding a gun to a teacher's head not to intervene.
Now imagine the beaten up trans kid going home with a note saying "put pants on your kid, or you're next! ".

"Gender ideology" is meekly asking "how about we not live that world? Huh?".

Yeah, yeah, UA will slippery slope it so that that's always the first step to forced penal-ectomies, but his propagandists literally start shrieking at even that much.

Always makes me chuckle when a Libertarian mentions wish fulfilment.

Yeah, if we just remove all government, humans will magically reach a point where a person can live comfortably off their own sweat and graft and no-one will ever take advantage of a power imbalance, ohnononono.

BTW, this isn't even an exaggeration of what DeSantis and Abbott want.

Or by responding to a response with the accusation of “liar”. Doesn’t sound like good faith to me.

Well, to be fair, I'm not telling Albert he's a liar.

This is hilarious considering the next sentence.

Turned out that pro wrestler that everyone believed killed his wife was actually telling the truth. You do know The Fugitive was loosely based on that story.

Anyway, you seem to believe me and [presumably] MrsA are being completely honest, but UA is being disingenuous. Why is that?

No, but you were certainly quick to call me out when I called out Diacanu for doing so.

I suppose because I don't think someone CAN pretend to be nuanced and reasonable. I mean, aside from sociopaths. And honestly, I feel more comfortable believing you are exactly who you seem to be.

The alternative would be unsettling.