This is such a good analysis. It sets the record straight on so many fundamental issues of American global politics.

And a Fox News presenter in an interview with that piece of shit the WH Press Secretary, suggested the Death Penalty for Tesla attackers, blaming Trump Derangement Syndrome

AI slop and my ML instance-ship? Ok dude, whatever…

First things first, the 66% is not reliable when you clearly see that the data is segregated along party lines. Nevertheless, there is a rise in favor of restrictions among Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents. I have explained in the above and I will reiterate here that this can be explained in the network structure and dynamics of MAGA propaganda.

Since you make clear that you do NOT argue for a concession but in pursuit of a convincing argument, I respond below. But you make clear that you are not support watering down trans rights, so that none of the devastating arguments I presented is relevant to your position. Let’s examine that then.

The “convincing argument” you are talking about is a lost cause, because you forget that the right does not listen to reason. If you follow the link I have linked at the word “sports” you will see that there are several arguments about it. It doesn’t matter at all. There are great arguments out there, for the whole range of transphobic fascist propaganda. The problem is that it does not reach critical mass. In comparison, transphobic propaganda is obscenely funded and organized, as the rest of the links suggest. Specifically those links:

Right wing domination of the online media ecosystem

Racist propaganda

Nazi propaganda

Wartime propaganda tactics

Who the fuck funds so many anti-trans hate groups?

Democrat’s media outlets spewing transphobic prejudice

Democrat media outlets 2

Gender critical “leftist” intellectuals

See if you cared about putting forward a convincing argument, you would take links such as this, and this includes my own posts, and would push them to a wider and wider network of ambassadors and online/offline propagandists, to reach as many people as possible. Agitating in left-wing forums, bordering on concern-trolling, crying there is no convincing argument for trans women in women’s sports, does not cut it. It is defeatist and achieves exactly one thing: to out you as a person who is not individually persuaded by a single argument in favor of trans people. I will not make assumptions about your precious individuality as to why is that. For the majority of people it is just SELF-CENSORED cis-genderism.

The plethora of right wing propaganda agents and the substantial amount of center-left cisgenderist apologists gives a sufficient explanation as to why public discourse has regressed more and more to more primitive and dehumanizing stereotypes and truism, no matter how many great arguments trans advocates have put out there.

Additionally:

• Because mainstream platforms amplified hate speech, failed to moderate harassment, shadow banned, echo-chambered, and eventually pushed out advocates and turned into nazi bars.
• Because the ever-growing right wing propaganda network became more and more interconnected and overlapping, that successive cycles of outrage and backlash allowed them to prevail in mass culture, by pushing more and more reactionary points.
• Because this all went down without a shred of a response from Democrats.

Even the data you present reveal the most important thing about them: their TIME RANGE. There is no other explanation than the insane reach of transphobic fascist propaganda. I don’t have the tools as an individual to break down how the content has regressed from “legitimate concerns” to raw, primal, animus against trans people. But this is what was done:

They went from “We are NOT saying trans people ARE perverts and predators, BUT that real predators MIGHT exploit self-identification to wear dresses and attack women in segregated spaces”, all the way to “trans people are groomers, rapists and pedophiles” in a span of a few short years.

The arguments were right there, like Zinnia Jones had debunked the bathroom thing as soon as 2015. Same goes for detransition rates and effectiveness of transition. The issue here is not the message but the network of information flow that is entirely controlled by the platforms and the racist and nazi funds that are backing them and manipulating them.

Relevant research also shows (in the propaganda firehose article I have linked in the text) that responding to organized propaganda is futile. The response to this is to GROW SUPPORT for trans people, which is consistent with years and years of insight that transphobes DON’T listen to reason. The rare EXCEPTION is this dude. What changed his mind? Listening. That is what changed his mind.

If you care about trans issues, you should see to the available information to reach as many people as possible, both in quantity as well as information flow patterns in the network.

I would add, a proactive strategy for dismantling platforms and suppressing hate-speech are also part of the solution.

Since you insist that you never said that the left must concede on trans sports and condone segregation on the basis of gender identity, I will take it that my previous argumentation does not apply to your take, and you subscribe that eroding the rights of any protected group is out of the question, as far as your suggested strategy is concerned.

As per your own statements, you only think that there is not a convincing argument for trans women participation in sports, I have linked to a number of scientific arguments, and I added the moral in-feasibility of segregation on top of that. Is there anything else?

Trigger Warning: Get a pack of Kleenex and load your favorite Daily Wire playlists to have handy, because this is not going to be a light read for a self-proclaimed intelligent centrist.

The left is getting killed on the trans sports issue

Do you have any data backing this? And what analysis goes with the data?

Don’t let me be misunderstood: Rights are not defined by majorities, otherwise you could have a white majority voting on the humanity of black people, and wolves voting on the right of sheep not to be eaten.

On the other hand, the public’s views are heavily conditioned by misanthropic, anti-democratic propaganda, that shifts the window of acceptable discourse, and excludes people from a set of fundamental freedoms that cisgender people take for granted. As a consequence, the ubiquitous genocidal discourse against trans lives, if left unchecked leads (and this is by now not a prediction but a historical fact) to erosion of rights of women, blacks, indigenous, disabled, and every other citizen. Because these freedoms are not “special” to trans people, but are mere extension of legal scholarship and the rule of law. The ongoing American fascism is not an overreach of “legitimate concerns” but it is profoundly, structurally embedded in challenging the legitimacy of trans people. This is why TERFism was initially deemed “unworthy of respect” by British courts: because it goes against TONS of legal precedent.

Long story short, in the times of “Der Stürmer” you could have said that the majority of German did not think Jews should be married to Germans. So what? So much for the argument that we should sacrifice human rights of ANY group because they are unpopular.

ALL protections exist so that UNPOPULAR groups enjoy the rights that the majorities take for granted. Outside that logic there is only fascism.

It is much like segregation (which, surprise, is coming back again) and apartheid: The Feelings of uneasy white people sharing bathrooms and sports with black people, are of no importance whatsoever, because, simply, segregation is dehumanizing and unjust.

By extension, what you suggest is morally corrupt and inhumane, and it is deeply fascist in its very conception.

Now, we are arriving at the data. Bear with me.

You people hand-wave a fucking lot when you suggest that trans rights are so unpopular that they have lost you elections, when there have been multiple arguments that Democrats barely touched on the topic, apart from being loosely against killing trans people in pogroms and LUKEWARM at that. So your argument amounts to little more than “Fascist discourse is more trendy so let’s do that instead”, which is not JUST the Ratchet effect: it is “being complicit to actual genocide”.

So you HAND-WAVE about an IMAGINARY regular person (who is that fucking nazi?) to whom we must bow under all circumstances? Fuck that populist tactics, and fucking educate people.

But does this IMAGINARY nazi-enabling regular Joe even exist?

And what studies you cite for him not being able to revise being a shit person

Views differ even more widely along party lines. For example, eight-in-ten Democrats say they favor laws or policies that would protect trans individuals from discrimination, compared with 48% of Republicans. Conversely, by margins of about 40 percentage points or more, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to express support for laws or policies that would do each of the following: require trans athletes to compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth (85% of Republicans vs. 37% of Democrats favor); make it illegal for health care professionals to provide someone younger than 18 with medical care for a gender transition (72% vs. 26%); make it illegal for public school districts to teach about gender identity in elementary schools (69% vs. 18%); require transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth (67% vs. 20%); and investigate parents for child abuse if they help someone younger than 18 get medical care for a gender transition (59% vs. 17%).

Which is from Pew which others like you like to point to as a general “trans rights unpopular with our voter base”, but if you actually read you will see that you can even find a small percentage of Republicans that are not vehemently against trans rights. And let’s not forget that the percentage of Democrats against trans rights would be very much different if Democrat’s media outlets weren’t fucking complicit in amplifying genocidal “gender critical” misanthropy, and there weren’t a score of fucking “leftist” intellectuals adopting their talk points, when there was ZERO voice given to the marginalized trans scholarship. So, this consent you talk to is manufactured by complicit Democrats to start with.

You would not make this argument unless you wanted to appeal to the Republican voter base, but doing so only shows that it is voter trends that guide your politics and not principles, and in fact, you are willing to enable crimes against humanity to appeal to a fascist voter base. This is unscrupulous and misanthropic.

Instead of succumbing to extremely well-funded racist and nazi propaganda, a principled political advocate with such means and resources as the Democrats could help alleviate what is a systematic attack to decent society and inclusive democracy. Therefore, your advocacy ultimately paints the Democrats as a manufactured opposition, and essentially a fascist party, once it does not stand for human rights, as it never were.

Centrists should be actively considered agitator agents for fascism at this point. Like, have you clowns even considered that your voter base might want you to grow a fucking spine and stand up for human rights, with trans rights front and center? Because I only see your democratic voter base being alienated by your flirt with fascism.

“We did not feel rewarded at the end of the Hackathon,” said Xun. “Because we tested it so much, we were both so diseased from vaping.”

Why on earth are they pursuing this. We all know this is not a real problem.

If it was a scare crow to attack trans rights, they have achieved that. They have pulverized trans rights in many places, especially bathroom access.

Who stands to gain from this? It is not a real problem!

I did not change the title as per community rules. But the title is misleading.

The full quote was disparaging the public sector employees, suggesting it was “the public sector employees” who perpetrated the Holocaust. You want a quick debunk?

• The Holocaust was decided by the higher echelons of the Nazi party, including Hitler.
• Goebbels has written about it in his diaries.
• Hoess was supervisor in Auschwitz II, and has written extensively about the daily murders in the gas chambers.
• Himmler gave an infamous speech to raise the morale of the SS who had PTSD from the massacres in the Eastern Front.

From Wikipedia:

Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler became the chief architect of a new plan, which came to be called The Final Solution to the Jewish question.[20] On 31 July 1941, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring wrote to Reinhard Heydrich (Himmler’s deputy and chief of the RSHA),[21][22] authorising him to make the “necessary preparations” for a “total solution of the Jewish question” and coordinate with all affected organizations. Göring also instructed Heydrich to submit concrete proposals for the implementation of the new projected goal.[23][24]

The plans to exterminate all the Jews of Europe were formalized at the Wannsee Conference, held at an SS guesthouse near Berlin,[28] on 20 January 1942. The conference was chaired by Heydrich and attended by 15 senior officials of the Nazi Party and the German government. Most of those attending were representatives of the Interior Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, and the Justice Ministry, including Ministers for the Eastern Territories.

After all, I have zero fucks left for Musk: he hates blacks, women, and trans people to a degree comparable to how Hitler hated Jewish people, that his actual antisemitic sentiment would not change a thing. Whether he starts revisiting or denying the death camps tomorrow will surprise exactly zero people. We are past that point.

There is no ongoing discussion about him being a Nazi or not. He fucking is. As a major propagandist of this despicable operation he will have the same fate as the original Nazi leaders, and that is for sure.

The tweet in question is to interpreted as vilification of the administrative branch, and serve as positional defense at a moment where he risks being held accountable for DOGE cuts. This is how it should be interpreted.

Don’t forget to listen to some Doom while you’re at it.

A Caribbean genre revived by black marginalized youth in the formerly imperialist Thatcher’s UK? Are you …sure?

Actually resistance in concentration camps is an untold saga. The most famous example is the inverse “B” in “Arbeit Macht Frei”, but there where more examples, and less subtle too, like full blown antifascist banners in barracks, even sabotage and espionage in the gas chambers. Never give up!

I declared an internal data breach, submitted it to the fed—as you legally must in this country—and shit hit the fan for that department.

You are a legend

Is it like…an app?

Well, we won’t starve him to death with boycotts. The notion is that he is considered the richest man in the world because of the valuation, and how much he has in collateral Tesla stock. Throwing him off the first spot seems so easy now, and it will be ego-shattering for this narcissist bastard. Good enough for me.

I do think it is mildly infuriating.

Restoring Meritocracy since 1998 give or take.

We aren’t special.

You should dial this statement way up. The population of Lemmy is definitely not a representative demographic. Nor is Reddit’s.

There is a conceptual distinction: Encryption in transit vs. encryption at rest. You may send the packets encrypted to the server, but if they are not encrypted on the server’s file system, anyone can read them.

The real question is, why do you think governments make such a big fuss about citizens having access to military grade encryption?

There have been audits of e2ee implementations, and the algorithms used also have some objective properties. I don’t think that I have ever heard in cryptography discussions that backdoors are so widespread that the discussion is moot. I have only heard, time and time again, the opposite.

Even Apple, in this very occasion, opted to ditch the service rather than backdoor it, and in fact takes the UK to court over this. I think that the opinion that this is all for show is a tad wild, and not very well supported in this occasion.

Like every cryptology book starts with the adage “There is cryptography that prevents your little sister from reading your mail, and cryptography that prevents the government from reading your mail, and we will talk about the latter.”

https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2025/02/23/three-questions-about-apple-encryption-and-the-u-k/

On the other hand, not all implementations are created equal. Telegram was recently under fire, and there is a lot of variance in e2ee implementations in XMPP clients, IIRC.

At this point you are allowed to put “George Soros” in scare quotes too. It is a good time to be alive. /S

You expect him to conceive that different words mean different things?

I was halfway in reading this, and laughing at every fucking period. Then I said “That’s it, this is ‘Not The Onion’ material.”