God, thank you. Arguing with libs is exhausting. They are completely unable to imagine that there are people who (due to social forces/their upbringing) can not be reached and just need to be silenced.

The reason Nazis and the KKK rally is partially the same reason the Westboro Baptist yell incendiary remarks: because it’s legal

Cool, shouldn’t be.

It gets recorded, then their recruitment surges and that person gets thrown in jail for battery charges while they bait lawsuits for damages. Being taken down physically doesn’t do jack shit.

Only because not enough people punch them. The fear that they instill in others should be instilled in them. Every time they say some shit they should be thinking “will this get me punched if i say this right now?” Every time.

Sorry, that’s not how it work. Again, review Brandenburg v. Ohio. Someone saying mean things to you that doesn’t amount to an imminent violence or a direct threat doesn’t warrant punching

I don’t care what the law says. It is wrong. “Bury the removeds” is inciting violence. I don’t care what a bunch of old fucks in 1969 said. They were wrong. You deserve to be punched if you call a black dude a “dirty removed”. If you disagree then we are at an impass. Law isn’t morality, it was illegal to take slaves to free states, it was illegal to hide Jews from nazis, it was legal to rape your wife till the 90s, it is illegal to punch bigots that call you a slur, and it’s legal to steal someone’s home in the west bank. The law is wrong in this case.

The problem is that you’re going about fighting fascism the wrong way. If you didn’t put the cart before the horse, then it should already be self-evident that fascism is wrong. So this requires going backwards and analyzing why your messaging strategy is failing. Why there is a vector into this radicalization in the first place. Is it genetic predisposition? (hopefully not or at least the bar for evidence is enormous, lest you’re a racist yourself). Is it simply a matter of environmental factors from low education to toxic parenting and diminished opportunity? No differently than the inner-city violence to the white Appalachian poverty & crime, this is probably more likely. So instead of going, “hur let’s punch nazis!”, perhaps we need to assess what are better strategies, from satire & mockery, to actually tackling the key vectors into which a “normie” gets radicalized in the first place. Is this as exciting? No. It’s the harder, more constructive work.

Did i ever say we should only punch them? All of the reasons they turn into Nazis need to be addressed, it’s social/economic, not genetic.

First it starts with, “punching an Israeli occupier to our land is okay!” and steadily progresses

Actually first it starts with being kicked from their homes and being forced into apartide. Were the slaves who killed their owners wrong for doing so?

Congrats, you discovered what feels good isn’t necessarily effective in your end goal.

Okay so I shouldn’t feed the homeless because the end goal is to fix homelessness and poverty and that requires systemic change? Fixing fascism requires systemic change but in the meantime we need to make them fear spreading their ideas. Fixing homelessness/hunger requires systemic change but in the meantime we should feed the homeless.

I love how this was completely and entirely deflected with a modicum of substance. Once again, proving the point that you’re in the “Punch a nazi” thing based on how it feels good to you — not because it actually yields productive results.

You literally said time is better served arguing online lmao. If you would have said canvassing or something (like you did in another comment) I would have agreed with you, but also. You can do both.

That’s how THEY would frame it, wrong though it may be. They then justify their actions because of this perceived preemptive intolerance. Naturally it’s total bullshit and what they’re really fighting for is the maintaining of their historically privileged positions in society. Still, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making. Both circumstances justify preemptive physical violence via ends-justify-the-means mentality.

Dude they frame it that way anyway so if changes nothing. It doesn’t matter. How many of the past few shooters have they accused of being trans based on nothing just do they can frame it like they’re fighting for their existence. Like they scream white genocide at every turn they get.

I mean fuck, man, we teach our kids the same shit: That crossing the verbal-physical barrier of aggression is a no-go with your siblings. Now if they throw the actual first physical punch, then sure.

Because kids aren’t mature enough to grasp nuance and fully understand when words are violent. And frankly? I’m going to teach my kids that it’s okay to punch people that call them or someone else a slur. Maybe not until they’re early teens (because again nuance), but it’s not okay to call someone a “dirty removed” like the old white fucks (and one old black fuck) who decided your coveted Brandenburg v. Ohio thought. Because unlike them and unlike you I do not tolerate the intolerant

The justice system is failing by allowing them to spew and spread their intolerance. They are creating a society that make minorities fear (look at Springfield with literal kkk fliers going around). We should create a society where the intolerant are fearful of spreading their message.

And nobody suggested carte blanche except you and the person you’re supporting (aka a strawman). A punch isn’t a gunshot, it isn’t a stabbing, and it isn’t torture. Their violent rhetoric should be met with violence to make them fear spreading their message.

When the law doesnt align with what’s right then relying on the law is pointless. The law will defend their ability to spread intolerance because the law is tolerant of the intolerant.

Some of you here sound really young — like under 20 — and you’ve just recently learned about this concept and it’s blowing your mind and so you repeat for lack of a better, deeper understanding.

Wrong. Not giving my age on here but you’re way off the mark here

Yet I say again the untouched point: It does not give you carte blanche to react however you see fit.

Here is the biggest strawman, I never said you could do whatever. Don’t rape them, don’t torture them, hell even killing is too far 99% of the time. Fascists thrive on being viewed as strong men and nothing is more humiliating to them than being taken down physically. Words mean nothing to the antisemite

Across the globe we’ve sustained tolerant societies for quite a degree of time without a law that says, “to maintain civil order, we must all punch Nazis, or worse.”

And yet here we are in 2024 with the far right rising globally and “counter protesting harder and voting harder” has done nothing to stop the spread of their messages

Yes, people should be intolerant to intolerance; but there still requires a degree of proportionality at play here. Punching a Nazi violates countless other laws of society we’ve identified for ourselves that help to also maintain a tolerant society, and until that Nazi punches someone themselves, then there is no reciprocation.

Their words are violence. Physical is not the only form of violence. They make minorities fear going outside. It is proportional to make them fear spreading their message through the only means they understand. They are violating the social contract they are no longer covered by the contract

It’s a bait that often leads to martyrdom and increased recruitment. They take said video and go, “look at the tolerant left! Look at their hypocritical ideals about free speech!”

When was the last time you heard from Richard Spencer in a serious/public manner? For me it was not too long after he got humiliated by a fist in the face.

The bar for evidence of vigilante justice is tenuous at best, and you may attack someone innocent, or more importantly someone who may escape from the propaganda in time but now may simply double-down

Or, more likely, the someone who git hit now thinks twice about saying that shit publicly because the remember the feeling of fist on skull. Also innocent? Its not hard to tell when someone is spreading intolerance so that’s not likely to happen

This doesn’t hold up in court. You will get charged with battery and receive a felony while the nazi goes free.

Congrats you discovered law isn’t morality. I will happily give the homeless food in cities where that is illegal.

Your time is better served dismantling the rhetoric online.

Lol, lmao even

Don’t become what you hate. Ironically the rhetoric you use here is also the logical loophole for which right-wing extremists rationalize their violence as to why they are the good guys.

Really? They believe you should only attack the intolerant? I thought they wanted to attack me a trans person for existing in front of society, or interacting with children, or because I’m simply an abomination.

contact the police and allow actual justice to take place

And when the police are KKK? When the police are the Nazis? This is such a privileged perspective it’s not even funny. “Cawl the poweeeeccee” as if they haven’t historically sided with the intolerant. You have so much faith in the justice system. Law isn’t morality it’s an enforcement of what those in power want.

This is also ignoring that intolerance isn’t illegal. So cops won’t do shit and might even arrest you for wasting their time. Fucking libs I swear. Don’t worry about it someone will do the punching for you while you stay back and call the cops for them to shoot a nearby dog or arrest the black person in the situation.

Also I said why other than law because I assumed you knew that law doesn’t function to enforce tolerance. Clearly I overestimated you.

The social contract only applies to the tolerent. By allowing the intolerant to spread their hate you allow them to spread their ideas. Physical violence isn’t the only kind of violence. Allowing the intolerant to speak intolerance you are being tolerent of the intolerant.

intolerance to intolerance does not grant carte blanche reaction.

Intolerance of intolerance is the only way to maintain a tolerant society.

If you see a KKK person expressing free speech, one cannot simply shoot them.

Give me a reason you can’t other than law (and I’m ignoring you jumping from punching to shooting)

Don’t doubt that they’re doing this for evil reasons

They do exist and they are just as valid, but they’re definitely not the ones competing in sports (plus there are already requirements for trans women to be on HRT before competing in women’s leagues)

There already are requirements for trans women to be taking HRT before competing against women. I believe the current one is 1 year. No cis man would want to take HRT that would cause them to grow boobs so that argument is moot.

Edit: imo 1 year is too soon. From a study I read 2 should be good for endurance sports, and 3-5 should be good for others. It’s not right to delay the lives of trans people any further then they’re already being delayed and it’s not like exceptional cis women don’t exist

Plus this all gets solved if we let trans teens transition since these differences happen during puberty

That compete in sports? No.

The vast-vast majority of trans women take HRT and many of the ones that don’t, don’t because of a lack of access.

The point is that chromosomes are clearly not what deterimes sex if a female was born with XY chromosomes. Genetic mutations are a part of life and we literally can’t know the percentage of females born with XY without testing literally everyone. Your mom could be XY and you’d never know unless she got tested. So if chromosomes don’t determine sex what do? Saying it’s a genetic mutation is a thought terminating cliche and allows you to continue living life without thinking deeply on the subject. Which, imo, is pretty anti-science.

Genetic anomalies don’t at all make something invalid. Did you know red hair is/was a genetic mutation? Does that make red hair not a hair color?

“There’s only black brown and blonde everything else is a genetic mutation”

You_irl

Tell me you didn’t read the link without telling me you didn’t read the link. The case study is from a woman who was born with a vagina and ovaries and gave birth but upon a genetic test was revealed to have XY chromosomes.

(here’s the part where you pretend to have read it all along in your response)

It’s own category with like 5 people in each sport. Great idea.

Because hrt changes our biological characteristics. I have breasts and a hip curve of a cis woman. The trans man I know is growing hair like a cis man and is getting voice cracks like a pubescent boy.

We’re much closer to being intersex than our biological sex

XY are male right?

So males can give birth according to you

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

I remember those same kinds people in high school saying “I’m not straight I’m normal”

So I’m gonna guess his response would be “I’m not cis I’m normal”

From your link

Harper analyzed self-selected and self-reported race times for eight transgender women runners of various age categories who had, over an average 7 year period (range 1–29 years), competed in sub-elite middle and long distance races within both the male and female categories. The age-graded scores for these eight runners were the same in both categories, suggesting that cross-hormone treatment reduced running performance by approximately the size of the typical male advantage.

That reminds me of the swimmer Lia Thomas who placed 6th and 2nd before starting HRT. Raced against men after starting, which dropped her down drastically. Then when she raced against women she resumed being a top 10 athlete, winning her race (didn’t even brake female records mind you, just won her race).

The study has some bias imo. For starters most studies I’ve looked at say 2 years is when the strength levels start to even out, while most measurements from this one are from a year. The major exception being a study from 2004 that only looked at mass not strength.

When this study does look at strength it very specifically looked at grip strength and leg strength (this is where I got suspicious of bias). Trans women have larger hands due to our skeletons being forged during male puberty, which could account for the differences in grip strength (easier to grip/more muscles being used when there is more hand to use). And as for the part looking at thigh and quadriceps strength: every cis woman I know has significantly stronger legs than they do their upper body and that is for both the ones that go to the gym and the ones that don’t. It is completely possible (and not even mentioned which is where the feeling of bias comes from) that HRT has less of an effect on leg strength than it does upper body/core. If cis women who go through an estrogenized puberty have stronger legs than arms then it stands to reason that trans women would loose less muscle mass in their legs than their arms.

Edit: bias might be the wrong word here, maybe closer to an oversight than outright bias

Edit 2: found a more recent study that states endurance things like running and swimming level out by around 2 years, with most things level out after about 4 with the exception of upper body strength. Which is still declining in trans women past that point

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439

So the 1 year that is recommended is too soon for trans women athletes to start competing, but for endurance sports like racing and swimming it should be fine by 2 years. Other sports may need more time, but also we shouldn’t be delaying the lives of trans people for so long. We need to find a good middle ground because it’s not like exceptional cis women don’t exist in those same sports.

This is all also completely ignoring that if a trans women starts hrt before puberty then there is no real difference. So the real solution is to let trans teenagers transition.

Studies have shown that after around 2 years of HRT the strength of trans women level out to the average of cis women. The only things that really stay the same are things like bone length /bone density, and it’s not like there are no cis women with dense bones that are tall.

Edit: taken from another comment of mine:

found a more recent study that states endurance things like running and swimming level out by around 2 years, with most things level out after about 4 with the exception of upper body strength. Which is still declining in trans women past that point

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439

So the 1 year that is recommended is too soon for trans women athletes to start competing, but for endurance sports like racing and swimming it should be fine by 2 years. Other sports may need more time, but also we shouldn’t be delaying the lives of trans people for so long. We need to find a good middle ground because it’s not like exceptional cis women don’t exist in those same sports.

This is all also completely ignoring that if a trans women starts hrt before puberty then there is no real difference. So the real solution is to let trans teenagers transition.