Democratic Party Rebuild

[Outlaw]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm pointing out the logical consequences of what you are actually saying. If wearing a hijab counts as "implicit support" for oppression, then you are treating symbolic accommodation as endorsement and dismissing agency when it conflicts with your "values." If you reject those implications, then your argument has no force. So, which is it?

You’re not pointing out logical consequences, you’re pointing out “emotional” consequences based off of something I’ll address later in the post.

If the Minnesota politician converted to Islam then wore a hijab, that’s true agency because it would be an authentic embrace of the symbol; however she didn’t , she just wore it for a photo op which is implicit endorsement of female subordination to men. The repulsion of this symbolism isn’t just my “value” it should be the repulsion of any one who values women liberation.

Oppression abroad does not negate agency at home, nor does it convert solidarity or cultural respect into approval of abuse. You're pretending to care about the suffering of women elsewhere, so you can use it as rhetorical weapon, to avoid the fact that you can't make a meaningful argument about US policy or liberal norms.

"Play pretend." This is exactly the kind of paternalism I'm talking about. To you, women only have agency if that agency aligns with *your* ideological demands.

You’re being very emotional here and are jumping at the opportunity to craft a straw man to fit your narrative, “play pretend” is very succinct and there’s no extrapolation needed: she’s not converting to Islam, she’s not an active Muslim, so her wearing a hijab is just playing pretend to pander.

The "optics" being managed here is majority discomfort. You're redefining liberalism and secularism in the process to make an argument for appeasement, not against any contradictions.

Now you're engaging in pink-washing. You don't care about trans people, so you're only exposing yourself using this rhetorical trick. And you can still defend trans people, oppose religious fundamentalism, and still defend Muslim Americans from cultural scapegoating.

I do care about the freedom of people being able to live the lives they want to as long as they don’t do harm to others. Trans people fall under that category, so yes I support their rights just like I support gay people being able to get married. I’m not a passionate supporter of them though, you confuse lack of passion for hatred which is consistent with your binary emotional rationality.

You're *are* ideologically inconsistent. Saying things when they're convenient doesn't change that.

You're one of the most dishonest posters on here. It's no wonder you're always arguing that we need to make room for pieces of shyt like @the cac mamba or why you co-signed his bullshyt Handmaid's tale framing.

I’m more ideologically consistent and honest than you. The fact that you’re passionate for trans people but also are hostile towards me for saying the honest truth that religion(including Islam ) is bullshyt shows that you aren’t honest with yourself.

You know religion is bullshyt, you know that Islam is bullshyt (otherwise you would be one). Religious beliefs are archaic and primitive, they hold humanity back.

It’s like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, but it’s worse because the various religious beliefs oppress and suppress humanity worldwide.

Islam is one of the most oppressive mainstream religions in the world; the proof is how those countries govern their populations and what the actual religion teaches.

You want to support that religion being pandered to when practiced authentically and fundamentally, it would put you to death or in jail if you were honest with yourself ideology in the public square. They do not support LGBT rights, yet on one hand in your mind you can passionately support both.

That sir is a dishonest contradiction. I follow logical conclusions, I don’t follow emotion.

Don’t project your insecurities on me because I’m not faking it for anyone. You’re a fukking liar for saying I’m dishonest when I’m not sugar coating anything.

I never said I wanted @the cac mamba types to be part of the coalition to win elections, I said we pragmatically have to have him because he is the prototypical swing voter.

Don’t be mad at me, be mad at America.

 

[the cac mamba]

 

[the cac mamba]

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

You’re not pointing out logical consequences, you’re pointing out “emotional” consequences based off of something I’ll address later in the post.

If the Minnesota politician converted to Islam then wore a hijab, that’s true agency because it would be an authentic embrace of the symbol; however she didn’t , she just wore it for a photo op which is implicit endorsement of female subordination to men. The repulsion of this symbolism isn’t just my “value” it should be the repulsion of any one who values women liberation.


You’re being very emotional here and are jumping at the opportunity to craft a straw man to fit your narrative, “play pretend” is very succinct and there’s no extrapolation needed: she’s not converting to Islam, she’s not an active Muslim, so her wearing a hijab is just playing pretend to pander.


I do care about the freedom of people being able to live the lives they want to as long as they don’t do harm to others. Trans people fall under that category, so yes I support their rights just like I support gay people being able to get married. I’m not a passionate supporter of them though, you confuse lack of passion for hatred which is consistent with your binary emotional rationality.

I’m more ideologically consistent and honest than you. The fact that you’re passionate for trans people but also are hostile towards me for saying the honest truth that religion(including Islam ) is bullshyt shows that you aren’t honest with yourself.

You know religion is bullshyt, you know that Islam is bullshyt (otherwise you would be one). Religious beliefs are archaic and primitive, they hold humanity back.

It’s like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, but it’s worse because the various religious beliefs oppress and suppress humanity worldwide.

Islam is one of the most oppressive mainstream religions in the world; the proof is how those countries govern their populations and what the actual religion teaches.

You want to support that religion being pandered to when practiced authentically and fundamentally, it would put you to death or in jail if you were honest with yourself ideology in the public square. They do not support LGBT rights, yet on one hand in your mind you can passionately support both.

That sir is a dishonest contradiction. I follow logical conclusions, I don’t follow emotion.

Don’t project your insecurities on me because I’m not faking it for anyone. You’re a fukking liar for saying I’m dishonest when I’m not sugar coating anything.

I never said I wanted @the cac mamba types to be part of the coalition to win elections, I said we pragmatically have to have him because he is the prototypical swing voter.

Don’t be mad at me, be mad at America.

You're asserting your personal interpretation of a symbol and treating it as objectively binding on everyone else. You're making a value judgment, not arguing anything logical.

Your entire argument hinges on the claim that the hijab has a single, fixed meaning -- female subordination -- and that any symbolic engagement with it is implicit endorsement. That premise is neither empirically true, nor is it compatible with liberalism, which is why your "authenticity" argument collapses immediately. Agency does not require adopting the belief system behind a symbol for it to be true agency. That is such an absurd argument.

By your "logic," wearing a kippah without converting endorses rabbinic authority, wearing a cross endorses church doctrine, and attending Pride without being LGBTQ is "playing pretend." That's ideological purity policing with a little authoritarianism thrown in, not liberalism.

This isn't about a lack of passion, it's about how you claim something, then make an argument that contradicts the initial claim. You claim to support trans people's rights, then argue from false premises (like "being trans is a choice") and frame their inclusion as harm. That's not being neutral. That's the kind of conditional tolerance that predictably produces anti-trans outcomes, which is why I called you anti-trans. And I stand by that. Supporting people's rights doesn't require enthusiasm, but it does require not undermining them.

I didn't call you out for criticizing religion. I called you out for asserting your personal hostility as objective truth, then using it to justify exclusion while calling that "liberal consistency." It's not a contradiction for me to support LGBTQ rights while believing Muslims shouldn't be discriminated against. That contradiction exists only if you believe defending people's rights equals endorsing their beliefs.

Is that what I want? I thought I was just supporting actual secular pluralism, and not the made up mish-mash of nonsense fueled by your hate and fear-mongering. Defending Muslims' civil rights in a secular democracy is not endorsement of religious law or "fundamental" Islam, no matter how many times you try to assert it.

I'm not insecure about anything. I read your posts. I see how you say one thing, then argue something different. If you're not doing that on purpose, then you're misunderstanding your own argument, because you repeatedly conflate civil rights with ideological endorsement, then accuse me of inconsistency for refusing to go along with it.

You're free to think religion is false or harmful, but that's a personal worldview. What you're not doing is applying secular liberal principles consistently. You're collapsing my belief in pluralism into endorsement, and hypothetical fear into justification for selective hostility.

 

[Outlaw]

You're asserting your personal interpretation of a symbol and treating it as objectively binding on everyone else. You're making a value judgment, not arguing anything logical.

Your entire argument hinges on the claim that the hijab has a single, fixed meaning -- female subordination -- and that any symbolic engagement with it is implicit endorsement. That premise is neither empirically true, nor is it compatible with liberalism, which is why your "authenticity" argument collapses immediately. Agency does not require adopting the belief system behind a symbol for it to be true agency. That is such an absurd argument.

By your "logic," wearing a kippah without converting endorses rabbinic authority, wearing a cross endorses church doctrine, and attending Pride without being LGBTQ is "playing pretend." That's ideological purity policing with a little authoritarianism thrown in, not liberalism.

Objectively the hijab is a symbol of patriarchal control in Muslim countries, to debate that is being dishonest.

Your analogy falls flat because the Kippah is a symbol of authority, regardless I don’t think Dems should wear those either if they aren’t Jewish.

I liken a woman who’s not a Muslim wearing a hijab to a black man wearing a shirt or hat with a confederate flag on it to pander to rednecks in Alabama for their vote.

This isn't about a lack of passion, it's about how you claim something, then make an argument that contradicts the initial claim. You claim to support trans people's rights, then argue from false premises (like "being trans is a choice") and frame their inclusion as harm. That's not being neutral. That's the kind of conditional tolerance that predictably produces anti-trans outcomes, which is why I called you anti-trans. And I stand by that. Supporting people's rights doesn't require enthusiasm, but it does require not undermining them.

I’ll be honest with you, I think trans women are repulsive, I’ll admit that bias where I lean on supporting their rights vs Cis women’s. Even though I think they’re repulsive I 100% defend their right to transition and feel they should be able to live the lives they want to as long as they aren’t encroaching on the freedoms of cis women.

I’ll also admit that I was wrong. Gender dysmorphia is not a choice, so if you consider having that condition being trans then I was wrong there. What I meant is that undergoing gender affirming care is a choice.

There are narrow instances where if you allow trans women in cis women spaces then cis women are negatively impacted like in sports. In those narrow instances I side with cis women. If that makes me anti-trans then so be it, I’m pro cis women.

I’m passionate about cis women rights because their equality is permissive and not a guarantee from a Darwinian standpoint. If we backslid to a less progressive society then their rights would be stripped away very quickly. That’s why I think they should’ve aggressively defended.

I didn't call you out for criticizing religion. I called you out for asserting your personal hostility as objective truth, then using it to justify exclusion while calling that "liberal consistency." It's not a contradiction for me to support LGBTQ rights while believing Muslims shouldn't be discriminated against. That contradiction exists only if you believe defending people's rights equals endorsing their beliefs.

You’re confused, what I’m saying is objective truth.

Nobodies God exists unless proven otherwise.

The whole point of religion is to spread your subjective “truths” onto other people just because you “feel” you’re right. I reject that. I think religion should be kept personal.

Is that what I want? I thought I was just supporting actual secular pluralism, and not the made up mish-mash of nonsense fueled by your hate and fear-mongering. Defending Muslims' civil rights in a secular democracy is not endorsement of religious law or "fundamental" Islam, no matter how many times you try to assert it.

I'm not insecure about anything. I read your posts. I see how you say one thing, then argue something different. If you're not doing that on purpose, then you're misunderstanding your own argument, because you repeatedly conflate civil rights with ideological endorsement, then accuse me of inconsistency for refusing to go along with it.

You're free to think religion is false or harmful, but that's a personal worldview. What you're not doing is applying secular liberal principles consistently. You're collapsing my belief in pluralism into endorsement, and hypothetical fear into justification for selective hostility.

You’re constructing another straw man here. I never said Muslims shouldn’t be free to practice their religion, I said the Democratic Party shouldn’t promote it, especially not Hijabs.

 

[Loose]

Respect to ro khanna doe this he been doing good work lately.

 

[Hood Critic]

i'm not seeing you answer how Newsom is supposed to defend the avalanche of attacks he's gonna face, on california's cost of living. because you can't

i wish he was the governor of Michigan, but he's not

and i know your reflex is to argue with anything i say, but i know you agree with me. you don't wanna run Newsom either

Name a Dem candidate who ISN'T going to face an "avalanche of attacks"...this is a horrible metric to gauge a candidate.

 

[the cac mamba]

Name a Dem candidate who ISN'T going to face an "avalanche of attacks"...this is a horrible metric to gauge a candidate.

still no answer

i can name a hundred ways republicans will attack california; they'll literally be running against california more than Newsom. high gas prices, awful taxes/cost overruns, and campaign ads of walking through hordes of homeless people, drugs, tents, and human shyt, in total disgust

and i hope you don't think that Newsom's smug, condescending, coastal elite rhetoric about how successful CA is, is gonna land well Vance is gonna hit him with "why do you want the rest of America to pay 5 dollars a gallon ", and Newsom will have some terrible answer about green energy




but they can't attack PA at all, because they need to win it. it's like attacking the rust belt itself. they can't even accuse PA voters of choosing leadership badly. pretty easy calculation, IMO

 

[the cac mamba]

the coronation has begun

 

[Loose]

still no answer

i can name a hundred ways republicans will attack california; they'll literally be running against california more than Newsom. high gas prices, awful taxes/cost overruns, and campaign ads of walking through hordes of homeless people, drugs, tents, and human shyt, in total disgust

and i hope you don't think that Newsom's smug, condescending, coastal elite rhetoric about how successful CA is, is gonna land well Vance is gonna hit him with "why do you want the rest of America to pay 5 dollars a gallon ", and Newsom will have some terrible answer about green energy




but they can't attack PA at all, because they need to win it. it's like attacking the rust belt itself. they can't even accuse PA voters of choosing leadership badly. pretty easy calculation, IMO

In 2025 no one cares about that prices is high everywhere. I think Newsome will fail for other reasons the cost isn't the one

 

[the cac mamba]

You’re constructing another straw man here. I never said Muslims shouldn’t be free to practice their religion, I said the Democratic Party shouldn’t promote it, especially not Hijabs.

for all the talk of "bad faith posting" around here, it doesn't get much worse than people who are liberal to the point of parody, turning around defending conservative islamic culture that goes against everything they stand for

 

[the cac mamba]

In 2025 no one cares about that prices is high everywhere.

oh, ok

so voters don't care about the national discussion/implications about the cost of living, but what they really care about is...Palestine

I think Newsome will fail for other reasons the cost isn't the one

it's the number 1 reason. what the fukk else would top it? let's hear these reasons

"don't california your america" is an easy layup for Vance: EVERYONE has an idea of what that means. "don't pennsylvania your america" doesn't exist. PA is literally the heart of the electoral college in this era