all 48 comments

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

If I were American I would not support the Democrats at all. The Republicans suck, but there is no way I’d be happy with my taxes going to chid abuse, a woke military, and increased censorship from Silicon Valley. Didn’t Nancy Pelosi ban the use of gendered words like mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle and cousin (which is a sex-neutral term by the way)? This is not going to end well for gay, lesbian and bisexual people living in America. And make no mistake - with the dominance of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, other English-speaking and western countries will follow suit unless people collectivise and rebel against this insanity.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I were American I would not support the Democrats at all.

I'm not a single-issue voter, and other issues such as policy on the pandemic and climate change are my priorities before gender identity ideology. I may have to change that stance depending on how extreme stuff gets. But there are a lot of reasons why L/G/B people (not the so-called "queer community" which is more focused on alternative lifestyles than LGB rights) might be Democrats, apart from these topics.

Didn’t Nancy Pelosi ban the use of gendered words like mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle and cousin (which is a sex-neutral term by the way)?

Yeah, and I find that ridiculous.

And make no mistake - with the dominance of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, other English-speaking and western countries will follow suit unless people collectivise and rebel against this insanity.

Yes, this is what I am most worried about.

[–]Preachy_Jerk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But there are a lot of reasons why L/G/B people (not the so-called "queer community" which is more focused on alternative lifestyles than LGB rights) might be Democrats

You're the reason we can't have nice things. I used to volunteer my precious time for the Democratic Party. Now everybody I thought I agreed with has total amnesia of the Bush years, and has abandoned every moral principle I thought they had in favor of blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

The sabotage of America is a long story, but the last two decades have been catastrophic. Before Biden worked with Bush to push through the Iraq war, the main economic issues were what to do with the surplus, and whether it would be bad to pay off the national debt too fast. The Democrats could have stopped the war, but they chose to invade Iraq. Nancy Pelosi, and later Barack Obama, protected the Bush administration from investigation or impeachment related to the war lies and torture scandal.

The schemes they used to finance the wars while cutting taxes led to the financial crisis. Millions of families were evicted from their homes while Obama and Biden protected the wealthy people who helped cause the crash. Black household wealth was almost wiped out. They continued the Iraq withdrawal demanded by the Iraqi government, but then overthrew the government of Libya and tried to do the same in Syria. This caused the worst refugee crisis since WWII. And it turns out that when you destabilize a Muslim country, LGBT people get slaughtered en masse. This happened in all of those countries.

If you don't care about the millions of people whose lives were destroyed, then think about the fact we've pissed away $28 trillion since then with fuck all to show for it. For comparison, China spent $350 billion building 14,000 miles of high-speed rail.

And you just voted to reward the people who did all this. Congratulations.

And by the way, I was first in line to see Al Gore's fear porn movie in 2005. I guess I helped him buy that mansion that consumes 21x as much energy as the average American home. Did anyone ever tell you that all these "record" fires in California are bullshit? The natural annual burn area of California's ecosystem, the area that burned in a normal year before large-scale human settlement, was significantly more than the "record" fire years we have now. This isn't even controversial. I have family there and pay close attention to the coverage, but I've never heard any major news network mention that fact while covering the fires. But they can't go five minutes without mentioning "climate change". Wonder why.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You made an account 2 hours ago just to insult me? This is beyond off topic.

Make your own subreddit or thread if you want to harass people. Thanks.

[–]cure_osa_disorder 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I AM a Republican for this reason and many, many more, and I will only date other gay Republicans.

We will ban Nancy Pelosi and her entire tribe for this.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I’m all for gay people in America voting for Republicans, but try and convince gay Democrats who are sane to fix the Democratic Party as well. Better yet, do away with the two party system and look towards supporting other parties. Won’t be successful immediately, but you can always build up support for third party candidates running in local and state elections.

But yeah, if I was American, I would be more inclined to vote Republican. It will depend on what candidate the Republicans choose in the primaries, because I would never support an Evangelicon like Rick Santorum or a war hawk like Dan Crenshaw.

[–]cure_osa_disorder 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

I would gladly support a gay fascist at this point. If anyone has earned the right to tell everyone else what to do and when to do it, it's a gay man.

but try and convince gay Democrats who are sane to fix the Democratic Party as well.

They don't fucking exist. The only sane gays are Gay Republicans. In fact, you don't even deserve to be gay unless you are a Republican.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

They don't fucking exist.

We do. I’m not at all thrilled about the Democrats right now and their willingness to cater to identity-obsessed lunatics, but I have even more issues with Trump and the Republicans. I’d rather see both parties burn to the ground right now and start over without this two-party nightmare system (shouldn’t we be breaking THIS binary 😂?).

[–]cure_osa_disorder 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Trump and the GOP are the last line of defense against it. Behavior that is rewarded will be repeated. Continuing to vote for the slave party is continuing to vote for the erasure of homosexuality. A third party that supports the tr-ns would just be more of the same.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Clearly we don’t see eye-to-eye, but you do you, boo. I haven’t seen Trump and the Republicans stand up to identity politics or religious, cult-like ideology. They operate on their own brand of it. And when it comes to gender ideology, they’ve been sitting on a golden goose but mostly quiet about it. Why haven’t they played that card and forced there to be public discussion about it?

[–]cure_osa_disorder 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The fact that Trump seems to be able to tell the difference speaks volumes. The tr-ns military ban made it difficult to dislike him. Members of the GOP who turned their backs on him deserve no respect. I agree that a pro-LGB anti-T platform could make the GOP unstoppable. But the alternatives all support the T in one way or another so I have no other choice, I'm afraid.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Trump and the GOP are the last line of defense against it.

They aren't against the T because it threatens to destroy homosexuality; they're against the T because they mistakenly think that it is homosexuality. Since of course men with "ladyfeelz" = SUPER-GAY. And who makes up the Republican base? Reactionary (often fundamentalist) evangelicals. You know: the ones who brought us an obsession with Leviticus 18:22, "god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", and "conversion therapy." Not that Trump himself believes in any of this, I'm sure, but since he's shown time and again how happy he is to cater to those who do... what difference does it make?

Also, you know how the T are all about "gender"? Well, so is the GOP. Adherence to, and enforcement of, old-fashioned sex-roles is at the party's heart. They just don't like the T version because, due to its diverging from the traditional model in a few respects (being chosen by the individual rather than socially-imposed based on sex), they mistake it for a rejection of gender. And assume that the T is rebelling against their sacred pink-is-for-girls/blue-is-for-boys bullshit. But as long as they oppose the T based on this misperception, who cares, right?

Well... what about if the Republicans realize that they and the T are on the same page? That "born-in-the-wrong-body-ism" can be the NEW! IMPROVED! "conversion therapy"? That, far from being SUPER GAY OMG, "trans" is in fact homophobic AF... even to the point of having the potential to eradicate homosexuality altogether?

Yeah, I know that (like most of us here) you understandably feel backed into a political corner; I can see this from your POV. But I suggest that you try seeing it from the GOP's. Which seems to have a lot more in common with your adversary's than your own.

[–]cure_osa_disorder 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're projecting the Slave Party's attitude towards human sexuality onto the GOP. Literally everything you have posted is speculative at best or outright dishonest at worst. I have never seen the GOP come out and support the T for any reason. In fact, it is very much the reason for their refusal to support gay rights: the people pushing it are the same ones who ultimately stabbed gays in the back so why should anyone trust them? Bottom line, you have gay and lesbian blood on your hands if you support any other political party. Even the glibertARYANS are T-enablers. The Slave Party is a communist terrorist party and their support of T is sexual terrorism. You don't deserve to be gay if you support it. The only valid criticism of the GOP is that those within it who betrayed Trump have literally enabled the destruction of this country and everything it stands for along with it.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I’d rather see both parties burn to the ground right now and start over without this two-party nightmare system (shouldn’t we be breaking THIS binary 😂?).

Yeah, maybe if we just pointed all the gender identity ideologists in the direction of the two-party system then maybe we'd see meaningful change!

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

My ideal prime minister, regardless of his sexual orientation, would be Ireland first. He’d ban illegal immigration, deport criminals who are not Irish, ban dual citizens from voting or running in elections, increase the strength of our military and introduce compulsory military training for all able bodied citizens, hang drug traffickers and human traffickers, repeal the Gender Recognition Act of 2015, abolish the TV licence, reform our laws on insurance and lawsuits, make our civil service more efficient by sacking two thirds of the pencil pushers, align ourselves with the Visegrad Countries and stand up to the European Union.

In fact, you don't even deserve to be gay unless you are a Republican.

I disagree. Some gays who aren’t Democrats don’t vote or vote for third parties. There were gay people who supported Tulsi Gabbard, who wasn’t perfect but was at least anti-war.

[–]cure_osa_disorder 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I am pro-war as long as the nations we declare war on are anti-gay and anti-Jewish. Basically if they hate all the same people Hitler hated, then I'm for war with them. That's how the Just War theory works.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

War should only be for self defence. What they do in countries like Iran is horrific and disgusting, so fuck Iran. But that doesn’t mean tens of thousands of people in their 20’s or 30’s from countries like America should die just so that people in Iran can be free. Just give refugee status to gay people living in those countries. War leads to death and destruction, and costs taxpayers money money.

[–]BiHorror 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I think gender identity ideology is gonna be easier to pass. I wouldn't be surprised if sex based protection is gonna be put into complete question for gender identity. As for sexual orientation, definitions are maybe gonna change. Alongside language.

And the fucked up thing is outside of America, some other counties look up to it as influence. Do it might be a domino effect.

I wrote it before and I'll write it again: while some people don't like straight people and would shit on them, we need them as allies. They're the majority sexual orientation. Especially straight men. Their asses can more likely put a stop to it, most definitely when tq+ starts going after them.

[–]Eurowoman24 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'll just say one thing, Biden wants to push the gender ideology agenda to countries outside the states, fuck that guy. What will easily pass I think would be child transitions, because the american pharmaceutical industry is known to be money hungry, also the usa doesn't have nearly as much of an emphasis on protecting children and it's children in general. I mean just look at the chemicals they allow in the food.

[–]mvmlego 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The issue in this case isn't really so much that the U.S. doesn't care about its children; it's that it's mixed up about what "protecting children" entails. I think that plenty of adults caught up in TRA ideology (especially the ones who haven't bothered to look into it deeply) really think they're acting in the best interest of children when they advocate for childhood transition.

[–]Eurowoman24 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

that's true. but what i mean is that the u.s allows parents more freedom to make that choice it seems where as in other countries it doesn't seem to be like that

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Biden wants to push the gender ideology agenda to countries outside the states

Wait really? I had not heard that, is that like on his website or a bill he's said he supported or something? I'll take a look.

also the usa doesn't have nearly as much of an emphasis on protecting children and it's children in general. I mean just look at the chemicals they allow in the food.

1000% agree and it makes me furious. There are certain brands and products I have to actively avoid at the grocery store because they have ingredients known to be a risk factor for cancer and those ingredients have been banned in other countries.

[–]Eurowoman24 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

yes I don't have a link anymore but in black and white he wanted to "improve LGBT lives/rights in other countries". Now let's be honest the T is the flavour of the month, and this would mean bringing it to more western european countries, I doubt he'd be able to actually make a change for LGB in Russia or the middle east for example.

[–]ChodeSandwichtender and moist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am American.

There will be more legal protections for professionals who trans children because our healthcare is centered around making money and we don't really give a fuck about our kids. Just about everything else is hot air and trolling for votes. These politicians aren't stupid, they know that Jen Errol Public believes in biological sex, and they know that a government that can barely keep the roads lit doesn't have the resources to coddle people.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope your take is the worst-case scenario.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some of you probably don't like Snopes, but they have a good analysis of what Pelosi actually proposed here. While it looks fairly innocuous in some ways (i.e. some of you seem to be repeating falsehoods about this), it does point to a slippery slope: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-gender-ban-house/

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If it hasn't happened already, at the very least expect pro-nonbinary laws, bills and proposals that are inherently anti-intersex. For example "third sex" bills that add a new sex category, marketed towards nonbinary people but will inevitably used to discriminate against infants who have disorders, forcing them to be categorized as an "other" and making life hell for them.

Some places like the UK and Canada want to make "misgendering" a punishable hate crime (and I think Canada has already arrested people for it) so maybe that will come to America too.

And I suspect they will probably push for transgender and/or LGBT dogma to be taught in schools to children. I was never really pro-homeschooling, but if I was a parent right now in a pro-LGBT country I would refuse to send my kid into public school.

[–]mvmlego 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Some places like the UK and Canada want to make "misgendering" a punishable hate crime (and I think Canada has already arrested people for it) so maybe that will come to America too."

Yep. I think that Democrats are going to look at Ontario's human rights policies regarding gender as a guide for what to do in the U.S.. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution is a bit more robust than Canada's in protecting (supposedly) hateful speech, but there will be a large cultural battle over the issue nonetheless.

And I suspect they will probably push for transgender and/or LGBT dogma to be taught in schools to children. I was never really pro-homeschooling, but if I was a parent right now in a pro-LGBT country I would refuse to send my kid into public school.

I also suspect that Democrats will respond to this trend by trying to regulate homeschooling out of existence. On its face, a trend toward homeschooling can be taken to feed into their narrative of Republicans being proudly anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, etc.. Expect a few high-profile news stories of homeschooling parents who spend half of the schoolday teaching their kids young-Earth creationism, while ignoring all of the parents who have their 6th grade kids proficient in 9th-grade math due to the benefits of homeschooling.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I also suspect that Democrats will respond to this trend by trying to regulate homeschooling out of existence.

Oh, wow, now that's an interesting prediction. "They're all religious fundamentalists!" I'll keep an eye out for that kind of argument, thanks.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this prediction sounds about as likely as the claims that Obama was going to take everyone's guns. I haven't yet heard a Democrat be anti-homeschooling categorically. Happy to read credible sources to the contrary. Just don't see how this would happen or why, when we have so many better things to do, there would be a focus on caring about this.

[–]mvmlego 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are a couple of subtle ways in which I hedged my prediction: 1) it's predicated on the homeschooling rate drastically increasing (e.g. to 15%) 2) they're not actually going to try to ban homeschooling--just regulate it out of existence. This is the same legal strategy that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is currently engaged in, so there is precedent for this prediction.

I'm almost certain that this wouldn't actually happen during the first term of a Biden/Harris administration. Most likely, the only role the Biden/Harris administration would play, at least in its first term, would be to cement gender ideology into the public school system. It wouldn't be until a few years after until the homeschooling movement gained a lot of steam, and it would be another couple of years after that before Democrats took notice and ramped up the anti-homeschooling rhetoric.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Welp, I guess we will have to wait and see. (Ugh.)

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not that I think it's going to happen, it's that I think it's likely to be talked about more.

I haven't yet heard a Democrat be anti-homeschooling categorically.

I have heard a lot of disdain for it, but, again, not heard anyone express that it ought to be outright banned. In particular, I have met quite a few people who dismiss homeschoolers as being mostly religious fundamentalists who indoctrinate their kids into cultlike religions. Most of these people I've heard express that are anti-religion, though, so YMMV.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Indeed. I'm rather mixed on homeschooling because it can go either way, and I'm biased because I was technically homeschooled (or... home at school?) basically being indoctrinated into religion and being shut away from the outside world, which I believe contributed to social issues, a lack of attachment to people, trust issues and even my sexuality. But that doesn't mean it's bad all the time, and it certainly doesn't mean that regular school is always good.

I wonder, if they ban homeschooling, will they go any lengths to make school more tolerable and less stressful for children? A lot of kids experience severe stress and depression due to expectations, grades, and the sheer amount of time they spend there. And what about things like food, are they going to make sure they can actually take care of all these kids too? Will there be any regulation as to what can be taught or will they just start indoctrinating them into post-modernist, intangible identity politics?

[–]mvmlego 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder, if they ban homeschooling, will they go any lengths to make school more tolerable and less stressful for children?

The two-bit economist in me says "no". If competitors (i.e. alternatives to public school) are stifled, then there's a much weaker incentive for the remaining provider to improve.

I agree that bad homeschooling can lead to many problems for the homeschooled child, great or small. I really don't know how to address this issue. Conceivably, private schools could provide an alternative to the potential incompetence or indoctrination of both public schools and homeshooling.

Unfortunately, due to the cost of private schools, the only way that most parents would be able to afford that is with vouchers or some other sort of subsidy. Of course, if the government is cracking down on homeschooling, then it would probably have no qualms about attaching strings that make the private schools as bad as the public schools. It really is a mess.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For example "third sex" bills that add a new sex category, marketed towards nonbinary people but will inevitably used to discriminate against infants who have disorders, forcing them to be categorized as an "other" and making life hell for them.

That's fucked up, and I completely agree, something like that seems likely to happen.

so maybe that will come to America too.

That is one of the few things here that I think there will be a lot of pushback on, because at least a segment of conservatives are against it on grounds of free speech (not because they are LGB allies necessarily).

And I suspect they will probably push for transgender and/or LGBT dogma to be taught in schools to children. I was never really pro-homeschooling, but if I was a parent right now in a pro-LGBT country I would refuse to send my kid into public school.

Good point. I've read a little about this happening in Canada, but not about it in the US.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As someone on the left who felt it necessary to support Democrats for many other reasons, I too am, regardless, concerned about this, so thank you for bringing it up. This crosses party lines (and I don't think of myself as a Democrat) among those of us who know better. I've wondered several times how to carefully contact my representatives and try to help them be aware that there is much more to what is going on than they realize. (And I don't think any of my reps are homophobic, but they might not understand the consequences of what they might do, in their rush to not seem "transphobic" as well.)

This is important stuff. I don't have answers at the moment but we are all going to have to care, no matter which side of the aisle our representatives are on (though admittedly, I suspect more Republicans will not go along with this crap).

So, following for the moment. Perhaps I will have thoughts to add later. If anyone feels like compiling a list of well-vetted resources we might start passing on to them quietly...well, it's a start. They need to know.

At the very least we need to present them with the obvious bind they are in if they choose to support woke homophobia. I know none of mine want to be seen as homophobic.

EDIT: Spelling.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If anyone feels like compiling a list of well-vetted resources we might start passing on to them quietly...well, it's a start. They need to know.

Completely agree this is important. I have a lot of such resources in my emails and saved links, but I haven't organized them yet... have debating doing a master post here or maybe even starting a sub or something.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah and we've talked about this, but I haven't moved forward either. I think we need to have something like this. (And now I finally notice you are the OP!)

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ahaha that's right, it WAS you I was talking to before! All right lol, that's gonna be my next substantive post.

[–]BritishbulldogUndecided if Radfem or just TERF 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not feeling great for women/LGB in the US rn. Democrat president with republican control of either or both houses would’ve been good. A democrat hat-trick means all this gender stuff will go through easily unless there’s some more conservative democrats in congress/senate. Not looking great for women/LGB.

To all you Americans- come to Brazil Britain

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah I agree, that's what I'm worried about. I have a lot of hope in the longterm; less in the shortterm-- although I actually think Nancy Pelosi's House of Reps thing is not as bad as everyone is saying is (see wafflegaff's comment about it). I think there is at least a high likelihood that states are likely to get more extreme, at least.

[–]BritishbulldogUndecided if Radfem or just TERF 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

California will become a wokist loony bin.