The political satire doesn’t make me laugh so much as it crushes my spirit.
Why subtweet Hillary Clinton on this one? It’s almost an exact quote.
It’s not as close to an exact quote as I thought, to be honest, but I stand by the sentiment that the statement was unsupportive of the trans community.
My espresso has arrived. Clinton asks for more iced tea. I cannot allow the lunch to end without questioning the direction of her party. I say that Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes, notably the transgender debate, which are relevant only to a small minority. What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist? To my surprise, Clinton shares the premise of my question.
“We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window,” she says. “Look, the most important thing is to win the next election. The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.”
From an interview with the Financial Times
I’d note 4 things:
- The question is obviously heavily framed as an anti-trans question
- A lot of right wing news outlets reported the initial question as if Clinton herself was the one who said it, which isn’t true.
- Most non-right-wing outlets didn’t mention the context that she was responding to a question about trans people at all
- She never retracted or clarified her statement after the fact
I suspect the American left focused on LGBTQ+ issues because it was a "safe" mission.
Increasing official tolerance there was no threat to their donors or the wealthy in general. Nobody had to pay more in taxes or submit to meaningful government regulstion to enforce "don't explicitly fire/assault/refuse to marry someone for being gay/trans". Arguably those policies could have ecen come out of broader expectations for "stay out of people's personal lives" rather than making special cutouts and declaring a marginal group.
Looks impressive, accomplishes very little. Pretty much sums up the Democratic party for the last 50 years.
I don't know what "very little" means to you, but I have friends that are married with children, unlikely to face violence motivated by bigotry (location dependant, YMMV), and have legal protections from discrimination in housing and employment.
When I was a kid they could get fired or evicted with no recource, and if they had the temerity to poke their head out of the closet someone could kick their ass with impunity unless they were seriously injured or killed, and sometimes even then.
But sure, "very little," let's go with that.
These 'x issues are dividing the working class' lines is just trickle-down economics with race/ gender/ orientation etc.
With friends like those, who needs enemas? (I know, Onion headline. Still, I'm sure there are plenty of people just like him all over the world. Try again ki- Moo hoo ha ha ha!)
