Robotic Candidates

Ah, so Julian Castro did say he wanted “trans female abortions.” These poor idiots. They are trying so hard to please the wokesters, they are parroting the talking points they can’t even comprehend.

I can’t wait to hear poor Bernie trying to placate the crowd of his very young followers and attempting to speak their language.

For those of Bernie’s generation: trans women can’t have abortions. They have a male reproductive system. (Is this still ok to say? Or has it been declared genocidal already?) Only trans men who have female reproductive organs can get pregnant.

In what I saw of the debate yesterday, old and tired politicians were trying to ingratiate themselves with a constituency they don’t understand and don’t much like. They were half-heartedly and ploddingly regurgitating a digest of “The Snowflakiest Tweets in Existence” that their aides had compiled for them, hoping that this would dupe the crazies enough to give them a chance to appeal to normal voters.

All of the candidates looked stiff, robotic and scared. What was really missing was a Democratic version of Trump who’d blow up the clown show and said something unscripted.

17 thoughts on “Robotic Candidates”

  1. “trans women can’t have abortions. They have a male reproductive system. (Is this still ok to say?”

    I think the current party line is that their genitalia is “assigned male” or “read as male” since anatomy and gender have no relationship to each other (unlike the metaphysically real and non-negotiable aspects of gender like dresses and make-up). Nuts….

    “What was really missing was a Democratic version of Trump who’d blow up the clown show and said something unscripted”

    I have very small hope for Gabbard in that area… and none at all from the others. The description sounds like they were attending a communist party meeting after missing a few and weren’t up to date on which comrades were in favor (and which had mysteriously disappeared) and kept putting their foot in it…

    Like

    1. I can’t wait to see the very not-so-young Biden and Bernie try to ape the 20-year-old Twitteroids they are so desperate to impress. It will be painful.

      Like

    2. That’s why people were googling Gabbard. She’s the only one who said something that departed a little bit for the slogans. Everybody is tired of the slogans.

      Like

      1. Maybe. It also helps that she’s attractive and relatively young. She did have a good point about Afghanistan though.

        I wouldn’t say people were robots; just like they mostly sounded like Mother Jones‘ greatest hits or Centrism: The Remixes.

        Speaking of which: are you going to rewatch Biden: Hindsight is 20/20 tonight?

        Like

        1. The only thing that could make it palatable is your running commentary, Shakti. I’m so over Biden these days. Is it my imagination or is he getting particularly pompous in his dotage?

          Like

    3. That is the current party line among extremists (“a trans woman’s penis is a female sex organ because it’s a woman’s penis!”) Even many progressive trans people (people I’d consider to be SJWs) are scratching their head at that. Usually when Clarissa talks about something that “everyone believed 5 seconds ago,” it’s something the trans community as a whole didn’t necessarily believe 5 seconds ago. But this, yes. Calling certain reproductive organs male or female was uncontroversial within the trans community until recently, and even now it’s what everyone believes except crazy people. That’s why trans people get surgeries! Nuts.

      I actually know trans people who are worried that this whole line of reasoning (“reasoning) is going to lead to insurance companies not covering transition. If physiology is irrelevant and you can have a “female body” without hormones and surgeries…then you don’t really need all that nonsense, now do you? That’s why a decent number of trans people don’t just think this viewpoint is stupid, but are actively angry at it. The stupidity brigade is having a negative effect on the LGBT community.

      Like

      1. That’s absolutely where it’s going and they are right to worry. I keep pointing out that a small bunch of aggressive folks, most of whom are not even trans, are making things bad for the majority of trans people.

        Many of these activists don’t even know what it means to be trans. One accused me of transphobia for pointing out that trans people are men and women and not some “third gender.”

        Like

        1. Man, being accused of transphobia for having the less transphobic opinion! Wild stuff. But not surprising.

          I’m much closer to the “party line” than you are on trans issues, and I’m also far less sympathetic to gender critical feminists and conservatives on this issue. But even coming from this perspective, I have to take a stand against current trans activism for the sake of trans people. It’s heartening that there’s a countermovement within the trans community, but they’re dismissed as transphobes by the social justice movement. It’s fantastic when you see trans people getting called “TERFs” for the most bizarre things.

          Like

        2. Here’s a disturbing development which I think is probably related to the nutty branch of the LGBT movement gaining more prominence: https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/glaad-accelerating-acceptance-index_n_5d08cf3ae4b0ea7c4a4f9538

          Now, when a social movement gains traction, there is backlash, even when it’s a good social movement with worthy goals. There was anti-gay backlash when gay marriage was legalized. There was racist backlash during the civil rights movement. Backlash alone isn’t a reason to stop or try to be “nicer” or “gentler.” But when your movement isn’t actually helping LGBT people, then there’s no payoff. It’s worth backlash to ensure everyone has equal rights under the law and that people are treated with dignity. It’s not worth backlash to ensure that kids can perform in bars, or to ensure that everyone keeps up with the everchanging social justice terminology.

          Someone I talk with is convinced that within 10 years social liberalism will be dead and replaced by a profoundly conservative culture. I agree there will be a major backlash if things continue as they are now, but I tend to be skeptical it’ll be anything more than a last hurrah before we fully give into consumerism. He compares our current culture to Weimar Germany, Rome, etc. but smartphones and modern consumerism are more engrossing than the bread and circuses of Rome. This poll gives me pause though. It’s a bad sign when the backlash is strongest among the young.

          What is GLAAD’s response to this poll? “Last year, when we saw an erosion in LGBTQ acceptance, GLAAD doubled down on our formula for making culture change, and this year that erosion is stemmed.” Young people’s acceptance dropped from 63% to 53% the year before this, and now it’s gone from 53% to 45%. 10% vs. 8% drop. Nothing was stemmed. Why double down on a failing strategy? The drop was strongest with young women; I speculate it could be connected to LGBT advocates attacking anyone with misgivings about trans women competing in women’s sports as transphobes (egregious incidents like people standing up for that one prison rapist could also play a role but I don’t think most people are aware of that.)

          In spite of all this, in another poll I saw that Americans are more accepting of trans people than they used to be. I’m proud of the American people for improving themselves in spite of how awful the current trans movement is. I’m trying to think of how we even managed it. The trans movement was much better a few years ago, and even now there’s some normal trans people who are prominent figures. On average, trans celebrities seem to be more helpful advocates than most trans activists. Being famous for some unrelated reason means you can get a platform without being a nut. And luckily, the average person is more likely to have heard of Laverne Cox than some weird activist. And even a bad trans movement draws attention to the issue and inspires people to think about something they hadn’t considered before (and most importantly, feel empathy for people they hadn’t cared about before.) I think many people do realize that the activists aren’t representative of trans people as a whole, much like I don’t assume the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of conservative Christians.

          Like

        3. One last thing: I’ve actually heard SJWs argue against trans people getting surgery on this basis! It was 5-10 years ago in an LGBT setting, and someone was talking about how expensive surgery was, and you can be a woman or man without surgery, so why get surgery? Trans people in the room argued against this obviously, and were shut down by “allies,” who said “sex is a social construct” and “you can be a man/woman without a penis/vagina,” which doesn’t even negate the need for SRS. I’m sure if any of the men arguing that lost his penis in a tragic accident, he would try to get it reconstructed rather than just saying “well, I’m still a man either way, so no need for painful, expensive surgery!” Gender and transsexuality are not just about or even primarily about personal identity, the body matters. “A penis can be a female sex organ” was not yet a talking point then or else I’m sure they would’ve said that too; their other arguments amounted to the same thing.

          Like

  2. Warren was neither. When it comes to projection you’re out there with the IMAX approach. Two candidates said they’d be fine with eliminating private health insurance.

    Like

  3. I really, really need to hear how each candidate is going to drag that Overton Window away from what it is currently. I want to know that they can think more than 4-8 years ahead politically. That person will get my primary vote.

    Like

  4. The only major candidate who seems to have major potential to say something unscripted is Biden. Maybe Buttigieg will if he thinks it’ll help him; he’s calculating and intelligent. He actually believes in a larger portion of woke ideology than many other candidate but he might be smart enough to hide it.

    Yang won’t be the nominee (thank God), but he could say something offbalance. Like AOC he thinks “automation should be exciting” (direct quote from his campaign site), but he talks differently than she does. I just looked at the immigration section of his website and he actually talks about improving border security (including increasing funding) and acknowledges there’s a crisis at the border. He might also say something crazy about banning circumcision or something; he did that not too long ago.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.