In audio released Friday evening, senators and representatives from Ohio and Michigan revealed the “endgame” is to ban transgender care “for everyone.”

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That’s only because they don’t think they can reintroduce chattel slavery. Their actual endgame, if they accomplish this, will be much, much worse.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’d say it’s more the dog that caught the car. They need trans people to exist so they can whip their base up into a panic over trans people existing. Total victory, then, means they need to move on to a new target to hate. It’s hate in and of itself that matters to them, hate is more than a necessary evil, it’s the ultimate object of their desire.

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Exactly. If they had nobody else to hate, they would eventually turn on themselves. They would get to a point where nobody would trust anyone,

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Another common Republican accusation that ends up being an admission.

        It’s not really a slippery slope issue if they’re throwing themselves down to the bottom on purpose though…

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The slippery slope implies that it’s some kind of accident.

        They’re dragging us kicking and screaming into a ditch.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Slippery slope implies that allowing the change will mean sliding further and further in the same direction. Intent does not matter.

          This is a slippery slope because every time they say something has a limited scope they just keep increasing the scope.

          • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            But they aren’t saying that their efforts have a limited scope. They just admitted their intent.

          • preach224@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            i disagree - the word sliding can imply a passivity in things that current republican intent certainly counter-indicates.

            i’m not generally pulled down slippery slopes against my will, original wording of the phrase aside.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            The slippery-ness of the slope is inherently about intent. If the slope is slippery then it isn’t their fault for falling down the slope.

            This slope isn’t slippery. It’s a stair case into fascism and they are goose stepping down the steps and dragging us by the hair.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The slippery slope can easily be unintentional, like the fear that giving something up will just naturally lead to other things being given up as a logical extension of the first thing. That is why slippery slopes are often described when making exemptions for certain rights. It is not that someone is intentionally going to expand the exemptions, but that exemptions tend to lead to more and more exemptions as a slippery slope.

              This one is intentional. Some slippery slopes are intentional and some are accidental. Intent does not matter.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                What do you think “slippery” means? If you slip, it’s unintentional. This is not a slippery slope. This is an intentional methodological plan.

                • snooggums@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Someone can intentionally trick someone onto a slippery slope and grease it up to make the slide faster, like Republicans are doing right now with undermining abortion and LBGTQ+ rights while claiming it isn’t a slippery slope.

                  Where do you get the idea that a slippery slope must be unintentional?

                  Is someone slipping on a banana peel unintentional if someone drops the peel in front of them? Do you think you might be taking the word ‘slippery’ a little too literally?

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Republicans aren’t tricking us into falling down a slippery slope either, we’re just being dragged down the stairs by our hair and they’re marching down with us. There’s no slipping.

                    Another important factor of a slippery slope: once you start to slip you can’t easily stop. That’s not what this is at all. Stopping would be really easy if we weren’t being forced down this path.

      • KingJalopy @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, it was caught on audio pretty clearly lol. These people things are fucking horrendous.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      We already have slavery and it’s working quite nicely. We just renamed them “illegal immigrants”.

      I think people get hung up thinking slaves were cost-free to the slaveholders. Of course they weren’t! Just like any livestock, you gotta feed and shelter them, breed them, take care of the offspring until they become productive, etc.

      The current slave system is brilliant! Pay 'em some change, so no one can call them slaves, and let them figure out all the items above. If anyone comes along and says maybe we should provide… STFU socialist! You trying to take MY money and give it to people breaking the law?!

      It gets better! Now we can use fear of these people to get votes, keep in power. (Fuck it, I’m exhausted, you all know where I’m going with this.)

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not sure if you’re ignorant to reality or what. Your comparison falls flat and looks childish because the US still has actual slaves. Not metaphorically, not hyperbolically, but actual, literal slaves.

        The 13th amendment banned slavery EXCEPT as punishment for a crime. And hoo-boy has the US taken that to heart. One of the reasons we have more of our population imprisoned than any other country is we use prisoners as slave labor. Actual, literal, slave labor.

        • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Did I really just fart and shit myself a little, dare I say a fair bit? No, that was two days ago, but it’s becoming more frequent.

      • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        No. This is a bad take. Even though wage slavery bucks, no illegal immigrant is their employer’s property. You already have slavery in the US and it’s all the convicts being leased to companies: 13th Amendment, babies!

      • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is a stunningly ignorant take.

        Being a modern so-called “wage slave” sucks, no doubt. But equating it to actual, literal slavery belittles what those people actually went through to a disgusting degree. No one today can whip you if they feel like it. No one today can separate you from your spouse and children, selling them to some random asshole two states over, never to be seen again. If you decided to try to make it on your own and move, no one can sue to have you brought back to your workplace in a cage. If you break your leg, no one can shoot you in the head like you’re a useless animal.

        The closest thing to slaves we have today are convicts. There’s a whole different discussion to be had there about how immoral it is to use prison as a punishment instead of rehabilitation, allowing a court to take away someone’s rights, exploiting time behind bars for labor, the incentive that provides for pronouncing people guilty, and removing felons’ rights to vote. But poor wage workers are NOT slaves.