After months of getting close, the relationship between Trump and his so-called ‘first buddy’ has become ‘fraught,’ according to a New York Times reporter
I don’t think you, or the people you’re claiming to represent, understand the joke. First Lady Musk refers to Trump, not Elon. The implication isn’t that it’s demeaning to be a woman or queer, but that the spouse of the President has no real power or authority. This has nothing to do with their gender, and everything to do with the fact that they are the unelected spouse of an elected official.
The only ones who benefit when you misinterpret things in a way that implies unintended and unsubstantiated bigotry, are those who can use it to reinforce their claims of a misguidedly hypersensitive left, and thereby undermine justified recognition of intended and substantiated bigotry.
Generally, jokes aren’t funny when you convolute them with a distracting term that people don’t know.
Kamala Harris’ husband was Second Gentleman and would have been first if she had won
This is probably the second time I’ve read that term in 4 years. Still had to think about what it meant. I am getting the impression you don’t make a lot of jokes or find them as vital as I do. I say that because I wrote several paragraphs about jokes, why they are important, and why I think it’s bad if people stop making them. At no point did you respond to a word of that, and here I see you prioritizing “being PC” over a joke landing at all.
Then simple question, why not use First Gentleman? Kamala Harris’ husband was Second Gentleman and would have been first if she had won.
Going by your logic, that would be offensive to me, as a gay man.
But this kind of hypersensitivity, especially when applied regardless of context or intent, is one of the main drivers of the reactionary sentiment that is allowing the right to win elections all over the world. It’s one of the reasons why the “free speech” argument has worked so well in their favor.
Currently, the only ones benefitting from this “moral high-ground” stance are fragile little baby egos like Musk and Trump who can rest assured knowing their opposition would never stoop as low as them, while they get to freely spew as much intentionally evil shit as they want.
A society where no one is ever offended by anyone is a utopia. It’s as desirable as it is unattainable. I think the best thing we can do at the moment is focus on fighting back, not fighting against each other.
Then simple question, why not use First Gentleman?
Because we’ve never actually had a First Gentleman, so the term isn’t familiar. This is a scenario where strict accuracy muddles the rhetoric beyond recognition, which defeats the purpose.
You’re speaking with a lot of confidence about the validity of the feelings of a group of people
When did I say anything about the validity of anyone’s feelings?
Because those terms will not aggravate trump. The intent is to aggravate trump not denigrate femininity. Focus ffs. This isn’t about insulting trans people or women, it’s about fighting back on someone who is trying to hurt them.
We will struggle to maintain allies if we cannot focus on the speakers intent and not a willing misinterpretation of their words.
I mean, I understand all that too, but if you have to give that explanation within hours of using the phrase, isn’t it maybe an indication that this is a very real risk:
Something to keep in mind so we don’t friendly-fire on our allies!
Also:
The only ones who benefit when you misinterpret things in a way that implies unintended and unsubstantiated bigotry, are those who can use it to reinforce their claims of a misguidedly hypersensitive left, and thereby undermine justified recognition of intended and substantiated bigotry.
I hate to say it, but I don’t see much difference between relating the position of the right wing in an attempt to silence someone telling you that your turn of phrase was insensitive and actually holding the right wing position yourself. Do with that info what you will, I’m just calling it like I see it.
The Batman imagery makes a lot of sense, because it’s a fiction and I couldn’t ever imagine “the good guys” taking moral high grounds and winning wars (in Ukraine, etc) without guns.
(I say this as someone who agrees that the USA has way too many guns - but they’re a tool built for a purpose)
the fact that some people will happily take a beating if it means they keep some “moral high ground” they get to be smug about would be funny if it weren’t so sad, and if it weren’t what got us four more years of the orange dipshit.
I don’t think you, or the people you’re claiming to represent, understand the joke. First Lady Musk refers to Trump, not Elon. The implication isn’t that it’s demeaning to be a woman or queer, but that the spouse of the President has no real power or authority. This has nothing to do with their gender, and everything to do with the fact that they are the unelected spouse of an elected official.
The only ones who benefit when you misinterpret things in a way that implies unintended and unsubstantiated bigotry, are those who can use it to reinforce their claims of a misguidedly hypersensitive left, and thereby undermine justified recognition of intended and substantiated bigotry.
Then simple question, why not use First Gentleman? Kamala Harris’ husband was Second Gentleman and would have been first if she had won.
You’re speaking with a lot of confidence about the validity of the feelings of a group of people who, I’m guessing, you are not apart of.
Generally, jokes aren’t funny when you convolute them with a distracting term that people don’t know.
This is probably the second time I’ve read that term in 4 years. Still had to think about what it meant. I am getting the impression you don’t make a lot of jokes or find them as vital as I do. I say that because I wrote several paragraphs about jokes, why they are important, and why I think it’s bad if people stop making them. At no point did you respond to a word of that, and here I see you prioritizing “being PC” over a joke landing at all.
Going by your logic, that would be offensive to me, as a gay man.
But this kind of hypersensitivity, especially when applied regardless of context or intent, is one of the main drivers of the reactionary sentiment that is allowing the right to win elections all over the world. It’s one of the reasons why the “free speech” argument has worked so well in their favor.
Currently, the only ones benefitting from this “moral high-ground” stance are fragile little baby egos like Musk and Trump who can rest assured knowing their opposition would never stoop as low as them, while they get to freely spew as much intentionally evil shit as they want.
A society where no one is ever offended by anyone is a utopia. It’s as desirable as it is unattainable. I think the best thing we can do at the moment is focus on fighting back, not fighting against each other.
Because we’ve never actually had a First Gentleman, so the term isn’t familiar. This is a scenario where strict accuracy muddles the rhetoric beyond recognition, which defeats the purpose.
When did I say anything about the validity of anyone’s feelings?
Because nobody knows what those are.
Because those terms will not aggravate trump. The intent is to aggravate trump not denigrate femininity. Focus ffs. This isn’t about insulting trans people or women, it’s about fighting back on someone who is trying to hurt them. We will struggle to maintain allies if we cannot focus on the speakers intent and not a willing misinterpretation of their words.
I mean, I understand all that too, but if you have to give that explanation within hours of using the phrase, isn’t it maybe an indication that this is a very real risk:
Also:
I hate to say it, but I don’t see much difference between relating the position of the right wing in an attempt to silence someone telling you that your turn of phrase was insensitive and actually holding the right wing position yourself. Do with that info what you will, I’m just calling it like I see it.
I am going to stand by my position that misgendering isn’t cool, thanks
The Batman imagery makes a lot of sense, because it’s a fiction and I couldn’t ever imagine “the good guys” taking moral high grounds and winning wars (in Ukraine, etc) without guns.
(I say this as someone who agrees that the USA has way too many guns - but they’re a tool built for a purpose)
Not using the weapons of the enemy is what landed the enemy a victory.
the fact that some people will happily take a beating if it means they keep some “moral high ground” they get to be smug about would be funny if it weren’t so sad, and if it weren’t what got us four more years of the orange dipshit.
It’s the face the wall comrade meme all over again.
Oh damn the moral paragon of squint batman, the trust fund billionaire beating up the mentally disabled.
Cool the don’t do it. Are you able to do that while not alienating people who share your views perhaps? That’d be great.
Are you?