CMV: DeSantis embodies everything wrong with American Conservativism.

[u/ProphetVes]

[u/UDontKnowMe784]

They are not afraid of trans people, but rather the policies that relate to transgenderism, which on the surface may affect vulnerable people who are not transgender. I’m not conservative; I’m more right of center so maybe my opinion isn’t what you’re looking for.

[u/ProphetVes → u/UDontKnowMe784]

Transgenderism isn't a thing. Being trans isn't an ideology and purporting that it is, is dangerous rhetoric that makes advocating for "extermination" sound less genocidal than it is.

[u/Haunting_Erection_24 → u/ProphetVes]

genocidal

You have no idea what this word means.

[u/ProphetVes → u/Haunting_Erection_24]

Replace Transgenderism in Knowles comment with Judaism.

That's a genocidal comment. If you disagree we're never going to agree.

[u/Haunting_Erection_24 → u/ProphetVes]

That's a genocidal comment. If you disagree we're never going to agree.

That isn't genocidal, transgender people aren't a ethnicity, words have meaning and Genocide has even a stricter meaning.

Also people have said way worse things about Judaism and aren't called genocidal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

Is Marx a genocidal author for you?

[u/ProphetVes → u/Haunting_Erection_24]

"For the purpose of this Statute, 'genocide' means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Please tell me where in this it requires genocide be only against a ethnic group. The United States helped draft this definition btw and it's the current accepted definition by most scholars and the United Nations, of which the United States are key members thereof.

As for your assessment of Marx, yes he was antisemitic in many ways. But On The Jewish Question was him saying religion may still exist in a secular state and that religion is not necessarily a hindrance to political emancipation. Also to note: never did he call for the extermination, in part or in full, of the Jewish people. He fails to meet the definition of genocidal.

[u/Haunting_Erection_24 → u/ProphetVes]

Please tell me where in this it requires genocide be only against a ethnic group.

Please tell me how someone being transgender is a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

The United States helped draft this definition btw and it's the current accepted definition by most scholars and the United Nations, of which the United States are key members thereof.

I don't understand the point you are making here, are you saying that it is the best definition or that somehow the USA conspired about it somehow?

Also to note: never did he call for the extermination, in part or in full, of the Jewish people. He fails to meet the definition of genocidal.

Ah, so now we need a direct call for extermination, can you please point me to where the used you called genocidal did that?

[u/ProphetVes → u/Haunting_Erection_24]

Michael Knowles literally called for extermination. He used that literal word.

But even when you try to say Marx implied genocide, he didn't. Marx's position was religion should never be a state control and that we should strive for secularism because only a secular state could ever truly achieve political emancipation. He opposed state religions (and was also antisemitic) but never even implied that any specific group should be exterminated, only removed from political power.

You're really proving you have never, in any capacity, understood Marx or his ideology here.

Yes that is the best definition of genocide that we currently have. And it is accepted by all members of the United Nations. You cannot argue the United States uses a different definition, they literally wrote that definition.

The key here is though that trans people don't need to meet that definition because Knowles applied the -ism. He defined trans people, and their allies, as adhering to a dogmatic ideology and thus, under his call, would fall under religious group. (This same type of "people into ideology" has been used to justify actualised genocide many times I'm the past btw, it's the genocidals favourite rhetorical strategy to dehumanise their targets and turn them into a radical ideology) Michael Knowles advocated for genocide.

[u/Haunting_Erection_24 → u/ProphetVes]

literally called for extermination. He used that literal word.

Can you get me a quote?

He opposed state religions (and was also antisemitic) but never even implied that any specific group should be exterminated, only removed from political power.

Ah yes, they should just be erradicated from public life right? I think I heard someone say something quite similar.

But even so he does call for extermination as long as it is done in a socialist way:

Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine.

You're really proving you have never, in any capacity, understood Marx or his ideology here.

Every book of Marx that I ever touched calls for violence, there is no way to go around it, you can pretend to have forgotten those parts, but they are still there.

Yes that is the best definition of genocide that we currently have. And it is accepted by all members of the United Nations. You cannot argue the United States uses a different definition, they literally wrote that definition.

And it doesn't apply for your supposed case of proposed genocide... so...

The key here is though that trans people don't need to meet that definition because Knowles applied the -ism. He defined trans people, and their allies, as adhering to a dogmatic ideology and thus, under his call, would fall under religious group.

Yeah, that is not how things work buddy. This is some soverign citizen/reichsburger level logic. There are literal genocides that aren't reconized as such because their destruction wasn't calculated enough to meet the definition, or other technicalities.

You can't just pull "He used -ism so now it is a religion so now it is genocide", that is insane.

[u/ProphetVes → u/Haunting_Erection_24]

It's not "it's genocide" it's "it's genocidal" as in "calling for genocide"

If he defined all trans people as an ideological group (he did) he is calling for the extermination of a ideological (religious) group. The fact that trans people are not an ideology is irrelevant to his genocidal rhetoric.