Except that a tiny minority is never going to be truly safe trying to match the threat of violence from much larger groups of bigots.
Like, sure, own guns, but it’s not the way of successfully securing ones rights. Rights are secured through law and the courts. If you have to get into a gun battle to protect yourself, that’s not really having rights in the way anyone wants in a modern nation. Rights are about being free and protected by society.
I point this distinction out because there is always a campaign from the far right trying to stoke violence on the left, using a facade of revolutionary or progressive-sounding language online to plant the seeds of violence, but when you pick apart the axioms at the foundation of these ideas you find it’s just more right-wing “might makes right” horseshit. Their goal in doing this is to get the left to give the right the excuse they need to respond both legally and violently retaliate to accomplish right-wing goals.
Until democracy literally collapses, a gun is not ultimately the means by which a right or safety should be secured, if someone thinks that then they don’t actually believe in the rule of law or the democratic process. They believe in rule through violence.
Those are some nice platitudes, and having rights is important, but the government isn’t going to protect you if someone is trying to murder you for being trans. You’re going to have to live through that situation before you can do anything else. That might mean using violence to defend yourself, it might not, but when you’re especially likely to be a target of violence it’s better to be prepared for that outcome.
That preparation could be a weapon, it could be a plan, it could be anonymity or a fortified home. But whatever it is, if you have something to go on when that moment comes you’ll be a lot better off than trying to think on your feet.
So the rule of law and democratic process is a “platitude” in your mind? A functional democratic government does nothing more to maintain order and safety than anarchy?
I dunno, I think maybe you’re taking a lot for granted here. Society is not held together by violence, it’s held together by people agreeing to believe in some basic uniting principles. When you erode people’s faith in that agreement (the goal of the far right) is when it stops being effective, but that doesn’t mean it’s a platitude.
Black Americans didn’t secure their rights by getting into gun fights. They did it by strategically getting their case before the courts, using things like freedom riders to create a case that had to be heard. It would not have mattered if they showed up at the voting booth weilding a gun, that would not have secured their right to vote, in fact it would’ve been used as an excuse to further hinder their rights.
Likewise, the fundemental right to safety is not secured when you have to walk around with a gun to be safe. Straight cis people do not need to do that, neither should anyone else.
The rule of law is largely a fucking joke that serves the powerful and protects the status quo. There may be times when it serves a purpose that’s actually positive, but it’s not going to protect you in the face of a dangerous reality.
If you think the law can bodily protect you, go wander into traffic in a crosswalk without looking. The law should prevent any vehicles from hitting you, no?
The fact that murdering trans women is generally illegal isn’t sufficient to protect us when someone tries to kill us. We have to be ready for that ourselves.
The fact that murdering trans women is generally illegal isn’t sufficient to protect us when someone tries to kill us.
I never said protections were sufficient, I’m saying it’s not some fundemental given of the universe that trans people have to live in a society where they carry a gun everywhere they go. We know this is true because there are places where trans people are more safe than others, where they have more rights than other places. It’s an ideological problem, not one of violence. Trans people cannot ultimately win the battle of violence based on the simple reality of numbers. Every single trans person could own a gun, it wouldn’t make society safer for them.
But, I think we have fundamentally irreconcilable perspectives in this regard, I can’t convince you that libertarianism doesn’t work, it’s something you’ll have to experience for yourself. To watch fail in real time.
The philosophy you’re espousing has the exact same underpinnings; democratic rule of law is a waste of time, the individual is responsible for their rights, you can’t change people or society, only way to be safe is to buy a gun and hope you can outshoot everyone who wants to harm you.
Never works, and in fact pushes counter to trans people eventually truly securing their rights. But, like I say, there’s no real convincing you of that until a few decades down the road when nothing has changed because everyone thinks a gun is a solution to a systemic societal and cultural problem and trans people still have no safety.
It’s not putting words in your mouth, you just haven’t really considered the premises underpinning what you’re advocating or where they come from.
You’re reinforcing a right-wing belief that places violence at the center of politics, whether you understand it as that or not – the fetishization of firearms in the US has sustained so many problems we have in this country, it’s crutch and a political dead end. To tell trans people “Get a gun, that’s the way you will be safe” is simply bullshit, and a way of offloading society’s responsibility to safeguard everyone’s basic rights onto individuals.
It’s the same way that it should not be the responsibility of black Americans to arm themselves to enforce the change that needs to happen among the white majority.
We know this is true because there are places where trans people are more safe than others, where they have more rights than other places.
I’m genuinely curious where you are referring to, that you believe trans people are actually legitimately free of the threat of violence against them. If you’re in California, you’re mostly free from governmental violence by the California state government itself (unless you happen to run into a transphobic cop), but that doesn’t insulate you from federal laws that target you. And you’re certainly not safe from individual bigots any moreso than in other states.
I can’t convince you that libertarianism doesn’t work
You keep talking about Libertarianism, but I don’t know where you are getting the impression that any of us here are Libertarian. Are you just using that as a catch-all term to mean “skeptical of governments and systems of authority”? Libertarianism doesn’t work because of its focus on Individualism, and everyone’s supposed ‘right’ to exist apart and separate from each other (except when Libertarians want others to be forced to do something). Libertarians don’t want a society, they want to be provided-for, but also to have no responsibility to the people doing the providing.
There are many OTHER political philosophies, however, many of which reject systems of authority, but embrace community, social responsibility, interdependence, and civic engagement. And in which people can choose to participate in those societies rather than being forced to simply because of where they’re born.
You think no black people ever defended themselves against a white person trying to murder them by being armed? It isn’t about changing the entire world at the barrel of a gun, it’s about “not dying right now in this home invasion or assault with a deadly weapon.” When someone is actively trying to stab, beat, shoot, etc, you, you can worry about voting when the ballots open, worry about court cases after this situation, currently you should be worrying about “stopping the threat to your life,” so you can live long enough to make it to court or the ballot box. You seem to have a fundimental misunderstanding of what self defense is.
the government isn’t going to protect you if someone is trying to murder you [for being trans]
As a European, I say it should. Like, one of the things I really want a government to do as a bare minimum, is to prevent people from murdering each other.
No one said anything in this context about securing legal rights through violence, we’re talking about protecting yourself from individual or community-level acts of aggression. That’s literally what the ranch was created for, and what most LGBT+ mutual-defense groups form around.
But since you brought it up…
Until democracy literally collapses, a gun is not ultimately the means by which a right or safety should be secured
Violence is always the ultimate (i.e. final or most fundamental) means to protect your life and rights, whether it’s a society promising that violence in the form of laws and the police that enforce them, or via your own personal defense against an attacker.
if someone thinks that then they don’t actually believe in the rule of law
Laws always only exists through the promise of violence (against body, possessions, liberty, etc) against people violating them.
or the democratic process. They believe in rule through violence.
All modern nation-states operate this way. Democracy doesn’t change that, unless it’s a fully consensus-based or consent-based-participation system.
Rights are about being free and protected by society.
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
I have a lot of thoughts on the strategy of rhetorically censoring yourself in order to attempt to avoid right-wing accusations of left-wing revolutionism, but I will leave that for another time and place (like c/socialism).
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
If a trans person shows up to a doctors office with a gun and demands healthcare, is that how we know their rights are protected? No. We know their rights are secured when they can walk in public freely without harassment and go to the doctors freely and legally to get the care they need.
You’re falling entirely into a political frame that benefits the far right libertarian perspective. Violence is antathema to the democratic process and a truly peaceful, cooperative society that is based on the rule of law.
Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right. Not some kind of “other” category that someone should expect to have to carry a gun around to ensure. Just like when right-wingers carry around guns, it’s an illusion of control and safety, not safety rooted in the society they live in.
Tbh, you do have that right (in the US), that is why it is illegal to murder or lynch people. The problem is that simply because rights exist, it doesn’t mean they’re magically provided at all times, there are simply people in the world who would transgress upon your rights (in this case, the right to not be murdered, by trying to murder you.) But since not everyone can carry a policeman on piggyback everywhere they go, sometimes it may fall upon you to defend your own right to not be murdered, if you want it defended in real time someone who is there at the time has to unfortunately do it.
Like sure, I have homeowners insurance and I can call the fire dept, but I also have a fire extinguisher because it’d be a lot cooler if I could just PSSSHT that fire out real fast instead of having to lose everything and file reports about it, or just hope the FD makes it in time when I totally could’ve just sprayed it myself had I the appropriate tools on site when it started.
Yup, and guns won’t ensure that society changes in a way that trans people get that right. Right-wingers are the ones who think guns and violence somehow lead to a better society.
What we see is that no, more guns only pushses society in the opposite direction.
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
If a trans person shows up to a doctors office with a gun and demands healthcare, is that how we know their rights are protected?
You just jumped from me talking about society using violence to talking about an individual using violence. In this current form of society in the US, individuals are not endowed with the authority to use violence to demand goods and services, only society at large is, via legislative means. So if society says (via a law), “your office must provide this person healthcare without discriminating against them” and the doctor ignores it, and they are criminally charged, a warrant will be issued and a policeman with a gun will be sent to arrest them, etc etc.
We know their rights are secured when they can walk in public freely without harassment and go to the doctors freely and legally to get the care they need.
Yes, because if someone harasses them, they are protected by the society assuring those rights (with violence, or the threat thereof).
You’re falling entirely into a political frame that benefits the far right libertarian perspective.
Not at all. You just think I am because you are conflating me stating that violence underpins systems of authority with me being pro-violence. I’m in fact very much against violence, and against systems that do rely on it, like non-consensus based democracies and other systems which assert authority over people unwillingly based on their geographic location.
Violence is antathema to the democratic process…
If you are literally talking about violence as part of the process itself, that is obviously not part of our system (unless you break one of our laws about voting, in which case violence enters the room to arrest/ punish you).
and [anathema to] a truly peaceful, cooperative society that is based on the rule of law.
I agree with you up to “society”, because yes, violence is obviously exclusive by definition of peace. But the second half, about the “rule of law”, just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those words, and their relation to violence. “Rule” in that phrase literally means “the exercise of authority or control over”. So the Law’s exercise of authority or control over (members of a society). That is, in a non-consensus-based system, enforced with the threat or actualization of violence against the members of that society. ALL authority is backed by violence. That’s the problem with authority.
Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right.
It obviously should be, I agree. Often that’s not the case, due to either violent individuals, or society’s authoritative laws being used against people to hurt them (like Florida, Texas, and many others are doing to trans people and many other minority groups right now).
Not some kind of “other” category that someone should expect to have to carry a gun around to ensure. Just like when right-wingers carry around guns, it’s an illusion of control and safety, not safety rooted in the society they live in.
Once again, you are conflating the people in the article talking about protecting themselves from individuals and non-authority entities, not about ensuring their rights within the framework of society at large. No one is setting up an LGBT+ defense ranch in e.g. Florida to provide protection against a state government.
And I agree that people should not HAVE to carry around a gun to be safe; that’s the whole ostensible (but false) promise that our society extends to its citizens. But our society doesn’t actually operate like that, because it, like all other modern nation-states, was founded through violence (revolutionary and settler-colonial), is enforced and maintained through violence (police and military), and in our case exports violence around the globe.
If you are hoping for the US to ever be a country that does not exist in a perpetual state of violence at all levels, I think you are naive.
Except that a tiny minority is never going to be truly safe trying to match the threat of violence from much larger groups of bigots.
Like, sure, own guns, but it’s not the way of successfully securing ones rights. Rights are secured through law and the courts. If you have to get into a gun battle to protect yourself, that’s not really having rights in the way anyone wants in a modern nation. Rights are about being free and protected by society.
I point this distinction out because there is always a campaign from the far right trying to stoke violence on the left, using a facade of revolutionary or progressive-sounding language online to plant the seeds of violence, but when you pick apart the axioms at the foundation of these ideas you find it’s just more right-wing “might makes right” horseshit. Their goal in doing this is to get the left to give the right the excuse they need to respond both legally and violently retaliate to accomplish right-wing goals.
Until democracy literally collapses, a gun is not ultimately the means by which a right or safety should be secured, if someone thinks that then they don’t actually believe in the rule of law or the democratic process. They believe in rule through violence.
Those are some nice platitudes, and having rights is important, but the government isn’t going to protect you if someone is trying to murder you for being trans. You’re going to have to live through that situation before you can do anything else. That might mean using violence to defend yourself, it might not, but when you’re especially likely to be a target of violence it’s better to be prepared for that outcome.
That preparation could be a weapon, it could be a plan, it could be anonymity or a fortified home. But whatever it is, if you have something to go on when that moment comes you’ll be a lot better off than trying to think on your feet.
So the rule of law and democratic process is a “platitude” in your mind? A functional democratic government does nothing more to maintain order and safety than anarchy?
I dunno, I think maybe you’re taking a lot for granted here. Society is not held together by violence, it’s held together by people agreeing to believe in some basic uniting principles. When you erode people’s faith in that agreement (the goal of the far right) is when it stops being effective, but that doesn’t mean it’s a platitude.
Black Americans didn’t secure their rights by getting into gun fights. They did it by strategically getting their case before the courts, using things like freedom riders to create a case that had to be heard. It would not have mattered if they showed up at the voting booth weilding a gun, that would not have secured their right to vote, in fact it would’ve been used as an excuse to further hinder their rights.
Likewise, the fundemental right to safety is not secured when you have to walk around with a gun to be safe. Straight cis people do not need to do that, neither should anyone else.
The rule of law is largely a fucking joke that serves the powerful and protects the status quo. There may be times when it serves a purpose that’s actually positive, but it’s not going to protect you in the face of a dangerous reality.
If you think the law can bodily protect you, go wander into traffic in a crosswalk without looking. The law should prevent any vehicles from hitting you, no?
The fact that murdering trans women is generally illegal isn’t sufficient to protect us when someone tries to kill us. We have to be ready for that ourselves.
I never said protections were sufficient, I’m saying it’s not some fundemental given of the universe that trans people have to live in a society where they carry a gun everywhere they go. We know this is true because there are places where trans people are more safe than others, where they have more rights than other places. It’s an ideological problem, not one of violence. Trans people cannot ultimately win the battle of violence based on the simple reality of numbers. Every single trans person could own a gun, it wouldn’t make society safer for them.
But, I think we have fundamentally irreconcilable perspectives in this regard, I can’t convince you that libertarianism doesn’t work, it’s something you’ll have to experience for yourself. To watch fail in real time.
Ew, who said anything about being a libertarian?
The philosophy you’re espousing has the exact same underpinnings; democratic rule of law is a waste of time, the individual is responsible for their rights, you can’t change people or society, only way to be safe is to buy a gun and hope you can outshoot everyone who wants to harm you.
Never works, and in fact pushes counter to trans people eventually truly securing their rights. But, like I say, there’s no real convincing you of that until a few decades down the road when nothing has changed because everyone thinks a gun is a solution to a systemic societal and cultural problem and trans people still have no safety.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I’d suggest reading it back over with fresh eyes and trying not to make these assumptions.
It’s not putting words in your mouth, you just haven’t really considered the premises underpinning what you’re advocating or where they come from.
You’re reinforcing a right-wing belief that places violence at the center of politics, whether you understand it as that or not – the fetishization of firearms in the US has sustained so many problems we have in this country, it’s crutch and a political dead end. To tell trans people “Get a gun, that’s the way you will be safe” is simply bullshit, and a way of offloading society’s responsibility to safeguard everyone’s basic rights onto individuals.
It’s the same way that it should not be the responsibility of black Americans to arm themselves to enforce the change that needs to happen among the white majority.
I’m genuinely curious where you are referring to, that you believe trans people are actually legitimately free of the threat of violence against them. If you’re in California, you’re mostly free from governmental violence by the California state government itself (unless you happen to run into a transphobic cop), but that doesn’t insulate you from federal laws that target you. And you’re certainly not safe from individual bigots any moreso than in other states.
You keep talking about Libertarianism, but I don’t know where you are getting the impression that any of us here are Libertarian. Are you just using that as a catch-all term to mean “skeptical of governments and systems of authority”? Libertarianism doesn’t work because of its focus on Individualism, and everyone’s supposed ‘right’ to exist apart and separate from each other (except when Libertarians want others to be forced to do something). Libertarians don’t want a society, they want to be provided-for, but also to have no responsibility to the people doing the providing.
There are many OTHER political philosophies, however, many of which reject systems of authority, but embrace community, social responsibility, interdependence, and civic engagement. And in which people can choose to participate in those societies rather than being forced to simply because of where they’re born.
You think no black people ever defended themselves against a white person trying to murder them by being armed? It isn’t about changing the entire world at the barrel of a gun, it’s about “not dying right now in this home invasion or assault with a deadly weapon.” When someone is actively trying to stab, beat, shoot, etc, you, you can worry about voting when the ballots open, worry about court cases after this situation, currently you should be worrying about “stopping the threat to your life,” so you can live long enough to make it to court or the ballot box. You seem to have a fundimental misunderstanding of what self defense is.
As a European, I say it should. Like, one of the things I really want a government to do as a bare minimum, is to prevent people from murdering each other.
Independently of any personal preparations.
No one said anything in this context about securing legal rights through violence, we’re talking about protecting yourself from individual or community-level acts of aggression. That’s literally what the ranch was created for, and what most LGBT+ mutual-defense groups form around.
But since you brought it up…
Violence is always the ultimate (i.e. final or most fundamental) means to protect your life and rights, whether it’s a society promising that violence in the form of laws and the police that enforce them, or via your own personal defense against an attacker.
Laws always only exists through the promise of violence (against body, possessions, liberty, etc) against people violating them.
All modern nation-states operate this way. Democracy doesn’t change that, unless it’s a fully consensus-based or consent-based-participation system.
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
I have a lot of thoughts on the strategy of rhetorically censoring yourself in order to attempt to avoid right-wing accusations of left-wing revolutionism, but I will leave that for another time and place (like c/socialism).
If a trans person shows up to a doctors office with a gun and demands healthcare, is that how we know their rights are protected? No. We know their rights are secured when they can walk in public freely without harassment and go to the doctors freely and legally to get the care they need.
You’re falling entirely into a political frame that benefits the far right libertarian perspective. Violence is antathema to the democratic process and a truly peaceful, cooperative society that is based on the rule of law.
Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right. Not some kind of “other” category that someone should expect to have to carry a gun around to ensure. Just like when right-wingers carry around guns, it’s an illusion of control and safety, not safety rooted in the society they live in.
“Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right.”
Yes, but it isn’t a right we universally enjoy.
Tbh, you do have that right (in the US), that is why it is illegal to murder or lynch people. The problem is that simply because rights exist, it doesn’t mean they’re magically provided at all times, there are simply people in the world who would transgress upon your rights (in this case, the right to not be murdered, by trying to murder you.) But since not everyone can carry a policeman on piggyback everywhere they go, sometimes it may fall upon you to defend your own right to not be murdered, if you want it defended in real time someone who is there at the time has to unfortunately do it.
Like sure, I have homeowners insurance and I can call the fire dept, but I also have a fire extinguisher because it’d be a lot cooler if I could just PSSSHT that fire out real fast instead of having to lose everything and file reports about it, or just hope the FD makes it in time when I totally could’ve just sprayed it myself had I the appropriate tools on site when it started.
Yup, and guns won’t ensure that society changes in a way that trans people get that right. Right-wingers are the ones who think guns and violence somehow lead to a better society.
What we see is that no, more guns only pushses society in the opposite direction.
You just jumped from me talking about society using violence to talking about an individual using violence. In this current form of society in the US, individuals are not endowed with the authority to use violence to demand goods and services, only society at large is, via legislative means. So if society says (via a law), “your office must provide this person healthcare without discriminating against them” and the doctor ignores it, and they are criminally charged, a warrant will be issued and a policeman with a gun will be sent to arrest them, etc etc.
Yes, because if someone harasses them, they are protected by the society assuring those rights (with violence, or the threat thereof).
Not at all. You just think I am because you are conflating me stating that violence underpins systems of authority with me being pro-violence. I’m in fact very much against violence, and against systems that do rely on it, like non-consensus based democracies and other systems which assert authority over people unwillingly based on their geographic location.
If you are literally talking about violence as part of the process itself, that is obviously not part of our system (unless you break one of our laws about voting, in which case violence enters the room to arrest/ punish you).
I agree with you up to “society”, because yes, violence is obviously exclusive by definition of peace. But the second half, about the “rule of law”, just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those words, and their relation to violence. “Rule” in that phrase literally means “the exercise of authority or control over”. So the Law’s exercise of authority or control over (members of a society). That is, in a non-consensus-based system, enforced with the threat or actualization of violence against the members of that society. ALL authority is backed by violence. That’s the problem with authority.
It obviously should be, I agree. Often that’s not the case, due to either violent individuals, or society’s authoritative laws being used against people to hurt them (like Florida, Texas, and many others are doing to trans people and many other minority groups right now).
Once again, you are conflating the people in the article talking about protecting themselves from individuals and non-authority entities, not about ensuring their rights within the framework of society at large. No one is setting up an LGBT+ defense ranch in e.g. Florida to provide protection against a state government.
And I agree that people should not HAVE to carry around a gun to be safe; that’s the whole ostensible (but false) promise that our society extends to its citizens. But our society doesn’t actually operate like that, because it, like all other modern nation-states, was founded through violence (revolutionary and settler-colonial), is enforced and maintained through violence (police and military), and in our case exports violence around the globe.
If you are hoping for the US to ever be a country that does not exist in a perpetual state of violence at all levels, I think you are naive.
deleted by creator