That’s a huge simplification, though. It’s not meant in a literal sense. Nobody wants to actually off this person. It’s like saying “Nobody should be allowed to shoplift” and “Nobody should be allowed to hoard power and control over things we need, so we therefore need to shoplift” are the same opposing statements. The action against each statement, or the action each statement is advocating for are inherently different, though, similarly as the original statement.
No shoplifting looks like a surveillance state and increased police presence.
No hoarding resources looks like flipping the power by electing politicians who don’t accept bribes (lobbying) and therefore serve the resource hoarders, and then taxing (with probably a few insistent pushes along the way).
Jks idiotic rhetoric asks similarly increase surveillance and police presence.
Not allowing her to exist, means extricating any one person’s ability to have this level of harmful power over any demographic, similarly voting for people who will use the wheels of power to stop her using her money to cause this influence. But it’s just easier to shorten that and say she shouldn’t exist.
That said, I’d add a caveat that, historically it’s taken blood to change the direction of things that be, if that’s their terms, then that’s their terms. If we leave them to be, they extract the blood of trans people, and trans women, of course including cis women. So there is already blood. Their way proposes harming, hugely, already. So if she won’t leave by progressive means, she’ll leave by her own devised means.
We leave her to go about her ways = blood.
We stop her with politics = no blood.
We are unable to stop her with politics = blood.
Trying to stop her only equates a 50% chance cloudy with a chance of blood.
So even if we choose blood. It’s still less blood than she is already proposing.
That’s a huge simplification, though. It’s not meant in a literal sense. Nobody wants to actually off this person. It’s like saying “Nobody should be allowed to shoplift” and “Nobody should be allowed to hoard power and control over things we need, so we therefore need to shoplift” are the same opposing statements. The action against each statement, or the action each statement is advocating for are inherently different, though, similarly as the original statement.
No shoplifting looks like a surveillance state and increased police presence. No hoarding resources looks like flipping the power by electing politicians who don’t accept bribes (lobbying) and therefore serve the resource hoarders, and then taxing (with probably a few insistent pushes along the way).
Jks idiotic rhetoric asks similarly increase surveillance and police presence. Not allowing her to exist, means extricating any one person’s ability to have this level of harmful power over any demographic, similarly voting for people who will use the wheels of power to stop her using her money to cause this influence. But it’s just easier to shorten that and say she shouldn’t exist.
That said, I’d add a caveat that, historically it’s taken blood to change the direction of things that be, if that’s their terms, then that’s their terms. If we leave them to be, they extract the blood of trans people, and trans women, of course including cis women. So there is already blood. Their way proposes harming, hugely, already. So if she won’t leave by progressive means, she’ll leave by her own devised means.
We leave her to go about her ways = blood.
We stop her with politics = no blood. We are unable to stop her with politics = blood.
Trying to stop her only equates a 50% chance cloudy with a chance of blood.
So even if we choose blood. It’s still less blood than she is already proposing.
And also, Luke I am your father.