this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
1245 points (98.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
6652 readers
2782 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah this is like the social contract thing. You only get protection from the social contract as long as you adhere to the social contract.
The minute you stop adhering to the social contact you stop being protected by it.
Don't be a piece of shit and people won't treat you like a piece of shit. It's that fuckin simple.
Would you call a black person the n-word because they did something bad?
Would I say "Trump only sees you as a cotton-picking n----r" to a black Trump supporter? Yeah, if the context was right (like it is in the example). Hard r and all. Because it's true - that is what Trump thinks, even if he's smart enough not to say it (often).
That's not the same as me calling them the n-word, I'm stating what someone else thinks.
Of course I wouldn't call a black person the n-word. Not because I'm afraid of the word itself, but because I genuinely don't believe in the image of black people that word was meant to create.
But Trump absolutely does. And it's ok to call a spade a spade. Important, even.
If they were being extremely racist I might.
Not because I'm racist but just because I know it'll piss them off.
With that said I've never actually done it just thought about it
Trans people weren't put in chains try again
Well... the were when they were in the concentration camps in 1930s Germany after the institute that performed the first successful gender reassignment surgery was burned to the ground.
Sure it wasn't the many generations of the horrors of slavery but this is literally just Dido-ing at this point comparing the scale of atrocities. An atrocity is still an atrocity. Slavery was bad and we still see major hardships to this day because of the effects of slavery and Jim Crow. Nazi Germany was bad and look around, we're speed running the collapse of a democracy into a fascist dictatorship following the exact same steps as Germany did in the 30s.
Trans rights are human rights. They are not something you can take away because people "stop adhering to the social contract", the same way we can't take access to food and healthcare away from prisoners just because they did a crime (yes, in real-life they often get taken away, but you get the point).
Insisting on deadnaming someone also harms the whole transgender community, by pushing the point that those rights are conditional.
But the person replying isn't saying that Caitlyn ought to be referred to by her former name. In fact, they aren't actually using it to refer to her at all. They're merely mentioning that it exists, which is appropriate in some contexts.
If I were going over medical records with my doctor, she would be fine to ask if (deadname) was my name, because it's for a necessary purpose. That's different from using it to refer to me.
Also, if Caitlyn is offended by seeing that name, she's going to have an awfully rude awakening coming under the current administration. I think the time for subtlety is past on that front.