LogFAQs > #973290858

hockeybub89 posted...

I'm also on the spectrum and I think you're just heartless because this doesn't actually affect you. You can't muster empathy, so you'll pretend to show concern but with a hitch. "I understand you people believe you are having your rights restricted, but you can't go and be emotional about. That won't convince anyone to meet in the middle."

Recognize your own shortcomings instead of insisting everyone else is screwing up. You recognize that truly horrific things have happened throughout history, even in America! But, for some reason, you find it impossible that any pushback against poor LGBTQ people could come from a place of hatred. You came to a conclusion that it's confusion and lack of good communication and you're building backwards to justify your hypothesis.

(Thank you for the mostly civil response, I notice the effort and appreciate it. I know you aren't a fan of mine but I do think this kind of communication helps me understand your perspective better.)

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to be emotional, I validate basically everybody's feelings. I don't really think a person can have "wrong" feelings, just inaccurate thoughts. And even here, I'm not accusing people of being wrong in their thinking. I'm saying that from my perspective a large group of people are adopting unproductive stances/communication styles if their goal is what they suggest it is.

Let's think it through:
50% of U.S. adults identifying as political independents, which means that if you want to get people like them on your side, then it simply isn't effective to communicate in a way that's claiming something like "trans rights are human rights, anybody not 100% with us is a transphobic bigot who supports genocide."

Like really? If they are completely on your side but disagree on transwomen in competitive sports, are they still a bigot? What if all they want is strong safeguards for gender affirming care for children? Are they on the side of genocide, or is there some room for people who aren't wholly on your side but are mostly sympathetic?

Because even if there is some reasonable way that technically all the words in that above claim could be arguably be "true" I doubt the independent you are pre-emptively calling a bigot is going to see it that way or understand the specific subtext you might find implicit.

But if you say "There is a republican bill looking to block access to HRT for adults under 26" there are plenty of independents who are going to be like "yeah, that seems wrong. I want to vote against that bill/republican."

At the end of the day, people have to ask themselves the question of "do I want to enjoy the feeling of total moral superiority?" or "do I want to be effective in helping the people and causes I care about?"

Because it may feel good to be reductive and condemn those who disagree or even those who literally just have questions, but it's not at all effective. And while you may find me unsympathetic, I'd say my pragmatism is very sympathetic, because IMO it stands a much better chance of helping cause positive outcomes than ambiguous emotional rhetoric. (Which I'm not saying is inappropriate, just unproductive.)

I truly don't want anybody to suffer needlessly, and if that is my actual goal, IMO I'm more likely to help achieve that goal if I advocate for specificity and precision and civil discussion. Sure, I could join a political bubble and talk shit about the other side and feel self-righteous, but honestly that's selfish. That doesn't help, that just is an easy way for me to feel good doing nothing.