Joe Exotic posts on instagram that his husband was deported by ICE after years of shilling for Donald Trump.

  • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    16 hours ago

    lol okay word police.

    I’m sure this keeps you up at night tossing and turning that someone used the word husband when it wasn’t technically correct under the strict definition of ThE lEgAl SyStEm

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Okay so, other than “husband” and “woman” are there any other words the left don’t want to allow defining? How long is this list going to get?

      • goldfndr@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “the left”, eh? You are aware that plenty of people on “the right” allege things in social media that they would never put in a court filing, yes?

      • OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Hello I’m the left’s official spokesperson and I think I can clear up this confusion.

        A woman is someone who wants to be a woman.

        A husband is someone who wants to be a husband and has consent from the person they’re a husband of.

        Both of these words are identities, and letting people be who they want to be when it doesn’t affect other people is one of the values of the left. So you can go ahead and extend this reasoning to all personal identities that don’t harm others, and I think that answers your question.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          A husband is someone who wants to be a husband and has consent from the person they’re a husband of.

          No, a husband, wife or spouse is in a legal marriage with their partner, and in many jurisdictions carries specific legal rights involving one’s partner. That’s what makes them one of those terms and not a boyfriend, partner, fuckbuddy or whatever else. Unless you want to go the route that every noun or adjective describing a human is an identity, and thus no words for describing people can possibly have any meaning other than “person who applies this label to themselves.”

          Both of these words are identities, and letting people be who they want to be when it doesn’t affect other people is one of the values of the left. So you can go ahead and extend this reasoning to all personal identities that don’t harm others, and I think that answers your question.

          looks over at Rachel Dolezal

          You sure about that? And that’s without jumping deep down the radqueer rabbit hole. Lots of identities in there that mainstream progressives will reject the idea that you can simply identify as (even if we ignore the weird pro-pedo stuff).

          • OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Hm, no. Marriage isn’t a legal construct. The government doesn’t have the right to own people’s relationships. Legal marriage is a legal fiction, true marriage is in a person’s heart.

          • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I mean, it’s you that’s insisting on a strict rule being followed, while the rest of us are letting people live their lives as they like.

            It is you dying on the hill my friend. Alone, by the sounds of it.

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Find me anyone mentioning the price of eggs back in November. That wasn’t a thing.

              I do remember a lot of people very vocal about Palestine, and how important it was to not vote for the Democrats over it. And just how are the Palestinians enjoying their hard won Republican victory? I’m still not convinced that wasn’t a foreign psyop.

              Hating black women? Sure some of that happened. Hating black men happened in 2008 and again in 2012. Remind me who won those elections?

              Barack Obama ran on a campaign of hope and change. Kind of a charismatic JFK sort of persona, fairly young for a president, grade school age kids, projected energy and verve, inspiring speaker, etc. His campaign embraced the internet and social media in a way that hadn’t ever been done before which made a lot of young people feel seen. That simply isn’t there anymore. The official Democratic party policy is Nanci Pelosi’s stock portfolio and their official messaging is " 🏳️‍🌈 #blm #latinx" It was more important to run a woman candidate who wasn’t able to give a coherent answer to “What is a woman” because appearing to pander to the feminist and trans community was more important than winning the damn election. “At least we’re not our opponents” yeah that’s basically all you’ve been since the youngest eligible voters today were born; people can only hold their noses for so many decades.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Let’s be honest, the Dems were hoping that being afraid of Trump was going to win them 2024 the same way it won them 2020, except that the only reason it worked in 2020 was because being under Trump was fresh in people’s minds.