I've got great reasons to never ever down half a tray of sticky buns--yet I'm starting at the remaining quarter tray right now.

The flesh is weak, my friend.

Mama took the Tylenol. I've got a disordered aversion to bullshit.

If by "you sycophants" you're talking about someone like me who earned roughly 100 downvotes in r/contra pointing out that what is being said about that video is a complete lie, well, I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Maximalism is awesome.

THAT shit. If you don't like her, just leave her the fuck alone. It's a big ass Internet. Shouldn't be hard to stay out of each other's way

I know. I'm in and out of r/Hasan and r/contra. Almost feel like a centrist getting downvotes in two competing subs at the same time.

Hasan: "it would be bad for trans people if Democrats adopted transphobia to try to win votes--because that wouldn't win them votes. So they would just lose elections and normalize transphobia in the process."

OP: "HASAN SAYS TRANS PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE BETTER OFF IF DEMS HAD WON."

Not misleading?

He's not saying that either. He's responding to the argument that Trans people would be better off *if* Dems leaned into transphobia to win votes. His argument is that it would not win them votes, so they'd still lose elections, only having normalized anti-trans narratives in the process.

@contrapoints.bsky.social how is that funny? You amplified a naked lie about a person, and they flipped their shit about it--as many would. How the fuck are we at a point where someone as thoughtful and above the fray as you have always carried yourself is doing the most basic ass troll shit?

@contrapoints.bsky.social as one of the people in Hasan's toxic ass subreddit telling assholes to cut the shit against you and your community, I have to say that this is a very disappointing post. You are smart enough to see that the description of his argument is very dishonest.

It's not. His hypothetical states that Trump still wins even if Harris had leaned into transphobia. He literally is only talking about the campaign. He's saying nothing about how things would be under Harris. He's saying how the election would have gone if Harris was more like Trump.

The argument wasn't that things would be the same under Kamala. His argument was that if Kamala had adopted the same position as Trump, we'd still be under Trump.

In his hypothetical, Kamala still loses. He argues that if she had tacked right on something like trans rights, she would have bolstered the transphobic position, and people who held that position would still have voted for Trump because he was a purer transphobe.

Is 50501 going to use its reach to bring people out to protest at their local ABC Affiliate Studios? That would be a meaningful show of numbers.

It's troubling how much that behavior rhymes with school kids being like "nuh-uh, you're not punk. You're a jock cause you play tennis." (To conjure a totally random example that definitely isn't a lingering resentment from anybody specific's adolescence)

It's not "as opposed to". For many of his supporters every stupid, cruel, or destructive thing he did was rationalized as means to the end of outing the elite pedos. Without an Epstein list, what's left? Cognitive Dissonance and in extreme cases a terrifying confrontation with their conscience.