They also kill them with bombs along with all the other palestinians

They also shoot them after watching them fuck via the scope of a sniper rifle.

Real pro LGBTQ guys over there

They also blow them up, starve them, shoot them, steal their lands and genocide them. Or do they stop each one and ask them to come out?

We should nuke Louisiana I guess

Really is funny when chuds pull out that card
“Palestinians hate queer people!”

“You’re right, we should arm all trans people and let them kill homophobes on sight”
That’s not at all the same you’re doing a false equivalencarinoooo

Elect me as your president and I will ensure all trans people are allowed to kill one bigot a day, two if they have a tummy ache

I’d like to think they’d miss Michigan though

And it’s not even close. Though knowing the US, I’m sure it’s for some fucked up reason

For me I’ve had some succes with responding with “So you think it’s okay to kill them because they’re bigots?”

Sometimes they do a bit of handwringing, sometimes they don’t, but they end up arriving at the point that yes they think it’s fine that they die because they’re bigots, we need to make them more accepting of LGBTQ people.

“Alright then, we should kill all the bigots in this country. Let’s go murder all republicans. Let’s arm trans people. The death penalty is legal, so let’s just make it carte blanche.”

Then they’ll get mad and talk about false equivalencies, but you’ve basically got them at this point.

For me it’s that ‘x ethnic group are mostly bigots so they deserve to be genocide/ oppressed’ is that it is just good victim bad victim argument. That they only want to extend aid (or rather like the idea of extending aid) to ‘cute’ or ‘cuddly’ or ‘tragic’ victims but their solidarity will disappear (or rather their lack of solidarity will reveal itself) if you refuse to fit that mould. For example a trans person in the imperial core who refuses to allow their identity to be used to spread colonial propaganda even when they are short of funds. Or a gay indigenous person who wants to attack their colonisers.
I’m neither Igbo nor a women but seeing this pink and purplewashing makes me appreciate Things Fall Apart did not shy away from showing Igbo misogyny/ more conservative elements. I can’t say if it was good representation but I think it was important they showed it since it does help push across the idea that native misogyny etc. is not an excuse for ‘civilising’ their society.
On Okonkwo’s fundamentalism, yes it is bad. But he was also one of the only few people at the start who wanted to force the colonisers out of their land first. It can be read as a statement on how societies under attack end up with very reactionary and rigid rulers in response because they are the only ones that do something so even if you hate their actions you realise that criticising them and only them is a very chauvinistic way of analysing the situation. Kind of like how people only criticise the homophobia but not actions done by imperial countries that make them see LGBT rights as not just immoral but a security threat like ‘blackmailing their local queers into becoming informants’ or ‘painting rainbow flags on the bombs they drop onto the country’.

Its just chauvinism. Back in the 1890s it was stopping slavery in the congo or saving indian widows.

Lmao of course, never trust a word natopedia says

I didn’t want the bot I asked for to do friendly fire, like some sort of Frankenstein

Without a doubt

Make no mistake, the SC will overturn gay marriage if they think they can. They will outlaw trans people’s entire existence, too. The only thing preventing these from happening are lower courts not kicking things up to the SC.

They’d do the same with slavery and Jim Crow if they weren’t terrified of open rebellion led by a black vanguard.

I just felt like Texas made the title more punchy, don’t know why. What do you think? Alternatively I could have just written “most of the US”