48
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
48 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6196 readers
1 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
By this framing, there can never be safety, because there are always going to be violent bigots.
Safety is about a state of mind, as they say in the article, but it has to be informed by physical reality on some level, and that will necessarily have to include the ability to not be physically victimized by bigots.
~~I also have a lot of issues with their choice to give a first-time shooter a machinegun (in the article they both call it a machinegun and semiautomatic, which is contradictory, but they make it sound like it had a 3-round burst, which if true would make it a machinegun, not semiautomatic), because that's like putting a first-time driver in a supercar; it's dangerous and non-representative of 99.9% of cars and driving. Of course you would walk away frightened/intimidated by it.~~
As pointed out by another commenter, they were handling a semiauto AR-15, not a machinegun as they stated.
Those are some nice platitudes, and having rights is important, but the government isn't going to protect you if someone is trying to murder you for being trans. You're going to have to live through that situation before you can do anything else. That might mean using violence to defend yourself, it might not, but when you're especially likely to be a target of violence it's better to be prepared for that outcome.
That preparation could be a weapon, it could be a plan, it could be anonymity or a fortified home. But whatever it is, if you have something to go on when that moment comes you'll be a lot better off than trying to think on your feet.
The rule of law is largely a fucking joke that serves the powerful and protects the status quo. There may be times when it serves a purpose that's actually positive, but it's not going to protect you in the face of a dangerous reality.
If you think the law can bodily protect you, go wander into traffic in a crosswalk without looking. The law should prevent any vehicles from hitting you, no?
The fact that murdering trans women is generally illegal isn't sufficient to protect us when someone tries to kill us. We have to be ready for that ourselves.
Ew, who said anything about being a libertarian?
You're putting words in my mouth. I'd suggest reading it back over with fresh eyes and trying not to make these assumptions.
@raccoona_nongrata @millie no one in a free country should need a gun to be themselves
I'm genuinely curious where you are referring to, that you believe trans people are actually legitimately free of the threat of violence against them. If you're in California, you're mostly free from governmental violence by the California state government itself (unless you happen to run into a transphobic cop), but that doesn't insulate you from federal laws that target you. And you're certainly not safe from individual bigots any moreso than in other states.
You keep talking about Libertarianism, but I don't know where you are getting the impression that any of us here are Libertarian. Are you just using that as a catch-all term to mean "skeptical of governments and systems of authority"? Libertarianism doesn't work because of its focus on Individualism, and everyone's supposed 'right' to exist apart and separate from each other (except when Libertarians want others to be forced to do something). Libertarians don't want a society, they want to be provided-for, but also to have no responsibility to the people doing the providing.
There are many OTHER political philosophies, however, many of which reject systems of authority, but embrace community, social responsibility, interdependence, and civic engagement. And in which people can choose to participate in those societies rather than being forced to simply because of where they're born.
You think no black people ever defended themselves against a white person trying to murder them by being armed? It isn't about changing the entire world at the barrel of a gun, it's about "not dying right now in this home invasion or assault with a deadly weapon." When someone is actively trying to stab, beat, shoot, etc, you, you can worry about voting when the ballots open, worry about court cases after this situation, currently you should be worrying about "stopping the threat to your life," so you can live long enough to make it to court or the ballot box. You seem to have a fundimental misunderstanding of what self defense is.
As a European, I say it should. Like, one of the things I really want a government to do as a bare minimum, is to prevent people from murdering each other.
Independently of any personal preparations.
No one said anything in this context about securing legal rights through violence, we're talking about protecting yourself from individual or community-level acts of aggression. That's literally what the ranch was created for, and what most LGBT+ mutual-defense groups form around.
But since you brought it up...
Violence is always the ultimate (i.e. final or most fundamental) means to protect your life and rights, whether it's a society promising that violence in the form of laws and the police that enforce them, or via your own personal defense against an attacker.
Laws always only exists through the promise of violence (against body, possessions, liberty, etc) against people violating them.
All modern nation-states operate this way. Democracy doesn't change that, unless it's a fully consensus-based or consent-based-participation system.
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
I have a lot of thoughts on the strategy of rhetorically censoring yourself in order to attempt to avoid right-wing accusations of left-wing revolutionism, but I will leave that for another time and place (like c/socialism).
"Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right."
Yes, but it isn't a right we universally enjoy.
Tbh, you do have that right (in the US), that is why it is illegal to murder or lynch people. The problem is that simply because rights exist, it doesn't mean they're magically provided at all times, there are simply people in the world who would transgress upon your rights (in this case, the right to not be murdered, by trying to murder you.) But since not everyone can carry a policeman on piggyback everywhere they go, sometimes it may fall upon you to defend your own right to not be murdered, if you want it defended in real time someone who is there at the time has to unfortunately do it.
Like sure, I have homeowners insurance and I can call the fire dept, but I also have a fire extinguisher because it'd be a lot cooler if I could just PSSSHT that fire out real fast instead of having to lose everything and file reports about it, or just hope the FD makes it in time when I totally could've just sprayed it myself had I the appropriate tools on site when it started.
You just jumped from me talking about society using violence to talking about an individual using violence. In this current form of society in the US, individuals are not endowed with the authority to use violence to demand goods and services, only society at large is, via legislative means. So if society says (via a law), "your office must provide this person healthcare without discriminating against them" and the doctor ignores it, and they are criminally charged, a warrant will be issued and a policeman with a gun will be sent to arrest them, etc etc.
Yes, because if someone harasses them, they are protected by the society assuring those rights (with violence, or the threat thereof).
Not at all. You just think I am because you are conflating me stating that violence underpins systems of authority with me being pro-violence. I'm in fact very much against violence, and against systems that do rely on it, like non-consensus based democracies and other systems which assert authority over people unwillingly based on their geographic location.
If you are literally talking about violence as part of the process itself, that is obviously not part of our system (unless you break one of our laws about voting, in which case violence enters the room to arrest/ punish you).
I agree with you up to "society", because yes, violence is obviously exclusive by definition of peace. But the second half, about the "rule of law", just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those words, and their relation to violence. "Rule" in that phrase literally means "the exercise of authority or control over". So the Law's exercise of authority or control over (members of a society). That is, in a non-consensus-based system, enforced with the threat or actualization of violence against the members of that society. ALL authority is backed by violence. That's the problem with authority.
It obviously should be, I agree. Often that's not the case, due to either violent individuals, or society's authoritative laws being used against people to hurt them (like Florida, Texas, and many others are doing to trans people and many other minority groups right now).
Once again, you are conflating the people in the article talking about protecting themselves from individuals and non-authority entities, not about ensuring their rights within the framework of society at large. No one is setting up an LGBT+ defense ranch in e.g. Florida to provide protection against a state government.
And I agree that people should not HAVE to carry around a gun to be safe; that's the whole ostensible (but false) promise that our society extends to its citizens. But our society doesn't actually operate like that, because it, like all other modern nation-states, was founded through violence (revolutionary and settler-colonial), is enforced and maintained through violence (police and military), and in our case exports violence around the globe.
If you are hoping for the US to ever be a country that does not exist in a perpetual state of violence at all levels, I think you are naive.
I watched the vice video segment a few weeks ago. I found it rather well put together, and I think it is well timed. Guns are divisive among the community, for valid and justified reasons. I grew up around them, but ive kept a lot of distance in the last decade. I've been feeling more and more the need to become familiar again. If not for myself, at least to be a resource for others if things go really bad. In some ways, becoming more in tune with my identity has made it more... obvious(?) that safety is not guaranteed, and being more public and true to myself, at least for the time being in the US, does increase chances of encounters with bigots. The perspective of the ranch members that training and aiding fellow community members for the possibility is (unfortunately) increasingly necessary for safety as a state of mind. They made the choice to move there. It was probably ill-advised. But there are also many who have little to no choice in their living situation, so i think the point stands.
Re: the rifle. If you watch the vice video accompanying the article, its a lot more clear that the trainer asked her to fire three times quickly, not that it had a burst or auto fire control option. In their context of training for an actual, ever-present threat, I do think it makes some sense to reach for the AR-15. It is designed to be ergonomic and, at least in my experience, the assumption that a wood-stocked rifle, something lower caliber, or a pistol is less-dangerous or even easier is not representative of reality, nor is it really a fair comparison to say its a supercar vs a normal car. Part of the danger AR-15 and similar firearms represent in the hands of bigots is due to the ease of use and reliability, not that it is inherently more powerful or demanding of training. All firearms are dangerous, no matter the caliber, size, or public opinion. (If your experience is different, I respect that)
100% agree.
This was only in reference to handing someone a ATF-defined machinegun, not about AR-15s. I completely missed the video embed (I think my tired brain just registered it as an image), and I was going off the picture where they are holding the open-bolt smg-like gun, which I assumed was a transferrable mg given the rest of what they said.
That tracks. I didn't really examine that picture and I totally see it now.