Disconnect
Disconnect
Josh Hawley asks questions; he then, apparently, has encouraged genocide.
Please watch the following exchange.
Hawley asks a question: what does the issue concern? Is it a women’s issue? If not, whose is it? If we cannot define the affected parties, why is this discussion relevant?
The answer he’s given boils down to the professor accusing him of encouraging genocide. If he questions the underlying broadness of “people who can give birth” and the uselessness of such a phrase itself, he’s encouraging mass violence. We’re now making that jump, on the Senate record, in the halls of the US Congress. It is now entered into the annals that the Chairman of the Committee invited someone who believes, sincerely, that disputing the phrase that a “man can give birth” is an endorsement of violence.
The discussion of trans-insanity is done to death. Men cannot become women, and vice-versa. Those who describe themselves as non-binary are either emotionally confused, over-medicated, or over-socialized.
The real discussion to be had is the completely different takeaways that occur in response to this clip. Hawley asks questions, attempting to define bounds. Professor Bridges gives non-answers and then accuses him of violence. She has not answered the question she has been asked and likely has gone into full viral media mode. She is no longer concerned with answering the said question, but instead scoring political points and creating clips for BrooklynDadDefiant! types to trod out on their mechanized manure Twitter feeds.
First to note is that many of the viral clips that attempt to paint Hawley in a negative light cut out Bridges’ deranged ranting at him, and instead stop after her “sassy takedown” of his attempted definitions of the debate.
Hawley, of course, is not an idiot. He does not accept these definitions, firstly because they do not make any sense, and second because they would be constantly shifting if he accepted them.
Then, the second classification of interactions and quote-tweets, which…do nothing to contest Bridges’ conjecture about encouraging violence. They accept that she has “won” the debate by their definition and has “eviscerated” or “owned” him by accusing him of some spurious connection between a Senate hearing on abortion rights and violence against “trans people,” or whatever groups she cares to include in this fight.
Then, of course, comes the racial rallying. She is a black woman, so you have emerged from the Twitter feed those who make this a racial fight, such as “AngryBlackLady.”
Are we watching the same clip? The tweets do nothing to mention the encouraged violence logic-jump, and instead, accept it on its face. These people do not critically evaluate the statement that “words are violence.” They accept it, embody it, and have made it part of their beliefs. Furthermore, they turn and spin the media machine into full gear. These people are all likely paid through some backdoor the Democratic machine has created to fund their drivel on the internet, and the print-arm faithfully marches alongside them.
The point I would like to make to anyone who reads this is as follows: these people cannot be debated with, nor reasoned with. At best, they can be forgiven by you for their failures in their beliefs in lifestyle, and at worst, they’ll get one more chance at the pearly gates. You cannot accept their framework, because their framework grows more aggressive every day. At first, it was BLM activists around 2016 claiming that silence was violence. It has been six years since then, and that same mantra has now expanded. Opposition to anything that the Democratic Party supports is now violence as well.
For any of those who are still on the fence, I urge you to reconsider where you stand. These people do not become satisfied with their victory; instead, they only yearn for more. Many of these people would have hardly believed, with such undying loyalty, that men could become women and vice-versa more than seven years ago (thanks to a wonderous SCOTUS decision that progressed the culture war agenda). Many of the modern left’s activists were hardly in middle school when Obergefell was decided, or when Michael Brown supposedly put his hands up (and then charged a police officer.)
When they accuse you of violence because of your words, they are being sincere. They would sooner see you in a cell or in the ground than have you in an opposition party. Take them at their word.