Politicians aren’t your friends, you don’t expect them to keep good faith or to always support you, or to agree with you about everything. If you expect to find a perfect politician to support then you will be searching forever, while making extremely self-destructive choices along the way.
Politicians are something you use while they’re convenient and then move on from when they’re not. In this case, we are absolutely talking about resisting the fascist takeover of the nation. That’s what’s on the table. Personally I think that outcome would be inconvenient. Considering what the Trump administration has already done to the trans community, the complaints about Newsom feel like misdirection.
I’m not recommending undying loyalty, I’m recommending cost-benefit analysis, in this moment, in this context.
If you expect to find a perfect politician to support then you will be searching forever, while making extremely self-destructive choices along the way.
pretty much every time there’s criticism of a Democrat like Newsom, this argument comes up - that the people doing the criticizing are holding out unrealistic hopes for a “perfect” politician.
I’m gonna guess / hope that this isn’t what you’re intending, but this argument always comes across as extremely patronizing / condescending. “not everything can be perfect” is the sort of tone you take with a 4 year old who’s having a meltdown about not being allowed to have a 2nd ice cream cone. this framing of the argument places you as the adult in the room, and the people criticizing Newsom as basically children who don’t understand how the world works and are upset that they’re not getting exactly what they want. and I dunno, if you want to have productive political debates, try not talking to people like they’re children.
the question is not “is this politician perfect?” - it’s “does this politician meet the bare minimum requirements?”
imagine a hypothetical Democratic politician who took a stance of “eh, gay marriage, we don’t actually need it” and said they’d be fine with the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (like they’ve just been asked to do)
would you support that politician? would you vote for them? I certainly wouldn’t.
that’s because “support for marriage equality” is part of the bare minimum we expect from Democrats.
the people criticizing Newsom, including me, consider “support for trans rights” to be part of that bare minimum. the people defending Newsom apparently don’t. that’s the actual disagreement here. don’t hide behind this abstract talk about cost-benefit analysis. don’t talk to Newsom critics like they’re naive children. just be honest and say that “trans people should be allowed to exist” is not part of your bare minimum requirements for Democrats.
I don’t care for Newsom. But elections are at this point like “which of my ex-wives that put me into debt would I prefer around again?”
The issue is far larger than bare minimums – it’s harm reduction. Worth bearing in mind is that the DNC is a conservative party funded by the rich just as much as the GOP, hence the ambush on Sanders a couple cycles back. Their policies are slightly less shitty, but without a repeal of Citizens United, this is the system we have.
lmao. this reminds me of how conservatives have co-opted therapy language - Jan 6th insurrectionists who used to be “facts don’t care about your feelings” assholes are now filing legal briefs about how being in prison has given them Trauma, and they should be released from prison because they have Anxiety and Depression.
this is more patronizing and condescending bullshit. just once I’d like to meet a centrist/moderate Democrat who doesn’t talk to people on their left like they’re children. seriously, it’s not that hard. try it sometime.
the canonical example of harm reduction actually working is needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis, etc.
a crucial thing about those needle exchange programs is that IV drug users wanted them. they fought for them to be established.
with actual harm reduction, you don’t need to browbeat the people who will experience the reduced harm into accepting it.
you’re trying to frame “no one is allowed to criticize Newsom for being transphobic” as somehow being “harm reduction” for trans people? give me a fucking break. trans people in this thread are trying to tell you that Newsom represents increased harm targeted at them.
if that’s not enough, and you want other examples - Katelyn Burns:
Newsom does not represent trans peoples’ interests. it’s not derangement. the options right now are not newsom vs maga/trump, it’s newsom vs the rest of the democratic party. we are allowed to criticize him for being a fucking asshole towards us.
If there’s one thing that getting yelled at all day for saying that I will not vote for Gavin Newsom in a hypothetical 2028 election has made me more sure of… it’s that I will not be voting for Gavin Newsom (or any other politician who pushes anti-trans nonsense) in 2028 or any other year.
I will never vote for Newsom even if he’s the Democratic nominee. He must never be allowed to win another election. He’s a rotten soulless husk of a human being.
and that’s just the first 3 politically active, American trans people who I thought of, and who I know are on Bluesky, where it’s very easy to search their username plus Newsom to find what they’ve said about him.
don’t delude yourself about “harm reduction”. what you’re actually doing here is the white savior complex, but with trans people instead of non-white people.
You are putting so many words in my mouth that I won’t need dinner. I’m happy to have reasoned discourse, but your starting point makes that impossible, as you’ll just accuse me of being defensive. This is not arguing in good faith.
Newsom already got the gerrymandering on the ballot, and I don’t see California voters not passing it in retribution for how Trump has treated the state. So why can’t the people he is looking to throw under the bus to get to the national stage say anything about it without being accused of being paid for it? Is your answer to when we’re allowed to criticize Newsom’s transphobia before or after the ‘26 primary?
What about any of the previous comment made you think I was looking for a friend? Do you think queer rights organizations that have operated in the state for decades (quite likely before you were born) were just too unfamiliar with state and national politics, or how to deal with politicians?
How’d that poem go? ‘First they came for the homeless and queers, and I said ‘take them, take them, just spare me!’ and everything worked out perfectly fine,’ right? I’m pretty sure that’s how it went.
How do I put this?..
Politicians aren’t your friends, you don’t expect them to keep good faith or to always support you, or to agree with you about everything. If you expect to find a perfect politician to support then you will be searching forever, while making extremely self-destructive choices along the way.
Politicians are something you use while they’re convenient and then move on from when they’re not. In this case, we are absolutely talking about resisting the fascist takeover of the nation. That’s what’s on the table. Personally I think that outcome would be inconvenient. Considering what the Trump administration has already done to the trans community, the complaints about Newsom feel like misdirection.
I’m not recommending undying loyalty, I’m recommending cost-benefit analysis, in this moment, in this context.
pretty much every time there’s criticism of a Democrat like Newsom, this argument comes up - that the people doing the criticizing are holding out unrealistic hopes for a “perfect” politician.
I’m gonna guess / hope that this isn’t what you’re intending, but this argument always comes across as extremely patronizing / condescending. “not everything can be perfect” is the sort of tone you take with a 4 year old who’s having a meltdown about not being allowed to have a 2nd ice cream cone. this framing of the argument places you as the adult in the room, and the people criticizing Newsom as basically children who don’t understand how the world works and are upset that they’re not getting exactly what they want. and I dunno, if you want to have productive political debates, try not talking to people like they’re children.
the question is not “is this politician perfect?” - it’s “does this politician meet the bare minimum requirements?”
imagine a hypothetical Democratic politician who took a stance of “eh, gay marriage, we don’t actually need it” and said they’d be fine with the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (like they’ve just been asked to do)
would you support that politician? would you vote for them? I certainly wouldn’t.
that’s because “support for marriage equality” is part of the bare minimum we expect from Democrats.
the people criticizing Newsom, including me, consider “support for trans rights” to be part of that bare minimum. the people defending Newsom apparently don’t. that’s the actual disagreement here. don’t hide behind this abstract talk about cost-benefit analysis. don’t talk to Newsom critics like they’re naive children. just be honest and say that “trans people should be allowed to exist” is not part of your bare minimum requirements for Democrats.
I don’t care for Newsom. But elections are at this point like “which of my ex-wives that put me into debt would I prefer around again?”
The issue is far larger than bare minimums – it’s harm reduction. Worth bearing in mind is that the DNC is a conservative party funded by the rich just as much as the GOP, hence the ambush on Sanders a couple cycles back. Their policies are slightly less shitty, but without a repeal of Citizens United, this is the system we have.
lmao. this reminds me of how conservatives have co-opted therapy language - Jan 6th insurrectionists who used to be “facts don’t care about your feelings” assholes are now filing legal briefs about how being in prison has given them Trauma, and they should be released from prison because they have Anxiety and Depression.
this is more patronizing and condescending bullshit. just once I’d like to meet a centrist/moderate Democrat who doesn’t talk to people on their left like they’re children. seriously, it’s not that hard. try it sometime.
the canonical example of harm reduction actually working is needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis, etc.
a crucial thing about those needle exchange programs is that IV drug users wanted them. they fought for them to be established.
with actual harm reduction, you don’t need to browbeat the people who will experience the reduced harm into accepting it.
you’re trying to frame “no one is allowed to criticize Newsom for being transphobic” as somehow being “harm reduction” for trans people? give me a fucking break. trans people in this thread are trying to tell you that Newsom represents increased harm targeted at them.
if that’s not enough, and you want other examples - Katelyn Burns:
Parker Molloy:
Alejandra Caraballo:
and that’s just the first 3 politically active, American trans people who I thought of, and who I know are on Bluesky, where it’s very easy to search their username plus Newsom to find what they’ve said about him.
don’t delude yourself about “harm reduction”. what you’re actually doing here is the white savior complex, but with trans people instead of non-white people.
You are putting so many words in my mouth that I won’t need dinner. I’m happy to have reasoned discourse, but your starting point makes that impossible, as you’ll just accuse me of being defensive. This is not arguing in good faith.
Newsom already got the gerrymandering on the ballot, and I don’t see California voters not passing it in retribution for how Trump has treated the state. So why can’t the people he is looking to throw under the bus to get to the national stage say anything about it without being accused of being paid for it? Is your answer to when we’re allowed to criticize Newsom’s transphobia before or after the ‘26 primary?
What about any of the previous comment made you think I was looking for a friend? Do you think queer rights organizations that have operated in the state for decades (quite likely before you were born) were just too unfamiliar with state and national politics, or how to deal with politicians?
How’d that poem go? ‘First they came for the homeless and queers, and I said ‘take them, take them, just spare me!’ and everything worked out perfectly fine,’ right? I’m pretty sure that’s how it went.