Summary
During a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) repeatedly shouted an anti-trans slur despite objections from Democratic Rep. Gerald Connolly.
She defended her remarks by attacking transgender rights and dismissing criticism.
The outburst drew condemnation from LGBTQ+ advocates and political figures, highlighting her shift from previously supporting LGBTQ+ rights to embracing anti-trans rhetoric.
Mace has used the slur in past statements and introduced legislation restricting transgender rights.
Following the 1932 Prussian coup d’état and the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, transgender movements, gathering places and institutions, such as the first homosexual movement, the Eldorado nightclubs, and the Institute for Sexual Science were dissolved, often by force. Both trans men and trans women were targeted under renewed enforcement of Paragraphs 175 and 183, and their transvestite passes were revoked or simply ignored. Books and texts relating to transgender experiences or medicine were destroyed as “un-German”.
Notice a similar pattern? Nazis went after trans folks first. Don’t let them dehumanize trans and non binary.
These fascist bastards are going to learn something about some of the rights we have as Americans to protect ourselves from tyranny if they keep going down this road.
Yep. Something that I never learned in school, including university. LGBTQ people were among the very first targeted in Nazi Germany.
Against rando MAGAts, sure, but against the government? It’s going to take more than commercial-grade weaponry to take on the military.
The US government has lost all wars against gorilla warfare since i have been alive. And that is with an untouchable economy, uninterrupted logistics, and numbers.
None of that would be a thing in a revolt of the US. US Civilian weaponry is some of the finest in the world. And a 22. Will kill a man just as dead as a .50 BMG
Yeah, but they lost in the sense that the cost-benefit of conflict on the other side of the world was no longer worth it, not an existential loss. And they were fighting people whose backs were up against the wall in a big way. A Vietnamese farmer didn’t have the option to sit around in air conditioning watching TV.
The thing people don’t realize about guerrilla warfare is that being a guerrilla really fucking sucks. Nothing is safe, you’re constantly on the run and crawling through the dirt, no security from bombs falling, no secure supply lines, etc. You need a reliably supportive population to make it work.
If you compare a Vietnamese rice farmer to an average modern day American, you’d be hard-pressed to find two people more different from each other.
I’m all for armed resistance, but it’s important to look at the specific material conditions and not just assume the same tactics will be viable.
A war that becomes too costly to fight is a war lost. And kinda proves my point. I made no claim about how glorious, or easy an uprising would be, but i am not going to accept “its too hard” as a legitimate argument for giving up to tyranny. People are not very different, even at their most societal extremes, and the same tactics will work even better here in the states then where they were used on other countries soil, because of the very nature of guerrilla warfare and the previous advantages that the US enjoyed losing the previous wars would not be available.
Depends on what you’re giving up if you lose. If you’re giving up a random colony in tiny nation across the world from you, you can throw in the towel pretty easily. If the cost of losing is that you are unseated from power entirely and left at the mercy of your enemies, then any cost is acceptable.
Valid, and not really what I’m trying to say. Just that the form of resistance we’re likely to see in the US is probably going to look different. Rather than Vietnam or the WoT, it may look more like The Troubles in Ireland, or something else entirely.
In the event of a complete collapse of the US government, it’s unfortunately more likely that the right would take power, being much better armed. The right may be able to seize power and force a confrontation anyway.
As long as we lack the strength to win a full civil war, it would be very foolish to provoke one. Which tactics are best used when is debatable, but we should keep a variety of tools in the toolbox and adapt to conditions rather than assuming a certain tactic is always best.
No matter how specialized gorilla warfare would look, it’s still effective. Arming the progressives is key, which prompted my exclamation that all progressives should be armed. The narrative that guns should be banned is not only an unfeasible goal, but i do not see any way out of an armed conflict. And sure there may be other tools, but gorilla warfare is just ‘an irregular form of combat in which small, mobile groups use tactics like ambushes, sabotage, and hit-and-run attacks to fight a larger, conventional military force.’ Which is the exact scenario a rebellion would be facing and is proven effective against the US armed forces. Not sure what warfare you would argue would be better.
Gorilla warfare? 🤔
It’s “guerrilla war,” not gorilla. Getting armed is good. But if you disagree with my tactical assessment, I’d at least recommend reading up on the movements that actually employed those tactics successfully. For example, here’s a very basic summation of the Vietnamese strategy:
We are not at all close to phase 2, we could hardly even be said to have started phase 1. There is no organized system of cells, no infiltration of organizations, no stockpiles of weapons (unless it’s very well hidden, I suppose). Developing all those things is valid, but require time and effort. And generally an insurgency should also have a more presentable public facing front.
In short, it’s complicated and if you’re serious about it you should study and think critically about how to apply it.
I’d like you to be right, but I have my doubts. Maybe we’ll find out.