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.
Except that a tiny minority is never going to be truly safe trying to match the threat of violence from much larger groups of bigots.
Like, sure, own guns, but it’s not the way of successfully securing ones rights. Rights are secured through law and the courts. If you have to get into a gun battle to protect yourself, that’s not really having rights in the way anyone wants in a modern nation. Rights are about being free and protected by society.
I point this distinction out because there is always a campaign from the far right trying to stoke violence on the left, using a facade of revolutionary or progressive-sounding language online to plant the seeds of violence, but when you pick apart the axioms at the foundation of these ideas you find it’s just more right-wing “might makes right” horseshit. Their goal in doing this is to get the left to give the right the excuse they need to respond both legally and violently retaliate to accomplish right-wing goals.
Until democracy literally collapses, a gun is not ultimately the means by which a right or safety should be secured, if someone thinks that then they don’t actually believe in the rule of law or the democratic process. They believe in rule through violence.
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.
So the rule of law and democratic process is a “platitude” in your mind? A functional democratic government does nothing more to maintain order and safety than anarchy?
I dunno, I think maybe you’re taking a lot for granted here. Society is not held together by violence, it’s held together by people agreeing to believe in some basic uniting principles. When you erode people’s faith in that agreement (the goal of the far right) is when it stops being effective, but that doesn’t mean it’s a platitude.
Black Americans didn’t secure their rights by getting into gun fights. They did it by strategically getting their case before the courts, using things like freedom riders to create a case that had to be heard. It would not have mattered if they showed up at the voting booth weilding a gun, that would not have secured their right to vote, in fact it would’ve been used as an excuse to further hinder their rights.
Likewise, the fundemental right to safety is not secured when you have to walk around with a gun to be safe. Straight cis people do not need to do that, neither should anyone else.
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.
The fact that murdering trans women is generally illegal isn’t sufficient to protect us when someone tries to kill us.
I never said protections were sufficient, I’m saying it’s not some fundemental given of the universe that trans people have to live in a society where they carry a gun everywhere they go. We know this is true because there are places where trans people are more safe than others, where they have more rights than other places. It’s an ideological problem, not one of violence. Trans people cannot ultimately win the battle of violence based on the simple reality of numbers. Every single trans person could own a gun, it wouldn’t make society safer for them.
But, I think we have fundamentally irreconcilable perspectives in this regard, I can’t convince you that libertarianism doesn’t work, it’s something you’ll have to experience for yourself. To watch fail in real time.
The philosophy you’re espousing has the exact same underpinnings; democratic rule of law is a waste of time, the individual is responsible for their rights, you can’t change people or society, only way to be safe is to buy a gun and hope you can outshoot everyone who wants to harm you.
Never works, and in fact pushes counter to trans people eventually truly securing their rights. But, like I say, there’s no real convincing you of that until a few decades down the road when nothing has changed because everyone thinks a gun is a solution to a systemic societal and cultural problem and trans people still have no safety.
We know this is true because there are places where trans people are more safe than others, where they have more rights than other places.
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.
I can’t convince you that libertarianism doesn’t work
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.
the government isn’t going to protect you if someone is trying to murder you [for being trans]
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.
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…
Until democracy literally collapses, a gun is not ultimately the means by which a right or safety should be secured
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.
if someone thinks that then they don’t actually believe in the rule of law
Laws always only exists through the promise of violence (against body, possessions, liberty, etc) against people violating them.
or the democratic process. They believe in rule through violence.
All modern nation-states operate this way. Democracy doesn’t change that, unless it’s a fully consensus-based or consent-based-participation system.
Rights are about being free and protected by society.
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).
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
If a trans person shows up to a doctors office with a gun and demands healthcare, is that how we know their rights are protected? No. We know their rights are secured when they can walk in public freely without harassment and go to the doctors freely and legally to get the care they need.
You’re falling entirely into a political frame that benefits the far right libertarian perspective. Violence is antathema to the democratic process and a truly peaceful, cooperative society that is based on the rule of law.
Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right. Not some kind of “other” category that someone should expect to have to carry a gun around to ensure. Just like when right-wingers carry around guns, it’s an illusion of control and safety, not safety rooted in the society they live in.
Yup, and guns won’t ensure that society changes in a way that trans people get that right. Right-wingers are the ones who think guns and violence somehow lead to a better society.
What we see is that no, more guns only pushses society in the opposite direction.
And what means do you think society uses to protect the rights it decides to grant or deny?
If a trans person shows up to a doctors office with a gun and demands healthcare, is that how we know their rights are protected?
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.
We know their rights are secured when they can walk in public freely without harassment and go to the doctors freely and legally to get the care they need.
Yes, because if someone harasses them, they are protected by the society assuring those rights (with violence, or the threat thereof).
You’re falling entirely into a political frame that benefits the far right libertarian perspective.
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.
Violence is antathema to the democratic process…
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).
and [anathema to] a truly peaceful, cooperative society that is based on the rule of law.
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.
Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right.
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).
Not some kind of “other” category that someone should expect to have to carry a gun around to ensure. Just like when right-wingers carry around guns, it’s an illusion of control and safety, not safety rooted in the society they live in.
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)
I do think it makes some sense to reach for the AR-15. It is designed to be ergonomic
100% agree.
nor is it really a fair comparison to say its a supercar vs a normal car.
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.
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.
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.
Except that a tiny minority is never going to be truly safe trying to match the threat of violence from much larger groups of bigots.
Like, sure, own guns, but it’s not the way of successfully securing ones rights. Rights are secured through law and the courts. If you have to get into a gun battle to protect yourself, that’s not really having rights in the way anyone wants in a modern nation. Rights are about being free and protected by society.
I point this distinction out because there is always a campaign from the far right trying to stoke violence on the left, using a facade of revolutionary or progressive-sounding language online to plant the seeds of violence, but when you pick apart the axioms at the foundation of these ideas you find it’s just more right-wing “might makes right” horseshit. Their goal in doing this is to get the left to give the right the excuse they need to respond both legally and violently retaliate to accomplish right-wing goals.
Until democracy literally collapses, a gun is not ultimately the means by which a right or safety should be secured, if someone thinks that then they don’t actually believe in the rule of law or the democratic process. They believe in rule through violence.
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.
So the rule of law and democratic process is a “platitude” in your mind? A functional democratic government does nothing more to maintain order and safety than anarchy?
I dunno, I think maybe you’re taking a lot for granted here. Society is not held together by violence, it’s held together by people agreeing to believe in some basic uniting principles. When you erode people’s faith in that agreement (the goal of the far right) is when it stops being effective, but that doesn’t mean it’s a platitude.
Black Americans didn’t secure their rights by getting into gun fights. They did it by strategically getting their case before the courts, using things like freedom riders to create a case that had to be heard. It would not have mattered if they showed up at the voting booth weilding a gun, that would not have secured their right to vote, in fact it would’ve been used as an excuse to further hinder their rights.
Likewise, the fundemental right to safety is not secured when you have to walk around with a gun to be safe. Straight cis people do not need to do that, neither should anyone else.
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.
I never said protections were sufficient, I’m saying it’s not some fundemental given of the universe that trans people have to live in a society where they carry a gun everywhere they go. We know this is true because there are places where trans people are more safe than others, where they have more rights than other places. It’s an ideological problem, not one of violence. Trans people cannot ultimately win the battle of violence based on the simple reality of numbers. Every single trans person could own a gun, it wouldn’t make society safer for them.
But, I think we have fundamentally irreconcilable perspectives in this regard, I can’t convince you that libertarianism doesn’t work, it’s something you’ll have to experience for yourself. To watch fail in real time.
Ew, who said anything about being a libertarian?
The philosophy you’re espousing has the exact same underpinnings; democratic rule of law is a waste of time, the individual is responsible for their rights, you can’t change people or society, only way to be safe is to buy a gun and hope you can outshoot everyone who wants to harm you.
Never works, and in fact pushes counter to trans people eventually truly securing their rights. But, like I say, there’s no real convincing you of that until a few decades down the road when nothing has changed because everyone thinks a gun is a solution to a systemic societal and cultural problem and trans people still have no safety.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I’d suggest reading it back over with fresh eyes and trying not to make these assumptions.
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.
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).
If a trans person shows up to a doctors office with a gun and demands healthcare, is that how we know their rights are protected? No. We know their rights are secured when they can walk in public freely without harassment and go to the doctors freely and legally to get the care they need.
You’re falling entirely into a political frame that benefits the far right libertarian perspective. Violence is antathema to the democratic process and a truly peaceful, cooperative society that is based on the rule of law.
Being able to live a peaceful life without fear of being murdered or lynched is a fundemental right. Not some kind of “other” category that someone should expect to have to carry a gun around to ensure. Just like when right-wingers carry around guns, it’s an illusion of control and safety, not safety rooted in the society they live in.
“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.
Yup, and guns won’t ensure that society changes in a way that trans people get that right. Right-wingers are the ones who think guns and violence somehow lead to a better society.
What we see is that no, more guns only pushses society in the opposite direction.
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.
deleted by creator
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.