Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

[JessaWoo]

These are tweets from Matt Walsh on X about Bishop Marian Budde and her sermon earlier today in Washington, attacking her womanhood and ability in a sexist and ageist tirade. It seems the clarion call has gone out to the rest of the Trump X minions, as they are all tweeting the same sentiments - including Kellie-Jay Keen and Donald Trump Jnr. Rep. Mike Collins całłed for her deportation, although she is American. Do you still support Trump after this?

“A liberal woman over the age of 50 with a lesbian haircut is guaranteed to support the most evil ideas and policies that mankind has ever conceived.”

“Just take one look at this witch and you know everything you need to know about her, even before she starts talking.”

“Of course this grotesque display is coming from a female “priest.” You will only ever hear heresy and inanity from someone whose whole existence is blasphemous.”

And another tweet from Bo Loudon: “🚨BREAKING: A bishop at the National Cathedrol just urged President Trump to protect transgender children and not deport illegal aliens because "they're not criminals."

Pure class from President Trump as he sat through this despicable politicization of the prayer service.”

Speech text:
““In the Name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now,” Budde stated. “There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families. Some who fear for their lives.

”The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens, or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.”

Budde asked Trump “to have mercy” on people “in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away and that you help those who are fleeing warzones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.

“Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land,” she continued. “May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, and walk humbly with each other and our God.”

Earlier in her message, Budde stressed the importance of unity, of respectfully disagreeing with one another, but also expressed concern over what she called “the culture of contempt” and feared “the loss of equality” for some who lose in political debates.

What a horrible, divisive message this is! 🙄 Personally, I think Budde's message is courageous and beautiful, and clearly deeply Christian at its core.

There was no vast majority I would like to remind you .

Giving people who cannot do the job, the job because of their immutable characteristics rather than actual ability is really bad, particularly when safety is an issue.

Why would you want to hire people who can't do the job?

You don't hire people who can't do the job. Plenty of experienced, qualified women and minorities out there.

And it remains rightly illegal to discriminate against women in employment throughout the USA.

This EO will not stop women and minorities who can do the job from applying or being hired. It stops them from being hired preferentially as "diversity" hires, just as they cannot be in the UK.

Who is giving unqualified people a job?

Do you think minorities aren't qualified for the jobs they get?

I'll answer this.

I believe in women only spaces.

I don't believe in self ID.

I believe trans women are trans women and not " men in dresses."

I believe Trans men are trans men and not " self hating lesbians."

Thank you @Princessconsuelabananahammock9 . Now, do you believe that trans women should be allowed to access women's only spaces?

And yet here you are, still deliberately not understanding that organized discrimination on the basis of race is a bad thing.

I came to talk about the Republican harassment campaign against the Bishop of Washington.

I didn't start taking about racism and sexism against straight, white men. Is this a new branch of feminism?

It's actually partly a numbers game - they are a small population, so unless they all reliably voted one way they wouldn't be a worthwhile voting block. And their voting patterns are fairly divided. So the group that is reliably Democrat is small, and any attempt to appeal to them with electoral bribes is tricky - it might appeal to some but will turn off others.

More generally, compared to the average Democrat voters, they are more working class, more religious, and more socially conservative. Of all demographics, they hate identity politics the most.

It's a guess on my part, but I think they tend to be a people who see being rooted in their traditions as important - they don't think it's a good idea to throw away social structures and conventions. So that kind of political progressivism that has no truck with anything old or customary doesn't really resonate.

Actually, I'm going to answer this myself because I have been back through some of your posts and you have said before that you do not think they shoud be able to.
You also said One of the reasons I started following Jordan Peterson initially. He was fighting a law around language, and I agreed with him. That jumped out at me because that is exactly when I realised that there was a serious shift going on in society and I thought, maybe I need to educate myself on this.
What do you think might be the biggest point of difference between ourselves?

Not at all, which is why they should be hired on the same basis as everyone else, for being the best candidate for the job.

It is still totally illegal to discriminate against women or minorities.

What this is saying is that they cannot hire, or not hire, people on the basis of their immutable characteristics, whether they are minorities or not. So you can't not hire someone for being a woman, a man, white, black, or anything else.

Here is a transcript of Zuckerberg's conversation with Joe Rogan: https://singjupost.com/transcript-of-mark-zuckerberg-on-joe-rogan-podcast/?singlepage=1

The rock I live under is on where, thanks to my autism, I get complained about a lot more by women at work than I do by men. Their own female socialisation coupled with how they expect me to behave based on assumptions about my female socialisation mean that they cannot deal with my level of directness coming from a woman. The workplace would be easier for me if it swung a little more masculine.

There is nothing in that interview that suggests that Zuck wants women out of the workplace. To the contrary, he wants us in the workplace:

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Look, I think part of — the intent on all these things, I think, is good. I do think that if you’re a woman going into a company, it probably feels like it’s too masculine. There isn’t enough of the energy that you may naturally have. It probably feels like there are all these things that are set up that are biased against you. That’s not good either because you want women to be able to succeed and have companies that can unlock all the value from having great people, no matter what their background or gender.

But I think these things can always go a little far. And I think it’s one thing to say we want to be kind of like welcoming and make a good environment for everyone. And I think it’s another to basically say that masculinity is bad. And I just think we kind of swung culturally to that part of the kind of the spectrum where it’s all like, okay, masculinity is toxic. We have to get rid of it completely. It’s like, no, both of these things are good, right? It’s like you want feminine energy. You want masculine energy. Like, I think that that’s like you’re going to have parts of society that have more of one or the other. I think that that’s all good.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: But I do think the corporate culture sort of had swung towards being this somewhat more neutered thing. And I didn’t really feel that until I got involved in martial arts, which I think is still a more much more masculine culture. And so not that it doesn’t try to be inclusive in its own way, but I think that there’s just a lot more of that energy there. And I just kind of realized it’s like, oh, this is —

JOE ROGAN: Like how you become successful at martial arts. You have to be at least somewhat aggressive.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Yeah.

Tell me, did you listen to that Joe Rogan episode or read the transcript before you judged what Zuck said?

Or to put it another way, it's actually saying the anti-discrimination law must be followed, the exceptions being made are no longer allowed.

So @Danja2010 are you going to tell me which of my views are abhorrent to Democratic women?

That makes sense, thanks.
They - and any indigenous peoples - are also an awkward anomaly in the Left/Liberal view of immigration etc. There's a lot of guilt and performative apologising to the First Nations but the idea of indigenous people with prior rights doesn't fit comfortably into the other "it's open doors, so everybody else just has to budge up" narrative.

A woman said something some men didn't like. They harassed her online, as men everywhere do, using insults against her appearance. Rather like how TRAs harass women who say things they don't like and use insults about how we look, even threatening violence. This is a day ending in Y.

The harassment of the Bishop shows that for all women, men behaving in a civilised way is conditional upon us toeing their line. It shows that all women, regardless of political alignment, are subject to this. It shows that there are misogynists of all political alignments who will do this to all women who step out of line. It shows that rank and position and authority are no protection from this or any other male abuses, for any woman. Even a queen can be subjected to rape.

In other words, the harassment of the Bishop of Washington demonstrates the continued need for feminism to be a political movement for the liberation of women as a sex class from male oppression.

I suspect that part of the political realignment that is going on in the west is that we'll see class divisions and class solidarity become more important than ethnic or racial divisions. That's what I think we are seeing now with the changes in Hispanic voting patterns, and black males - those populations having a higher percentage of working class individuals, and they are all moving towards supporting similar policies and political leaders as white working class people. What we will see in the end is a much more broad working class solidarity across party lines. Which, arguably, is a return to earlier civil rights era patterns.

The next 10 or 15 years will tell the tale.

Oh, and yes, I agree with the point about immigration. It's not impossible to hold those ideas together, but it requires some nuance that many seem to struggle with.

@Helleofabore

What threads do you refer to? MN threads? Or the threads of discussion on this thread?

Because if you assume that 'most active posters on this board' have participated in Trump threads recently, then I suspect you are using a self selecting group that may or may not be supporting Trump to the degree you have stated and that may not be 'most active posters on this board'. I certainly have avoided most of them and flicking through them over the past months, so have quite a lot of others.

Both. It isn't an accusation though, so there's no need to be defensive. When I say 'most active posters', I mean the group that posts most often in FWR.

How would you know that quite a lot of other people have avoided the Trump threads and have just been flicking through them?

The difference between us is I believe there are actual trans people.

I respect them enough to address them by their preferred pronouns.

I don't think people should be deliberately rude to make a point. I don't think they should be precluded from jobs because they are " mentally unstable".

I don't refer to them as " men in dresses".

Do I think there is a whole social contagion going on? Absolutely.

My concern is genuine trans people are being demonized due to a few assholes.

They were here long before these issues, and will remain long after.

I hope they remain safe and respected throughout. I hope they have access to the medical care, hormones they need.

I don't think it's all or nothing. I don't think it's a fetish by perverts any more than I think most men are pedophiles.

I think there are bad people and good people and it's that simple.

The bad people who aren't trans will go back to being men and assaulting women.

It'll be like Demi Lovato saying she's no longer non binary because it was too frustrating to correct people.

People who are actually trans would give anything not to be. It's a long road and it's hard.

I think implementing laws to protect women is a good thing.

I think being casual and blase when it comes to kids is also a good thing. Not angry, not ignoring them, just casual.

I think in 5 years things will be back to how they once were..

Trans people will still be here. I don't think declaring they don't exist helps anyone though.

@hihelenhi

You are deluded if you imagine what you're championing isn't one of the most backwards, conservative ideologies there is. That you haven't been championing the dismantling of many of women's legal protections in the US, not to mention your support of gay conversion therapy. On MINORS. Shame on you. And shame on you for lying about and smearing those women who have been fighting against this regressive, bigoted bullshit for years. Your claims are false. Like pretty much everything claimed by adherents of this ridiculous ideology. It is people like YOU who I am holding entirely responsible for Trump and everything else he and the evangelical right - who are certainly NOT our allies - end up doing as a result of the Dems' idiocy over this issue. Own it - it's your fault.

Have a cup of tea, Helen. I've said none of the things you imagine, and I didn't vote Trump in. I'm not responsible for him.

the idea of indigenous people with prior rights doesn't fit comfortably into the other "it's open doors, so everybody else just has to budge up" narrative.

Yeah, that's going to cause some cognitive dissonance for Dems.

There's also the Dem idea that we should live in integrated societies with Black people and white people as neighbours, children bussed if that's what's needed to desegregate schools, etc. Integration at least superficially seems incompatible with the notion of indigenous land rights and the separatism that inherently follows from a tribe having land that is theirs and no one else's. If I was indigenous and hearing all this talk about integration, I would be wondering if my tribe's ability to live together as a tribe was under threat.

If you think deeper, you can make the distinction between "white flight" away from the descendants of the people your ancestors enslaved and indigenous land rights to protect a people and their culture from colonisers. You can distinguish between segregation that serves to keep Black people subordinate to white people, and separatism that serves to keep an at-risk culture safe from obliteration by the surrounding dominant culture. You can make a nuanced argument that Black-white integration doesn't also mean loss of tribal sovereignty. You can frame all of this in terms of racial justice: not treating Black people like inferiors who should live in the nasty part of town and respecting tribal sovereignty are both about righting historic and ongoing wrongs committed on the basis of race. But, this involves long-form articles, nuanced discussion, and people reading beyond the headline. It's clear from this thread alone that people will judge Mark Zuckerberg as a misogynist and EOs as tearing up people's rights without even reading the full podcast or EO. Getting that distinction between segregation and separatism across to indigenous voters will be very hard, because indigenous voters are no more likely to read beyond the headlines than anyone else.

By contrast, the GOP need only say "yes, we'll recognise your tribe" whilst continuing to tout their usual individualist argument that the Govt shouldn't be trying to tell you where you can live and which school you send your kids to. That individualist argument is completely compatible with indigenous land rights in an immediately obvious way, no deep thinking required, because both are predicated on the values of sovereignty and freedom from Govt interference. It's hence going to be a lot easier for the GOP to convince indigenous people to vote for them if land rights and tribal recognition are a voting issue.

A return to class politics is long overdue.