Zohran Mamdani says 'I don't think we should have billionaires'
Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee to be the next mayor of New York and a self-identified democratic socialist, said Sunday billionaires contribute to inequality.
You're viewing part of a thread.
There is no contradiction.
Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn't make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.
You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.
You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.
T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.
Wow that's revealing more than you probably wanted.
What is it revealing that I supposedly didn't want?
Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.
Basically because it's impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.
Like I said elsewhere, you're competing with the internet for the most contrarian take. You revealed that trans athletes is not an issue you support because they are such a small group of the whole. But when you feel insecure or challenged about your "hot take" you do the contrarian line of "it's impossible for 100% of the people on the group to agree" as if this is a matter of opinion and not facts. As long as it is rooted in opinions, you are free to claim the most contrarian take possible.
First of all, that's not my opinion. I'm defending the other guy. Since he's getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.
Second point, "not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group" is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don't need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.
Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country "chairland" where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called "tabletown". Person A says: "tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!" And person B says: "No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix". Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can't a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?
And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. "Trans women should compete in women leagues" is not a fact, doesn't matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.
You are free to have any opinion you want, I don't believe in thought crimes. I don't know why you place such importance on "contrarian". Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?
It's frankly disgusting to compare this to people wanting free Netflix. I know that's not exactly what's happening here but I think we're loosing the plot.
Contrarian has a definition, it isn't relative to what my opinion is but the mainstream. The point is you're using the fact that your opinions are contrarian as evidence that your opinions are correct. It is funny.
I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they're incorrect because they are contrarian.
I don't understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?
You're yet to give any argument other than "those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian"
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're contrarian, most of the people here fall into the category. What I am saying is that using the fact that an opinion is contrarian is not evidence that it is correct.
And what I'm saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.
Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:
Let me put it another way. You are wrong in regards to trans participation in sports but not because you are being a contrarian. You are also wrong to use your contrarian stance to justify your opinion. Hopefully that clears things up.