Asklemmy

44811 readers

1062 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

149

Why the ultrarich come after trans people ? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) by ooli2@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

elon musk, mark zuckerberg, J.K rowling! Are the names that come to mind.

3 from different background: a African immigrant benefiting from government spending, an American smart young engineer, and a female English successful writer.

They are no politicians, and cant be accuse of trying to gather some vote. Multi-billions amongst them.

I get they lean to the right to protect their cash, with less tax and regulation. I get they are racist because they fear some poor people will take their cash.

But why the hatred for trans people ? It's 1% of the population, they cant do anything, dont threaten anyone. There is no rational or psychological reason

*EDIT: I read all the comments. A lot of interesting explanation: smokescreen/scapegoat, maintaining the male/female power structure, new face of anti-gay , projection / self-hatred , just louder voice ...

I realize, may be, I didn't post a good question. May be it is less about the ultra-rich but more about why that rhetoric work on the general population (else it would not have taken hold as it does). For that I have a 2 cent theory: The raise of the cult of Nature we have since the global warming. The idea, that everything natural is better. The ugly version is only natural male and female are worthy*

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 29 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

It's called smokescreen. Turns the attention of the masses away of their wealth and power

[–] ooli2@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I get it. But that smokescreen is achieved with anti-immigrant rhetoric. Throwing Trans in , seems so random

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago

The rhetoric against immigrants serves as a more general purpose blaming scheme. Economy bad because immigrants. You're unemployed because immigrants. Crime because immigrants. Your bad grades are immigrants.

LGBTQ+ rights have always been a contentious point because it has always worked incredibly well for diverting attention on all sides, especially the media. The right always paints them as these depraved monsters that will convert children into gay communist sex on schools, which is a "threat" that's "up close and personal"

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 3 points 9 hours ago

This smoke screen around LGBTQ+ and anti immigration has been stoked for nearly 30 years in order to veer away from the actual discussion and laws around wealth inequality, healthcare, etc. It's all a guise against minority groups who can't fight back. Sometimes positive sometimes negative, but at the end of the day billionaires stoke the fear around these minority groups and they get to keep growing their billions without restriction.

[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

In the case of Rowling, it wasn't a smoke screen so much as black mold.