> plaguing morass of inchoate morality claims justifying a grift altogether

And claims like this are why you lost this election, will never win elections, or win anyone over to your side.

> And claims like this are why you lost this election, will never win elections, or win anyone over to your side.

Interesting!

1. I didn't run for an office

2. I am a political independent

3. I am not a political party in a first-past-the-post-system defined by the reverberations of the 3/5th compromise.

I'm genuinely curious why you paint more than half the nation (though not half the presidential 2024 voters) with a broad brush of negative antithesis regarding a relatively different claim ("Nones" exercise morality individually, rather than externalizing their moral decision making to an inchoate morass of morality-derived alleged religious authorities).

> I'm genuinely curious why you paint more than half the nation (though not half the 2024 voters) with a broad brush of negative antithesis.

Simple. The only lesson people who despise Trump have learned, and are learning, is that they didn't call Trump supporters every brand of -ists enough. Huge surprise, this generates broad negative anthesis and it's well deserved, as well as completely backfiring. The name calling is useless now.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1854242284952519158

Oh, I think I get your point, you want people to simply ignore folks that gleefully transgress social norms and exercise sexism, racism, and other bigotries against people who, by your definition, are mentally ill and thus a worthy target of mockery and conduct unbecoming christianity's moral standards, or by most normal people, are guilty of being women, of being men, of being gay, of being lesbian, of being queer, of being trans, of being of light pigment, of being educated, of being uneducated, of being homeless, of actually being mentally ill, of being disabled, of being children, of being elderly, of being generally unwanted by a heaving horde of hate.

Do you believe the same for people who violate religious taboos?

Regardless of the answer, we're far afield of the original discussion, and I'll not pursue this thread further.

Though, I do empathize -- it must be highly embarrassing to have racism, sexism, and other bigotries noted as being offensive to people in public. Triumphalism, often a result of religious fervor, masks that in an echo chamber, so social media can be jarring for folks in such a situation.

---

PS

>> If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

This fact is quite apparent that you don't know what sexism, and somehow think it applies in a situation where a trans fem wants to be in a situation more protective than forcing a locker room share with her sexual assignment at birth. What your assumed resolution, coached carefully by pollsters no doubt before being coached through formal and informal propaganda channels, actually is is transgressive and probably unnecessary. Though to redefine sexism as "not respecting of gender norms my religion requires me to prefer" is quite a stretch

I believe my religion, and the religions of other people, is more deserving of protection than your self-proclaimed ability to transgress social norms; and voted accordingly.

> Though, I do empathize -- it must be highly embarrassing to have racism, sexism, and other bigotries noted as being offensive to people.

Reminder that Kamala Harris believes 15 year old young men who suddenly identify as female, have the right to compete with similar-aged young women and be in their locker rooms to see them naked. If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

> Triumphalism, often a result of religious fervor, masks that in an echo chamber, so social media can be jarring for folks in such a situation.

So many platitudes, so many assertions, so many nuggets of delusion, so little reason to believe them as true.

> Though to redefine sexism as "not respecting of gender norms my religion requires me to prefer" is quite a stretch

Dude, even Richard Dawkins said this was insanity ("I object to the statement that a trans woman is a woman. This is a distortion of language and science.")

I look forward to the day it returns to that categorization. I am merely agreeing with one of the most prominent atheists in the world on this subject.

> transgressive and probably unnecessary

More dishonest name calling, and what a retarded perspective to assume I must be an idiot, or I would agree with you. We've had that for 8 years, and we don't give a darn, because you don't give a darn understanding our perspective either. Sticks and stones. I also will stick to the term "sexist," because to accept this view is to degrade women to the level of being completely interchangeable with men.

I object to the statement that a Black woman is a woman. This is a distortion of language and science.

Apologies, Dang. I wasn’t trying to spawn an instance of the Internet’s Oldest Flamewar by choosing as my example of Trump voter interviews in the late twenty-teens a paraphrase of the ones I remembered best, which happened to be the statements of pro-life evangelicals.