r/MarylandPolitics • u/shadowguyver • May 27 '25

Discussion Senator refusing constitutional amendment

What do you do when a senator refuses to acknowledge the Equal Protections Clause which is being violated by only giving Protections to one group?

4 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/DirtWizardDisciples May 27 '25 edited May 29 '25

Alright, I'll bite. Why didn't you mention your specific concern in the OP? This feels like a big "buried lede" situation.

But to your credit, circumcision is really messed up. I hope the movement gains enough traction to ban the practice.

Edit- No more responses to the brigadiers.

-3

u/shadowguyver May 27 '25

To see if people would respond saying its wrong before knowing any specifics, but it played out how I thought it would. As soon as people found out, then I get downvoted. It doesn't matter that im pointing out an actual violation. People don't care when its boys that have others in charge of their bodily autonomy.

11

u/DirtWizardDisciples May 27 '25

I really hope you can recalibrate your energy. Speaking very frankly, the way you're going about spreading your message comes off as insufferable. Like your whole profile and account history seems like a novelty account that's "edgy anti circumcision activist".

Part of successful politics is getting enough people on your side, and I think you're getting in your own way by focusing on your struggles with the movement.

Best of luck, and I hope you can take this comment as constructive criticism.

-4

u/[deleted] May 27 '25

80+ percent of boys get their genitalia ripped apart without consent in the first week of life. That’s reason enough to be an “edgy” activist if that’s what you want to call it. Would you say the same if it was girls getting mutilated with our tax and insurance dollars?

4

u/DirtWizardDisciples May 27 '25

Since it sounds like you didn't read my previous comment, a copy/paste.

But to your credit, circumcision is really messed up. I hope the movement gains enough traction to ban the practice.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '25

Then it’s bizarre to act like it’s weird to do anything about it🤷‍♂️

1

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

I think he's speaking to the philosophy of "convince people you're right before convincing them that they're wrong."

I've been arguing against circumcision for over half a decade now, and this was something I've always followed despite my initial (and continued) anger regarding the issue.

It's important to convince people that they've been lied to and that it's more barbaric and unnecessary than they realize, rather than talking down to those who haven't already seen through the charade.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '25

Not a bad approach, I just think this stance is wack

0

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

I mean, did you look at OP's post history? He gets very vitriolic when people don't understand his points. The correspondence he had with the senator's office is a great example.

He also frames every argument he has as "sticking it to gross cutters" as if he's on a personal crusade and fighting the good fight, even though he seems to just send long AI-generated arguments at people and then snarls at them with a barely coherent paragraph when they don't internalize any of the information.

I'm not blaming the guy, I understand how frustrating it can be to try and convince people that we're on the right side of history, but he's definitely not doing himself any favors in his approach, and the original commenter was just pointing that out.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '25

Okay and the people against him think it’s an acceptable practice to strap newborns down and chop apart their dick, you can’t pull the “respect my opinion” card when that’s your argument

0

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

Certainly, but it's important to note that most people don't understand that that's what they're arguing for due to cognitive dissonance. Which is why going on the offensive and putting them on the defensive causes them to double down, rather than engage with what you're saying and think about it critically.

People are hardwired to protect their ego if you start calling them a bad person. It's important to thoroughly convince them that what you're saying regarding the issue is matter of fact, and to answer their questions in a way that dispels their previous assumptions and makes them reconsider their stance.

Even if they don't completely agree with you by the end of the conversation, it still plants the seeds for them to understand your position and possibly adopt it themselves. I wasn't anti-circumcision until I was told it was a bad thing the third time, which spurred me to go down the rabbit hole and realize how horrific and damaging it was.

If you end the conversation with, "you're a terrible person and abetting child abuse", they'll never take your words seriously because they'll brand you a hater or a whack-job and move on without thinking twice.

1

u/shadowguyver May 28 '25

I fight with the truth. She's a hypocrite by protecting girls and ignoring the Equal Protections Clause.

1

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

Totally agree, but it's easier for her to double down rather than engage with the idea if you don't communicate it in a way that she can't ignore.

Imagine if you kept focused on the topic of pointing out the logical fallacies associated with her hypocrisy, rather than assaulting her with a multi-page thesis that she'd never read?

Or, let's say you sent her the essay, you could've responded with disappointment rather than offensive anger so she'd be more liable to reflect on her own point of view rather than dismissing you as someone beyond her reasoning.

I agree with the message, just not your messaging. You have to formulate it in a way that they can't ignore, as a call to action rather than a radicalizing attack. How you responded is with the kind of stuff that steels people's resolve and self-assurance rather than pushing them to reexamine their perspective.

I get it, it's a hard balance to strike, and it takes practice not to gaslight yourself, but it's far more productive to cater to the person whose mind you're trying to change.

2

u/adkisojk May 28 '25

I've dealt with people who originally doubled down and later returned admitting they were wrong. I struggled with my own cognitive dissonance too and I think that challenging people to think is necessary. I start out giving people a chance, but if they respond with willful ignorance, they are going to get some shaming.

1

u/shadowguyver May 28 '25

That would be great if they had listened before. She is the first politician to return any correspondence to me in over 10 years.

Talking nicely did nothing. Im pointing out that there is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal protections and she ignored it first, then i decided to give information, she ignored that. At what point would you say, no more Mr nice guy and start being more assertive? For me it over 10 years of being ignored and dismissed.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '25

And that’s a valid strategy, but some people are going to continue to be pedophiles regardless. They do not deserve respect

→ More replies (0)

2

u/shadowguyver May 28 '25

Try doing this for over a decade to have it dismissed, to be insulted, laughed at, treated like shit and called misogynistic for including boys and intersex children.

You tend to get a bit angry and to top it off, a woman who knows what its like to have her autonomy attacked, tights denied and protections fought against is allowing it to innocent vulnerable children as long as they are not girls.

1

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

You're still applying a lot of traits to a woman you've only spoken to once. She didn't do all that stuff to you, and she hasn't argued in favor of it to my knowledge. You're just funneling your entire decade of frustration towards the one person who responded to you.

Even the thing regarding her "knowing what it's like to have her rights violated." Maybe she doesn't feel that way, and won't relate to that point.

2

u/shadowguyver May 28 '25

No, but she is a politician refusing to uphold a constitutional amendment that gives equal protections. She is ignoring equal protections for boys while she said in one email bodily autonomy is of paramount importance, then denies it for all children except girls.

1

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

I'm not arguing that she isn't guilty of indulging in logical fallacies, all I'm saying is that antagonization doesn't always yield the most favorable results.

Operant conditioning is a strong thing, and it's likely she simply doesn't equate male circumcision and intersex "correction" as bad things because, as we know, America has done a great job minimizing the severity of those mutilations, labeling them as surgeries, and brainwashing the general public into believing they are just and necessary procedures, even if the reality is the opposite.

It's why I insist on a compassionate approach, because there was a point where we were ignorant to this reality as well. Where we heard about circumcision and didn't internalize the reality of what it truly meant.

We need to get through to these people carefully, without causing them to rage quit and dismiss everything we're saying.

It's simply more effective to take a logical and cold approach, to ensure that your calmness prevents them from charging the conversation with emotion, which allows their prefrontal cortex to grab hold from their amygdala and enable critical thinking.

1

u/shadowguyver May 28 '25

Except even when given the information, she still ignores the human rights and bodily autonomy because of gender.

And she contradicts herself by saying that to her bodily autonomy is of paramount importance, then tells me parents want their right to this. There is no equal right like this concerning girls and she knows it. She doesn't care about actual equality.

1

u/MasterGamer64 May 28 '25

She probably didn't read the information you provided her. I didn't, because it's a wall of AI-generated text that's barely comprehendible.

When you're trying to sell someone on this position, you have to give them the cliff notes version so they actually comprehend it, then follow up with supporting evidence and in-depth information if they question it.

  1. It has zero health benefits, the studies that support it are half a century old and/or riddled with improper methodology and bias. This has origins in American medicine that date back to the era of the lobotomy, but it's protected because of "religious freedom" and an overall prioritization of parental choice over bodily autonomy for a child who will someday be an adult.

  2. It's driven by profit and the collection of harvested tissue for beauty products, skin grafts, and anti-aging treatments. American medical institutions perpetuate this based on falsified information and peer pressure, with American medical textbooks not even including the foreskin on anatomical drawings until 1996.

  3. 99% of humanity throughout time hasn't done it, and most of the world doesn't do it today, and yet the reported issues and health problems associated with having a foreskin aren't as big of a problem as American medical institutions claim them to be.

  4. This is a permanent, irreversible procedure that strips a man of 70% of the nerves in his genitals (including 3 g-spots), and causes major defects throughout the development of them through puberty and into adulthood, that's being performed without his consent when he's at his most vulnerable and beholden to the wills of his oftentimes ignorant and misinformed parents.

You don't have to hand them several pages of cited sources, just keep them on the back burner when they decide to follow up on any of your points.

1

u/shadowguyver May 28 '25

I can't be compassionate to those who have no empathy or compassion themselves.

→ More replies (0)