Jaytreeman

As others have said, the analogy is wrong, but for different reasons than what I've seen.

A better analogy is an abusive relationship. There's your partner who beats you regularly. You're often left bruised. You talk about leaving and the response is 'the other guy will break your arms, and unless you agree to stay with me, they're moving in and they will break your arms. I'm still punching you, and there's no chance I'll stop, but I'm better than that person.'

There is a cycle of abuse. Look it up. There's no way to make an abusive relationship better. There's very little chance that a person will change while they have power over a victim. Power gives up nothing without a fight.

The abuser might change, but only after reflection and a loss of power.

It sounds like your reasoning is similar to how a lot of people feel about the word 'moist'.

I wouldn't be happy if the descriptor for me was viscerally hurtful to myself.

I think the big difference is the world we live in. Lgbtq+ are being targeted by rightwing fucks all over the world. Talking about how you don't like the word sounds a lot like 'Im just asking what a woman is'. It's not exactly transphobic, but those phrases are often used by people trying to legitimize their hate. For example, take a look at JKRs change in rhetoric.

I've thought about changing my pronouns to they/them for the same reason

I don't think there's a reasonable way out of this hole, but I'd rather be in a world with more forest, so I'll keep suggesting that.

Very true. A forest is definitely preferable

Trees are pretty good at carbon capture :)

Srsly Wrong's latest podcast talked a lot about how oil companies funded grassroots pro oil campaigns and then linked it to our larger culture and how we can't trust anyone anymore.

I never thought I'd be able to say not trusting each other is big oils fault, but here we are

Sorry. I was trying to be inclusive of Mexico, US and Canada.
You're absolutely right that the nations that existed before those three were not fascist.

Good analogy

I agree with you, but you might find the history of Zionism interesting. Before Israel, there was a sizable portion of Zionists that didn't want Israel to exist in the middle east. There were also Zionists that didn't want a 'state'. They thought it was more important to have a safe place for a sizable Jewish population. There's probably a lot of flavors of Zionism that you'd agree with. It's the dominant Israeli Zionism that's horrible.

It's a lot easier to say 'Zionist' though. Just thought I'd share in case you weren't aware.

By all accounts she saved the original trilogy from George's input.