>>512517416
>>Inclusivity is bad
"Inclusivity" is bad because it's an inherently dishonest euphemism, literal NewSpeak. It makes it sound like you just support including people, making sure nobody is excluded. In reality it's a mashed up rebrand of "Equal Opportunities" and "Political Correctness" two things which only had to be rebranded in the first place because they were unpopular to the point of universal ridicule.
Being dishonest to trick people into supporting something they oppose seems bad to me.
>>Trans people existing is bad
Three reasons: First, because transgenderism is an illegitimate condition and even if it were real, humoring the delusional patient and helping him or her obtain surgical mutilation is inherently unethical and violates the hypocratic oath, and there is also no evidence that this is effective "treatment". Second, because trannies don't just "exist", they secure the right to exist then immediately demand legally-enforced acceptance. Third, because once trannies get legally-enforced acceptance they demand the right to groom your children without your knowledge/consent. We just lived through this and saw with our own eyes that the slippery slope isn't a fallacy over the past decade, and that's why the tide of public opinion has shifted against trannies. You lost your right to groom children first, then you lost your right to beat and sexually harass real women, next step is banning your chemical castration drugs and making doctors legally and financially liable for "Tranny's Remorse" which will basically end transgenderism as we know it
>>Gay marriage is bad
Because the slippery slope is not a fallacy. We just watched the Groomer Left transition from Gay Marriage to Trans Rights like the day after the SCOTUS used terrible legal reasoning to legalize gay marriage from the bench and it took like a year or two for that to devolve into child grooming and woman beating. This is why public support for gay marriage is declining