Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Much forum. Such posting! Wow!

To many quote blocks. Too many side tangents..

Let me see if I have this right?

First, the lgbt crowd (who asserts repeatedly that they don't have an 'agenda', they just want legal recognition, which is fine.) Laughs, rubs peoples noses in a supreme court victory, backed by federal enforcement, with snide comments and pathological smugness, (instead of, you know, being good human beings and wanting to reassure mortified deists that God won't visit seven plagues on the nation or something, and honestly trying to be unifying instead of divisive), and being so emboldened by this victory, they feel untouchable. They push for absurd bullshit like "safe spaces", (because, like, those evil deist bastards just all want us to die! Fear fear fear! I need an echo chamber to safely feel frightened in!) Never mind that the very idea of such things is fucking offensive as fuck to otherwise benign straight people.  (Seriously, imagine for a moment thus counter situation: the religious fundies succeed in total criminalization of homosexual behavior, then emboldened by that victory, start demanding " safe places" where they can be free from any interaction with those deviant gay people, because they are all pedophiles, racists, molesters, and worse trying to corrupt everyone's morals and send then to hell. Offensive as fuck in its presumptiveness, isn't it?)

When those people hand the lgbt movement their asses via the election process, as they have done repeatedly to the straight majority for years, do they take it with mature aplomb? No. They double down on the fucking safe space bullshit the way religious idiots double down on trying to "fix" gay people. Now they want to use state rights to fight the very power they were so smugly in bed with just a year ago, because the worn turned.

I am tired as fuck if seeing both sets if you losers build up castels if sand around your goddamn "sexual identities" and "religious faith" hysteria.  You always, and I mean this the fullest way possible, and for both sets if people, act in the most disgustingly divisive, hypocritical, and shameless fashions possible while acting holier than thou from on high, then jump straight for the fucking victim card the moment the tide changes.

If you spent even half the time learning to actually love each other instead of demonizing and castigating each other, we wouldn't fucking be here right now, with a dangerous idiot holding the nuclear football.

Fuck.

It isn't the responsibility of the oppressed to comfort their oppressors.  Fundies can suck a dick.

Safe spaces isn't just LGBT, and even if it was, its the one thing gay bars have in common with churches so again.  Fundies can suck a dick.  It would be rude if someone walked into Sunday mass with a dildo strapped to their forehead quoting Nietzche.  Its not unreasonable for gay people to want a place they can be gay in peace.

Whoosh!! Missing the fucking point.

You say they can eat dick? They say you can go to hell. Everyone loses. That's the point.

Quit being condescending.  I got the point, I just don't like that point.  Show me two people with a genuine disagreement and I'll show you eight people trying to scream "why can't we get along" so loud they drown out the people who actually have something useful to say.  Its not a new argument and its not a new perspective.

Its so fucking funny that you're asking LGBT people to tone it down because they already fucking have.  50 years ago the gay rights movement and the free love movement where inexorably connected and the whole thing was a big experiment in alternate lifestyles.  Now the whole thing has been stripped down to this ridiculously conservative "we're exactly like you!  Look at us with our exactly 2 partners and our 1.5 adopted children, in our nice friendly suburban homes!  All we want is the same legal recognition and protection that everyone else gets by default."  Hell, there are so many gay people out there who want to throw trans people and bi and queer people under the bus and just focus on gay marriage.  And apparently, even just that one fucking totally harmless legal issue, just equal marriage for just gay people, is too much to ask for from people like you.

That's why I'm talking about churches.  Straight religious people (of which fundies are, excepting the closeted ones, a subset) already have their safe spaces and, in many cases, they do use that safe space to bash the LGBT community.  They also use it to provide community support and discuss relevant issues and a whole bunch of other fairly healthy things.  And that's the thing, gay people aren't trying to take that away from the fundies.  They'll still get their safe spaces.  They just want that same security blanket.  I have had/do have closeted friends who literally listen to their parents talk about how they're going to hell, then go to church and hear the same fucking thing from their pastor, then go to school and hear the same fucking thing from their teachers and classmates.  Don't trust the adults in their life, don't trust most of their friends, wouldn't trust even the school counselor.  I know someone who literally (and almost certainly rightly) believes they will be disowned by their one remaining parent if she finds out that they're gay.  You want to say fundies are going through something equivalent right now?  You want to say you know what that's like?  Oh but I'm sure if we're all friendly and honest and hug puppies it can all just magically work itself out with no conflict and no hurt feelings.

Furthermore, they didn't "hand LGBT people their asses" because Hillary doesn't speak for the LGBT movement (neither does Bernie) and either way, Trump got less votes.  So stop trying to shut down conversation and stop acting like everyone agrees with you.  You have something against the LGBT movement, say it outright.  You can act neutral all you want but you're blatantly taking a side.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The Electoral College is a tyranny of the minority...

I think a better statement would be it's a tyranny of regionality, and for that reason I'm kind of okay with it. A president can't win a grossly higher amount of the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. That's just not how it works, all it really does is weight votes in a way as to make sure that NYC (hyperbole, because it's a huge fuckin city) doesn't decide every president ever.

Now, I haven't read Red's article yet, but that's just my two cents.

[Neonivek]

What is funny is that there is a lot of talk about how Democrats are sore losers and how they wouldn't be complaining if they won under the same circumstances.

EXCEPT! it is technically possible for Trump to have lost even in this situation...

[Criptfeind]

Meh, state based instead of population based representation is all well and good, but that's why we have a senate. Turning around and saying that it should be used for the highest executive in the country really is just flipping the 'issue' around and making it worse.

[TheBiggerFish]

Meh, state based instead of population based representation is all well and good, but that's why we have a senate. Turning around and saying that it should be used for the highest executive in the country really is just flipping the 'issue' around and making it worse.

Yeah...

[PTTG??]

Whoosh!! Missing the fucking point.

You say they can eat dick? They say you can go to hell. Everyone loses. That's the point.

You are dramatically deceived if you think that fundamentalists and racists have somehow the same moral standing as people struggling to be recognized. When was the last time a gay person shot up a religious gathering? When was the last time a religious person shot up a gay gathering?

This false equivalence has to stop. The conservative party isn't just "different." The message produced by party leaders have as core principles things that are inconsistent with not just the ethics of the western world, but even inconsistent with the ethics they profess to hold: treat others as you would like to be treated, and minimize the interference of the many upon the few. These broken ethics don't go away, and they do incite violence.

The lash-back against "safe spaces" is not, I think, about safe spaces as a concept, but rather the fear the average uneducated voter has for the educated, a lever to be used to further wedge apart the gap between rural and urban populations. I think ultimately it comes down to racial divides once more; white liberals are "othered" so that they cannot serve as a bridge between white conservatives and minorities. Thus, they are portrayed as SJW nazis with whom no dialog can exist, not "normal people." This propaganda prevents conservative voters from coming to understand just how much they've been lied to.

Unrelated, here's a terribly disappointing video.

Oh, I remembered annother of Trump's campaign promises: nationwide roll-out of the unconstitutional practice of stop-and-frisk. I recall that constitutional fundamentalism arises frequently in regards to White American's 2ed amendment rights, but rarely for Arabic-*, Latino- and Black-Americans' 4th and 14th. Even if it was truly random, (although I can think of no practical way to remove bias from the system,) it is baldly unconstitutional in the most obvious way: it consists entirely of a police officer shaking someone down without cause. I really can't comprehend how someone could see it as anything but a violation of our most deeply held rights.

*And Sikh, since Americans now see turbans as automatically evil. I blame Professor Quirrel.

[Frumple]

Thats trying to legislate morality. If you don't like someone you don't need to be anywere near them. If some buissness owner doesnt want to hire a black guy don't shop there, you don't want to hire a racist don't hire a racist.

Seriouslly this isn't hard.

... not hard until you have no where else to shop or no one else to hire, anyway. Problem with hinging anything on freedom of movement or association is that sometimes, well, you don't actually have quite that choice.

[Sprin]

Humans are humans

If they aren't physically hurting anyone let them do what they want

[Urist McScoopbeard]

-biggest snoop-

Thats trying to legislate morality. If you don't like someone you don't need to be anywere near them. If some buissness owner doesnt want to hire a black guy don't shop there, you don't want to hire a racist don't hire a racist.

Seriouslly this isn't hard.

The only problem I have with this is that what if all businesses in the US refused to hire or provide services to a certain group of people? Hypothetical, because that's not the way business works, but I feel like businesspeople should be required to provide a certain equality of opportunity to people regardless of race/religion/etc.

At what point does it become an impediment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't have any good answer for that, but it's point of discussion anyways.

Humans are humans

If they aren't physically hurting anyone let them do what they want

Mmmmmmmmm, we as US citizens have more rights than that, friend.

[Sprin]

Thats trying to legislate morality. If you don't like someone you don't need to be anywere near them. If some buissness owner doesnt want to hire a black guy don't shop there, you don't want to hire a racist don't hire a racist.

Seriouslly this isn't hard.

... not hard until you have no where else to shop or no one else to hire, anyway. Problem with hinging anything on freedom of movement or association is that sometimes, well, you don't actually have quite that choice.

If there are places that are that bad

Then you me and other like minded people should be the ones to help them

[Sprin]

-biggest snoop-

Thats trying to legislate morality. If you don't like someone you don't need to be anywere near them. If some buissness owner doesnt want to hire a black guy don't shop there, you don't want to hire a racist don't hire a racist.

Seriouslly this isn't hard.

The only problem I have with this is that what if all businesses in the US refused to hire or provide services to a certain group of people? Hypothetical, because that's not the way business works, but I feel like businesspeople should be required to provide a certain equality of opportunity to people regardless of race/religion/etc.

At what point does it become an impediment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't have any good answer for that, but it's point of discussion anyways.

Like I said

If its such a problem you me and other like minded people (there are alot of them) should be the ones to help them

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Thats fair. It's a good point. Like I said, business just doesn't work that way, people will always sell to an untapped market, etc. etc.

[Frumple]

... well yeah. That's where the legislation comes in.

And again, not always particularly viable. Markets aren't an unlimited resource, nor businesses that will sell to them.

[Sprin]

... well yeah. That's where the legislation comes in.

And again, not always particularly viable. Markets aren't an unlimited resource, nor businesses that will sell to them.

So you want the government to be powerful enough to punish dissidence for not conforming to your morality

[Urist McScoopbeard]

... well yeah. That's where the legislation comes in.

And again, not always particularly viable. Markets aren't an unlimited resource, nor businesses that will sell to them.

So you want the government to be powerful enough to punish dissidence for not conforming to your morality

I'd like the Gov't to be powerful enough to prevent discrimination based on things other than content of a person's character.