Print

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

[Vector]

I don't have a twitter account, bro.

No, what I'm asking is: supposedly this is happening because people asked for too much. How much were they supposed to ask for?

[wierd]

Another constructive question!

The amount they should ask for, is simply equal treatment. (as opposed to 'protected' treatment.)

That is to say, "We do not want to be disadvantaged", vs "I want a special exception to existing rules."


For a personal example-- in my state, you have to have a dependent child in order to claim being a head of household. This is not only a direct lockout against people who are sterile and want children, or against gay people that are in some other way excluded from adoption services (due to other bullshit), but also fundementally affects asex people like myself, who only have the single income, and will only ever have the single income, and have all the bills other people have.

Rather than say "I want an asex exemption to this rule!!!", you should instead go "I want this rule to be re-evaluated, because it is exclusionary. I want the same treatment that people with kids get."

Often times, people who have an alternative sexuality become.. how to put this without being offensive?.... "Demanding?"..  One big place this happens, is vis-a-vis, people with regressive religious faiths and practices.  Demanding that a religious institution host a gay wedding is not a victory. It is the forced imposition of compelled service against another party's will-- as an example.  Demanding the loss of somebody's agency, to satisfy a want, is improper, and an over-reach.  Every Time.

The LGBT community tends to have this notion that "You cannot go too far!" when dealing with people who hold regressive views-- religious people especially.  This leads to situations where you cause serious offense, and circumstances brew to cataclysmic levels, and shit gets real, like Tenn.

Much like it would be completely improper for a black family run bakery to be compelled to make cakes for a KKK kegger party-- it is improper to compel a religious family run bakery to make your wedding cake.

That is demanding a special exemption, not equity, and is using the court system to compel somebody to service they do not wish to provide, which is a violation of agency.

[None]

Fucken' hell, strawmen old people and my concern that 'someone is always going to make the shitty counterargument' is too much, and that going Full Karen on Twitter is how we do (and should not) handle it?

Speaking of, who is Karen, anyways? Who is she, really? I hope that's a constructive question.

We're not talking a bakery here, we're talking the whole of Tennessee- you can't exactly just 'not got to Tennessee' if you're already living there, and then become seriously disadvantaged about trying to leave if the moving truck company doesn't serve the transgender.

When people's rights are on the line, there is not equal weighting to be put in those who are withholding those rights. You do not meet halfway on equal rights, because those withholding will keep moving the goalposts since any demand is too far, and then you have literacy tests and three-fifths compromises on voting.

[wierd]

Did you not read my first post to vector to the end sir?

Does your reading comprehension skills have such deficit that you are unable to see how your arrogant stance that I must be for "ZERO PUSHING!", when I have outright stated against that, and instead been suggesting a different form of pushing this entire goddamn time, is a strawman?

I am not your enemy here. 


As for "Who is Karen"--

"What is Karen" is a better question.

"Karen" is a pejorative term used to describe an entitled person (usually a white female), who demands special exemptions to established rules or social conventions, for entirely self-serving reasons. They often demand to speak to the manager, and cause nothing but grief and misery to everyone else around them, until they get their way.  They tend to be universally loathed.

[None]

My points are as followed-

1) I'm not your enemy, I'm disagreeing with the concept that progress should be over-generational and that waiting for the boomer-generational feedback is going to lead to more states adopting Tennessee-like laws suppressing minorities, and that the solution to fix this is to reach out to corporations to follow a bottom line based on projections of the mentality of the common man, since the discussion and activism is what leads the common man to adapt the progressive mentality anyways. There's always going to be some twitter-blaster just as there is going to be someone decrying them and claiming the movement has gone too far, that's noise, smoke, and mirrors. They are not the problem.

2) I'm not asking for twitter-blasting or promoting it, since this seems to be an ideological fixation. It doesn't even factor into my argument. Telling the extreme and impassioned not to be extreme and impassioned doesn't work, just as telling religious fundamentals not to be religious fundamentals doesn't work. Their ecosystems are segregated from reality. They are talking points to breed hatred and oppose progress. Now, the withholding of equal rights, like equal access to businesses, that is reality, and default opting a minority out of service is a problem.

3) These 180 observant corporations should surely know well enough, if they can predict future bottom lines, that these extreme twitter-blaster types do not represent the social psyche.

4) Thank you for correcting me about Karen, I believe a 'pejorative term used to describe an entitled person (usually a white female) who demands special exemptions to established rules or social conventions for entirely self-serving reasons' is what's otherwise referred to as a 'strawman.' Karen does not exist, we are not her, do not share her values partially or in whole. Nobody is here to defend her actions.

5) I apologize if I've missed anything else or fail to understand why you've escalated in insults, I have such a deficit in reading comprehension that I do fail to see how my arrogance has led me to receive them.

[Vector]

That is to say, "We do not want to be disadvantaged", vs "I want a special exception to existing rules."

OK, I see that you gave an example regarding the gay wedding cake thing from 5+ years back. So my question is, which specific special exceptions have trans people been requesting in Tennessee that pushed this behavior? Are there specific people on Twitter who have been asking for special rights that you can link us to?

[wierd]

We live in a period of time where region is less important to an identity.  Asking for specific instances in Tenn is special pleading.

Rather, the people in Tenn should be viewed in this light:

They have seen instances such as the infamous wedding cake incident. They have seen a rise in such incidents in the mainstream (eg, national) media.  The only power they have to (in their misguided view) protect their agency, is at their own state level.

They passed a series of state laws.

[Vector]

Special pleading? No, I'm saying that Tennessee apartheid is happening, according to your narrative, because trans people pushed too hard and there's a backlash. And, I'm asking for a concrete explanation of what we did to deserve this, because at least in theory, I am one of the people who needs to change my behavior. And so are some of my friends.

So what specific behaviors should trans people dial back in order to discourage similar backlash in other states, which haven't yet cracked down with public segregation? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[wierd]

spe·cial plead·ing
/ˈspeSHəl ˈplēdiNG/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: special pleading

    argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
    "he has produced a piece of special pleading that does not wholly stand up"
        appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment.
        "we heard his special pleading for his constituency"

Insisting that the only actions that could have merit to the people that passed the bill in Tenn, must be actions done in Tenn, is indeed special pleading.  It is so, because it ignores outside actions, because they are unfavorable to the position you already hold.

Again, the thing they should dial back on is the anger and vitriol in full public display on public places (as they are not as insular and gated as they like to think they are, and stoke these fires quite intensely), and they should avoid playing the part of the Karen, whenever and wherever possible.

The mainstream media takes even the most miniscule numbers of such incidents, and magifies the public perception of them millions of times over.

That amplification has real effects.

[Rolan7]

Often times, people who have an alternative sexuality become.. how to put this without being offensive?.... "Demanding?"..  One big place this happens, is vis-a-vis, people with regressive religious faiths and practices.  Demanding that a religious institution host a gay wedding is not a victory. It is the forced imposition of compelled service against another party's will-- as an example.  Demanding the loss of somebody's agency, to satisfy a want, is improper, and an over-reach.  Every Time.

The LGBT community tends to have this notion that "You cannot go too far!" when dealing with people who hold regressive views-- religious people especially.  This leads to situations where you cause serious offense, and circumstances brew to cataclysmic levels, and shit gets real, like Tenn.

Asking churches to stop reinforcing prejudices is actually the half-measure.  The true solution would be removing their tax-exempt status and reducing our systemic reliance on their "good works", which are very often prejudicial and always some degree of proselytizing.  Sometimes explicitly, sometimes not.

The important part of that is just lobbying for a civilized social safety net, which I do.  I expect spirituality and religion to survive and even *thrive* once people have the universal freedom not to rely on their local churches in order to eat.

That's what I want eventually, but it's very far away for now.  The proposal you mentioned is more "Given you have special tax status, please stop being openly bigoted.  It makes us (the government) complicit."  So I guess I can cynically support that half-measure for now.

But honestly I don't think many people expect or want bigoted churches to have to bake them cakes host their weddings.  The real conversation is far right of that - it's "Sure we'll reconsider whether gay marriage should be a thing, thanks for explicitly telling your parishioners to vote for me."  (Illegal, but unenforced).  And that's *their* half measure.  What they actually call for is conversion therapy and sodomy laws.  They don't believe we exist and also desperately want to stop us from existing.

There's no true middle-ground with the ideas they proudly state.  The ultimate goal of minority rights is that everyone be free from persecution.  The reality is that means laws (enforced laws) protecting minorities from persecution.  People will scream bloody murder about those "special protections" but they're necessary.  We know that in the absence of those protections, people will be excluded from society - even passively, through hiring/housing discrimination.

Refusing to marry a couple is relatively unimportant compared to hiring and housing, and I hadn't really thought about the issue until you brought it up, but it's part of the same rot.  Churches have very protected status, though, and that's not likely to change anytime soon, so I'd rather focus on more realistic battles.  Currently that means playing defense against the Supreme Court, which is likely to give the states a lot of license for bigotry in the near future.  As if anybody can just move... imagine asking for asylum from a state.
I think that got away from me a bit - also I feel like your post changed a lot, but maybe I failed to read it all!  I'll try to briefly address the rest to be fair.

Another constructive question!

The amount they should ask for, is simply equal treatment. (as opposed to 'protected' treatment.)

That is to say, "We do not want to be disadvantaged", vs "I want a special exception to existing rules."


For a personal example-- in my state, you have to have a dependent child in order to claim being a head of household. This is not only a direct lockout against people who are sterile and want children, or against gay people that are in some other way excluded from adoption services (due to other bullshit), but also fundementally affects asex people like myself, who only have the single income, and will only ever have the single income, and have all the bills other people have.

Rather than say "I want an asex exemption to this rule!!!", you should instead go "I want this rule to be re-evaluated, because it is exclusionary. I want the same treatment that people with kids get."

Ooh, this is good!  Yeah I absolutely agree.  I guess I'm a bit biased though
In fact...  as much as I'm disinterested in making children (I do want to adopt, someday) I can theoretically understand a government subsidizing childbirth.  I think it's the wrong decision in our current world, given issues of immigration and resources, but I don't know whether it's... bigoted?  Maybe.  I'm certainly more comfortable with it rewarding people for having kids rather than making kids, despite my having none.

Much like it would be completely improper for a black family run bakery to be compelled to make cakes for a KKK kegger party-- it is improper to compel a religious family run bakery to make your wedding cake.

That is demanding a special exemption, not equity, and is using the court system to compel somebody to service they do not wish to provide, which is a violation of agency.

Asking a black family to make a cake for the KKK is different from asking them to make a cake for a white family.  Bigots aren't and shouldn't be a protected class, it's a behavior people can choose not to engage in (subconscious bigotry aside - we're talking the KKK here).

[wierd]

Not actually correct-- the freedom of expression of belief, is a constitutional right.

What they are NOT allowed to do, is lynch people, deny jobs, or burn crosses on lawns.  They can be as racist as they like, however.

Free association is ALSO a constitutional right.  That means they ARE entitled to their KKK keg party. (Just so long as it does not include lynchings, beatings, murder, extortion, cross burnings, denying jobs or housing, et al.)  Them just getting together to drink beer and complain about all the black people, is perfectly legal, and protected.

[Maximum Spin]

and default opting a minority out of service is a problem.

I want to stress that this hasn't happened. The law only states that businesses must "warn" customers if they allow bathrooms to be used according to gender identity rather than genital sex. Claiming that businesses are being told to refuse service to any minority is dishonest, and in fact for businesses to do so is still against the law.

[wierd]

and default opting a minority out of service is a problem.

I want to stress that this hasn't happened. The law only states that businesses must "warn" customers if they allow bathrooms to be used according to gender identity rather than genital sex. Claiming that businesses are being told to refuse service to any minority is dishonest, and in fact for businesses to do so is still against the law.

Correct,


This is why I suggested to turn it on its head.

ALL BUSINESSES OF ANY REAL CONSEQUENCE, will have the plaquard.

[Rolan7]

Not actually correct-- the freedom of expression of belief, is a constitutional right.

What they are NOT allowed to do, is lynch people, deny jobs, or burn crosses on lawns.  They can be as racist as they like, however.

Free association is ALSO a constitutional right.  That means they ARE entitled to their KKK keg party. (Just so long as it does not include lynchings, beatings, murder, extortion, cross burnings, denying jobs or housing, et al.)  Them just getting together to drink beer and complain about all the black people, is perfectly legal, and protected.

They can choose to hire people without regard to skin color (or at least try) and they're theoretically required to do that.  They probably bigoted, but don't act on it for fear of social consequences.

Free association is fine, but excluding people from your area is an ethnostate (or similar) and isn't okay.  Racists can throw all the racism-parties they want in private, but they can't drive minorities out of their neighborhood.  Legally.

Sorry, I kinda liked where you were going with Vector better.  If the mainstream media is going to magnify any incidents of minorities clamoring for rights, where's the harm in clamoring for rights?

[wierd]

Clamoring for rights is OK.  Note, My position, is not, nor has it ever been, "DO NOTHING! THINGS WILL GET BETTER ON THEIR OWN! PINKYSWEAR!"

My position is basically, "DONT BE FUCKING KAREN WHEN DOING IT."


Again, DO try not to read things in that are not expressly written in. I am not subtly dropping dogwhistles. Stop looking for them.


The example was a KKK keg party, comissioning a cake for said keg party, from a black bakery.

The black run bakery should have every right to refuse.

At no point was it meant to be implied that the KKK Keg party was anything other than a KKK Keg party--- A bunch of biggots getting together with a keg of beer, to complain about all the black people.

Again, they are entitled to the party.

They should not be entitled to the cake.