Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Тема закрыта 
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
Today's GOP wanted the Voting Rights Act destroyed and they successfully had it gutted via the SCOTUS. There are plenty of current Republicans who would love to see the Civil Rights Act repealed. Rand Paul had to walk back some really f'd up statements back in 2010 where he offered up the idea that business should be allowed to discriminate against racial minorities.
Go take a look at project 2025. If that doesn't scare the s*** out of you, you're an anti-democracy fascist.
J K Rowling isn't anti-trans.
This is a good example of how someone with a nuanced view was just blanket claimed to be some evil witch and then later others read what she said and felt it was unfair. A great example of driving down "LGBTQ+ acceptance" (basically of the entity that describes itself as a community) because people had to be very disingenuous in their portrayal of her views and then started all kinds of threats.
People read what she actually said, much of which has since been proven accurate, and they look for who is responsible. Because the most vocal element claims to represent LGBTQ+ then acceptance drops.
I think the democratic party who ultimately won (the north) and attempted to push out the racist democrats (the south) -- which they ultimately did gave to the idea of the moral majority in the 1980's being Reagan which allowed the racist democrats a new foothold in the Republican party (Unfortunate).
Most Republicans of that era were arguing for civil rights (in the vast majority and I mean vast) the small minority in that era that were against the idea was not the idea of "ew pigment" but more of "government over reach" being "the gay cake" concept (which ultimately the SCOTUS ruled on) of the right to deny service/employment for X reason and anti communism, which you mention the JBS-society -- they didn't care about your skin color, what they cared about was no socialism/communism. JBS is founded on anti-communism. Construing them as "race based" is incorrect. They are anti collectivist. Some individuals are likely racist just as Democrats were absolutely racist but this falls into the "no true scotsman fallacy" argument and "guilt by association fallacy" argument as well.
JK Rowling is famous for her white cis-het male power-fantasy books and for liking a lot of tweets that were anti-trans. It's fairly easy to see that she supports a straight, cishet worldview. There are plenty of articles which have compiled her remarks and views over the years. Sure, she doesn't say things like "Trans people don't exist and we should force them out of society" but she portrays them in a negative light in her writings and supports a lot of anti-trans viewpoints by liking them on twitter.
You're genuinely claiming that punishing innocent people for things that happened hundreds of years ago makes any sense whatsoever? Who gets to go first with their list of transgressions? We'd literally all be dead if you take that ironically eye for an eye approach.
I mean what do you propose the Mongolians do?
We can deal with the effects but we can't bring back the dead and two wrongs famously don't make a right. Your approach actually reminds me of one of the main causes of the second world war.
Businesses are allowed to discriminate and so do companies - all the time and that is actually okay. You can't force people to bake you a cake that goes against their personally held beliefs. The libertarian position here is actually a good thing. You should want to make money as a business and the idea of baking a cake that is for a wedding should be the desire. If a baker chooses not to bake the cake - so be it - their loss.
The idea of a quota is literally institutionalized racism though. It may be in the idea of "we're doing good" by allowing minorities a place at the table but it is seeded in vile concepts and defacto racism.
I think you're being very generous to them. They aren't making a nuanced point about the power structures they're treating all x ppl the same.
I think your argument is a valid and well-reasoned one. There are arguments against it but a lot of that is in the detail. For example the timeframe before this becomes a bit meaningless. Ultimately though that's a case by case basis. I think it's very hard to make a hard and fast rule. It also gets confused when that organisation changes over time. New branches getting blamed for example. The other problem is who decides when the apology/recompense is accepted and we all move on and draw a line under it. What if later generations decide everything hasn't been addressed. It gets messy very quickly.
Oh, JK Rowling is definitely anti-trans. There's a great Vox article that debunks that "she's not transphobic" myth, it's "Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let’s let her speak for herself"
The popular youtuber/essayist "Shaun" also has a great video breaking down JK's connections to and support of anti-trans speakers and groups, including Helen Joyce and Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, it's called "The Friends of JK Rowling." Really hard to walk away with the conclusion that she isn't transphobic after reviewing all of that evidence, unless one is just looking to affirm their prior convictions I suppose.
I didn't order quite so many strawmans thank you. I could open a store.
a) People are literally saying x group is evil
b) People are placing all the blame for homophobia on religion
c) I'm not defensive about religion I think religious belief should be protected
d) I didn't say I hate "the LGTBQ" I proposed a reason for falling acceptance, one none of you can actually engage with.
e) If you can't fight the argument and just have to claim someone is evil then that's a sign your argument is worthless
f) I never claimed a persecution complex. I've just repeatedly corrected something said about me which is innocuous but false.
g) I'm not spreading hatred
The GOP today is an extremist party, which isn't the same party at all decades years ago, though I'd say their alignment with where they are today began in the 70s, with outbursts of hysteria and politicized lightning rods - adding the Satanic Panic to the list, then the enemies we created of a country not involved in 9/11 (though that is a special case which had vast support of most people), people marrying animals in the mid 00s, and now a lot of anti-lgbtq rhetoric.
There was groaning towards queer characters in video games throughout the 2000s, but now it's at the front-and-center of the outrage machine.
So, before the 70s, and especially not during/after Reagan, the Republican party generally was more of a champion of the people relative to the Democratic and likely other extinct parties I don't recall, I dont know anyone who knows a even a brief history and would deny that. The point of contention is trying to equate that with the GOP today.
Wow the strawman keeps coming.
Do you know what a question mark is?
I construe the non-bigoted but conspiracy ladden redscare John Birch Society and the racist Dixiecrats as the modern republican party and those are the ones that voted against the voting rights act.
A power coalition built for expediency, not built for actual governing.
The moderate republicans (which we are in short supply of these days), you are correct voted for the act.
There was literally a journalist paid to make an article on what she said that was transphobic and they gave up because she basically didn't. The best you get is "dogwhistles" and liking "known transphobes". But if you read her actual words then you won't get any of this. Guilty by adjacency is simply not good enough. If I applied the same standards equally then everyone would be in trouble.
I've watched numerous trans activist videos about why she is a transphobe and every single one has led me to the conclusion that she isn't. They literally don't talk about anything she says and fill 90% of it with other ppl. Then they're disingenuous about them too. The Maya Forstater case is a good example.
Unfortunately you're banned but go read her essay and then see what problem you have with it.