|
AriadneThread posted:this is terrible, even as joke empty quote, what the heck my dude
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
other way around
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
you can only see "no blacks no asians no latinos" so many times before you just assume all white gays are racist (the racist thing is because all white people are born in a white supremacist society and therefore we learn racism at an early age and need to learn how to not be racist, so it's a fair assumption to make; biphobic and transphobic idk tho seems kinda weird to pin that on gay dudes specifically, especially since historically speaking lesbian politics have been more about that poo poo)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Yeah that's the part I find confusing, I recognize that racism is a serious issue that needs to be worked on and I've certainly meet white gays with terrible views but they're certainly not singularly bad in that regard. I don't see these same people attacking "white male Jews" or anything like that with such vitriol. I literally don't think I have ever seen one of these "woke" people go after white lesbians. boy you have not seen antisemitism in the "social justice community" then. jewish issues are rarely discussed, and when hate crimes happen to jews there's a lot of hemming and hawing about how "well jews are really white so..." going on. not to mention pro-palestinian people have an unfortunate tendency to slide into antisemitism, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. i haven't seen "white lesbians" so much, but i would assume "white feminism" and "white girls" would overlap with that a lot i don't know, it's probably partially confirmation bias and partially white gay dudes are more likely to be visible in mass media than jews or lesbians EDIT: MaxxBot posted:So if someone tweeted "I assume white Jews are problematic and/or racist/transphobic/biphobic until they prove otherwise" that would be OK too? I don't see that getting the same level of acceptance from other leftists, or any other minority inserted in there. There seems to be an underlying assumption that somehow white gay men are singularly bad. yeah no there's definitely a lot of homophobia with the way gay dudes get singled out (same with lesbians from asexual tumblr, which is a sentence fragment i hate that i am able to write), but the fact is that there is a lot of antisemitism and misogyny at play too you're just less likely to notice it because confirmation bias
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
it's more like a black gay man at least would have a better understanding of anti-black racism than the white gay man. it's more the perfect storm of everything than that black gay dudes are better about gendercis autodrag posted:This is what you're not getting. Gay white men allow themselves to be grouped into the same minority group as trans people, lesbians, etc when it suits their needs, but are able to distance themselves from that group when it advantages them. They get to have it both ways and that's hosed up. i kinda disagree with this cause the dude's saying that this is also true of black gay dudes and of lesbians of any race (true), so it's more like "why is it always the white GAY dudes instead of white LESBIAN ladies" and the answer to that is that it is also true of them, it's just the dude's not a white lesbian or jewish or any of that so dude's not really feeling it when it's said like i said it's confirmation bias mixed with homophobia, internalized or otherwise
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:You are basically a walking illustration of the inability to recognize your own privilege. You're not going to get it so I am giving up on this chat. privilege is a bad social theory imho
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:Bi people not standing up for the queer community doesn't seem to be much of a problem so I'm not sure why you're trying to undercut me by pointing out a superficial similarity to biphobic nonsense. are you seriously saying gay dudes don't "stand up" for the queer community like just cause trans rights are getting a rollback doesn't mean it's easy to be gay in this country. like you're deviating from "white gay dudes are likely to be racist, biphobic, and transphobic" (which i assume the tweet means because they're raised in a racist, biphobic, and transphobic community) and edging towards "gay people are barely queer and don't face oppression" which is dumb as heck like nuance is good and cool and privilege theory won't get you there
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
a woman who outed a teenager to her school complaining about being bullied is about the level of self awareness i'd expect from a fake goth
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
why don't you untag yourself
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
this poo poo has been going on for decades, it's why bill and hillary condemned iran for "forcing" gay men to have sex changes or be executed while the south was arresting people at gay nightclubs for sodomy and matthew shepherd was murdered. heck israel and the obama administration did that poo poo for years as well, ignoring the lgbt rights issues in their own country in order to justify their agenda. no reason to think right wingers haven't noticed its effectiveness. heck they've done the same thing except with women's rights, saying women should stay at home with one side of their mouth and condemning the middle east for not allowing women to drive with the other. it's a proven strategy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
well the supreme court vacated the lower court's ruling on transgender students, due to the ruling relying on regulations no longer in place. people more well versed in judicial review; does this mean the lower court needs to revise their ruling, that the supreme court is killing the case, or something else entirely?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:There was The Pink Panthers in NYC, but I think I know the one you mean. Led by a gay preacher who carried a metal pipe. Can't remember the name though. i thought they also called themselves pink panthers?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yeah, I get that, and agree that suicidal people should not buy weapons. I just also disagree with the blanket assumption that all LGBTQ people are suicidal, especially where the same rhetoric is used to paint any sexual orientation or gender presentation outside the defined norm as a mental illness. it's not assuming everyone is suicidal it's assuming that the way society treats trans people and lgbt people in general tends to increase/cause suicidal tendencies. studies of attempted suicide indicate that a risk factor is minority status. this isn't to say that no lgbt person should own guns, but that gun ownership cannot be considered a panacea for lgbt problems though it is fair to point out the correlation between race and violence; white people are more likely to attempt or die from suicide than black people, and black people are more likely to be murdered than white people. these statistics hold true for trans people. how this affects attempts to arm lgbt people is up in the air, as gun ownership does not guarantee protection, especially from police violence, for black people, but it is important to remember that white people and black people have different risks and needs also who knows how much of this applies in brazil. i don't know much about brazil.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:The Black Panthers worked well, but being black does not significantly increase suicide risk from owning a gun so I do not think the same thing is advisable for us. Grouping up and banding together to protect each other is still a good idea but the gun ownership not so much. i mean yeah the panthers did a lot of good but if you're going to advocate armed resistance you should mention that the police killed a hell of a lot of panthers. not huey p. newton, admittedly, but still there was a lot of state reprisals that was part of what made the panthers not last in the long run. i don't think the new black panthers even follow the same playbook, but they have a lot of problems tbh
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
stone cold posted:What exactly was overambitious about Hillary thinking she could be president? thinking that the best way to do that was to encourage an unelectable candidate like donald trump to win the nomination instead of actually campaigning
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
stone cold posted:stdh.txt did you not follow the wikileaks e-mail scandal or do you think they're fake because the DNC absolutely did say that trump was the best candidate for clinton to win and that they should encourage their success at the RNC convention
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
so like did she actually encourage grassroots campaigning in states where she lost (states that routinely voted democrat due to union presence) or did she turn away people who wanted to campaign for her because "we aren't doing that"? because i very strongly remember reading news articles talking about how she did the later and not the former and i feel very weird about dismissing that as "didn't happen"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Gonna need a pretty big [citation needed] for there being no "grassroots campaigning encouraged" in any state. Also people who want to campaign get turned away by all campaigns in all elections for a lot of reasons, that's normal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861 lol i didn't realize someone else linked this exact article that's funny stone cold posted:no I try not to read anything from that rapist's site well then you avoided finding out that the dnc heavily favored clinton, mocked the sanders campaign, and was encouraging trump or cruz to win the primary so clinton could "easily" win against extremists in the general, completely ignoring the fact that extremists became incredibly more commonplace and politically active due to trump's rallies
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
also let's not ignore the decision to run while under fbi investigation. as much as comey's announcement of the re-investigation of clinton's e-mails cost her, it would have been a non-issue if instead a candidate WITHOUT that stigma had run
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That says they did less then they should have in retrospect, which is an entirely different thing from the insane bernout assertion that they did nothing. i'll admit i hadn't read that article since after the election so it's highly possible, if not probable, that i remembered its assertions differently fishmech posted:Uh, you realize this could disqualify literally any candidate, because frivolous investigations could be entered to at any time - just like the big investigation into Clinton proved unfounded? most candidates can't be "credibly" tied to treason, which was incredibly easy to accuse clinton of and also easy to rile up the base with. the fact that it clearly impacted her voter favorability rating kinda proves that it did have an effect and it would have been better to run a candidate without that stigma. could bernie have faced similar issues from that angle? could obama?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
stone cold posted:didn't the Russians make up most of those emails she didn't rig the primaries, she paid for ads promoting trump. there's a difference between rigging and attempting to influence voters and as far as i know no one has disputed the veracity of those e-mails, though again i haven't kept up with that news since after the election so it may well be that i'm remembering things wrongly as that is how human memory works
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Wait I thought her arrogant ambitious campaign was overmanaged? How was it incompetent and what does one do to overcome voter intimidation, harassment, and disenfranchisement? she lost states that were solidly democratic for obama both times that seems pretty bad to me
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
admits russian interference, thinks e-mails showing the arrogance of the dnc are fake yes this makes sense. do you think russia literally hacked the voting machines or what?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
stone cold posted:are you really gonna pretend there was zero Russian involvement in getting trump elected? the russian interference was hacking the dnc e-mails. that's the interference. coordinated hacks that made clinton look bad by showing people who she did and said behind closed doors.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You can literally only "credibly" tie Clinton to treason if you're in so deep with conservative media that you believe fox news is gospel. Do you even know what treason is? In America it's actually extremely difficult to commit treason, that's why less than 100 people in the history of this country have been convicted of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I don't doubt the emails are real, but I'd love to see the one that you think indicates Hillary rigged the primary against Bernie. the dnc asserted they were not making a choice of candidates while higherups mocked sanders in private, that's still bad
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And the conservative media sphere could whip up a big scandal about anyone. They literally just lie all the time. For instance one of their current big lies is that transgender people need to be kept out of the bathroom to protect Are Womens. well I'd like party officials to not mock a popular candidate during a tense primary and his supporters. i don't think that can be considered the same as "having opinions" even if you can guarantee that hillary never got preferential treatment as a result and to quote a theologian, you can read the bible as supporting most things but you can create a german philosophy supporting anything. clinton had a lot of problems as a candidate and i think it's dumb to dismiss them as bernout or republican propaganda. the e-mails turned out to be important. would bernie have had that problem? they'd say "socialism" over and over but that's not the same as OUR TROOPS
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hmm, once again, you continue to ignore that certain grassroots organizations not being let in is totally normal. I get that you're ignorant, but you don't have to reiterate it. It's uncouth. i still voted for her so i don't know why you're calling me a gullible drone. though i gotta lol at you literally promoting liberal elitism that plays like poo poo in the south
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Someone remind me how many times we have to retry the election in every thread for the ritual to be complete and our timeline to switch to one where the worst thing didn't happen? and for hillary shills to insist she has done nothing wrong, ever, and that they know this
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
no one in this thread is calling hillary an uppity bitch, either
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
I mean she didn't take the winner seriously as a threat that seems textbook arrogance to me
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
i honestly wonder how many of the people in leftist circles saying "russiaphobia" in response to democratic inquiries about trump's russian ties are kremlin plants trying to dismantle any grassroots attempts at organizing by making it seem "problematic" or something. like don't get me wrong "we gotta bomb this country to protect the citizens of that country" is a tried and true banner to go to war on but for real letting that get in the way of actually calling attention to what is most likely a real thing that is happening (because this is a country run by a man who made people who attended a party he lost his watch at come back to insure they hadn't stolen it, which was like 2,000 people and included children) is preeeetty hosed up i see some leftists doing that with assad too and it's like bro you don't gotta pretend assad isn't a piece of poo poo to say that bombing a country to protect that country is stupid as gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Cirvot posted:Yes, because hating and excluding LGBTQ people that choose the profession today is cool for the crimes commited by their (probably cis het) predecessors. all cops are bastards, whether they're cishet or queer and cops are still enforcing violence on lgbt people, it ain't a "sins of the father" type thing, unless some lesbian cop refuses to arrest sex workers and refuses to take condoms from people on the street. you wanna show up out of uniform, fine, but don't expect people who've been at the end of police brutality to want you to parade around them with your badge like you ain't part of a fraternity that regularly murders black men, women, and nonbinary people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Do people feel the same about religious organizations marching? Even the ones that are pro-LGBT now probably weren't in the past. i personally feel that way if it's the self serving "hey sorry for the other christians but we're cool" and tbh i trust lgbt religious people far more than i do straight religious people to tell me they're "with it" so in that sense yea i feel the similarly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
If a cop doesn't actively stop people who do bad things, then they aren't a good person. They're an accessory, either during or after the act, and in civilian terms that makes them just as guilty as if they shot the unarmed suspect themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:How would yall feel about a catholic float at pride? well since it'd either be most holy redeemer (though probably not since the current bishop out there has been on their rear end looking for a way to make them get in line with the american bishops) or something put together by dignity usa or new ways ministry (lgbt catholic organizations) i wouldn't have an issue with it. cause idk if straight lay catholics would try to make a pride float, and i certainly know 99 dioceses/parishes out of 100 would be either unwilling or otherwise unable to make a float
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
also the usccb refuses to hire me and that is incredibly transphobic  (the funny thing is it might actually be, hard to tell on that one lmao)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:More about this please. I have not heard of clinical staff attacking transgender people. I know of medical professionals who disapprove and disapprove loudly, but none that have resorted to violence. there have been a number of cases of trans women and trans men being neglected by medical professionals, who refuse to treat them, even in emergency situations. leslie feinberg wrote about a doctor who refused treatment, instead opting to moralize, which almost killed feinberg. i remember reading about a black trans woman who was in a car accident, and when the emt cut her pants to try and stop her bleeding he said "that's not a woman, that's a friend of the family" and left her to die as onlookers begged him to help her. i think the trans day of remembrance website has a compilation of some of these deaths, but it is the case that trans people hae been neglected by medical professionals and have died as a result
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh no, wagging our fingers at our own community. Guess we can't call RuPaul transphobic anymore!!! What are you even arguing about at this point. Who are you arguing against. What's your bickering adding at this point these are just general questions anyone engaging in a discussion should ask themselves, if the need should arise
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:gently caress off, you two-faced shitbag. how am i two-faced
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 20:37
|
|