Opinion of TJ in Cleve
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:38:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Opinion of TJ in Cleve
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Poll
Question: ?
#1
FF
 
#2
HP
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 77

Author Topic: Opinion of TJ in Cleve  (Read 5930 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2016, 12:34:45 AM »

I understand that it hits close to home. I can't know how it feels and as such I can't comment on whether you are justified to react the way you did.

However, we can all agree that there are things that feel worse than being denied the right to marry, right? And there are people on this very forum who are very vocal about supporting policies that make these things more likely to happen, right? Sure, they might have ostensibly valid reasons for believing those policies are legitimate, but guess what, TJ too has ostensibly valid reasons for opposing SSM. I disagree with those reasons, just like I disagree with the former, but you can't see the validity of the former while pretending the latter don't exist.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2016, 04:00:47 AM »

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

I wasn't referring to you. As of Jim Crow analogies, I think when a gay person is being killed because of their sexual orientation isn't very diffrent from a Black man lynched by the KKK. Hate is hate.

And if TJ had said it's OK to kill gay people, then he'd obviously be an inexcusably despicable individual. However, he never said anything even close to that.

I'm not talking about TJ specifically right now. Just wanted to say that there were plenty of people during Jim Crow that never said it's OK to kill a "Negro", but surely believed the darkies should know their place. Doesn't seem much excusable either.

I just don't agree with your particular line of reasoning.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2016, 07:28:24 AM »

I think he's generally a very nice person, but I have a very hard time dealing with his staunch anti-gay stance. I can live with pro-lifers, those that support the death penalty, and many other socially conservative stances. My mom is pro-death penalty, my grandpa is pro-life in opposition to my grandma's staunchly pro-choice position, and so on. I can accept difference of opinion to an extent. I cannot accept someone that is willing to accept discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity.

It'd be like living next door to someone that was similar to Ned Flanders. Yes, he's very nice and would be a good neighbour, but there are some things I could never get past. I voted HP, with a fair amount of remorse. As a Catholic, I would strongly urge him to take heart of the words of the Holy Father himself. I'm not a practicing Catholic myself, but I do believe His Holiness Pope Francis is a truly great man and an absolute inspiration for all.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2016, 01:29:13 PM »

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2016, 01:40:48 PM »

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

That...makes zero sense and is self-contradictory. Like what do the neocons of the Bush Era have to do with Trump?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2016, 01:44:32 PM »

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

You realize the exact same could be said of your brand of Republicanism, right?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2016, 01:53:37 PM »

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

You realize the exact same could be said of your brand of Republicanism, right?

Practical differences between pre- and post-Trump Republicans are largely mythical.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2016, 02:17:31 PM »

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about Huh
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2016, 02:29:27 PM »

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.

I'm kinda curious what this post could possibly be about Huh

I think he's trying to say neocons and/or socons screwed up in office, which combined with Obama-liberalism made Trumpism possible?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 23, 2016, 02:33:58 PM »

I understand that it hits close to home. I can't know how it feels and as such I can't comment on whether you are justified to react the way you did.

However, we can all agree that there are things that feel worse than being denied the right to marry, right? And there are people on this very forum who are very vocal about supporting policies that make these things more likely to happen, right? Sure, they might have ostensibly valid reasons for believing those policies are legitimate, but guess what, TJ too has ostensibly valid reasons for opposing SSM. I disagree with those reasons, just like I disagree with the former, but you can't see the validity of the former while pretending the latter don't exist.

I’m sure he will say he has reasons for opposing marriage equality, just like how he has reasons for opposing, say, single-payer health care. I am willing to forgive him on something like health care because I have judged that there’s enough minutia and complexity involved with the issue that somebody could reasonably come up with coherent opposition to single-payer—even though, yes, that opposition might have the effect of hurting people.

With regards to marriage equality, TJ’s beliefs may be just as sincerely held, but the consequences of them are just so overwhelmingly clear, at least from my perspective, that I’m not willing to forgive him for it. It takes more stupidity, hatred, closed-mindedness or a combination of the three to be against gay marriage than it does to be against single-payer—even if he’s found a way to do sufficient mental gymnastics to trick himself into thinking he’s doing the right thing.

So I guess I miscommunicated at first. It’s not just about the person’s sincerity or intentions or, as I said before, “heart.” It’s about me establishing admittedly subjective criteria regarding which issues I believe should simply be no-brainers. I’m kind of talking in circles, but I think equal marriage is harder to get wrong than economic policy. And if someone manages to get it wrong, I’ll judge that person’s character accordingly. Maybe it’s indicative of stupidity or ignorance as opposed to heartlessness, but those are still pretty sh-tty characteristics.

Anyway, I apologize for derailing the thread!
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2016, 02:59:46 PM »

I mean, if I recall correctly, TJ supports same sex civil unions, gay adoption and would accept his children if they came out to him,
I disagree with his views on SSM, but sorry, I don't find his views literall repulsive that would make him a HP just based on that...
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2016, 06:34:59 PM »

I mean, if I recall correctly, TJ supports same sex civil unions, gay adoption and would accept his children if they came out to him,
I disagree with his views on SSM, but sorry, I don't find his views literall repulsive that would make him a HP just based on that...

He's given, uh, mixed messages on this in the past, and I hope you're right about where he is now.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2016, 12:53:39 AM »

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

And what I'm merely objecting to here is mainly the fact that you don't find the same level of emotional involvement in other issues that have far more massive implications on people's lives. Saying "it's complicated, people have disagreements" is really just a cop out. There are policies that condemn people to a life of misery, and we KNOW that. Even the people who advocate for them know it. They shouldn't be left off the hook so easily.
Your opinion is a legitimate one, and I think we can all agree there are certain issues that are more pressing than SSM, but I simply don't understand why you bring this up when Hagrid makes his point (with which I do not entirely agree, btw, because I think TJ is an FF despite his views on gay rights).

The bottom line is this. Hagrid says he thinks TJ is a HP for his stance on gay rights, which is not acceptable in Hagrid's eyes, and you randomly decide to complain about SSM supposedly being the number one issue for "modern American liberals". Nothing in Hagrid's post or in this thread provoked such a response, so why do you even bring it up? It comes across as if it's not only about "priorities" for you, but as if you really find people's concerns about SSM (even if you support it) or gay acceptance a bit silly. And that is something I'd very much object to.

I just find it annoying that people go to such length to base their judgment of someone as a person on their stance on this one particular issue, when they clearly wouldn't be doing the same thing for other issues that I believe to be even more morally compromising (Hagrid himself was fairly neoliberal until recently, as far as I remember, though not too outrageously so).

The question of the extent to which someone's political views reflect poorly on their own personality is a complex one, and I'm open to arguments from both sides. What annoys me is when people apply one logic to a specific issue of theirs, but otherwise resort to the "legitimate disagreement" default on everything else.
Marriage entitles you to all kinds of benefits both monetary and otherwise.  Trivializing the issue (which is what you are doing here because you lack the experience of somebody who is LGBT) does harm to people who stand to see an increase in quality of life and socioeconomic status thanks to marriage equality.

Also, your argument that gays only care about SSM to the exclusion of other tragic inequalities in our society is kind of bizarre and points at something deeper that you should reflect on.  (If you can't take my advice on that, then take DavidB's advice)

Marginalized groups support each other because we all struggle against an unequal system.  As a white male gay I have seen both sides of this very clearly.  Gays can hide their gayness and be treated normally otherwise... I get all the privilege that white males get in our society so long as I hide my real self.  As long as I live a lie, I'm golden.  But that lie eats at you.  It also leads to confusing signals because we can't /always/ keep up the facade.  And you are mistaking these confusing signals (like Hagrid's former conservatism) as some identity change rather than simply dropping the facade and finding out who he really is.  (Yes.. many LGBT people often don't figure out who they are until long after straight people do.  It's why you often have older/younger relationships in the gay community.  WHo else is going to mentor you?  Your straight teachers?  Your straight parents?  Your straight friends or siblings?)

That you don't understand Hagrid's huge transformation from vaguely right wing straight and square Canadian to here, queer, and without fear speaks to your lack of experience with the in-the-closet/out-of-the-closet dichotomy.  Ask the gay posters here on Atlas... they're all too aware of this.  And we've seen many such transitions. 



Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2016, 02:12:45 AM »

Ugh, I really don't want to get into a long-winded argument about this and I probably should have kept my annoyance for myself. Let me just say I'm not entirely convinced by the analogy. I do think that opposing SSM is discriminatory, but not in the way and to the extent of the other instances you're describing. I find the Jim Crow analogies frankly inappropriate, tbh.

And what I'm merely objecting to here is mainly the fact that you don't find the same level of emotional involvement in other issues that have far more massive implications on people's lives. Saying "it's complicated, people have disagreements" is really just a cop out. There are policies that condemn people to a life of misery, and we KNOW that. Even the people who advocate for them know it. They shouldn't be left off the hook so easily.
Your opinion is a legitimate one, and I think we can all agree there are certain issues that are more pressing than SSM, but I simply don't understand why you bring this up when Hagrid makes his point (with which I do not entirely agree, btw, because I think TJ is an FF despite his views on gay rights).

The bottom line is this. Hagrid says he thinks TJ is a HP for his stance on gay rights, which is not acceptable in Hagrid's eyes, and you randomly decide to complain about SSM supposedly being the number one issue for "modern American liberals". Nothing in Hagrid's post or in this thread provoked such a response, so why do you even bring it up? It comes across as if it's not only about "priorities" for you, but as if you really find people's concerns about SSM (even if you support it) or gay acceptance a bit silly. And that is something I'd very much object to.

I just find it annoying that people go to such length to base their judgment of someone as a person on their stance on this one particular issue, when they clearly wouldn't be doing the same thing for other issues that I believe to be even more morally compromising (Hagrid himself was fairly neoliberal until recently, as far as I remember, though not too outrageously so).

The question of the extent to which someone's political views reflect poorly on their own personality is a complex one, and I'm open to arguments from both sides. What annoys me is when people apply one logic to a specific issue of theirs, but otherwise resort to the "legitimate disagreement" default on everything else.
Marriage entitles you to all kinds of benefits both monetary and otherwise.  Trivializing the issue (which is what you are doing here because you lack the experience of somebody who is LGBT) does harm to people who stand to see an increase in quality of life and socioeconomic status thanks to marriage equality.

Also, your argument that gays only care about SSM to the exclusion of other tragic inequalities in our society is kind of bizarre and points at something deeper that you should reflect on.  (If you can't take my advice on that, then take DavidB's advice)

Marginalized groups support each other because we all struggle against an unequal system.  As a white male gay I have seen both sides of this very clearly.  Gays can hide their gayness and be treated normally otherwise... I get all the privilege that white males get in our society so long as I hide my real self.  As long as I live a lie, I'm golden.  But that lie eats at you.  It also leads to confusing signals because we can't /always/ keep up the facade.  And you are mistaking these confusing signals (like Hagrid's former conservatism) as some identity change rather than simply dropping the facade and finding out who he really is.  (Yes.. many LGBT people often don't figure out who they are until long after straight people do.  It's why you often have older/younger relationships in the gay community.  WHo else is going to mentor you?  Your straight teachers?  Your straight parents?  Your straight friends or siblings?)

That you don't understand Hagrid's huge transformation from vaguely right wing straight and square Canadian to here, queer, and without fear speaks to your lack of experience with the in-the-closet/out-of-the-closet dichotomy.  Ask the gay posters here on Atlas... they're all too aware of this.  And we've seen many such transitions. 




Look at me.  4 years ago I was a right wingnut who loved Fox News and the like.  Now, I call myself more liberal than many here on the forum, even if that doesn't come through with my posts.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2016, 03:14:15 AM »

Can we really be surprised gays finds such issue as SSM as important one? For a long time in the U.S. (and still in many other countries) they were legally a second-class citizens when it came to marriage. I imagine even for a LGBT person that doesn't want to marry herself or himself it's important not to be a second class citizen, even if this one issue is concerned. And for me it seem important too. I may not be LGBT myself, but it's not just about gays, it's about the value of equality.

OK, you may say "but it's incomparable to Jim Crow. Gays can't vote, they just can't (shouldn't be allowed to) marry". But why wouldn't a right to enter a happy legal relationship of your choice be of no importance?

Again, I'm not LGBT so I can't feel the same way LGBT feels about this issue, but I think I can understand.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2016, 04:08:33 AM »
« Edited: October 24, 2016, 04:12:59 AM by HagridOfTheDeep »

^Also, many gay people just plainly see questions about gay marriage as proxies for questions about the general value of gay people.

Opposition to marriage equality can involve various justifications, but none of them could be so construed as to hold gay people in high or equal regard.

- ew, gays (gay people are gross/funny/disturbing/perverted/sick)
- muh bible says men should not lie with men (gay people are morally inferior)
- something about tradition (it's simply not worth accommodating gay people)

Tell me where there's room in an anti-SSM position for the person with this stance to claim that they're a-okay with the queers and "really not homophobic, believe me." It implicitly signifies a belief that LGBT folk are "less than."
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2016, 04:10:08 AM »

Here's the thing (and this is partly in response to Antonio's car crash post), LGBT rights; the idea that LGBT people are part of the spectrum of human experience and as such deserve rights to marry, rights to be with each other, rights to simply be is rapidly becoming a red line issue for many people who aren't LGBT. Which is a good thing. Religious gymnastics over the issue, or passive agressiveness (oh we don't think being that way is wrong, but you can't love someone, marry them or settle down with them) or pseudoacademic responses about what is 'natural' or what St Oldfart of Irrelevance said about it in 600AD just doesn't cut it anymore. Not only is the position itself deeply inhuman, but the contrived attempts to define LGBT as 'other' who can not and should not be able to share in acceptance, love, family and marriage like everyone else is disingenous, whether it comes from a robed virgin in a peaked hat or a slick suited, twice married bible clutching salesman.

The reason why this is becoming untenable is because LGBT people aren't other; they're you, or your brother, or your daughter or your best friend or your work colleague. All these people living lives, and being happy with their partner and raising kids, or nursing each other in sickness. People who have lived whole lives together and you're telling me there is 'wrongness' in this? 'sin'? 'disorder'?
If you can't see love when it dances and laughs in front of you, when it cries or coughs or dies in front of you, then you're wilfully 'shutting' something off from the human experience. It's no different from racism, which employs the same tactics; resiliently denying the validity of others based on a immutable characteristic despite knowing they are basically doing the same things with their life as you are.

Someone could be the life and soul of the party. They could be the kindest, most charitable, most reasonable person, but if they hold people of a different race either in contempt or to a lower standard, or a separate standard; telling them they can't have what they have, or if they can, it must be a different version, then they are awful people. I've known people like that and disassociated with them. The same is true of LGBT issues. It's a red line.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2016, 05:05:44 AM »
« Edited: October 24, 2016, 05:35:36 AM by Comrade David »

Great posts, snowguy and afleitch.

TJ's brand of Republicanism is the type of brand that spiraled out of control and gave us the more annoying elements of the Trump movement. I don't think he gets a pass for being a "reasonable Republican" when he represents politically the worst leftovers of the Bush decade.
Haha, you don't get to act as if you dissociate yourself from the "more annoying elements of the Trump movement" when you have enabled Trump and his movement from day one. The "more annoying elements" (which is the understatement of the year) of the Trump movement are the racist inclinations of its supporters and the anti-democratic attitude of the movement, and neither of these are even remotely part of TJ's brand. You, however, have quite a different record on both of these matters, which makes your accusation even more bizarre.

However, we can all agree that there are things that feel worse than being denied the right to marry, right? And there are people on this very forum who are very vocal about supporting policies that make these things more likely to happen, right? Sure, they might have ostensibly valid reasons for believing those policies are legitimate, but guess what, TJ too has ostensibly valid reasons for opposing SSM. I disagree with those reasons, just like I disagree with the former, but you can't see the validity of the former while pretending the latter don't exist.
Uh yeah, obviously there are things worse than not being allowed to marry the person you love, but it's still pretty f-ing sh-tty and it really seems you're trivializing that once again. People don't have to adhere to your entire personal package of progressive policies to be "allowed" to stand up to injustice against LGBT people.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2016, 05:58:55 AM »

Yeah, I really don't have much to add beyond what Snowguy, afleitch, David, etc. have already said.

Tony, I've known you for a while here so I am familiar with your contempt towards the issue of SSM in general.  Please don't take this personally, because I'm not out here to demean or condemn you, but I do believe it's possible you have certain mild homophobic tendencies you might be trying to suppress.  You are an outspoken feminist, I think you would agree, so it is rather curious that you don't incorporate some elements of intersectionality in your postings, at least as far as this issue is concerned.

And, I do think that "privilege" plays something of a role here.  (FTR I generally despise that term because of the connotation of 'collective guilt' it carries and because I think it totally mischaracterizes the root causes of inequality, but that's a topic for another thread.)  If you are not someone from a group that society marginalizes, looks down upon, tries to cast away, or outright denies certain things to them or tells them to 'settle' for lesser substitutes of what other people enjoy, then it's easy to minimize these issues because you are not directly affected by them.

I don't think that people like TJ can or should be forced to change their outlook on this issue because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs (none of which I will try to apologize for... and child abuse is a whole different matter, obviously), but fortunately society is becoming more accepting and someday these conversations will no longer be necessary.

But until that happens, it's best that we work for both social and economic equality, and understand that this can't be achieved simply by nationalizing the private sector and making everything free.  That's why BLM works so hard for social change: free education won't end racial profiling or systematic racism in the workforce.  The same goes for LGBT equality, which goes beyond marriage benefits.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2016, 07:09:46 AM »

Man, this thread has been derailed, but picking up on something Snowguy said, I think there is something to the suggestion that when you come out as a gay, it does influence you over time some on other matters. That has been my experience (I came out a few years ago as some of you witnessed right here on this forum). I do have more empathy for folks who face barriers of one sort or another, that it would be good to try to mitigate.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2016, 08:44:01 AM »

Great Poster! Anybody hated by Hagrid is a FF

Voldemort?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2016, 10:45:57 AM »

Yes, personal experience is an important thing here. I was always generally supportive of gay rights, although, being much younger, I also thought something like "eww, let them be, but it's gross" or "marriage? Come on, this is going too far". My outlook changed forever when some of my close friends came out as LGBT. I just couldn't think of them as "gross" nor believe they should be precluded from entering a happy union because of same-sex attraction. Hell, now I can't imagine myself ever facing them and saying such a thing.

The thing is, instead of thinking like "oh well, she/he's a queer, but despite this I'm generally OK with her/him" we should think of someone as a fellow human being first.

Jim Crow had been invoked many times here and there's something about such attitude similar to those who opposed slavery, but at the same time not only didn't want to see the society integrated, but despised "Negroes" personally. Even Radical Republican Ben Wade admitted being "disgusted" with the Blacks. You may point out every single difference between Jim Crow and SSM issue, but the mechanism is the same.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2016, 07:11:26 PM »

Oh for f**k's sake people. I knew that post wasn't going to go over well, but this is f**king ridiculous. The fact that so many people feel the need to go to such lengths after many other posters have already gone to great lengths is quite indicative in itself.

Amid these walls of text there are a few good points that I'd like to acknowledge and a few problematic ones I'd like to push back on, but I have neither time nor will to do so. Maybe another time.

Let me just say, Scott, talking about my "contempt towards the issue of SSM in general" is just plain wrong. Nothing in my posts indicates contempt, please reread them and don't just assume this kind of things. I am a staunch supporter of SSM and have always have argued for it fervently in several instances. It might not come out here that often, because there's absolutely no point in discussing it when 99.9% of the forum supports it and the remaining 0.1% is keeping fairly quiet, but it's come out in real life a few times.
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2016, 07:57:51 PM »

"contempt towards the issue of SSM in general"

Tbh everyone should have a contempt for the issue since the fact that it even is an issue any more should fill any honest citizen with contempt
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2016, 10:20:37 PM »

Oh for f**k's sake people. I knew that post wasn't going to go over well, but this is f**king ridiculous. The fact that so many people feel the need to go to such lengths after many other posters have already gone to great lengths is quite indicative in itself.

Amid these walls of text there are a few good points that I'd like to acknowledge and a few problematic ones I'd like to push back on, but I have neither time nor will to do so. Maybe another time.

Let me just say, Scott, talking about my "contempt towards the issue of SSM in general" is just plain wrong. Nothing in my posts indicates contempt, please reread them and don't just assume this kind of things. I am a staunch supporter of SSM and have always have argued for it fervently in several instances. It might not come out here that often, because there's absolutely no point in discussing it when 99.9% of the forum supports it and the remaining 0.1% is keeping fairly quiet, but it's come out in real life a few times.
Well, I tried.  And you responded by reaffirming precisely the shortcomings those "walls of text" accused you of having.  You still think this is all about same sex marriage and nothing more..so it all went right over your head.

Whatever. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 14 queries.