|
Nintendo Kid posted:About what stuff, white male in a straight monogamous marriage? I'm still bi, and in the last two weeks I've heard a)"There's no cock you won't suck", and b) "If I ever think you make a pass at me, I will beat your rear end in on the spot". The latter by my team lead who's admitted to dragging a man out of a car and punching in the face repeatedly for the horrible crime of kissing his soon to be ex-wife-- i.e. it's a viable threat. I doubt anything would be done about either one, and I have a supervisior over top of that team lead who actually seems at least marginally gay friendly. But I forgot, if I'm bi and currently sleeping with a woman I don't count as LGBT anymore, and should have any discrimination issues I face removed out of hand. Seriously, this is the kind of poo poo that makes me think the LGBT community gives exactly zero shits about the B&T parts except when they want support for their issues.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:Since it involves Kennedy making a good vote, we're effectively screwed out of positive rights that will allow us equality from anyone except the government. Also, he was willing to be a coward on the voting rights of racial minorities, so expecting him not to stab us in the back if given the chance seems laughable to me. What the gently caress are you talking about? Who do you think wrote Windsor? It hardly “opens the door” to anything. The only reason it happened is because of the accommodation that HHS had already given to non-profits. None of those stupid hypotheticals are going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I have a supervisior over top of that team lead who actually seems at least marginally gay friendly. Cool, tell them about the threat and the assault you witnessed, that should be enough for action, problem solved. Also if one guy being snide makes you think the entire LGBT community hates you you probably need therapy or something. For example I dislike you because you're being a hyperbolic baby who is ignoring actual legal facts and turning a thread about gay rights into a way to go "BUT GUYS LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE", it has nothing to do with you being bi and loving a woman currently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Huttan posted:While Colorado does have protections against discriminating against LGBT people, it is also an "at will" state. Boilerplate at a Texas employer: The State of Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it consider sexual orientation a protected right. We do not recognize self-identification. You must identify your self (Name, date of birth, and gender) according to a current Texas State or other state issued ID, Military ID, and or Social Security records. Failure to identify yourself correctly will result in termination of your consideration for employment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm still bi, and in the last two weeks I've heard a)"There's no cock you won't suck", and b) "If I ever think you make a pass at me, I will beat your rear end in on the spot". The latter by my team lead who's admitted to dragging a man out of a car and punching in the face repeatedly for the horrible crime of kissing his soon to be ex-wife-- i.e. it's a viable threat. I doubt anything would be done about either one, and I have a supervisior over top of that team lead who actually seems at least marginally gay friendly. You seem to work with literal psychotic people by your own admission, I don't think your completely invisible bi-ness has anything to do with it when people are running around dragging folks out of cars and talking about it at work. You, personally, don't have any issues at stake here, frankly. Also weird that you're shrieking about this stuff to people who are trans or trans activists, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm still bi, and in the last two weeks I've heard a)"There's no cock you won't suck", and b) "If I ever think you make a pass at me, I will beat your rear end in on the spot". The latter by my team lead who's admitted to dragging a man out of a car and punching in the face repeatedly for the horrible crime of kissing his soon to be ex-wife-- i.e. it's a viable threat. I doubt anything would be done about either one, and I have a supervisior over top of that team lead who actually seems at least marginally gay friendly. You ever tried flipping the script on them? When they say "there's no cock you won't suck" you say "drat right. Let's go, you and me, right here. Get it out." Tails Gets Trolled, remember?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Who do you think wrote Windsor? Windsor is about limiting the government's actions (negative rights) I'd be more impressed if something was done in a way that forced the state's hand to get the private sector in line (positive rights) Everything I've seen from Kennedy shows him to be a bog-standard libertarian, so he's cool with mostly useless negative rights, but yet again showed himself to not be willing to ruin the poo poo of powerful private interests. That is a huge flaw, since it allows the de facto removal of that negative right-- you don't really have the right to marriage if you could lose your apartment or job over it, or are denied service at businesses over it. quote:It hardly “opens the door” to anything. The only reason it happened is because of the accommodation that HHS had already given to non-profits. None of those stupid hypotheticals are going to happen. Upthread we have stuff about anti-LGBT bigots already talking about trying to use this case to discriminate against LBGT people. I'll requote and bold for you: quote:"The implications of this victory for freedom cannot be overemphasized as the decision holds essentially that First Amendment religious liberties are applicable to corporations. It protects those with pro-life views from being forced by the government to be complicit in (pay for or provide) abortion homicide procedures, whether chemical or surgical. There will be much analysis to follow and it remains unclear, but this bodes somewhat well for religious liberty in the context of how Christian business owners who sincerely hold to the biblical view of sexual morality may (or may not) 'associate' with others who are engaged in the counter-biblical 'LGBT' lifestyle or other forms of sexual immorality." I'll eat crow the second that Kennedy actually makes a decision that tells these idiots that they can't hide behind their god as a way to avoid being a modern human in a modern society, but he's given me zero indication of being willing to force change down the throats of anyone in the private sector.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Cool, tell them about the threat and the assault you witnessed, that should be enough for action, problem solved. Didn't witness the assault, just the threat to me. Guy mentioned it to me when I tried to be a human being and listen to him complain about his faling marriage. quote:Also if one guy being snide makes you think the entire LGBT community hates you you probably need therapy or something. For example I dislike you because you're being a hyperbolic baby who is ignoring actual legal facts and turning a thread about gay rights into a way to go "BUT GUYS LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE", it has nothing to do with you being bi and loving a woman currently. Maybe it's not just one person? The number of times I've had the usual "you're just in denial", "you're a man whore", or "you just want attention" from people within the community tells me that nobody's working to keep our side of the street clean. And e very time I mention it, it gets immediately derrided because I'm not authentic enough because I'm not sleeping with a man this loving second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:
Are you really uninformed enough to think that because they think they have a case, they actually do have a case? Let me remind you these exact same people thought they could get Romney in in 2012, and thought that they could prevent gay marriage nationwide forever. rkajdi posted:Maybe it's not just one person? The number of times I've had the usual "you're just in denial", "you're a man whore", or "you just want attention" from people within the community tells me that nobody's working to keep our side of the street clean. And e very time I mention it, it gets immediately derrided because I'm not authentic enough because I'm not sleeping with a man this loving second. You literally already have all the rights other straight white men have so long as you stay in an exclusive monogamous relationship with a woman. Stopping people at your hellhole job from calling you slurs isn't going to be helped by any law. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
You're not describing anti gay stuff you're describing a violent wacko, get the supervisor involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You seem to work with literal psychotic people by your own admission, I don't think your completely invisible bi-ness has anything to do with it when people are running around dragging folks out of cars and talking about it at work. Again, since he directly addressed me when he said the stuff about beating my rear end, I'm not sure it's that invisible. Some people have asked directly in the past, and I was honest because I'm trying to limit my time in the closet to family stuff. And yeah, I work with a bunch of contry people (which is doubly odd in a tech job) so apparently the normal bounds of stuff like that seem to be skewed. But please go on telling me how I don't directly face discrimination when it's directed right at my face. Quickscope420dad posted:You ever tried flipping the script on them? Written like someone who wants to be fired for sexual harrasment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Windsor is about limiting the government's actions (negative rights) I'd be more impressed if something was done in a way that forced the state's hand to get the private sector in line (positive rights) Everything I've seen from Kennedy shows him to be a bog-standard libertarian, so he's cool with mostly useless negative rights, but yet again showed himself to not be willing to ruin the poo poo of powerful private interests. That is a huge flaw, since it allows the de facto removal of that negative right-- you don't really have the right to marriage if you could lose your apartment or job over it, or are denied service at businesses over it. Cool, I'll go tell my friend how useless her new K-1 visa is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, since he directly addressed me when he said the stuff about beating my rear end, I'm not sure it's that invisible. Some people have asked directly in the past, and I was honest because I'm trying to limit my time in the closet to family stuff. And yeah, I work with a bunch of contry people (which is doubly odd in a tech job) so apparently the normal bounds of stuff like that seem to be skewed. But please go on telling me how I don't directly face discrimination when it's directed right at my face. Where were you discriminated against? You ever even been passed over for a routine pay raise? You had some psychos yell at you the way they seem to lash out at anyone who isn't them; that's not really discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Cool, I'll go tell my friend how useless her new K-1 visa is. Again, is that valuable if you still end up being denied economic rights when you get residency? Negative rights end up being de facto undermined if the positive rights protecting you are stripped away. Think of it this way: Do you really have freedom of religion if your boss can fire you over going to the wrong church? It's there on paper but the economic realities keep it from being possible for normal people to freely exercise it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, is that valuable if you still end up being denied economic rights when you get residency? Negative rights end up being de facto undermined if the positive rights protecting you are stripped away. They're not though, so why are you trying to claim that's going to happen? If your boss is some weird religious sect you definitely don't have the ability to go to an opposing church or none at all (incidentally Hobby Lobby and other hyper-Christian stores tend to fire people in general much more capriciously than your generic retail stores to begin with; I've heard of people being fired for dying their hair - and not even something like to bright purple; just from blonde to ginger!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Where were you discriminated against? You ever even been passed over for a routine pay raise? You had some psychos yell at you the way they seem to lash out at anyone who isn't them; that's not really discrimination. Would you say that a black man getting called the n word at work isn't facing discrimination? Or is this more of your "If you are bi, you only get protection while you are sleeping with men" garbage? Does a gay man not deserve the same protections when he is not in a relationship (under the idea that many assume people to be straight by default)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Would you say that a black man getting called the n word at work isn't facing discrimination? Or is this more of your "If you are bi, you only get protection while you are sleeping with men" garbage? Does a gay man not deserve the same protections when he is not in a relationship (under the idea that many assume people to be straight by default)? You aren't facing discrimination from people you admit to violently abuse all people at random, no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They're not though, so why are you trying to claim that's going to happen? We still have five old white christian men on the SCOTUS. They just voted as a bloc to destroy hard fought civil rights that were paid for in blood with the recent VRA decision. I have zero faith that they will make sure that LGBT rights are protected when those are even less established. quote:If your boss is some weird religious sect you definitely don't have the ability to go to an opposing church or none at all (incidentally Hobby Lobby and other hyper-Christian stores tend to fire people in general much more capriciously than your generic retail stores to begin with; I've heard of people being fired for dying their hair - and not even something like to bright purple; just from blonde to ginger!). You're making my point for me. If the right doesn't exist 100% free from economic violence it's really a joke to the people who actually need it. Allowing the hint that employers have a out like this will only increase economic violence against LGBT people who have the misfortune of needing a job with any of these companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You aren't facing discrimination from people you admit to violently abuse all people at random, no. Active threats and insults on the basis of my sexuality isn't discriminiatory.  Do I have to kiss a man in front of everyone all the time to be worthy of not being slurred at work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You aren't facing discrimination from people you admit to violently abuse all people at random, no. I would say that a man who is sexually interested in men being told: rkajdi posted:I'm still bi, and in the last two weeks I've heard a)"There's no cock you won't suck", and b) "If I ever think you make a pass at me, I will beat your rear end in on the spot". is, at the least, facing bigotry because of his sexual orientation. That being said, I think the Hobby Lobby ruling may embolden employers to try to follow a similar roadmap to LGBT discrimination, but I'm not convinced it's going to pose any sort of real threat, legally speaking (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone loses his or her job because some rear end in a top hat is hoping his small business gets to argue the right to discriminate before the court). Though of course there are plenty of legal ways to fire someone for being gay or trans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:We still have five old white christian men on the SCOTUS. They just voted as a bloc to destroy hard fought civil rights that were paid for in blood with the recent VRA decision. I have zero faith that they will make sure that LGBT rights are protected when those are even less established. So what? We had 6 old christian white man on Lawerence v Texas!  No, you have no point, just wording relentlessly. What you're actually doing is admitting that it has nothing to do with religion why people have lovely jobs in America. rkajdi posted:Active threats and insults on the basis of my sexuality isn't discriminiatory. It's not discriminatory when by your own admission the same people are committing active violence among all sorts of other people, that's merely working with psychotics. Nothing will get you to not be slurred at work because you continue to work with a company composed of apparent psychos - in fact they'd probably slur you if you were completely straight! Sharkie posted:I would say that a man who is sexually interested in men being told: No, people like that will call you a dirty queer just for the hell of it, even if you were the straightest person in the galaxy. It's a sign of total assholes rather than any form of discrimination; especially with their aforementioned love of violence. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Here's a nice thing:quote:The White House is preparing an executive order offering transgender federal workers formal protection from discrimination at work, President Barack Obama announced Monday... He extended similar protections to L,G, and B federal employees in 2009. My understanding is that, like the ABC news article pointed out, this isn't going to create new protections, but is instead codify existing ones. But still, it's sometimes nice to be pandered to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So what? We had 6 old christian white man on Lawerence v Texas! What does Lawrence have to do with private entities again? Nothing there protects LGBT people from economic violence against them from the private sector. On some limited level, racial and religious minorities were given that by the CRA, though I think they are likely to have similar challenges under this new "religious freedom" regime. You're suggesting that because employers already have too much power to lord over their employees, this new kind of potential abuse isn't important. That seems pretty mental to me. quote:It's not discriminatory when by your own admission the same people are committing active violence among all sorts of other people, that's merely working with psychotics. Nothing will get you to not be slurred at work because you continue to work with a company composed of apparent psychos - in fact they'd probably slur you if you were completely straight! So if you're enough of an rear end in a top hat, calling a black person the n word isn't discriminatory-- because you'd just call anyone it to be a dick? That's the closest parallel I can draw, and it makes zero sense. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Here's a nice thing: This is incredibly good news for piles of people. Actually putting it in black and white means there is no fear of an interpretation that excludes the transgendered for some arcane reasons. I'm not usually very keen on Obama's positions as president, but this along with ending DADT and providing similar protections to the rest of the community earlier are all huge steps forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:What does Lawrence have to do with private entities again? Nothing there protects LGBT people from economic violence against them from the private sector. On some limited level, racial and religious minorities were given that by the CRA, though I think they are likely to have similar challenges under this new "religious freedom" regime. You're suggesting that because employers already have too much power to lord over their employees, this new kind of potential abuse isn't important. That seems pretty mental to me. You were shrieking about how all rights are magically going to vanish because there's 5 White Guys, the fact that 6 White Guys passed a thing ending gays being illegal is proof against that. The only thing mental here is you. No, it's just not discriminatory when the same guy calling the black guy the n word just got finished bragging about how he dragged someone out of his car and beat him, and was just yelling at a white guy for wearing the wrong shirt. Nothing is being done with any discrimination there, the guy's just psychotic and lashing out constantly. Keep trying to claim you're oppressed though! I'm sure someday people will forget the time when you, the married man, told gay people they should wait on getting married because people were being unfair to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, it's just not discriminatory when the same guy calling the black guy the n word just got finished bragging about how he dragged someone out of his car and beat him, and was just yelling at a white guy for wearing the wrong shirt. Nothing is being done with any discrimination there, the guy's just psychotic and lashing out constantly. Keep trying to claim you're oppressed though! I'm sure someday people will forget the time when you, the married man, told gay people they should wait on getting married because people were being unfair to you. Cool, so long as you act violent towards random people, you can't really be discriminatory! So I guess someone beating a black man while calling him the n word isn't a hate crime if you can show he's tried similar things on other groups. Also, I suggested that economic rights for the community (especially the transgendered) were more valuable than the right to marriage, since marriage is a pretty meaningless right until you have real economic security and it mostly ends up being economic protections from the upper middle class or better. And thus should be put forward first, under the idea of helping the least so that the upper class part of the gay community doesn't just play FYGM once they get their rights. But I guess I couldn't put that point forward either, since I have a job and house. I guess you're just the arbiter of exactly who's allowed to speak when, and nobody else can choose to prioritize rights differently than you have. And as usual, I'm only deserving of consideration when I'm actively sleeping with a man. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
So what do you DO other than get mad on forums?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Cool, so long as you act violent towards random people, you can't really be discriminatory! So I guess someone beating a black man while calling him the n word isn't a hate crime if you can show he's tried similar things on other groups. You are gigantic hypocrite who has demanded other people's rights wait while the rights you already have were somehow more worthy. You frequently post excessively uninformed and chicken littleish analysis of the law and society in general. And yeah, actually sleeping with man and actually suffering consequences for it would indeed make you someone being oppressed. Right now you are not. People already have economic rights, you've just pulled the idea that they're being newly threatened out of nowhere. And here's a funny thing: you brought that up in response to a lesbian getting a spousal visa. Which to get the state in question already had to have gay marriage and the region of the state already had ENDA. So try thinking for once. Incidentally, today I talked a queer person down from suicide, what have you ever done besides tell some psychopaths you might conceivably get with a guy if you ever divorced?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:But I forgot, if I'm bi and currently sleeping with a woman I don't count as LGBT anymore, and should have any discrimination issues I face removed out of hand. Well, you said it, I didn't. You also seem out of touch with reality and prone to starting conflict. You've managed to make an entire thread full of ultra-liberal, mostly gay people hate you because of your insistence on living in a fantasy world and making epoch-defining political issues reduce to being exclusively about you. Have you ever thought that maybe homophobia is not the biggest source of tension in your life?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You are gigantic hypocrite who has demanded other people's rights wait while the rights you already have were somehow more worthy. You frequently post excessively uninformed and chicken littleish analysis of the law and society in general. And yeah, actually sleeping with man and actually suffering consequences for it would indeed make you someone being oppressed. Right now you are not. Cool. So the "actual consequences" I've faced for sleeping with men in the past (Hint, there's a reason I don't talk much to my family or anyone I knew in college) don't count anymore now because reasons. quote:Incidentally, today I talked a queer person down from suicide, what have you ever done besides tell some psychopaths you might conceivably get with a guy if you ever divorced? Recently, I helped support a friend when he came out ~1 year ago (don't know if you'd call it talking them down since they weren't immediately suicidal), and stumped (called /wrote letters) for actual inclusive non-discrimination law in MD with my local reps/state senators. Did zero good since they both voted against it (and one tried to repeal it) but it's not like I can do anything actually that would actually matter because of the Hatch Act.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
After sleeping I want to try to make it clear why so many people are sick of your poo poo. The main issue is you're objectively lying about things to make things sound worse. The legal momentum in this country IS on our side, and no matter how many evil white cis straight men there are in charge those guys ARE, in many cases, supporting us. Yea I'd love more minority voices in pretty much every step of the lawmaking process, but that doesn't inherently mean anyone not us is an oppressor, that's some regressive rear end thinking. Your dismissal of 'negative rights gains' is insanely insulting, people have been helped by these rulings/laws, things are moving forward, it's horribly arrogant and selfish to dismiss them because your pet issue is going slower. I've dealt with tons of people who's lives are objectively better now than they were just a few years ago because of these 'negative rights' being enshrined. Your stance of 'well in one area things are bad and going slow, ergo everything is aweful'...What the gently caress do you want to happen from that? Like, do you want us all to sit around nodding and go 'yea, agreed, life is terrible'? Have you ever done activism beyond writing letters? Outlook is very important on things, if you don't believe there's a good future in front of you what are you even going to do? Do you seriously believe we don't understand there's more work to do just because we don't obsessively talk about how awful life is? Also, your co-worker situation really sounds more like a violent nutjob than anything else, you should seriously go to your superiors about it already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
People, please stop playing the suffering olympics and comparing activist-peens. It's really lovely when babby ciswhiteheteromale College Marxists invalidate all minority struggles by taking 'no war but class war' way too literally, and it's lovely for different people struggling with different poo poo to hate on each other. That said, rkadji it sounds like you're dealing with an extremely hostile work environment and you should file an EEOC claim. Worst that can happen is that it's documented and can be used to fix the solution later, or you could get the rear end in a top hat fired or even get a 'right to sue' from the EEOC and launch a civil suit and collect damages. On that note, any trans people should be aware of the fact that if you live in a garbage state where your insurance isn't required by state law to consider a gender confirming surgery to be medically necessary, you can sue and win. There is precedent where this is already successfully happening. Medical consensus, for once, is on your side with the new DSM and state laws paving the way
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Well, you said it, I didn't. And yet again I see the LBGT community is more than willing to throw bisexuals out in the cold. Don't count as being there unless you're sleeping with a man (funny how this doesn't apply to gay men or lesbians when they're not in relationships, or people in the closet) but it's also totally acceptable to say "I don't date bisexuals". If you has someone say "I don't date Asians, Blacks, or Jews" that would be seen as outright racism, but this is somehow seen as acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Dude, just let it go. At this point you're being trolled because you're way overreacting and being an easy mark. I only feel bad for you because it seems like you're actually going through some stuff. At be you should take a breather and not post for a while. I suggest going to the EEOC's website and taking some control of your life
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:And yet again I see the LBGT community is more than willing to throw bisexuals out in the cold. Don't count as being there unless you're sleeping with a man (funny how this doesn't apply to gay men or lesbians when they're not in relationships, or people in the closet) but it's also totally acceptable to say "I don't date bisexuals". If you has someone say "I don't date Asians, Blacks, or Jews" that would be seen as outright racism, but this is somehow seen as acceptable. "The community" isn't doing poo poo to you, meat sweats, a man who said if you buy Chic-Fil-A even currently you're literally supporting gay death camps, and loving Fishmech are loving with you because you're being hysterical. Maybe if you didn't respond to shitposters being lovely trolls with poo poo like this they'd not do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:And yet again I see the LBGT community is more than willing to throw bisexuals out in the cold. Don't count as being there unless you're sleeping with a man (funny how this doesn't apply to gay men or lesbians when they're not in relationships, or people in the closet) but it's also totally acceptable to say "I don't date bisexuals". If you has someone say "I don't date Asians, Blacks, or Jews" that would be seen as outright racism, but this is somehow seen as acceptable. Do you actually want to talk about this? The entire part of bisexuality that is a gay issue is the part where you are romantically and sexually involved with men. There is nothing special about bisexuality that makes it different from being part-time gay. There are no bisexual-specific oppressions. There is, however, an ability to closet yourself and keep a foot in the straight world that most bisexuals rely on whenever they feel like, an endless reserve of "gays are so terrible and they, not homophobia, are the real source of my problems" whining, and a constant attitude of "everyone is bisexual" evangelism that is no different at all from Christians insisting that everyone should just choose to be straight, that makes bisexuals irritating as gently caress. The fact that you are with a woman and can't stop shouting about how much dick you want to suck is absolutely disturbed, and shows that you don't really care about other people at all. When you're with a guy with black hair, do you interrupt the conversation every five minutes to remind him that you could just as well be dating a blonde? You're being disrespectful and objectifying to the person you're with and you're making the gay community look like sexually compulsive assholes by attributing this behavior to your orientation rather than your narcissism. It's also entirely legitimate for a given gay man to decide he doesn't want to deal with your bullshit. There are people who think that most bisexual men are either sociopaths who view men and women as indistinguishable because they view everyone as an object to begin with, or are gay men who have internalized their homophobia to the point where they can't work up the balls to take the full plunge. Disagree? Fine. But you don't have a claim on dating or loving anyone. This is literally the MRA "friendzone" garbage -- "what a horrible person you are for not wanting to sleep with me! It's exactly equivalent to racism for anyone, anywhere to have their own sexual agency instead of submitting to my desires" you literally say in the above post. The more "bisexuals" like you, the less mysterious it is why people want to leave you "out in the cold."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Cool. So the "actual consequences" I've faced for sleeping with men in the past (Hint, there's a reason I don't talk much to my family or anyone I knew in college) don't count anymore now because reasons. So now you're finally bringing stuff up? Stuff that is by your own admission in your distant past and thus not really relevant to what's happening now? Also funny to see you yet again chicken littleing about how nothing can be done. rkajdi posted:And yet again I see the LBGT community is more than willing to throw bisexuals out in the cold. Don't count as being there unless you're sleeping with a man (funny how this doesn't apply to gay men or lesbians when they're not in relationships, or people in the closet) but it's also totally acceptable to say "I don't date bisexuals". If you has someone say "I don't date Asians, Blacks, or Jews" that would be seen as outright racism, but this is somehow seen as acceptable. What bisexual rights are you out to get, again? All we've heard out of you is that some apparent psyopaths you work with are mean to you, and let me tell you bud there's no laws out there that stop people from being jackasses like that so long as the company will support them. Tatum Girlparts posted:
It wouldn't be as annoying if he'd ever come up with an actual thing he wants for himself when he's busy complaining about he's being ignored by "the movement".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Do you actually want to talk about this? The entire part of bisexuality that is a gay issue is the part where you are romantically and sexually involved with men. There is nothing special about bisexuality that makes it different from being part-time gay. There are no bisexual-specific oppressions. There is, however, an ability to closet yourself and keep a foot in the straight world that most bisexuals rely on whenever they feel like, an endless reserve of "gays are so terrible and they, not homophobia, are the real source of my problems" whining, and a constant attitude of "everyone is bisexual" evangelism that is no different at all from Christians insisting that everyone should just choose to be straight, that makes bisexuals irritating as gently caress. Being straight and having no dog in this fight whatsoever, this post gives off an alarming vibe to me of you really just not liking bisexual people. Yeah rkajdi seems a bit self-important and he's being pretty annoying in this thread. But you're making hosed generalisations about bisexual people, or at least defending the generalisations others make about bisexual people, and it's really pretty gross and stupid. I'm really having a hard time wrapping my head how anybody who says "A person of my preferred gender being bisexual would be a dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned" is any less a stupid bigot regardless of their orientation than someone who says the exact same thing, replacing 'bisexual' with 'non-white' or myriad other characteristics on the basis of which it is not loving okay to discriminate against people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Being straight and having no dog in this fight whatsoever, this post gives off an alarming vibe to me of you really just not liking bisexual people. People have every right to claim any characteristic is a "dealbreaker" when it comes to their personal choices for relationships, but there's a lot of bigoted and harmful generalizations about bi people in that post, for sure, including meat sweats posted:There are people who think that most bisexual men are either sociopaths who view men and women as indistinguishable because they view everyone as an object to begin with Which is a ridiculous stereotype about bi people I haven't heard before! Anyways, I'm trying to think of a way to suggest that this thread not turn into something more suited for E/N without backseat modding, but instead I'll just post this dumb article. quote:Diaz said the executive order is a measure “of the president's radicalism" and “a testament of his poor leadership that he is unable and unwilling to engage Congress and the American people in a meaningful, civilized and respectful conversation and debate on these issues that are so important to us all. Yes, because trying to get legislation to protect basic civil rights for 20 years only to have it held up by a House that's sworn to block any action is "radical." Sharkie fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
I hope non-US news is okay here: My country's (NL) politics suck, but at least isn't that bad on Transgender rights atm: Transgender people now only need a psychic evaluation by a doctor or shrink as "proof" (To avoid impulse decisions or whatever) The need for a judge ruling, surgery, and sterilization to change ones gender on legal documents was dropped.  Mental healthcare is decently accepted as normal over here so it's a very nice change in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
