|
If you see a pair of men walking down the street holding hands and you start following them while screaming "You loving piece of poo poo faggots are what's wrong with this nation, it should be illegal for you sodomite rear end-fuckers to be considered citizens!" do you believe that should be protected political speech? After all, it isn't directly advocating for violence against those two men.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes. Now, some questions right back at you: No, no, yes (so long as it's a public space the gay men are free to easily leave and are not impeded or followed should they attempt to do so).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Now please craft a law that would ban this behavior (more effectively than stalking/harassment/assault laws already on the books) while not preventing: Catholic Priest Abuse survivors from seeking redress, Ex-Scientologists from airing their grievances, Striking workers from forming picket lines or demonstrations, counter-protesters at WBC rallies or pro-life rallies, anti-war/anti-capitalism protests, Pastors/Rabbis/Imams from preaching about social issues, or raped women from protesting their abusers and/or institutions that protect them. Are any of those things directly targeting specific individuals? Because if not then they have nothing to do with what I was trying to get at, trying to hide abuse and harassment behind cries of "free speech" and trying to protect harassment as such by pointing towards fallacious slippery slope arguments. You can picket all you want, so long as you aren't rushing up into the face of the woman having the abortion directly and refuse to leave her be when she asks you to. quote:Back to your hypothetical-what if I'm not following them down the street and screaming? What if I whisper that to my son, so he learns about the abnormal deviancy of such ungodly behavior? What if I'm a radical gay environmentalist and I scream (or whisper) about straight couples leaving fertility clinics for being filthy breeders ruining our planet via overpopulation? As long as you aren't doing it directly to individuals. quote:Whose definition of Hate Speech are we codifying? Noone's, this is just a general discussion, not an actual plan of implementation. quote:Don't get me wrong-I understand and agree with you that this topic tends to bring out the fishmech in people. It also tends to bring out Pollyanna ignorance for a vocal contingent of the opposite end. It's a complex issue. "Do unto others, and make it illegal to be a shithead" is as disingenuous and wrong as "Prohibition on any speech will become prohibition on all speech" I'm against people trying to pretend that abuse and harassment is free speech. Now, nobody here is going to admit to doing that, but when you get down to it some people are going to go ahead and say that, yes, it is ok to spit and scream and hurl verbal abuse at people so long as they don't actually say "I will/somebody should murder you". And that's already happened, in SedanChair's reply to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you feel about people being made to leave public spaces to avoid abuse? Not great, but better than I would feel for someone to be arrested for saying something I don't like. Now, however, if they continued to follow me, or they start shouting at the top of their lungs so I can still hear them, and everyone around can too, for the sole reason of continuing to harass me after I have made reasonable accommodation for them to exercise their right to free speech they have very clearly escalated from speech to harassment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:why should people have to accommodate verbally aggressive jackasses? why does their speech take president over anyone elses right to go about their business unmolested? It depends. SedanChair's scenario was vague, and so was my reply. If the scenario is that a gay couple is minding their own business and they are approached by a third party who begins to, very calmly and politely, tell them that their lifestyle is disgusting and sinful, then if the couple asks the third party to stop and/or leave then that third party is obligated to do so or be guilty of harassment. I believe you have a freedom to speak freely, but you do not have the freedom to be heard by an audience against their will. If a gay couple approaches the third party instead, and during the conversation the subject turns towards, again, the gay couples' lifestyle being sinful and vile, then I believe that the couple can be expected to break off and go about their business. Should they be followed and continue to be accosted against their will then it has, again, escalated to harassment on the part of the third party. Again, it comes down to freedom of speech not entitling you to forcing anyone to listen to that speech. Even if the tone of speech is calm and non-vulgar, you can't shouldn't be able to make me listen to it. So in a public space the only practical solution I can see is that whoever was there first is the one that doesn't have to leave. Is it perfect? No. Will there be exceptions? Absolutely. Am I going to make an exhaustive list of these exceptions? No. Am I going to be grilled about them? Probably, and that's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:From that list: Rape/Molestation survivors confronting their abusers would appear to qualify, as would picketing with grievances outside of a sole proprietorship. It would also make it difficult for striking workers to confront scab replacements. Can you be more specific by what you mean in the Rape/Molestation survivor confronting their abusers? Are you asking if they should have a right to bring accusations before a court of law? Yes, absolutely. If you mean something else you'll need to be specific. Same with picketing, what are you talking about here? Should picketers be able to gather at a reasonable distance that doesn't directly impede or disrupt the lives of other people in the public space? Yes, absolutely. Should they be able to block an entrance or exit and not allow anyone to enter or leave, or be allowed to bully and harass people who try to enter or leave? No, absolutely not. On the basis of striking workers and scabs, that's a problem of our hosed up labor laws. While I'm certainly more sympathetic to the strikers, in principal I still don't agree with the use of physical violence or harassment against strikebreakers. quote:In that case, I'm with you. As a general principle, in a vacuum, protecting people-and especially structurally disadvantaged classes-from harassment and bigotry is an admirable goal. I doubt you'll find nontrolls on D&D advocating for more harassment and bigotry as a principle. That's not to say implementation will find consensus. I doubt that true. The problem is determining what is or is not harassment. I believe harassment includes attempts to force people to listen to and/or engage with speech against their will, especially in ways that make them feel as if they are or could be in danger. And, shockingly, people of minority status are much, much more likely to feel that way, so I am a proponent of hate speech laws. quote:Loathe though I may be to defend SedanChair, I think you're ascribing the incorrect motivation to him and others that disagree with you. SedanChair said that the scenario he laid out should be protected speech. If he forgot to qualify that with "except for the parts where they are clearly committing harassment" then that's cool, he can say so and I'll take his word for it and that'll be that. But until then I'm going to assume when he says that the scenario as is should be protected he means that the scenario as is should be protected. quote:Regarding your hypothetical, "Gays are icky and evil and should be stripped of citizenship" is a despicable example of offensive speech. However, you and many others are clearly more troubled by the behavior ("refuse to leave", "spit and scream and hurl verbal abuse") than by the content. Yes, in a sense that is correct. However, it's a combination of the content of the speech (what is said), the context of the speech (when, where, and how it is said), and to whom it is said (targeted speech vs general speech). The WSB picketing with signs that say "God hates Fags" in a designated area is absolutely free speech that should be protected. The WSB walking behind a man for a block and a half while chanting "God hates fags" to a gay couple is not. The content matters, but so does the manner in which they are doing it and whether or not they are doing it to a specific person. Some people think that all political speech, no matter the context or the target, should be protected under all circumstances. Again, if that's really not anyone's position, then fantastic, I'm glad we agree. If it isn't, then tell me why harassing people using political speech is ok. quote:Is there a way to ask you to elaborate on your ideas/proposals without it being "grilling"? If so, what is it? I'm genuinely curious. I'm having fun, ask however you want. Your post was fine, but it honestly doesn't bother me if I get grilled or even if people get nasty and start slinging mud too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:Bye bye any form of social progress. You can protest without saying, "Go, get that fucker of there!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:I'm a fan of quoting myself, but this time it's for the greater good: I'm ok with this kind of stuff. I'm not ok with groups of protestors singling out targets to verbally and physically harass.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:02
|
|
me the largest river.
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so you're saying we should bring back LF I'm 1000% on board with this
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Look, you guy aren't the first group of people aggressively cheer the loss of your rights and privileges, you just have the distinction of having more information regarding it available to you than any other generation. The argument against comments sections is the same one against free speech i.e. "Some people will use it to do things I don't like". When the argument gets to the point where you would rather silence everyone for the sake of silencing those people, maybe you're too personally involved in hating the caricature of people you disagree with. Maybe you're allowing yourself to be manipulated into being a partisan tool. You do know that you don't have a right to free speech on other people's websites, right? Has this been pointed out to you yet? Because you don't seem to understand it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are posting this in a comments section. And do you believe you have a constitutional right to be here? Is probating you violating your first amendment rights?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
natetimm posted:This is hysterical bullshit. Nobody ever died from hate speech. Oh, so I suppose all those LGBT teens who commit suicide every year do it for literally no reason. Nope, none at all. That or I suppose they just aren't people to you. Which is it, I wonder? gently caress you
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Think of the children! Not actually people to you, got it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The very root of that argument is that bad ideas should be banned from public discourse. Nevermind the fact that freedom of speech and public discourse is how many of these oppressed groups managed to engineer their upswing, let's neuter these tools as soon as we get the chance! Why are you pretending to care about minority groups after making a joke about their deaths? That ship has sailed, man, you don't get to pretend to be on the side of the oppressed after laughing at their corpses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Look, I'm completely used to the fact that someone is going to trot out a victim of something and claim I'm some sort of monster when I point out that they're fairly transparently enabling a moral panic by doing so. "Think of the children" is a tired old trope of an argument dragged out for defense of bad laws since forever. You've already made it abundantly clear that you don't think the deaths of disadvantaged minorities have any value, you don't need to explain that any further.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Because it's a transparent appeal to emotion designed to make anyone who has an opposing opinion look bad. It's a cheap tactic using dead kids to argue a point and I treated it exactly as it should have been treated. "I treated the deaths of people bullied and harassed into taking their own lives as they should be treated; by laughing at them." -Crabman, TYOOL 2015
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
I want to remind you that you said, and I quote, "hate speech never killed anybody". I gave you a concrete example of hate speech killing huge numbers of people, and you turned it into a joke. Because you're incapable of looking at yourself critical for fear of recognizing yourself for the monster you are. All you had to say was, "ok, yes, I was exaggerating when I said hate speech never killed anybody, and those deaths are all tragedies" but nope, you decided to speak from the heart and tell us how you really felt. Now all you can do is own up to it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Hate speech laws aren't going to stop teens and kids from bullying each other. It will absolutely stop some of them. The reason that this type of bullying is so prevalent is because teens believe there are no repercussions for what they're doing. natetimm posted:Kids and teens bullying each other to suicide extends beyond hate speech, and making it a hate speech issue is capitalizing politically on the deaths of people to make it about your own personal, pet issue. How does it exist beyond a hate speech issue, exactly? Spell it out for me, because I don't think you actually can. You're desperately searching for an out, prove to me you aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's refreshing from time to time to get a peek into exactly how dysfunctional thought processes work and how they can lead to aberrant opinions I certainly never would thought it'd be so easy to get someone to say "lol, who gives a poo poo about dead homos". Actually kinda sad, really.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Should it likewise be illegal to follow people around without their consent to talk to them about all subjects, or only certain ones? All subjects. However, people are most likely to try and hide behind protected political speech to try legitimize their harassment. I believe that when free speech is used as a means to actively harass individuals it should no longer be protected. Do you think that it should be legal to harass individuals? If so, when and why? If not, what contention do you have with what I've said?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Considering harassment can mean anything from criminal harassment to being disagreed with in public you'll have to narrow it down. You're the only person I've ever seen try and say that harassment can include "being disagreed with in public" so no, I really don't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
natetimm posted:What actions beyond what is already criminal harassment should be illegal? From the OP: DeusExMachinima posted:From the American POV, the guiding bit of law is the Brandenburg Test. TL;DR unless I'm literally pointing at you telling my angry mob to light you on fire, it's almost certainly protected political speech. I think that speech, especially speech that specifically targets individuals, that creates an environment that makes people feel afraid for their wellbeing should not be considered protected, even if said speech is not directly trying to incite violence. If a man is standing on a street corner with a megaphone and points towards a nearby street known to house a number of Muslim families and starts going on about how those goddamn Islamists on Walker St are going to behead you during the night and rape your women then that's crossed a line and shouldn't be protected speech, even if he never actually specifies that violence should be brought against them. SedanChair posted:Haven't you just outlawed journalism? No? I don't even know how you got to that? Like, maybe I've outlawed the paparazzi, but honestly I'm 100% ok with that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:So if corporations are people, and threats of boycotts make them afraid for their wellbeing, can they demand the prosecution of individuals calling for them? Corporations aren't people, so no.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If a journalist writes an article about a specific CEO about how he's raising the price of an AIDS drug that makes him feel afraid for his well being, is that hate speech? Possibly. Did the article go out of its way to post his personal information such as home address and then spend one sentence detailing the facts of what he did, and the entire rest of the article about how he is a useless sack of poo poo who deserves to be raped? Then yeah, I'd say that's unacceptable and could reasonably make him afraid of being attacked even if it doesn't outright say "I want someone to rape this CEO to death". If the article just goes over the facts of what he did and what those repercussions might be and he's afraid he's gonna lose some money because of it, then lol no.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Right. But OK, so say we make paparazzi illegal. What about just trying to ask politicians questions in public? Following them as they leave their office, asking questions. Are you saying that should be illegal if they tell you to stop and you don't? Are you asking me if it's possible for the press to harass people? Yes, absolutely they can. I think that after a certain point the reporter just has to accept "no comment" and move on with their investigation or their article. I can't say for sure where that point is, but I don't think you should be able to hound and hound and hound someone relentlessly until they crack. I don't want cops doing that, so why would I want journalists to do it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Dude, you don't see the rich and powerful running away with this at all? Who has all the lawyers? This is such an extremely wide-encompassing limitation on speech it's ridiculous. The same people you're trying to help would probably as a whole have worse lives because of this type of law. Good thing I'm not advocating for my posts to be made into law then, isn't it? I don't have the perfect answer, but I don't believe that "literally the only thing not allowed is saying 'lynch the friend of the family', everything else is fair game" is right either. Edit Again, what do you care? It's not like you think they're even people to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I agree so far as removing the personhood of corporations would solve a lot of problems. I guess I should make clear that I'm not advocating for hate speech laws to go into effect tomorrow. In a practical sense I wouldn't advocate for them at all because, yeah, they would have room for abuse unless they were very, very well crafted, something I'll freely admit I don't know how to do. But in principal I believe that, no, there is speech besides directly saying "gas the Jews" that should not be protected, and I don't think that this will lead to an end to all freedoms forever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How is what cops do relevant? A cop can force you to leave or stay, stand or sit. Practically speaking, you have to ask a cop for permission to leave if he is talking to you. If you don't answer a cop's questions, you will most likely be arrested. None of those things apply to anybody else. If a random person is talking to you or yelling at you or whatever, you can sit right there eating a burger and ignore them. Can you? You can choose not to outwardly react to them, but are you able to completely shut down your sense of hearing? Or switch off the part of your brain that processes language? Because I can't and I'm pretty see most other people can't either. You still hear it, it still affects you whether you like it or not even if you don't engage back with your abusers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
natetimm posted:What a great world it would be if corporate HR was in charge of all of our public behavior. You're really making the case, here. You strike me as someone who got fired for telling racist jokes to the minorities and sexist jokes to the women at your job and still doesn't understand what the big deal was and just blames it on PC gone mad. Oh, almost forgot! natetimm posted:This is such bullshit. Do you really think I believe they aren't people? I really think you don't value their worth as people, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It's cute you have this villain persona built up for me in your head. I guess this is the mental justification people without a clue have to go through to assure themselves they're a good person. I'm sorry I didn't provide the correct progressive signalling when someone tried to beat me over the head with dead kids barely related to the issue at hand to win an argument on the internet. How is providing examples of people who have died because of hate speech not directly related to you claiming nobody has ever died of hate speech? SedanChair posted:I have eyes and ears to see and hear; I have two nostrils and a tongue to smell and taste, and skin to feel; sense data flows into me. What am I supposed to do, cry about it? Let me remind you of something, I am the program supervisor of a homeless youth shelter. If having abuse hurled at you caused harm I would be dead by now. And if you say to me, "but the words of adults have more power than the words of a homeless teenager!" I would respond by asking, really? Is this how you treat the kids who come to you who are being verbally abused? Do you tell them "well at least you aren't being beat and raped, suck it up princess!"? I'm going to guess that, no, because this is probably you just venting, and that you do understand that verbal and emotional abuse is harmful, because I don't want to think about the alternative. But even if you don't, then great, you are some sort of dead-inside emotionless husk or Blade Runner-esque Replicant who can only act as if he does have emotions, but a huge number of people aren't. Verbal and emotional abuse can and does affect people, even when it comes from total strangers. I've been in enough support groups in the last year to know this for a fact.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:except for the kid who was the target of hate speech you mean natetimm posted:They had to get to like the third kid before hate speech was even involved. Even then, the person didn't die because of hate speech, they died because of illegal harassment and bullying that law enforcement and the school failed to address. The thing all of those cases have in common isn't hate speech, it's continued and extreme harassment. Hate speech is just the convenient platform in some of them because surprise, surprise teenagers and kids are idiots who will use the most obvious means to make fun of you, whether it would be considered hate speech or not. Apparently yes!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I guess I would appreciate some kind of response to my last post since it does contain the assertion that there are better approaches to protecting vulnerable people from messages that might induce them to harm themselves, than laws regulating speech Well I was going to do it when I got home tonight, but if you're going to be bitchy about it, then I suppose I don't have anything better to do on my lunch hour. SedanChair posted:I've never told anybody that. That's just the way I look at it for myself. I do have a reputation for being particularly unflappable in the face of verbal abuse, though. That's great... for you. But not everyone is you, and verbal harassment can and does cause harm, and pretending that it doesn't just because you are unflappable is the height of willful ignorance, especially considering your profession. But, I know that later on in your post you acknowledge this, so I'm not going to spend any more time on the subject. SedanChair posted:And when kids come to me and tell me that they have been verbally abused, I might tell them that the person who told them that was wrong, that they were acting out of fear or insecurity. That they have value and uniqueness and talent, and that they can accomplish the goals we've discussed. It just depends on the kid. Good, I'm glad to hear that. I believe you probably do good work to the best of your abilities in an extremely high-stress job. I do know one person who works for the State of Michigan in DHHS focusing on child custody and foster care, and even from my limited understanding I know that social work involving children and teens is incredibly difficult, so I don't want to disparage your career. You're not a bad person, even if you are an on the Internet. So I hope you didn't take my comment too personally, looking back when I woke up this morning I felt a little bad about it. But, whatever, enough treating you like a human being, let's get back to Internet slap-fighting. SedanChair posted:And some people in my position tell kids "no one has the right to tell you that" but I don't, because the truth is they do have the right. However, they don't have that right in my facility. If kids verbally abuse other kids under my supervision, they need to either knock it off or leave. But I don't have any control over what gets said to them when they walk out the door, or how they react to it. They're going to be on their own. They are going to have to suck it up, even though it's not helpful for me to tell them that. Ok, yes, I agree that people do have that right, however should they have that right? Now, disclaimer, there are about a million things that need to change about other laws and our criminal justice system before we even begin to think about implementing Hate Speech laws. But putting those aside and assuming they're solved, and I think they can be solved although I don't immediately know exactly how, why should you have the right to go out of your way to verbally degrade and attack someone's dignity? In general you have a freedom of movement to go wherever you please, but you don't have the freedom to bodyslam me out of the way to get to wherever that is. Your freedom is limited from causing harm to my wellbeing through it's exercise. So why doesn't that apply to speech as well? Is it because the harm that speech causes isn't visible and is harder to measure than the harm of a cut and a broken bone? That's fair, but harm is still harm. If you put a gun in front of someone and then started verbally and emotionally abusing them non stop until they take that gun and kill themselves then you're the one that killed them, even if you didn't pull the trigger and even if you never actually told them to kill themselves or even that they should be dead. SedanChair posted:Verbal and emotional abuse affects people because they are vulnerable. I am not particularly vulnerable because I have many resources to draw upon. I am financially independent. I have friends and family who accept me. I have a support network. I have a fair amount of training and education. These are the tools we need to give people who are at risk for self-harm and suicide. I absolutely, positively, 100% agree with this. We do need to give people the tools to help them deal with verbal and emotional abuse as best as they can. But that doesn't preclude also trying to minimize occurrences of said abuse as well. Because not everybody is going to be able to have access to support at all times, nor is everyone going to be equally adept at retaining and implementing training and education, especially not people who are the most vulnerable, including those with mental illnesses like clinical depression, BPD, ect. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I believe we can take steps to prevent abuses without instantaneously transforming in fascist Italy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't. Once we start to tinker with what kinds of speech can be allowed beyond explicit threats, we open ourselves to it being turned back on us when fascist movements gain power. And on what basis do you come to that conclusion?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Well we all know Mussolini came to power on a promise of hate speech legislation. I just will never understand this slippery slope mentality. Just prior to the Civil War were southern senators saying "Once we start to tinker with what kinds of property can be allowed, we open ourselves to it being turned back on us when fascist movements gain power."? We're people saying that if you outlawed owning negroes then it was just a short skip and a jump to outlawing ownership of everything?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Same as yours I guess, just a feeling. I suppose you'll point to many European countries that have successfully put these laws in place but 1) history isn't over yet and 2) I don't think we have the same political culture as Europe, or the same threats. No, I'm not going to point to anything because I really don't feel the need to defend myself against a vague, undefined future of "suddenly, facism!". So good talk, I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I guess I shouldn't act like these movements are yet to come, they're already here. And they don't give a poo poo about free speech: Kim Davis and Terry Jones don't give a poo poo about free speech, they only cares about themselves and getting to say whatever they want, and do whatever they want. They wouldn't say a peep if we banned Muslims from proselytizing in public because of Islam's treatment of women, or if we passed a law stating that advocating for abortion is hate speech and terroristic threats against babies. They'd be all for it. Yes, and I wouldn't support banning proselytizing in public or advocating for abortion being hate speech either. So I'm not going to defend those positions either. And if the right wing does try to pass those laws, then I will stand up against them. But the American right doesn't need hate speech laws already in place to try and get those things outlawed, so I have absolutely no reason to fear that outcome in the slightest, nor have you given me a convincing reason to do so. And I sure as hell don't think that we lead the world in moral character. I don't know who does, but it's not America.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We led the way on women's rights and gay rights. New Zealand was the first nation to grant women's suffrage a full 27 years before America, the Soviet Union legalized abortion in 1920, Mexico in 1931 and Iceland in 1935, and I really hope I don't need to give you the laundry list of nations that beat America on gay rights by a country mile.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Laws, laws, laws. Where would any of it be without the gay culture of the United States? Other nations had gay people, you know. We didn't invent hot dude-on-dude action. Other than your say so, what's your evidence that gay rights wouldn't exist without America?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So it's all about what's pleasant to you? Hey, do you have evidence that America is directly responsible for gay rights across the globe or don't you?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Sure, who started the gay club scene? Certainly not Europeans. They'd love to say they did but they wouldn't even have clubs if it weren't for African-Americans. No, no, you must have misread me. I asked for "direct evidence" not "play 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon: Gay Rights Edition".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 23:28
|
|