|
It's sad that we've made so much progress yet these terrible 1950s style entrapment stings seem to be something that just won't go away, even in very liberal areas. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/05/long_beach_police_rebuked_for_illegal_anti_gay_stings.html quote:Surveying this evidence, Dhanidina ruled that “the Long Beach Police Department harbored animus toward homosexuals in its undercover investigations of lewd conduct.” Dhanidina noted that, in addition to singling out gay men for prosecution, the vice detail prevaricated in its reports, falsely stating that citizens had complained about lewd same-sex conduct where they had set up their stings when no such complaints were ever lodged. This is one of those things that just sits under the radar because few people are willing to defend the people involved in this even when the police are using entrapment tactics and deliberately targeting gay men only.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Man this has been like the week from hell for the religious right. Their True Believer candidate got humiliated in favor of "Two Corinthians" Trump who changes his position on abortion on a daily basis and clearly gives no fucks about their concerns. Their precious anti-trans laws are headed to certain defeat whether it be legislative or judicial. Now their favorite judge has been punished at the behest of the Godless sodomite lobby. I'd almost feel bad if they weren't such terrible people.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Is there a non-profit that wants to lobby these things into non-existence that I could donate to? https://www.truthwinsout.org/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Calm down fags, it wasn't even an attack on a gay bar. https://twitter.com/dnewhauser/status/742808869487939585 https://twitter.com/dnewhauser/status/742809565763362817
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Bill himself admitted that the policy was a failure, I don't hold anything against him since I think his heart was in the right place but it didn't reduce discharges to the extent it was expected to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
God stop taking this so personally, it's not like people have spent the past 36 years claiming AIDS was a punishment from God for homosexuality or something. drat oversensitive fags.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Any modification to HB2 that doesn't address the override provision is pointless, that's the entire reason that HB2 exists IMO. The fact that the Republicans will never, ever talk about that part of the law says everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
 So much Christian persecution https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...b6b1_story.html U.S. District Judge strikes down Mississippi’s ‘religious freedom’ law quote:JACKSON, Miss. — U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves late Thursday night issued an injunction blocking a bill by the Mississippi legislature that would have allowed private citizens and some public officials professing a “sincere religious belief” to deny services to gays and lesbians.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Man I could never be a defense attorney, I know they're just doing their job but the way they describe this is pretty sick. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trial-man-accused-boiled-water-attack-continues-41610112 quote:"It wasn't hateful. It wasn't malicious. It was reckless," Walker said. Nearly killing someone for being gay "wasn't hateful" and "wasn't malicious," being gay is "disrespectful behavior." EDIT: As expected but good to see nonetheless. https://twitter.com/JLewisWSB/status/768534308881592320 MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
So this is an ad that a Democrat put out against a gay Republican candidate, the Log Cabin Republicans are calling it homophobic. There are legitimate scandals involving this guy and points 1, 3, and 4 are legitimate but point 2 bothers me. I'm not comfortable with Democrats promoting the idea that single gay men using online dating services is some sort of scandalous thing, are gay politicians not allowed to have a personal life? I think there's still a lot of politicians out there who are comfortable with the existence of gays and gay marriage as long as it's discussed in the abstract but still have some pretty regressive views when actual details are put out in the open.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
If it specified that the photos were unwanted by the recipients I wouldn't have an issue but it seems to be implying that gay men sending eachother naked pics is somehow inherently scandalous. It's easy to see this as a cynical ploy to turn off homophobic GOP voters by talking as much about how he's gay as possible, I could be wrong but it certainly looks that way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
It is a simplistic view but I do see some truth is what you're saying. Back when gay rights were unpopular more people argued for them from a personal liberty standpoint because many people personally disliked gays and could only be convinced to support their basic right to be free from government force rather than enthusiastically supporting the LGBT community. Now a lot more people argue for gay rights from an "oppressed minority" standpoint which is all good and fine but it's also very subjective. People have already posted in this thread about the nutty Tumblr-style leftists wanting to diminish the role of gay men in LGBT rights groups because they're "not oppressed enough." I don't think we should lose sight of the fact it's important to uphold personal freedom and individual's autonomy over their own bodies and not just fight for the rights of politically or socially popular groups.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Google, which throws up a rainbow flags and pro-LGBT symbols at any possible chance, is happy to invite rabidly anti-LGBT activists to their events who want gays jailed at best. http://qz.com/793107/google-is-hosting-kenyas-most-notorious-anti-lgbt-official-ezekiel-mutua-at-a-conference-in-california/ https://twitter.com/masaku_/status/780386886825218049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw This just goes to show that no matter how pro-gay a corporation appears in most cases they'll throw that aside if they can make a profit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Mutua claims to have a partnership with Google to censor content. http://www.hivisasa.com/nakuru/news/97852 This guy is so notoriously homophobic that he is mocked in Kenya, which is very far from being a country accepting of gays, the guy is an absolute insane zealot. I don't see why Google would invite someone like this here for any reason.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Does this mean they're going to elect Roy Moore as the governor now?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
As many of you are aware there are a number of court cases in progress over whether or not Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which contains non-discrimination protections) applies to LGBT people. In July the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a woman trying to make a claim for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. Now the Court has agreed to hear it en banc so that ruling will probably be overturned, which is good news. https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/full-federal-appeals-court-to-reconsider-case-on-gay-protect?utm_term=.njr4KPBxZ#.ee1QNW1xV
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
By UN standards even saying some nice words about LGBT rights is a good step.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
This is the SCOTUS version of Fishmeching, like deliberately misinterpreting some writing just because they left out some information and therefor you have an opportunity to quibble over some dumb technicality.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Another win for the EEOC's view that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT people. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N1D901I Looks like this is going to be settled by the courts before our hopelessly gridlocked congress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:Hahahahahahaha People aren't going to suddenly start hating gays because Trump won, especially since Trump never even says anything bad about gays. Things are going to suck in the short term but there's no way the long trend towards LGBT acceptance is going to suddenly reverse itself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Playing favorites with state's rights transcends the political spectrum. Dems don't hold state's rights or local control as sacrosanct though, they're happy to send in the feds if they don't like something going on in a state. Republicans claim that they're staunch defenders of state's rights because local control is the best but what they really mean is state control is the best because Republicans control a lot of states, actual local control is bad because cities are controlled by dirty liberals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
NRO is now pondering the finer points about how jailing gays is actually Cool and Good. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442333/what-judge-pryor-said#comments
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Eimi posted:I know, I'm more asking why they don't try and overcome their total anti LGBT stance. Granted it's not stopped them from gaining ground all over the world, but it one of the big things that gets cited as the public moving to accepting LGBT people while they demonize us. I guess it was just a stupid thought exercise really. The "alt-right" has a really poorly defined ideology outside of nationalism and hatred of immigration. Some people who call themselves "alt-right" are literal Nazis who want to bring back concentration camps for gays while others wear "gays for Trump" shirts to rallies. Using "pro-gay" arguments as a wedge to support anti-Muslim policies is a common alt-right tactic for example, they probably don't actually give a poo poo about gays but they don't view them as a top priority like traditional conservatives do. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
I don't get all of the articles saying that FADA will likely pass, wouldn't you have to either get rid of the fillibuster or pass it through the reconciliation process? Several Republicans have already said they don't want to get rid of the fillibuster so I don't see that happening at least until 2019 and FADA isn't at all related to the budget. What am I missing here?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
There seems to be an increasingly prevalent trend of "progressive" writers singling out and disparaging white gay men in a way that they would never talk about any other minority group in any context. Pretty much nothing in these articles is backed up be even a single shred of factual evidence, the writer just seems to be blaming all sorts of social problems on white gay men because their level of privilege makes it acceptable to do so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-islamophobia-and-the-toxic-delusion-of-white_us_585b2659e4b068764965ba35 There's just so much here that would never be accepted when discussing another minority group, but is considered acceptable by these people because of their oppression olympics view of identity politics. 1. 23% of the LGBT community supported Trump in exit polls, but without having any actual crosstabs this is just blamed entirely on gay white men. Hispanic voters supported Romney and Trump at similar levels but criticizing people based on race is not acceptable while criticizing people based on sexual orientation is OK I guess according to the privilege hierarchy. 2. All gay white men are somehow associated with Milo and Christopher Barron, even though the former explicitly does not identify with the LGBT community in any form and trashes them at every opportunity. This same tactic would not be used on "Hispanics for Trump" or any other minority group even though LGBT support for Trump was a small minority just as in the case of other minorities. 3. The issue of masculinity/femininity in the LGBT community is blamed entirely on white gay men again based on zero evidence, even though it's an issue that cuts across all races. 4. Racism in the LGBT community is somehow a problem for men only, sexism in the LGBT community is somehow the problem of white gays only. Again zero evidence is offered to suggest that gay men are more racist than lesbians or that white gay men are more misogynistic than gay men of other races. It's just assumed that these problems stem from white gay men because they're more privileged, even though social views pretty much never follow those simplistic lines in reality. After Prop 8 there was an ugly trend of people trying to blame the failures of gay marriage at the ballot box on the African American community because they had a lower percentage of support for gay rights than the general population. I saw this as unproductive and rightfully assumed that over time attitudes would change, and they have. Now there are a bunch of people trying to play the same oppression olympics, divide-and-conquer tactics within the LGBT community but based on no evidence whatsoever other than the fact what gay white men are obviously privileged and therefor not a real minority group. This is very disturbing and does not give me a good feeling about the future of LGBT politics. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
there wolf posted:This is criticism that has been brought up repeatedly by the rest of the LGBTQ community for a long time now. White gay men are the least oppressed out of any queers, and a lot of them are oblivious, ladder-pulling assholes happy to rest on the rights their predecessors bled for because they're cushioned with privileges of race and gender. I'm not trying to deny that gay white men have privilege, I'm just taking issue with some of the specific attitudes displayed in that article. I've read plenty of articles on intersectionality in the LGBT community that do not make all sorts of absurd, unfounded claims like this guy does. LGBT support for Trump was very low, somewhere in the 15-25% range depending on what exit poll you look at. I'm sure gay white men specifically voted for him at a higher rate but there's no data on that at all. So from the outset this guy is writing an article about a supposed trend of Trump support among gay white men without any hard evidence whatsoever to suggest that this trend even exists. Milo is not just unrepresentative of gay white men as a whole but has explicitly disavowed the LGBT community and is probably the dumbest possible anecdote you could choose. He then goes on to blame issues among gay men like the obsession with masculinity specifically on gay white men for some reason when those issues cut across races. Why would one assume that white gay men specifically have more of an issue with misogyny rather than men as a whole? MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
He seems to have made a sort of political calculation where he will try to molify the evangelicals with abortion stuff while being more liberal on gay stuff, probably because he doesn't give a poo poo about women's rights. He's already done executive orders on abortion and his one promise for SCOTUS justices is that they would be pro-life. But there's still FADA to worry about, which could be worse. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
That quote is from Jerry Falwell Sr not Jerry Falwell Jr, luckily the former is long since dead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
FWIW, these are some of the best numbers on SSM I have ever seen and it's a poll of only the religious. http://www.prri.org/spotlight/religious-americans-same-sex-marriage-service-refusals/ quote:New PRRI analysis, drawn from a data set of 40,509 interviews conducted throughout 2016 as part of PRRI’s American Values Atlas, reveals that most American religious groups support same-sex marriage and oppose religiously based service refusals.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Why does the "woke" left have such a hateboner for white gay men? I don't see this level of vitriol from these people aimed at any other subset of any minority group, white or not. https://twitter.com/elielcruz/status/834833893157195778
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Yeah that's the part I find confusing, I recognize that racism is a serious issue that needs to be worked on and I've certainly meet white gays with terrible views but they're certainly not singularly bad in that regard. I don't see these same people attacking "white male Jews" or anything like that with such vitriol. I literally don't think I have ever seen one of these "woke" people go after white lesbians.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
So if someone tweeted "I assume white Jews are problematic and/or racist/transphobic/biphobic until they prove otherwise" that would be OK too? I don't see that getting the same level of acceptance from other leftists, or any other minority inserted in there. There seems to be an underlying assumption that somehow white gay men are singularly bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:You're being disingenuous. People call out white gay men specifically because they are part of the queer community and are happy to milk that when it benefits them, but aren't happy to carry the load when other portions of the community need help. Jews have nothing to do with the queer community. Why would a white gay man be more racist than a white lesbian, or more transphobic than a black gay man?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:Do you literally not understand words? White gay men have a unique position of privilege that causes them not to comprehend the issues other queer people struggle with. Consequently, they're seen as ignorant of or in opposition to queer issues. It is not any kind of affirmative statement of lesbians or black people or anything else. It is instead a specific statement about the shortcomings of white gay men. Please keep the goalposts exactly where they belong. That's not how things tend to work in real life though, people do not automatically have empathy for other minority groups just because they are a minority or oppressed in some way. Do you literally think that someone being black or female automatically makes them more likely to support trans rights?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
The argument that being part of a minority group automatically makes you more likely to support rights for other minority groups literally isn't true though. There's reams of social issue polling out there with crosstabs that breaks it all down. Sometimes one minority will support another at higher rates than average and sometimes they don't, there's no clear trend in the polling.cis autodrag posted:I was writing another reply to him but honestly this is what it is. If you can't understand how being part of the queer community but then being willfully blind to its struggles is a problem for gay white men but not some random black person, you're just being dense. You're the one who just accused me of "not understanding words." It wasn't "random black person" I was asking why you would assume that a white gay man on average would have worse opinions on trans issues than a black gay man. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:This is what you're not getting. Gay white men allow themselves to be grouped into the same minority group as trans people, lesbians, etc when it suits their needs, but are able to distance themselves from that group when it advantages them. They get to have it both ways and that's hosed up. I'm not advocating it at all, I'm just stating the fact that from looking at a ton of polling crosstabs being part of minority X does not automatically make you aware and sensitive to the plight of minority Y.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:A little maybe, but the reality is that a white gay man can, if push comes to shove, hide the fact that he's gay. A black person can never stop being black. Intersectionality is complicated and I'm probably not expressing it well, but being a white man does a lot to overcome the difficulties of being queer. To complete strangers, sure, but not to anyone you interact with on a regular basis. There are many, many examples from history of governments and private agencies being able to expose and fire/jail gays en masse even though their sexuality was probably their most closely kept secret. Unless you're really good at lying and deceiving people anyone who wants to know can find out. Or you can look at modern Russia, etc. Many stories of beatings and murders even of deeply closeted gays.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:like nuance is good and cool and privilege theory won't get you there It's possible to apply it in a nuanced manner but a lot of people just don't, you can't distill complex issues down to nothing but more privilege vs less privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Wanna go back to the "lavender scare" 50s? No? Too bad! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/28/gay-whisperer-cop-targeted-men-at-port-authority-restrooms.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-discrimination-in-lgbt-community-long-beach_us_58cf1a17e4b0537abd95724c 1950s style police tactics are still around, hopefully not for too much longer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
What the hell is even the point of this?  There's no substantive change at all, I don't see how this is even a "compromise," every single bad aspect of HB2 is still there but now they can claim that it's repealed.http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/north-carolina-hb2-agreement/ quote:Here's what the agreement includes, according to GOP lawmakers:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 15:04
|
|