But why? Why does it matter if transgendered people have civil rights? What do they lose?
I’ve never understood this part of the conservative mindset.
As I see it, "Conservatives" (traditional ones, anyway) don't understand why the LGBTQ folks can't be happy with what God gave them*, and therefore view deviance from the norm as a sign of being somehow "broken," or even mentally ill/damaged. Letting those folks have any societal clout would lead to their ideas "infecting" the rest of society, making Conservatives feel like the inmates are being allowed to run the asylum. It's "Who Moved My Cheese?" but on a societal scale, where the more traditionally Conservative you are, the more flummoxed/flatfooted you become when confronted by stuff that does not conform to your carefully cultivated expectations/preconceptions as to how things are supposed to work.

I solicited Kati's opinion on this as well, and her opinion sounds more in the direction of the lesson of the Harrison Bergeron story, where the reason Conservatives are so dead set against "Fleshly Pleasures" or LGBTQ or personal choice in general or whatever is because when a person elects** to follow the Conservative ideology, they force themselves to sublimate/sacrifice/amputate some deviation of their own in order to fit that mold, like Cinderella's stepsisters trying to fit into the glass slipper. So when they see others proclaiming or even openly embracing whatever deviations from the norm they might espouse but without being rebuked or forced to suffer through the same sort of shame/denial/guilt that they've been putting themselves through all of their lives, well, that makes them upset. "How can those people get away with that sort of shameful behavior?" they cry, not realizing the main reason it is "shameful" is just because that's the opinion they've been self-reinforcing their entire lives. And the reason they feel they have the moral high ground is because they feel they have bought and paid for that position through their lifetime of suffering.

--Patrick
*For many of them, this is a literal belief, a point of Faith.
**Irony!
 
Who Moved My Cheese, the shittiest book on 'motivation' around. When they made us read this I heard Albert Brooks in my head the entire time.

There's another Cheese book and it's filled with the same BS 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality.
 
Who Moved My Cheese, the shittiest book on 'motivation' around. When they made us read this I heard Albert Brooks in my head the entire time.

There's another Cheese book and it's filled with the same BS 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality.
You might like this book, then:
potashandlies.jpg


--Patrick
 
As I see it, "Conservatives" (traditional ones, anyway) don't understand why the LGBTQ folks can't be happy with what God gave them*, and therefore view deviance from the norm as a sign of being somehow "broken," or even mentally ill/damaged. Letting those folks have any societal clout would lead to their ideas "infecting" the rest of society, making Conservatives feel like the inmates are being allowed to run the asylum. It's "Who Moved My Cheese?" but on a societal scale, where the more traditionally Conservative you are, the more flummoxed/flatfooted you become when confronted by stuff that does not conform to your carefully cultivated expectations/preconceptions as to how things are supposed to work.

I solicited Kati's opinion on this as well, and her opinion sounds more in the direction of the lesson of the Harrison Bergeron story, where the reason Conservatives are so dead set against "Fleshly Pleasures" or LGBTQ or personal choice in general or whatever is because when a person elects** to follow the Conservative ideology, they force themselves to sublimate/sacrifice/amputate some deviation of their own in order to fit that mold, like Cinderella's stepsisters trying to fit into the glass slipper. So when they see others proclaiming or even openly embracing whatever deviations from the norm they might espouse but without being rebuked or forced to suffer through the same sort of shame/denial/guilt that they've been putting themselves through all of their lives, well, that makes them upset. "How can those people get away with that sort of shameful behavior?" they cry, not realizing the main reason it is "shameful" is just because that's the opinion they've been self-reinforcing their entire lives. And the reason they feel they have the moral high ground is because they feel they have bought and paid for that position through their lifetime of suffering.

--Patrick
*For many of them, this is a literal belief, a point of Faith.
**Irony!
Halforums needs more Kati.
 
I mean, just be normal already. C'mon. After all, look at Iran and Russia, they don't even have any gay people. There just aren't any. And if you would say otherwise, their leaders invite you to inform them of exactly where they are.
I'd like to point out that Iran is FAR more accepting of trans people than the US. Like, it's not even close.
 
Actually in the fairness of total honesty @GasBandit, Iran is so accepting of trans people that they will sometimes force gay people to have sexual reassignment surgery because "if they're attracted to men they must really be women." Which while that's obviously totally awful, they at least acknowledge the sex/gender difference.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Actually in the fairness of total honesty @GasBandit, Iran is so accepting of trans people that they will sometimes force gay people to have sexual reassignment surgery because "if they're attracted to men they must really be women." Which while that's obviously totally awful, they at least acknowledge the sex/gender difference.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
One talking point I've heard from conservatives is that "everyone has been against Trump from the start of his presidency, that's why he hasn't been able to accomplish more". Republicans control both the house and the senate. Who the fuck is "everyone" who is blocking the president from doing things? Maybe if the majority of our elected officials are against something, even when it goes against their party's highest ranking member, then maybe it's a pretty damn stupid thing to want.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
"Hey, look, I can be bipartisan! There's no one who is more bipartisan than me. No one has reached across the aisle more than me. Not like those democrats and their mob. Terrible people who never agree with me on anything."
 

figmentPez

Staff member
This is a copy of a post I made to Facebook this evening. Hopefully those following me realize that I have NEVER made political posts before the past couple of months, and it is highly remarkable that I am doing so now.

--
"Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, corrosion or control, we all know that."

These words were spoken today by a man who, earlier this week, also praised the criminal assault of a news journalist, an assault perpetrated by a political candidate who did not like being questioned about his policies. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. A "body slam" is not as severe as a bomb, but it is still a criminal act to attack someone without cause. Violently assaulting journalists is a method of political intimidation, and the praising of that violence is a perpetuation of that threat.

Make no mistake, there are very real and credible threats being made against the press, and they are coming from the highest office in this nation. Threats being made by a man who now labels himself a "nationalist". That's not a mistake on his part. He knows full well what other movements have used "nationalist" to describe themselves in the past century. Groups like the "white nationalist" groups of the US and Europe, who advocate racial prejudice and violence. Groups like the German nationalist group, best known as the Nazi party, that brought Hitler into power. And the nationalist groups of Russia that put Vladmir Putin into power.

"Nationalism" is a dog whistle. It is a word that sounds innocuous, or even noble, to most of those who hear it; but to those who know history, it is a clear call to a specific ideology. It is being used now to appeal to those who are racist, to those who are xenophobic, to those who base their vote on the hatred of those who are different; because they know exactly what "nationalist" has meant in recent history, and they're hoping to win over those who are unaware of what it really means.

To those of you reading this who share my Christian faith. I remind you that God is in control, and that His will is being done, and that all will be used to glorify His name. However, that was also true of Nazi Germany, when the Holocaust killed millions. It was also true of apartheid in South Africa, and so many other cases of genocide and hatred in the world. God's ultimate control over all things does not excuse inaction. It does not mean that you can turn a blind eye to evil. The same tactics that were used in the past are being used now. Racism, xenophobia, attempts to intimidate and silence a free press, the undermining of truth, suppression of votes, oppression of minorities, etc., etc.

"Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, corrosion or control, we all know that. _Such conduct much be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted,_"

Let us start by opposing the one who applauded the criminal act of assault.
--
 
This is a copy of a post I made to Facebook this evening. Hopefully those following me realize that I have NEVER made political posts before the past couple of months, and it is highly remarkable that I am doing so now.

--
"Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, corrosion or control, we all know that."

These words were spoken today by a man who, earlier this week, also praised the criminal assault of a news journalist, an assault perpetrated by a political candidate who did not like being questioned about his policies. This is the very definition of hypocrisy. A "body slam" is not as severe as a bomb, but it is still a criminal act to attack someone without cause. Violently assaulting journalists is a method of political intimidation, and the praising of that violence is a perpetuation of that threat.

Make no mistake, there are very real and credible threats being made against the press, and they are coming from the highest office in this nation. Threats being made by a man who now labels himself a "nationalist". That's not a mistake on his part. He knows full well what other movements have used "nationalist" to describe themselves in the past century. Groups like the "white nationalist" groups of the US and Europe, who advocate racial prejudice and violence. Groups like the German nationalist group, best known as the Nazi party, that brought Hitler into power. And the nationalist groups of Russia that put Vladmir Putin into power.

"Nationalism" is a dog whistle. It is a word that sounds innocuous, or even noble, to most of those who hear it; but to those who know history, it is a clear call to a specific ideology. It is being used now to appeal to those who are racist, to those who are xenophobic, to those who base their vote on the hatred of those who are different; because they know exactly what "nationalist" has meant in recent history, and they're hoping to win over those who are unaware of what it really means.

To those of you reading this who share my Christian faith. I remind you that God is in control, and that His will is being done, and that all will be used to glorify His name. However, that was also true of Nazi Germany, when the Holocaust killed millions. It was also true of apartheid in South Africa, and so many other cases of genocide and hatred in the world. God's ultimate control over all things does not excuse inaction. It does not mean that you can turn a blind eye to evil. The same tactics that were used in the past are being used now. Racism, xenophobia, attempts to intimidate and silence a free press, the undermining of truth, suppression of votes, oppression of minorities, etc., etc.

"Any acts or threats of political violence are an attack on our democracy itself. No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, corrosion or control, we all know that. _Such conduct much be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted,_"

Let us start by opposing the one who applauded the criminal act of assault.
--
Well written, and well said.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
"The President has condemned violence in all forms, and he's done that since day one." - Sarah Sanders

NO! No he hasn't. He commended the criminal assault of a reporter! He's said he'll pay the legal fees of any of this supporters who have violent altercations with people protesting him. He has repeatedly called the media "the enemy of the people" despite being told that such inflammatory language is an incitement to violence. Dolt45 has most certainly not condemned violence, he has sought to incite it.
 
"The President has condemned violence in all forms, and he's done that since day one." - Sarah Sanders

NO! No he hasn't. He commended the criminal assault of a reporter! He's said he'll pay the legal fees of any of this supporters who have violent altercations with people protesting him. He has repeatedly called the media "the enemy of the people" despite being told that such inflammatory language is an incitement to violence. Dolt45 has most certainly not condemned violence, he has sought to incite it.
Yes, but not against real people, just women and blacks and hispanics and such.
 
"The President has condemned violence in all forms, and he's done that since day one." - Sarah Sanders

NO! No he hasn't. He commended the criminal assault of a reporter! He's said he'll pay the legal fees of any of this supporters who have violent altercations with people protesting him. He has repeatedly called the media "the enemy of the people" despite being told that such inflammatory language is an incitement to violence. Dolt45 has most certainly not condemned violence, he has sought to incite it.
I've heard Sanders say before, those words were spoken by "Candidate Trump" not "President Trump."

Except of course, the body slam.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
A fine message, but Jim Carrey should stfu. Anti-vax bullshit is a piece of the anti-intellectualism that caused trump.
Man, you just can't help cutting off your nose to spite your face, can you? Posts like this are why people keep comparing leftism to an overzealous religious cult. Even if somebody says something you agree with, and say it well, you tell them to STFU because they aren't chaste and holy enough for the inquisitorial squad to give them a pass.

If you can't build a coalition to deal with the big problems because you disagree on lesser problems, you're just going to keep wallowing in powerlessness and despair.
 
The messenger matters almost as much as the message. It's why trump saying "these attacks are bad" doesn't mean shit to me. If carrey took responsibility for his contribution to the culture caused by this maybe it'd be taken more seriously. For now, I just see a nutjob that hurts the left's credibility.
 
You need both sides of the aisle to see what Trump is if you don't want everything to dissolve into us vs. them all the way down. But then again, you probably do. :p I for one don't want two sides of always agreeing robots that only follow the party line, that's what the GOP is now.
 
Top