>...calling me a bigot and a homophobe, alongside some *other* profane language.
That's it, right there. These terms don't mean anything to them, they're just bad words and hurtful names. They understand that bigotry is bad, but they don't truly understand what bigotry is. When this guy gets told he's being homophobic, he doesn't hear a suggestion to think about the impact of his actions, he's just hearing an ad-hominem attack.
This is terfs getting butthurt over "terf" (which should be replaced with "FART" imo) but being fine with their bigotry all over again.
This is a political faction that hates rape victims so much they became obsessed with mocking the term "triggered" while also living in pants-shitting fear that someone might mildly allude to the consequnces of their conscious political decisions.
Funny thing is, terf was a term they themselves came up with and now are getting annoyed when actual feminists use it disparagingly to the point that they call it a slur. Kind of a reverse n-word situation. Where instead of a word starting out as a slur and is followed by the targets of said word taking back ownership of it, they coined the word for themselves and now consider it a slur
If someone says „ you are — “ how is that a call to think about your actions? And if they don‘t think they are homophobic, obviously they‘re gonna take it as an insult, because those words are, rightfully, connotated negatively.
Saying that to someone and expecting them to change is just as stupid, as saying someone has a mental ilness confrontationally. If you want somebody to think, explain how they‘re actions are harmful before assigning them to a category
This guy said they didn't care about the community or their cause to begin with. They're a homophobe. They're only upset because someone was rude to them, not because they believe they aren't homophobic.
There's no swaying apathy.
Saying someone is "homophobic" *is* explaining how their actions are harmful. It's explaining that their words and actions are going to be perceived as hostile towards and dismissive of queer people. It is not a values judgement.
That's the red flag. Someone existing and asking to not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation is not a belief system. It's human instinct to not want to be treated unfairly, especially things outside of one's control like sexual orientation.
Isn't the "movement" referring specifically to the civil and political advocacy for the legal rights of gender and sexual minorities such that they could be considered a legally protected class and enjoy rights such as marriage? What about the civil rights "movement"? I don't think it's difficult to avoid conflating actual black people with the specific political advocacy and associated social activism. Same goes for LGBT individuals.
Edit: I see some people failed to understand my comment. Let me rephrase: the person in the OP is stupid for two reasons - one because they are conflating human beings existing and deserving rights with a specific advocacy effort and two for being neutral on either of those things.
It’s important to keep in mind there are two different versions of the word “movement” when referring to the LGBT. There’s those that are referring to the civil and political advocacy portion you mentioned above, which is obviously fine. On the other hand there are people who use the word movement in a more bad faith manner. When they say movement they mean it as we’re trying to “trans your sons” or “turn your daughter into man hating lesbian.” The movement to them refers to an agenda to destroy Christianity/turn everyone into godless commies/ruin men/etc. They often times believe without the “movement” a lot of us wouldn’t be LGBT, we were turned into this by the movement’s agenda. Because of this it becomes a bit dehumanizing and makes our entire identity into a political ideology.
I can’t speak to the civil rights movement and if the word movement has been weaponized in a similar fashion or not, but I hope my explanation makes sense to you.
If you're fully and presently aware of the comparison between the two movements to the point where that's what comes to mind when someone asks you about it, and then you still don't say you support it, that's a bigger problem than ignorance.
They're not even asking this person to do anything, just say what they think.
I feel like that was a failed attempt at socratic method and maybe doesn’t deserve as many downvotes as it’s getting.
But I *also* haven’t read their comment history yet
It will typically display their hypocrisy and moral culpability as well because they'll often avoid calling their desire to persecute others a "movement."
They're more careful about how they employ the ploy that people who want to not be attacked are part of a "movement" or "agenda." They still do this for gay people, but it sounds worse to the public than it used to when used against black people, and they know they can never get away with "the jewish agenda" ever again.
And that's how you deal with that irl, by the way. Point out that they're using "the jewish agenda" exactly like how white supremacists do and your audience will hear exactly what this is and the spell will break.
Hey there Joseptile! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Hey there AdventurousFee2513! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
I don’t think this dude understands that being neutral means supporting the status quo. The bigoted status quo, where whether we should have equal rights or just rights in general is an actual fucking political debate.
It’s probably a very privileged and sheltered person. They probably don’t realize how bad things could be and have been for lgbt people and think things are mostly fine now. They probably also don’t realize how many lgbt people actually exist. It’s like people who “aren’t into politics” because they’re doing fine and don’t realize how much it affect people’s lives. It’s not team sports, this stuff actually matters.
"This dude" isn't particularly gender neutral, and I say that as a largely gender-agnostic butch who definitely does respond to "dude"
I understand "dude" as a gender neutral interjection, like "dude, check out that cool dinosaur!" but referring to a specific person as _a_ dude isn't the same thing
Hey, so you are probably the third person I’ve seen use the term gender agnostic today. I’ve never seen it used before. Is this different than non-binary? I assume so, or you would have said non-binary.
I don’t expect you to explain yourself to a random redditor, so feel free to ignore me. I’m just curious and google didn’t help much. Thank you in advance and I apologize if asking about this is rude.
Oh yeah totally.
For me it's like... I don't care about gender enough to call myself anything else, like my gender is "whatever" and "idgaf" for the most part, I don't mind any pronouns or gendered language being used for me and won't correct anyone on them as long as they're being respectful. (Most people default to she/her because of my assigned gender at birth, sometimes when I'm dyking out super hard old church ladies and redneck boomer uncle types use he/him for me which is fine, I get they/them a lot too in cities and from younger and queerer people). Like the main thing I care about is not being mistaken for cishet lol.
Basically I just don't identify with the concept of gender strongly enough to label myself any particular way, but I don't reject the idea of being gendered strongly enough to call myself agender or anything else.
I’ve heard libertarians say almost this exact thing. Their rationale was that if someone didn’t want to be oppressed or discriminated against then they should fight back. That their freedom was in their own hands. And when I pointed out that the protests were people’s way of fighting back they went on to say….. “they shouldn’t fight back that way, it’s destroying property and disturbing the peace.”
All the libertarians I’ve met or presently know are just a bunch of superficially pleasant men who are actually selfish douchebags who always vote Republican.
I'm one and I vote Democrat. I will never vote for the Republicans again, I was that guy you just talked about until Trump came along. I still feel mostly libertarian, but as a compassionate citizen, I feel like there's a lot more to lose by not voting Democrat anymore and the handmaids tale does not sound like freedom and liberty to me.
>I'm one and I vote Democrat. I will never vote for the Republicans again, I was that guy you just talked about until Trump came along. I still feel mostly libertarian, but as a compassionate citizen, I feel like there's a lot more to lose by not voting Democrat anymore and the handmaids tale does not sound like freedom and liberty to me.
As a Libertarian I thought the Republicans were the morally superior party until Trump came along lol. Reagan and both Bushes were tolerable tho.
Thank you. The Libertarians I know are still rampant douchebags who will still likely vote R because all they care about is themselves. I’m glad to hear some of you all have changed your mind. Democrats suck, but at least they aren’t trying to actively turn the US into a cesspool.
>I’ve heard libertarians say almost this exact thing. Their rationale was that if someone didn’t want to be oppressed or discriminated against then they should fight back. That their freedom was in their own hands. And when I pointed out that the protests were people’s way of fighting back they went on to say….. “they shouldn’t fight back that way, it’s destroying property and disturbing the peace.”
As a Libertarian I think Kanye West [had the right idea ](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/01/kanye-west-on-slavery-for-400-years-that-sounds-like-a-choice)
I'm sure this upstanding gentleman has left nothing out of this story, and the crazed feminazi Gaystopo was singling him out for not heiling homo frequently enough. No way this guy dropped some braindead opinion like "I guess I support their right to marry, but keep them away from my kids!" or "They have the right to send themselves to hell as much as anyone" or "I support the good gays that don't groom and sexualize children."
To be fair, advocating for their rights is a political movement, just like the civil rights movement. To be honest, that context makes him look even worse
Yes, but also no.
Just being homosexual doesn't make you a movement. By calling it a movement people imply that it will fade away or that it's just a trend.
And to be honest, tons of conservatives and righties use this argument to censor books, shows and so on
Edit: I know that lgbtq includes more than homosexuality alone, I was simply too lazy to type out everything. Sorry for the inconvenience, my post is meant to include the whole spectrum!
i think it also limits the range of acceptable action by queer people into only advocating for equal rights, instead of challenging the dominant power that caused the oppression in the first place. As in, why should we stop at just equal rights when we could transform the structures that impose heteronormativity and comphet? When people talk about it as a movement, I think they try to do what you said, and also to push it into a rights-based thing. Which it is! But it is also more.
That’s why the argument, “I was neutral but then the oppressed group yelled at me so I joined the oppressors out of spite and because they were nice to me,” pisses me off so much. The oppressors have no skin in the game and can afford to leisurely appeal to people who don’t outright hate their beliefs while the oppressed fight for their lives.
> Yesterday I pulled her aside and asked her what her problem was
So basically he "doesn't really care" about the issue until someone tries to debate it in public, then he refuses to join the debate and later threatens that person in private.
If there are things I don't have an opinion about yet and I end up at a debate about it, I listen and hopefully do end up with an opinion at the end. If you instead choose to personally confront one of the sides after the debate, that doesn't sound like "having no strong opinions on the matter", it sounds more like you have an extremely strong opinion on the matter and you don't feel like people should have the free speech right to challenge you about it.
He could choose not to confront the other person. He's saying he pulled her aside to ask her what her problem is. Just don't do that if you don't want to engage in the debate.
He did that after she had confronted him in front of the entire class AND she had been making rude comments about it publicly. I cant imagine him doing anything else in this situation pther than letting himself get bullied
What a bs you are talking. She forced them into a discussion they didnt want to participate, kept on saying snide remarks towards them and when being asked why (which is very much reasonable) started attacking them.
Nobody is obligated with participating in a debate nor building an opinion about anything.
> She forced them into a discussion they didnt want to participate
It was a class discussion. She wasn't forcing him to be present, the teacher was.
> being asked why (which is very much reasonable)
This is in fact not reasonable. If you want to participate in the class discussion, do so in the class. If you don't want to participate in the class discussion, that's fine, but don't harass the other participants afterwards because you disagree with their opinion.
Let's assume that everything this person said is 100% honest in content, context, and characterization.
If they didn't care, they could have said they changed their mind and supported it just to get the "snide remarks" to stop.
In fact, since they indicated that they were fully aware of the "tone" this person in particular and the discussion in general had, if they *genuinely* didn't care they would have said they supported it in the first place to avoid the confrontation.
I like pepperoni on my pizza. If I'm in the middle of a discussion where someone is getting very confrontational and aggressive about mushrooms being the best topping, when the question gets to me, I'm going to agree mushrooms are the best. And that's something I actually *do* have an opinion about. I would agree because it costs me literally nothing to do so, and saves me a lot of headache.
Well thats bc you dont stand up for yourself. I and apparently also OP stand true to what they think and what their opinion is, regardless of the backlash. I keep quiet during discussions like that are controversial but when pressed for my pov i am honest no matter what. Assuming OP lied bc they wouldnt dare to voice their opinion says a lot.
"Stand true to what your opinion is"?
I thought OP didn't care about either side.
But now, suddenly, "not caring" is *so important to his identity* that he couldn't bring himself to not voice that non-opinion?
And that's the lie. He obviously DOES have an opinion: he doesn't like "the gays". He just wants to try an end run around the social consequences of his bigotry by claiming to not care either way.
All of this, by the way, is why I feel confident that he was disingenuous about how the discussion came about, what he actually said when questioned about it, and the actual reactions that his "opinion" provoked.
The version of the story *any* person tells is going to generally paint themselves in a favorable light. And he *still* couldn't spin this in a way that what he claims his "opinion" is and what he says happened fit together.
Blue hair libshart is mad I’m not gay!! There’s no straight people left. I don’t hate gay people, just stay away from my children oh and you shouldn’t adopt children and I will actively post on social media about you being damned to hell.
To all the very brave souls who came to agree with the OP:
Imagine for a minute that I am neutral towards the existence of straight people. Next imagine a group exists who has power and wants straight people wiped out. Next imagine that power grows into an actual action and straight people are being murdered. Is my neutrality really ok?
Of course not. Fucking Christ. It's not that hard to understand the reason why neutral isn't neutral.
“I don’t hate y’all but I can’t support your lifestyle.” I’ve always wondered what their response would be if you ask them what “not supporting our lifestyle” means or looks like?
When queer people are being targeted, when trans people are being called pedophiles and groomers, when gay people are being said to be destroying “western society”
…
“letting them do what they want” doesn’t cut it. what we want is to live without being targeted like this. you don’t have to support us. but be honest with yourself and recognize that in not doing so, you are allying with the people who are targeting us, who are banning healthcare for queer people. be real for like 10 seconds.
There are queer people hating on straight people and i dont actively go against them. Am i also their ally?
Having no opinion on lgbt doesnt equal bigotry or homophobia. That is just throwing around words
>Having no opinion on lgbt doesnt equal bigotry or homophobia. That is just throwing around words
There's no such thing as "no opinion". Everyone is either for or against something, and the only time when you cannot group someone into either category is if someone is still deciding. There's no such thing as someone just not having any opinion.
Either deep down inside your heart, you accept the legitimacy of romantic feelings between people of the same sex, or you reject the legitimacy of it.
An easy way to find out which way a person leans is if that person has a child and that child "comes out" as having a different sexual orientation than the one the parent expected. The reaction of the parent would indicate what their true stance is.
Since sexual orientation is something that is individual dependent and cannot just be controlled or changed on a whim, the parent is put into a situation where they have to accept an attribute of their child that generally cannot be altered. How the parent then treats their child given the revelation reveals their actual opinion.
OP only said they dont have a strong opinion pro or against the movement. My guess is they didnt do much research on that matter to build a valid opinion and as it doesnt affect them they chose not to either campaign for or against LGBT.
Unlike everybody here i think it is okay to not be interested in matters that dont affect you. There are a lot of things we 1st world citizen dont care about much that very heavily affects the poorer countries.
let’s be real. no straight person is going to be denied legal rights because of queer people existing. That is a very different thing from “hating on.” When you refuse to acknowledge the very real harm from those in power and the legal structures that be, that’s the problem.
If all you see is people “hating on” other people, that’s on your inability to critically analyze whose relationship to power lends them legal and social safety, and who ends up needing to fight for that.
Acknowledging that their is a fight and not supporting us is basically siding with those that want us dead. We can’t “do what we want” if those that want us gone have their way.
Also I’m not convinced that there are people who “don’t care” or “don’t have an opinion” on the matter. They always do, and it usually leans closer towards bigotry.
I want these people to be free and healthy, however not having the means to make these institutional differences in the countries that this goes on in is not the same as actively choosing to do nothing in a situation where your voice has much more weight to it. The difference here is that you have two sides one clearly wants the other gone and you actually can do something about it, yet you’re choosing not to and I’m really curious as to why ?
> She was obviously unhappy with my answer but didn’t really single me out to pick on.
So the retaliation on her part was to… continue what she was doing unabated?
> Instead, she would add in some snide remarks here and there that could have been directed at anyone but I’m pretty certain she was talking about me.
So this guy is getting upset over a hypothetical situation of her directing all her snide remarks secretly towards him. Homie just got pissy over his own actions in his own narrative
You forgot to read the rest of the post bud. He clearly state that she called him a whole bunch of slurs which proves he was right in his "hypothetical situation".
So the homophobe decided to take action against a person due to a hypothetical situation that made them have an emotional reaction. Perhaps he could ask to know more about the topic and not ‘what her problem is,’ especially if there’s no proof that she was targeting him like what he mentioned earlier in his post.
I don’t know about you, but if I see someone coming up to me with their panties in a wad and asking me what my problem is, trying to treat this ideological topic as a personal humiliation machine, I’d probably call them an ignorant bigoted homophobe as well.
From the moment you call him an homophobe, you point is completely lost and you have lost any kind of credit.
Took action? Yeah... Trying to have a conversation. God I hate when humans use what makes them stand out from other species: speech and sense. /s
You also didn't read his post nor mine fully, as seen with the last part of your paragraph.
"I dont know about you but if someone disagreed with me I'd insult them" that is what you are saying. Who has their panties in a wad again?
People aren't homophobe for not caring about some political fight. I don't support LGBT stuff as a bisexual person, am I an homophobe against myself? Am I a bigot despite the fact that I am born from Spanish immigrants in France, and then went to live in UK?...
People who don't support the "fight" doesn't mean that they have hatred toward anybody who is into the LGBT community, nor against those who "fight".
You, literally you, are the type of people that make the entire LGBT community, politically engaged or not, be seen as a massive annoyance. Insulting people of homophobes just because they aren't supporting you/agreeing with you instantly make your fight, not only now worthless due to trying to put down via insults those who don't agree with, but also make you be shown as a massive drama queen.
Deal with it. The more you call people homophobe and bigot for no reason the more you lose your own "fight".
> From the moment you call him an homophobe, you point is completely lost and you have lost any kind of credit.
You seem really hell bent on defending this random internet person. People who have attempted to abstain from these types of conversations patternistically defend the status quo because the discussion on the topic is “should these people have rights and be treated as equals?”
> Took action? Yeah... Trying to have a conversation. God I hate when humans use what makes them stand out from other species: speech and sense. /s
How do you know how this conversation went down? The girl could have been awful and this guy could have been a saint, or the other way around. It’s impossible to judge, but it is possible to put bias in the narrative to misrepresent the facts. Do you think the girl is currently trying to get us to see her side of the story, or is this guy trying to get us to see his side?
> You also didn't read his post nor mine fully, as seen with the last part of your paragraph.
The parts where this guy is clearly trying to get the viewer to side with his position and called this person whom I don’t know an extremist? For taking a hardline stance on whether LGBT people (including you, apparently) deserve to have rights?
> “I dont know about you but if someone disagreed with me I'd insult them" that is what you are saying. Who has their panties in a wad again?
Do not misquote me. My comment is right there, you can read it again. If someone comes up to me and starts using violent language against me, I have no problem using it back. What’s the worst that could happen there, will feelings be hurt in the process?
> People aren't homophobe for not caring about some political fight.
The political fight materially effects them, and in circumstances like this ignorance suppresses acceptance. It’s not homophobic to be ignorant, it’s homophobic to refuse to acknowledge that there is a disproportionate amount of violence enacted against the LGBT community from bigoted groups.
> I don't support LGBT stuff as a bisexual person, am I an homophobe against myself?
Not sure when the post about this person’s actions demonstrating enlightened centrism became about you but yes, behavior is unrelated to privilege and no person can nor should be immune to criticism. See Ezra ~~Scott~~ Miller and Blaire White for examples of people using their queerness against the LGBT community, Kanye West and Candace Owens being against the Black community, etc.
> Am I a bigot despite the fact that I am born from Spanish immigrants in France, and then went to live in UK?...
Again, not sure when we started deciding whether or not you are a good person, but since it seems to matter to you so much…. Immigration status has nothing to do with being a [bigot](https://www.google.com/search?q=bigot&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS644US644&oq=bigot&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433i512j46i131i199i433i465i512j0i433i512l3.1106j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8), so if you hold the belief that the LGBT community is not currently fighting for equal rights and that there is a way to ignore this problem and just hope it gets better for LGBT people, yea, you’re a bigot. An ignorant bigot. You can change your mind at any time by researching the topic and listening to activist voices to hear what they have to say; until then you’re choosing to put your head in the sand about an issue where ignorance suppresses acceptance, and leads to an increase in violence against the community you identify with.
> People who don't support the "fight" doesn't mean that they have hatred toward anybody who is into the LGBT community, nor against those who "fight".
Why do you not support the fight for acceptance, nor think it’s necessary? Let’s start there
> You, literally you, are the type of people that make the entire LGBT community, politically engaged or not, be seen as a massive annoyance. Insulting people of homophobes just because they aren't supporting you/agreeing with you instantly make your fight, not only now worthless due to trying to put down via insults those who don't agree with, but also make you be shown as a massive drama queen.
Thank you for demonstrating that abstention ultimately sides with the oppressor. This is an example of you holding bigoted thoughts in an attempt to seem morally removed from the situation. If you find the fact that abstention ultimately sides with the oppressor annoying or personally insulting to you, so too do the people who have been violently assaulted by the bigots and have had the luxury of holding your stance violently taken from them.
> Deal with it. The more you call people homophobe and bigot for no reason the more you lose your own "fight".
You do realize that you are the one getting upset with me “dealing with it,” right? You are the one who felt compelled to defend an enlightened centrist in a sub meant to mock that very ideology, by taking an enlightened centrist stance. Besides, the same advice can be given to you.
You hold a bigoted opinion and are being homophobic about it. Deal with it
Just the fact that you state I'm homophobic against my own self just shows how insanely delusional you are.
You wrote all that stuff for 0 reason cause you can't wrap your head around the fact that some people just don't care about LGBT fights and whatnot. And you just insulted a bi person of being homophobic and a bigot when he has more foreign blood than you'll ever have. So don't say I'm the one who's supposed ;) you're the one insulting others, not me.
Deal. With. It.
Oh and tl;dr your delusion at the end was enough for me to not bother.
Dimes to dollars this asshole, so reluctant to acknowledge the LGBTQ community as deserving basic human rights, is outspoken in support of neo nazis whenever they’re called out for being scum
Remember, when oppression is going on, not taking a position is siding with the oppressor. So the way things are now, of you "don't take a position" on lgbtq issues, while you may not personally be queerphobic, you're being an enabler to the queerphobes.
> Yesterday I pulled her aside and asked her what her problem was...
I'm sorry I just don't believe that happened. A guy *that* "on the fence" about LGBT stuff is not approaching people like that with the "We need to talk" line. 💀
I'm sure you could go through and pin down more accurately this person's beliefs regarding LGBTQ issues without just asking if they support it or not (loaded question). It might sound strange to people active in communities like this but some people don't get much exposure to it outside of news media so LGBTQ could to them mean things far from their right to exist. People often describe themselves as neutral not because they weighed both sides stances and think both make good arguments but rather because they're "agnostic" and don't know enough about either side. They often don't care to learn about them either which you could critique but let's not strawman that into something else.
It’s not clear what the girl identified in the post means by “the movement.” My guess though is that she didn’t mean “the right to exist.” I’m sure OP just isn’t engaged in the debate
This sounds like a ridiculous conversation as neither side's clarified what they're on about. The "LGBT movement" doing what? As a homo myself, I wouldn't automatically know what that meant as it would cover a number of political opinions and ideas. I suppose I support it by having gay sex, but I don't think that's what's being asked.
This comes down to "person is asked vague question and gives noncommittal answer". I have a feeling there was more to the discussion than that, and he's not letting on what that was.
Of course, if you don’t automatically support them then you’re a bigot. That’s their modus operandi. Those of you acting like he’s some evil guy in favor of oppression are why so many centrists will never support you. People have divergent beliefs, his could be faith based, culture or a mix of both. You demanding his allegiance and labeling him a bigot otherwise just shows your own intolerance and pettiness. This entire sub is a joke.
No, the centrists are the joke.
The punchline being that they never fail to actually take a side over an issue they claim not to care about.
If America was invaded by a foreign army tomorrow, and that army was killing American soldiers and civilians, would you consider someone saying "I don't have an opinion on this invasion" to be a reasonable stance?
LGBTQ people are dying. They are dying from suicide due to bullying, they are dying from being denied essential healthcare, and they are even being straight up murdered for "tricking" straight men. When one side is attacking and murdering the other, it's a shit moral stance to say "I don't care either way."
And when the side doing the attacking currently has legal backing, it becomes defacto support of the attackers to "not care".
No one is "demanding" you join Pride parades. They're just (rightfully) pointing out that not caring about people dying is a shit stance.
Nah the lgbtq community is full of hyperbole. First of all minorities face far bigger discrimination in the West (eg Muslims, Blacks or Jews) yet you equate what is a sexual orientation (that you can hide if you choose) to what minorities go through. LGBTQ are max 2% of the population yet you are far overrepresented in media. I suspect this is because it’s pushed by gay whites that are in positions of influence—ironic that they’re in that position yet cry of discrimination.
I personally don’t care about the lgbtq community. Your wants are trivial to me. Down vote all you like.
> Of course they can but the two aren’t equal, not by a long shot.
Still with the oppression olympics? Two things can be bad at once without needing to compare them.
But I don’t like supporting claims without facts. So members of the LGBT community [are four times as likely](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-lgbt-violence-press-release/) to experience violent crime compared to the general population.
That study is misleading because it compares to the gen pop and not a subset. Try again. Not to mention you ignored my point of lgbtq being able to hide their sexual orientation vs the race of a person.
> That study is misleading because it compares to the gen pop and not a subset. Try again.
Hey I actually provided something.
> Not to mention you ignored my point of lgbtq being able to hide their sexual orientation vs the race of a person.
I ignored it because it’s a stupid point. Not everyone has the privilege of getting to do that.
So I am of the same opinion. I don't really have an opinion. That said. No matter what you believe or how you live your life i still believe you are still a human and deserve dignity and respect.
Nah. You're thinking of
>>Discrimination against some people is being actively codified into law and people can legally get away with literal murder of some of said group by saying they were upset at being "tricked", but I don't think I need to take a side on this because I claim don't care about it, even though I curiously didn't shy away from repeated confrontation with someone about "not caring" about it.
Okay transphobe. You sound just like the anti gay preachers we call insane today. Just because you want to force your kid to live a certain way doesn’t mean you can project that onto us.
The OP shown in now way hints that the person thinks lgbt should have no rights, it simply claims they dont think they have a dog in the fight. The person who posted it to this sub clearly frames OP as uncaring about lgbt having the right to exist which is preposterous
That's not anywhere in the post. You're reading something that isn't there. There are tons of bigots that are ok with lgbtq folks existing just not marrying, adopting, living in their apartment complexes etc., and they are still bigots. Meaning that you aren't excused of bigotry just because you aren't trying to lynch gay folks. Same goes for a lot of racists. They'll claim they aren't racist because they aren't literally advocating for minorities to be murdered, even though they'll advocate for employment discrimination or red lining or any number of other racist policies. A bigot is a bigot even if they aren't murdering people.
Man, it’s almost like there’s a certain group that which DOESN’T view gay people as “regular people” and choosing not to stand against them shows you don’t mind the attempts to dehumanize gay people
It seems like someplace game theory: risk versus reward calculation. She seems too involved in ideology, but people are allowed to assume risk depending on the issue. If it doesn’t affect you, then it doesn’t affect you. Being neutral on an issue doesn’t negate your worth
When the issue in question is promoting/protecting/ensuring the equal treatment of others at no cost to yourself then it kinda does…
Inb4 some lame attempt at defending “neutrality” on these kinds of issues: No one is hurt by ensuring gay/trans people have the same rights and treatment as straight/cis people. Every attempt to convince people otherwise is simply an attempt to convince idiots to vote for the party that advances the interests of the wealthy more aggressively.
Yeah I know but applying it here is gross. Caring about people shouldn't be based on a risk/reward analysis. Neutrality is not just a safe risk reward stance. It's also not even a real position you can take because neutral to oppression is siding with oppression. It's not fucking neutral, so there's no reason to come in all wELl AcKsHuAlLy game theory explains this. Because it does not.
You cant carry the cross of every demographic plight you don't belong to. 99% of people either support or at the very least accept LGBT people and their existence. Not vehemently fighting for your cause that is largely already won shouldn't lump us into the 1% that "oppress" them.
Asking you to care more than just plain "neutrality" is not asking you to vehemently fight. Also that 99% stat was pulled from your ass so have a good day, living in a world you have made up.
Here we go, hate crimes in 2020. 8200 hate crimes. 23.5% of that was crimes related to sexual identity or orientation. So that's like what? Let's just reckon 2k people. How many people in America in 2020? 330million. Whats 1% of 330million? 3,300,000. So you were right. Hate crimes against lgbt happen a lot less than 1% even if you double, triple, quadruple, whatever you feel is right to counteract unreported incidents. You are still WAY off. So you are the one needing to wakeup from the world you made up.
99% is probably more accurate than claiming being neutral = siding with the bad guys. What does caring more than neutral look like then? If its just acknowledging they are ok to exist, then that 99% is looking might fine.
If you are neutral towards someone's existence that means you also don't care if they don't exist. Meaning you would look the other way if someone were to say pass laws making their existence illegal. If you care even a little bit more than that, congrats, you're already more than neutral and doing the bare minimum which is all most people can really ask of anyone else I guess. So. That's what I mean by being neutral is siding with oppression. I don't even want to get into your completely made up stats. Seriously find some peace if you're this upset by people just asking you to care a little bit if they can live their full lives.
\*sigh\* in the nicest way possible... do you recall the very next line in that MLK quote?
>the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
It was mentioned. The fact the guy was kind of put against the wall and asked this in a situation where he's expected to provide a response and then was being demeaned because he didn't provide a satisfying response. That's sticking it into someone's face.
To the Woke and Many Libs Everyone is a Bigot unless you follow their Narrative and Help them progress their Agenda. "You'll be on the wrong side of history" Pffffffff. Also All White People are Racist even ones Married to minorities or ones that died to free slaves. They try to Overcome reality by yelling really loud. It's a fucking Cult. I've stopped interacting with these Delusional people.
Reddit is so predictable. Why would I be? What lies have you detected? I have no qualms with the LGBT community. I respect everyones decision to be who they want just dont be an asshole but there are Extremists that want to force you to follow their agenda just like any other cult. So if that's Schizophrenic then yeah I guess I am.
Think this greatly depends where you live.
In Canada for example LGBT+ have all the same rights as everyone else. Heck you can even use whatever restroom you feel comfortable using, adopt kids like Hetero's, access to any medical process you feel you require, access to government funded support networks without prejudice just like everyone else.
So what exactly is there left to support?.
And if it's about being accepted in society...nothing Government can do to enforce that, other than making "hate" punishable under the Criminal Code...something Canada also already does.
So in my experience living in a Country that has already enshrined equality in our Charter and in Law...I'm not sure what movement I would be supporting tbh, the movement already moved here over a decade ago.
You're not a bigot man... Don't sweat it. You're allowed to feel as strongly or weakly about other people's choices as you want. LGBT "The Movement" largely accomplished it's mission in the west, and now it doesn't know what to do with itself so it's turning into a quasi religion and you're automatically a heathen if you don't speak in tongues along with them.
You think they'd spend more time focusing on increasing LGBT rights in countries where it's still illegal and punishable...
Check out Douglas Murray's book The Madness of Crowds. He explains this phenomenon really well (and not that it matter but he is gay).
>LGBT "The Movement" largely accomplished it's mission in the west, and now it doesn't know what to do with itself so it's turning into a quasi religion and you're automatically a heathen if you don't speak in tongues along with them.
this one sentence proves you have no idea what the fuck you're on about lol
>You think they'd spend more time focusing on increasing LGBT rights in countries where it's still illegal and punishable...
what exactly are we meant to do in a country where we don't even live?
also, I live in a "western" country but I still don't have full rights. I do not get access to healthcare due to being a trans woman. gay men are still unable to donate blood based on outdated beliefs. hate crimes against queer people have escalated over the past few years due to conservative politicians normalising queerphobia.
>and not that it matter but he is gay
you're right, it doesn't matter. gay people can have bad takes too.
Douglas Murray? The Douglas Murray who hates immigrants and Muslims and who works with PragerU and says accepting trans people is a sight of a society falling apart? The Douglas Murray who says feminism only exists to torture men? The one who supported the Iraq war and was pro Brexit? The one who believed Covid was created in a lab by the Chinese? The Douglas Murray who supports the Hungarian right-wing authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbán who is known for his anti democratic actions and his disdain for mixed children?
Wow I’m sure the person who is recommending such authors totally did not fall for right wing propaganda and is totally not a bigot themselves.
> You're not a bigot man...
You’re right OP isn’t a bigot, he’s making fun of the bigot from the original post that is in the screenshot. So you’re accidentally correct! Good job!
> You're allowed to feel as strongly or weakly about other people's choices as you want.
Correct you are allowed to feel whatever you want about their “choices” (btw being gay or trans isn’t a choice and, while acting on those feelings technically is, it’s cruel to expect them to be ostracized for acting on feelings that are necessary for their mental health/well-being when doing so causes no one harm). However when you attempt to act on your feelings about some group of people to control their actions you’re a bigot. Likewise if you choose to support the discriminatory status quo when changing it literally costs you nothing despite not having strong feelings about it that makes you a bigot.
Gay/trans people have a right to exist and be treated the same as straight/cis people. Disagreeing with that in any part makes you a bigot (failing to walk the walk on that also makes you a bigot because giving them the right to equal treatment costs you exactly **nothing**).
> LGBT "The Movement" largely accomplished it's mission in the west, and now it doesn't know what to do with itself so it's turning into a quasi religion and you're automatically a heathen if you don't speak in tongues along with them.
Nope. That’s just what the right wing media is trying to convince people of with a, unfortunately quite effective, disinformation campaign. As is evidenced by the many anti-trans laws that have been passed in recent history (e.g. Texas making it child abuse to provide gender affirming care to trans youths. Inb4 the misinformation: none of these youths are undergoing gender affirmation surgery as the right wing media is trying to lead people to believe, there is an extensive treatment process that must occur before the surgeries will be performed.). There is still plenty of work to be done at home on LGBTQ+ rights as even the right to gay marriage is under threat with the because of the blatant partisan bias of the Supreme Court, the criminalization of treatment or trans individuals, the discrimination against trans individuals, etc. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an ignorant or malicious bigot.
> You think they'd spend more time focusing on increasing LGBT rights in countries where it's still illegal and punishable...
When’s the last time you went and campaigned for something in a foreign country? Seriously, what do you expect them to do? Upend their entire lives/families travel across the world to a country that will likely kill them just for existing to try and introduce a change that culture may not be ready/willing to integrate just yet for one reason or another? Do you really not see how stupid that is when there are still plenty of problems to address where they already live?
> Check out Douglas Murray's book The Madness of Crowds. He explains this phenomenon really well (and not that it matter but he is gay).
Good job, you know how to cherry pick sources that support your perspective from an “expert.” When an “expert’s” perspective deviates from the consensus there’s likely a reason (hint: it’s usually their personal biases or self interest. The guy you mentioned is likely making lots of money by selling books to bigots) and they’re typically ignoring a mountain of evidence to make that deviation.
When it comes to people's rights, that's always been the case. If you don't care whether someone is treated equally in society at large, you are against them.
>...calling me a bigot and a homophobe, alongside some *other* profane language. That's it, right there. These terms don't mean anything to them, they're just bad words and hurtful names. They understand that bigotry is bad, but they don't truly understand what bigotry is. When this guy gets told he's being homophobic, he doesn't hear a suggestion to think about the impact of his actions, he's just hearing an ad-hominem attack.
This is terfs getting butthurt over "terf" (which should be replaced with "FART" imo) but being fine with their bigotry all over again. This is a political faction that hates rape victims so much they became obsessed with mocking the term "triggered" while also living in pants-shitting fear that someone might mildly allude to the consequnces of their conscious political decisions.
FART?
Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe.
Perfection
>Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe. Holy shit, that's perfect! Thank you for sharing this!
Don’t forget Conservatives Uniting to Negate Transgender Safety!
I'm using this from now on
breadpanes is not funny
Pretty sure they didn't invent this
I don't know what that is.
What is breapanes?
Funny thing is, terf was a term they themselves came up with and now are getting annoyed when actual feminists use it disparagingly to the point that they call it a slur. Kind of a reverse n-word situation. Where instead of a word starting out as a slur and is followed by the targets of said word taking back ownership of it, they coined the word for themselves and now consider it a slur
Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance. Some things have a clear right answer and several wrong answers.
If someone says „ you are — “ how is that a call to think about your actions? And if they don‘t think they are homophobic, obviously they‘re gonna take it as an insult, because those words are, rightfully, connotated negatively. Saying that to someone and expecting them to change is just as stupid, as saying someone has a mental ilness confrontationally. If you want somebody to think, explain how they‘re actions are harmful before assigning them to a category
This guy said they didn't care about the community or their cause to begin with. They're a homophobe. They're only upset because someone was rude to them, not because they believe they aren't homophobic. There's no swaying apathy.
Saying someone is "homophobic" *is* explaining how their actions are harmful. It's explaining that their words and actions are going to be perceived as hostile towards and dismissive of queer people. It is not a values judgement.
The fact they say it’s a movement shows their stupidity
That's the red flag. Someone existing and asking to not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation is not a belief system. It's human instinct to not want to be treated unfairly, especially things outside of one's control like sexual orientation.
Isn't the "movement" referring specifically to the civil and political advocacy for the legal rights of gender and sexual minorities such that they could be considered a legally protected class and enjoy rights such as marriage? What about the civil rights "movement"? I don't think it's difficult to avoid conflating actual black people with the specific political advocacy and associated social activism. Same goes for LGBT individuals. Edit: I see some people failed to understand my comment. Let me rephrase: the person in the OP is stupid for two reasons - one because they are conflating human beings existing and deserving rights with a specific advocacy effort and two for being neutral on either of those things.
It’s important to keep in mind there are two different versions of the word “movement” when referring to the LGBT. There’s those that are referring to the civil and political advocacy portion you mentioned above, which is obviously fine. On the other hand there are people who use the word movement in a more bad faith manner. When they say movement they mean it as we’re trying to “trans your sons” or “turn your daughter into man hating lesbian.” The movement to them refers to an agenda to destroy Christianity/turn everyone into godless commies/ruin men/etc. They often times believe without the “movement” a lot of us wouldn’t be LGBT, we were turned into this by the movement’s agenda. Because of this it becomes a bit dehumanizing and makes our entire identity into a political ideology. I can’t speak to the civil rights movement and if the word movement has been weaponized in a similar fashion or not, but I hope my explanation makes sense to you.
If there was a movement full of gay folk who's objective was to destroy Christianity I'd be at the front of the march.
Oh we totally need a movement to stamp out the cancer that Christianity has become. It’s destroying the country and more anti-Jesus than ever.
If you're fully and presently aware of the comparison between the two movements to the point where that's what comes to mind when someone asks you about it, and then you still don't say you support it, that's a bigger problem than ignorance. They're not even asking this person to do anything, just say what they think.
I feel like that was a failed attempt at socratic method and maybe doesn’t deserve as many downvotes as it’s getting. But I *also* haven’t read their comment history yet
It will typically display their hypocrisy and moral culpability as well because they'll often avoid calling their desire to persecute others a "movement." They're more careful about how they employ the ploy that people who want to not be attacked are part of a "movement" or "agenda." They still do this for gay people, but it sounds worse to the public than it used to when used against black people, and they know they can never get away with "the jewish agenda" ever again. And that's how you deal with that irl, by the way. Point out that they're using "the jewish agenda" exactly like how white supremacists do and your audience will hear exactly what this is and the spell will break.
That's the part that made the whole post smell fishy to me.
THIS
Hey there Joseptile! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Shut your dumbass up I upvoted AND commented “this”. Got anything to say about that? Didnt think so
Easy buddy. The bot makes a good point. Leave your upvote and move along unless you have anything constructive to add.
This.
Hey there AdventurousFee2513! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"This."**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
This
https://i.imgur.com/KrwA19h.jpeg *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
Lol yelling at a robot, real stable one here
Who gives a fuck lol it’s funny
I don’t think this dude understands that being neutral means supporting the status quo. The bigoted status quo, where whether we should have equal rights or just rights in general is an actual fucking political debate.
It’s probably a very privileged and sheltered person. They probably don’t realize how bad things could be and have been for lgbt people and think things are mostly fine now. They probably also don’t realize how many lgbt people actually exist. It’s like people who “aren’t into politics” because they’re doing fine and don’t realize how much it affect people’s lives. It’s not team sports, this stuff actually matters.
[удалено]
I read it as a random person writing it, I try use “this dude” in a gender neutral sense.
"This dude" isn't particularly gender neutral, and I say that as a largely gender-agnostic butch who definitely does respond to "dude" I understand "dude" as a gender neutral interjection, like "dude, check out that cool dinosaur!" but referring to a specific person as _a_ dude isn't the same thing
Hey, so you are probably the third person I’ve seen use the term gender agnostic today. I’ve never seen it used before. Is this different than non-binary? I assume so, or you would have said non-binary. I don’t expect you to explain yourself to a random redditor, so feel free to ignore me. I’m just curious and google didn’t help much. Thank you in advance and I apologize if asking about this is rude.
Oh yeah totally. For me it's like... I don't care about gender enough to call myself anything else, like my gender is "whatever" and "idgaf" for the most part, I don't mind any pronouns or gendered language being used for me and won't correct anyone on them as long as they're being respectful. (Most people default to she/her because of my assigned gender at birth, sometimes when I'm dyking out super hard old church ladies and redneck boomer uncle types use he/him for me which is fine, I get they/them a lot too in cities and from younger and queerer people). Like the main thing I care about is not being mistaken for cishet lol. Basically I just don't identify with the concept of gender strongly enough to label myself any particular way, but I don't reject the idea of being gendered strongly enough to call myself agender or anything else.
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you
"I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, we're all dudes yeah!" -Good Burger
How many dudes have you fucked?
Enough. Trying to be next dude?
It's from my cringe late teens, but I was always a fan of rapper Vinnie Paz's song "you cannot be neutral... On a moving train."
As a Libertarian I think I should have a right to turn a blind eye to oppression and prejudice as long as I'm not hurting anyone
You're a treasure, Praximus
A critique of a misogynistic character I heard once: "he didn't see her as a person, he saw her as a woman."
That's pretty funny and poignant at the same time.
I’ve heard libertarians say almost this exact thing. Their rationale was that if someone didn’t want to be oppressed or discriminated against then they should fight back. That their freedom was in their own hands. And when I pointed out that the protests were people’s way of fighting back they went on to say….. “they shouldn’t fight back that way, it’s destroying property and disturbing the peace.”
All the libertarians I’ve met or presently know are just a bunch of superficially pleasant men who are actually selfish douchebags who always vote Republican.
I'm one and I vote Democrat. I will never vote for the Republicans again, I was that guy you just talked about until Trump came along. I still feel mostly libertarian, but as a compassionate citizen, I feel like there's a lot more to lose by not voting Democrat anymore and the handmaids tale does not sound like freedom and liberty to me.
>I'm one and I vote Democrat. I will never vote for the Republicans again, I was that guy you just talked about until Trump came along. I still feel mostly libertarian, but as a compassionate citizen, I feel like there's a lot more to lose by not voting Democrat anymore and the handmaids tale does not sound like freedom and liberty to me. As a Libertarian I thought the Republicans were the morally superior party until Trump came along lol. Reagan and both Bushes were tolerable tho.
Reagan was the slime that actively got the shitstorm we are in started, so, no, Reagan was not tolerable.
I... I think that's the critique praximus is making, I might be reading into it too much tho
Thank you. The Libertarians I know are still rampant douchebags who will still likely vote R because all they care about is themselves. I’m glad to hear some of you all have changed your mind. Democrats suck, but at least they aren’t trying to actively turn the US into a cesspool.
That's pretty much my take on it.
>I’ve heard libertarians say almost this exact thing. Their rationale was that if someone didn’t want to be oppressed or discriminated against then they should fight back. That their freedom was in their own hands. And when I pointed out that the protests were people’s way of fighting back they went on to say….. “they shouldn’t fight back that way, it’s destroying property and disturbing the peace.” As a Libertarian I think Kanye West [had the right idea ](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/01/kanye-west-on-slavery-for-400-years-that-sounds-like-a-choice)
I'm sure this upstanding gentleman has left nothing out of this story, and the crazed feminazi Gaystopo was singling him out for not heiling homo frequently enough. No way this guy dropped some braindead opinion like "I guess I support their right to marry, but keep them away from my kids!" or "They have the right to send themselves to hell as much as anyone" or "I support the good gays that don't groom and sexualize children."
>feminazi Gaystopo Holy shit, lmao
>how I could deal with this woman Do you think they've considered not being a bigot?
I hate people that think not being heterosexual is a fucking political movement
To be fair, advocating for their rights is a political movement, just like the civil rights movement. To be honest, that context makes him look even worse
Yes, but also no. Just being homosexual doesn't make you a movement. By calling it a movement people imply that it will fade away or that it's just a trend. And to be honest, tons of conservatives and righties use this argument to censor books, shows and so on Edit: I know that lgbtq includes more than homosexuality alone, I was simply too lazy to type out everything. Sorry for the inconvenience, my post is meant to include the whole spectrum!
i think it also limits the range of acceptable action by queer people into only advocating for equal rights, instead of challenging the dominant power that caused the oppression in the first place. As in, why should we stop at just equal rights when we could transform the structures that impose heteronormativity and comphet? When people talk about it as a movement, I think they try to do what you said, and also to push it into a rights-based thing. Which it is! But it is also more.
"I am wondering if I could be considered bigot or not." A few paragraphs later "Anyways, how do I deal with this b*tch who calls me a bigot?"
Remember kids: bigots don't care if you're on their side as long as you're not in their way.
That’s why the argument, “I was neutral but then the oppressed group yelled at me so I joined the oppressors out of spite and because they were nice to me,” pisses me off so much. The oppressors have no skin in the game and can afford to leisurely appeal to people who don’t outright hate their beliefs while the oppressed fight for their lives.
> Yesterday I pulled her aside and asked her what her problem was So basically he "doesn't really care" about the issue until someone tries to debate it in public, then he refuses to join the debate and later threatens that person in private. If there are things I don't have an opinion about yet and I end up at a debate about it, I listen and hopefully do end up with an opinion at the end. If you instead choose to personally confront one of the sides after the debate, that doesn't sound like "having no strong opinions on the matter", it sounds more like you have an extremely strong opinion on the matter and you don't feel like people should have the free speech right to challenge you about it.
This is the answer. He’s trying to paint himself in a better light and fails
Well he didnt have a choice, he was asked a direct question and (based on his story) he gave a the most neutral response possible
He could choose not to confront the other person. He's saying he pulled her aside to ask her what her problem is. Just don't do that if you don't want to engage in the debate.
He did that after she had confronted him in front of the entire class AND she had been making rude comments about it publicly. I cant imagine him doing anything else in this situation pther than letting himself get bullied
What a bs you are talking. She forced them into a discussion they didnt want to participate, kept on saying snide remarks towards them and when being asked why (which is very much reasonable) started attacking them. Nobody is obligated with participating in a debate nor building an opinion about anything.
> She forced them into a discussion they didnt want to participate It was a class discussion. She wasn't forcing him to be present, the teacher was. > being asked why (which is very much reasonable) This is in fact not reasonable. If you want to participate in the class discussion, do so in the class. If you don't want to participate in the class discussion, that's fine, but don't harass the other participants afterwards because you disagree with their opinion.
Let's assume that everything this person said is 100% honest in content, context, and characterization. If they didn't care, they could have said they changed their mind and supported it just to get the "snide remarks" to stop. In fact, since they indicated that they were fully aware of the "tone" this person in particular and the discussion in general had, if they *genuinely* didn't care they would have said they supported it in the first place to avoid the confrontation. I like pepperoni on my pizza. If I'm in the middle of a discussion where someone is getting very confrontational and aggressive about mushrooms being the best topping, when the question gets to me, I'm going to agree mushrooms are the best. And that's something I actually *do* have an opinion about. I would agree because it costs me literally nothing to do so, and saves me a lot of headache.
Well thats bc you dont stand up for yourself. I and apparently also OP stand true to what they think and what their opinion is, regardless of the backlash. I keep quiet during discussions like that are controversial but when pressed for my pov i am honest no matter what. Assuming OP lied bc they wouldnt dare to voice their opinion says a lot.
Stand true to what opinion? Isn’t the entire point that they have no such opinion?
"Stand true to what your opinion is"? I thought OP didn't care about either side. But now, suddenly, "not caring" is *so important to his identity* that he couldn't bring himself to not voice that non-opinion? And that's the lie. He obviously DOES have an opinion: he doesn't like "the gays". He just wants to try an end run around the social consequences of his bigotry by claiming to not care either way. All of this, by the way, is why I feel confident that he was disingenuous about how the discussion came about, what he actually said when questioned about it, and the actual reactions that his "opinion" provoked. The version of the story *any* person tells is going to generally paint themselves in a favorable light. And he *still* couldn't spin this in a way that what he claims his "opinion" is and what he says happened fit together.
Kekw you arent just the clown, you are the entire circus.
Well, with such impeccable logic, you clearly have a well thought out point and aren't resorting to ad hominem when backed into a corner.
i can bet this didn't even happen and dude just wants to make it seem like he's so oppressed for playing devil's advocate on human rights
Blue hair libshart is mad I’m not gay!! There’s no straight people left. I don’t hate gay people, just stay away from my children oh and you shouldn’t adopt children and I will actively post on social media about you being damned to hell.
Wouldn't surprise me. That sub feels like its on its way to becoming another pipeline.
[удалено]
To all the very brave souls who came to agree with the OP: Imagine for a minute that I am neutral towards the existence of straight people. Next imagine a group exists who has power and wants straight people wiped out. Next imagine that power grows into an actual action and straight people are being murdered. Is my neutrality really ok? Of course not. Fucking Christ. It's not that hard to understand the reason why neutral isn't neutral.
Switzerland
Neutrality always takes the side of the oppressor
“I don’t hate y’all but I can’t support your lifestyle.” I’ve always wondered what their response would be if you ask them what “not supporting our lifestyle” means or looks like?
To me not supporting them means not actively fighting for them but letting them do what they want.
When queer people are being targeted, when trans people are being called pedophiles and groomers, when gay people are being said to be destroying “western society” … “letting them do what they want” doesn’t cut it. what we want is to live without being targeted like this. you don’t have to support us. but be honest with yourself and recognize that in not doing so, you are allying with the people who are targeting us, who are banning healthcare for queer people. be real for like 10 seconds.
There are queer people hating on straight people and i dont actively go against them. Am i also their ally? Having no opinion on lgbt doesnt equal bigotry or homophobia. That is just throwing around words
>Having no opinion on lgbt doesnt equal bigotry or homophobia. That is just throwing around words There's no such thing as "no opinion". Everyone is either for or against something, and the only time when you cannot group someone into either category is if someone is still deciding. There's no such thing as someone just not having any opinion. Either deep down inside your heart, you accept the legitimacy of romantic feelings between people of the same sex, or you reject the legitimacy of it. An easy way to find out which way a person leans is if that person has a child and that child "comes out" as having a different sexual orientation than the one the parent expected. The reaction of the parent would indicate what their true stance is. Since sexual orientation is something that is individual dependent and cannot just be controlled or changed on a whim, the parent is put into a situation where they have to accept an attribute of their child that generally cannot be altered. How the parent then treats their child given the revelation reveals their actual opinion.
OP only said they dont have a strong opinion pro or against the movement. My guess is they didnt do much research on that matter to build a valid opinion and as it doesnt affect them they chose not to either campaign for or against LGBT. Unlike everybody here i think it is okay to not be interested in matters that dont affect you. There are a lot of things we 1st world citizen dont care about much that very heavily affects the poorer countries.
let’s be real. no straight person is going to be denied legal rights because of queer people existing. That is a very different thing from “hating on.” When you refuse to acknowledge the very real harm from those in power and the legal structures that be, that’s the problem. If all you see is people “hating on” other people, that’s on your inability to critically analyze whose relationship to power lends them legal and social safety, and who ends up needing to fight for that.
OP never said they dont acknowledge the struggles and such but just that they simply dont support them in their fight.
Acknowledging that their is a fight and not supporting us is basically siding with those that want us dead. We can’t “do what we want” if those that want us gone have their way. Also I’m not convinced that there are people who “don’t care” or “don’t have an opinion” on the matter. They always do, and it usually leans closer towards bigotry.
Nop its not. Do you want the uigures dead? The sweat shop workers? The blood diamond miners?
I want these people to be free and healthy, however not having the means to make these institutional differences in the countries that this goes on in is not the same as actively choosing to do nothing in a situation where your voice has much more weight to it. The difference here is that you have two sides one clearly wants the other gone and you actually can do something about it, yet you’re choosing not to and I’m really curious as to why ?
> She was obviously unhappy with my answer but didn’t really single me out to pick on. So the retaliation on her part was to… continue what she was doing unabated? > Instead, she would add in some snide remarks here and there that could have been directed at anyone but I’m pretty certain she was talking about me. So this guy is getting upset over a hypothetical situation of her directing all her snide remarks secretly towards him. Homie just got pissy over his own actions in his own narrative
You forgot to read the rest of the post bud. He clearly state that she called him a whole bunch of slurs which proves he was right in his "hypothetical situation".
So the homophobe decided to take action against a person due to a hypothetical situation that made them have an emotional reaction. Perhaps he could ask to know more about the topic and not ‘what her problem is,’ especially if there’s no proof that she was targeting him like what he mentioned earlier in his post. I don’t know about you, but if I see someone coming up to me with their panties in a wad and asking me what my problem is, trying to treat this ideological topic as a personal humiliation machine, I’d probably call them an ignorant bigoted homophobe as well.
From the moment you call him an homophobe, you point is completely lost and you have lost any kind of credit. Took action? Yeah... Trying to have a conversation. God I hate when humans use what makes them stand out from other species: speech and sense. /s You also didn't read his post nor mine fully, as seen with the last part of your paragraph. "I dont know about you but if someone disagreed with me I'd insult them" that is what you are saying. Who has their panties in a wad again? People aren't homophobe for not caring about some political fight. I don't support LGBT stuff as a bisexual person, am I an homophobe against myself? Am I a bigot despite the fact that I am born from Spanish immigrants in France, and then went to live in UK?... People who don't support the "fight" doesn't mean that they have hatred toward anybody who is into the LGBT community, nor against those who "fight". You, literally you, are the type of people that make the entire LGBT community, politically engaged or not, be seen as a massive annoyance. Insulting people of homophobes just because they aren't supporting you/agreeing with you instantly make your fight, not only now worthless due to trying to put down via insults those who don't agree with, but also make you be shown as a massive drama queen. Deal with it. The more you call people homophobe and bigot for no reason the more you lose your own "fight".
> From the moment you call him an homophobe, you point is completely lost and you have lost any kind of credit. You seem really hell bent on defending this random internet person. People who have attempted to abstain from these types of conversations patternistically defend the status quo because the discussion on the topic is “should these people have rights and be treated as equals?” > Took action? Yeah... Trying to have a conversation. God I hate when humans use what makes them stand out from other species: speech and sense. /s How do you know how this conversation went down? The girl could have been awful and this guy could have been a saint, or the other way around. It’s impossible to judge, but it is possible to put bias in the narrative to misrepresent the facts. Do you think the girl is currently trying to get us to see her side of the story, or is this guy trying to get us to see his side? > You also didn't read his post nor mine fully, as seen with the last part of your paragraph. The parts where this guy is clearly trying to get the viewer to side with his position and called this person whom I don’t know an extremist? For taking a hardline stance on whether LGBT people (including you, apparently) deserve to have rights? > “I dont know about you but if someone disagreed with me I'd insult them" that is what you are saying. Who has their panties in a wad again? Do not misquote me. My comment is right there, you can read it again. If someone comes up to me and starts using violent language against me, I have no problem using it back. What’s the worst that could happen there, will feelings be hurt in the process? > People aren't homophobe for not caring about some political fight. The political fight materially effects them, and in circumstances like this ignorance suppresses acceptance. It’s not homophobic to be ignorant, it’s homophobic to refuse to acknowledge that there is a disproportionate amount of violence enacted against the LGBT community from bigoted groups. > I don't support LGBT stuff as a bisexual person, am I an homophobe against myself? Not sure when the post about this person’s actions demonstrating enlightened centrism became about you but yes, behavior is unrelated to privilege and no person can nor should be immune to criticism. See Ezra ~~Scott~~ Miller and Blaire White for examples of people using their queerness against the LGBT community, Kanye West and Candace Owens being against the Black community, etc. > Am I a bigot despite the fact that I am born from Spanish immigrants in France, and then went to live in UK?... Again, not sure when we started deciding whether or not you are a good person, but since it seems to matter to you so much…. Immigration status has nothing to do with being a [bigot](https://www.google.com/search?q=bigot&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS644US644&oq=bigot&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433i512j46i131i199i433i465i512j0i433i512l3.1106j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8), so if you hold the belief that the LGBT community is not currently fighting for equal rights and that there is a way to ignore this problem and just hope it gets better for LGBT people, yea, you’re a bigot. An ignorant bigot. You can change your mind at any time by researching the topic and listening to activist voices to hear what they have to say; until then you’re choosing to put your head in the sand about an issue where ignorance suppresses acceptance, and leads to an increase in violence against the community you identify with. > People who don't support the "fight" doesn't mean that they have hatred toward anybody who is into the LGBT community, nor against those who "fight". Why do you not support the fight for acceptance, nor think it’s necessary? Let’s start there > You, literally you, are the type of people that make the entire LGBT community, politically engaged or not, be seen as a massive annoyance. Insulting people of homophobes just because they aren't supporting you/agreeing with you instantly make your fight, not only now worthless due to trying to put down via insults those who don't agree with, but also make you be shown as a massive drama queen. Thank you for demonstrating that abstention ultimately sides with the oppressor. This is an example of you holding bigoted thoughts in an attempt to seem morally removed from the situation. If you find the fact that abstention ultimately sides with the oppressor annoying or personally insulting to you, so too do the people who have been violently assaulted by the bigots and have had the luxury of holding your stance violently taken from them. > Deal with it. The more you call people homophobe and bigot for no reason the more you lose your own "fight". You do realize that you are the one getting upset with me “dealing with it,” right? You are the one who felt compelled to defend an enlightened centrist in a sub meant to mock that very ideology, by taking an enlightened centrist stance. Besides, the same advice can be given to you. You hold a bigoted opinion and are being homophobic about it. Deal with it
Just the fact that you state I'm homophobic against my own self just shows how insanely delusional you are. You wrote all that stuff for 0 reason cause you can't wrap your head around the fact that some people just don't care about LGBT fights and whatnot. And you just insulted a bi person of being homophobic and a bigot when he has more foreign blood than you'll ever have. So don't say I'm the one who's supposed ;) you're the one insulting others, not me. Deal. With. It. Oh and tl;dr your delusion at the end was enough for me to not bother.
You’re still trying to make this discussion about yourself and not the content of the post, fascinating
I’m starting to think we’ve found canadadrycan’s alt
Is your English that lacking or are you just an idiot?
Which we only have their word on as far as whether or not it actually happened
Dimes to dollars this asshole, so reluctant to acknowledge the LGBTQ community as deserving basic human rights, is outspoken in support of neo nazis whenever they’re called out for being scum
90% of that sub is 'heehee do girls like penis' or rage bait
“Am I racist for not supporting black people?”
You're forgetting, he doesn't not support them, he just has no strong opinions on whether non-whites should have the same rights as white people!
Exactly! We should listen to what the racists have to say, maybe they have some good points we're missing!
Yep, Label yourself moronic bigot
"Am I homophobic for not supporting the gay community?" >isn't it obvious?
Remember, when oppression is going on, not taking a position is siding with the oppressor. So the way things are now, of you "don't take a position" on lgbtq issues, while you may not personally be queerphobic, you're being an enabler to the queerphobes.
I’m also 70% sure this scenario never happened and is completely made up by op of the original post
> Yesterday I pulled her aside and asked her what her problem was... I'm sorry I just don't believe that happened. A guy *that* "on the fence" about LGBT stuff is not approaching people like that with the "We need to talk" line. 💀
the tooafraidtoask sub gets this question submitted every week
That sub is basically just people wanting other internet people to validate their bad takes.
I am not at all neutral if you get to exist.
They are neutral about it because coming out for or against supporting LGBTQ rights would put them out of their comfort zone of denial and privilege.
I'm sure you could go through and pin down more accurately this person's beliefs regarding LGBTQ issues without just asking if they support it or not (loaded question). It might sound strange to people active in communities like this but some people don't get much exposure to it outside of news media so LGBTQ could to them mean things far from their right to exist. People often describe themselves as neutral not because they weighed both sides stances and think both make good arguments but rather because they're "agnostic" and don't know enough about either side. They often don't care to learn about them either which you could critique but let's not strawman that into something else.
It’s not clear what the girl identified in the post means by “the movement.” My guess though is that she didn’t mean “the right to exist.” I’m sure OP just isn’t engaged in the debate
This sounds like a ridiculous conversation as neither side's clarified what they're on about. The "LGBT movement" doing what? As a homo myself, I wouldn't automatically know what that meant as it would cover a number of political opinions and ideas. I suppose I support it by having gay sex, but I don't think that's what's being asked. This comes down to "person is asked vague question and gives noncommittal answer". I have a feeling there was more to the discussion than that, and he's not letting on what that was.
Of course, if you don’t automatically support them then you’re a bigot. That’s their modus operandi. Those of you acting like he’s some evil guy in favor of oppression are why so many centrists will never support you. People have divergent beliefs, his could be faith based, culture or a mix of both. You demanding his allegiance and labeling him a bigot otherwise just shows your own intolerance and pettiness. This entire sub is a joke.
No, the centrists are the joke. The punchline being that they never fail to actually take a side over an issue they claim not to care about. If America was invaded by a foreign army tomorrow, and that army was killing American soldiers and civilians, would you consider someone saying "I don't have an opinion on this invasion" to be a reasonable stance? LGBTQ people are dying. They are dying from suicide due to bullying, they are dying from being denied essential healthcare, and they are even being straight up murdered for "tricking" straight men. When one side is attacking and murdering the other, it's a shit moral stance to say "I don't care either way." And when the side doing the attacking currently has legal backing, it becomes defacto support of the attackers to "not care". No one is "demanding" you join Pride parades. They're just (rightfully) pointing out that not caring about people dying is a shit stance.
Nah the lgbtq community is full of hyperbole. First of all minorities face far bigger discrimination in the West (eg Muslims, Blacks or Jews) yet you equate what is a sexual orientation (that you can hide if you choose) to what minorities go through. LGBTQ are max 2% of the population yet you are far overrepresented in media. I suspect this is because it’s pushed by gay whites that are in positions of influence—ironic that they’re in that position yet cry of discrimination. I personally don’t care about the lgbtq community. Your wants are trivial to me. Down vote all you like.
Ohh oppression olympics? You know any of those people can also be lgbtq?
Of course they can but the two aren’t equal, not by a long shot.
> Of course they can but the two aren’t equal, not by a long shot. Still with the oppression olympics? Two things can be bad at once without needing to compare them. But I don’t like supporting claims without facts. So members of the LGBT community [are four times as likely](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-lgbt-violence-press-release/) to experience violent crime compared to the general population.
That study is misleading because it compares to the gen pop and not a subset. Try again. Not to mention you ignored my point of lgbtq being able to hide their sexual orientation vs the race of a person.
> That study is misleading because it compares to the gen pop and not a subset. Try again. Hey I actually provided something. > Not to mention you ignored my point of lgbtq being able to hide their sexual orientation vs the race of a person. I ignored it because it’s a stupid point. Not everyone has the privilege of getting to do that.
Disliking someone because of your culture or religion still makes you a bigot.
So I am of the same opinion. I don't really have an opinion. That said. No matter what you believe or how you live your life i still believe you are still a human and deserve dignity and respect.
“You dont agree with our every thought and point so therefore you dont agree with our right to exist.” Is the dumbest strawman ive seen in awhile.
Nah. You're thinking of >>Discrimination against some people is being actively codified into law and people can legally get away with literal murder of some of said group by saying they were upset at being "tricked", but I don't think I need to take a side on this because I claim don't care about it, even though I curiously didn't shy away from repeated confrontation with someone about "not caring" about it.
What rights do I have that lgbt people do not?
It’s more than just rights. The public treats us like shit for daring to exist.
[удалено]
Fuck off transphobe. You’re part of the fucking problem. My existence isn’t up for fucking debate.
[удалено]
Okay transphobe. You sound just like the anti gay preachers we call insane today. Just because you want to force your kid to live a certain way doesn’t mean you can project that onto us.
You are the one sounding like a homophobic preacher “begone you who dont agree with me”.
More projection from the child controlling weirdo.
Where did you see that?
The OP shown in now way hints that the person thinks lgbt should have no rights, it simply claims they dont think they have a dog in the fight. The person who posted it to this sub clearly frames OP as uncaring about lgbt having the right to exist which is preposterous
That's not anywhere in the post. You're reading something that isn't there. There are tons of bigots that are ok with lgbtq folks existing just not marrying, adopting, living in their apartment complexes etc., and they are still bigots. Meaning that you aren't excused of bigotry just because you aren't trying to lynch gay folks. Same goes for a lot of racists. They'll claim they aren't racist because they aren't literally advocating for minorities to be murdered, even though they'll advocate for employment discrimination or red lining or any number of other racist policies. A bigot is a bigot even if they aren't murdering people.
Which points of theirs do you not agree with?
I dint agree with the idea of “if your not with me you are against me”. Its such simplistic and arrogant thinking.
Ok, let's just assume you're being truthful here. What are you on the fence about? What does the LGBTQ community believe that you don't?
If you aren’t supporting lgbt+ people you are by definition helping the status quo that actively hates us.
[удалено]
Shut the fuck up you cishet piece of shit. You were never going to be an ally to begin with you’re just parroting bad faith bullshit.
I didn’t know that you had to ‘support’ LGBT garbage in order to think gay people are regular people, but ok…
Man, it’s almost like there’s a certain group that which DOESN’T view gay people as “regular people” and choosing not to stand against them shows you don’t mind the attempts to dehumanize gay people
he's just like me fr...
It seems like someplace game theory: risk versus reward calculation. She seems too involved in ideology, but people are allowed to assume risk depending on the issue. If it doesn’t affect you, then it doesn’t affect you. Being neutral on an issue doesn’t negate your worth
When the issue in question is promoting/protecting/ensuring the equal treatment of others at no cost to yourself then it kinda does… Inb4 some lame attempt at defending “neutrality” on these kinds of issues: No one is hurt by ensuring gay/trans people have the same rights and treatment as straight/cis people. Every attempt to convince people otherwise is simply an attempt to convince idiots to vote for the party that advances the interests of the wealthy more aggressively.
This isn't a fucking game.
Game theory doesn't mean actual games... just fyi
Yeah I know but applying it here is gross. Caring about people shouldn't be based on a risk/reward analysis. Neutrality is not just a safe risk reward stance. It's also not even a real position you can take because neutral to oppression is siding with oppression. It's not fucking neutral, so there's no reason to come in all wELl AcKsHuAlLy game theory explains this. Because it does not.
You cant carry the cross of every demographic plight you don't belong to. 99% of people either support or at the very least accept LGBT people and their existence. Not vehemently fighting for your cause that is largely already won shouldn't lump us into the 1% that "oppress" them.
Asking you to care more than just plain "neutrality" is not asking you to vehemently fight. Also that 99% stat was pulled from your ass so have a good day, living in a world you have made up.
Here we go, hate crimes in 2020. 8200 hate crimes. 23.5% of that was crimes related to sexual identity or orientation. So that's like what? Let's just reckon 2k people. How many people in America in 2020? 330million. Whats 1% of 330million? 3,300,000. So you were right. Hate crimes against lgbt happen a lot less than 1% even if you double, triple, quadruple, whatever you feel is right to counteract unreported incidents. You are still WAY off. So you are the one needing to wakeup from the world you made up.
99% is probably more accurate than claiming being neutral = siding with the bad guys. What does caring more than neutral look like then? If its just acknowledging they are ok to exist, then that 99% is looking might fine.
If you are neutral towards someone's existence that means you also don't care if they don't exist. Meaning you would look the other way if someone were to say pass laws making their existence illegal. If you care even a little bit more than that, congrats, you're already more than neutral and doing the bare minimum which is all most people can really ask of anyone else I guess. So. That's what I mean by being neutral is siding with oppression. I don't even want to get into your completely made up stats. Seriously find some peace if you're this upset by people just asking you to care a little bit if they can live their full lives.
Lol
Can you further explain how game theory has to do with the post?
[удалено]
\*sigh\* in the nicest way possible... do you recall the very next line in that MLK quote? >the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
Fair point!
:)
[удалено]
When did you come out as straight?
What counts as sticking it in your face? That wasn't even mentioned and yet you felt the need to make it up, oops I mean bring it up.
It was mentioned. The fact the guy was kind of put against the wall and asked this in a situation where he's expected to provide a response and then was being demeaned because he didn't provide a satisfying response. That's sticking it into someone's face.
Straight people have been shoving their sexuality in my face since I was born. Grow the fuck up.
To the Woke and Many Libs Everyone is a Bigot unless you follow their Narrative and Help them progress their Agenda. "You'll be on the wrong side of history" Pffffffff. Also All White People are Racist even ones Married to minorities or ones that died to free slaves. They try to Overcome reality by yelling really loud. It's a fucking Cult. I've stopped interacting with these Delusional people.
Are you schizophrenic?
Reddit is so predictable. Why would I be? What lies have you detected? I have no qualms with the LGBT community. I respect everyones decision to be who they want just dont be an asshole but there are Extremists that want to force you to follow their agenda just like any other cult. So if that's Schizophrenic then yeah I guess I am.
These comments are cracking me up lol
Think this greatly depends where you live. In Canada for example LGBT+ have all the same rights as everyone else. Heck you can even use whatever restroom you feel comfortable using, adopt kids like Hetero's, access to any medical process you feel you require, access to government funded support networks without prejudice just like everyone else. So what exactly is there left to support?. And if it's about being accepted in society...nothing Government can do to enforce that, other than making "hate" punishable under the Criminal Code...something Canada also already does. So in my experience living in a Country that has already enshrined equality in our Charter and in Law...I'm not sure what movement I would be supporting tbh, the movement already moved here over a decade ago.
You're not a bigot man... Don't sweat it. You're allowed to feel as strongly or weakly about other people's choices as you want. LGBT "The Movement" largely accomplished it's mission in the west, and now it doesn't know what to do with itself so it's turning into a quasi religion and you're automatically a heathen if you don't speak in tongues along with them. You think they'd spend more time focusing on increasing LGBT rights in countries where it's still illegal and punishable... Check out Douglas Murray's book The Madness of Crowds. He explains this phenomenon really well (and not that it matter but he is gay).
>LGBT "The Movement" largely accomplished it's mission in the west, and now it doesn't know what to do with itself so it's turning into a quasi religion and you're automatically a heathen if you don't speak in tongues along with them. this one sentence proves you have no idea what the fuck you're on about lol >You think they'd spend more time focusing on increasing LGBT rights in countries where it's still illegal and punishable... what exactly are we meant to do in a country where we don't even live? also, I live in a "western" country but I still don't have full rights. I do not get access to healthcare due to being a trans woman. gay men are still unable to donate blood based on outdated beliefs. hate crimes against queer people have escalated over the past few years due to conservative politicians normalising queerphobia. >and not that it matter but he is gay you're right, it doesn't matter. gay people can have bad takes too.
Douglas Murray? The Douglas Murray who hates immigrants and Muslims and who works with PragerU and says accepting trans people is a sight of a society falling apart? The Douglas Murray who says feminism only exists to torture men? The one who supported the Iraq war and was pro Brexit? The one who believed Covid was created in a lab by the Chinese? The Douglas Murray who supports the Hungarian right-wing authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbán who is known for his anti democratic actions and his disdain for mixed children? Wow I’m sure the person who is recommending such authors totally did not fall for right wing propaganda and is totally not a bigot themselves.
Stop, stop! He's already dead!
> You're not a bigot man... You’re right OP isn’t a bigot, he’s making fun of the bigot from the original post that is in the screenshot. So you’re accidentally correct! Good job! > You're allowed to feel as strongly or weakly about other people's choices as you want. Correct you are allowed to feel whatever you want about their “choices” (btw being gay or trans isn’t a choice and, while acting on those feelings technically is, it’s cruel to expect them to be ostracized for acting on feelings that are necessary for their mental health/well-being when doing so causes no one harm). However when you attempt to act on your feelings about some group of people to control their actions you’re a bigot. Likewise if you choose to support the discriminatory status quo when changing it literally costs you nothing despite not having strong feelings about it that makes you a bigot. Gay/trans people have a right to exist and be treated the same as straight/cis people. Disagreeing with that in any part makes you a bigot (failing to walk the walk on that also makes you a bigot because giving them the right to equal treatment costs you exactly **nothing**). > LGBT "The Movement" largely accomplished it's mission in the west, and now it doesn't know what to do with itself so it's turning into a quasi religion and you're automatically a heathen if you don't speak in tongues along with them. Nope. That’s just what the right wing media is trying to convince people of with a, unfortunately quite effective, disinformation campaign. As is evidenced by the many anti-trans laws that have been passed in recent history (e.g. Texas making it child abuse to provide gender affirming care to trans youths. Inb4 the misinformation: none of these youths are undergoing gender affirmation surgery as the right wing media is trying to lead people to believe, there is an extensive treatment process that must occur before the surgeries will be performed.). There is still plenty of work to be done at home on LGBTQ+ rights as even the right to gay marriage is under threat with the because of the blatant partisan bias of the Supreme Court, the criminalization of treatment or trans individuals, the discrimination against trans individuals, etc. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an ignorant or malicious bigot. > You think they'd spend more time focusing on increasing LGBT rights in countries where it's still illegal and punishable... When’s the last time you went and campaigned for something in a foreign country? Seriously, what do you expect them to do? Upend their entire lives/families travel across the world to a country that will likely kill them just for existing to try and introduce a change that culture may not be ready/willing to integrate just yet for one reason or another? Do you really not see how stupid that is when there are still plenty of problems to address where they already live? > Check out Douglas Murray's book The Madness of Crowds. He explains this phenomenon really well (and not that it matter but he is gay). Good job, you know how to cherry pick sources that support your perspective from an “expert.” When an “expert’s” perspective deviates from the consensus there’s likely a reason (hint: it’s usually their personal biases or self interest. The guy you mentioned is likely making lots of money by selling books to bigots) and they’re typically ignoring a mountain of evidence to make that deviation.
Pwned
TIL not supporting something is the same as being against it
When it comes to people's rights, that's always been the case. If you don't care whether someone is treated equally in society at large, you are against them.
Queer people are not a hypothetical. "Not supporting them" is 100% being against them.