Looks like the other shoe is about to drop in the wake of Dobbs. One step closer to women and black people being declared property again, and being gay illegal. From Thomas's Dobbs concurrence:...
Looks like the other shoe is about to drop in the wake of Dobbs.
One step closer to women and black people being declared property again, and being gay illegal.
From Thomas's Dobbs concurrence:
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Obergefell = Gay marriage
Lawrence = Sodomy
Griswold = Birth control
This attack is on Obergefell. You can bet the others are on the way.
So in other words, this is just them saying gay people are predators? My mind is consistently blown by these attacks. I cannot find the words for how outrageous it is to time and time again that...
So in other words, this is just them saying gay people are predators?
My mind is consistently blown by these attacks. I cannot find the words for how outrageous it is to time and time again that there is evidence that it's them and not the lgbt+ community that is the predators. And yet they still go with this rhetoric. These people are so extremely propagandized as to basically live in a separate reality from the rest of the world.
The worst is it's not limited to the US. These points of views are spilling over to my country too.
If anything, predators are more likely to be in positions of power and trust, as abusing that is the easiest way to exploit others. To be incredibly lazy, the rough road is: Conservativism ==...
If anything, predators are more likely to be in positions of power and trust, as abusing that is the easiest way to exploit others.
To be incredibly lazy, the rough road is:
Conservativism == patriarchal == authoritarian == grooming those you have power over to be more easily abused.
And Christianity is an inheritly patriarchal religion, moreso the more conservative the sect.
It follows then that the distribution of abusers probably has a pattern of patriarchal power. I'd love to study this more.
There are some interesting questions there. Does the distribution of power create or empower latent abusers, or do those predisposed to abuse tend to seek out the power actively in order to...
There are some interesting questions there. Does the distribution of power create or empower latent abusers, or do those predisposed to abuse tend to seek out the power actively in order to acquire victims?
Arguing that the average human being has the same capacity for evil no matter their orientation or expression is missing the forest for the trees when the President of the United States was the...
Arguing that the average human being has the same capacity for evil no matter their orientation or expression is missing the forest for the trees when the President of the United States was the number one patron of pedophile island, and no one in the republican party is doing anything about that, even though they know these facts.
What do you mean? I am hoping you aren't asking a really weirdly worded "question" that is actually a challenge and is in bad faith, so I'm hoping you'll respond.
What do you mean?
I am hoping you aren't asking a really weirdly worded "question" that is actually a challenge and is in bad faith, so I'm hoping you'll respond.
What I’m taking the quoted comment to mean is that the LGBT community is not composed of predators, and that “they” are in fact composed of predators. I’m not totally sure who “they” are but it...
What I’m taking the quoted comment to mean is that the LGBT community is not composed of predators, and that “they” are in fact composed of predators. I’m not totally sure who “they” are but it could be non-LGBT people? Christians maybe? Conservatives? In any case, I’m a bit skeptical of this rhetorical turnaround.
That was a really weird way to ask the question you seem to think you're asking. Have you done any research on the topic? For example there is evidence that sexual offending runs in families. And...
That was a really weird way to ask the question you seem to think you're asking. Have you done any research on the topic?
For example there is evidence that sexual offending runs in families. And there is evidence of it not being evenly distributed by gender. Both suggest that it's not random distribution. And just by numbers, if it were statistically evenly distributed then any population larger than that of queer people will simply have more predators.
All of which means targeting queer folks is nothing but homophobic bunk.
That seems to be addressing something unrelated to what I said. I’m not suggesting that queer people are predisposed to being predators. I’m suggesting that claiming that someone’s political...
That seems to be addressing something unrelated to what I said. I’m not suggesting that queer people are predisposed to being predators. I’m suggesting that claiming that someone’s political leanings predispose someone to being a predator sounds like a claim that should have some sources.
That was a really weird way to ask the question you seem to think you're asking.
It certainly wasn't the statement you made just now. So I don't really think you're asking anything now. Just make the statement next time. You even said "biased toward any particular orientation"...
It certainly wasn't the statement you made just now. So I don't really think you're asking anything now. Just make the statement next time.
You even said "biased toward any particular orientation" not biased toward political leanings. And you asked about random distribution.
If you're skeptical, just say that. If you want to know what "they" means in someone's post, just ask that
But your point was something entirely different than what you "asked." And I answered your question about random distribution. In regards to orientation generally it seems, among men, to match the population.
But if most of say the heritage foundation are men then "they" are broadly statistically more likely to be abusers per capita than queer people are.
By "they" I am referring to the group of people that the article is talking about, "the right is coming for [...]" And yeah about other comment, files = Epstein files. The right are very present...
By "they" I am referring to the group of people that the article is talking about, "the right is coming for [...]"
And yeah about other comment, files = Epstein files. The right are very present in them all the way to the top more than anyone else.
So is there evidence that the right wing has more propensity for being abusers than LGBT people, or for that matter, more than liberals, or any other group? As for the Epstein files, I don’t see...
So is there evidence that the right wing has more propensity for being abusers than LGBT people, or for that matter, more than liberals, or any other group?
As for the Epstein files, I don’t see how observing that a club of straight male abusers of girls is full of straight males is useful.
Well the most infamous pieces of evidence of large scale abusing is 1) Catholic church and 2) Epstein clients. It could be argued the latter is apolitical but I don't really know. However In...
Well the most infamous pieces of evidence of large scale abusing is 1) Catholic church and 2) Epstein clients. It could be argued the latter is apolitical but I don't really know. However In comparison I don't know if I've ever heard of any organized abuse in left wing or lgbt+ groups. Not that they haven't or don't exist - they might - but it's not something I've heard of. So like another comment said, paraphrasing here: conservatism and religious extremism = patriarchal values = men in power abusing their power. So yeah, if that logic holds, that would indeed mean there's more propensity for being abusers there.
I'm not surprised by these attacks. This is pretty much exactly what I expect for the types of people who are doing this. Ultimately, this is the exact same messaging they've been using for ages...
I'm not surprised by these attacks. This is pretty much exactly what I expect for the types of people who are doing this. Ultimately, this is the exact same messaging they've been using for ages -- and anyone who was paying attention knows they've been using these same arguments and most of the same language since well before Obergfell. The only thing that's all that new is the logo and perhaps the use of "biological" to target trans people (though this is also common enough in other right-wing anti-LGBT content at this point that they're probably just used to doing that by now).
I'm not convinced it's going to change the current trend in public sentiment toward gay marriage. I think a "idk not my problem" attitude towards gay marriage is simply too mainstream at this point for the same old arguments to work so effectively. I don't think movements like these are harmless by any means, but I don't think this innovates enough on the existing formula to counteract the current public sentiment to a sufficient degree. That said, I think we should be on our guard against stuff like this anyway, bc I could be wrong.
As for overturning the actual court case, I don't think these arguments will actually help with that at all. Obergfell was not a legally complex case; very few of the arguments against legalizing gay marriage were remotely rooted in the law. If Obergfell gets overturned, it will be for purely partisan reasons, and current or future Supreme Court justices don't need a campaign like this to overturn an earlier decision based on tortured reasoning that hides a blatantly partisan motivation. I hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, I doubt campaigns like this one will be a major factor.
If there's one thing I've learned in the last 10 years it's that conservatives don't give 2 shits about public support, logical reasoning, or legality when it comes to their agenda.
If there's one thing I've learned in the last 10 years it's that conservatives don't give 2 shits about public support, logical reasoning, or legality when it comes to their agenda.
Progressives gotta stop playing defense. We can put together our own slick PSA videos and design logos for our own causes, just as easily as the fascists can. How about the Live and Let Live...
Progressives gotta stop playing defense. We can put together our own slick PSA videos and design logos for our own causes, just as easily as the fascists can. How about the Live and Let Live Initiative, or Project Let It Be, or the Just Leave People Alone Agenda?
The messaging should be tailored to directly oppose what the Christian nationalists are saying. In other words, we know we’re not going to convince them that love is love, etc. — but what I’m suggesting is instead a full-bore patriotic display. Stars and stripes. Country music. Quotes from the founding fathers. Soldiers and crying eagles. Nothing’s off the table. The core message is this: America, land of the free. Where people can make their own decisions, right or wrong. Where people can disagree with others without getting their feelings hurt. Stick a crowbar into the tenderest point of MAGA cognitive dissonance and just wail on it.
You know what, throw in some Jesus quotes too, they don’t have a monopoly on that. And their interpretation of the Bible is a right bastardization of it anyway, so it’d do us all some good to have alternatives in the discourse. I’m just so tired of letting bigots steer the car.
Ha, one thing I love to throw out is that I'm the most patriotic mfr out there. You were born here? Bitch I came here, was molded and shaped by a love of American ideals. You may have been born...
but what I’m suggesting is instead a full-bore patriotic display. Stars and stripes. Country music. Quotes from the founding fathers. Soldiers and crying eagles. Nothing’s off the table.
Ha, one thing I love to throw out is that I'm the most patriotic mfr out there. You were born here? Bitch I came here, was molded and shaped by a love of American ideals. You may have been born into it, but I chose it.
Looks like the other shoe is about to drop in the wake of Dobbs.
One step closer to women and black people being declared property again, and being gay illegal.
From Thomas's Dobbs concurrence:
Obergefell = Gay marriage
Lawrence = Sodomy
Griswold = Birth control
This attack is on Obergefell. You can bet the others are on the way.
Strange that Loving v. Virginia is exempted.
We reached out to Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Thomas for comment and did not receive a reply by publishing time.
So in other words, this is just them saying gay people are predators?
My mind is consistently blown by these attacks. I cannot find the words for how outrageous it is to time and time again that there is evidence that it's them and not the lgbt+ community that is the predators. And yet they still go with this rhetoric. These people are so extremely propagandized as to basically live in a separate reality from the rest of the world.
The worst is it's not limited to the US. These points of views are spilling over to my country too.
Every accusation is a confession.
Is there in fact evidence that predators aren’t uniformly distributed through the population and are biased towards any particular orientation?
If anything, predators are more likely to be in positions of power and trust, as abusing that is the easiest way to exploit others.
To be incredibly lazy, the rough road is:
Conservativism == patriarchal == authoritarian == grooming those you have power over to be more easily abused.
And Christianity is an inheritly patriarchal religion, moreso the more conservative the sect.
It follows then that the distribution of abusers probably has a pattern of patriarchal power. I'd love to study this more.
There are some interesting questions there. Does the distribution of power create or empower latent abusers, or do those predisposed to abuse tend to seek out the power actively in order to acquire victims?
Arguing that the average human being has the same capacity for evil no matter their orientation or expression is missing the forest for the trees when the President of the United States was the number one patron of pedophile island, and no one in the republican party is doing anything about that, even though they know these facts.
What do you mean?
I am hoping you aren't asking a really weirdly worded "question" that is actually a challenge and is in bad faith, so I'm hoping you'll respond.
What I’m taking the quoted comment to mean is that the LGBT community is not composed of predators, and that “they” are in fact composed of predators. I’m not totally sure who “they” are but it could be non-LGBT people? Christians maybe? Conservatives? In any case, I’m a bit skeptical of this rhetorical turnaround.
That was a really weird way to ask the question you seem to think you're asking. Have you done any research on the topic?
For example there is evidence that sexual offending runs in families. And there is evidence of it not being evenly distributed by gender. Both suggest that it's not random distribution. And just by numbers, if it were statistically evenly distributed then any population larger than that of queer people will simply have more predators.
All of which means targeting queer folks is nothing but homophobic bunk.
That seems to be addressing something unrelated to what I said. I’m not suggesting that queer people are predisposed to being predators. I’m suggesting that claiming that someone’s political leanings predispose someone to being a predator sounds like a claim that should have some sources.
What question do you think I’m asking?
It certainly wasn't the statement you made just now. So I don't really think you're asking anything now. Just make the statement next time.
You even said "biased toward any particular orientation" not biased toward political leanings. And you asked about random distribution.
If you're skeptical, just say that. If you want to know what "they" means in someone's post, just ask that
But your point was something entirely different than what you "asked." And I answered your question about random distribution. In regards to orientation generally it seems, among men, to match the population.
But if most of say the heritage foundation are men then "they" are broadly statistically more likely to be abusers per capita than queer people are.
By "they" I am referring to the group of people that the article is talking about, "the right is coming for [...]"
And yeah about other comment, files = Epstein files. The right are very present in them all the way to the top more than anyone else.
So is there evidence that the right wing has more propensity for being abusers than LGBT people, or for that matter, more than liberals, or any other group?
As for the Epstein files, I don’t see how observing that a club of straight male abusers of girls is full of straight males is useful.
Well the most infamous pieces of evidence of large scale abusing is 1) Catholic church and 2) Epstein clients. It could be argued the latter is apolitical but I don't really know. However In comparison I don't know if I've ever heard of any organized abuse in left wing or lgbt+ groups. Not that they haven't or don't exist - they might - but it's not something I've heard of. So like another comment said, paraphrasing here: conservatism and religious extremism = patriarchal values = men in power abusing their power. So yeah, if that logic holds, that would indeed mean there's more propensity for being abusers there.
How many gay men are in the files?
How many straight men are in the files?
Are you talking about the Epstein files?
I'm not surprised by these attacks. This is pretty much exactly what I expect for the types of people who are doing this. Ultimately, this is the exact same messaging they've been using for ages -- and anyone who was paying attention knows they've been using these same arguments and most of the same language since well before Obergfell. The only thing that's all that new is the logo and perhaps the use of "biological" to target trans people (though this is also common enough in other right-wing anti-LGBT content at this point that they're probably just used to doing that by now).
I'm not convinced it's going to change the current trend in public sentiment toward gay marriage. I think a "idk not my problem" attitude towards gay marriage is simply too mainstream at this point for the same old arguments to work so effectively. I don't think movements like these are harmless by any means, but I don't think this innovates enough on the existing formula to counteract the current public sentiment to a sufficient degree. That said, I think we should be on our guard against stuff like this anyway, bc I could be wrong.
As for overturning the actual court case, I don't think these arguments will actually help with that at all. Obergfell was not a legally complex case; very few of the arguments against legalizing gay marriage were remotely rooted in the law. If Obergfell gets overturned, it will be for purely partisan reasons, and current or future Supreme Court justices don't need a campaign like this to overturn an earlier decision based on tortured reasoning that hides a blatantly partisan motivation. I hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, I doubt campaigns like this one will be a major factor.
If there's one thing I've learned in the last 10 years it's that conservatives don't give 2 shits about public support, logical reasoning, or legality when it comes to their agenda.
Absolutely agreed. But their malevolence doesn't necessarily equate to efficacy.
Progressives gotta stop playing defense. We can put together our own slick PSA videos and design logos for our own causes, just as easily as the fascists can. How about the Live and Let Live Initiative, or Project Let It Be, or the Just Leave People Alone Agenda?
The messaging should be tailored to directly oppose what the Christian nationalists are saying. In other words, we know we’re not going to convince them that love is love, etc. — but what I’m suggesting is instead a full-bore patriotic display. Stars and stripes. Country music. Quotes from the founding fathers. Soldiers and crying eagles. Nothing’s off the table. The core message is this: America, land of the free. Where people can make their own decisions, right or wrong. Where people can disagree with others without getting their feelings hurt. Stick a crowbar into the tenderest point of MAGA cognitive dissonance and just wail on it.
You know what, throw in some Jesus quotes too, they don’t have a monopoly on that. And their interpretation of the Bible is a right bastardization of it anyway, so it’d do us all some good to have alternatives in the discourse. I’m just so tired of letting bigots steer the car.
Ha, one thing I love to throw out is that I'm the most patriotic mfr out there. You were born here? Bitch I came here, was molded and shaped by a love of American ideals. You may have been born into it, but I chose it.
The group in the article's logo is literally based on a progressive logo from the fight for marriage equality.