Social Liberalism Gone Too Far?

[East Catalina]

Jesus christ, your passive agressive italics are nausiating as fuck.

Here's the bottom line, LGBTQ already won. And holy hell, they are most certainly not an oppressed group anymore. They are one of the most powerful and influential groups in American politics of this generation. They are immensely well represented in media and beloved in comedies.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/grap ... -marriage/

only 35% of Americans oppose gay marriage, and might I add most of the time it's due to passive religious views. Not fervent homophobia. Being homophobic openly is probably more liable to get you assaulted than it is to get someone who is homosexual assaulted.

This isn't a bad thing. But it does beg to question why, now that for the most part the point has been proven and they're here to stay, these movements have increasingly taken to extremes rather than remain content with their victory. And anyone who even slightly downplays sexuality in any way to be a secondary nature of someone rather than the defining nature of someone, is almost instantaneously labelled and dismissed as a homophobe.

But please take note, LGBTQ initially became popular and powerful NOT because they were extreme, but because they were practical, honest, and understandable.

It's almost as if they seek to completely destroy any hint of socially moderate or leaning right social sentiment, and have the only politically correct and sensible form of viewing social issues to be full left wing.

It is IN YOUR FACE marketing in replacement to focusing on economic issues that is a problem.

Not particularly familiar with American politics, but aren't the Republicans still blocking anti-discrimination legislation? Gay marriage is not the only issue for LGB people.

That they are.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Not particularly familiar with American politics, but aren't the Republicans still blocking anti-discrimination legislation? Gay marriage is not the only issue for LGB people.

That they are.

Thought so. Sounds like "not-a-victory" to me.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

LGB people got their rights but the rights and respect for the T is often missing.

Now it's trans women who're the boy-raping pedos! Just ask the attack ads on the Houston referendum to end gender discrimination in regards to bathrooms!

LGB people got their rights...

To marriage equality. Which is nice, but hardly the be all and end all to equality.

I think Transgender people need to have their gender transition covered by health insurance by mandate. I also think that the transgender people in bathrooms thing wouldn't be an issue if privacy in public bathrooms wasn't a joke in the U.S. There is like 3 feet of clearance below the stall and an inch and a half between the door and the bathroom stall frame. It should be a completely separate and closed off closet-like room. and public showers are unnecessary, we should have shower stalls, too. I've been to fort benning as a teen during encampment and we had public showers, it didn't bother me, but with all this gay/LGBT issue stuff coming up now, we should have separate showering facilities.

[Val Halla]

To marriage equality. Which is nice, but hardly the be all and end all to equality.

iirc most states don't protect from employment discrimination.

Quite a bit more than that, actually.

[Diopolis]

Jesus christ, your passive agressive italics are nausiating as fuck.

Here's the bottom line, LGBTQ already won. And holy hell, they are most certainly not an oppressed group anymore. They are one of the most powerful and influential groups in American politics of this generation. They are immensely well represented in media and beloved in comedies.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/grap ... -marriage/

only 35% of Americans oppose gay marriage, and might I add most of the time it's due to passive religious views. Not fervent homophobia. Being homophobic openly is probably more liable to get you assaulted than it is to get someone who is homosexual assaulted.

This isn't a bad thing. But it does beg to question why, now that for the most part the point has been proven and they're here to stay, these movements have increasingly taken to extremes rather than remain content with their victory. And anyone who even slightly downplays sexuality in any way to be a secondary nature of someone rather than the defining nature of someone, is almost instantaneously labelled and dismissed as a homophobe.

But please take note, LGBTQ initially became popular and powerful NOT because they were extreme, but because they were practical, honest, and understandable.

It's almost as if they seek to completely destroy any hint of socially moderate or leaning right social sentiment, and have the only politically correct and sensible form of viewing social issues to be full left wing.

It is IN YOUR FACE marketing in replacement to focusing on economic issues that is a problem.

So we have like one right that everyone else does

Not agreeing with unnatural marriage being a right or anything, but what other rights have LGB(I am specifically avoiding trans folks because my views on them would get me banned. Please do not bring them up) folk been denied by law as opposed to individual douchebaggery?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So we have like one right that everyone else does

Not agreeing with unnatural marriage being a right or anything, but what other rights have LGB(I am specifically avoiding trans folks because my views on them would get me banned. Please do not bring them up) folk been denied by law as opposed to individual douchebaggery?

Anti-discrimination laws, as has been discussed about three posts up.

[Ostroeuropa]

So "They did it first!"

?

"it's your own damn fault, it was your strategy, you wanted this"

Which is why you completely buy into it and start harming working class whites and males while the rich run off with all the money.
Gj.

Oh.
And by the way. You're basically wrong historically speaking, in the US at least.
The reason is middle class white liberals are extremely condescending and out of touch with working class whites.

Their whole war on poverty shtick without bothering to consult white working class voters on it is what ALLOWED rich elites to divide and conquer. The actions of the left caused the faultlines they exploited.

When you see right wingers say shit about black people being given special privileges and shit and it not really being about equality but hating white people, what they're actually talking about is white middle class peoples classism and refusal to accept their "liberal" social policies are damaging to the working classes, especially whites.

So kind of yeh. The reason that all this shit happened is that we allowed rich people to divide and conquer us. But it wasn't billionaires.
It was ivory tower intellectuals who look down on disdain on the poor for their backward opinions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... osely.html

So long as you continue to insist over and over its the right wings fault without acknowledging what went wrong, nothing will change. (Refusal to recognize the cancer killing the left wing is one of the problems SJWs controlling the narrative causes.)

That article by the way, points out that "Oh hey, Millenials will fix this divide."
As we're now seeing, nope, we've been alienated too.
Same SJW shit, different day, i'm off to join the Tories, have fun being unelectable in terms of actual change, i'd rather side with the rich than the fucking racists and sexists, and the people oblivious to have infested the left has become with them.

Even then, it's not like the left does anything other than offer up the meekest possible offence against the rich and their power. So it's basically, Rich with racists and sexists, or rich without them. Kay, easy choice.

You wanna know the ridiculous part? It'll only get worse. You've seen feminists start to turn on gay men more and more frequently now that gay marriage is out of the way. I guess they'll be the next wave.

When everyone is a tory except shrill white middle class women and old school marxists, will you realize what the problem is THEN?

Or will it still be "The rich are dividing and conquering us!"
No mate. It's that people are leaving of their own accord due to disgust with how the left wing is run, their alienation from its establishment, and their establishments constant classism and refusal to take seriously the perspective or problems of its white working class voters.

"Hrrrmm racism in society needs money to fix. I know, we'll loot the working class whites for all they are worth to hand it over to minorities, give tax cuts to the wealthy, hike up university costs, and then constantly shit talk them for being racists if they dislike these measures. Oh, and meanwhile, we'll be oblivious to the messages this sends about how minorities = being looted, and open the immigration floodgates. That'll fix racism!"

It's just more of the same from this new wave of SJWs. Even their radfem bullshit is based entirely around classism, arrogance, and refusal to recognize their own privilege. Men don't has problems, cos we're all middle class men fulfilling our gender role properly and we've not noticed shit, nor have our women in the same economic circumstance! So you must just be a sexist! Wahhh!

I want the media to go even further right wing just to shut these people up once and for all. Give me divine right of billionaires propoganda, just shut these people the fuck up, i'm sick of them, and the white working class has been for decades, bourgeoisie are way fucking worse than aristocrats, I assure you.

[Diopolis]

Not agreeing with unnatural marriage being a right or anything, but what other rights have LGB(I am specifically avoiding trans folks because my views on them would get me banned. Please do not bring them up) folk been denied by law as opposed to individual douchebaggery?

Anti-discrimination laws, as has been discussed about three posts up.

Such discrimination would fall under individual douchebaggery. It's true that LGB folks don't have the same protections by law as other minorities do, but it's hardly enforced by law. You're free not to discriminate against them.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Anti-discrimination laws, as has been discussed about three posts up.

Such discrimination would fall under individual douchebaggery. It's true that LGB folks don't have the same protections by law as other minorities do, but it's hardly enforced by law. You're free not to discriminate against them.

Don't need to outlaw murder/rape/slavery. People are free not to murder/rape/enslave.

[Diopolis]

Such discrimination would fall under individual douchebaggery. It's true that LGB folks don't have the same protections by law as other minorities do, but it's hardly enforced by law. You're free not to discriminate against them.

Don't need to outlaw murder/rape/slavery. People are free not to murder/rape/enslave.

And a country that simply hasn't gotten around to outlawing slavery yet is different from one which passed a law regulating slavery and declaring slaves property.

[Othelos]

Anti-discrimination laws, as has been discussed about three posts up.

Such discrimination would fall under individual douchebaggery. It's true that LGB folks don't have the same protections by law as other minorities do, but it's hardly enforced by law. You're free not to discriminate against them.

Well, if we aren't going to protect LGB people, why not bother getting rid of protections for any and all people? You're free to not discriminate against them.

[Kriga]

iirc most states don't protect from employment discrimination.

Quite a bit more than that, actually.

Could you elaborate on that? I'm curious to know the 'bit more part.' Not trying to be condescending, by the way.

[Diopolis]

Such discrimination would fall under individual douchebaggery. It's true that LGB folks don't have the same protections by law as other minorities do, but it's hardly enforced by law. You're free not to discriminate against them.

Well, if we aren't going to protect LGB people, why not bother getting rid of protections for any and all people? You're free to not discriminate against them.

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Don't need to outlaw murder/rape/slavery. People are free not to murder/rape/enslave.

And a country that simply hasn't gotten around to outlawing slavery yet is different from one which passed a law regulating slavery and declaring slaves property.

The issue in America isn't that they haven't gotten around to it. In the Isle of Man, equal marriage legislation is pending. That is what "not having gotten round to it" looks like. One of the two main parties actively blocking the legislation with the tacit support of their voters is very different. That is an issue for LGB people to campaign on.

[TheDrunkenLlamas]

Well, if we aren't going to protect LGB people, why not bother getting rid of protections for any and all people? You're free to not discriminate against them.

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

Don't you hate gay people?

[Kriga]

Well, if we aren't going to protect LGB people, why not bother getting rid of protections for any and all people? You're free to not discriminate against them.

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

Companies would not like having to do that. What if they refuse to comply? This applies for large companies too.

[Cedoria]

Social liberalism has gone too far because the far left exists?

Overly PC people have existed for a while now. They're annoying, but they won't cause the damage that right wing people claim they will.

I have no problem with far leftism. Anarchists can actually be pretty good scholars. Ditto with communists.

It's the focus on social issues rather than economic issues as a trend I'm worried about. It's not their political affiliation, it's their reasoning for political affiliation.

And the two can't be discussed together, or one doesn't matter. Having the freedom to express one's identity is just as important as having enough to eat, although I agree some of the newer groups are a little... Ludicrous in some of there arguments, but ultimately, they just make fringe noises, and conservatives can't just use them as an excuse to dismiss the existence of real problems entirely.

[Kriga]

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

Don't you hate gay people?

Unlike you, no i don't. I know a lot of gay people. They're normal human beings just like you and I.

You know what I do hate? Bigots, Homophobes and racists. And you, my friend, are acting like a homophobe...

[Cedoria]

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

Companies would not like having to do that. What if they refuse to comply? This applies for large companies too.

Well, if it were illegal not too, they would be fined for not doing so. Simple. I agree that policies of quotas etc, make no sense for dealing with the issue though.

[Diopolis]

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

Don't you hate gay people?

No. I oppose gay marriage and consider gay sex to be an abomination, but I have no animus for homosexuals. They didn't choose their state.

[Kriga]

Companies would not like having to do that. What if they refuse to comply? This applies for large companies too.

Well, if it were illegal not too, they would be fined for not doing so. Simple. I agree that policies of quotas etc, make no sense for dealing with the issue though.

In theory, its a nice idea to implement, but i doubt companies will be satisfied at having to do that. I am not against the idea, but it should only be implemented after enough public support is drummed up.

[Diopolis]

I am in favor of moving discrimination protections for other minorities away from current measures to more voluntary methods. This is one of the comparatively few areas where libertarianism actually makes sense. For example, rather than trying to prohibit racism, we could simply require companies with racist policies to advertise the fact. Companies should have to make available statistics on how they pay their female employees as opposed to male equivalents rather than having compensation lawsuits. Etc.

Companies would not like having to do that. What if they refuse to comply? This applies for large companies too.

If they refuse to comply, they get a fine, same as if they broke any other law.

[Kriga]

Don't you hate gay people?

No. I oppose gay marriage and consider gay sex to be an abomination, but I have no animus for homosexuals. They didn't choose their state.

Why do you oppose it if i may ask? What makes you different from them?

[Kelinfort]

Don't you hate gay people?

No. I oppose gay marriage and consider gay sex to be an abomination, but I have no animus for homosexuals. They didn't choose their state.

That's a little illogical, don't you think?

[Diopolis]

No. I oppose gay marriage and consider gay sex to be an abomination, but I have no animus for homosexuals. They didn't choose their state.

That's a little illogical, don't you think?

Why? No one gets to choose their orientation. It doesn't make sense to hold someone responsible for having feelings.