Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Galactic Powers]

I mean, I've seen some rather violent actions from lgbt folks. Saw a guy get acquainted with some pavement at high velocity for calling a dude a "faggot" at a bar once.

As in, a person f*cked around and found out? You call a black duded the N-word, you're probably gonna get acquainted with some pavement too. Does that mean black folks are violent?

Curbstomping someone is by definition violent. Don’t matter how justified it is, which in the case cited by AL, it arguably could be. It’s still violent.

[Rhodevus]

As in, a person f*cked around and found out? You call a black duded the N-word, you're probably gonna get acquainted with some pavement too. Does that mean black folks are violent?

If a black man slammed the face of someone into pavement, that would be violent, yes.

you wouldn't be labelling all black people as violent.

As in, a person f*cked around and found out? You call a black duded the N-word, you're probably gonna get acquainted with some pavement too. Does that mean black folks are violent?

Curbstomping someone is by definition violent. Don’t matter how justified it is, which in the case cited by AL, it arguably could be. It’s still violent.

the point wasn't that that one action wasn't violent. It's that that one action doesn't mean all people within that group are violent.

[Fahran]

Where in general has the lgbt movement been violent?

I mean, I've seen some rather violent actions from lgbt folks. Saw a guy get acquainted with some pavement at high velocity for calling a dude a "faggot" at a bar once.

So… violence in response to speech is always wrong. I do stand by that. But based.

[American Legionaries]

If a black man slammed the face of someone into pavement, that would be violent, yes.

you wouldn't be labelling all black people as violent.

Curbstomping someone is by definition violent. Don’t matter how justified it is, which in the case cited by AL, it arguably could be. It’s still violent.

the point wasn't that that one action wasn't violent. It's that that one action doesn't mean all people within that group are violent.

I never said all LGBT people are violent, I did say that violent acts have occurred in support of that movement.

[American Legionaries]

I mean, I've seen some rather violent actions from lgbt folks. Saw a guy get acquainted with some pavement at high velocity for calling a dude a "faggot" at a bar once.

So… violence in response to speech is always wrong. I do stand by that. But based.

Naw, bro. Preemptively striking an enemy can and does serve a tactical purpose. I wasn't about to see where that fucker's line of bullshit was going.

[Ifreann]

Then good news, bud, the right are going to lose on this just like they lost on gay marriage. Most people don't buy into their fearmongering about the transes coming to hose down entire school districts with hormones. That's part of why they did so bad in the midterms.

I wouldn't be so sure on this, actually. Polling has shown the majority views on the topic are pretty all over the place and doesn't really lean in favor of what either side is preaching. WaPo did a poll a few months back that showed while the majority support gender affirming therapy and counseling they also support bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children and teenagers, as an example.

Well most people don't care very much about trans rights either way. Whether vaguely in favour or vaguely opposed, they have other concerns in mind when they're pokemon going to the polls. Republicans are losing and will continue to lose because they're living in a media bubble increasingly detached from reality. They're shooting cases of Bud Light and trying to make it illegal for women to wear trousers, not exactly winning issues to the normie American.

[The Black Forrest]

I don’t think Rittenhouse knew he was a child molester and I don’t think there was an attempt of sexual assault involved.

Unfettered free speech? That’s usually the complaint of those who want to say whatever they want to whomever they want without ramifications. Last comment I overheard talking about that was they felt it was wrong to be punished for calling people the “N bomb”

I was being a touch absurd there on purpose, but you do understand my point, yes?

Was this person a fourteen year old gamer? But, in any case, shouting the n-word probably shouldn’t be illegal, even if it’s widely and rightly seen as a dick move. If we criminalized saying offensive or stupid things, I’d be sending a lot of people to the pony farm for reformation.

Ah. You don’t always go for the absurd.

Nope. Older guy.

[Fahran]

I wouldn't be so sure on this, actually. Polling has shown the majority views on the topic are pretty all over the place and doesn't really lean in favor of what either side is preaching. WaPo did a poll a few months back that showed while the majority support gender affirming therapy and counseling they also support bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children and teenagers, as an example.

Well most people don't care very much about trans rights either way. Whether vaguely in favour or vaguely opposed, they have other concerns in mind when they're pokemon going to the polls. Republicans are losing and will continue to lose because they're living in a media bubble increasingly detached from reality. They're shooting cases of Bud Light and trying to make it illegal for women to wear trousers, not exactly winning issues to the normie American.

I think the negative media buzz around Bud Lite, which has been reflected in plummeting sales, should be a matter of some concern. Mind you, the main drinkers of Bud Lite were working class men and, as a demographic, they’re not super well-known for their progressive attitudes on social issues.

[Rhodevus]

you wouldn't be labelling all black people as violent.




the point wasn't that that one action wasn't violent. It's that that one action doesn't mean all people within that group are violent.

I never said all LGBT people are violent, I did say that violent acts have occurred in support of that movement.

Why is that in support of the movement? Does curbstomping a person that called you the N-word mean you are supporting the black movement? What about if a chinese person did it after being called a "Chink"? Are they fighting in support of the chinese movement? It has nothing to with movements. It has to do with being called a slur.

[American Legionaries]

I never said all LGBT people are violent, I did say that violent acts have occurred in support of that movement.

Why is that in support of the movement? Does curbstomping a person that called you the N-word mean you are supporting the black movement? What about if a chinese person did it after being called a "Chink"? Are they fighting in support of the chinese movement? It has nothing to with movements. It has to do with being called a slur.

Because being called a "faggot" is in opposition to the rights of homosexuals to engage in public activities, like drinking at a bar. Just as someone being called a "nigger" or "chink" in similar situations would be in opposition to the rights of black people or Chinese people to engage in those activities.

Being called a derogatory slur for a demographic someone belongs to cannot be divorced from the rights and freedoms of that demographic. Plain and simple.

[Fahran]

I never said all LGBT people are violent, I did say that violent acts have occurred in support of that movement.

Why is that in support of the movement? Does curbstomping a person that called you the N-word mean you are supporting the black movement? What about if a chinese person did it after being called a "Chink"? Are they fighting in support of the chinese movement? It has nothing to with movements. It has to do with being called a slur.

He is fighting for our movement.

[Rhodevus]

Why is that in support of the movement? Does curbstomping a person that called you the N-word mean you are supporting the black movement? What about if a chinese person did it after being called a "Chink"? Are they fighting in support of the chinese movement? It has nothing to with movements. It has to do with being called a slur.

Because being called a "faggot" is in opposition to the rights of homosexuals to engage in public activities, like drinking at a bar. Just as someone being called a "nigger" or "chink" in similar situations would be in opposition to the rights of black people or Chinese people to engage in those activities.

Being called a derogatory slur for a demographic someone belongs to cannot be divorced from the rights and freedoms of that demographic. Plain and simple.

So what do you want? You want these people to calmly say "no, I am not a faggot, but I am gay. Which you are aware of, since you used a slur for gay people. Here, let's have a calm discussion about why words hurt?" Yes. Like that has ever helped. All that'd lead to is more of the same. It's all posturing. And sometimes, you fuck around and find out.

Being gay in the world is enough to not be able to divorced from the rights and freedoms of gay people.

[Rhodevus]

Why is that in support of the movement? Does curbstomping a person that called you the N-word mean you are supporting the black movement? What about if a chinese person did it after being called a "Chink"? Are they fighting in support of the chinese movement? It has nothing to with movements. It has to do with being called a slur.

He is fighting for our movement.

OMG, I remember watching that movie

[Fahran]

Because being called a "faggot" is in opposition to the rights of homosexuals to engage in public activities, like drinking at a bar. Just as someone being called a "nigger" or "chink" in similar situations would be in opposition to the rights of black people or Chinese people to engage in those activities.

Being called a derogatory slur for a demographic someone belongs to cannot be divorced from the rights and freedoms of that demographic. Plain and simple.

So what do you want? You want these people to calmly say "no, I am not a faggot, but I am gay. Which you are aware of, since you used a slur for gay people. Here, let's have a calm discussion about why words hurt?" Yes. Like that has ever helped. All that'd lead to is more of the same. It's all posturing. And sometimes, you fuck around and find out.

Being gay in the world is enough to not be able to divorced from the rights and freedoms of gay people.

He doesn’t think the violence is wrong or bad. At least going off of earlier remarks.

[American Legionaries]

Because being called a "faggot" is in opposition to the rights of homosexuals to engage in public activities, like drinking at a bar. Just as someone being called a "nigger" or "chink" in similar situations would be in opposition to the rights of black people or Chinese people to engage in those activities.

Being called a derogatory slur for a demographic someone belongs to cannot be divorced from the rights and freedoms of that demographic. Plain and simple.

So what do you want? You want these people to calmly say "no, I am not a faggot, but I am gay. Which you are aware of, since you used a slur for gay people. Here, let's have a calm discussion about why words hurt?" Yes. Like that has ever helped. All that'd lead to is more of the same. It's all posturing. And sometimes, you fuck around and find out.

Being gay in the world is enough to not be able to divorced from the rights and freedoms of gay people.

That seems a rather foolish leap to have made, given that the violent actors in this situation included myself.

[Senkaku]

Where in general has the lgbt movement been violent?

I mean, I've seen some rather violent actions from lgbt folks. Saw a guy get acquainted with some pavement at high velocity for calling a dude a "faggot" at a bar once.

And that constitutes “the movement” being violent? I thought you were going to go the obvious route and say Stonewall— weren’t you earlier in the thread echoing suggestions that LGBT people get weapons and body armor and organize militias, in any case?

[American Legionaries]

I mean, I've seen some rather violent actions from lgbt folks. Saw a guy get acquainted with some pavement at high velocity for calling a dude a "faggot" at a bar once.

And that constitutes “the movement” being violent? I thought you were going to go the obvious route and say Stonewall— weren’t you earlier in the thread echoing suggestions that LGBT people get weapons and body armor and organize militias, in any case?

Yes, and yes.

[Rhodevus]

So what do you want? You want these people to calmly say "no, I am not a faggot, but I am gay. Which you are aware of, since you used a slur for gay people. Here, let's have a calm discussion about why words hurt?" Yes. Like that has ever helped. All that'd lead to is more of the same. It's all posturing. And sometimes, you fuck around and find out.

Being gay in the world is enough to not be able to divorced from the rights and freedoms of gay people.

That seems a rather foolish leap to have made, given that the violent actors in this situation included myself.

then you helped the other guy along in 'finding out'. kudos. doesn't mean the movement is violent. It means that individuals in the movement are.

[American Legionaries]

That seems a rather foolish leap to have made, given that the violent actors in this situation included myself.

then you helped the other guy along in 'finding out'. kudos. doesn't mean the movement is violent. It means that individuals in the movement are.

Yes, that continues to be what I said since last time I clarified.

[Nilokeras]

Then good news, bud, the right are going to lose on this just like they lost on gay marriage. Most people don't buy into their fearmongering about the transes coming to hose down entire school districts with hormones. That's part of why they did so bad in the midterms.

I wouldn't be so sure on this, actually. Polling has shown the majority views on the topic are pretty all over the place and doesn't really lean in favor of what either side is preaching. WaPo did a poll a few months back that showed while the majority support gender affirming therapy and counseling they also support bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children and teenagers, as an example.

Polling seems to show that people generally support legal protections against anti-trans discrimination, pretty much in line with peoples' beliefs about anti-LGB discrimination. The points of contention are generally those where the right wing culture warriors and their dupes in the mainstream media are hammering hardest to try and create a wedge, shockingly enough.

[Bradfordville]

Where in general has the lgbt movement been violent?

I mean, I've seen some rather violent actions from lgbt folks. Saw a guy get acquainted with some pavement at high velocity for calling a dude a "faggot" at a bar once.

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
And people have headed for the floor for way less at bars.

[Senkaku]

If sitting down and not rocking the boat and discussing things reasonably and calmly has resulted in winning rights through votes and deliberation, why not continue?

That isn’t what won us rights, though— we won through riots, mass demonstrations and organizing, lawfare, and information warfare in the media, against extremely determined, competent, persistent, and violent opposition. The story of queer liberation isn’t a story of progress just sort of magically quietly chugging along in the background or whatever weird ahistorical take you’re advancing here.

Bloodthirst and impulsive resort to force is also one of the reasons I left the lgbt community.

I mean, it’s sort of hard to take any of the political rhetoric you’re putting out when you then make statements like this, because they make it obvious there’s personal and social dynamics going on in your life or experiences you’ve had with members of the community that are leading you to explicitly seek out a politics that justifies and explains whatever you’re feeling. Take a few years to work through how you feel about having been part of, or perhaps still in some ways being connected to, the community— don’t just make your departure or distancing from it the centerpiece of your political identity straight away.

[Senkaku]

I wouldn't be so sure on this, actually. Polling has shown the majority views on the topic are pretty all over the place and doesn't really lean in favor of what either side is preaching. WaPo did a poll a few months back that showed while the majority support gender affirming therapy and counseling they also support bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children and teenagers, as an example.

The point is that most people are happy to live and let live and would like their political leaders to deal with gas prices and housing, not with policing the symbolic boundaries of gender and interfering with pediatric medical care.

[Bradfordville]

I wouldn't be so sure on this, actually. Polling has shown the majority views on the topic are pretty all over the place and doesn't really lean in favor of what either side is preaching. WaPo did a poll a few months back that showed while the majority support gender affirming therapy and counseling they also support bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children and teenagers, as an example.

The point is that most people are happy to live and let live and would like their political leaders to deal with gas prices and housing, not with policing the symbolic boundaries of gender and interfering with pediatric medical care.

Well, you know what they say about a bad handful.

[Senkaku]

Sorry for just telling it like it is, I guess. Beats making shit up and going into hysterics over pride parades.

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights and how we will start making public spectacles of indecency to assert our dominance.

This post reads like an example of you having a serious self-esteem problem, not the world having a serious political problem. “Coming after” marriage… by getting married? “Coming after children” and “influencing them with our deviant ways”— bog-standard groomer/pedo libel; teaching kids LGBT people exist and protecting LGBT youth from abuse are hardly “coming after” them. “Robbing straight and religious people of their rights”— the only rights they’re losing is the right to abuse and murder us. “Public spectacles of indecency”— shall we sic the morality police on the St. Paddy’s Day Parade and Mardi Gras and Carnival as well? Pride parades aren’t exertions of dominance, they’re just affirmations and celebrations of existence. You’re literally internalizing the most hateful forms of slander created by the far right— we are not deviants or pedophiles, we’re not stripping people of their rights.

I remember decades ago being a part of the lgbt community back then and these rightwing paranoid folk were accusing us of a lot of slippery slope fallacies.

I told them "NO, we just want rights in the bedroom and be allowed to love who we want to love. NO, we will NOT start teaching children to be gay or teach them about homosexuality, that's not going to happen. No we will not strip and start parading around the streets and proclaiming to anyone who will listen that we're gay. No we will never force Christian churches to marry us or force christian photographers or bakers to take our photos or bake our cakes, and we will definitely NOT use the law to coerce and force people to accept us, they are free to ignore or hate us. We just want the same rights as people to be left alone and not be harrassed.

No one’s forcing Christian churches to marry us, no one’s “teaching children to be gay,” that’s utter horseshit. Pride parades were already a thing back then, as were non-LGBT massive party/parade events, so your aversion to “parading around the streets and proclaiming to anyone who will listen that we’re gay” seems like your mystification of a personal preference into some sort of persecution. As for asking businesses to take our business— the same rights as other people to be left alone and not be harassed includes the right to not be discriminated against in business. This feels like a combination of you having very low ambitions and having internalized the idea that there’s something wrong with us and about us— what’s wrong with teaching that homosexuality exists? What’s wrong with openly telling someone that you’re gay? The only way those things could be wrong is if there’s something wrong with gay people, something embarrassing about being gay— it’s sad to see how deeply engrained that thought seems to be in you.

17 years later, and now I have nothing to say to assure these people and frankly, I just left the lgbt community, they no longer represent or speak on my behalf and I am near done with this war.

You’re so done with it that you’re on here fighting it still— you’re going to be dragged back in anyways, because even if all you want is to be left in peace to fuck behind closed doors, the far right wants a total rollback of our existence.

My point is, this isn't as black and white as you guys believe and the reason why homophobia and anti-lgbt sentiment is on the rise isn't because of some cartoonishly evil people simply deciding to push back harder for the sake of being homophobic. Hate doesnt exist in a vacuum, pushbacks happen because most of the time, people are simply done and had enough.

The idea that the current right-wing culture war campaign is some organic groundswell of popular resentment against creeping LGBT totalitarianism is a myth which is unsupported by data. The idea that hatred and bigotry did not exist before we started receiving rights and protections is a myth unsupported by history. I find it a bit disturbing how many ex-gay types come into this forum and convey incredibly bleak self-conceptions through their political statements, tbh.

This also perfectly reflects what I mean when I was talking the other day about how people whose masculinity has been made to feel precarious often turn around and visit violence or hatefulness on others by policing their gender— you clearly are still sorting out how you feel about your sexuality, so you turn around and shit on trans people and non-passing gays as deviant cultural vandals. It won’t protect you from facing the same violence from the right or affirm the culturally-sanctioned parts of your identity in their eyes, though, when you’re detected.

Afaik there is actually some fairly compelling polling evidence that that is how it works for the average voter. Gay marriage, for example, trended upwards pretty much non-stop after Hodges amongst every demographic (even weekly churchgoers and registered Republicans) and has only recently started to experience some drops in support among those demographics, very plausibly because the LGBT movement has taken the forefront in the culture war and if I'm being blunt it has very bad PR nowadays.

What or who, to you, constitutes “the LGBT movement,” and who’s in charge of their PR? Who sets the agenda and the field of battle in the culture war?