Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. Then what was your question?

Just why has say terorists

Her choice and well “normal” people tend not to call in bomb threats. They are terrorists. Just not violent…..yet…..

[Imperiul romanum]

Just why has say terorists

Her choice and well “normal” people tend not to call in bomb threats. They are terrorists. Just not violent…..yet…..

A

[El Lazaro]

Her choice and well “normal” people tend not to call in bomb threats. They are terrorists. Just not violent…..yet…..

A

A indeed. H, if I might go as far to say.

[Bradfordville]

Her choice and well “normal” people tend not to call in bomb threats. They are terrorists. Just not violent…..yet…..

A

-Julius Caesar upon finding out Pompeii was dead, beginning a centuries old Italian tradition.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

I have always had one question but never gotten an answer, mainly because one doesn't exist.

Why? What to gay folk or trans kiddies do to you? What does it matter?

Name me one instance in which homosexuality was a genuine detriment to all that surrounded it. Where it was such a nuisance that it had to be banned.

I suppose it's what the song says, "why can't we be friends?"

[Hispida]

Why? What to gay folk or trans kiddies do to you?

we exist.

[American Legionaries]

I have always had one question but never gotten an answer, mainly because one doesn't exist.

Why? What to gay folk or trans kiddies do to you? What does it matter?

Name me one instance in which homosexuality was a genuine detriment to all that surrounded it. Where it was such a nuisance that it had to be banned.

I suppose it's what the song says, "why can't we be friends?"

They overwhelmingly support political candidates who have policy positions contrary to my interests.

[Dreria]

I have always had one question but never gotten an answer, mainly because one doesn't exist.

Why? What to gay folk or trans kiddies do to you? What does it matter?

Name me one instance in which homosexuality was a genuine detriment to all that surrounded it. Where it was such a nuisance that it had to be banned.

I suppose it's what the song says, "why can't we be friends?"

the nazis

[Neu California]

I have always had one question but never gotten an answer, mainly because one doesn't exist.

Why? What to gay folk or trans kiddies do to you? What does it matter?

Name me one instance in which homosexuality was a genuine detriment to all that surrounded it. Where it was such a nuisance that it had to be banned.

I suppose it's what the song says, "why can't we be friends?"

They overwhelmingly support political candidates who have policy positions contrary to my interests.

If you think they deserve to be denied rights just because they don't support your gun fetish, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

[Fahran]

They overwhelmingly support political candidates who have policy positions contrary to my interests.

If you think they deserve to be denied rights just because they don't support your gun fetish, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

I want you to think a bit about the tone of your rhetoric and about the denial of rights here. But, moving beyond that, neither of these arguments is particularly liberal.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They overwhelmingly support political candidates who have policy positions contrary to my interests.

If you think they deserve to be denied rights just because they don't support your gun fetish, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

His point was that there does not exist a party which seeks to defend everyones rights and thus he prioritizes those most important to him over other peoples. That's hardly an outlandish thing, pretty much everyone does it. That's just the reality of politics in our republic.

[Fahran]

If you think they deserve to be denied rights just because they don't support your gun fetish, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

His point was that there does not exist a party which seeks to defend everyones rights and thus he prioritizes those most important to him over other peoples. That's hardly an outlandish thing, pretty much everyone does it. That's just the reality of politics in our republic.

Arguably, all politics, really.

[Nilokeras]

You're operating on the assumption that every member of a fairly broad coalition has the same or similar goals. I don't believe that's the case and, in many cases, the New Right that propelled Trump to power has been far more pro-LGBT+ than the so-called moderate right that prevailed during the Bush years. It's perhaps too early to label that as a long-running theme, but, at the moment, the salient issue has been the negotiation of identity and gender-based rights within society - something quite different from the criminalization of sodomy or the revoking of same-sex marriage. Also, Paxton is probably out, so there's that.

It doesn't matter which sub-faction disagrees with what. It matters what the right is doing, and what it's doing is enacting a suite of policies that are aimed at the crack they've managed to open in the post-Lawrence, post-Obergefell landscape. It's a familiar strategy going all the way back to Nixon and the drug war. You can't criminalize being black, and you can't criminalize being gay, but you can create laws that are designed to disproportionately target those groups and destroy their ability to participate in public life.

Visibility, in particular the dissemination of videos by conservative activists of LGBT+ activists openly discussing pet theories developed in queer studies departments in the 1980s and 1990s, has been one of the principal drivers of the recent backlash against LGBT+ activists. People tend to like their gay, lesbian, and trans relatives, friends, and neighbors because those people are congenial and adhere to normalcy on some level. People also appreciate positive media portrayals of such people as wanting normalcy and acceptance. When you publish articles about how you want both children and kink at pride, on the other hand, it raises eyebrows and understandably so. While groomer has been often thrown about, it's more accurate to remark that the suggestion is inappropriate and to perhaps ask "what is wrong with you?"

People like their LGBT friends and loved ones because they are their loved ones, not because they 'adhere to normalcy'. That was the mill that the right was ground down by - media narratives and Supreme Court cases helped, but the war was won by millions of LGBT people coming out post-AIDS crisis and through their open participation in communities broke down the perception that gay people were weird degenerate perverts.

This is also an interesting formulation:

activists openly discussing pet theories developed in queer studies departments in the 1980s and 1990s, has been one of the principal drivers of the recent backlash against LGBT+ activists

because it's a very neat elision, as though 'pet theories' spontaneously generated backlash, rather than what really happened, which was that said 'pet theories' were collected up by a hostile right wing media landscape and weaponized against said LGBT activists. It doesn't matter what those pet theories are, because said right wing media landscape would have kept digging until they found something, no matter how long it took or how obscure it ended up being.

On this note, the politics of respectability has benefitted certain groups in the US disproportionately. Jewish people and gay people are probably the most prominent examples of this in the available literature.

And both groups know very keenly how quickly 'respectability' gets ripped away. It's always transitory. It's walking into a tiger cage and being confident that you have enough liver treats in your pocket to keep it from eating you forever.

[Neu California]

Experts warn against canceling Pride campaigns after extremists threaten Target

[American Legionaries]

They overwhelmingly support political candidates who have policy positions contrary to my interests.

If you think they deserve to be denied rights just because they don't support your gun fetish, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

What they deserve is irrelevant. The political landscape is what it is regardless of what I think they deserve. Although calling other people's rights a "fetish" is a rather ironic thing to be doing, given the context of the thread.

[Point Blob]

Why? What to gay folk or trans kiddies do to you? What does it matter?

Tribalism probably.
I get the impression it isn't so much what nor who they are, nor what they do, but the simple fact that they're a separate collective identity.
And as usual, both sides insist the other side is evil and wrong... because that is just how these things go.

[Ifreann]

If you think they deserve to be denied rights just because they don't support your gun fetish, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

I want you to think a bit about the tone of your rhetoric and about the denial of rights here. But, moving beyond that, neither of these arguments is particularly liberal.

Look out, guys, the tone police are here.

[Fahran]

I want you to think a bit about the tone of your rhetoric and about the denial of rights here. But, moving beyond that, neither of these arguments is particularly liberal.

Look out, guys, the tone police are here.

I would think calling a desire to exercise one’s fundamental rights a fetish, in a thread on LGBT rights no less, would be viewed with a degree of irony. I’m not going to arrest anyone for being dense on main, but come on.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Look out, guys, the tone police are here.

I would think calling a desire to exercise one’s fundamental rights a fetish, in a thread on LGBT rights no less, would be viewed with a degree of irony. I’m not going to arrest anyone for being dense on main, but come on.

You'll have a hard time convincing non-Yanks that owning toys is a fundamental right.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I would think calling a desire to exercise one’s fundamental rights a fetish, in a thread on LGBT rights no less, would be viewed with a degree of irony. I’m not going to arrest anyone for being dense on main, but come on.

You'll have a hard time convincing non-Yanks that owning toys is a fundamental right.

Esp on the same level as right to life and rights to not being terrorised.

[Galloism]

I would think calling a desire to exercise one’s fundamental rights a fetish, in a thread on LGBT rights no less, would be viewed with a degree of irony. I’m not going to arrest anyone for being dense on main, but come on.

You'll have a hard time convincing non-Yanks that owning toys is a fundamental right.

That’s true - even though it’s arguably the oldest recognized human right, and might very well be the driving force behind the existence of the rest of them.

A lot of people have forgotten that.

[Fahran]

You'll have a hard time convincing non-Yanks that owning toys is a fundamental right.

Esp on the same level as right to life and rights to not being terrorised.

We’re not really talking about simple rights to life, which isn’t really a clearly defined right on its own, or to not be terrorized though. We’ve discussed a fairly extensive list of rights and privileges, many of which necessarily conflict with one another, in this thread. And, beyond that, firearms aren’t simply toys. They’re tools that should be treated as such. A right to bear arms creates some semblance of balance between the state on the one hand and the more broad political community on the other. And, in an American context, that right is more clearly defined than the right to vote - which simply cannot be restricted based on race, sex, or gender.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My sympathy for American-style gun rights decreases exponentially in relation to every synagogue, school, beach, supermarket, gay bar, Swedish school, or Utöya being shot up in a mass murder-suicide.
And that's all.

[Ifreann]

Look out, guys, the tone police are here.

I would think calling a desire to exercise one’s fundamental rights a fetish, in a thread on LGBT rights no less, would be viewed with a degree of irony. I’m not going to arrest anyone for being dense on main, but come on.

I would think that if Telconi supports banning homosexuality and torturing transgender children just so that he can have a larger catalogue of guns to choose to buy then "fetish" is about the nicest thing that could be said about it.

[Fahran]

I would think calling a desire to exercise one’s fundamental rights a fetish, in a thread on LGBT rights no less, would be viewed with a degree of irony. I’m not going to arrest anyone for being dense on main, but come on.

I would think that if Telconi supports banning homosexuality and torturing transgender children just so that he can have a larger catalogue of guns to choose to buy then "fetish" is about the nicest thing that could be said about it.

It’s quite fortunate that Telconi doesn’t supporting making gay illegal then - you know, because gay isn’t actually illegal in the US and the mainstream viewpoint in both major political parties is that gay should remain legal. That said, it’s quite telling that rights and identity matter for your preferred groups, but become fetishes the minute they relate to a group or a right you don’t actually care for.