Is tolerance of LGBT people for real?

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, yes ... the old "Everybody is bixesual" fallacy. Why not just leave everybody's else's sexuality alone (whatever it may be) and focus on your own sexuality (or lack thereof)?

Nobody has "gotta be woke". Instead, if what someone else is doing is not causing or threatening to cause harm to you, them, or someone else, and they are not breaking the law, then simply leave them alone.

I mean, it's not as if a sausage party two towns over is going to give you pernicious leukemia, right?

Ah, Libertarian detection alert.

You gotta be woke means you should take some time every once in a while to understand LGBTQ+ issues and Feminism. It also means you should be professional in the work setting and not discriminate based upon Gender, Race, Religion, Sexual Preferrence or other distinguishing group characteristics, in that such differences do not actually have to do with getting the job done.

So, are you prodiscrimination Fnord?

The problem with Libertarians is that they believe that personal responsibility and the market trumps law and policy; it does not. The other problem is that they believe in Austrian Economics instead of Modern Monetary Theory. The Libertarian mindset is a mind virus that usually infects disaffected males. One day this virus will be eradicated, but until then, use a condom while watching videos on the intellectual dark web.

I was in the Navy when they had "Don't Ask Don't Tell", so let me give you an education Fnord on this topic. There are LGBTQ+ people in every field, including the military. These people are competant and can get the job done as long as they are not being discriminated against.

When I say "you gotta be woke", I am saying you need to be awoke to the fact that these people exist and their lives matter. They have a positive contribution to provide so long as you are woke.

But if not, as an actuall 200 lb alpha male, if you discriminate against members of my tribe, well, maybe this is bad to admit because it is against Forum rules or something, but it makes me want to get my homies together and beat some people to the ground.

Not being woke causes harm, and when I see people getting harmed that I love, I sadly, or not (?), have to admit I get violent. Really, reallly, violent. You will probably try to hold that against me, which is funny. I guess you should let your people get screwed and never get violent or else you would be a hypocrite. In fact, I would never get actually violent because of the law, but then, one-sided application of the law that comes with not being woke, calls for some kind of fight.

You gotta be woke.

My idea of libertarianism that allows casual homophobia (and similar) is that it is like vandalism. Studies show that if environments that show signs of vandalism, such as broken windows, crude defacing of buildings, or run down, and similar, that people are more likely to commit crimes, since it has unconscious effects on peoples mind that it is more okay to do so. This is why it can be important for councils to make sure that areas are maintained, not just to please a bunch of stuffy people, but to make the local kids are less likely to get up to trouble.

Similarly, a bunch of people saying that they don't care, with the pretext that they don't want to hear anything, is still kind of casual discrimination, even if they say that it would be the same regardless of the sexual preference, you know it really isn't the same. Because then that turns into people saying that they don't want to see it, that the two gay people kissing in a movie is now the LGBT people trying to push an agenda, when there would have been no problem if it was two cis straight people.

Actually, I can think of a good relevant video from Philosophy Tube, specifically it is about transphobia, but the topic I really want to draw from is one he Oliver brings up of "Yer Dad". It is a really good video, that doesn't feel like it is trying to be preachy, and I think is very intellectually honest. The idea of "Yer Dad" is not having to literally be your father, not a specific gender or age, but the idea of someone who is maybe in a position of privilege and may have used to have phobic views, and now are not quite hateful, but keep the spore of that beliefs by saying they don't care.


It is the idea that not choosing a side on certain topics, simply suspends the topic, rather than giving one side the rights that should be afforded to them as people, they are kept at a perpetual lesser state. The "I don't want to hear about it" point of view, ensures that in the greater society there may only be tolerance and not acceptance, and that keeps the discrimination that can lead to an increase of things like hate crimes. LGBT people bullied for simply who they are, which can lead to developing mental illnesses like depression, which can become so bad that there is a greater amount of them committing suicide due to said illness, that leads people thinking that it is evidence that being LGBT itself is mental illness that causes suicide. This can all be followed by any progress actually going backwards.

Ah, wrong again!No, I'm pro-mind-your-own-damn-business.So was I. No need to "school" me on anything involving the Navy and their implementation of "Don't ask, don't tell", because it was used as a warning to LGBTQ people to stay in the closet. Now, if you had actually read my previous posts, you would see that I have a "Don't need to know" caveat. This means that I simply do not care about anyone's sexuality other than my own and my wife's.ALL lives matter, not just the lives of women, minorities, and LGBTQ people.Noted and reported.You gotta get over yourself.

One more time: A person's sexuality (except my wife's and my own) does not matter to me, nor should it matter to anyone else. Any sexual activity that is not specifically defined as a crime of assault (i.e., rape, pedo-rape, et cetera) or public indecency (i.e., "flashing", sex in public, et cetera) is no one's business but the people involved, law enforcement and the legal system.

Gay? Straight? Asexual? "Other"? So what? I don't need to know, that's all.

But if you want to march through the streets while waving a rainbow flag, go for it. Just make sure that you get the appropriate parade permits first, and don't be the ones to initiate (or threaten) any acts of violence.

Why do you assume it has to be you knowing specifically. From my understanding it is about normalizing it. What if a children's cartoon has a gay wedding? People went bananas over that, while never caring about things like straight weddings in a cartoon. Maybe you already have enough experience as to know that you don't care, and it does not matter, but other people have no idea, no experience of such things. They see only cis straight people, and the second they see something LGBT they see it as wrong.

Romance is an entire genre of entertainment, and one could argue that LGBT are the ones having cis straightness down their throat, that it being the only thing they have experience with they may not notice they are a little off the spectrum. It is not difficult to look back at 90s movies or shows and see that they actually had quite a bit of problematic parts, and it is kind of foolish to assume that things are perfect now. People are realizing that the TV show Friends is hard to go back to with its making fun of transgender people. Quite a few things still in the public conscious are not very good towards people on LGBT spectrum.

For the longest time the default has been to treat LGBT as different from what is considered normal, from the mere angle of not mentioned at all. No one cares if a Disney Princess gets a prince, but people would lose their mind if she got a princess, suddenly it is an agenda. People can give lip service that it does not bother them at all, but would still feel uncomfortable with the idea of taking their child to say watch The Little Mermaid but Eric was a woman, or Snow White, but she was assigned male at birth. Absolutely everything else could be the same, but they would see those single changes as somehow deviant. Although perhaps this is a loaded example, since people are freaking out about Ariel's skin colour being changed.

Just a few years ago, the Avatar animated series was seemingly having political issues because two girls, including the main character, just happen to like each other. Where the first series could end with a kiss between a girl and boy, Legend of Korra could at best have hand holding with characters framed like a straight couple that kissed, at the very end. Which does seem to have opened the door to have more open examples of LGBT people. At every level there are people saying that it is something like forced diversity, with those people feeding off of the "don't tell" mantra, despite that such things make people care less about the differences.

It was a half-measure, in which openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual people were still prohibited from serving in the military, but the military just stopped trying to weed out closeted GLBs.

I don't. What I do think is that if people stopped obsessing about sexuality (and what the "proper" or "normal" form should be) there would be less stress and strife over it.Normalization. I think you've got it. As someone once said, "'Normal' is a setting on a clothes dryer", or something like that.I think you understand my perspective quite well, so far...I'm not a big fan of Disneycorp, but I see your point. What if Fa Mulan passed herself off as a man to impress Captain Li Shang's wife and not the Captain himself? People would figuratively be "up in arms" and likely boycott all things Disney.I'm all for normalization, but what then? What happens when one person's "coming out" is met with bland indifference? How will people feel when their sexuality is not longer perceived as an identity, but as a mere detail of that identity (along with hair color, eye color, et cetera)? What happens when the "Gay" float in the Tournament of Roses Parade gets only as much attention as any other float?

As for "Don't ask, don't tell, don't care", I wait for the day when everybody accepts the fact that sexuality is a private issue to be shared only with one's partner(s). I mean, it is already considered rude to ask a stranger or mere acquaintance if they prefer anal, oral, or vaginal sex, right? Equally rude would be to wear a tee-shirt depicting a preferred sex act. So why should it be considered acceptable to brag about (or discriminate against) one's sexuality?

It shouldn't.

As for "Don't ask, don't tell, don't care", I wait for the day when everybody accepts the fact that sexuality is a private issue to be shared only with one's partner(s). I mean, it is already considered rude to ask a stranger or mere acquaintance if they prefer anal, oral, or vaginal sex, right? Equally rude would be to wear a tee-shirt depicting a preferred sex act. So why should it be considered acceptable to brag about (or discriminate against) one's sexuality?

It shouldn't.

In principle I agree with you, but there are enough people who do care, and can tell what type of orifice people like to stick it in from sight (ever hear of gaydar?), that it does matter. To stand on principle before equal application of the law is achieved is ethically fallacious, being discriminatory in it's own right. It is also a common technique of Libertarian thought, as historical and social context is always whitewashed or downplayed. Check Out Crager U criticism for examples.

Also, what is this horror you have of sex? You know the terms. What is the angst? What is the actual nature of your complaint?

I have a similar complaint about politicians. I think it should be just as scary for politicians to relay their own religious views as it would be for them to expound upon what their fav dildo is.

Then we can start fighting about people becoming transhuman cyborgs, where humanity itself needs to be redefined, as the line of man and machine blur. People start having a tizzy about whether its natural for technology to be integrated into the body, maybe people discrimination about people who volunteer to replace their limbs, with a crossfire of people who had no choice as a method to live normal lives. At least that is what I understand from the recent Cyberpunk game controversy where binary gender is not chosen, but pieces of gender can be taken individually. And I want my robot arm!

I am sure pride or whatever will have its place as long as there are people discriminating, which based off of things like religion and what I see on the internet, it is not going anywhere. I can't really answer the topic about pride stuff, never been to anything, and too afraid most of my life from bullying to look into the subject. My country only started allowing gay marriage a couple years ago, after the government dragged its feet after making a promise to bring it to a vote, and conservative groups were allowed to do disgusting anti-LGBT ads to try and counter it. Didn't really even come into open contact with people who opened up as LGBT (not counting a few suspicious) until I volunteered at an office with a guy who was super open about it, followed by a friend I knew since High School came out, and having to tell my mother to treat a trans person by their preferred pronouns.

I have only been starting to question things about myself that made me feel uncomfortable to face, and with no clear definition, and really not wanting to look like someone trying to be a special snowflake, I would like to reach the doesn't matter stage. And I don't think it is going to get there while being ignored.

Wow. That's some profound thinking there, Bradleigh! Now, what criteria do you think define one's perception of "Identity", both of self and of others? How do you think judgement and labeling are involved, and do you think they interfere or reinforce one's perception of "Identity"?

After dwelling on this for a while, I have to point out that there are two ways to "come out" -- Actively or Passively.

Canoodling in public? Passive. If no one objects to "straights" doing it, then why should anyone else's public display of affection be seen as hostile or even "dirty"? I certainly wouldn't want to see a hetero couple performing a live sex act at my grand-daughter's kindergarten graduation ... but two fathers holding hands at the same event? Why not?

Actively shouting "I'm Here! I'm Queer!" over and over again at a Harvest Crusade assembly? That's about as hostile as actively shouting "Straight is Great!" at a Rainbow Coalition rally; and while they may not be the same thing, they should be treated the same.

[Moderator, please delete.]

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 19 Sep 2019, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Agreed.


In each of the above two cases, counter-demonstrators have the right to free speech too, but it is the responsibility of the local police to keep the counter-demonstrators a safe distance away from the crowd against whom they are protesting.

The NYPD has known how to do this for decades. Apparently the police in some other major cities don't know how to do this, alas.

Particular quotes I heard recently were along the lines of a contradiction from one should only care about how they see themselves rather than how others see them, which was that people usually present themselves to have people see them how you want to see yourself. Generally that someone born as a man that dresses/presents as a woman, probably wants people to see them as a woman, so it can reinforce their internal identity. Of course there is the importance of internal acceptance of who you are, which should trump how others treat you, but it is total BS that the authority that be to criticism marginalized groups for getting upset when they are bullied by the majority.

That last bit I am thinking specifically from something I saw from the recent Fruits Basket anime where a teacher was criticising a depressed student for pretty much not trying hard enough to get along with a class that was bullying her. The answer to the problem being that telling someone to be happy, especially if other people are harassing them over who they are, means nothing instead of just some plain old acceptance of people not just tolerating them but also loving and accepting them. Even us introverts are social creatures to some degree, and how we are treated by others can have big impacts on how we see ourselves. As silly as this sounds, this personally connected to me as big over the old adage of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me", I think is incredibly ignorant, just like the idea of something like "boys will be boys". It is simply ignoring the issue, the statement to say you are out of the issue. I guess it would allow the homophobes to have some influence on how people see themselves.

In terms of my own identities, well I have seen myself use and kind of discard defining myself by them. Specifically I would call myself a "gamer" or by an "Aspie" as per this site, and I have come to the conclusion that using excluding identities/labels can kind of have the effect of toxic attitudes to those outside those groups. Totally cringe at being on this site and referring to other people as NTs (Neurotypicals), as I do to things like the "true gamer" movements. There is a way you can use them, as long as you never try to act as gatekeepers to anyone else's experience. If someone wants to be a gamer because they play mobile games or with a deck of cards, then let them, just as someone outside of being on the autistic spectrum doesn't need to be discounted as an "NT" from an experience of dyslexia, or some other awkward mental traits. One could argue that it practically make the titles themselves a little worthless, but I think it is worth having people able to identify with groups, as long as they understand some of what those deeper in that group experience. My current thoughts is that maybe LGBT+ to accept people in who have a gender on the spectrum not entirely on the binary, and maybe admit they in certain circumstances may feel an attraction to parts of the same sex.

On the question of passive vs aggressive, by mere parts of my own personality, I am not too much of a fan of aggressive stuff. I more than others are more likely to be scared off, it is kind of upsetting to have something yelled for everyone to hear, when you are already not really comfortable with. The best I can do is to try and act like I feel no impact from something strange and new happening, and on the internet try to convince people that calling someone a "trap" is wrong. That last one being relevant to the anime community that I get involved in, and from my perception, can affect the actual acceptance through characters like Hoshikawa Lily, which by all measures did everything right by not even making the fact she was born a boy be her main conflict, in favour of being quickly accepted, and still viewers misgendered her. Probably seems like such an unnecessary topic to a lot of people, but nothing changes if no one speaks up, like someone did to me.

Agreed that "sexuality" in the sense of specific sex acts is a strictly private matter. However, "sexuality" in the sense of the preferred gender of one's partner has public aspects, such as marriage.

And, while the right to same-sex marriage has been won here in the U.S.A., partly by judicial fiat, we can't take this for granted as a done deal, given the large number of right wing judges, including Supreme Court justices, who have been appointed lately.