In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 05 2016 06:27 TheTenthDoc wrote: The hilarity of people tired of "being bullied" out of discourse rallying behind someone who denigrated his opponents' appearances on the debate stage when they confronted him on his awful positions and insulted their significant others during the primary when they challenged him is great. He just used direct insults instead of calling them non-PC like those "liberals" do, it's the same shit different stink.
I guess it's full-on if you can't beat them, join them?
I think that's not how Trump supporters understand "being bullied out of discourse". They're not against insulting in general but they don't like censorship and they feel like people with their views are being silenced. I mean stuff like removing hate speech in social media or disrupting Trump rallies.
I just can't see the substantive difference between people shutting down your ability to say things in public by censoring them vs. shutting down your ability to say things in public by saying "that doesn't matter, you're last in the polls" or "you're a wimp" or "I never attacked him on his looks, and believe me there's a lot of subject matter there"? It's all people in power exercising power over your speech through force, just a slightly different kind of force and in the latter case without even an attempt to justify it.
I guess when it's politicians they're doing it to rather than when you're the target, it makes them seem "tough" and "straight-talking." Somehow.
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
You are free to hold those views if you hold them. If you want to express them, you can't whine if you get some push back.
How did we get stuck on this gay marriage thing though? Who here expressed views against gay marriage?
Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged.
That statement indeed says nothing about homosexuality, or, for that matter anything specific at all. It is literally without content.
Let's bring back some sense to the debate.
The "Trump movement" is challenging the political correctness thought police established by liberals; I would credit this as the mayor part for his sucess, and I assume even the "liberals" from this thread can see this (wether you agree with it or not).
This poster of X-Men Apocalipse posted a while back is an example of this.
Is the bringer of apocalypse supposed to spare half of the population because it wouldn't be politically correct to slaughter woman? It's a damn mutant fighting him ffs.
Geniune question for the liberals here: Do you think this poster is offensive, sexist, wathever or you think the complaints are fanatical nonsense that makes your side look bad to the rest?
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
Except the government recognizing a marriage has nothing to do with religion. For some reason the right thinks that Religion owns the concept of marriage. It doesn't. No one is forcing churches to perform their particular marriage rituals for gay people against their will. Its the state recognizing a union between two adults. Calling gay marriages "civil unions" is just saying their marriages are 2nd class.
I remember when the vote came up in my state and the argument the conservatives in my family used was "just don't call their thing marriage...thats our thing".
The gay marriage issue is dead, even conservatives accept it for the most part. There'll be holdouts but there's no mass protests anymore for taking away gay marriage. May have to look for some slippery republican law makers here and there but that's not the masses anymore.
On June 05 2016 09:07 On_Slaught wrote: Remember all those times Trump said that the lack of violence at his rallies was because of political correctness (and hence bad)?
Also, as to your sig, many people can't get an education or don't have much of an education but still work and contribute. Trump saying "we love the uneducated!" is inclusive. He's literally said he loves every group and shows it in spades at his rallies. Rude that the left has such a disdain for the uneducated.
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
No one is forcing churches to perform their particular marriage rituals for gay people against their will.
TBF, this is now the concern. If forcing nuns to provide contraception is one justice away from being law, then so is bakers being forced to cater weddings and maybe even churches being forced to hold the ceremonies.
The last one may take longer, but the former is happening right now.
Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged.
That statement indeed says nothing about homosexuality, or, for that matter anything specific at all. It is literally without content.
So can we get a definition of progress (with the sarcastic quotation marks)? And can we get an idea of what wonderful things conservatives have done for America in, say, the last couple decades?
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
No one is forcing churches to perform their particular marriage rituals for gay people against their will.
TBF, this is now the concern. If forcing nuns to provide contraception is one justice away from being law, then so is bakers being forced to cater weddings and maybe even churches being forced to hold the ceremonies.
The last one may take longer, but the former is happening right now.
the last one won't happen at all; andall claims about it potentially happening are unfounded nonsense. the first i'd need clarification on what case you're tlaking about; if it's the one i'm thinking of, the issue is them complying with the laws on treating employees, and they aren't being forced to provide the contraception even by the rules setup by the obama administration, so that point doens' tapply either. if your'e talking about a different case, i'd need a link to the case.
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
No one is forcing churches to perform their particular marriage rituals for gay people against their will.
TBF, this is now the concern. If forcing nuns to provide contraception is one justice away from being law, then so is bakers being forced to cater weddings and maybe even churches being forced to hold the ceremonies.
The last one may take longer, but the former is happening right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot tried to file a lawsuit sometime in the near future but I don't think they would have any kind of support and I don't see many people even thinking that way. Maybe for those who are both die hard religious and also gay? I would think the religion would have a super strong case and very little support on the opposite side. I know I wouldn't support that shit.
As for the baker? Well its a tricky subject when trying to balance discrimination vs rights when you can't know what is going on inside peoples minds. The nun case is pretty dumb though. We all know how well that strategy did to Africa and if you even look into the bible it would likely tell you to just pass out of the god damn contraception. Providing it for your employees doesn't mean you are sinning. Just look out for yourself and how you treat others, everyone already knows your stance on this shit but trying to with hold it only to cause more pain from the consequences of those actions is worse and a bad pr move for churches. They shouldn't be dying on the hill of contraception imo.
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
No one is forcing churches to perform their particular marriage rituals for gay people against their will.
TBF, this is now the concern. If forcing nuns to provide contraception is one justice away from being law, then so is bakers being forced to cater weddings and maybe even churches being forced to hold the ceremonies.
The last one may take longer, but the former is happening right now.
the last one won't happen at all; andall claims about it potentially happening are unfounded nonsense. the first i'd need clarification on what case you're tlaking about; if it's the one i'm thinking of, the issue is them complying with the laws on treating employees, and they aren't being forced to provide the contraception even by the rules setup by the obama administration, so that point doens' tapply either. if your'e talking about a different case, i'd need a link to the case.
You could read the court arguments, but it doesn't matter because you already set it up as mistreatment. The issue is, the law told them they had to do something they found objectionable, and the Obama administration tried to make them do it anyway. And while it's not a church, it is a religious institution.
There are a lot of word games, but in the end all you need to know is that (Edit: many) liberals here and around the country certainly believe the baker is obliged to cater the wedding. This is after years of saying "gay marriage won't affect you." So pardon me if I don't believe a word they say. It wouldn't be American liberalism if it didn't come with government forced compliance.
If Milo was right about the baker case and that it was actual shopping around for outrage rather than facing bigotry in person that's actually kind of heinous.
On June 05 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote: Being inclusive does not mean that we have to let someone's view that gay marriage(for example) is wrong go unchallenged. Saying gay marriage should be allowed is telling someone who is gay that they do not deserve the same rights as a straight person. It is both hurtful and insulting to them.
It's actually not. Most people that don't like gay marriage are fine if they get something like a civil union instead. It's the religious concept and vows they care about, not the legal rights associated with them.
It's certainly hurtful and insulting though.
I think gay marriage is fine, but most people seem to misunderstand the side against it.
No one is forcing churches to perform their particular marriage rituals for gay people against their will.
TBF, this is now the concern. If forcing nuns to provide contraception is one justice away from being law, then so is bakers being forced to cater weddings and maybe even churches being forced to hold the ceremonies.
The last one may take longer, but the former is happening right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot tried to file a lawsuit sometime in the near future but I don't think they would have any kind of support and I don't see many people even thinking that way. Maybe for those who are both die hard religious and also gay? I would think the religion would have a super strong case and very little support on the opposite side. I know I wouldn't support that shit.
As for the baker? Well its a tricky subject when trying to balance discrimination vs rights when you can't know what is going on inside peoples minds. The nun case is pretty dumb though. We all know how well that strategy did to Africa and if you even look into the bible it would likely tell you to just pass out of the god damn contraception. Providing it for your employees doesn't mean you are sinning. Just look out for yourself and how you treat others, everyone already knows your stance on this shit but trying to with hold it only to cause more pain from the consequences of those actions is worse and a bad pr move for churches. They shouldn't be dying on the hill of contraception imo.
But this is exactly the issue. This isn't the hill they should die on? Why not? They should just sit around and take it. A little bit here, a little bit there....I mean it's scary that you say they shouldn't because in your opinion it's irrational. That's not a good standard.
The baker subject is cut and dry. We were told for years that gay marriage won't affect anyone else. Whoops.
I don't want to get into the weeds, but I did want to point out people do have legitimate concerns about what comes next.
On June 05 2016 09:56 SK.Testie wrote: If Milo was right about the baker case and that it was actual shopping around for outrage rather than facing bigotry in person that's actually kind of heinous.
On June 05 2016 05:32 Surth wrote: Just to remind everyone why we are flinging shit at each other:
Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged.
That statement indeed says nothing about homosexuality, or, for that matter anything specific at all. It is literally without content.
Let's bring back some sense to the debate.
The "Trump movement" is challenging the political correctness thought police established by liberals; I would credit this as the mayor part for his sucess, and I assume even the "liberals" from this thread can see this (wether you agree with it or not).
This poster of X-Men Apocalipse posted a while back is an example of this.
Is the bringer of apocalypse supposed to spare half of the population because it wouldn't be politically correct to slaughter woman? It's a damn mutant fighting him ffs.
Geniune question for the liberals here: Do you think this poster is offensive, sexist, wathever or you think the complaints are fanatical nonsense that makes your side look bad to the rest?
It's not offensive or sexist. However I don't see any issues with a feminist group saying that the image of a strong man choking a woman is problematic due to the degree to which it normalizes that kind of violence against women. It's not sexist, wrong or anything else, it's problematic due to issues that they care about more than most people. Man choking woman is just a lazy shorthand for villain and it's a little tasteless given the degree to which domestic abuse is still a thing. Imagine if blacks were still routinely getting lynched and you used a black guy swinging from a branch as an image shorthand for "bad". It's not racist but it's problematic. That make any sense?
EPT
