So the tldr version is you feel like the left is bullying the right because…the left won’t let the right force their beliefs on the left? That’s…not what bullying means. That’s the opposite of bullying, that’s standing up to bullies.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the right ever faced actual bullying, actual oppression, actual discrimination? Imagine if the left was actively, aggressively passing laws against going to church and praying in general because believing in god is a mental illness, and passing laws prohibiting anybody who owns a Bible from getting married or having kids or using public bathrooms because they shouldn’t be allowed to expose their mental illnesses to children. Imagine if the left started labeling Bible thumpers pedoph…oh wait, most Bible thumpers actually are(or at least defend) pedophiles, this got too real it was supposed to be a hypothetical.
The left can have their opinions. That's fine. They're insane, horrible opinions, but I support free speech and thought.
The problem is they're trying to take away ours by making the labels for our positions bad words, taboo.
I'm very sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic. These are the same positions the vast majority of us have on the right but we're being trained to somehow explain our positions all while frantically denying being these labels, which just looks stupid and contributes to the stereotype that we're uneducated. My position is that these labels are acceptable descriptions of us. I mean they obviously are. I support capitalism as well. Yet it's socially acceptable for me to say I'm a capitalist. I support conservatism of tradition. Yet it's socially acceptable for me to say I'm a conservative. So how is it that I can't just say I'm racist? That I can't just say I'm homophobic? That's what I don't get.
Honestly my problem isn't just with the left but with the right at this point. I cringe so hard watching friends scramble about in debates trying to say they're not racist, etc. I mean it's like, let's be real. We very much are all these things we're accused of, but the point is that's okay!
How is it so bad to be transphobic? It's just an alternative stance on this incredibly serious issue. I mean imagine that an alien species showed up, said they were stranded, and would die if we didn't let them live among us so we did. Then we find out they regularly cannibalize their criminals and execute all but the top one percent of their children as a way to constantly improve their genes, really alien stuff like that. This is incredibly similar to the trans situation, yet I'm not allowed to say I'm transphobic. No one would bat an eye for saying you didn't welcome these aliens, so why trans people? It's almost the exact same thing.
As for the Bible thumpers I completely disagree with that last part and I think you know that's bullshit too. The strongly religious are the most sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, transphobic people there are. We get these values from the Bible itself. But you're saying we magically accept chomos? Give me a break. Religious folks are the same people that talk about wanting to murder them. It's the left that supports therapy for them and says maybe they're born that way.
I’ll respond to the last part first…the Bible openly supports and encourages (demands, in fact) pedophilia. “Well technically it’s hebephilia” is not a defense for touching children. They’re the ones who want the age of consent lowered, or completely abolished. They’re the ones defending child marriages. Look at the politicians they support. Are there any male republicans that DON’T like underage girls? Their presidential nominee the last two elections was a guy who said his 13 year old daughter was hotter than his wife and that he hoped the one trait his infant daughter gets from her mom is her boobs. Everybody knows QAnon is a psyop to distract from all the real, actual pedophiles, like a cheating spouse who always baselessly accuses their spouse of cheating. Saying you want to murder child molesters is pretty hollow when you defend every actual child molester. That’s like claiming to be “pro life” and not giving a shit about the life of a child once it’s born.
As for the rest…in another comment you said, “I just think gay marriage and gender reassignment surgery should be illegal.“ That’s…not supporting free speech and thought. That’s the exact opposite of supporting free speech and thought. If you support free speech and thought, I’m really not sure what the problem is here. You have your opinion that being gay or trans or black or anything but a straight white Christian American man is bad, they have the opinion that being a racist sexist xenophobic bigot is bad. Why is it ok for one side to say the other is bad but the other side can’t respond? That’s not free speech or thought. Same with the stereotyping/profiling…if we’re going to profile minorities, surely it’s fair to profile conservatives as uneducated, since that’s what they are, but you talked about them being stereotyped as if thats a bad thing. I just want some logical consistency here. We should have more stereotyping and profiling of conservatives, not less, if we’re going to stereotype and profile other groups.
I'm asking for logical consistency from you. I'm going to need to make some corrections here.
1. I didn't say being black is bad. I said it should be okay for police to profile, look at the most logical areas and suspects first. The harsh reality is it will get the job done faster. Also, it's Asians, not whites, who commit the least crime. I admit this as a white man because I live in reality.
2. I already said that's the only kind of profiling I support and that I don't agree with profiling by IQ or education. If we did, it would again be Asians on top by the way anyway, but again I only support profiling to prevent crime and save lives. Lives > feelings.
3. Me feeling that gender reassignment surgery and gay marriage should be illegal doesn't have a damn thing to do with free speech. You're free to say you support it and I'm free to say I don't. I don't support the outcome resulting from anything except voting.
But my free speech is being limited. I'm not even allowed to be and say I'm homophobic most places now while you were allowed to say you supported gay marriage when it was illegal. THIS is my free speech being hindered. As long as I support laws only changing legally and I don't assault anyone I should be perfectly free to discuss my sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic ideas.
Imagine if you could be banned from Twitter for saying you support LGBT. This is a blatant attack on my free speech and it's undeniable.
1/2.Race isn’t the only thing that correlates with crime. It’s not even the best predictor, that’s poverty. If you want to profile to prevent crime and save lives, you should want them to profile poor people regardless of race. And, of course, the leading cause of poverty is lack of education, so uneducated people have to be included in that. The fact that black people commit more crimes is because they face more barriers to education and are more likely to be in poverty, it’s not something inherent to being black. (To be clear, in no way do I support profiling poor or uneducated people, but if you thinking profiling is acceptable and want to do it to reduce crime and save lives, you should want them to do so in the most effective way possible.)
3.You’re free to say you wouldn’t have gender reassignment surgery or that you wouldn’t marry somebody of the same gender, but when you say other people shouldn’t have those rights, of course that’s infringing on their rights. Come on, that’s just silly.
Well, Twitter isn’t the government and they’re not putting people in jail, they’re a privately owned company that has the right to write their own rules and enforce them how they see fit, so that has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but I don’t have to just “imagine” that happening to people on the left, because it DID happen - on Parler. They eagerly banned leftists and anybody who disagreed with the mob…and that wasn’t a free speech issue either.
1/2. I never said it was or wasn't inherent to blacks. I'm saying it's a fact that they commit more crime for some reason or another. Therefore profiling them saves lives. I'm fine with profiling by poverty as well even though it's almost the same thing. It's common sense that some white trash guy is more likely to shoot you than a white man in a business suit as well. Whatever saves lives. Lives will always be more important than feelings about profiling.
3. You're pulling a switcheroo here. You said I was infringing in their freedom of speech and thought, not rights. Yes, I would like to take these specific rights away from them, legally via voting.
You're actually right here and I almost didn't use Twitter because of that but I did because Twitter is so well-known. Twitter can ban me because they don't like my name. But the point is their mindset is based on what's going on in general as well. Us homophobic people will be verbally attacked in the general public, even by other homophobic people on the right, just for admitting we're homophobic. It's treated like a bad word when it's just a position. One half of the population is sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic and we have to live in shadows because we agreed to play these rules and it's insane. It doesn't happen with the overall picture. Liberals can admit they're liberals. Conservatives can admit they're conservatives. Liberals can admit they're LGBT. But conservatives can't admit nearly all of us are sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic. It's incredibly cowardly of my side that we've allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission like this.
1/2.Profiling by race would take away resources from profiling by poverty, which is far more effective than profiling by race.
3.Fair, but the point is that all freedoms are equal - if you don’t support all freedoms for everybody, then you don’t support freedom. There is no legal way to take rights away from people, as any such law would be unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court if it got that far.
Being an asshole in general is frowned upon by society. Being transphobic, racist, arabophobic(more accurate then islamophobic imo), sexist, and homophobic(call it TRASH for short) is just one form of being an asshole. If I walked around telling people how much I hate Bible thumpers and how I want to make churches illegal, that wouldn’t be well received either, because I’d be an asshole.. That doesn’t mean I can’t do it, just like it doesn’t mean you can’t be TRASH, it just means people can and will react, which is their right.
Also, being LGBT and being TRASH are not opposite sides of the same coin like liberal or conservative. The opposite of being LGBT is simply being cisgender and straight, and nobody will have a problem with you admitting that you’re cis and straight. The opposite of being TRASH would be someone who hates cis straight people and wants to take away their rights, it’s just that there are so few(if any) people who feel that way that there’s not even a real term for them. Heterophobic? Americaphobic? Chrisrtianophobic? Cisgenderist? Caucasist? If there were any HACCCs out there, they too would have to either live in the shadows or deal with the ridicule of the public just like TRASH people do, because again, being an asshole is frowned upon.
The left is bullying the right
← View full post
So the tldr version is you feel like the left is bullying the right because…the left won’t let the right force their beliefs on the left? That’s…not what bullying means. That’s the opposite of bullying, that’s standing up to bullies.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the right ever faced actual bullying, actual oppression, actual discrimination? Imagine if the left was actively, aggressively passing laws against going to church and praying in general because believing in god is a mental illness, and passing laws prohibiting anybody who owns a Bible from getting married or having kids or using public bathrooms because they shouldn’t be allowed to expose their mental illnesses to children. Imagine if the left started labeling Bible thumpers pedoph…oh wait, most Bible thumpers actually are(or at least defend) pedophiles, this got too real it was supposed to be a hypothetical.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The left can have their opinions. That's fine. They're insane, horrible opinions, but I support free speech and thought.
The problem is they're trying to take away ours by making the labels for our positions bad words, taboo.
I'm very sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic. These are the same positions the vast majority of us have on the right but we're being trained to somehow explain our positions all while frantically denying being these labels, which just looks stupid and contributes to the stereotype that we're uneducated. My position is that these labels are acceptable descriptions of us. I mean they obviously are. I support capitalism as well. Yet it's socially acceptable for me to say I'm a capitalist. I support conservatism of tradition. Yet it's socially acceptable for me to say I'm a conservative. So how is it that I can't just say I'm racist? That I can't just say I'm homophobic? That's what I don't get.
Honestly my problem isn't just with the left but with the right at this point. I cringe so hard watching friends scramble about in debates trying to say they're not racist, etc. I mean it's like, let's be real. We very much are all these things we're accused of, but the point is that's okay!
How is it so bad to be transphobic? It's just an alternative stance on this incredibly serious issue. I mean imagine that an alien species showed up, said they were stranded, and would die if we didn't let them live among us so we did. Then we find out they regularly cannibalize their criminals and execute all but the top one percent of their children as a way to constantly improve their genes, really alien stuff like that. This is incredibly similar to the trans situation, yet I'm not allowed to say I'm transphobic. No one would bat an eye for saying you didn't welcome these aliens, so why trans people? It's almost the exact same thing.
As for the Bible thumpers I completely disagree with that last part and I think you know that's bullshit too. The strongly religious are the most sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, transphobic people there are. We get these values from the Bible itself. But you're saying we magically accept chomos? Give me a break. Religious folks are the same people that talk about wanting to murder them. It's the left that supports therapy for them and says maybe they're born that way.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I’ll respond to the last part first…the Bible openly supports and encourages (demands, in fact) pedophilia. “Well technically it’s hebephilia” is not a defense for touching children. They’re the ones who want the age of consent lowered, or completely abolished. They’re the ones defending child marriages. Look at the politicians they support. Are there any male republicans that DON’T like underage girls? Their presidential nominee the last two elections was a guy who said his 13 year old daughter was hotter than his wife and that he hoped the one trait his infant daughter gets from her mom is her boobs. Everybody knows QAnon is a psyop to distract from all the real, actual pedophiles, like a cheating spouse who always baselessly accuses their spouse of cheating. Saying you want to murder child molesters is pretty hollow when you defend every actual child molester. That’s like claiming to be “pro life” and not giving a shit about the life of a child once it’s born.
As for the rest…in another comment you said, “I just think gay marriage and gender reassignment surgery should be illegal.“ That’s…not supporting free speech and thought. That’s the exact opposite of supporting free speech and thought. If you support free speech and thought, I’m really not sure what the problem is here. You have your opinion that being gay or trans or black or anything but a straight white Christian American man is bad, they have the opinion that being a racist sexist xenophobic bigot is bad. Why is it ok for one side to say the other is bad but the other side can’t respond? That’s not free speech or thought. Same with the stereotyping/profiling…if we’re going to profile minorities, surely it’s fair to profile conservatives as uneducated, since that’s what they are, but you talked about them being stereotyped as if thats a bad thing. I just want some logical consistency here. We should have more stereotyping and profiling of conservatives, not less, if we’re going to stereotype and profile other groups.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm asking for logical consistency from you. I'm going to need to make some corrections here.
1. I didn't say being black is bad. I said it should be okay for police to profile, look at the most logical areas and suspects first. The harsh reality is it will get the job done faster. Also, it's Asians, not whites, who commit the least crime. I admit this as a white man because I live in reality.
2. I already said that's the only kind of profiling I support and that I don't agree with profiling by IQ or education. If we did, it would again be Asians on top by the way anyway, but again I only support profiling to prevent crime and save lives. Lives > feelings.
3. Me feeling that gender reassignment surgery and gay marriage should be illegal doesn't have a damn thing to do with free speech. You're free to say you support it and I'm free to say I don't. I don't support the outcome resulting from anything except voting.
But my free speech is being limited. I'm not even allowed to be and say I'm homophobic most places now while you were allowed to say you supported gay marriage when it was illegal. THIS is my free speech being hindered. As long as I support laws only changing legally and I don't assault anyone I should be perfectly free to discuss my sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic ideas.
Imagine if you could be banned from Twitter for saying you support LGBT. This is a blatant attack on my free speech and it's undeniable.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
1/2.Race isn’t the only thing that correlates with crime. It’s not even the best predictor, that’s poverty. If you want to profile to prevent crime and save lives, you should want them to profile poor people regardless of race. And, of course, the leading cause of poverty is lack of education, so uneducated people have to be included in that. The fact that black people commit more crimes is because they face more barriers to education and are more likely to be in poverty, it’s not something inherent to being black. (To be clear, in no way do I support profiling poor or uneducated people, but if you thinking profiling is acceptable and want to do it to reduce crime and save lives, you should want them to do so in the most effective way possible.)
3.You’re free to say you wouldn’t have gender reassignment surgery or that you wouldn’t marry somebody of the same gender, but when you say other people shouldn’t have those rights, of course that’s infringing on their rights. Come on, that’s just silly.
Well, Twitter isn’t the government and they’re not putting people in jail, they’re a privately owned company that has the right to write their own rules and enforce them how they see fit, so that has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but I don’t have to just “imagine” that happening to people on the left, because it DID happen - on Parler. They eagerly banned leftists and anybody who disagreed with the mob…and that wasn’t a free speech issue either.
--
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
1/2. I never said it was or wasn't inherent to blacks. I'm saying it's a fact that they commit more crime for some reason or another. Therefore profiling them saves lives. I'm fine with profiling by poverty as well even though it's almost the same thing. It's common sense that some white trash guy is more likely to shoot you than a white man in a business suit as well. Whatever saves lives. Lives will always be more important than feelings about profiling.
3. You're pulling a switcheroo here. You said I was infringing in their freedom of speech and thought, not rights. Yes, I would like to take these specific rights away from them, legally via voting.
You're actually right here and I almost didn't use Twitter because of that but I did because Twitter is so well-known. Twitter can ban me because they don't like my name. But the point is their mindset is based on what's going on in general as well. Us homophobic people will be verbally attacked in the general public, even by other homophobic people on the right, just for admitting we're homophobic. It's treated like a bad word when it's just a position. One half of the population is sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic and we have to live in shadows because we agreed to play these rules and it's insane. It doesn't happen with the overall picture. Liberals can admit they're liberals. Conservatives can admit they're conservatives. Liberals can admit they're LGBT. But conservatives can't admit nearly all of us are sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and transphobic. It's incredibly cowardly of my side that we've allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission like this.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
1/2.Profiling by race would take away resources from profiling by poverty, which is far more effective than profiling by race.
3.Fair, but the point is that all freedoms are equal - if you don’t support all freedoms for everybody, then you don’t support freedom. There is no legal way to take rights away from people, as any such law would be unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court if it got that far.
Being an asshole in general is frowned upon by society. Being transphobic, racist, arabophobic(more accurate then islamophobic imo), sexist, and homophobic(call it TRASH for short) is just one form of being an asshole. If I walked around telling people how much I hate Bible thumpers and how I want to make churches illegal, that wouldn’t be well received either, because I’d be an asshole.. That doesn’t mean I can’t do it, just like it doesn’t mean you can’t be TRASH, it just means people can and will react, which is their right.
Also, being LGBT and being TRASH are not opposite sides of the same coin like liberal or conservative. The opposite of being LGBT is simply being cisgender and straight, and nobody will have a problem with you admitting that you’re cis and straight. The opposite of being TRASH would be someone who hates cis straight people and wants to take away their rights, it’s just that there are so few(if any) people who feel that way that there’s not even a real term for them. Heterophobic? Americaphobic? Chrisrtianophobic? Cisgenderist? Caucasist? If there were any HACCCs out there, they too would have to either live in the shadows or deal with the ridicule of the public just like TRASH people do, because again, being an asshole is frowned upon.