Originally posted by Silent Master
First world problems.
LGBTQ people are the second most targeted group for bias motivated violence in the United States. That is a first world problem. But just because people can be incarcerated or executed by the state for being LGBTQ in other countries, it does not make hate crimes against LGBTQ people in the U.S. any less significant, you pathetic little try-hard.
Originally posted by Surtur
Adam's gaslighting and doing the "it's okay when our side does it" BS. It's pathetic. Either using the term "sexual preference" is wrong or it is not. There will absolutely be no "it's wrong, but more wrong when this one side does it". Hope that cleared it up 👆
It is misogynistic to call a woman a "*****."
If you call your mother a "*****," it is still misogynistic, but it is up to her whether it is problematic.
Because it is her womanhood that is being described, and she is the one who has the relationship with you, and understands your intent.
If someone who does not have a relationship with your mother called her a "*****," it would be fighting words.
It is almost as if context matters, even though you want to pretend it does not.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
LGBTQ people are the second most targeted group for bias motivated violence in the United States.
I cannot find a source for this. I looked. Best I could find was this which does not include LGBT elements:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is a first world problem.
This is VERY correct. People need to know about this. In Vietnam or Philippines, Gay, Transgendered? Celebrated in almost any area. They are viewed amazingly and it is rather shocking. Almost every popular show has someone who is L, G, B, T+ and it's normal. Sure, it's not perfect and there are some strong Catholic elements that give the standard conservative "discontent" but it's far less than in the US.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is misogynistic to call a woman a "*****."If you call your mother a "*****," it is still misogynistic, but it is up to her whether it is problematic.
Because it is her womanhood that is being described, and she is the one who has the relationship with you, and understands your intent.
If someone who does not have a relationship with your mother called her a "*****," it would be fighting words.
It is almost as if context matters, even though you want to pretend it does not.
Your “context” is a very misleading one.
The former is from a first person perspective (ergo “you” called your mom a w****) and the main responder to offense is the mother. And the latter is when a person other than yourself called your mom a w**** and the main responder to the offense is you.
A more appropriate comparison is if the mother was the only one responding. Would it be more hurtful if her own child called her a whore or if a total stranger did?
Originally posted by NibedicusDisagree
Your “context” is a very misleading one.The former is from a first person perspective (ergo “you” called your mom a w****) and the main responder to offense is the mother. And the latter is when a person other than yourself called your mom a w**** and the main responder to the offense is you.
A more appropriate comparison is if the mother was the only one responding. Would it be more hurtful if her own child called her a whore or if a total stranger did?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Your “context” is a very misleading one.The former is from a first person perspective (ergo “you” called your mom a w****) and the main responder to offense is the mother. And the latter is when a person other than yourself called your mom a w**** and the main responder to the offense is you.
A more appropriate comparison is if the mother was the only one responding. Would it be more hurtful if her own child called her a whore or if a total stranger did?
The mother is the only one responding. Whether she considers the same term offensive depends entirely on the intent of the speaker, and her relationship to that individual. It is almost as if context matters, which you keep trying to ignore.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The mother is the only one responding. Whether she considers the same term offensive depends entirely on the intent of the speaker, and her relationship to that individual. It is almost as if context matters, which you keep trying to ignore.
Then this line in your statement can make things confusing then:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If someone who does not have a relationship with your mother called her a "*****," it would be fighting words.
Since you used “Your mother” and “it would be fighting words” it makes it look like the responder is “you” not “the mother”. Did you mean that the mother is the one responding into the “fighting words” statement?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then this line in your statement can make things confusing then:Since you used “Your mother” and “it would be fighting words” it makes it look like the responder is “you” not “the mother”. Did you mean that the mother is the one responding into the “fighting words” statement?
Yes, I meant the mother.
This is what ACB said:
"At Tuesday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) asked Barrett if she would roll back protections for LGBT citizens. Barrett responded that she "never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference."
This is what Joe Biden said:
"During a roundtable discussion in May, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate promised to "rebuild the backbone of this country, the middle class, but this time bring everybody along regardless of color, sexual preference, their backgrounds."
There is no sane person who could believe one is more wrong than the other. Or even believe it's wrong to use it all, but if you are going down the path of "this is wrong" then there is no difference here.
This is not like a black guy using the N word vs a white guy. Neither of these people are LGBT
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
LGBTQ people are the second most targeted group for bias motivated violence in the United States. That is a first world problem. But just because people can be incarcerated or executed by the state for being LGBTQ in other countries, it does not make hate crimes against LGBTQ people in the U.S. any less significant, you pathetic little try-hard.
Doesn't change the fact that you getting triggered over the word preferences is a first world problem.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, I meant the mother.
Then the line of “fighting words” creates a bit of a contradiction in your statement.
The agency of getting offended towards the statement is, of course, with the mother. But the insertion of “fighting words” then takes away said agency and assumes that offense would always be present. Or at least it makes it seem that way. It would have been best if you ended it at “but it is up to her...”.
I do get that there is nuance in the meaning of a word when one has a relationship with another person. As there could be an “inside joke” between the two parties or at least a type of personal understanding of the meaning of the word within the relationship or between said parties that would make an offensive word less offensive or even acceptable.
However, I will also state that “offense” is very subjective and a more mature and balanced approach would be understanding the intent of the person speaking, not simply the impact of a word being used. There are caveats, of course. IF a word is well known to be offensive and it is still used by an individual to address a person who is known to be offended by it, then maybe one can blame the person for getting offended. But a generalized word that was, until recently, thought to be benign by most shouldn’t be something to be triggered over (well, I personally didn’t know “preference” was offensive myself and I asked my extremely liberal wife, my gay friends (they are not American tho) they didn’t know either, until my wife googled it and then she said it could be). Especially when we KNOW the intention of the speaker was not to cause offense.
We still come to the fact that Biden and ACB didn't use the phrase in different contexts.
There is nothing in what they said to indicate either of them meant it as some sort of dog whistle.
It's not wrong for ACB to use the phrase, but if it was it would be equally wrong for Biden to use it. There is no "ally clause" where you get a pass.
Originally posted by Surtur
We still come to the fact that Biden and ACB didn't use the phrase in different contexts.There is nothing in what they said to indicate either of them meant it as some sort of dog whistle.
It's not wrong for ACB to use the phrase, but if it was it would be equally wrong for Biden to use it. There is no "ally clause" where you get a pass.
Critical race theory disagrees 😱
Like are people so concerned about Biden vs ACB using the same term that they're removing the context of why LGBTQ people would be concerned about a religious conservative Supreme Court nominee using the term?
It was a long standing argument against homosexuals to say their desired partner was a choice therefore they can choose to be in a 'nonsinful' relationship with hetero partners instead.
This is a well documented standard that got applied to whether homosexual marriage or even homosexuality should be legal.