The Next Supreme Court Justice

Originally posted by Newjak
Sorry Nib I was very busy but I did want to get around to replying to this.

I think intent is such a hard thing to know sometimes especially in such an open ended context.

She may not have known and by some reports it looked like she was genuine in her not knowing. That could have been an act.

Maybe it was just a subconscious bias instilled in her from her Christian upbringing. Or it's just a façade and she very adheres to Homosexual relationships are sinful ones and therefore should not be allowed to be legal.

Those all could be her intent and could all be credible. The context here is she is a conservative Christian and that group has traditionally and even modernly homosexual relationships in general. It wasn't that long ago Kim Davis was celebrated for not doing her job and standing up to what they dub the "homosexual scourge".

You just can't remove that history and what she represents from this discussion entirely. She maybe the general exception but you can't just ignore it either because it's convenient or try to point hypocrisy without context.

An example, while extreme, would be a white citizen describing a person of color by the N word. Then defending them by saying someone else of color used the N word and saying if you don't denounce all uses of the N word by everyone then you're being hypocrites.

That logically doesn't make sense because ultimately one group using it has a context that is tied to the use of the word. In the case of conservative Christians in the U.S. sexual preference carries a history of trying be used to undermine Homosexuality in the U.S. both socially and legally.

Did you know the owner of the New York Times was a know homophobe? This back in the 60's, so not long ago.

I think this "history" of the left supporting LGBTQ is an incredibly recent phenomenon. So much so, I'd question if the leadership which skews old enough to have been young in the days of open homophobia have become enlightened allies, or have realized a tactical advantage requires hiding their true feelings..

Originally posted by cdtm
Did you know the owner of the New York Times was a know homophobe? This back in the 60's, so not long ago.

I think this "history" of the left supporting LGBTQ is an incredibly recent phenomenon. So much so, I'd question if the leadership which skews old enough to have been young in the days of open homophobia have become enlightened allies, or have realized a tactical advantage requires hiding their true feelings..

At the end of the day one group, the left, did change and made LGBTQ rights part of their platform. The other one has been fighting tooth and nail against it even to this day.

You can't ignore that history either 😬

The Right is ending up on the wrong side of history again in regards to LGBTQ and equality as a whole.

The days of pulling out Leviticus 18:22 are numbered, as less and less people care what two other consenting adults do; even among Christians. Especially when the person ranting about how one must obey Leviticus 18:22 is partaking in sins themselves, eg Leviticus 11:9-12

Originally posted by Newjak
Sorry Nib I was very busy but I did want to get around to replying to this.

I think intent is such a hard thing to know sometimes especially in such an open ended context.

She may not have known and by some reports it looked like she was genuine in her not knowing. That could have been an act.

Maybe it was just a subconscious bias instilled in her from her Christian upbringing. Or it's just a façade and she very adheres to Homosexual relationships are sinful ones and therefore should not be allowed to be legal.

Those all could be her intent and could all be credible. The context here is she is a conservative Christian and that group has traditionally and even modernly homosexual relationships in general. It wasn't that long ago Kim Davis was celebrated for not doing her job and standing up to what they dub the "homosexual scourge".

You just can't remove that history and what she represents from this discussion entirely. She maybe the general exception but you can't just ignore it either because it's convenient or try to point hypocrisy without context.

An example, while extreme, would be a white citizen describing a person of color by the N word. Then defending them by saying someone else of color used the N word and saying if you don't denounce all uses of the N word by everyone then you're being hypocrites.

That logically doesn't make sense because ultimately one group using it has a context that is tied to the use of the word. In the case of conservative Christians in the U.S. sexual preference carries a history of trying be used to undermine Homosexuality in the U.S. both socially and legally.

Nope, if it's wrong for her to say it then it is wrong for Biden and to say otherwise is hypocrisy.

You wanna bring up the N word? This is like saying it's more acceptable for white people on the left who proclaim to be "allies" of the community to use the word as a racial slur. That is the conclusion we'd come to using this logic.

So again: No, we will not say it's okay for one side but not the other and No allyship does not give you a hall pass to toss out slurs or offensive phrases.

The outrage over her using the term “sexual preference” seems ridiculous to me, similar to all the “she wouldn’t even answer this question” stories we see now. That’s all just spectacle, imo, feeding the news cycle. If anything I would say she answered that question relatively diplomatically.

But either way it all doesn’t matter, I think everyone can see that a Republican picked, Fundamentalist Christian, deeply pro-corporate judge is not going to be good for strengthening LGBT rights, abortion rights and Labour rights, and what she does or does not say at these hearings is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope, if it's wrong for her to say it then it is wrong for Biden and to say otherwise is hypocrisy.

You wanna bring up the N word? This is like saying it's more acceptable for white people on the left who proclaim to be "allies" of the community to use the word as a racial slur. That is the conclusion we'd come to using this logic.

So again: No, we will not say it's okay for one side but not the other and No allyship does not give you a hall pass to toss out slurs or offensive phrases.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you nitpicked the example instead of engaging in the point that different groups using the same terminology can provoke different responses?

I have never said that different groups using the same terminology can't provoke different responses. We are seeing that here.

What I'm telling you is that some of these responses are not valid. It is not valid to freak out cuz a conservative uses the term, but be okay with literally anyone who isn't a conservative doing it. ACB has never said she hates gays or wants to make gay marriage illegal again or start using conversion therapy or ANYTHING like that and no her belonging to a damn church does not count as her own words. Hell my own family belonged to a church without adhering to every single belief they spouted out of their mouths.

I just don't see why this is the hill people wanna die on why is it so damn difficult to just say "okay this is silly and hypocritical"? I don't understand. It is silly, it is hypocritical. It's okay to say these things about people who aren't on the right, you aren't gonna spontaneously combust.

I also just want you to clarify something though because I want to see how consistent you are in your logic: is it more acceptable for a woke white leftist to use the N word as a racial slur than it is for a conservative? Again I want to note this is being used as a slur, it's not some white girl saying the N word accidentally while singing a rap song. By your logic, different groups and all...one should be worse than the other.

Originally posted by Surtur
I have never said that different groups using the same terminology can't provoke different responses. We are seeing that here.

What I'm telling you is that some of these responses are not valid. It is not valid to freak out cuz a conservative uses the term, but be okay with literally anyone who isn't a conservative doing it. I just don't see why this is the hill people wanna die on why is it so damn difficult to just say "okay this is silly and hypocritical"? I don't understand. It is silly, it is hypocritical. It's okay to say these things about people who aren't on the right, you aren't gonna spontaneously combust.

I also just want you to clarify something though because I want to see how consistent you are in your logic: is it more acceptable for a woke white leftist to use the N word as a racial slur than it is for a conservative? Again I want to note this is being used as a slur, it's not some white girl saying the N word accidentally while singing a rap song. By your logic, different groups and all...one should be worse than the other.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I love you man, but get your victim card laminated... please. 🙂

So you can't engage in any of the points I made so you just lie.

No worries bro I won't tell anyone 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
So you can't engage in any of the points I made so you just lie.

No worries bro I won't tell anyone 👆

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'm not engaging in points, I'm commenting on the tonal quality of your posts message. **** me, I can pompous post!

Okay, where in my post am I playing the victim? And what am I saying I am the victim of, exactly?

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, where in my post am I playing the victim? And what am I saying I am the victim of, exactly?

Originally posted by Newjak
So you nitpicked the example instead of engaging in the point that different groups using the same terminology can provoke different responses?

It is just a silly obfuscation game. He knows it is different, but he is trying to distract from how it is different, by pretending that it is wrong to treat different things differently.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is just a silly obfuscation game. He knows it is different, but he is trying to distract from how it is different, by pretending that it is wrong to treat different things differently.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it's the general feel Surt. It's the sum of the parts rather than a single phrase.😂 I'll be honest I think youre a nice guy, I don't think you are any kind of fascist **** but I do think you get off on a victim narrative for the right, pefhaps for lulz of some kind. 😉

So you can't point to anything it's just feelings. Okay.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is just a silly obfuscation game. He knows it is different, but he is trying to distract from how it is different, by pretending that it is wrong to treat different things differently.

You either get offended by anyone using the term or nobody using it. Choose, I don't care what you choose but a choice needs to be made.

Or admit by the same batshit insane logic it's more acceptable for certain whites to use the N word.

Originally posted by Surtur
So you can't point to anything it's just feelings. Okay.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I trust my feelings Luke.

Most do, that is entirely the problem with basing shit on ya fee fee's.

Originally posted by Surtur
You either get offended by anyone using the term or nobody using it. Choose, I don't care what you choose but a choice needs to be made.

Or admit by the same batshit insane logic it's more acceptable for certain whites to use the N word.

Someone is triggered that he does not get to make up the rules.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Someone is triggered that he does not get to make up the rules.

Lame, 15 minute deadline to edit posts in case you wanted to try your hand again.