Jump to content

WTF? (**NSFW**)


slacker

Recommended Posts

On 6/21/2022 at 10:46 AM, nsplayr said:

I know it's uncomfortable to admit, but some of y'all can just come out and say (sic), "I don't like gay people and don't want to see/hear/think about gay stuff." It's not a popular POV at this point in history, but you can just come out and say it. It's ok...this is a "safe space"

This conception of other people is not fully "covering." i.e. there are other reasons to oppose gay marriage besides bigotry. But such is nuance, which is not popular these days.

23 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Nah, don’t put words in my mouth. All I’m saying is that it’s a short road from, “Man this pride celebration is stupid” to “Haha yea man we should kick all the gays out again.” I’ve heard it.

...

Acceptance of gay people is still very young in terms of the list of “who gets full human rights?” and I don’t want to see any backsliding. I know too many good friends who are gay and who serve in uniform and they’re an absolutely critical part of our military team.

The thing about marriage is that it has been around since before time. Marriage between a man and a woman was always a thing, and it was enacted for reasons - to ensure children were cared for by those who made them. This tradition cuts across cultures, societies, epochs, civilizations, etc. It just so happens that in our modern conception of a state, we have elected to legally "codify" marriage, and confer social and economic benefits to those who get married, but that is secondary to the innate fact that it has historically been only understood to be that relationship between a man and a woman.

Numerous religious traditions have their reasons for teaching whatever they want to teach about religion. I don't subscribe to any of it. I just think that redefining marriage in order to conform to the "due process" and/or "equal protection" clauses of our constitution was done on dubious grounds and is blinkered to historical tradition.

IMO, the correct way to approach it would have been to define something called "civil unionship" and then let that legal umbrella cover everything from "marriage" between straights to "marriage" between gays. Then, let the different churches sort it all out how they best saw fit. All the legal benefits would accrue and people could keep their bigotry where it belonged: within their own backyards.

Don't get me wrong: people should generally be allowed to do what they want, but in this case we chose the culture war path and decided to allow everyone to park in the handicapped spot; in effect, nullifying the very reason why it exists in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

I mean, this statement here is actually more telling than you realize, and it’s indicative of the centrist “everyone is right” attitudes that are extremely troubling to some of the LGBT folks I know. THIS subtle implicit non-acceptance is what they’re still fighting against.

You don’t personally actively hate or oppress LGBT folks, I’m sure. Most people and military officers I know don’t. But some don’t oppose those that do to the level that shows any moral courage. Implicitly, statements like these normalize and equalize f’d up beliefs.

Try these hypotheticals on, imagine you heard one of your buddies say one of these statements:

“I don’t morally agree that black people should be able to marry white people. In fact, they shouldn’t be allowed in the same place as white people, it’s just not right.”

“I don’t morally agree that a woman should be allowed to have a job. That’s a man’s right. They just shouldn’t be doing this stuff, their place is at the home.”

“I don’t morally agree that a person with a different sexuality than me should be able to get married or serve in the military. It’s just not right.”

If you heard someone say one of the first 2 things, you’d tell that person to fuck off. You’d tell them they’re wrong. I doubt you’d say “I respect your opinion” - in fact, I would expect you not to. Why is the third one different?

Just because someone has different morals doesn’t make their opinions “totally cool.” In fact, their morals can be pretty fucked up and oppressive. The first amendment makes it legal to say whatever dumb shit a person wants, I get that and am not going down that rabbit hole. But you don’t have to respect someone’s beliefs, and you surely don’t have to say that “it’s totally cool” for them to believe something that marginalizes a group of humans for an immutable characteristic.

Dude you left off the active clause of @brabus point - which was that people he knows can disagree with something but not be actively working to disabuse anyone of their rights. Lurking behind your post is the thought police. Because you don't believe what I believe, you are an immoral person. I am the only one who gets to determine what is true.

Of course we all agree that discriminating against people based on their immutable characteristics is bad. The disagreement in this case is that benefits which society historically conferred (effectively) only on mothers and fathers shouldn't be extended to cover anyone else who decides they want them. It's not even a moral position in my case - it's a legal/financial one.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, bfargin said:

Forever, humans have identified homosexuality as a fringe and unhealthy sexual activity, Science literature confirms that fact, social science literature confirms that (even back when it was abnormal psychology), and moral teaching confirms that.

Can’t wait for you to enlighten us on this one. For the folks who insist homophobia no longer exists in the military, consider this post exhibit one. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, bfargin said:

I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on homos and trans.

Ok this is exactly what I was talking about.

There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this.

I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops.

And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Ok this is exactly what I was talking about.

There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this.

I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops.

And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…

No troops, been out for a while. I teach at a university and have never told anyone my personal thoughts on the subject. I teach with homosexuals, teach homosexuals as students (some actively proclaim it, others don't) and treat them all as fellow humans worthy of respect as fellow citizens of earth. But yeah, personally the actions disgust me. I'd argue for most people it's pretty gross even with the past decade of attempted forced acceptance. There are probably other actions that disgust me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Ok this is exactly what I was talking about.

There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this.

I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops.

And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…

People are allowed to have their own opinions, and you should be able to work and function within a society where people fundamentally disagree with you.  

Always amusing to watch liberals struggle grasping this fact: your opinions are no more valid than his.  The law provides equal protection and nondiscrimination, and that is good. I agree with that.  Beyond that, live and let live is what conservative say, but you guys (sorry, xe people) just can’t do it, can you?  

In your example above, you hope he does not lead any trans troops because he privately disagrees with the morality of the queer lifestyle. Do you also hope no trans commanders lead Muslim troops?  Are gays incapable of leading Catholics?  Ridiculous.

 I hope we can all lead and follow each other united by our love of America and dedication to the mission, and live and let live on personal items where we disagree.  I don’t care if gay people put up pictures of their spouses or trans people tell me about the trans party they attended.  Men have the right to call themselves women, but they do not have the right to compel my participation in their personal worldview, just as I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on them.  People are allowed to have their own opinions in this country, as much as that irks you, and demanding ideological obedience with your opinions is fanaticism.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of homosexuality and world views: https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/gay-football-fans-death-sex-qatar-world-cup-20220621.amp.html

Anybody that has spent time in the ME is laughing at the public messaging hypocrisy…not surprising though. Someone should send them our diversity training, and a recent copy of the Tongue and Quill for pronoun etiquette in electronic mail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@tac airlifter I mean sure, but would you want your boss/CC/professor to say (sic), "I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on men?" Or "blacks?" Or "jews?" Or "Italians?" Or "tacairlifters?"

I believe that being gay is an immutable characteristic that deserves no more discrimination than skin color, ancestry, disability or gender. Obv some good-natured joking around on all these topics among friends is fine and I do it myself, but I would venture approx. 96.9% of us would agree it's not good to "verbally bash" black/asian/latino/white people, men/women, or jews/muslims/christians/hindus, especially when most of us are active or retired USAF officers or NCOs.

I am fine with people disagreeing about choices made in life, including religious practices, sexual practices, lifestyle choices, etc., but again, disagreeing and "verbally bashing" is not the same thing. I disagree with honor killings; I would not "verbally bash" even a very conservative Muslim I might be talking to, supervising, teaching, etc.

In the most favorable interpretation possible, my own religion teaches to love gay people and accept them but to condemn their out-of-wedlock & same-sex sexual choices. I disagree with that distinction and basically accept it all as fine, as do the majority of Catholics, but I am versed enough in the Catholic tradition to see the Church's POV that there is a difference between the sinner and the sin and that gay sex itself is a sin. I still go to mass and write checks each week despite that disagreement. However if a pastor started "verbally bashing" gay people from the alter, I'd walk out of that parish and never return.

I think the big disconnect between where I'm at and maybe what @bfargin believes is a lot of folks who don't like gayness believe it's a choice and an immoral and/or disgusting one at that. I only need refer them to any gay person about when they "chose" to be gay, or to ask themselves when they "chose" to be straight. Every gay person I know says it's an immutable characteristic they were born with and many fought for years against actually admitting it even to themselves, and personally I can tell you I didn't "choose" to be straight, I just am.

The fact that these debates are still being had in 2022 show just how young and fragile gay rights are, especially in light of what some other societies in the world still do to gay people who happen to be born there.

 

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

People are allowed to have their own opinions, and you should be able to work and function within a society where people fundamentally disagree with you.

Sorry, but not all opinions are created equal. Example: There is still a sizable number of people on this planet that hold the ‘opinion’ that women are chattel. While they certainly are entitled to hold that opinion, holding those views mean that most of us are going to consider them backwards thinking Neanderthals. This train of thought may have been far more prevalent a couple centuries ago but the world has moved on. You can refuse to move with it, but don’t be surprised when your offensive worldview is challenged. Sometimes that means there isn’t a place for you anymore in our institutions that have seen the light. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Dude you left off the active clause of @brabus point - which was that people he knows can disagree with something but not be actively working to disabuse anyone of their rights. Lurking behind your post is the thought police. Because you don't believe what I believe, you are an immoral person. I am the only one who gets to determine what is true.

Of course we all agree that discriminating against people based on their immutable characteristics is bad. The disagreement in this case is that benefits which society historically conferred (effectively) only on mothers and fathers shouldn't be extended to cover anyone else who decides they want them. It's not even a moral position in my case - it's a legal/financial one.

I left off nothing that was important and immediately addressed his statement you referenced in that I agreed that very few people are actively hating or suppressing the LGBT. My whole argument was that it wasn’t just active actions that are bad, though, the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm. I know you read it.

Also, your argument about marriage doesn’t stand up to other specific examples when you use basically any other immutable trait. The flaws abound, and you’ll see that “thought police” is just an alarmist buzzword. Some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should be not allowed: hence why there are anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, anti-terrorism, anti-anarchist and multiple other laws in our society.

Let’s apply your final argument to 1865:

”I, personally, don’t and would never own slaves. But I ask you, good sir, why should someone who does be forced to give up their slaves that they paid for and rightfully own? It’s not even a moral position in [this] case - it’s a legal/financial one.”

Took over 100+ years for society to fully get on board, but sounds pretty fucked up to argue like this today, doesn’t it? It will be like this for LGBT rights after you all die out - just check Gen Z’s opinions.

BL: Harmful effects of discrimination against those with immutable characteristics isn’t limited to just those who actively fight against them. That’s been my whole point. It’s also those that implicitly support those that fight against them. Enabling fucked up opinions is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bfargin said:

Comparing homos to people of color is incredibly offensive and not accurate. Just cause you might be a homo, doesn't mean you can force your choice onto other's value system.

Jesus. You think people choose to be gay. I guarantee you have literally 0 family members or close friends in the LGBT community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bfargin said:

I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on homos and trans. They deserve mutual respect as humans but earn no respect from anyone for their personal moral choices.

Dude - this is one of the worst things I've ever read on this forum in almost 20 years.  You honestly think homosexuality is a personal morale choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Negatory said:

the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm.

“Fucked up opinions”…in your opinion. There’s plenty of people who think your opinions are “fucked up.” So I guess you’re wrong because they think that? I think plenty of people have all kinds of stupid opinions, but as long as they aren’t actively forcing those opinions/the “fruits” of those opinions on others, then there’s really not a problem…unless you are self-absorbed to such a degree that you can’t abide by others believing differently than you. 
 

If a catholic believes being gay is a sin, and you don’t…well nobody is more right/wrong. But if one of you attempts to coerce/compel the other into their viewpoint (or the catholic person actively pursues action against gay people’s “standard rights” as a human/American), that’s when one of you becomes more clearly in the wrong. Liberty - get some.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, you guys don't remember when you chose to be straight? Or any of your other sexual preferences/kinks? (This is sarcastic).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Negatory said:

My whole argument was that it wasn’t just active actions that are bad, though, the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm. I know you read it.

People are known by their actions, not their thoughts. Your desire to control what is in someone else's head is tyrannical.

17 hours ago, Negatory said:

Also, your argument about marriage doesn’t stand up to other specific examples when you use basically any other immutable trait. The flaws abound, and you’ll see that “thought police” is just an alarmist buzzword. Some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should be not allowed:

Yes, it does actually. Being handicapped is an immutable trait - only handicapped people are allowed to park in handicapped spaces. See, there are rules and laws that apply to certain subsets of people based on certain characteristics. Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die.

And to address your statement re the thought police: "some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should not be allowed." Let's just say I rest my case.

17 hours ago, Negatory said:

Let’s apply your final argument to 1865:

”I, personally, don’t and would never own slaves. But I ask you, good sir, why should someone who does be forced to give up their slaves that they paid for and rightfully own? It’s not even a moral position in [this] case - it’s a legal/financial one.”

Took over 100+ years for society to fully get on board, but sounds pretty fucked up to argue like this today, doesn’t it? It will be like this for LGBT rights after you all die out - just check Gen Z’s opinions.

BL: Harmful effects of discrimination against those with immutable characteristics isn’t limited to just those who actively fight against them. That’s been my whole point. It’s also those that implicitly support those that fight against them. Enabling fucked up opinions is bad.

Your comparison is invalid. To address this, you need to come up with an a priori reason why some people should be enslaved but not others. I don't think you or I or anyone else could ever make that convincing argument. I have provided a reason why marriage was previously defined as such - why society defined it as such - but no such reason has been provided as to why it should be extended to a separate class of relationships for which it was never designed. That's the point. Handicapped laws apply to handicapped people. Marriage laws apply to men and women - or so they did. Having that position isn't necessarily bigoted, though it certainly can be depending, even though you would have us believe it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

People are known by their actions, not their thoughts. Your desire to control what is in someone else's head is tyrannical.

Yes, it does actually. Being handicapped is an immutable trait - only handicapped people are allowed to park in handicapped spaces. See, there are rules and laws that apply to certain subsets of people based on certain characteristics. Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die.

And to address your statement re the thought police: "some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should not be allowed." Let's just say I rest my case.

Your comparison is invalid. To address this, you need to come up with an a priori reason why some people should be enslaved but not others. I don't think you or I or anyone else could ever make that convincing argument. I have provided a reason why marriage was previously defined as such - why society defined it as such - but no such reason has been provided as to why it should be extended to a separate class of relationships for which it was never designed. That's the point. Handicapped laws apply to handicapped people. Marriage laws apply to men and women - or so they did. Having that position isn't necessarily bigoted, though it certainly can be depending, even though you would have us believe it is.

Yeah, we should stick to biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Or a man and a dozen women. Or a man and the sex slaves he conquers at war.  Or a man and his dead brother's wife. Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die.

Uh, so your position is gay couples can’t rear children/act as a family? There are thousands of gay couples (not to mention their children) who would strongly disagree with you. Why should spouses and children be denied benefits afforded to others just because of their sexual orientation? That sounds like the very definition of bigotry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

Wait, you guys don't remember when you chose to be straight? Or any of your other sexual preferences/kinks? (This is sarcastic).

I remember exactly when many … so many…of my wonderful kinks revealed themselves to me. 
 

good times. 
good times. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 6:46 PM, Lord Ratner said:

That's fucking rich.

Seriously, do you pause for even a second before stabbing your justice boner straight through your keyboard?

Pathetic

You obviously don't understand how much ego masturbation nsplayr derives from being "woke!"

South Park Smug Farts GIF | Gfycat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, M2 said:

You obviously don't understand how much ego masturbation nsplayr derives from being "woke!"

I’ll stick to regular masturbation please and thank you 🍆💦 maybe a mutual with BQZip’s mom now and again for some variety.

Seriously…I’m not super woke. I’m a fairly center of mass neoliberal democrat and I spend plenty of time rolling my eyes at the true social justice warriors on the left in texts with likeminded friends. Just like a lot of run of the mill conservatives don’t love the insane rabid radicals on their side, I don’t like the left wing ones on my side either!

You may just not have a very representative circle if you really think what I say here is representative of some pronoun-pushing trans communist or whatever.

What I first started saying in this thread is that I felt that gay rights were backsliding and that there were truly anti-gay people out there who think it’s all a choice and a disgusting one at that and who once again have started openly discriminating against gay people…and was proven correct fairly quickly.

It does seem like most folks here want the forced wokeness to stop but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸

I think that’s far more of America than you think. Of course there are extreme groups of people, but I’m still optimistic 80% of the country is not on an extreme and generally does not give a fuck what others do in their private lives. Sure opinions may differ, but 80% aren’t trying to actively stop others from living their life. We should all focus our energy on shutting up the 10% on each side rather than lumping everyone on the other side of center into that “10% category.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ll stick to regular masturbation please and thank you 🍆💦 maybe a mutual with BQZip’s mom now and again for some variety.

Seriously…I’m not super woke. I’m a fairly center of mass neoliberal democrat and I spend plenty of time rolling my eyes at the true social justice warriors on the left in texts with likeminded friends. Just like a lot of run of the mill conservatives don’t love the insane rabid radicals on their side, I don’t like the left wing ones on my side either!

You may just not have a very representative circle if you really think what I say here is representative of some pronoun-pushing trans communist or whatever.

What I first started saying in this thread is that I felt that gay rights were backsliding and that there were truly anti-gay people out there who think it’s all a choice and a disgusting one at that and who once again have started openly discriminating against gay people…and was proven correct fairly quickly.

It does seem like most folks here want the forced wokeness to stop but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸

How about this? I would say the points below are pretty mainstream for most of my conservative friends, I don’t speak for the extreme:

-People don’t chose to be gay

-Homosexuals are human beings and should be treated as such 

-Homosexuals should receive the same rights in the eyes of the government as heterosexuals, to include the benefits of a Civil Union…to that point I don’t think government should be in the business of marriage, period.  

-Churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals.  To your earlier point on Catholics, gays would be welcome in any Catholic Church, it’s only their lifestyle that wouldn’t be approved or validated - I’ll bet you any money on that.

-Homosexuals are welcome in the military, I couldn’t care less who you bang. Bring your same sex spouse to work events, you should not be treated any different because of your sexual preferences.

-Have your pride parades off base, don’t care, it does not belong in the military and Nellis AFB should not be having drag shows or drag queen reading hours to kids. In fact, just leave kids out of this discussion until they are old enough.  All they need to know is treat everyone with respect. 

-Not everyone is going to approve of your lifestyle, that does not give you the right to bully, intimidate or cancel.  The gays who are still bullying the Christian bakers are the worst of people. 

-There are two genders, you cannot change genders.  That’s basic science. Transgenders are still people and should be treated as such, those with gender dysphoria should seek mental help, and with no negative stigma just like any other disease. 

-No, the military shouldn’t have to pay for gender hormone treatment or transition surgery.  I as a commander have better things to do than teach transgender awareness training. 

-BL, whether you are gay or straight, don’t be an asshole, and we can get a long just fine. 
 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yeah, we should stick to biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Or a man and a dozen women. Or a man and the sex slaves he conquers at war.  Or a man and his dead brother's wife. Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

As long as he's got his Kung flu 'vaccines,'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...