How is this an example of leopards eating faces?
In this case the backlash is from the gay community to a (stupid) member of the gay community, so saying it's a leopards-eating-faces party (lefp) member getting their face eaten would mean the gay community is the lefp right? I don't think that's what the lefp meme is about
This person supports policies that hurt themselves and their peers. Now their peers are angry with them for supporting things that hurt them. They are being hurt by the result of what they support.
Yeah, but in this case it's not the leopards eating their face (yet). They've voted for the leopards, people are angry at them for it, but so far the leopards have only eaten other peoples faces
Eh, then you could say voting progressive and getting attacked by your conservative community would count as leopards eating face, since you're getting hurt by the result of what you support.
The meme is about voting for the harm and being directly harmed by the policy voted for, like if someone voted to ban abortions and then couldn't get one when they needed it. Voting to ban abortions and then getting backlash from your friends is not leopards eating face (yet) either
That's not leopards eating faces though. That's a guy voting for the leopards-eating-faces party and getting his shit rocked by his fellow citizens for endangering them.
A little bit of column A, a lotta bit of column B.
This guy is voting not only to have his own face eaten, but everyone else's within his community. I wouldn't want to acquaint myself with someone like that either.
I'm not saying the guy did a good thing. In this article he voted for the leopard party, but hasn't had his face eaten yet. He voted for the leopard party and everyone was fucking pissed at him for it
idk I thought the leopards eating faces party meme was mainly for examples of them both voting for leopards and getting their face eaten.
It's a little more nuanced than that. The typical face eating leopards voter doesn't have enough critical thinking to figure out they'll get eaten eventually. Everyone else around him knows they're gourmet leopard food and it's only a matter of time before they'd get eaten. I wouldn't wait to hold my judgment on the guy until after the inevitable happens because of his dumb-ass decision.
You're right, but people aren't listening to what your point is. Come on lemmy, you're better than this
No you and that commenter are literally wrong lmfao what do you even mean.
The meme derives humor from the fact that someone who voted for leopards was surprised when leopards hurt them.
The gays in the article supported bigots and was surprised when the bigots started to hurt them.
The article's ambiguous, but I read it as the LGBT community (rightfully) showering them with sand, not bigots doing it to be dicks.
I don’t take kindly to your tone! There are a thousand other ways you could have said this. Let’s fight about it!
Oh, yeah! Also, your mom is fat and you over feed your pets, I’m assuming.
“When Trump won, my husband was so upset he wanted me out of our apartment. The rage was unexplainable — I mean honest rage. I could not understand this emotion in him and why anyone would let a political vote destroy or nearly destroy a marriage,” he said.
if you vote for someone who'd like to make your marriage illegal, it's gonna strain the marriage duuude
"but I just don't understand that" -that dumbass
Reminds me of my sister-in-law's husband, who fell heavily into Brexit propaganda. Ranting about foreigners coming over, to his wife's face. She was from Iceland.
They're divorced now, oddly enough.
It's just the none white foreigners he was mad about, dude should have clarified his position...
I dunno, Brexiters seemed to have a lot of trouble with the Polish.
Don't forget them "Romanian" Gypsies!
It's a crying shame really, because if they'd sat down and spoke to a Romanian, they'd find that hatred of gypsies is one of the few things they've got in common.
"White" has a very flexible definition depending on the racism du jour. In the US, plenty of Europeans, like Irish, Spanish, and Italian people weren't considered "white" for a long time.
But now we've got plenty of brown and black people to be even more racist against, so they get to be "white" these days.
I dunno, Brexiters seemed to have a lot of trouble with the Polish.
there have been many examples and treatises of how the whiteness was/is non-uniform in the united states; is the same true in england?
I've had a lot of people pull the "It's just politics, why are you so mad?" card, especially after Trump won. Just shows this is all a game to them, that they do not give a shit about the consequences of their actions.
Most of the ones who did it to me were straight white people though, so they were insulated by their privilege. It takes a whole other level of delusion to play that game when you're one of the minorities these assholes target.
Most of the ones who did it to me were straight white people though, so they were insulated by their privilege. It takes a whole other level of delusion to play that game when you’re one of the minorities these assholes target.
insulated by their privilege is the right phrase; i was fucked over multiple times by biden et al's banning of gays from marriage & federal service and student loans, but if you mention it now you get labeled as a tankie or russian/chinese shill; only the younger gays and the people who biden et al. hasn't fucked over get to enjoy this privilege while people in my situation have to forget or white knuckle it.
Agreed. A lot of those views seem to have genuinely softened as he aged (after all, he actively championed gay marriage during the Obama admin), but still, there is a lot of unsavory shit from his time as a senator, and it does take a lot of effort to reconcile that.
A lot of those views seem to have genuinely softened as he aged (after all, he actively championed gay marriage during the Obama admin)
he also actively campaigned on appeasing segregationists in his much more recent campaign until kamala had to embarrass him publicly in a debate; so no, those views haven't softened as evidenced by both biden's decades long track record and a painful recent schooling by kamala; among other examples from the recent past.
also, "unsavory" is putting it extremely mildly when people were put in prison; homes permanently broken; and livelihoods were destroyed by biden et al's actions.
Also politics displays values. I don’t want to date a republican for myriad reasons like valuing low taxes over strong social services or opposing environmental regulation. Caring for those struggling and for the environment are firm moral positions of mine and I would be angry to find my wife disagrees with those.
It takes two people to let a vote ruin a marriage. If you know your spouse has strong feelings about politics but it's just a game to you, then just maybe you shouldn't play the game in a way that will make your spouse hate you.
Dumb or horribly self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are plenty parts of America that help instill that feeling.
That's just another tactic of projection. Republican woman are just mad that they aren't men and need to justify their own subjugation by ensuring they get second place in the social hierarchy instead of questioning why there's a hierarchy in the first place. Thinking for yourself is difficult, so being told what to do is easy. Even if that means being told to hate yourself. Hell Christianity's first chronological story boils down to "women are the reason life sucks."
They just think he'll surely only go after Other people, that they'll be safe, part of the "In" group.
“When Trump won, my husband was so upset he wanted me out of our apartment. The rage was unexplainable — I mean honest rage. I could not understand this emotion in him and why anyone would let a political vote destroy or nearly destroy a marriage,” he said.
Could not understand why anyone would let a political vote destroy a marriage. A political vote for a party that wants to destroy that marriage might do it.
Also reminds me of the "the missing missing reasons" thing. Where one person is like "it's unexplainable. i have no idea why they're so upset" but when you probe a little, you learn that they did explain.
"I don't understand the emotion"
Exactly like my dad on this. It's really simple, he likes Trump's crudeness, cruelty, insulting, and offensive behavior, and getting a rise of people for supporting him or repeating his most blatantly vile statements. It's juvenile fun to play around with.
He knows he's eating shit to make other people smell his breath. Everything past that is a justification slapped together. Ultimately nothing matters to them past the sport politics sophmoric bullshit.
does something specifically because it hurts other people
"why don't they like me?"
Why are people like this
He believes that hierarchy is the correct way of the world. So he thinks it's his right and duty to keep people "in their place". That's why (in his mind) giving shit to people below him is ok.
Notice how these people never give shit to people "above them", even though trump and others treat them like shit. He accepts shit from people above him and doesn't understand why people below him don't accept it from him.
That's actually a pretty interesting lens to use for analyzing these people's behavior
Probably quite a bit. When a reduction in leaded gasoline directly correlated with a fall in violent crime, it was confirmation. We know how long lead lasts in the body, and all that lead in the atmosphere didn't just disappear. We know there is no safe amount of lead exposure.
This is an explanation of being a bully
Yeah pretty much. Trump isn't even the worst person I've seen a lot of GOP friends and family get enthralled with, he's up there with Rush Limbauh, Micheal Savage, Dr Laura, Anne Culter, these people have been openly white supremacist and racist fascists since the 90s or later. And they all come up with taking points that are often cruel, petty, childish insults. Conservatives eat it up. It's all great fun for them.
I work with two lesbians who are Trumpers. No surprises, they hate all non-White people with a passion. The only thing that surprised me is that they're so racist they hate Chinese food.
It's better for billionaire corporations, not small business owners.
But if it weren't or those damn blacks and taxes, their small town company would totally be an international corporation!
I think some people have a flawed belief that one side is always correct. The Dem party is clearly handling isreal badly so to them the Republicans must be the good side.
My cousins are big Trumpers and their biggest reason for supporting him is his anti-immigrant stance. The kicker is that they're half-Thai with a mother who immigrated from Thailand. They happen to look Mexican and were bullied for that growing up, but that experience didn't exactly teach them empathy or anything.
It's perfectly possible having been born with characteristics that make one a "member" of a minority and still be a prejudiced asshole who discriminates against "others". In fact the prejudiced take is to expect that's any less likely for people from a specific minority to be prejudiced than other people.
That said, Trump and his ilk are targeting with their hate LGBT+, though mainly Transexuals and LGBT+ isn't really A community but several.
Considering that at least some year ago there were plenty of stories of Bisexual men being discriminated against by other LGBT+ people, it's not overly surprising the notion that some people who are Gay would thing that attacks on Transexuality are nothing to do with them personally and might even agree with it.
Unlike the reductio ad absurdum fantasy of liberal Identity Politics, people do come in all kinds no mater what group you tag them as being members of.
Yeah, having experienced discrimination doesn't make someone immune from discriminating themselves. There are dumbfuck bigoted arseholes all across the spectrum of humanity.
Punching down. It's often why bullies are bullies, they are someone's victim and the lesson they learn is to find someone weaker to make a victim.
If you tell someone they are less than and they believe it, they will start looking for someone less than themselves to treat the same way.
It's inferiority from the top down. Trump talks in terms of being the best, the greatest, etc to mask his true feelings. He feels he is less than. Maybe not consciously, but it's absolutely something that weighs on him.
having experienced discrimination doesn't make someone immune from discriminating themselves.
It just makes them someone who lacks introspection, empathy, and the ability to recognize face eating leopards.
Not the same. Of course there are dumbfuck bigoted assholes who fit somewhere in the queer spectrum. It’s the dumbfuck bigoted assholes that appear to be marginalizing themselves, supporting bigotry against themselves and everyone like them, that seems like the bigger inconsistency here.
For example bisexual men being discriminated against by people who are NOT bisexual is at least logically consistent
Gay people discriminating against Transexuals is also logically consistent (not Moral, but certainly logical for somebody whose thinking is "As long a I am alright").
For me a logical explanation for some people who are Gay aligning themselves with Trump and their crowd is them thinking that the prejudices of those people are against Transexuals, not Gays, and as they do not see themselves as being the same and they're not actually pro-Equality out of Principle but simply out of "what's in it for me", they're ok with discrimination against Transexuals.
I've got a book for you. It's from 2002 but it still has some insight into this topic
I was at the end of school during the 2016 election and my closest friend in my Comp-Sci class who I'd known from 11 was in the far right pipeline; this person found Hillary absolute abhorrent, loved trump and was generally the 2016 Pepe style crypto-facist. We live in the UK too, so this is even less common than it probably was in the USA.
When school ended, I stopped speaking to this person, but a few years ago saw that she's come out as a trans woman. I'm happy for her and not really keen to reconnect at all, but oh boy am I nosy about the timeline of her political views. I wonder if she still holds them, was struggling with internalised issues or just had a huge realisation at some point.
I'm in an identical situation as you (also from the UK funnily enough), except I did keep in contact with her, albeit at arm's length at first. She's explained to me over the years that it was internalised hatred, made worse by her family's very outspoken views about anyone not straight and white.
When she finally had a chance to get away and start thinking things through herself, she began to accept herself and others. She's a lovely person to be around now, and pretty vocal in trying to help other people learn about and understand trans healthcare and mental support. But most importantly, she's happy.
Liberal tolerance is such a defacto default that people who would be hard done by a white christofascist America end up signing up for it because they assume it will include the same rights and freedoms they currently enjoy.
Also every trans Trumper believes they will be the token accepted trans person in the far-right. Same as some Jews cosied up to the Nazis to extract personal privilege at the expense of snitching on their own people only to end up at the exact same end-game anyways.
The far right has a way of infiltrating people's minds when they are already mentally weak. They lurk around certain communities and poach people out of them.
This is how reddit was staunchly pro Ron Paul in 2008. Myself included. I still contend that that experience was a training ground for future internet-based astroturfing.
They wind up the 20 year old virgins and turn them into incels, and from there and turn them into misogynists. As an example. Remember when /r/conspiracy was an interesting place full of lively theorizing about UFOs and Bigfoot?
They dip into the source of your emotion...whether that be depression or desire, and widen it into a giant chasm ready to take in all your hate as if that will fix everything in the world. They blame your x on y, and to fix y you gotta vote for R.
The funny thing is....this is the exact same story we are told after some idiot starts shooting up a mall. That they were targeted by extremists online. Same book, different protagonist.
Should we just admit that the rise of the far right is just a symptom of a long unaddressed mental health crisis in the US, and certain people exploiting that for their own gain, or is it too soon for that?
Should we just admit that the rise of the far right is just a symptom of a long unaddressed mental health crisis in the US, and certain people exploiting that for their own gain, or is it too soon for that?
100%. The sickness of the system comes from inequalities and gutted education. Thanks, Reagan!
One of my buddies suffered from the same problem. He was left out and generally held at arms length until he was shown love, or at least understanding. He flipped almost overnight and realized how grave his mistakes were. He ended up becoming a teacher and hopes to help students before they made the same sort of mistakes he did when his teachers were shitty to him. Props to him for breaking the cycle.
He still regrets how far he pushed some people away, and the actions he took as a teen. But he is much happier now and we have mended our friendships with him.
Wow. I would be nosy too. :-D
For me it's actually hard to respect someone's political views if they haven't tried the rest.
Which is why "cancel culture" itself is maybe not very important, but the very idea that someone has said something wrong 10 years ago and must apologize or be ostracized is dubious, because it automatically means that the person expressing it either never doubted their own views or is a hypocrite who lies about their own path to what they are, or even worse, a conformist coward. Conformists are always the worst kind of fascists and supporting mechanisms which reward conformism is the worst thing one can do.
Every worthy intelligent person I know has been all over the place in the past. Pointing out inconsistencies not by "party line" and popularity, but inside their own logic may have limited use, but that's assuming the person judging understands that logic, and humans are complex.
FFS, Exupery's Citadel jumps all over the place inside itself. And I don't think Eco's views can be characterized more precisely than "generally left". And Tolkien - there are sometimes kindergarten-level articles triumphantly accusing him of being this or that, but again you can't.
Idk what trans women you have met but conservative views are extremely unpopular in the entirety of the transgender community. Being alt-right would get you entirely ostracized and barred from accessing most trans communities and spaces. Queer people are significantly less likely to be conservative than cisgender heterosexual people.
I also have no clue why you describe trans women that way. "t-female-presenting people". You can just call us trans women, or transfeminine people if you're including feminine non-binary people as well.
Idk what trans women you have met but conservative views are extremely unpopular in the entirety of the transgender community.
i've had the opposite experience from living 15 years in the san francisco bay area.
Queer people are significantly less likely to be conservative than cisgender heterosexual people.
lgbtqa+ as a whole yes; but less so from the "t" part
I also have no clue why you describe trans women that way. “t-female-presenting people”. You can just call us trans women, or transfeminine people if you’re including feminine non-binary people as well.
i was corrected several times in the past when i said trans women or trans girl from trans-female-presenting people.
Trans women or trans feminine people is fine. The other way you've been seemingly corrected towards is reminiscent of "TIM" and "TIF" which are two transphobic terms meant to invalidate trans people.
Your little "less so from the T part" belies something of your beliefs here. You also, again, have no clue what you're talking about. Living in a particular area does not instill in you broad understandings of the sociopolitical beliefs of some demographic. Just that the people you've met in that area have, in your perception, been more likely to hold those views.
Does not pan out in reality. I have a feeling I know how you're going to respond to this. I'd love to see you prove that inkling wrong.
What are you on about 😭
I think this is more of a reflection of the circles you have been in, than the trans community at large. I have never seen a trans person wanting to be called "trans-female-presenting". That's some shit that conservatives say, a roundabout way of denying the identity.
It's interesting to me that your experience is so vastly different from mine given we live in the same area (SF bay area). Most trans people I know, including myself, fall on the far left, and at significantly higher rates than the cis people I know (Queer or not). I've also never heard the term "t-female-presenting" before, it is completely foreign to me. I mostly hear and use "trans women" or "transfeminine".
I wonder if there's another demographic factor, or you are in a unique community of trans people. The people in my circle are generally 20-35, nonreligious, working class, often living paycheck to paycheck, and are actively and primarily in community with other trans people, as a support structure. How would you describe your circle?
I wonder if there’s another demographic factor, or you are in a unique community of trans people. The people in my circle are generally 20-35, nonreligious, working class, often living paycheck to paycheck, and are actively and primarily in community with other trans people, as a support structure. How would you describe your circle?
i had a similar thought and now i think it's because i only hung out with latinos at the time since my ex was friends w them and he was mexican. english was no one's first language, except for i, nor were they born in the united states nor any other english speaking country so maybe there was some sort of cultural or language translation happening since reading trans-feminine-presenting sounds odd when i read it out loud.
Interesting! Most I know were either born in the US or have been in the US since they were kids, primarily communicate in english, and discovered their transness while here. You might be right with the cultural/language translation being a factor. But I've also seen "Transexual", "Transgénero", "mujer/hombre trans" used by Spanish speakers which tracks not that far from common English usage. I wonder if there's a different distinction being made or if it's intertwined with the particular individuals' conservative ideology in some way.
i moved away from new york in 2009 san francisco in 2019 and have lived in austin and chicago since then; this exchange is teaching me that chicago, austin and the lemmyverse trans communities are more alike then any of them are to new york or san francisco.
Psychosis refers to a mental state characterised by hallucinations and paranoid delusions. Are you saying Trump hears voices in his head he thinks are real?
a not inaccurate description of his behaviors.
especially the paranoid delusions.
his constant professing of what "people" "say" "to him", especially particularly absurd things that there is no evidence anyone has ever said to him, would also technically meet the definition of him hearing voices - IF he is not lying. Which, to be fair, he could be, because he lies about a lot of shit all the time.
Impossible to rule out. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck. I'm no ornithologist but heuristically speaking treating the proverbial duck-like phenomenon as though it is a duck coincides with a statistically high probability of ideal results.
I don't think Trump's delusions are paranoid. In fact, he's remarkably unbothered given the very real dangers he faces. If he suffers from delusions, I would say they're the opposite - confident delusions.
Leopard-loving people say their leopard face-eating support is ruining their lives
Being a complete moron ain't exclusive to straight people.
“I’m almost anti-gay,” Dorman told The Post. “It’s an embarrassment to see this kind of behavior… I’d really invite them to go to Iran or Gaza. See what that does for you. See how fast they throw you in prison or kill you.”
"And that's why I'm supporting a party that wants to do the same thing."
So you're super fucking racist? (Not you, the person quoted from the article.) Ok, got it. Just wait until they do away with all the people who don't look like you and then find out how that goes.
Granted, you're technically right. Support for it was certainly a large part of Obama's campaign though. It's unclear what the overall result would have been for Obergfell vs Hodges with an administration that would have been vitriolic to the ruling.
Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it. There were some weird semantics about naming nomenclature of calling it a marriage in the early 2000's. During the primaries he gave vague answers about some religions being opposed to it but did flip from earlier statements about same-sex marriages in his earlier career
I knew a gay republican couple. They both cheated on each other constantly. They didn't do anything pro-gay or even remotely lgbt themed. They were actively ashamed of who they were. Both from affluent families, so that makes sense. One of them got me super drunk, and then took advantage of me while his partner was out of town. These are not good people.
Ah, the Hateful Gay Type. Met a few of them in my life, all Trump supporters too. Never made any damn sense to me. Like they are driven by being a bitter piece of shit.
I get the feeling they’re just normal hateful people who happen to be gay and are angry about it and committed to making it everyone’s problem
I think the implication is that "angry gay" is a distinct category with traits that aren't purely the result of being angry or being gay.
Also I think people get way too hung up on the idea that being "normal" is good, so not being normal must be bad. Since that probably can't be fixed, I think it's better to use the word "typical" instead of normal because it's not so loaded.
I know two married men who are openly and claim to be happily gay, adopted 4 children, but are so pro-trump and all that crazy shit. Idk how they can be like that. As a gay woman, it's so confusing.
As a straight guy, I'm also confused.
"I am one of the good gays. There is no way they are sending me to Daschau."
...
Shocked pikachu
Me as any vulnerable minority supporting Trump's fascist project:
“I’m almost anti-gay,” Dorman told The Post. “It’s an embarrassment to see this kind of behavior… I’d really invite them to go to Iran or Gaza. See what that does for you. See how fast they throw you in prison or kill you.”
The internalized homophobia is strong with this one. It's honestly really sad. I mean, he's an ass. But it's still kind of sad.
The internalized homophobia is strong with this one.
And let’s not forgot the Islamophobia.
You don't have to be smart to be gay
They think it's ruining their lives now? Wait till after the election
MAGA isn't a cult. Cults are small. MAGA is big enough to be a religion, which is far more dangerous.
Well, no. When you're talking about the kind of massive institutional power of the kind that buys politicians and institutes theocratic dictatorships, that kind of power is exclusive to larger religions. You won't see that kind of thing from a cult. Now a cult may well have beliefs just as vile as a religion, and it may ruin lives, but it doesn't have the institutional power it takes to crush all opposition like you see from MAGA and Christianity.
The church of scientology.
Anti-theist here, religion in all it's forms is a blight on humanity, but let's not muddle the waters with misused vocabulary.
The difference between a cult and a religion is not the number of believers, it's how much they enforce groupthink, how hard it is to leave and if they are based around a charismatic leader who profits directly from the imposed sameness and thought control. Generally cults:
- Rush you into joining and discourage or disallow questions.
- Followers are encouraged to worship a specific group leader.
- Leaders dictate in great detail all aspects of followers’ lives.
- Followers are personally monitored to ensure they’re following guidelines.
- Methods of control are used to keep members close.
That's how, for example the catholic church isn't a cult but scientology is. The sharp surveilance and strong measures in place to prevent deviancy make all the difference. It's easy to leave catholicism, but leaving scientology can even be dangerous.
That's a measure of the abusiveness of a religion and has nothing to do with its size. I already explained in depth in another comment the political motivations for creating a second, fake definition of the word cult. If you consult Merriam Webster you'll see the first definition of the word cult is "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious", and none of the definitions mention abuse, because your claim is ahistorical myth.
Cults are completely different from religion and size is not a defining factor. They're more similar to a con and will sometimes use religion to exert control.
Knitting Cult Lady is great! She has a video outlining 7 defining characteristics of cults but I can't find it.
That's a myth perpetuated by Christian mums during the satanic panic. Back in the 60s the hippie movement was in full swing and young people were abandoning Christianity to follow pagan religions like Wicca and Hellenism. Christian pastors felt threatened, so they came up with a conspiracy to take the word cult (which up until then had meant a small religion) and make it a bad word by association with abuse. That's why all the historical examples of cults that predate the 60s have no association with abuse. You take an example like the Cult of Dionysus and there's no pejorative meaning to the word.
I don't think it's a myth if it has become an area of study. Yes, words have different meanings like "theory" does in and out of academia, but the current understanding of the word is much more comprehensive than a small religion. And MAGA is most definitely a cult of personality that uses religion as a tool.
You’re right. Even the moonies had big politicians kissing up to them once they got big enough and no one blinked, despite their leader openly claiming he was above Jesus Christ of Nazareth on the heavenly totem poll.
We’re dealing with a very strange religion.
The person I really don't understand- I mean I know she's a horrible person, but I still don't understand it- is Caitlyn Jenner. She's supporting a party that openly wants to erase her.
Money talks.
And bullshit walks.
I never thought about it that way but that makes perfect sense.
She is the typical Republican -"Oh, but I'm the exeption. Thats different."- type. She also speaks out publicly and loudly against trans women in women's sports and then turns around and plays a women's golf tournament.
I guess I can't fathom the level of cognitive dissonance it takes to vociferously get behind people who want you dead, but I guess these people existed too- https://en.wikipedia.org/...
I’m glad you guys always come packing this link. Folks should know about this.
Yeah. Cognitive dissonance is "the mental disturbance people feel when their beliefs and actions are inconsistent and contradictory". If you're happy with holding contradictory beliefs, that's doublethink.
Yeah but golf isn't a sport.
She has money. It's a total "rules for thee but not for me" situation
They’re going to find out, too late, that they’re not immune to bullets, windows, or poison and that their money can be seized by the ones who disappear them.
Yep. I'm absolutely terrified that I'll have to go into the closet again. I'm afraid my one homophobic and transphobic coworker would report me if being gay becomes straight up illegal. Only person I know personally who isn't cool with it.
It’s both better and worse than that. It’s extremely unlikely that being gay could become straight up illegal, but is it really any different if discrimination is ok, gay marriage and family benefits are outlawed, being gay is again a “security concern”, police harassment is ok, and people again become hostile?
All that anti-gay legislation Trump signed last time? It’s gonna be double this time!
"I don't understand why other people at the synagogue treat me this way," says member of Jews for Hitler.
Once again... leopards, faces
GOOD!
"Gay man who put face inside the leopard cage is sad that his face keeps getting eaten"
when do we start testing people's lead levels before letting them in office
reproduce*
I'm not sure that the 64-year-old gay man featured at the end of the article is gonna do a lot of procreation.
Nah this is a blanket-rule, you get tested and you get tested, everybody gets tested!
I don't think it matters how brain damaged you are, you're still allowed to vote. you do have to be competent to hold office though
yeah you're allowed to expel people from office for gross incompetence
the same gay people who would tell the cops stonewall is right up the street
A hundred years on, and lessons are still not being learned.
"Well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions."
I never thought leopards would shoot MY foot!
Lol the cognitive dissonance levels here, insane.
I vote for criminalization of my friends and family. Why are they pissed at me?
Whatever, fuggem
Or don't, preferably.
I have no sympathy. I’ve dealt with a lot of difficulties being gay, and yes in some ways the fact that I get less real political options sucks, but the solution isn’t to decide that it’s ok with fascists when they’re gay.
Reminds me of Uncle Ruckus.
This has strong nottheonion vibes.
Did anyone read the article? Or am I not understanding the article correctly? Isnt the article saying their life is harder because they're being rejected by the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump? Or lol am I misunderstanding this comment section that seems to be mostly implying they're life is worse from the other MAGAs rejecting them?
Edit: I'm laughing at how bad I am reading the room not at anything the article or comments are saying.
The article says that the specific people they're featuring have been ostracized from the gay community. I wish the article was longer, because there's a remarkable lack of self-awareness on display in the few quotes it includes.
It's a terrible article and mostly click bait. My take away is they are being rejected by both sides. Big surprise.
Back in the day, if you were gay, ignorant people thought their lifestyle had bad influece on others. They were afraid of the consequences of having gay people living close to them. The gays were ostracized, persecuted, ridiculed, excluded from bars/communities/etc. I just post this comment as a reminder. Please be nice to others. You don't know where they come from. Try to be including, start dialogues, build bridges.
Wait til you see what happens in another 7 months
They're in the sunken place.
I’d bet money that it isn’t their MAGA support that’s ruining their lives, but rather everyone else’s ostracizing them that’s doing it.
It's not that these people are necessarily dumb it's a kink like any other. They want to keep the thrill of getting off on doing something illegal and socially unacceptable (in the fascist society they support)
You don't prevent your bar from becoming a nazi bar by asking nicely though.
Maybe if fascists got their faces punched in more often they'd understand that getting punched in the face sucks and that maybe they shouldn't advocate for punching people in the face in the first place.
You make it clear they're not welcome in the community, by force if necessary, and you let them back in once they've shown they can be trusted to be a member of the community again. IF they show they've changed.
I've been on a committee of people making this decision more than once. Rarely do people change enough to be welcomed back. Community self policing is the only way to really protect yourself when the government shows they wont.
Where do they go? Do you propose that America has red states where only conservatives should live & blue states where liberals can live? Do you want to put over half of voters in concentration camps?
Reminds me of a piece that is gone -- but the below rephrase comes from here: https://mstdn.social/@ZhiZhu/109502665651546617
"The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated."
I like that. That's a helpfully consistent way of framing it.
You don't, but at this point if they haven't chosen the correct side it's kind of on them.
Your analogy assumes innocence. In fact, it's so strained that I have to believe you're operating in bad faith here, or made a lapse in judgement.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
save