• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

570 Excellent

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Minnesota Vikings

Recent Profile Visitors

7,190 profile views
  1. Say you're transgendered. Maybe even had surgery/surgeries. By all appearances you're the opposite gender you were born as. Is it really a good solution that you should be waltzing into the bathroom you no longer identify or appear as? And at a cultural and personal level, say you've worked through the mental issues to realize that you belong in the category of the opposite gender. And you orient yourself towards that gender. And work through the emotional issues of that process. Stuff like this would be society throwing you back saying that you're still wrong. Just logistically and culturally it's a really stupid fight.
  2. Maybe. I found the tracking of the support: But what IK was responding to was someone saying that old gay men wouldn't think of it as happening quickly. Which contextualizes the entire struggle. As I said earlier, the Hawaii court case was 1993. Is that not part of the process of gay marriage? I'm sure men and women who spent a large part of their lives in the closet would think so.
  3. If you want to think of 30-40 years as fast. The bit about Obama is a canard. I'm fairly certain Obama openly supported gay marriage, or at a minimum civil unions, before running for President. The recognition of gay marriage was merely the formalization of that process. My brother and his husband had planned on having a marriage ceremony 5 or 6 years ago. Even though it wouldn't have been recognized it was the commitment building which they wanted to make. And I'm fairly certain at that point would have been well received and attended by their friends and family. Gay marriage becoming legal changed their logistics but didn't fundamentally change the environment. It was that community-wide shift in acceptance which was the stepping stone. So if you want to argue that the cultural shift in attitudes towards homosexuals was fast, that's a separate argument. You had cultural icons like Bowie out of the closet in the 70s. And then still had discriminatory attitudes in the 80s; AIDS being, "the gay plague." But you're basically talking 2 generations after a number where it was pretty much verboten and not discussed. So I'm not sure calling it expeditiously speedy is accurate. And it's certainly not accurate to say that gay marriage was a matter of 3 or 4 years in the happening.
  4. By the by, Hawaii allowed gay marriage in 1993 then prohibited by state constitutional amendment in 1996. DOMA was passed in 1996. After a strong 30 years of fight for recognition and discrimination. But yeah. It was really only a matter of a few years. Excellent work, Professor.
  5. The Big Dig took no time at all. In November 2007 it wasn't done. In December 2007 it was. I'm sure gay men who couldn't even come out of the closet most of their lives would see the error of their ways reading your post.
  6. Yeah. Until this hubbub I never knew bathrooms were the only places someone could get sexually assaulted.
  7. Illegal immigrants is ok imo. It's the dropping it to just "illegals" that it becomes dehumanizing.
  8. "Illegal" is a way to dehumanize to create a mental schism and avoid thinking of them as people. See it in wars, too.
  9. Kelly Anne Conway officially pulled off of TV. I never agreed with the people who said how good she was at her job. She got way too much attention and said too outlandish things. Now, Ari Fleischer. He could squirm out of anything without giving you a quote to run that night.
  10. A little bit. Although it was more of a skim than a typo. I mostly meant #5. But nonetheless people who voted 3rd party in non-swing states still share a little more culpability than people who voted for Hillary. Your vote is ultimately the thing which you are responsible for and can affect. And I'd assume the group in 6 may have argued and lobbied for people to vote 3rd party which may have swayed people into group 5. It's certainly a more attenuated effect but still stronger than blaming someone who actually did vote for, and encouraged others to vote for, Hillary over Trump. And the people in groups 5 & 6 tend to have a higher ratio of smugness in blaming the Hillary voters. Which isn't to say it's a universal or even majority. But seems to be the highest ratio.
  11. There were enough votes for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in the swing states to flip the election. And putting that aside, 1 vote won't matter. But people can take their stances and weigh what the real options and outcomes are. So saying that you voted for someone who was never going to win and the fault lies in the people who voted for the person you lost but could have won is just ####### stupid. imo. I also think, "the establishment" and, "the party" driving the results of primaries is very overblown. At the end of the day it comes down to candidates, their campaign machine, and voters.
  12. Not sure what was resolved here, but I'd say 2, 1, 5, 6, 3, 4. But I've seen a lot of the narrative that goes 3, 4, 2, 1, 5, 6. It's the #6 crowd who think that it looks like the above that really irk me. The GOP Establishment and the Acela Corridor Republicans were actually pretty strongly against him. I wouldn't put them at the top of the list.
  13. Trump on a DiMaggio-esque hit streak.
  14. I figured she'd be 90% Establishment with some soft nods to social issues. Not anyone who would really move things in the direction that I wanted but not anybody who would really upset the boat, either. Essentially the moderate candidate everyone always claims that they want. If anything she'd be to the right of Nixon and I'd expect pretty hawkish militarily partially to overcompensate for being a woman and that stereotype.
  15. My personal distaste for Hillary was that I didn't see any core identity. All of the presidential candidates you can identify in them and their campaigning some burning idea of something they want to improve or fix. I never ever saw anything like that in her. It seemed more that she wanted to become President to become President, perhaps moreso to be the historic first woman. But not any personal or particular good that she was striving for. I.e., it was about her not the country. But that's a totally different thing than saying she was unqualified or that she and Trump looked equally odious so voting Trump or a 3rd party candidate was equally valid. Setting aside the whole pointlessness of 1 vote in a presidential.