Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBT+ Thread


squistion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, HellToupee said:

I don’t recall the op ever admitting a mistake. 

Maybe because the op didn't feel he made one 

From NPR May 10, 2021

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995418963/u-s-will-protect-gay-and-transgender-people-against-discrimination-in-health-car

[...]

The announcement from HHS comes as conservative state legislatures are working to enact a variety of bills targeting transgender people. Last month in Arkansas, legislators overrode Gov. Asa Hutchinson's veto to enact a new law banning doctors from providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender youth.

[...]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 8:38 PM, squistion said:

There is no protection for LGBT+ folks, so even if they actually say "I am firing you for being queer after seeing you got married"  there is no recourse as there is zero employment discrimination protection for LGBT+ people.

What in the hell are you talking about?  Holy wrong in every way possible batman.

eta - I see a handful of people were able to point out the SC decision.  

Edited by matuski
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2021/06/14/whitmer-bars-public-money-from-funding-widely-discredited-gay-conversion-therapy

Whitmer bars public money from funding widely discredited gay ‘conversion therapy’

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive directive Monday prohibiting the use of state and federal funds for a widely discredited practice that purports to be able to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity.

The directive orders the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to “take actions necessary” to ensure public money is not used to fund so-called gay conversion therapy.

Democrats introduced a ban on the practice in 2019 but Republicans blocked its passage.

"Since day one, I have made it clear that hate has no home in Michigan,” Whitmer said in a statement. “My administration is committed to addressing the systemic barriers faced by young LGBTQ+ Michiganders so that our state is a place where they are able to reach their full potential. The actions we take today will serve as a starting point in protecting our LGBTQ+ youth from the damaging practice of conversion therapy and in ensuring that Michigan is a reflection of true inclusion.”

[...]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 7:02 PM, squistion said:

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2021/06/14/whitmer-bars-public-money-from-funding-widely-discredited-gay-conversion-therapy

Whitmer bars public money from funding widely discredited gay ‘conversion therapy’

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive directive Monday prohibiting the use of state and federal funds for a widely discredited practice that purports to be able to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity.

The directive orders the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to “take actions necessary” to ensure public money is not used to fund so-called gay conversion therapy.

Democrats introduced a ban on the practice in 2019 but Republicans blocked its passage.

"Since day one, I have made it clear that hate has no home in Michigan,” Whitmer said in a statement. “My administration is committed to addressing the systemic barriers faced by young LGBTQ+ Michiganders so that our state is a place where they are able to reach their full potential. The actions we take today will serve as a starting point in protecting our LGBTQ+ youth from the damaging practice of conversion therapy and in ensuring that Michigan is a reflection of true inclusion.”

[...]

:thumbup:   

If people want to get conversion therapy they should pay for it themselves. Like any other therapy available hopefully health care can pick up part of the tab for these people and families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Shocking hit and run at Gay Pride parade in Florida- two persons hit, one dead. 
 

This appears to be a quite horrible hate crime. 

I should correct this- it APPEARS bad but we don’t know if it was an accident. Doesn’t sound like it but we don’t know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, timschochet said:

I should correct this- it APPEARS bad but we don’t know if it was an accident. Doesn’t sound like it but we don’t know. 

Multiple outlets reporting driver *and* victims are members of the local Gay Men’s Chorus.  This was an accident.  Not helpful for you leap to conclusions and assume the worst.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, timschochet said:

Shocking hit and run at Gay Pride parade in Florida- two persons hit, one dead. 
 

This appears to be a quite horrible hate crime. 

Why is that your automatic reaction?  Early reports are that this was an accident, and a horrible, tragic one at that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Why is that your automatic reaction?  Early reports are that this was an accident, and a horrible, tragic one at that.  

Its the narrative he jumps to like the mayor.   It shows why he doesnt understand why people dont trust the MSM.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Its the narrative he jumps to like the mayor.   It shows why he doesnt understand why people dont trust the MSM.  

Easy there.  Now you're jumping to conclusions about "the MSM".  The article posted above includes nothing suggesting this was a targeted attack.  In fact, it suggests quite the opposite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Easy there.  Now you're jumping to conclusions about "the MSM".  The article posted above includes nothing suggesting this was a targeted attack.  In fact, it suggests quite the opposite.

I agree.  Its tim that jumped.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, timschochet said:

Shocking hit and run at Gay Pride parade in Florida- two persons hit, one dead. 
 

This appears to be a quite horrible hate crime. 

Should probably wait for all the details and facts  before rushing to judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 7:02 PM, squistion said:

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2021/06/14/whitmer-bars-public-money-from-funding-widely-discredited-gay-conversion-therapy

Whitmer bars public money from funding widely discredited gay ‘conversion therapy’

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive directive Monday prohibiting the use of state and federal funds for a widely discredited practice that purports to be able to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity.

The directive orders the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to “take actions necessary” to ensure public money is not used to fund so-called gay conversion therapy.

Democrats introduced a ban on the practice in 2019 but Republicans blocked its passage.

"Since day one, I have made it clear that hate has no home in Michigan,” Whitmer said in a statement. “My administration is committed to addressing the systemic barriers faced by young LGBTQ+ Michiganders so that our state is a place where they are able to reach their full potential. The actions we take today will serve as a starting point in protecting our LGBTQ+ youth from the damaging practice of conversion therapy and in ensuring that Michigan is a reflection of true inclusion.”

[...]

What about the gays who want  conversion therapy but can`t afford it?  Are they on their own? If a person wants it why is it considered damaging?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Summer Wheat said:

What about the gays who want  conversion therapy but can`t afford it?  Are they on their own? If a person wants it why is it considered damaging?

The number of "gays" who want conversion therapy are between slim and none - and slim just left town. In every case that I have heard of, it was the parents of the LGBT+ person who wanted their child "converted." 

To answer your question posed in the last sentence: If they had conversion therapy to try to do the reverse, to convert someone from straight to gay, wouldn't you consider that it would have damaging consequences? You are trying to make someone into something they are not and that would have to mess with their head and not in a good way.

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, timschochet said:

Shocking hit and run at Gay Pride parade in Florida- two persons hit, one dead. 
 

This appears to be a quite horrible hate crime. 

You know, you always have the option of just waiting a few hours before jumping to a conclusion.  In this particular case, the "hate crime" angle had apparently already been debunked before I was even aware that this accident occurred.  There's no downside to reserving judgement. 

  • Like 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You know, you always have the option of just waiting a few hours before jumping to a conclusion.  In this particular case, the "hate crime" angle had apparently already been debunked before I was even aware that this accident occurred.  There's no downside to reserving judgement. 

THIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You know, you always have the option of just waiting a few hours before jumping to a conclusion.  In this particular case, the "hate crime" angle had apparently already been debunked before I was even aware that this accident occurred.  There's no downside to reserving judgement. 

Spending your life waiting for the next thing to be outraged about seems like an unproductive waste of time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, timschochet said:

Shocking hit and run at Gay Pride parade in Florida- two persons hit, one dead. 
 

This appears to be a quite horrible hate crime. 

Intent aside, what makes you think it was a hit and run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair the local politicians were already pushing their own narrative.

Quote

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis, a Democrat, was at the parade and claimed the truck narrowly missed Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) “by inches” and called the incident a “terrorist attack.

“This is a terrorist attack against the LGBT community,” Trantalis told WPLG. “This is exactly what it is. Hardly an accident. It was deliberate, it was premeditated, and it was targeted against a specific person. Luckily they missed that person, but unfortunately, they hit two other people.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Max Power said:

To be fair the local politicians were already pushing their own narrative.

 

You’re criticizing them, and me, but we don’t deserve it IMO, because we live in a society where hate crimes occur all too often. The assumption.we made was quite reasonable. Thankfully in this instance we were wrong. Save your criticism for our society which produces enough hate that it becomes reasonable to make such assumptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re criticizing them, and me, but we don’t deserve it IMO, because we live in a society where hate crimes occur all too often. The assumption.we made was quite reasonable. Thankfully in this instance we were wrong. Save your criticism for our society which produces enough hate that it becomes reasonable to make such assumptions. 

Sorry but…..bull#### 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re criticizing them, and me, but we don’t deserve it IMO, because we live in a society where hate crimes occur all too often. The assumption.we made was quite reasonable. Thankfully in this instance we were wrong. Save your criticism for our society which produces enough hate that it becomes reasonable to make such assumptions. 

I have no problem jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on assumptions. IMO, what bears criticism is rushing to instantaneously broadcast that erroneous conclusion publicly (which is what you did here) instead of waiting  just a little bit to find out more. Heck the video showed the truck prominently displaying a pride flag. This kind of rush to judgment is actually counterproductive and undermines the ability to call attention to legitimate acts of hate. 

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

I have no problem jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on assumptions. IMO, what bears criticism is rushing to instantaneously broadcast that erroneous conclusion publicly (which is what you did here) instead of waiting  just a little bit to find out more. Heck the video showed the truck prominently displaying a pride flag. 

.

Edited by supermike80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

I have no problem jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on assumptions. IMO, what bears criticism is rushing to instantaneously broadcast that erroneous conclusion publicly (which is what you did here) instead of waiting  just a little bit to find out more. Heck the video showed the truck prominently displaying a pride flag. 

Sure. And I don’t mind your criticism. You’re right, I shouldn’t have posted so quickly, I should have waited. My bad. 

What I mind is the righteous tone of much of the criticism here (not yours) who accuse people of “pushing a narrative” and refuse to acknowledge that actual hate crimes are happening far too often. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re criticizing them, and me, but we don’t deserve it IMO, because we live in a society where hate crimes occur all too often. The assumption.we made was quite reasonable. Thankfully in this instance we were wrong. Save your criticism for our society which produces enough hate that it becomes reasonable to make such assumptions. 

No, I am criticizing them 1000%.  You are another story.  I'm not in love with jumping to conclusions, but that happens.  You're a poster on a message board, I don't expect perfection out of anyone here.

Not that I expect perfection out of our politicians, but I DO expect them to be factual in statements.  To say and I quote... "Hardly an accident. It was deliberate, it was premeditated, and it was targeted against a specific person." and be wrong, they lose a LOT of credibility.  To me it shows they see the world through a victim lens and I don't like that in leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Sure. And I don’t mind your criticism. You’re right, I shouldn’t have posted so quickly, I should have waited. My bad. 

What I mind is the righteous tone of much of the criticism here (not yours) who accuse people of “pushing a narrative” and refuse to acknowledge that actual hate crimes are happening far too often. 

You are pushing a narrative.  And there are a lot less hate crimes than "normal" crimes or accidents.  You ARE pushing a narrative. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

No, I am criticizing them 1000%.  You are another story.  I'm not in love with jumping to conclusions, but that happens.  You're a poster on a message board, I don't expect perfection out of anyone here.

Not that I expect perfection out of our politicians, but I DO expect them to be factual in statements.  To say and I quote... "Hardly an accident. It was deliberate, it was premeditated, and it was targeted against a specific person." and be wrong, they lose a LOT of credibility.  To me it shows they see the world through a victim lens and I don't like that in leadership.

With regard to your last sentence- no offense Max, but you seem to like victimhood in leadership very much depending on who the victim is. 
Again, it was unfortunately quite reasonable for the mayor to get this wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

With regard to your last sentence- no offense Max, but you seem to like victimhood in leadership very much depending on who the victim is. 
Again, it was unfortunately quite reasonable for the mayor to get this wrong. 

Can you explain in more detail what you're saying?

I don't feel like it was a reasonable statement from the Mayor.   He claimed this driver was targeting Wasserman Schultz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John123 said:

And there are a lot less hate crimes than "normal" crimes or accidents.   

This is a very odd and irrelevant comparison. There are far more hate crimes now than there were a decade ago, per FBI reporting. THAT is what is relevant ( and highly troubling.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Can you explain in more detail what you're saying?

I don't feel like it was a reasonable statement from the Mayor.   He claimed this driver was targeting Wasserman Schultz.

Which part? I thought I was pretty clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

This is a very odd and irrelevant comparison. There are far more hate crimes now than there were a decade ago, per FBI reporting. THAT is what is relevant ( and highly troubling.) 

He seems to be suggesting that perhaps since than are statistically less hate crimes than "normal" crimes we shouldn't be talking about them at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

This is a very odd and irrelevant comparison. There are far more hate crimes now than there were a decade ago, per FBI reporting. THAT is what is relevant ( and highly troubling.) 

No, it's not.  It's easier for things that are relatively rare to see significant increases.  I mean, for this one to be a hate crime, you'd have to believe that this person signed up to participate in the parade, including documenting the vehicle that would be participating, for the express purpose of hurting/killing LGBT people.  Most people who commit hate crimes do like to get away with their crime, just like any other crime, so that's a stretch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squistion said:

He seems to be suggesting that perhaps since than are statistically less hate crimes than "normal" crimes we shouldn't be talking about them at all. 

No I'm not.  I'm suggesting that jumping to the conclusion that it is a hate crime, considering the disparity between the statistics of "normal" crimes versus "hate" crimes, doesn't make any sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John123 said:

No, it's not.  It's easier for things that are relatively rare to see significant increases.  I mean, for this one to be a hate crime, you'd have to believe that this person signed up to participate in the parade, including documenting the vehicle that would be participating, for the express purpose of hurting/killing LGBT people.  Most people who commit hate crimes do like to get away with their crime, just like any other crime, so that's a stretch. 

Once the details you just described are known then sure, you’re correct. 
But if all you know is that there was a gay pride parade and a car hit two marchers and one died, it’s quite reasonable, sadly, to assume hate crime. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John123 said:

No I'm not.  I'm suggesting that jumping to the conclusion that it is a hate crime, considering the disparity between the statistics of "normal" crimes versus "hate" crimes, doesn't make any sense.

Context is everything. If this had happened to a crowd of people waiting to attend the opera, or a baseball game, no one would immediately jump to the conclusion that it was a hate crime (without knowing any details).

When it occurs at a PRIDE EVENT, it is an assumption that is not unreasonable (although still irresponsible to make an accusation without knowing all the facts). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That was a reference to your support for President Trump. 

I thought so.  You can do better than that.  I don't blanket support everything he says and does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I have no problem jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on assumptions. IMO, what bears criticism is rushing to instantaneously broadcast that erroneous conclusion publicly (which is what you did here) instead of waiting  just a little bit to find out more. Heck the video showed the truck prominently displaying a pride flag. This kind of rush to judgment is actually counterproductive and undermines the ability to call attention to legitimate acts of hate. 

Yep.  If somebody drives a truck into a gay pride parade, my initial assumption is always going to be "That's probably a hate crime."  But there's literally no downside at all to reserving judgement and letting facts come to light.  There's no prize for being the first person on record every time something happens.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Once the details you just described are known then sure, you’re correct. 
But if all you know is that there was a gay pride parade and a car hit two marchers and one died, it’s quite reasonable, sadly, to assume hate crime. 

Those facts were known.  The first article I read about this incident clearly said that the vehicle was waiting in line to participate in the parade.  Now, if they were letting everyone and anyone line up to be in the parade I'll admit I'm wrong here.  But I suspect you'd have to register to participate and they'd probably want ID, vehicle information, etc...for tracking purposes. 

But my bigger point would be that we should assume the best case regarding intentions in cases like this.  There's plenty of time for hate and disgust later.  The initial reaction should be compassion for all involved in such a horrific incident.  Your vitriol towards someone who either made a mistake or had some horrible mechanical issue with their vehicle is unbecoming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yep.  If somebody drives a truck into a gay pride parade, my initial assumption is always going to be "That's probably a hate crime."  But there's literally no downside at all to reserving judgement and letting facts come to light.  There's no prize for being the first person on record every time something happens.

Bingo

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

When you hold up the Washington Post and the NYT as some sort of gold standard why would anyone be surprised about rushing to be the first to post this type of junk with zero facts?

Tim did not say WaPo or NYT reported this. He linked ABC news and they didn't suggest it was a hate crime in the link. 

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...