If a trans person is enjoying certain liberties under more liberal attitudes why would any moderate or conservative feel as if this is a problem for them as individuals? I've asked this, and gotten no answer that reveals an intention or motive. The prejudice seems to be a blind spot for some of these more conservative folks, and they are uneasy about social change and evolving values. It's odd that it is spoken about as a problem of those who exist outside of the norm when it's really a problem of insecure people who feel uncomfortable that others are different.
Agreed. It an irrational revulsion to LGBTQ+ arising either from the pulpit or in reaction one's own homoerotic inclinations, or perhaps just mean-spiritedness. All of which contribute to an urge to make the lives of others worse.
And I can't always tell which of these dominates in a given person, but one can rest assured that the motive is not constructive or wholesome. It's based in some kind of insecurity, self-loathing, or malevolence (bullying).
It's very common for these people to represent as being having no interest in harming the targets of their grievance, but you also see that they don't actually care about their well-being, either. Consider transexual women in women's sports or women's bathrooms. Their interest is typically in the cis-females, which you and I share, but because we are interested in everybody's happiness including trans-females, we're not satisfied with their solutions. I don't have answers to either of those issues, but that's because I'm weighing everybody's needs. These others don't do that. They offer glib solutions that disregard one side of the issue:
"Get them out of sports and out of the bathrooms. Let them have their own leagues and bathrooms."
"But they want to live as women."
"Too bad. They need to be segregated from
real women anyway."
"But don't you want to discuss a compromise solution?"
"No. I don't care about that. I gave you my solution."
liberals are vilified as being radical because they are more likely to accept change and diversity.
Yes, and as you likely know, this is a decades old technique. Liberals have been called radical and extreme since Gingrich, the nineties, and the rise of Limbaugh to disseminate conservative think tank disinformation. You're probably familiar with the idea of framing concepts a la George Lakoff to promote for or against an idea. Here's a brief excerpt from
George Lakoff’s “Framing 101” with an example of promoting tax cuts:
"On the day that George W. Bush arrived in the White House, the phrase “tax relief” started coming out of the White House. It still is: It was used a number of times in this year’s State of the Union address, and is showing up more and more in pre-election speeches four years later. Think of the framing for “relief”. For there to be relief there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief."
You've likely seen the surveys that ask, "How do you feel about welfare" and "How do you feel about Aid to Dependent Children." This technique has been used successfully to change the reaction to about the most positive idea (somebody's well-being) into a negative one such that these two questions poll differently - a direct result of framing welfare as bad.
The left has been subjected to a non-stop assault using these persuasive tactics on the susceptible, and you've seen the response here o RF. Besides seeing terms like "far left," "extremist," and "radical" to describe all liberals including you and me, but also changing Democratic Party to Democrat Party, and liberal to leftist. Their loathing is palpable, and why the right can no longer be called the loyal opposition, but rather, the enemy. Their intention is to do harm, and the first step was capturing and creating the myrmidons.
the idea of equality, has devolved into equity. I'm all for equality, I'm quite suspicious of equity.
That's progress in my estimation.
I recall the discussion of same sex marriage when it became the law of the land in 2015. In one particular discussion, I referred to marriage equality, and was told that such people already had equality. Everybody who could marry had the right to marry the opposite sex. And that was correct. What same sex couples wanted was equity.
Maybe you've seen this:
If you are operating under the premise that DEI is all rainbows and unicorns, I'd ask you again to really read that document, and tell us if you agree with it or not. And the details matter! This document is meant to guide ALL the community colleges in California.
That would be of no value or interest to me. What is of interest is why it's an issue for you. Why are we different in that regard? If there are mistakes in that agenda that produce unintended consequences, that's acceptable because it unavoidable with progress. Those areas can be identified and tweaked, like Prohibition was, which was presumably well-intentioned.
Here's the thing, though: If your prohibitionist agenda was constructive and you saw those unintended consequences, you would want the mistake amended. But if it was religious in origin, then you would have objected to ending Prohibition. I don't a vibe from you that you care about people like the shorter kid in the cartoon above.
If I'm wrong, apologies.
I would say that veiled insults like "threatened by humanistic agendas" are false, ignorant, and ill informed.
That's not an insult. That's what I think explains most American bigotry against women, people of color, immigrants and atheists. The humanistic agenda would end white privilege.
I would also say that your post is another example of how the radical left often operates. When faced with any criticism of their IDEAS they revert to slurs.
But that was (an insult).
I criticized how some ideas have been subverted. I had no idea what you believed or didn't believe, and yet your response - out of left field - was to slur me.
Sorry. That wasn't my intention.
I suspect you're not taking the phrase "pushed in our face" the way it was intended. It might be more productive to ask for clarification.
The phrase's meaning is clear. It means the same as "shoved down our throats." Both mean that one doesn't want to see a public discussion of those matters.
It had nothing to do with putting my nose in it. Its like politics, every where we go we hear about it, read about it, someone is talking about it, etc. Its constantly being shoved in our face.
That's now how I experience that discussion. We're experiencing the same thing but reacting to it differently.
When I say I don't care for it, it has nothing to do with approval. Its more of its not for me reply.
I had written "You don't approve of that life. It's why you're agitated by people who are living it using words about you, which you call pushing it on you. Ask yourself why we're so different - why these things agitate you but not me"
That's not credible. You're not being asked to live that life. It's not for me, either. I'm also not being asked to live it. Our situations are identical: we are heterosexual males living in times when there is an LGBTQ+ revolution occurring around us. It's not what's going on out there that's different for us. It's what's going on in here. I'm asking you to examine our different reactions and justify yours. I don't think you can, and if so, wouldn't that be telling you something about yourself and how you got to this place?
