Now you know how conservatives felt when Big Tech fucked us over in 2020 and banned us all. Thoughts? Shall we momentarily share a group hug
Now you know how conservatives felt when Big Tech fucked us over in 2020 and banned us all. Thoughts? Shall we momentarily share a group hug
Ok but it wasn’t a heterosexual man…
First of all, male lactation is something that has been documented occasionally in nature, including in humans.
Secondly, claiming “unnatural practice” as the sole and obvious justification why we shouldn’t do something always seems very strange to me. We are humans, we have rejected nature a long time ago. Pretty much anything we do is “unnatural” by definition. Any medication ever would fall into the category of “unnatural practices”, so would you sitting on an “unnatural” chair and looking into an “unnatural” screen.
Which is fine in my view.
There are definitely lefties who have a very weird and ultra romanticized view of “revolution” and there is definitely a lot of negative feelings towards billionaires and others. But ultimately, leftists aren’t primarily concerned with targeting individuals, whether that is individual right wingers, individual politicians, etc.
They are concerned with systemic issues and targeting the system overall.
It would be, yes. But that’s not what I’m doing in my view, I’m not saying “you are all violent racist homophobes”, if I believed that, I wouldn’t be here. I had a great and insightful conversation just the other day.
But when I see a “meme post” that is about how “removed are pedos who abuse children” (masked behind the idea that “it’s just a joke, just a bit of lighthearted fun”) where the most upvoted comment is saying something like “removedfags should be lined up and shot”, I will call that out.
And my aim isn’t to paint you all as violent extremists, my aim is to show you that tolerating this kind of “discourse” is just destroying your own community and ultimately undermines the free-speech space you want to build.
OK, so let me say that I would just summarize my idea about transgenderism in that it is caused by the following or a combination of the following:
Some people it is 100% gender dysphoria. Some people it is a combination of all of these. Some people dwell purely in the sophistry aspect, and are easily identifiable by the people who make very superficial changes to their appearance and then simply identify as “non-binary” or some such. They are like the bisexuals of the 1990s: they signal their uniqueness to get prestige without making any commitments.
So… To me, when anyone starts taking such hormones to lactate and presents this to a child, they are not doing it as an actual woman, but they are doing it as a person who is deeply troubled…
And if I was a male who was lactating due to a medical condition, I would not offer it to my own baby. I mean, sure, lol, “What if you’re on a desert island with nothing else to eat…?!” scenario, yeah, OK, lol, but I mean as a principle it is such a departure from the norm. Not only would it take me entirely out of my comfort zone, it wouldn’t be healthy for the baby. Like would you want to be told that you were fed from the hairy nipple of a heterosexual man with a lactation condition…? On the one hand, yuo could say no harm, no foul…
But this is pure, disembodied reason thinking purely along Cause>Effect lines without the proper context of healthy human living, culture, and norms.
I hope that clarifies the position.
Two weeks ago I actually felt bad about a lot of this but now I don’t since I have seen that a lot of the people who voted against us were not just mistaken, but extreme in their views.
You are great - and keep coming back here - and I do accept your criticism. The very rough, immature humor might even be occasionally powered by some authentic, ugly hatred…
But I also actually think that guys getting their hatred out in stupid internet posts is OK. Maybe even helpful. More importantly, I think anyone who is willing to start using violence for political reasons is already insane. There’s nothing I can do to help them. They are at timebomb who will go off for some strange social or religious reason if not for a political one; they are attracted to anything that justifies a violent outburst.
I think free speech is never dangerous, so I am not into censorship. Since we have defederated from people who have such low opinions of free speech… the slap has no sting anymore.
What was “prestigious” about being a “homo” in the 90s? What is prestigious about being trans today? They are overwhelmingly hated all over the world for who they are, the push against that hate has been met with extreme scepticism by a lot of people.
Even in the US, THE example of “the progressive west”, the last president has claimed that if he becomes president again, he will go after all transgender healthcare…
Also, what are you implying when you say “without making any commitments”? Isn’t one of the right’s main criticisms that the changes are too permanent/not reversable? Shouldn’t you be happy that they “aren’t commiting”?
Yeah as I have said, I have my concerns with this as well. The only thing I find a bit strange is that your concerns are about “it not being natural” which to me, is just a weird justification for anything.
And I’m not saying you should (unless maybe you are in that desert scenario or something like that). I’m just saying it’s not as “unnatural” as you might think, or rather nature can be pretty fucked up and weird in it’s own right.
Right and to me, the first one is not very important. It’s the second one that should be important, no?
And this is exactly where I believe our main difference in thinking comes from.
You talk of “proper healthy human living”, “proper culture” and “proper norms” or of human behavior being “unnatural”. To me, humans have abandoned nature thousands of years ago. And in the past 100 - 200 years, we have also start to abandon virtually all traditional social norms, social structures, hierarchies, customs, culture and norms, etc.
And some people say they want to go back to “traditional society”, but first, I don’t thinkt that’s possible, and second, many just want to go back in some specific cases, but keep the rest of the progress they like, which certainly doesn’t work.
At the very least, I think that’s clearly the direction we are heading towards. Young people will keep on questioning and opposing older traditions, norms and customs, I believe simply because the world they grow up in is different to the one their parents grew up in. And I don’t think this is happening for artificial reasons as some want to claim, I believe it’s the extreme impact that our technological and scientific progress has caused, it would be unreasonable to see everything in our world radically transform, but to expect that specific customs and traditions stay the same…
I think it’s pretty silly when people say “we are banning the nazis” when they are talking about you. I mean many do it to provoke you and piss you off while they know you are not actual nazis, but still, it’s pretty silly. But at the same time, I don’t really know how to address it, it’s just how people on the internet seem to act and you people certainly like to provoke, so you almost have to expect a reaction.
I don’t see how it helps anyone.It certainly doesn’t help with finding any practical solutions to any problem, it certainly doesn’t help in making the internet less toxic and it certainly doesn’t help with finding any kind of compromise or common ground between the camps. All it does is making people act more and more extreme and unappologetic on both sides.
Yeah a lot of people say that, but EVERYONE is using violence for political reasons. The left is, the right is, and the center is using violence against both the right and the left to keep the status quo. But of course, there are different levels of violence and I think we can both agree that using random and extreme acts of violence is not only insanse, but also impratical. But I also think that at the end of the day, it’s a consequence of people being desperate and hopeless.
Here I agree with you. But I know that fantasising all day long about violence and “finally getting revenge” while blaming “the opposite side for everything” will certainly not help. And this goes for both right wingers who are fantasysing about lining up and shooting all the trans people/leftists/sjw’s as well as all the extreme lefties who fantasise about “bringing out the guilitine” and executing all the rich people, racists and right wingers.
I’m not into censorship either, but I think we have a different definition of censorship. To me, moderation does not restrict free speech. One could even argue that moderation makes free speech possible.
Fate allowed me to reply to your post on Bastille day in honor of the guillotine…
But let me say this… any sort of violence is always reprehensible, and even though I am guilty of laughing at it occasionally (which is uncouth and something I will address), I do condemn it…
I think it would be beneficial for the patient, rational people on all sides to always remind everyone we are all people, and that we shoudl decide things
and that violence can only be done if it is defensive and meant to protect the innocent.
It is because of these same principles that I endorse free speech, unconditionally. I have no right to coerce anyone, right… I would never use violence towards such an end.
Pacifism, liberty, democracy… self-rule. These are all linked.
Right but every possible group that advocates for violence of course claims that their violence is defensive and meant to protect the innocent. The violent far-right neo-nazi white supremacist claims they only want to use violence to “protect their white children and their people from white genocide”. Far-left antifascist militants claim they only want to use violence to “defend their community from fascists using violence against them”. Anti-trans militants claim they only want to use violence against trans people to “protect children from getting abused and child trafficked”. And my guess is that pretty soon, we will start to see violent environmental activists who claim they only use violence to protect the environment from destruction. And the state/police/military of course claims it’s using violence “to maintain peace, order and stability”.
Nobody claims that they want to use violence just because, they always claim it’s defensive.
I just had a huge crisis…
I never had a post disappear on me before… But after spendign 20 minutes writing a reply to you, my post disappeared…!
Absolute total loss 😅 😆 😂 ☹️ 🥴
Not even sure what to do at this point.
I’ll try to address this all again later.
That sucks, I had this happening once on lemmy as well.
Indeed it does but after a day I got my energy back. This will probably even be a far better response…
As I had heard it described by a few people, it was considered cool in the 70s to have gay friends. Disco was at its peak, and people were still living in the wake of the hippie revolution. Recreational drugs were very widely used, as was all sorts of things like swinging… So, having gay friends was considered normal… and, by the 1990s, the mainstreaming of gay actors and gay themes in TV began to take off. There was the famous “I Kissed A Girl” track in 1995, but more importantly, Ellen and various other TV shows had gay subplots and main characters.
Obviously, you can bring up that significant swathes of the country still opposed it, but the power dealers in NYC, LA, etc., all were on board with it, and hence the fast progression towards the approval not just of homosexuality in general, but same sex marriage.
Yes, it’s totally one of our main criticisms, and I absolutely congratulate the people who do not give themselves permanent damage. They certainly dodged a bullet.
But there is also something to say about people adopting ideas of convenience for virtue signaling.
Right, there’s no lack of cruelty…
There’s so many ways to use the word natural. When we employ it simply as occurring in nature, we cannot come to moral conclusions about it…
But when we say “It’s natural for a child to love his parents,” we all know what is being communicated: the healthy, normal thing for a child is to have an attachment and affection for their parents. When children do not do this, which could be for a variety of reasons, it’s viewed as uneahtlhy and not normal…
Even though severe autism or other emotional disorders may occur in nature.
Thank you.
I’d also like you to know that, if I had my way, we would have not made any provocative posts at all and pot a moratorium on such content in order to establish trust, so that when it does come out there would be more people who had experienced us differently.
I actually think this position of my own is naive but I think that making the effort counts. I think, though, defederation would have been inevitable, and that we might even get the posts talking about how they are more dangerous NAZIS! because of the fact that they tried to infiltrate us by posting… like normal, moderate conservatives or some such.
[posting now to see if there is an error again]
By a very very very small amount of people maybe, those who were considered to be radicals. Not only did a majority of people believe that homosexuality should not be accepted or tolerated, this was a time where at least half of the population believed that homosexual relations should be illegal… And this didn’t change until quite recently.
The “hippie revolution” was pretty much dead at that point. And of course, “normies” always hated the hippies. They were considered to be radicals, they were probably seen in a less favourable way than people see “antifa” today. And at that time, the hippies were associated with murderers and cults (Jim Jones, Charles Manson).
Compared to how things were before the 60s, yes. But that’s just because before the 60s, “free love” was unthinkable and recreational drugs simply did not exist in the eyes of the general public (outside of alcohol and tabacco). But we also shouldn’t forget that those things happened in very specific metropolian areas.
Again, by a very very specific subsection of people. It’s as if you said that today, it’s considered normal to have a “gender-fluid pan-sexual furry who identifies as a fox” as a friend. But for 99% of people, it just isn’t.
And it’s not until the 90s that views on homosexuality slowly started to change. In 1997, it was still more people who believed that homosexuality should be illegal compared to those who believed it should be legal. Views on homosexuality only really started to radically change in the 2000s and 2010s. In 2008, while most people believed that homosexuality should not be punished by a law, it was still half of the population that believed that homosexuality is immoral and should be discouraged. In 2023, 64% believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable while 33% belive it’s not. So there has definitely been a radical change of attitude towards homosexuality that is still going on, but this only happened relatively recently.
And of course people who are still opposed to homosexuality have noticed this shift too, which is why politicians have shifted focus away from scapegoating homosexual men towards scapegoating trans people (who are still a lot less tolerated today than gay men). The same talking points which are today used against trans people (“they are crazy and mentally unstable”, “they are pedophiles”) were traditionally used against homosexual men.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4045/Some-Change-Over-Time-American-Attitudes-towards-Homosexuality.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
In my admittedly biased view, to a majority of people on the right, provocation is an elemental part of their behaviour. It seems that some people orient their entire identity based on “triggering the libs/triggering the left” and then complain when they actually succeed…
I had a discussion the other day with a user here who had the username “Ihatretroons” who was complaining that people would unfairly accuse him of, well, “hating troons”. To me, this is absurd. Everyone should know by now that people on the internet form their opinions based on the smallest amount of information, when you choose the username “ihatetroons”, most people will obviously think you hate trans people…
I think it was far more widespread than you think. Yes, it’s absolutely the case that there were scary, intimidatingly conservative places in America in the 1970s… But it is also the case that people in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, etc. were all listening to what was being released from the coasts. Boomers & Gen X grew up knowing who all these stars overdosing on drugs and practicing alternative lifestyles were. Which is why things like Roe v Wade were possible…
You also see crazy numbers like this:
Gallup’s trend by age reveals that widespread experimentation with marijuana first occurred among adults aged 18 to 29 between 1969 and 1973, rising from 8% to 35%. It then continued to mount, reaching 56% by 1977, and remained at that level in 1985. Since then, however, marijuana use among young adults has progressively declined. At the same time, as the bulge of young adults who tried marijuana in the 1970s ages and replaces older Americans who never tried it, the rate of all Americans who have ever tried the drug has increased slightly.
Gallup
Check out these numbers
In the days when pre-marital sex was taboo, many couples had at least one powerful incentive to marry. This may have been the case in 1969 when Gallup found that premarital sex was frowned upon by two-thirds of Americans, while only 21% felt these relations were acceptable. That critical view dropped sharply by the early 1970s to 47%, and in 1985 Gallup found a majority of Americans on the other side, with 52% saying premarital sex was morally okay. Today, according to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.
Gallup
34% of people in 1983 said that homosexuality should be an acceptable moral lifestyle as well…
Again, Gallup…
1/3 people saying it is acceptable probably indicates a far greater amount of people thinking it is somehow cool - like how being in a biker gang is cool, or like how being a drugged out disco burnout or hippie was also cool.
… But its impact never left. 1/3 of people found homosexuality a morally acceptable lifestyle in 1983. Do you think it was anywhere close to that prior to the hippie revolution?
Kids in suburban America were smoking pot in the 1970s.
My sources show 56% of people having smoked pot by 1977.
Widespread is relative. Compared to before, it was very much widespread. But overall, it was still not popular or mainstream at all.
Sure, but this was during a time where even within the left or left leaning spaces, homosexuality was seen as a controversial and often negative thing. Even if somebody was sympathetic to some aspects of the “hippie movement”, that doesn’t automatically mean that they were accepting of homosexuality.
Yes, experimentation with recreational drugs definitely exploded, but I don’t think that just because people tried pot doesn’t mean they were all ultra-leftist pro-LGBT activists.
Yeah it was the norm that pre-marital sex was taboo, that doesn’t suprise me at all. But as is often the case, many people still engaged in pre-martial sex, they just did it in secret. And the same was sort of true for the LGBT community because homosexuals and transsexuals have existed before the 1960s, they just existed on the edge of society.
But those people were not seen as “cool” by most people. Yes, there was a certain fascination with both the hippies and biker gangs as they were seen as outlaw rebels in a sense, which has some coolness factor, especially in America where the “rooting for the underdog” narrative is baked into the culture. Homosexuals were not seen as cool just as trans-people or non-binary people today are not really seen as cool in the same sense because they don’t really fit the rebel image.
Bikers and hippies were opposed by conservatives because they believed them to be revolutionaries who are threatening the system and causing instability and lack of order. Homosexuals and the LGBT community are/were opposed by conservatives because they are seen as degenerate, perverted, unnatural and weak.
OK I think we have just had some different experiences with this… And that is completely fine and valid. I do not dispute yours.
I knew a girl who struggled with a lot of gender issues that I did not understand because I was actually raised in a relatively liberal, upper middle class home. Of course, my father is a devout conservative, but so many people in my extended family have all manner of conflicting ideas, and discussion of these things was never barred…
So when she talked to me about how her family frowned on her for even being interested in sports or dressing "boyish"ly , I was shocked.
So, who knows.
The United States is a very big place.
I remember, as a conservative, even getting culture shock at the levels of conservatism among Texans (lol). So, I will say that… I just don’t know.
I think I am right for one segment of the society, and you are right for another. Which is another reason to prefer decentralization, IMO: let each area address its own issues, and to have a standard be one of largely tolerance.
Yeah, there are always many many variables and of course there are always exceptions and nuances, but speaking overall, there is a huge difference in how homosexuality is viewed and treated by society overall if you compare the 80s/90s and the 2020s. I don’t see how anyone alive during this time can deny that, even when you just look at popular media, you will notice that “gay” or “homo” was a mainstream insult that was universally accepted until quite recently.
Completely agreed. And maybe we should focus on the stuff we agree and the really core important stuff instead of having arguments that are never concluded.
The problem in my view is that most politicians use wedge issues to divide people. For example, they used to scapegoat gay men by claiming they are all pedos who want to rape and groom children and tried to pass/keep anti-gay laws. This basically forces the left to defend against this kind of legislation.