I doubt it. If there’s a chance to follow the trends or side with traditional values and common sense, I’m guessing the choice was a fairly easy one for any self respecting Leftist. He relishes his ‘insider’ self image. We’re outsiders after all who just “ don’t get it”.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
White men are demonized. When I was growing up I nor any other Jews I know anyway considered themselves white. I had a privileged childhood in many ways but there were lines that weren’t meant to be crossed. Millions of us were slaughtered specifically for not being white. Now that being white is a bad thing, we’re labeled as white. Makes the whole white colonizer thing easier too.
I don't recognize that as my argument and I didn't mention any studies. mac did.
The concerns are genuine. They are also unfounded. There is no evidence that transwomen are dangerous to women in women's spaces. What's to study when there's no evidence?
It's under discussion because mac made a big deal out of it. He was upset that a gay couple was in a commercial.
I don't believe you're sorry for anything. Don't complain when your stance is correctly identified as bigotry.
What does the means through which someone got HIV have to do with anything? Sounds like you're very close to making a "they deserve it" argument, all while telling us how mean you aren't.
That sentence was a direct response to KD's DEI comment. I have no white guilt.
Why not stick to the topic instead of disguising a strawman as the most negative psychoanalysis you can make up?
You’re doubling down on the same flawed argument. “There is no evidence that trans women are dangerous”. It’s the discomfort, the unknown of what’s behind that bathroom door that unnerves people. Because a woman may not be actually assaulted by a trans woman does not alleviate the discomfort involved in the situation. I feel for the trans. I do. But I don’t think every trip to a public restroom should be fraught with such dread, such anxiety for the vast majority of women who think if someone has a penis they should be using the men’s restroom. I’m sorry if most of us don’t want to cosplay in this farce the Left has constructed.
I don't feel demonized.
I don't think the heinous crimes perpetrated against Jewish people and their categorization as white has anything to do with this alleged demonization of white people.
The flawed argument is that someone's unfounded discomfort should be catered to at the expense of someone who isn't harming them at all. I asked mac already: how would these women feel about sharing the bathroom with a transman who has facial hair and a deep voice? Or particularly masculine-looking lesbians? Or a group of loud teenagers? Are we going to ban all of them because of someone else's discomfort, too?
Yeh, about that. So conservatives are all outsiders. So what does that make you? An insider right? Based on what? 10-15% of the LBGT community identify as conservative and close to half as independent. They’re humans with their own points of view. They’re not a monolith. So no moral privilege for you in this instance.
The topic is there are men’s bathrooms and women’s bathrooms. The hypotheticals you mention are interesting but ultimately irrelevant. “Masculine looking women”? Since they have cooters they go to the women’s restroom. “Loud teenagers”? Yeh, I wish I could hit the mute button sure but they would go to the bathroom corresponding to their genitalia.
Youll have to refresh my memory: what’s a trans man again?
Cooters makes it through the cut, but the q word gets the axe. Oh the humanity!!
Because you say bigotry. I knew eventually you’d show your true colors.
You took me to saying “they deserve it” as my comment on the HIV commercial about a medication to help. I never said they deserved it, only that unprotected sex is what most likely caused it. Sounds like a simple fact. Think they got it playing tennis?
Nice job trying to put words into my mouth. Spin Datt, Spin!
Speaking of strawmen… Datt often spins our words into having the argument he wants to have rather than responding to our actual posts. Eventually the name calling starts. I seem to remember a time when anyone connecting HIV transmission to gay behavior was crucified as a bigot but now it’s well established that sodomy is the number one transmitter. The heterosexual women contracting it were most likely involved with a bisexual male. Datt is the one here who made a flippant comment to the effect of “well of course gay guys are in the commercial. It’s for HIV meds” when conservatives have been told for decades we couldn’t connect the two.
Game, set, match.
Nah, if I’m reading his post right, he made a big deal that gays are overrepresented ( a word I’m quite familiar with) in commercials, suggesting some sort of an agenda. Look. Let’s get real here. Unless gays are 30-50% of the population all of a sudden they’re over represented right?
That’s a valid take except for the fact that based on the numbers it’s somewhat fringe. The less time someone spends on social media, the less likely they are to believe that.
A while back you said something about you’ve been accused of having white guilt.
Transmen were identified as girls at birth and later transition and live as men. Through gender-affirming care, they grow facial hair and have deep voices.
You said we were outsiders. Implying that you weren’t. Would members of the LBGTQ+ IA ( k, I’ll stop now) see you as an insider because you’re a Leftist? Or would you need to identify as LBGTQ to gain 100% moral privilege and social status ? So now we’re starting to connect the dots as to why LBGT identification is so high in some communities: elevated status, increased relevance, etc. It’s not merely the removal of oppression; it’s also highly connected to attention, increased social status, and overall self image.
I've said your words and your stance sound bigoted multiple times over the last page or 3, and that's what I just said. It's a textbook definition. I didn't write it. I focused on your words.
I was very precise in what I said. I did not accuse you of saying they deserve it. I said, "Sounds like you're very close to making a 'they deserve it' argument..."
What spin? How is pointing out my own exact words spin? Ironically, that's what you just did when you claimed I said something I didn't say.
If someone already has HIV, the focus is on treatment, not how they got it. We all know the handful of ways people can get HIV. It's no longer relevant unless you want to scold them and judge them for it. I don't know why you brought it up, just like I don't know why it bothers you so much that a gay couple are featured in a commercial. It's suspicious in the same way all those people complaining about the Cheerios commercial with the interracial family were suspicious. And again, stating my impression of what you said is not an attack on you as a person. It is addressing your words. It is sticking to a focus on your words.
Why are you making this personal? Why not stick to what I said, my actual words? This is not about me.
I haven't called anyone any names here. In fact, go back a few pages to when mac said I was as bad as a pedophile because I didn't accept a movie the way he does. You won't find a single instance of me calling anyone a name between there and now... despite having been compared to a pedophile, among other things.
Who are you quoting with those quotation marks?
I don't know anything about any restriction on talking about gay people and HIV. If that's a thing, it probably has to do with how you talk about it.
On the basis of a single commercial? I've asked him multiple times about why it bothers him and he hasn't offered any explanation.
My best guess is that gay people are actually underrepresented in commercials, media, and entertainment, and that people who have a problem with them hyperfocus on the few times they're represented. I said this a page or so ago. I also said I was open to stats showing otherwise.
Based on the numbers? What are you talking about? What does that have to do with what I said?
I think every regular here spends a pretty good amount of time online and our positions on this vary greatly. I'm not sure by what metric you can claim that social media has a monolithic influence and that getting away from it means people gravitate in the same direction.
That sounds vaguely familiar, but I do not trust your interpretation of it. Feel free to bring up a direct quote and the actual context if you insist on talking about me.
I do not accept your premise about high %s in certain communities.
You claim in the following post that you haven’t “ called anyone names here”. No, you just said “ your words and your stance sound bigoted” so a dictinction without a real difference. An argument with the structural integrity of wet cardboard
“Why does it bother you.. that gays are in an HIV commercial of all things” when you know full and damn well that when conservatives have linked sodomy and more specifically sodomy outside of monogamy with HIV transmission they have been labeled as homophobic when if the media had been straight with the public in the 80s and 90s hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. The message could have been that this disease is not normally transmitted through vaginal sex, but through anal sex. We were told that everyone was at equal risk, which of course was a lie that led to countless, unnecessary deaths.
There is a tremendous difference between telling someone they are X and saying that what they said sounds X.
And I am consistent about this distinction.
Last edited:
Are you honestly denying that you don’t remember the media inflating the risks of HIV transmission through vaginal sex and pretending that it wasn’t primarily transmitted through anal sex? Is this really happening because I don’t know what you were doing back then, but unless you were in sort some sort of vegetative state, I bet you do actually remember
Like I said, I wasn't the one who shamed you for making that connection and I've never heard of such a taboo.
Like I also said, I would venture that it had more to do with how you said it rather than making that connection itself.
AIDS was basically ignored as far as any govt action went throughout the '80s specifically because it was called a "gay disease." People like Sen Jesse Helms even said they deserved it. Gay communities were very vocal about wanting research and support. How you come to the idea that it was hushed up is just bizarre.
How would telling you everyone was at equal risk lead to more deaths? If anything, that would heighten awareness in people who were less at risk.
I've had a hard time understanding what you're even trying to say for several days now, KD.
What does that have to do with what I said and to which you were responding?
From the beginning, AIDS was known as a "gay disease." It later became known that heterosexual people should be careful, too. How is that controversial in any way?
Not really. When you repeat this on a regular basis, the logical inference is “ Hey this person keeps saying my comments sound bigoted”. So follow the logic: this person thinks I’m a bigot.
The above type stuff may sound good in your own head and may give you halfway plausible deniability when accusations surface, but your opponent feels attacked in the same way as if you actually called them a bigot. So now you know.
It was transmitted primarily through anal sex. The top risk factors should have been identified clearly. Yes, of course gay men noticed that people were dying all around and they wanted help. Nothing was “hushed up” about that. What was “ hushed up” was why. It was a disease transmitted through blood, not vaginal sex.
“It’s no longer relevant” how they got it. Except that it is when you’re trying to educate others on how not to get it. Another bizarre comment.
I didn't make it up. It's well a well known distinction. I'm applying a textbook definition of bigotry to what mac has said and doing so calmly, logically, and clearly.
He doesn't think Muslims should be allowed to hold political office. Why? Because they are Muslim. That is anti-American, anti-Christian, and bigoted. Period.
Are you actually keeping up with everything in this thread? It seems like you're just swooping in and addressing single posts in a vacuum because you're taking things way out of context and going in really odd directions. It's going to sound condescending if I ask if you're okay, but wow, KD, you are not yourself.
I was in middle school and high school in the '80s. We learned all of that in health class. What you are saying does not resemble any reality I experienced. I can say it 3 more times if you still don't get it, but I'd rather not.
Why not quote what I actually said in context?
"If someone already has HIV, the focus is on treatment, not how they got it. We all know the handful of ways people can get HIV. It's no longer relevant unless you want to scold them and judge them for it."
It's quite clear I'm referring to it within the context of treatment, at which point it no longer matters how they got it.
You're boring me, KD. You're so off-base with all of these gotcha attempts and it seems like that's your only goal here.
Latest
-
01
Rivals
Duke's blueprint: How recruiting works for the Blue Devils and why the wins keep coming
-
02
Rivals
INTEL: Asa Montgomery’s recruitment has exploded. Which schools are emerging?
-
03
On3
The College Football Playoff expansion debate got a new wrinkle, but it was shot down quickly
-
04
Devils Illustrated
How Duke’s opponents are taking advantage of fifth-year eligibility
-
05
Rivals
Top-30 overall recruit Deng Ngor discusses final four schools