537
Senator calls LGBTQ+ people 'filth,' says most don't want them here
(www.tahlequahdailypress.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
537 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3471 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then you very obviously did not read the last half of my post which explains why the community is largely fairly beaurcratic and how we went from very punchy to fairly tame forms of resistance. The reason the movement works in rhetoric and democracy is tied up in a mass die off of the more revolutionary actors due to the AIDs crisis.
You literally cannot understand how the relationship of organized resistance for the modern movement is without recognizing the massive heelturn in strategic planning that the events of Stonewall and the AIDs crisis represented. You have to understand the psychological and social engineering of why people didn't rise up earlier before that turn and the lessons that were learned and expanded upon to create a more aggressive approach. You can throw a tantrum about how people keep mentioning Stonewall when they talk about culture shifts or you can read past that and realize it for what it was. A massive shift in tactics that marked an actually very aggressive fight which changed again when the community started dropping like flies and other more subtle groups inside the movement became the ones keeping the lights on.
I'm not trying to understand anything! I literally made an observation. Not an argument FOR that observation. I only remarked that the LGBT community is harassed and targeted, and, it's interesting that they are so peaceful. Thats it. Hard stop.
I was referring to targeted violence, not riots. That's the only reason I discarded that event. I did not make claim that I needed an explanation or clarification.
I can understand the points you made just fine, and have all throughout this thread. Again and again I say: they are not on topic for my comment!
All I'm saying is that is is remarkable that there are not assassinations happening. I didn't put a value judgement on that, or anything at all.
Assassinations and riots are entirely different.
You made a comment about admiring "self control" and then started talking about wanting examples for something that doesn't exist and then people started talking about the types of resistance that DO exist because it seemed you wanted examples...
I think where this breaks down is that A) self control has nothing to do with it and people want to correct that misconception and B) you are asking for something more fundementally basic than people expect. Very well. Here is political resistance theory 101.
Assassinations tend to sow empathy for and consolidate the power/positions of the groups who are targeted. For example we look at JFK rather more warmly in retrospect then people did when he was alive. The criticism for risky political moves and his extramarital affairs made the question of his Presidential campaign being successful kind of anybody's guess... But when election time rolled around LBJ won in a landslide victory the sort that is historic. Because all of a sudden his party had a martyr.
Assassinations don't work...or they don't work the way you think. Conservatives love cloaking themselves in the cosplay of being the oppressed. Nobody wants to fuel that delusion because they would use that to burn us all down.