Musk buys Twitter

[Peter Porter]

Hi Wes,

No, the 'morality" of that is not why I asked, though I would be concerned if a grown man cannot clearly state that having sex with a minor is not okay.

My point that I want to drive is from a legal perspective. But I'll be come back to this tomorrow. It's almost midnight here and I'm going to close my pc now.

Tc

Schoemr, what was the point in bringing up underage children? Was it in hope we would forget your targeted comment towards transgenders?

Just because you think you are a woman doesn’t make you a woman. You can paint a horse with stripes and call it a zebra all you want - it’s still a horse.

Ok, you are anti-trans as you stated before. But why did we need to know this? No one confronted you out of the blue in any of the other forums to endlessly let you know that they're trans. Like I asked before, would you say what you stated above to an obvious trans person walking down the street minding their own business? Do trans programmers who visit VBForums deserve to be bashed like this? What you wrote above is equivalent to bible thumping on the streets!

I see these people; they are always angry. Angry at the world, angry at their parents, angry at authority, angry about everything and anything. They respect nothing, they value nothing, they build nothing and contribute nothing. Instead, they “demand” all sorts of rights. Yet, nothing is ever their fault. Someone else did something to them or not FOR them. They stand for noting except their “rights”. I despise that with every molecule in me.

The only person who seems to be angry in this forum is you. What you wrote above reads like you're extremely angry. You came out of the blue on a warpath with random stuff on an Elon Musk thread.

Of the random things, I'm surprised some participants in this thread didn't get offended with what you wrote about vaccinations. Your use of the word "leftist" on other things must have saved you from their wrath.

[dilettante]

I was reading an article on moral decline, which turned out to be a screed claiming it is all relative and subjective, and the natural state means we should all be chimps who do whatever we want.

But the best part was:

Today, talk of moral decline often descends into a bunfight between the generations.

The emphasis is mine.

I just can't stop laughing. It might just be the Commonwealth Pidgin cant that it was written in. If that word is about baked goods it seems pretty bizarre. If not, well, I hardly know where to begin.

[jmcilhinney]

Okay just to be 100% absolutely clear:



Would you then agree (it's a simple yes or no) that an underage girl by reason of her age is not capable of giving consent to have sex with say an adult, thereby making it NOT OKAY?

"Underage" is a vague term, as Shaggy has pointed out. We could say "yes" to your question but a girl who is underage in one place could move a few metres across a border somewhere and not be underage, making somewhat of a mockery of your point. I think that most people would probably say "yes" in a general sense but the question then becomes what age are you talking about? !8? 16? 14? Lower? If we want to go completely from a biological perspective then you could use puberty as a cut-off rather than a specific age, and some cultures do. I think that this is also reflected in some religions, i.e. if god thinks she's ready to be a mother then so do we. It's also not really about age but rather maturity and we just use age as a rough guide to that because it's hard to measure objectively.

[jmcilhinney]

You know it's funny, your camp applies this "cis" prefix to us entirely on your own without considering how we might feel about it but when we get your pronouns wrong, you lose your minds because we don't consider your feelings. It's ok when you guys do it to us but we when do it to you it's a problem. Care to explain that hypocrisy to me?

For the record, I am NOT a "cis" man. I am just a man. But unlike you, I am not a leftist and I don't feel the need to try and force you or shame you into not applying this prefix to me regardless of how much I hate it. See how tolerance works?

Do you even know what "cis" means? Many people don't because it's not commonly used, even though "trans" is and they are simply antonyms. I have a degree in chemistry so I'm quite familiar with the term as it is used in organic chemistry to describe the physical shape of molecules. Two compounds can have the same chemical formula but a different orientation around a carbon-carbon double bond and thus have different chemical properties. If both chains are on the same side of the double bond then it is referred to as cis and if they are on opposite sides then it's referred to as trans. Cis basically means "on the same side" and trans basically means "on opposite sides". If your sex and gender are on the same side - both male or both female - then you are cisgender and if they are on opposite sides then you're transgender.

I generally don't go around referring to people as cis but, in this specific context, the point was that we are not trans. If I'm trying to describe a group of people as being not trans, why should I not use the term "cis" given that that is exactly what it means? If what you consider tolerance is to treat you as though you're normal and treat trans people as though they're not normal then you're going to find me to be intolerant. What's the problem anyway? Does your gender identity not match your biological sex? If it does then you are cisgender by definition. I imagine that the problem is that you actually want to think that gender identity isn't really a thing at all. One then has to wonder why you were so enthusiastically agreeing with schmoer about what it feels like to be a woman and, by extension, what it feels like to be a man being different. That's gender identity, whether you want to admit it or not.

[jmcilhinney]

This is actually the first post you made on this topic that I can sense some degree of sincerity.

Gee, it sure sounds like you're being fair and balanced in your evaluation of sincerity... or the complete opposite. Maybe I misinterpreted your "I know what you are" comment earlier. Maybe you were trying to say that I'm a troll. I'm not opposed to some light trolling, when I think someone has earned it, but that's not my primary intent. My previous snide remarks and (very) thinly-veiled insults could certainly qualify but, I can assure you, on the substance of the argument, I meant every word I said. The fact that you don't like it or don't understand it doesn't change that. Do we think it's a coincidence that two people who disagreed with my position couldn't understand my analogies and complained they were irrelevant but those who did agree could clearly see the relevant and the point I was making? No, it's not.

But then you also have to keep an open mind and take it what I tell you...

My mind is always open but you restating your opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary is not going to move me. If you've got contradictory evidence, then we'd have something to discuss. I think I can predict how this is going to go though. You've expressed a very strong opinion here already, even though you've apparently never even listened to a trans person, so I expect that you'll just chalk whatever they might say up to the mental illness you have already decided they have. We'll see.

[Peter Porter]

Trans people don't have a unique claim on victimhood. The worst that can happen to them is that someone might get their pronouns wrong.

How about following what you wrote below, or is your hatred over pronouns too much to hold in? Seems like it.

They can live however they want, I don't care.

I make a bet if you stop watching and reading the propaganda that pushes these pronoun demands, you'll never hear about it again. Well maybe here since most of the time you always start the conversation over pronouns.

[jmcilhinney]

If that word is about baked goods it seems pretty bizarre. If not, well, I hardly know where to begin.

You could begin with the definition of the word: a heated argument or exchange. Not seeing the issue here. I imagine that you titter at words like "titter" too.

[jmcilhinney]

I make a bet if you stop watching and reading the propaganda that pushes these pronoun demands, you'll never hear about it again. Well maybe here since most of the time you always start the conversation over pronouns. Schoemr got the ball rolling this time.

To be fair, I think that the subject of pronouns had come up long before schoemr joined the fray. I can't remember who brought up the topic initially but I imagine that it was in relation to someone using or not using people's preferred pronouns on Twitter. Given that Jordan Peterson was banned from Twitter for deadnaming and mispronouning (?) Elliot Page, it may well have been Niya but I would have joined in pretty quickly regardless. I think it's tangentially relevant to the initial topic of the thread, but we have taken it away from that original connection. As I said though, I'm an advocate for trans rights and I rarely hear talk of pronouns. If I do it's usually right-wingers complaining about being forced to use different pronouns for other people than they want to. I guess it depends where you spend your time but, in the mainstream at least, the people who can't shut up about pronouns are right-wingers.

[Niya]

And people like yourself who recklessly puts their lives in danger due to your fanatical crusade to renounce them over pronouns

Someone will probably run over Elliot Page with a car just because I called her a woman. Sure buddy, that makes perfect sense.

[Peter Porter]

And people like yourself who recklessly puts their lives in danger due to your fanatical crusade to renounce them over pronouns that they never personally asked you to use face to face, like how a female doesn't come up to you on the street to argue that she's a she.

Someone will probably run over Elliot Page with a car just because I called her a woman. Sure buddy, that makes perfect sense.

I just double checked what you posted last year along with my warning to you about it, and it has nothing to do with transgenders. It was a song you linked to that advocated violence towards homosexuals:

https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....=1#post5587409

Tell me, Niya. What do you think about that song?

[jmcilhinney]

You know it's funny, your camp applies this "cis" prefix to us entirely on your own without considering how we might feel about it but when we get your pronouns wrong, you lose your minds because we don't consider your feelings. It's ok when you guys do it to us but we when do it to you it's a problem. Care to explain that hypocrisy to me?

For the record, I am NOT a "cis" man. I am just a man. But unlike you, I am not a leftist and I don't feel the need to try and force you or shame you into not applying this prefix to me regardless of how much I hate it. See how tolerance works?

On another note, I wasn't even referring to you in the comment you quoted. Schoemr was complaining about me being a poor representative of the trans community and saying that "they" couldn't answer a particular question as though she'd actually listened to what trans people have to say on the subject, rather than just cis people like me who advocate on behalf of trans people. She complains that trans people can't know what it feels like to be the opposite sex yet expects us to know what it feels like to be a trans person and even seems to think she has some insight herself.

I can see that your comment was more general though, rather than just referring to that one specific pots. Here's the problem though: I can refer to you as just a "man" if you want but then I'm going to refer to trans men as just "men" as well. You don't want that though, do you? You want there to be a distinction between what you consider to be a man and trans men. You can't have it both ways. Either I'm going to refer to all those whose gender is man as men or I'm going to distinguish between cis men and trans men. The difference with pronouns is that they don't affect you or the perception of you at all. The pronouns we all use for you are not affected by the pronouns we use for trans people. Trans rights is about equality but you don't want that in this case. You're trying to have yourself and other cis people treated as normal and trans people treated as abnormal. That's not tolerance.

As a comparison, would you object being referred to as a "straight man" if we were discussing homosexuality? I'm guessing not, although maybe I'm wrong. It's the same thing. As I've said before, gay people used to be treated very much as trans people are now but at least some progress has been made there. In a few decades, we'll hopefully be at the point where people don't complain about being referred to as cis any more than they do about being referred to as straight.

[Peter Porter]

To be fair, I think that the subject of pronouns had come up long before schoemr joined the fray. I can't remember who brought up the topic initially but I imagine that it was in relation to someone using or not using people's preferred pronouns on Twitter. Given that Jordan Peterson was banned from Twitter for deadnaming and mispronouning (?) Elliot Page, it may well have been Niya but I would have joined in pretty quickly regardless. I think it's tangentially relevant to the initial topic of the thread, but we have taken it away from that original connection. As I said though, I'm an advocate for trans rights and I rarely hear talk of pronouns. If I do it's usually either right-wingers complaining about being forced to use different pronouns for other people than they want to. I guess it depends where you spend your time but, in the mainstream at least, the people who can't shut up about pronouns are right-wingers.

I missed some posts before Schoemr joined the conversation.

[jmcilhinney]

Someone will probably run over Elliot Page with a car just because I called her a woman. Sure buddy, that makes perfect sense.

You really are very disingenuous. You at least claim to have this live and let live attitude but not everyone is so enlightened. There are plenty of people who literally despise trans people and want them erased. By making Elliot Page the focus of that hate, he is being put at risk. It's not just one comment from you. It's lots of comments from lots of people. It's people like Jordan Peterson focusing the attention of hateful people on Elliot Page as though he is the reason for the supposed oppression that you yourself keep complaining about. Nancy Pelosi's husband didn't get hit with a hammer because one Republican called Nacy Pelosi a traitor once. It was relentless attacks from many people over an extended period and some nutjob decided to do something about it. There are plenty of nutjobs who wouldn't take much of a push to do something about a specific trans person whom their rage had been focused on. This is pretty simple logic but we already know that following simple logic on these subjects on which you've already made up your mind is quite a challenge.

[Niya]

You really are very disingenuous. You at least claim to have this live and let live attitude but not everyone is so enlightened. There are plenty of people who literally despise trans people and want them erased. By making Elliot Page the focus of that hate, he is being put at risk. It's not just one comment from you. It's lots of comments from lots of people. It's people like Jordan Peterson focusing the attention of hateful people on Elliot Page as though he is the reason for the supposed oppression that you yourself keep complaining about. Nancy Pelosi's husband didn't get hit with a hammer because one Republican called Nacy Pelosi a traitor once. It was relentless attacks from many people over an extended period and some nutjob decided to do something about it. There are plenty of nutjobs who wouldn't take much of a push to do something about a specific trans person whom their rage had been focused on. This is pretty simple logic but we already know that following simple logic on these subjects on which you've already made up your mind is quite a challenge.

And here we arrive yet again at the core problem of accountability embedded in modern liberalism. Unlike the abortion debate where it's partly about avoiding accountability, this one is about shifting accountability.

I will never accept responsibility for someone else's actions. You must be out of your mind if you think I will ever subscribe to this notion. If a guy named Joe runs over Elliot Page with a car, guess who is responsible? Joe is responsible, not me, not Jordan Peterson, not Matt Walsh, not Donald Trump, not schoemr, not dilettante. Joe commited the act and he should be held solely responsible and prosecuted accordingly.

Here's the other thing no one one the left wants to talk about, and I've never even heard anyone on the right speak about this either. If I "misgender" Elliot Page, and Joe takes this as inspiration to run her over with a car and the left holds me responsible, what they are actually doing is implicitly stating that Joe is not a sovereign individual. They are implying that Joe's actions are directed not by himself but by others. They are saying he is NOT capable of independent thought and action. So then the question that naturally arises is why are we allowing Joe to roam free? Instead of chastising me over the "misgendering", what you should be asking is why a non-sovereign individual like Joe was allowed the same freedoms as sovereign individuals.

[EDIT]

The make it a bit clearer what I'm saying here. Think of a gun owning parent who lost a child because they failed to properly secure the gun. You can hold that parent responsible because they had the option of securing the firearm. When it comes to Joe, he has rights under the law which includes the right to not be imprisoned arbitrarily. This means we don't have the means under the law to "secure" Joe as we could secure a firearm so if somebody accidently "discharges" Joe by misgendering someone, they cannot be held responsible.

[jmcilhinney]

I will never accept responsibility for someone else's actions. You must be out of your mind if you think I will ever subscribe to this notion. If a guy named Joe runs over Elliot Page with a car, guess who is responsible? Joe is responsible, not me, not Jordan Peterson, not Matt Walsh, not Donald Trump, not schoemr, not dilettante. Joe commited the act and he should be held solely responsible and prosecuted accordingly.

I'm certainly not suggesting that a person who commits an act is not responsible but there are a lot of factors that go into that. To take a prominent example, the Jan 6 insurrectionists were the ones who committed treason but they wouldn't have done so if not incited to by other parties. You obviously accept that people can have influence over others and that some people can be far more influential than most. To then deny that influence when something bad happens is to deny reality. You can subscribe to any notion or not as you want but it's a fact that, if you contribute to an environment in which someone feels an action is justified or even required then you are partly responsible for that action. The idea that every human being is an island is pure fantasy.

To stick to the issue of trans people, despite right-wingers generally claiming to care about children, there are literally trans children killing themselves and those same right-wingers don't care at all, unless they're actually happy about it. Those children are not taking their own lives for no reason. They are doing so because people like you - many just like you but a significant number far worse - have created a world that they feel is so hostile to them that they no longer want to be part of it. If that hostility didn't exist, those children would be alive. That's a fact.

[jmcilhinney]

This means we don't have the means under the law to "secure" Joe as we could secure a firearm so if somebody accidently "discharges" Joe by misgendering someone, they cannot be held responsible.

They may not be able to be imprisoned - they may be able to be if they deliberately incited him - but that's obviously not the same as being held responsible. Having unprotected sex is not a crime but you still want people to be held responsible for it, so there's obviously a difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility. If you behave in such a way that could predictably result in someone else doing something bad and they indeed do that bad thing, you are morally responsible to some degree and, in some cases, even legally responsible.

[FunkyDexter]

Sometimes my rants tend to rub him the wrong way and he just can't resist the urge to silence me.

You were banned because you repeatedly derailed multiple threads into your chosen culture war, culminating in you trying to justify that behaviour by linking to a music video that advocated for murdering queer people. Don't try to pretend it was anything less than that.

If that word is about baked goods

It's a common phrase over here. I think it's just meant to invoke images of the sort of custard pie fights you often end up getting at the end of Ealing comedies, Carry On films etc. Lots of noise, lots of mess, concluding in nothing useful. As such, laughing is probably a pretty appropriate response.

[FunkyDexter]

On the whole "full grown man and underage girl" conversation:-
1. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. Nobody's saying we should allow this and I suspect this yet another attempt to build a chimera to rail against.
2. I do think you need to separate "legally ok" from "morally ok" on this. The age of consent in the UK is 16. So it's legally ok for a 40 year old man to sleep with a 16 year old girl. I think most of us would find that extremely creepy on a moral level and it would represent a definite red flag for manipulative coercion. On the other hand, a 16 year old boy sleeping with a 15 year old girl is not legally ok but, while we might view them both as too young, I don't think many of us would assume this was coercive in the same way.

The law's binary in this regard. Someone's either underage or they're not and the "underage" is clearly defined. Morality is grey and trying to pretend that a 40 year old man sleeping with a 10 year old girl is the same as a 16 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is stupid.

[sapator]

The last few pages are a cacophony or more like a paraphony .
It would preferred if we left the children alone, please.

[dilettante]

Hmm. I seem to recall that lower ranked military and naval officers and even embassy staff were often required to attend "bunstruggles" too. Perhaps that's a related term?

[jmcilhinney]

Hmm. I seem to recall that lower ranked military and naval officers and even embassy staff were often required to attend "bunstruggles" too. Perhaps that's a related term?

The hierarchy goes bunstruggle, which escalates into a bunfight, which can then become a bunwar.

[dilettante]

The hierarchy goes bunstruggle, which escalates into a bunfight, which can then become a bunwar.

Do they all involve the wearing of chaps?

[Niya]

You were banned because you repeatedly derailed multiple threads into your chosen culture war, culminating in you trying to justify that behaviour by linking to a music video that advocated for murdering queer people. Don't try to pretend it was anything less than that.

You can say that but that's not how I see it. Ultimately it's pointless debating it because you have the power and I don't. It is what it is. I try not to take such things too personally.

[Steve R Jones]

Do you guys ever get tired of doing this?

Should we declare that everyone is a winner and close the thread?

//asking for a friend

[dilettante]

Does it help? It seems like when one thread is closed the trolls open up another.

[sapator]

It would help if we agree to stop that trans-child war and focus on more thread stuff.
I'm not saying on only what Musk does but does it really help to have the trans war going on for 3 days?
Is it beneficial to anyone else than the actively involved parties?

[Steve R Jones]

I'm rather certain that NO ONE'S Mind has ever been changed on a forum like this.. We all believe what we want and to heck with everyone else.

[sapator]

That is no problem. As long as we stop the mega trolling taking place the last few days, we can believe whatever we want.

[FunkyDexter]

The hierarchy goes bunstruggle, which escalates into a bunfight, which can then become a bunwar.

Bun escalation is a currant problem.

[Niya]

Tell me, Niya. What do you think about that song?

It has a nice beat but I absolutely despise what the lyrics stands for. But just to be absolutely clear, what I despise about it's message has little to do with gays. I'm against wanton violence meaningless against ANY human being on ANY basis that has nothing to do with self-defense or standing up to violent tyrannical organisations. Unlike leftist states in parts of the world where liberalism is dominant, gays "out here" don't harass anyone, they just keep to themselves and do their thing. I see no reason to go out of our way to antagonize them and hurt them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I just can't stop laughing. It might just be the Commonwealth Pidgin cant that it was written in. If that word is about baked goods it seems pretty bizarre. If not, well, I hardly know where to begin.

Yeah, that's a funny word. It seems really on point, though. When talking about morality, it often is pretty much like throwing baked goods.

On the other hand, there was a story when I was living the Florida Keys. The army decided to do some exercise in Key West. It was a pretty low key thing having something to do with the administrative side of a military action. From what I heard, the Conch Coalition got wind of it, barricaded the road (there's only one into Key West, of course), and started pelting the army with stale Cuban bread. The army was not expecting that. They turned around and left.

I suppose that would be a bun fight. Not sure whether it actually happened, though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It has a nice beat but I absolutely despise what the lyrics stands for.

Yeah, that's common. There are some pretty catchy songs that have some pretty horrible messages. This would all be solved if song writers all agreed to do as many drugs as the band America. Those lyrics never made sense to ANYBODY. Hard to be too offended by alligator lizards in the air.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nobodies mind is ever changed, but the debate is always better when nobody takes it too seriously, either. This isn't just true in a forum. There was a study done on arguments between couples....which brings up an entirely different question, because just who is it that decides that they're willing to have a fight with their significant other and let researchers analyze it? And for that matter, just how does that work? In any case, it did happen...the results of the study was that it is always better if such intractable debates are interrupted by Sapator...I mean, interrupted by a bit of levity.

This thread had such moments. People get too impassioned on various topics. At such times, it's best to step back.

[wes4dbt]

Yeah, that's common. There are some pretty catchy songs that have some pretty horrible messages. This would all be solved if song writers all agreed to do as many drugs as the band America. Those lyrics never made sense to ANYBODY. Hard to be too offended by alligator lizards in the air.

Or a horse with no name. lol

I did like their music. Sister Golden Hair use to be my favorite song to play on the acoustic.

[Peter Porter]

Nobodies mind is ever changed, but the debate is always better when nobody takes it too seriously, either. This isn't just true in a forum. There was a study done on arguments between couples....which brings up an entirely different question, because just who is it that decides that they're willing to have a fight with their significant other and let researchers analyze it? And for that matter, just how does that work? In any case, it did happen...the results of the study was that it is always better if such intractable debates are interrupted by Sapator...I mean, interrupted by a bit of levity.

It's nice seeing things cool down here again.

Years ago a friend of mine directed me to VBForums since she is a member here. I don't know how she sees herself, and I know she wont get upset at me now if I'm using the wrong pronoun, but she is such a beautiful person with an amazing infectious smile! Everybody loves her! Being around her positive energy you forget your troubles! We've been friends since the mid 90s, and still hang-out today whenever we get a chance!

That's why it got under my skin when things got ugly here. My friend who is probably the happiest carefree person in the world, doesn't deserve to be put down by strangers in a forum she frequents. Seeing her lose her smile would be like the end of the world to me!

[Niya]

I'm certainly not suggesting that a person who commits an act is not responsible but there are a lot of factors that go into that. To take a prominent example, the Jan 6 insurrectionists were the ones who committed treason but they wouldn't have done so if not incited to by other parties. You obviously accept that people can have influence over others and that some people can be far more influential than most. To then deny that influence when something bad happens is to deny reality. You can subscribe to any notion or not as you want but it's a fact that, if you contribute to an environment in which someone feels an action is justified or even required then you are partly responsible for that action. The idea that every human being is an island is pure fantasy.

To stick to the issue of trans people, despite right-wingers generally claiming to care about children, there are literally trans children killing themselves and those same right-wingers don't care at all, unless they're actually happy about it. Those children are not taking their own lives for no reason. They are doing so because people like you - many just like you but a significant number far worse - have created a world that they feel is so hostile to them that they no longer want to be part of it. If that hostility didn't exist, those children would be alive. That's a fact.

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that what is considered "inciting" is nearly always subjective. However, when someone bashes in the skull of another with a hammer, there's really no question of who's guilty here.

[jmcilhinney]

You're conveniently leaving out the fact that what is considered "inciting" is nearly always subjective.

True enough, but it seems fairly convenient that you seem to think that no right-winger has ever incited any other right-winger yet, not that long ago, you said that we left-wingers were to blame for the likes of Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh. There should be a name for when you apply two different standards to essentially the same thing. When there are right-wingers calling gay people groomers, i.e. literal child molesters, for simply answering truthfully when asked if they're gay, violence like that attack on a gay club in the US recently is a completely predictable outcome. Hiding behind subjectivity in cases like that is simply cowardice.

It's not just about inciting violence either, although I. Like I said earlier, there are actual trans children taking their own lives because they feel the world is so hostile to them. They can't be the person they feel they are without being ostracised at best and possibly much worse. Many right-wingers crow about how they're protecting children and yet never show any regard for these children. The fact that there's no one place that it's obvious we should draw the line does not mean that it's not obvious that some things are bad and we could quite easily do something about them.

[jmcilhinney]

gays "out here" don't harass anyone, they just keep to themselves and do their thing.

Fear is a powerful motivator. Gay people everywhere used to keep to themselves and so, when bad things did happened to them, it was all swept under the rug. I live in Sydney and we're pretty well known for our Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras but what is now a celebration originated as a protest. Do you think that those people just got up one day and decided to protest for no reason at all? Do you think that they were treated the same way everyone else was but decided to protest for... what exactly? The attitude that you're prepared to tolerate gay people as long as you don't have actually think about it is very prevalent. There are countless heterosexual relationships on TV and in movies but every time there's a homosexual relationship in mainstream media there's an uproar. Gay people exist and have relationships, just like straight people exist and have relationships, but whenever a gay relationship is protrayed on TV or in movies there are always claims that "they're trying to shove it down our throats". No, they're not. They're portraying reality. There's often less outcry at individual portrayals now but that's been replaced with complaints about the number of such portrayals. It's only because the number is greater, better reflecting reality, that the individual complaints have lessened. If the numbers went down, the target of the complaints would just shift again. This idea that gays are OK as long as they stay in the shadows is part of the problem. People who consider themselves tolerant as long as gay people don't reveal themselves to be gay in public are providing cover for those who won't tolerate gay people at all.

The situation is even worse for trans people because staying in the closet means living a complete lie pretty much all the time. There are people - definitely Matt Walsh and similar religious bigots but also Jordan Peterson, who originally cast himself as very tolerant - who don't think trans people are Ok even if they do keep to themselves. It's hard to transition without anyone noticing and these people want to deny them the means to transition at all. People like Walsh and Peterson want trans people to live the life that they have deemed appropriate, not as the people they feel they are. That's especially ironic for Peterson, who you would think would have some insight into how that would affect a person psychologically and is all about not being told what to say. He says he'd rather die that delete a tweet. Poor him. There are people, including children, who would genuinely rather die than live in the world he approves for them but he seems to have little, if any, regard for such people.

[dilettante]

The frantic backpedaling on Covid vaccines begins:

[TysonLPrice]

Nobodies mind is ever changed, but the debate is always better when nobody takes it too seriously, either. This isn't just true in a forum. There was a study done on arguments between couples....which brings up an entirely different question, because just who is it that decides that they're willing to have a fight with their significant other and let researchers analyze it? And for that matter, just how does that work? In any case, it did happen...the results of the study was that it is always better if such intractable debates are interrupted by Sapator...I mean, interrupted by a bit of levity.

This thread had such moments. People get too impassioned on various topics. At such times, it's best to step back.

Ghostbusters II
The Wife and her husband went to what they thought was marriage counseling at Columbia University. They both were unaware that they were test subjects for studies on human emotions and whether it could affect the physical environment. They waited inside an observation room at the Institute for Advanced Theoretical Research. After waiting two and a half hours and enduring gradually increasing temperatures, they were stunned when the Assistant asked them if they could wait a half hour longer.[1]