General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

So you are saying that a culture that discriminates against LGBT isn't that important because at least they aren't being systematically slaughtered? Because Christianity in the states has quite a rabid anti-gay culture, and the fact that gay marriage had been struck down repeatedly should give you an idea of how many people are actually against gay rights. Hell, the fact that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was actually progressive in the 90s is a hallmark of how slow the US has been to catch up.

If you read what my post was in response to, you'll see that I was trying to say that, at least in a lawmaking sense, the West doesn't really have a problem with LGBT people anymore, whereas the East and Middle East still do. My religion doesn't influence policy in the West anymore, whereas yours does for the Middle East, although that's on the heads of the fundamentalists of the ME, not actual Muslims like you, Raven. The US is slow, yes, but only because our leaders are probably older than they are in most of Western Europe, with the bigotry to match.

Speaking of older leaders, there is a movement trying to propose an amendment that would lower the age needed to become POTUS. Doubt it will work, but it even being there means millennials are sick of the same song and dance from Washington.

[Lord Raven]

I'm actually a weak agnostic but I'm not going to pretend that the way I look will prevent me from getting grouped into it, but I'm also not going to pretend I've had many bad experiences with the religion itself.

At any rate, you are correct that it is an Eastern thing, but China and India - the two countries with the largest population - are quite homophobic while 80% of them are Hindu. China's been rather progressive on the issue as of late, but they decriminalized homosexuality in 1997 as well, so it's a rather new movement.

Having that said,

My religion doesn't influence policy in the West anymore

I wouldn't put this thought to rest just yet; in the case of a Trump presidency, Pandora's Box is open and we don't know what the fuck Mike Pence will try to get done. Edited August 16, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Comet]

@raven I don't care that it wasn't done by a refugee, i care that it was done by an radical Muslim that pledged his life to ISIS moments before he committed the crime, and what is the religion that most of these refugee's worship, oh yeah, its Islam.

you do know that not every muslim is a fundamentalist, right? i don't think any christians would like it if i judged them by the actions of the westboro church, which is what you're pretty much doing.

[-Cynthia-]

My religion doesn't influence policy in the West anymore

The religious(which means Christian) right is a huge influence on American politics. For example, the Republican vice presidential candidate tried to pass a bill in his state last year which was for 'religious freedom' for businesses, basically allowing them to choose and deny service to anyone on religious grounds. This was viewed by many as a way for Christian business owners to decline serving LGBT people.

A lot of other Western countries probably have weak to little religious influence on politics, but I can't speak as much to that.

Edited August 16, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[tuvarkz]

you do know that not every muslim is a fundamentalist, right? i don't think any christians would like it if i judged them by the actions of the westboro church, which is what you're pretty much doing.

The Westboro Baptist Church consists of only a few dozen adherents. There's statistically significant if not an overall majority of muslims that want to establish sharia law in muslim majority countries and regions. You are bringing up a single church's worth of adherents versus what amounts to millions of muslims that could be considered to be ideologically aligned to ISIS.

[-Cynthia-]

Supporting sharia law is not the same as being ideologically aligned to ISIS IMO. There are a lot of aspects to sharia law- for example using religious law in family and property disputes in Muslim majority countries. I'm not particularly worried about that.

[tuvarkz]

Supporting sharia law is not the same as being ideologically aligned to ISIS IMO. There are a lot of aspects to sharia law- for example using religious law in family and property disputes in Muslim majority countries. I'm not particularly worried about that.

Let's also not forget death sentences for adultery, homosexuality, even blasphemy and/or apostasy in some places, sharia laws that allow for child marriage and override state laws.

They are largely incompatible with western civilization, of which countries that still have legislature for death penalty either a) Have functionally not executed anyone for a few years (Russia), b) only have rules for crimes during wartime (Mostly South America), c) only apply it to heinous crimes (US, Belarus). When sharia law is ideologically incompatible with human rights and many other aspects of western civilization; then yes it makes people that support sharia law ideologicall aligned to ISIS as they clearly are against the tenets that western civilization upholds.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i want to thank tuvarkz for his well thought out comments.

so, anyone that can't really like, understand why i might be bit concerned, i think if there is a chance that a group might want to kill me, i don't wanna hang out with them, shocking i know. lets put this in another perspective.

would you be wanting John, a black man, to be hanging out with Blake, the KKK guy, because maybe Blake is one of those KKK's that doesn't murder blacks?

your answer is no right? that's good, it should be no because people should not be forced to be around people that they don't want to be.

so, if you don't want John and Blake to hang out, then you wouldn't want Adam, the Bisexual, Emma the Transwoman, Alfred the homosexual, to hang out with Muhammed, Achmed, and Joe, the Muslims who might or might not be radical enough to kill them, i suppose there's only one way to find out if the former group is being islamphobic or properly paranoid, and i don't think the former should have to risk their lives because some people want everyone to get along.

Unless of course, you think that gay oppression isn't as important as a country accepting more people that might discriminate them, never mind that getting into the lively hoods of the common, lower class citizen, alot of people already have trouble finding jobs and houses, so we shouldn't even be trying to bring in guests into the house when the house itself isn't big enough for the people inside the house.

i expect the post to be ignored, or be called over emotional, or islamphobic, but i suppose Muslims aren't a problem for you yet, but if they do become a problem, who will speak up for you?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemollor.

now to dunk my head in a bucket of water for the next day or so to cool off.

[Integrity]

let's try to remember here that muslims are, controversially, actual people, kids, and don't as a monolithic entity endorse the shit ascribed to the fanatics

[Tryhard]

then you shouldn't want to hang with hardcore christians then either, because they would also have a chance of assaulting or killing you. or well, anyone with anti-gay sentiments, really. and it would be more likely to be them.

if you think all muslims are extremists and are comparable to the KKK, then well, there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. we would all be dead.

have you ever even spoke to a muslim or had any experience with one? is it hard for you to empathize with a group that most people seem not to give a shit about or indeed actively hate if anything?

edit: the fitting thing is that lgbt is a group that is seen like this not that long ago and very arguably still is

Edited August 17, 2016 by Tryhard

[Ansem]

i expect the post to be ignored, or be called over emotional, or islamphobic, but i suppose Muslims aren't a problem for you yet, but if they do become a problem, who will speak up for you?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemollor.

Not gonna tell you how to feel because that is wrong, and you've got your mind set already, but I do have a problem with how you're trying to use the quote. You're implying that "they", Muslims are a majority group coming for other people. Probably true that they are dominant in the Middle East, but I think there are still very much divided over silly Sunni/Shia conflicts, think the division between Christianity and Catholicism and that has made dominant powers like Saudi Arabia very much not together, but let me not digress.

This quote describes a minority groups. Yes, you as a gay(or bi, unsure which but I vaguely recall you identifying with one or the other) are in a minority group, but so are American Muslims that are the target of xenophobia everywhere. The group you align yourself with, Republican, can be considered the dominant group(For now since they seem intent on handing over the government to the Democrats, but its not like they were doing a good job at doing their job). So we can actually rework that quote a little bit to have it fit modern times and your case in particular

First they came for the Mexicans, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Mexican

Then they came for the Blacks, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Black

Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out--

Because I was afraid they would kill me and was happy they were gone

Then they came for the white gays because they were out of minorities to target-- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Also I'm fairly certain a lot of Republicans would prefer going after gays over illegal Mexicans and BLM protesters, though they are triggered by all of them.

[Lord Raven]

i want to thank tuvarkz for his well thought out comments.

so, anyone that can't really like, understand why i might be bit concerned, i think if there is a chance that a group might want to kill me, i don't wanna hang out with them, shocking i know. lets put this in another perspective.

would you be wanting John, a black man, to be hanging out with Blake, the KKK guy, because maybe Blake is one of those KKK's that doesn't murder blacks?

your answer is no right? that's good, it should be no because people should not be forced to be around people that they don't want to be.

so, if you don't want John and Blake to hang out, then you wouldn't want Adam, the Bisexual, Emma the Transwoman, Alfred the homosexual, to hang out with Muhammed, Achmed, and Joe, the Muslims who might or might not be radical enough to kill them, i suppose there's only one way to find out if the former group is being islamphobic or properly paranoid, and i don't think the former should have to risk their lives because some people want everyone to get along.

Unless of course, you think that gay oppression isn't as important as a country accepting more people that might discriminate them, never mind that getting into the lively hoods of the common, lower class citizen, alot of people already have trouble finding jobs and houses, so we shouldn't even be trying to bring in guests into the house when the house itself isn't big enough for the people inside the house.

i expect the post to be ignored, or be called over emotional, or islamphobic, but i suppose Muslims aren't a problem for you yet, but if they do become a problem, who will speak up for you?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemollor.

now to dunk my head in a bucket of water for the next day or so to cool off.

So do you think that hanging out with my parents is likely to kill you? You also realize that Christianity, the majority religion in the United States, is also very homophobic in its fundamental nature right?

Like holy fuck, do you believe that everyone should be segregated from one another? You should replace "white gay male" with "white person" and "muslim guy" with "black person" and you can describe someone else who can think up a reason to not hang out with black people - and it all comes down to racism and stereotyping. It's like saying "I don't feel comfortable around gays, because they have a very tiny chance of anally raping me." You are not even describing a risk.

Let's also not forget death sentences for adultery, homosexuality, even blasphemy and/or apostasy in some places, sharia laws that allow for child marriage and override state laws.

They are largely incompatible with western civilization, of which countries that still have legislature for death penalty either a) Have functionally not executed anyone for a few years (Russia), b) only have rules for crimes during wartime (Mostly South America), c) only apply it to heinous crimes (US, Belarus). When sharia law is ideologically incompatible with human rights and many other aspects of western civilization; then yes it makes people that support sharia law ideologicall aligned to ISIS as they clearly are against the tenets that western civilization upholds.

Just a gentle reminder that you are talking about a demographic of Muslims that are in Muslim-majority countries, that may not actually know the extent of what Sharia Law consists of from a fundamental standpoint. In fact, did you read the shit you linked, because it says this:

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

You said it's statistically significant, but this test isn't even a good indicator of what you are describing. So 84% of Muslims in said country believe that the country should be a Muslim country - is their interpretation of Sharia Law.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[euklyd]

Ironically, one such extremist Christian pastor did so:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

oh shit I heard about this guy at church

We were all very relieved to hear that the property owners his church leases from had decided not to let them renew the lease. He's right up the road from us.

On a more topical note, I am aghast that that Niemöller is being used to justify literal xenophobia of a minority group, in many cases literally dooming innocents to die in a terrible mess of a civil war when we could be sheltering them.

Like, I checked the top of the page at least thrice to make sure I'm not somehow misreading.

i expect the post to be ignored, or be called over emotional, or islamphobic, but i suppose Muslims aren't a problem for you yet, but if they do become a problem, who will speak up for you?

Muslims — specifically Muslims in the Levant, and in fact other non-Muslim religious groups in Syria and the surrounding region — are, in fact, already a problem for me. The problem is that they are dying by the tens and hundreds of thousands in a vicious sectarian conflict, and the United States is barely doing anything to shelter refugees from the crisis, especially compared to similarly affluent nations in, say, Europe. That's my Muslim problem.

[Comet]

people whining about muslims are hypocrites, end of story.

edit: i noticed it too @Mimikyu. It made me laugh, like most of the other posts here.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Comet

[Ansem]

On a more topical note, I am aghast that that Niemöller is being used to justify literal xenophobia of a minority group, in many cases literally dooming innocents to die in a terrible mess of a civil war when we could be sheltering them.

Like, I checked the top of the page at least thrice to make sure I'm not somehow misreading.

lmao right?

Why isn't this getting more attention?

[CyborgZeta]

Like holy fuck, do you believe that everyone should be segregated from one another?

He doesn't have to, because people in America already do it themselves. Whether knowingly or unknowingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#United_States_2

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36472454

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/17/on-the-anniversary-of-brown-v-board-new-evidence-that-u-s-schools-are-resegregating/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0222.htm

Tribalism is a powerful force, and I suspect it will only get stronger in the US as time goes on. There was actually a book on the subject written back in 2004 that made some interesting points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Are_We%3F_The_Challenges_to_America%27s_National_Identity

[Lord Raven]

I don't understand your point.

[-Cynthia-]

To perhaps put this into perspective, let's take Christians and their views on abortion. Many Christians are pro-life, which is contrary to the law. A very small minority of people that hold this opinion shoot up abortion clinics and murder doctors that perform abortions. A larger(but still small) minority do not do these shootings themselves, but do support them and may engage in actions such as posting the personal information of abortion doctors online. I think we would agree that it would be unfair of me to judge Christians or pro-life activists based on the actions of a few people that identify as such.

[Phoenix Wright]

i want to thank tuvarkz for his well thought out comments.

are you sure? lol

so, anyone that can't really like, understand why i might be bit concerned, i think if there is a chance that a group might want to kill me, i don't wanna hang out with them, shocking i know. lets put this in another perspective.

do you think lgbt people are the only ones at risk in this country?

would you be wanting John, a black man, to be hanging out with Blake, the KKK guy, because maybe Blake is one of those KKK's that doesn't murder blacks?

why would blake hang out with john?

so, if you don't want John and Blake to hang out, then you wouldn't want Adam, the Bisexual, Emma the Transwoman, Alfred the homosexual, to hang out with Muhammed, Achmed, and Joe, the Muslims who might or might not be radical enough to kill them, i suppose there's only one way to find out if the former group is being islamphobic or properly paranoid, and i don't think the former should have to risk their lives because some people want everyone to get along.

did you know that black people commit a hefty amount of violent crime in this country? whites do too.

i suppose it's only logical to avoid basically everyone because obviously they'd commit a heinous act against me.

Unless of course, you think that gay oppression isn't as important as a country...

please stop.

alot of people already have trouble finding jobs and houses, so we shouldn't even be trying to bring in guests into the house when the house itself isn't big enough for the people inside the house.

why do you think this is?

i expect the post to be ignored, or be called over emotional, or islamphobic, but i suppose Muslims aren't a problem for you yet, but if they do become a problem, who will speak up for you?

extremist muslims don't specifically target lgbt, they haphazardly target everyone. what the actual heck are you talking about. you act like you're the only one that faces this issue; you're not. you just have the worst possible perspective on it.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemollor.

you're using this quote wrong.

now to dunk my head in a bucket of water for the next day or so to cool off.

it's because you don't read these posts outside of a biased and fearful perspective.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

you didn't even answer my question.

i'm not sure of what good comes from any religion...and i know eclispe gets mad whenever anyone says christianity is bad, so i want to differentiate between faith and establishment in this case. i am not sure of the utility of established religion as a whole.

nevertheless, your fear of arabs (of which it is clear you don't know very much about) is unfounded. i understand you are afraid, and that is a feeling which i don't wish to undermine, but you're okay with ignoring the plights of lives who wish to escape similar or worse persecutions. refugees have not committed any atrocities to date; those have all been radicalized citizens. with our ridiculous vetting process, you're much more likely to be harmed by basically any other group.

I get mad when I see shitty generalizations. So thanks for introducing the next point:

If you're going to make a really negative point about some monolithic group, I expect sources. If I get complaints about this (and yes I do), it's bad.

This is how to do it:

The truth is that yes, some immigrants do commit crime. This does not seem like a logical reason to ban all of them when immigrants overall commit fewer crimes than natural born citizens in the United States. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

---

Now, for something slightly different. Analysis of Donald Trump's Twitter account. I think the only good that I can interpret from this is that Trump himself is willing to post things.

[tuvarkz]

did you know that black people commit a hefty amount of violent crime in this country? whites do too.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43

Except that black people committed 30% of overall crime, more than half of the murders and intentional manslaughters in 2014, more than half of robberies, 40% of crimes related to weapon possession or carrying; when in the same year they were only 12.6% of the population.

Also, @Mimikyu, do not conflate black people with BLM, as the latter is a group of thugs who has started riot after riot , called for the death of cops, interrupting rallies and gatherings in general, disrupting studying center, branching out to London and irrupting the place when there's even less of an excuse to bring up a supposed racial discrimination against black people.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Also, @Mimikyu, do not conflate black people with BLM, as the latter is a group of thugs who has started riot after riot , called for the death of cops, interrupting rallies and gatherings in general, disrupting studying center, branching out to London and irrupting the place when there's even less of an excuse to bring up a supposed racial discrimination against black people.

Unless they're doing peaceful protests or having goddamn barbecues with the Police that is (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/19/486581466/police-and-black-lives-matter-hold-a-cookout-and-praise-rolls-in). I feel like it bares mentioning that BLM is a chapter-based movement as opposed to one organisation. Saying that all BLM supporters are as bad as the rioters is like saying all Police are racists because some of them shoot black people.

Also, in London, this is a thing.

http://www.stop-watch.org/your-area/area/metropolitan

Less reason to bring up discrimination? Yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason to do it.

[Phoenix Wright]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43

Except that black people committed 30% of overall crime, more than half of the murders and intentional manslaughters in 2014, more than half of robberies, 40% of crimes related to weapon possession or carrying; when in the same year they were only 12.6% of the population.

Also, @Mimikyu, do not conflate black people with BLM, as the latter is a group of thugs who has started riot after riot , called for the death of cops, interrupting rallies and gatherings in general, disrupting studying center, branching out to London and irrupting the place when there's even less of an excuse to bring up a supposed racial discrimination against black people.

you're absolutely right, tuvarkz. that's why avoiding them for one's own safety is the sound and logical response. it is clearly that simple.

I get mad when I see shitty generalizations. So thanks for introducing the next point: If you're going to make a really negative point about some monolithic group, I expect sources.

to be fair, do people need to cite why the nazis are bad? it's generally understood why they're bad.

so, too, with established religion. must i cite relevant happenings during the middle ages to show that christianity as an establishment has the propensity to cease progress, be responsible for the deaths of thousands, silence thousands, etc etc.?

yesterday it was christianity, today it is islam, who knows what it'll be tomorrow.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

to be fair, do people need to cite why the nazis are bad? it's generally understood why they're bad.

so, too, with established religion. must i cite relevant happenings during the middle ages to show that christianity as an establishment has the propensity to cease progress, be responsible for the deaths of thousands, silence thousands, etc etc.?

yesterday it was christianity, today it is islam, who knows what it'll be tomorrow.

You can thank the other people in this topic for that. Overuse of blanket statements smothers discussion, and that's what I see here. The best you can do is set a good example.

[tuvarkz]

Unless they're doing peaceful protests or having goddamn barbecues with the Police that is (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/19/486581466/police-and-black-lives-matter-hold-a-cookout-and-praise-rolls-in). I feel like it bares mentioning that BLM is a chapter-based movement as opposed to one organisation. Saying that all BLM supporters are as bad as the rioters is like saying all Police are racists because some of them shoot black people.

Also, in London, this is a thing.

http://www.stop-watch.org/your-area/area/metropolitan

Less reason to bring up discrimination? Yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason to do it.

Oh, you mean the chapter that got called out by BLM DC as unofficial? I'll have to see if there's any other potential factors to those numbers, but it doesn't justify intentionally disrupting the traffic, particularly blocking the way to airports.