Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[Original Alear]

So a little more about the guy:

According to his ex-wife, the man wasn't very religious, but after the divorce, he started to become more religious.

And about the guy's father:

Apparently he used to host a TV show, is a political figure and is currently running to be Afghanistan's president.

I'm not sure he's a serious candidate. I found a youtube video with him from a washington post article, but I can't understand the broadcast in which he apparently declares himself to be running for president (presumably arabic, the language they're speaking in it has a hard h sound similar to a sound in hebrew).

It does start with a condemnation written in english of ISI, apparently an afghan intelligence organization that supported the taliban in the past and, more recently, has worked against them (though still evidencing possible ties supporting them in some instances).

EDIT-For the record his supposed declaration of candidacy was apparently broadcast from California.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Togami Byakuga

[Elibean Spaceman]

This makes no sense at all. I don't want to SUPPORT LGBT, I don't want to be AGAINST LGBT. Even so however, you don't fuckin' decide to take someone's life like that.

[Hardin]

I don't even know how to interpret that. It's a binary choice, either you support LGBT rights or you don't. There's no middle ground there.

[Rapier]

I don't even know how to interpret that. It's a binary choice, either you support LGBT rights or you don't. There's no middle ground there.

not supporting LGBT is not the same as being against, one does not need to adopt only the absolutes

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

not supporting LGBT is not the same as being against, one does not need to adopt only the absolutes

i was just about post this but i was beaten to it, thank you.

not everything is "good side vs bad side".

with that said this must've been at the very least a hate crime.

[Rapier]

didn't he get pissed off because he saw two men kissing or something like that? It's what I heard earlier.

Really doubt it wasn't a hate crime. What is in question imo is if it was ISIS pulling the strings or if he acted on his own accord (being inspired by radical views of islam or ISIS' actions/fundaments doesn't mean he was affiliated, however).

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rapier

[Hardin]

not supporting LGBT is not the same as being against, one does not need to adopt only the absolutes

Of course you do when it comes to rights. If you don't support people having rights, you're against them having rights. Change that women having the right to vote for instance. If you don't support them being able to vote, the only stance left is that they should not be able to. There is no reasonable middle ground in these types of debates.

[solrocknroll]

Of course you do when it comes to rights. If you don't support people having rights, you're against them having rights. Change that women having the right to vote for instance. If you don't support them being able to vote, the only stance left is that they should not be able to. There is no reasonable middle ground in these types of debates.

I agree. I see no logical way to take a middle ground towards LGBT.

[Original Alear]

I don't even know how to interpret that. It's a binary choice, either you support LGBT rights or you don't. There's no middle ground there.

"I don't care."

Apathy exists. I'm not sure it's a laudable position considering the antagonism against the community that exists, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that someone who doesn't lend any support to the LGBT community is necessarily working against them.

I agree. I see no logical way to take a middle ground towards LGBT.

You're fairly isolated and alienated, you don't have any people you socialize closely with who are LGBT, you don't really know anyone who is LGBT for sure, you have no interaction with the community, you do not do anything against them or for them.

EDIT-However I agree it seems illogical to look at this crime and then say "I don't support the LGBT community and I'm not against them." My opinion at least would be that if you condemn their deaths and say their killer is an asshole or w/e, you're showing token support for them in this instance.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Togami Byakuga

[Hardin]

Dr King would disagree with that view point.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

[Tryhard]

You are assuming that sitting on the fence is as bad as saying "fuck LGBT", which is not true, and equating their non-action or apathy as opposition.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

while i normally disapprove of the neutral apathy stance, it DOES exist and i am guilty of just not caring about every little detail in the world, like "which flavor of the month anime is better then the other" i don't care because i don't have any hold or interest in that subject.

I myself am Pro gay rights because i myself am Bisexual but that doesn't mean i think everyone thats neutral on it is literally hilter.

[Rapier]

I agree. I see no logical way to take a middle ground towards LGBT.

This is like saying that if you don't like me, then you dislike me. That is clearly not true (unless you got angry with one of my posts and stuff happened, which I doubt). The same could be applied to the LGBT community. It's not because I don't support an action [omission, negative action] that I am against it [positive action]. True, if I don't support, then I am necessarily not for it, but that does not mean I am against it. I can be apathetic or lack an opinion about X.

(note that this isn't my stance about the LGBT community, it was just an example)

this is reminding me of Obi-Wan and SW3

also I feel that Luther King's words were not properly used in context. He is giving a sermon to those who are sitting on the fence because they're counterproductive to giving minorities rights, not saying that they're against rights.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rapier

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

this is reminding me of Obi-Wan and SW3

The one where he says ONLY a sith deals in absolutes, while ironically what he just said is absolute in itself?

[Original Alear]

Dr King would disagree with that view point.

Honestly, I admire Dr King, and I don't think that lukewarm acceptance of LGBT is the right way to go, but my own experience makes me feel completely different on a personal level. I lead a pretty blessed life but even I've dealt with hatred in a few sparse instances (as a jew and as someone with mental illness, would be the hatred towards me due to a label) and outright rejection is a lot worse. Example: I've had a cab driver make a mention about how "jews are kind of money grubbing and snobbish," at which point I mentioned that I was Jewish (and he then said I seemed different from the ones I had met, and that he thought I was very friendly and likeable). I thought rather little of him at that point, but I still think far more highly of him than I do of a kid in my boy scout group who made choice remarks about jews with apparent sincerity, knowing that me and my friend were jewish. As someone who sometimes tolerates things I don't like (though I'd like to think I'm not biased against things as meangingless as race), I'm willing to respect others who tolerate things they don't like.

While I definitely agree it's wrong for someone to feel that, say, African Americans should wait on civil rights, I think it's also wrong to assume that every individual can or should participate in a social movement and do something about a given problem, even an extremely serious one.

I am inclined to agree with his more general, strategical view (that lukewarm acceptance is a problem for advancement of a person or group's well being), but I'm not inclined to believe that power master or laverto are bigger problems for the LGBT community than the guy who just killed 50 of them. Except insofar as he's dead, so he can't do any more damage himself.

The one where he says ONLY a sith deals in absolutes, while ironically what he just said is absolute in itself?

Everything is relative.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Togami Byakuga

[Rezzy]

People can condemn the senseless slaughter of 50 people, without being an advocate for LGBT rights, saying otherwise is a false dichotomy.

We are all people first and foremost, everything else is secondary.

[Hardin]

also I feel that Luther King's words were not properly used in context. He is giving a sermon to those who are sitting on the fence because they're counterproductive to giving minorities rights, not saying that they're against rights.

By sitting on the fence they are in fact obstructing those rights from being obtained and helping those who want to deny those rights. We're not talking about flavours of ice cream, we're talking about if you believe others should be treated with respect and dignity. There is no maybe in this discussion.

[Original Alear]

By sitting on the fence they are in fact obstructing those rights from being obtained and helping those who want to deny those rights. We're not talking about flavours of ice cream, we're talking about if you believe others should be treated with respect and dignity. There is no maybe in this discussion.

No. Let's say I see someone being mistreated and I do nothing. That is negligent, and bad, but not obstructive. At times, even the law will recognize negligence as criminal, but it is not the same as being the cause of something. A negligent doctor was not the cause of bowel obstruction just because he overlooked it. Sorry to quibble on semantics. I feel like I am talking about things that are unimportant at this point.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Absolutely despicable. The families of the deceased and the survivors have my deepest condolences.

[Rezzy]

Being apathetic is not the same as being against something. It's like saying that abstaining from voting is the same as voting against it.

Example: Some LGBT Bill

Yes: 40

Abstain: 30

No: 30

Here, the final vote is 40 yes: 30 no, Not 40 yes: 60 no. Generally, people being apathetic to a cause don't affect it one way or the other.

[Hardin]

No. Let's say I see someone being mistreated and I do nothing. That is negligent, and bad, but not obstructive. At times, even the law will recognize negligence as criminal, but it is not the same as being the cause of something. A negligent doctor was not the cause of bowel obstruction just because he overlooked it. Sorry to quibble on semantics. I feel like I am talking about things that are unimportant at this point.

Politics is essentially a zero sum game, and politics is what this comes down to. If you do not help something pass, by staying out of the fight you tell people, "I am OK with the status quo." If it comes time to vote and you decide to stay home, you actually have just hindered the movement and helped it to fail even if that wasn't your intent. Our actions and inaction have consequences and as responsible adults we have to own that.

[Rezzy]

Politics is essentially a zero sum game, and politics is what this comes down to. If you do not help something pass, by staying out of the fight you tell people, "I am OK with the status quo." If it comes time to vote and you decide to stay home, you actually have just hindered the movement and helped it to fail even if that wasn't your intent. Our actions and inaction have consequences and as responsible adults we have to own that.

Example

Being apathetic is not the same as being against something. It's like saying that abstaining from voting is the same as voting against it.

Example: Some LGBT Bill

Yes: 40

Abstain: 30

No: 30

Here, the final vote is 40 yes: 30 no, Not 40 yes: 60 no. Generally, people being apathetic to a cause don't affect it one way or the other.

You can't always convince everyone to outright support you. Often, when trying to convince people, they'll move to a more neutral stance before coming over to support you, if they do at all. I'd rather have someone neutral to me than hating me.

[Rapier]

Yes but the consequences that happen from inaction are not necessarily what someone wanted. You're saying that if someone is not favorable to X, they're against X. In politics, I agree that when you don't choose X, you allow Y a free pass (which is not the same as wanting Y to happen, or being in favor of Y, which is the whole point of the discussion we started). However, since we're discussing about intent, it is simply not true that those who abstained to vote X wanted Y to be elected.

Continuing with the political analogy: It's not because I'm not voting on someone for president that I was for Trump/Hillary, but imo those who didn't vote should also be blamed for Hillary/Trump winning elections, for example. Their omission still doesn't make them favorable to whichever candidate won though.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rapier

[Rezzy]

Yes but the consequences that happen from inaction are not necessarily what someone wanted. You're saying that if someone is not favorable to X, they're against X. In politics, I agree that when you don't choose X, you allow Y a free pass (which is not the same as wanting Y to happen, or being in favor of Y, which is the whole point of the discussion we started). However, since we're discussing about intent, it is simply not true that those who abstained to vote X wanted Y to be elected.

Continuing with the political analogy: It's not because I'm not voting on someone for president that I was for Trump/Hillary, but imo those who didn't vote should also be blamed for Hillary/Trump winning elections, for example.

Usually the people who abstain don't care enough one way or another to vote.

For President, people who don't like either candidate are perfectly entitled to stay home. If they hate both Candidate A and Candidate B, saying they're responsible for Candidate A coming into power is flawed, because, to prevent that, they'd have had to vote for Candidate B, who they equally despise. They could have voted for Candidate C, to make a statement, but they may have decided that they were going to lose anyway and decided that staying home and playing Fire Emblem was a better way to spend the evening.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rezzy

[Tryhard]

To be fair, the for/against reasoning is something that I have often heard, but it seems more and more just a way to try and shame people that honestly just don't want to take a side. You don't appeal to neutrals by saying "if you don't take our view then you're as bad as the people we're against, there is no nuance." Now if it's someone that actually does have the power to change something, and they do nothing, then perhaps you could extrapolate that, but most people you're talking about have no power over that. All they can give is their personal support.

And I wonder who said "you're either with us, or against us," before.

Regardless, I pretty much agree with Severian that arguing semantics like this is ultimately pointless. Besides that, I don't really think it's appropriate to mention your affiliation or not with the LGBT community on something like this.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Tryhard