4 ms·

You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve t

You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day. That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community. That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc. Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.

cryptoz 7y ago
Salvation Army has spent almost centuries causing active harm to LGBT community. That notice on their website is brand-new and their actions recently indicate that they are likely to continue going out of their way to cause harm to LGBT people. The corporate doublethink on their website is propaganda and does not reflect the reality of who they are. I do not believe that a 150+ year old organization with a strong history of the people involved being extremely hateful to LGBT people is in a total turnaround - they have refused to admit their wrongdoing in any reasonable way and have also made public statements recently that the will continue to donate to anti-LGBT people. Providing good services to some while rejecting others for simply being who they are does not come across as a good, kind, or deserving of praise in any way. Their good deeds have been selective in who receives them and their language for groups they don't like borders on genocidal. The Salvation Army is not a force for good in the world. It is a hateful religious group who has a public and strong recent history of causing direct harm to people who need help the most.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  Cypto - it might be helpful if you could spell out some of the specifics of their current violent attacks on LGBTQ folks. This would make your "corporate doublethink propaganda" claims stronger.
- turk73 7y ago
  Personally am completely fed up with the gay agenda. It is like Stalinism but more colorful. It's just not for me, sorry.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  You can't really use the century thing, most western organisations had views which most progressives would view as abhorrent today. Section 28 in the UK was only 40 years ago, when the UK government was descriminating, and only repealed less than 20 years ago. When you put the beside your 150 years, you're coming across as lacking in even a basic understanding of history. Attitudes change. And those attitudes changed only very recently for almost the whole of the western world.
  - Buge 7y ago
    Even Obama was anti gay marriage until 2012. And Hillary Clinton until 2013.
rpiguy 7y ago
Could not agree more.
RickJWagner 7y ago
My family recently watched the entire boxed set of 'Quantuum Leap'. The series was consistently, unapologetically progressive. (It had pro-abortion episode, sympathetic gay characters, etc.) One Christmas episode had an evil rich guy who was trying to close down....... the local Salvation Army building. It is simply amazing how intolerant some people are. Yesterday's progressives are today's horrible bigots in the eyes of some. (Really. Ask Monty Python!)
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  This connection seems negligently tenuous. Does an organization having a great public image automatically eliminate the possibility of it doing bad things for all future time?
philwelch 7y ago
> Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? This conflation is one of the defining features of the social justice left.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  On the contrary, it's merely one of the defining features of the caricature used in bad-faith attacks on the over-general "social justice left". In reality, the conflation is rare, but high profile when it happens (as expected).
  - philwelch 7y ago
    I want to characterize this as a “motte and bailey” response but I think it’s more complicated than that. I’m sure a lot of people who are sympathetic to the social justice movement don’t actually believe or are exposed to the more radical ideas like this, but the core of the movement absolutely operates this way. For example, most of the rationale for regulating “hate speech” explicitly conflates “hate speech” with violence; meanwhile, non-hateful dissent with the ideology is simultaneously characterized as “hate speech”, thus transitively conflating political disagreement with violence.
int_19h 7y ago
> They serve the most vulnerable in their community This is kinda part of the problem. Because Salvation Army is in this business, it's an excuse for others to not be - and especially so for governments, since "just leave it to the charity" is a very common take on welfare on the conservative right. So then when they discriminate, the people they discriminate against often have nowhere else to go. They have to either accept the religious mores forced on them in exchange for food and roof over their head, or they starve. And SA knows that full well when they turn such people away from their kitchens and shelters. And no, they aren't a pinnacle of tolerance. There are numerous recorded instances of them refusing to alleviate the homelessness and hunger on the basis that acceptance of LGBTQ is counter to their religion.

cryptoz 7y ago

Salvation Army has spent almost centuries causing active harm to LGBT community. That notice on their website is brand-new and their actions recently indicate that they are likely to continue going out of their way to cause harm to LGBT people. The corporate doublethink on their website is propaganda and does not reflect the reality of who they are. I do not believe that a 150+ year old organization with a strong history of the people involved being extremely hateful to LGBT people is in a total turnaround - they have refused to admit their wrongdoing in any reasonable way and have also made public statements recently that the will continue to donate to anti-LGBT people. Providing good services to some while rejecting others for simply being who they are does not come across as a good, kind, or deserving of praise in any way. Their good deeds have been selective in who receives them and their language for groups they don't like borders on genocidal. The Salvation Army is not a force for good in the world. It is a hateful religious group who has a public and strong recent history of causing direct harm to people who need help the most.

privateSFacct 7y ago
Cypto - it might be helpful if you could spell out some of the specifics of their current violent attacks on LGBTQ folks. This would make your "corporate doublethink propaganda" claims stronger.
turk73 7y ago
Personally am completely fed up with the gay agenda. It is like Stalinism but more colorful. It's just not for me, sorry.
mattmanser 7y ago
You can't really use the century thing, most western organisations had views which most progressives would view as abhorrent today. Section 28 in the UK was only 40 years ago, when the UK government was descriminating, and only repealed less than 20 years ago. When you put the beside your 150 years, you're coming across as lacking in even a basic understanding of history. Attitudes change. And those attitudes changed only very recently for almost the whole of the western world.
- Buge 7y ago
  Even Obama was anti gay marriage until 2012. And Hillary Clinton until 2013.

rpiguy 7y ago

Could not agree more.

RickJWagner 7y ago

My family recently watched the entire boxed set of 'Quantuum Leap'. The series was consistently, unapologetically progressive. (It had pro-abortion episode, sympathetic gay characters, etc.) One Christmas episode had an evil rich guy who was trying to close down....... the local Salvation Army building. It is simply amazing how intolerant some people are. Yesterday's progressives are today's horrible bigots in the eyes of some. (Really. Ask Monty Python!)

happytoexplain 7y ago
This connection seems negligently tenuous. Does an organization having a great public image automatically eliminate the possibility of it doing bad things for all future time?

philwelch 7y ago

> Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? This conflation is one of the defining features of the social justice left.

happytoexplain 7y ago
On the contrary, it's merely one of the defining features of the caricature used in bad-faith attacks on the over-general "social justice left". In reality, the conflation is rare, but high profile when it happens (as expected).
- philwelch 7y ago
  I want to characterize this as a “motte and bailey” response but I think it’s more complicated than that. I’m sure a lot of people who are sympathetic to the social justice movement don’t actually believe or are exposed to the more radical ideas like this, but the core of the movement absolutely operates this way. For example, most of the rationale for regulating “hate speech” explicitly conflates “hate speech” with violence; meanwhile, non-hateful dissent with the ideology is simultaneously characterized as “hate speech”, thus transitively conflating political disagreement with violence.

int_19h 7y ago

> They serve the most vulnerable in their community This is kinda part of the problem. Because Salvation Army is in this business, it's an excuse for others to not be - and especially so for governments, since "just leave it to the charity" is a very common take on welfare on the conservative right. So then when they discriminate, the people they discriminate against often have nowhere else to go. They have to either accept the religious mores forced on them in exchange for food and roof over their head, or they starve. And SA knows that full well when they turn such people away from their kitchens and shelters. And no, they aren't a pinnacle of tolerance. There are numerous recorded instances of them refusing to alleviate the homelessness and hunger on the basis that acceptance of LGBTQ is counter to their religion.