5 ms·

Gay marriage is still openly advocated against by the right.

svrb 6y ago
How does that demonstrate open-mindedness by the left? The left is (ostensibly) universally supportive of LGBT rights. Liking the in-group is not a demonstration of open-mindedness. (Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT; i.e., there's something inherently wrong with it. It would not be charitable of me to assume that this is what you meant, but it's the only way I can make "Supporting LGBT is a demonstration of open-mindedness" into a true sentence. Otherwise... it's never the case that supporting any group—other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group—is a demonstration of open-mindedness. So I don't think it applies to LGBT.)
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I'm pointing out that the right is more closed minded. > Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT Yes, it's called being in the minority[0]. I'm not sure what gymnastics you're playing trying to make "out group" equivalent to "something wrong", but that's your addition to the conversation, and not something I ever suggested. Let me repeat that: there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup. To suggest such a thing is closed minded. I would say this demonstrates my point, given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". [0]: ok there's a bit more to it than this, normally involving prejudice from the ingroup. But this still doesn't really change anything relevant. The right is certainly more of an ingroup than the LGBT community. Compare the number of right wing congressional representatives to the number of openly LGBT ones.
  - svrb 6y ago
    > given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint. > To suggest such a thing is closed minded. First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims. It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth? ---- I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response: You: > inherent in an outgroup What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said? Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace. --- I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I've already said there is nothing inherent in an outgroup that makes someone morally bad. Repeating that assertion doesn't make it anymore true. Repeating it while accusing me of misinterpreting you is ironic. You seem to be redefining terms at random. You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left, but you only recently added that qualifier. Changing your argument mid-conversation and then accusing me of misunderstanding you is, shall we say, bad manners. The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. This makes the right intolerant. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. That's the entire argument. Everything else you're saying is distraction. Note that "outgroup" never appears in this argument. The relationship between outgroups and morality was your invention. > First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. It follows from the definitions. To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. > What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Because you take attacks on the right personally, and intentionally misinterpret arguments that you feel pain the right negatively or paint the right well.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > You: > inherent in an outgroup > What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup Yes, when I said "this argument is closed minded", I wasn't talking about LGBT people. I was talking about your generic argument. (This is obvious from the context, since when I originally stated it, I stated "there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup.", note no mention of any specific outgroup. But for the specific example of LGBT people, I had previously noted that I did consider LGBT people to be an outgroup due to their minority status, and took objection solely and specifically to your equivocation between out-group-ness and wrongness). Note that, more than once, you draw an equivalence between outgroup and morally wrong. I'll quote you doing it twice: "other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group", "something inherently out-group...something inherently wrong". That's twice where you write the same phrase substituting "out-group" for "[morally] wrong". I can draw no other conclusion than that you consider being an out-group to be equivalent to being morally wrong. This is a prejudiced view, and I stand by this claim. Note once again that the specific example is irrelevant. Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is closed minded. > You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left > What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. To clarify: I'm not suggesting, and did not ever suggest that you claimed that the left was discriminatory toward LGBT people, nor that LGBT people were an outgroup of the left. I claim that you did not originally qualify your statement as the LGBT community being an outgroup specifically of the left, and only began to later. (I should note that this too is obvious from the context, since I included the words "the qualifier", which you removed when you quoted me, and I italicized the qualifier "of the left" when I quoted you, making it clear what I was referring to) The broader context here is that I'm claiming that the left defends LGBT rights, despite the LGBT community being an outgroup. It appears that you might claim something like the LGBT community isn't an outgroup of the left (but this is an essentially circular argument), so this is not showing open-mindedness. I wanted to avoid any such classes of arguments so pointed out this semantic shift early. You instead just didn't address the arguments I made at all. > What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT I never said you did. To reiterate: Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is prejudiced. The specific example doesn't matter. The line of reasoning is inherently closed-minded. It ascribes moral failings to the other solely by virtue of them being other. And one again, you introduced this equivalence with your comparisons between outgroup-ness and moral-wrong-ness: "the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group" Please don't accuse me of lying again. I did not, and I have not. And just for good measure, I'll once again present you the argument I've made, in its entirety, that you've still failed to address: The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Feel free to ignore everything in my post except that argument and chalk it up to one big misunderstanding. But please address that 3 sentence argument, because it demonstrates, quite concretely, the lack of open-mindedness on the right.
svrb 6y ago
(Continuing from bottom of original thread.) If you are finally willing to accept an explanation of what I originally meant, instead of once again claiming that my immediate and complete repudiation of things I never said is just further evidence that I believe—checks notes—some different things I never said, then I guess that's good enough. But I'm merely restating something I already said, so I trust that anyone acting in good faith will not turn around and claim that I've changed what I'm saying. > (Unless, of course, you're saying [snip for restatement below]) This entire parenthetical which has caused so much grief and/or hysteria is an attempt at counterfactual inductive reasoning. (I tried to set it off with "unless...you're saying...It would not be charitable of me to assume...it's the only way I can make [sense of something you said]". It was a classic ASD mistake for me to assume that this was sufficient for such an emotionally charged subject, I admit.) Maybe I can make it more clear: You claimed that left acceptance of LGBT is evidence of open-mindedness. I pointed out that you don't get open-mindedness credits for accepting something you already believe. As an exercise in inductive reasoning I was trying to figure out what it would take for your original claim to be true in light of my addendum. For my protection, what should be an unnecessary disclaimer: THE FOLLOWING IS A COUNTERFACTUAL VIEWPOINT TO EXPLORE AN IDEA SPACE, NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE. In order for the left's acceptance of LGBT to be an example of open-mindedness, it would be necessary for LGBT really to be an outgroup of the left (inductive reasoning), so that when the left would treat LGBT like an ingroup they were really practicing open-mindedness (counterfactual). But the only way LGBT could be an outgroup of the left (which it isn't: counterfactual reasoning) is if it were (hint: subjunctive means counterfactual) so "out" that it's a natural outgroup of everyone[0]. How could some group be an outgroup of everyone? They would have to be (counterfactual! inductive!) morally wrong according to the very few shared moral principles of the left and the right. But since this is obviously not the case, we conclude that it's impossible for left acceptance of LGBT to be evidence of open-mindedness. > The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Yes, yes, this is just the same argument in different words. I addressed it above by pointing out that you don't get open-mindedness points for making the ingroup an ingroup, because... they're already an ingroup. No ingroup gets you open-mindedness points. Only accepting and coexisting with outgroups is open-minded. But with your new statement of the same point I can address it in a different way too: The left considers people born into wealth to be morally wrong. The right does not. This makes the left more intolerant than the right.[1] Now of course you don't agree. The usual reasoning trotted out is "but being LGBT is something you're born with, so it's not okay to discriminate on that basis, but everything that the left discriminates on is different and it's okay!" Well first of all this is why I said "people born into wealth", as awkward as it makes the argument. But the objection is wrong anyways, because the left has simply defined all the spectra along which they accept all points as part of "identity" while all the spectra along which there are some unacceptable points (e.g., along the "believes in welfare only"..."believes in charity only" spectrum, only points closer to "believes in welfare only" are acceptable for the left) as part of not-identity, "mutable" characteristics. So in the end both the original statement and also this objection are just examples of assuming the conclusion by declaring that the left's ingroups and outgroups are "right" and the right's ingroups and outgroups are "wrong". According to this way of looking at the world, making LGBT an ingroup is righteous but making wealthy people an outgroup is also righteous, and doing the opposite is wrong and intolerant. Well of course when you make that assumption, then you can only possibly conclude that the right is "more intolerant", because they have made outgroups of all the wrong groups! Neither the left or the right has a "more tolerant" or "more open-minded" set of ingroups and outgroups because, dare I repeat it again, you don't get open-mindedness points for who is in your ingroups and outgroups, only for how you treat the outgroups. How does the majority of the right treat LGBT? And how does the majority of the left treat people in their outgroups? I'd much rather be LGBT in a mostly right-leaning place than, say, publicly ask questions about the left on somewhere, like, say, HN. Because I've been both, and I am both. And the right treats me far better than the left does; in fact there's no contest because literally no one cares that I'm LGBT—I'm not even the only one in my way-to-the-right-of-me family, and no one bats an eye—but if I even have a question about leftist ideology, let alone actually identifying with an outgroup, it's end of the world level hysteria, making up wild stories about what a crazy right-wing fascist Trumpist racist misogynist Nazi like me must be dogwhistling about. What a nightmare. The right has never been anything but entirely tolerant of whatever beliefs I hold which differ from theirs; and every time I'm accused of being on the right myself, I believe it a little more and more every time. Another non-personal example is Chick-fil-a. Let's see here... Chick-fil-a serves anyone and everyone with respect and doesn't give a shit who you are as long as you just want to buy a fucking chicken sandwich. And frankly in the south LGBT people love Chick-fil-a as much as anyone; maybe more because you are fucking guaranteed never ever to be discriminated against by their employees. It's not even conceivable. But the west coast elite now... they boycott a business for the sole reason that—how terrifying—the founder believes the wrong things! And therefore every franchisee, every employee, they are all outgroup and not deserving of patronage, and anyone who patronizes them is also evil. Being seen talking to someone wearing a CFA uniform is also sacrilege I'm sure. Wow. Many tolerant, so open-mindedness, wow. [0] Even though AFAICT, as much as I dislike the guy Trump did have the most legitimately pro-LGBT post-primary presidential campaign ever in 2016; not a statement I expect you to agree with though. [1]Incidentally, this isn't counterfactual, it's just equally as meaningless as your statement.

svrb 6y ago

How does that demonstrate open-mindedness by the left? The left is (ostensibly) universally supportive of LGBT rights. Liking the in-group is not a demonstration of open-mindedness. (Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT; i.e., there's something inherently wrong with it. It would not be charitable of me to assume that this is what you meant, but it's the only way I can make "Supporting LGBT is a demonstration of open-mindedness" into a true sentence. Otherwise... it's never the case that supporting any group—other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group—is a demonstration of open-mindedness. So I don't think it applies to LGBT.)

joshuamorton 6y ago
I'm pointing out that the right is more closed minded. > Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT Yes, it's called being in the minority[0]. I'm not sure what gymnastics you're playing trying to make "out group" equivalent to "something wrong", but that's your addition to the conversation, and not something I ever suggested. Let me repeat that: there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup. To suggest such a thing is closed minded. I would say this demonstrates my point, given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". [0]: ok there's a bit more to it than this, normally involving prejudice from the ingroup. But this still doesn't really change anything relevant. The right is certainly more of an ingroup than the LGBT community. Compare the number of right wing congressional representatives to the number of openly LGBT ones.
- svrb 6y ago
  > given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint. > To suggest such a thing is closed minded. First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims. It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth? ---- I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response: You: > inherent in an outgroup What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said? Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace. --- I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I've already said there is nothing inherent in an outgroup that makes someone morally bad. Repeating that assertion doesn't make it anymore true. Repeating it while accusing me of misinterpreting you is ironic. You seem to be redefining terms at random. You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left, but you only recently added that qualifier. Changing your argument mid-conversation and then accusing me of misunderstanding you is, shall we say, bad manners. The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. This makes the right intolerant. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. That's the entire argument. Everything else you're saying is distraction. Note that "outgroup" never appears in this argument. The relationship between outgroups and morality was your invention. > First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. It follows from the definitions. To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. > What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Because you take attacks on the right personally, and intentionally misinterpret arguments that you feel pain the right negatively or paint the right well.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > You: > inherent in an outgroup > What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup Yes, when I said "this argument is closed minded", I wasn't talking about LGBT people. I was talking about your generic argument. (This is obvious from the context, since when I originally stated it, I stated "there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup.", note no mention of any specific outgroup. But for the specific example of LGBT people, I had previously noted that I did consider LGBT people to be an outgroup due to their minority status, and took objection solely and specifically to your equivocation between out-group-ness and wrongness). Note that, more than once, you draw an equivalence between outgroup and morally wrong. I'll quote you doing it twice: "other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group", "something inherently out-group...something inherently wrong". That's twice where you write the same phrase substituting "out-group" for "[morally] wrong". I can draw no other conclusion than that you consider being an out-group to be equivalent to being morally wrong. This is a prejudiced view, and I stand by this claim. Note once again that the specific example is irrelevant. Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is closed minded. > You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left > What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. To clarify: I'm not suggesting, and did not ever suggest that you claimed that the left was discriminatory toward LGBT people, nor that LGBT people were an outgroup of the left. I claim that you did not originally qualify your statement as the LGBT community being an outgroup specifically of the left, and only began to later. (I should note that this too is obvious from the context, since I included the words "the qualifier", which you removed when you quoted me, and I italicized the qualifier "of the left" when I quoted you, making it clear what I was referring to) The broader context here is that I'm claiming that the left defends LGBT rights, despite the LGBT community being an outgroup. It appears that you might claim something like the LGBT community isn't an outgroup of the left (but this is an essentially circular argument), so this is not showing open-mindedness. I wanted to avoid any such classes of arguments so pointed out this semantic shift early. You instead just didn't address the arguments I made at all. > What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT I never said you did. To reiterate: Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is prejudiced. The specific example doesn't matter. The line of reasoning is inherently closed-minded. It ascribes moral failings to the other solely by virtue of them being other. And one again, you introduced this equivalence with your comparisons between outgroup-ness and moral-wrong-ness: "the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group" Please don't accuse me of lying again. I did not, and I have not. And just for good measure, I'll once again present you the argument I've made, in its entirety, that you've still failed to address: The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Feel free to ignore everything in my post except that argument and chalk it up to one big misunderstanding. But please address that 3 sentence argument, because it demonstrates, quite concretely, the lack of open-mindedness on the right.

svrb 6y ago

(Continuing from bottom of original thread.) If you are finally willing to accept an explanation of what I originally meant, instead of once again claiming that my immediate and complete repudiation of things I never said is just further evidence that I believe—checks notes—some different things I never said, then I guess that's good enough. But I'm merely restating something I already said, so I trust that anyone acting in good faith will not turn around and claim that I've changed what I'm saying. > (Unless, of course, you're saying [snip for restatement below]) This entire parenthetical which has caused so much grief and/or hysteria is an attempt at counterfactual inductive reasoning. (I tried to set it off with "unless...you're saying...It would not be charitable of me to assume...it's the only way I can make [sense of something you said]". It was a classic ASD mistake for me to assume that this was sufficient for such an emotionally charged subject, I admit.) Maybe I can make it more clear: You claimed that left acceptance of LGBT is evidence of open-mindedness. I pointed out that you don't get open-mindedness credits for accepting something you already believe. As an exercise in inductive reasoning I was trying to figure out what it would take for your original claim to be true in light of my addendum. For my protection, what should be an unnecessary disclaimer: THE FOLLOWING IS A COUNTERFACTUAL VIEWPOINT TO EXPLORE AN IDEA SPACE, NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE. In order for the left's acceptance of LGBT to be an example of open-mindedness, it would be necessary for LGBT really to be an outgroup of the left (inductive reasoning), so that when the left would treat LGBT like an ingroup they were really practicing open-mindedness (counterfactual). But the only way LGBT could be an outgroup of the left (which it isn't: counterfactual reasoning) is if it were (hint: subjunctive means counterfactual) so "out" that it's a natural outgroup of everyone[0]. How could some group be an outgroup of everyone? They would have to be (counterfactual! inductive!) morally wrong according to the very few shared moral principles of the left and the right. But since this is obviously not the case, we conclude that it's impossible for left acceptance of LGBT to be evidence of open-mindedness. > The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Yes, yes, this is just the same argument in different words. I addressed it above by pointing out that you don't get open-mindedness points for making the ingroup an ingroup, because... they're already an ingroup. No ingroup gets you open-mindedness points. Only accepting and coexisting with outgroups is open-minded. But with your new statement of the same point I can address it in a different way too: The left considers people born into wealth to be morally wrong. The right does not. This makes the left more intolerant than the right.[1] Now of course you don't agree. The usual reasoning trotted out is "but being LGBT is something you're born with, so it's not okay to discriminate on that basis, but everything that the left discriminates on is different and it's okay!" Well first of all this is why I said "people born into wealth", as awkward as it makes the argument. But the objection is wrong anyways, because the left has simply defined all the spectra along which they accept all points as part of "identity" while all the spectra along which there are some unacceptable points (e.g., along the "believes in welfare only"..."believes in charity only" spectrum, only points closer to "believes in welfare only" are acceptable for the left) as part of not-identity, "mutable" characteristics. So in the end both the original statement and also this objection are just examples of assuming the conclusion by declaring that the left's ingroups and outgroups are "right" and the right's ingroups and outgroups are "wrong". According to this way of looking at the world, making LGBT an ingroup is righteous but making wealthy people an outgroup is also righteous, and doing the opposite is wrong and intolerant. Well of course when you make that assumption, then you can only possibly conclude that the right is "more intolerant", because they have made outgroups of all the wrong groups! Neither the left or the right has a "more tolerant" or "more open-minded" set of ingroups and outgroups because, dare I repeat it again, you don't get open-mindedness points for who is in your ingroups and outgroups, only for how you treat the outgroups. How does the majority of the right treat LGBT? And how does the majority of the left treat people in their outgroups? I'd much rather be LGBT in a mostly right-leaning place than, say, publicly ask questions about the left on somewhere, like, say, HN. Because I've been both, and I am both. And the right treats me far better than the left does; in fact there's no contest because literally no one cares that I'm LGBT—I'm not even the only one in my way-to-the-right-of-me family, and no one bats an eye—but if I even have a question about leftist ideology, let alone actually identifying with an outgroup, it's end of the world level hysteria, making up wild stories about what a crazy right-wing fascist Trumpist racist misogynist Nazi like me must be dogwhistling about. What a nightmare. The right has never been anything but entirely tolerant of whatever beliefs I hold which differ from theirs; and every time I'm accused of being on the right myself, I believe it a little more and more every time. Another non-personal example is Chick-fil-a. Let's see here... Chick-fil-a serves anyone and everyone with respect and doesn't give a shit who you are as long as you just want to buy a fucking chicken sandwich. And frankly in the south LGBT people love Chick-fil-a as much as anyone; maybe more because you are fucking guaranteed never ever to be discriminated against by their employees. It's not even conceivable. But the west coast elite now... they boycott a business for the sole reason that—how terrifying—the founder believes the wrong things! And therefore every franchisee, every employee, they are all outgroup and not deserving of patronage, and anyone who patronizes them is also evil. Being seen talking to someone wearing a CFA uniform is also sacrilege I'm sure. Wow. Many tolerant, so open-mindedness, wow. [0] Even though AFAICT, as much as I dislike the guy Trump did have the most legitimately pro-LGBT post-primary presidential campaign ever in 2016; not a statement I expect you to agree with though. [1]Incidentally, this isn't counterfactual, it's just equally as meaningless as your statement.