5 ms·

> Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigote

> Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. > It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support. I disagree, completely. The most “charitable” interpretation is that it’s a vague, non-committal statement of support. The interpretation you mention is far more specific and - when phrased the way you did - antagonistic interpretation of things. > Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous. Of course it is. We agree on that point. What we likely do not agree on is why: it is only political to me because other people choose to make it so. If folks just … let LGBTQ people exist, with full equality, there would be precious little political about it at all.

rajin444 4y ago
> Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Your in group is in power so you’re able to speak power to truth, but it isn’t a principled or healthy stance. Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  The juxtaposition between “Conservatives make the same argument” and “Your in group is in power” seems to imply that you think liberals are in power. I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. They are currently in power in name only, and structurally even that will be an unlikely outcome for the foreseeable future. > Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions. Would you care to expand on those?
  - rajin444 4y ago
    That you’re able to feel comfortable staying your opinions in public is evidence your group has won. > Would you care to expand on those? Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah. Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now. It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished. This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have. The current social environment is might makes right.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
      I was asking “which opinions should society learn to tolerate.” Would you care to expand on those? > Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah. I’m not sure how you’d square that with the idea of “freedom of association.” > Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now. Indeed. Your proposal would halt that process. Is that healthy? Who would that benefit, and who would that harm? > It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished. And the law does not punish them. I don’t think it ethical or moral to enshrine such viewpoint protection in the law. No group should be able to legally force someone to like them. And frankly, that’s not what’s happening today. Nobody is being legally forced to accept LGBTQ people. > This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have. I don’t know how you’d solve that problem, short of coercion.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. That's not really the case, and I assume that's probably good news for you since you seem to be a liberal. The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception. It might not remain like this forever though, because they are alienating a good chunk of the population.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Neither of those examples harms or affects another person. Preventing two people from entering into a contract because of their genders does affect others. That is the difference. However, I do agree with the opinion that changing app icons for any non app related reason is stupid. There is no need for political signaling to affect usability, which changing an icon surely does.

rajin444 4y ago

> Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling. Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Your in group is in power so you’re able to speak power to truth, but it isn’t a principled or healthy stance. Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.

drewbug01 4y ago
The juxtaposition between “Conservatives make the same argument” and “Your in group is in power” seems to imply that you think liberals are in power. I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. They are currently in power in name only, and structurally even that will be an unlikely outcome for the foreseeable future. > Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions. Would you care to expand on those?
- rajin444 4y ago
  That you’re able to feel comfortable staying your opinions in public is evidence your group has won. > Would you care to expand on those? Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah. Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now. It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished. This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have. The current social environment is might makes right.
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    I was asking “which opinions should society learn to tolerate.” Would you care to expand on those? > Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah. I’m not sure how you’d square that with the idea of “freedom of association.” > Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now. Indeed. Your proposal would halt that process. Is that healthy? Who would that benefit, and who would that harm? > It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished. And the law does not punish them. I don’t think it ethical or moral to enshrine such viewpoint protection in the law. No group should be able to legally force someone to like them. And frankly, that’s not what’s happening today. Nobody is being legally forced to accept LGBTQ people. > This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have. I don’t know how you’d solve that problem, short of coercion.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. That's not really the case, and I assume that's probably good news for you since you seem to be a liberal. The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception. It might not remain like this forever though, because they are alienating a good chunk of the population.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Conservatives make the same argument about things their in group finds important as well. Taking the lords name in vein, disparaging mohammed, etc. Neither of those examples harms or affects another person. Preventing two people from entering into a contract because of their genders does affect others. That is the difference. However, I do agree with the opinion that changing app icons for any non app related reason is stupid. There is no need for political signaling to affect usability, which changing an icon surely does.