4 ms·

> Igor Sikorsky... fled in 1917 because the Soviets threatened to shoot him. > The US has been working itself up to this for about 20 years now, since the “war

> Igor Sikorsky... fled in 1917 because the Soviets threatened to shoot him. > The US has been working itself up to this for about 20 years now, since the “war on terror” started, and the oligarch weaponization of “woke” politics to keep the left from raising their taxes post Occupy Wall Street. Now it’s a war of terror, and the enemy, as they say, is us. The "Woke Left" is coming to shoot us! Any day now! > Conservative family-oriented religious people like Sikorsky and Seversky [...] being the backbone of every functioning civilization for all of human history. Honestly, nobody is getting "cancelled", harassed, or whatever, for manifesting these adjectives. It's ALWAYS something beyond.

paganel 3y ago
What was "beyond" in what Brendan Eich did?
- the_gipsy 3y ago
  Quick check on wikipedia reveals that he proposed / funded a campaign to ban homosexuals from marrying.
  - efdee 3y ago
    Sounds pretty "conservative family-oriented religious" to me.
    - the_gipsy 3y ago
      Well if you move the goalpost to "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals"... what else should we include? Racism, misogyny..? Do you really wonder why someone would get attacked for being homophobic, or are we just playing hide and seek here?
      - mutant_glofish 3y ago
        Yet another example of "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is". [1] [1]: https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/ https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-g...
        the_gipsy 3y ago
        Interesting. I understand that "what is not happening" is homophobia, but that "it is good that it is happening"?
        mutant_glofish 3y ago
        No, I'm saying that you are claimed that cancelling "conservative family-oriented religious" people (who very often oppose gay marriage, at least in the US) doesn't really happen ("It's ALWAYS something beyond"). However, after being pointed to an example of that, you actually support it. (by implying that people "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals" should be cancelled). The article I linked to explores this phenomenon in more detail. Also, homophobia is a charged word. Heteronormativity [1] is probably more descriptive. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity
        the_gipsy 3y ago
        You are proving my point to the dot: beyond "conservative family-oriented religious" really lies "proposing to make homosexual marriage illegal". And also my second point: "Homophobia is not happening", it's just being conservative. But also, "homophobia is happening! and it's a good thing!" I don't know about heteronormative/homophobic. But wanting to make gay marriage illegal sure sounds very much like hating those people specifically. It hurts noone if they marry, but they hurt a lot if they can't. I think "homophobic" is the correct nomenclature in this case, and "heteronormative" is more about your personal or your group's preference and manifestation.
        mutant_glofish 3y ago
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        If 3/4 of the voting population agrees, then yes? That's explicitly what the US constitution allows. Probably not in this generation but there's a theoretical possibility in some future generation, and it also applies the other way, polygamy, incest, etc., can also theoretically be made legal. It's unlikely for a huge chunk of the population to intentionally lower their own status, but it's not a 0% chance. It would be more difficult to do in Canada or some other countries, but also not totally impossible. That's what voting and majorities and supermajorities means.
        the_gipsy 3y ago
        He was campaigning against equal rights for homosexuals, not polygamy, incest, "etc.". In some countries a wide degree of relationships are today being legally accepted as "family", such as brothers or friends living in a household. The important thing is that this does not affect anybody wanting to live in a traditional family. If democracy was purely about what the majority votes, and not also protecting the minorities to some degree, we should not call it civilization then. Reducing it it to a "legal majority rule" does not make e.g. slavery legitimate or morally acceptable.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        The final arbiter of what counts as 'legitimate' in the US is what's spelled out in the Consitutition, assuming the government and military are willing to enforce what's written. There are some extreme scenarios where that would no longer apply, but passing readers will get the point without needing to read every possible corner case.
  - wwtdtgotiatl 3y ago
    > proposed he contributed $3000 to a political campaign against gay marriage, 6 years prior to losing his job for that reason

paganel 3y ago

What was "beyond" in what Brendan Eich did?

the_gipsy 3y ago
Quick check on wikipedia reveals that he proposed / funded a campaign to ban homosexuals from marrying.
- efdee 3y ago
  Sounds pretty "conservative family-oriented religious" to me.
  - the_gipsy 3y ago
    Well if you move the goalpost to "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals"... what else should we include? Racism, misogyny..? Do you really wonder why someone would get attacked for being homophobic, or are we just playing hide and seek here?
    - mutant_glofish 3y ago
      Yet another example of "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is". [1] [1]: https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/ https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-g...
      - the_gipsy 3y ago
        Interesting. I understand that "what is not happening" is homophobia, but that "it is good that it is happening"?
        mutant_glofish 3y ago
        No, I'm saying that you are claimed that cancelling "conservative family-oriented religious" people (who very often oppose gay marriage, at least in the US) doesn't really happen ("It's ALWAYS something beyond"). However, after being pointed to an example of that, you actually support it. (by implying that people "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals" should be cancelled). The article I linked to explores this phenomenon in more detail. Also, homophobia is a charged word. Heteronormativity [1] is probably more descriptive. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity
        the_gipsy 3y ago
        You are proving my point to the dot: beyond "conservative family-oriented religious" really lies "proposing to make homosexual marriage illegal". And also my second point: "Homophobia is not happening", it's just being conservative. But also, "homophobia is happening! and it's a good thing!" I don't know about heteronormative/homophobic. But wanting to make gay marriage illegal sure sounds very much like hating those people specifically. It hurts noone if they marry, but they hurt a lot if they can't. I think "homophobic" is the correct nomenclature in this case, and "heteronormative" is more about your personal or your group's preference and manifestation.
        mutant_glofish 3y ago
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      If 3/4 of the voting population agrees, then yes? That's explicitly what the US constitution allows. Probably not in this generation but there's a theoretical possibility in some future generation, and it also applies the other way, polygamy, incest, etc., can also theoretically be made legal. It's unlikely for a huge chunk of the population to intentionally lower their own status, but it's not a 0% chance. It would be more difficult to do in Canada or some other countries, but also not totally impossible. That's what voting and majorities and supermajorities means.
      - the_gipsy 3y ago
        He was campaigning against equal rights for homosexuals, not polygamy, incest, "etc.". In some countries a wide degree of relationships are today being legally accepted as "family", such as brothers or friends living in a household. The important thing is that this does not affect anybody wanting to live in a traditional family. If democracy was purely about what the majority votes, and not also protecting the minorities to some degree, we should not call it civilization then. Reducing it it to a "legal majority rule" does not make e.g. slavery legitimate or morally acceptable.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        The final arbiter of what counts as 'legitimate' in the US is what's spelled out in the Consitutition, assuming the government and military are willing to enforce what's written. There are some extreme scenarios where that would no longer apply, but passing readers will get the point without needing to read every possible corner case.
- wwtdtgotiatl 3y ago
  > proposed he contributed $3000 to a political campaign against gay marriage, 6 years prior to losing his job for that reason