6 ms·

Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine): > It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must

Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine): > It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business.

Martinussen 2y ago
That entire paragraph is mostly a strawman, or, if you're feeling charitable, coming from an extremely surface-level awareness of the actual issues they're talking about.
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  Not necessarily. I can recall that a few years back I was browsing some right-wing forum and someone wrote "they will force you to have sex with them" which seemed absolutely ridiculous. Then I was browsing a left-wing forum and the concensus was "refusing to date black people is racism and therefore the worst thing you can possibly do, refusing to date transsexuals is kinda allowed but we'd rather see you do". I had a "shit, they were right" moment.
  - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
    I submit that the idea that it’s racist at face value not to date a Black person is ridiculous. If we indulge that type of view with any sort of seriousness, we’re just lending undue legitimacy to that idea. It is no more or less ridiculous than me being sexist because I am not interested in women. I’m not sexist. I’m just not into women. Reasonable people can identify the difference. We shouldn’t mistake crazy views for sane ones.
    - anal_reactor 2y ago
      The argument goes like this: if a sizeable part of the society refuses to date black people, then black people are in a disadvantaged position. > It is no more or less ridiculous than me being sexist because I am not interested in women I tried saying this but "race is race and gender is gender, two totally different things".
  - beej71 2y ago
    Who is forcing you to date trans people? No one. They were not right. C'mon.
    - gampat 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - beej71 2y ago
        And then were they forced to date trans people? No.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        gampat 2y ago
        [flagged]
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  "Anything I don't agree with is a strawman"
  - Martinussen 2y ago
    Not at all, but I would absolutely argue pretty much all instances of "List of single-sentence heavily polarised and editorialised talking points" are. You're not looking to engage in a good-faith discussion by throwing out a pile of points and hoping nobody puts in the effort to actually engage with every single one - look at the sibling thread to my comment and the disproportionate amount of effort it takes to respond without just being pulled aside to debate the minutiae of specific events. Of course, that is all assuming they actually have some level of familiarity with what the topic being discussed and the talking points they are using. They could simply be uninformed, but trying to engage in rhetoric before learning more at that point doesn't seem like it would be in good faith either way. (That is not to say that one should never respond to an argument that takes way more rigor than throwing it out there took, but it's definitely not "should always" either :p.)
cogman10 2y ago
The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues. To the first example, it's the same as whining about restaurants being forced to serve black patrons. If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? Regardless, conservatives won this one. Business owners can discriminate based on sexuality. Hurray? Yet why is this activist bringing up a case they already won? The next examples of "how-to" manuals in elementary schools simply isn't something that exists. Further, it's frankly cover for the real agenda, pulling out any book making even the most glancing reference to homosexuality (billy has 2 dads) or past racism (MLK existed). It's a lot of hot air and fire over books not shelved in elementary schools. Perhaps in highschool or junior high, which is age groups where more explicit texts are acceptable. > and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. Completely the author, a conservative that likely does not support gay rights, opinion. > the controversies keep activists in business. I actually agree with the author here. Yes, the controversies keep the activists in business, but WHO are the activists? The answer isn't who the author identifies. Consider how many rightwing outlets repeated the lie "Now schools are letting kids identify as cats and poop in litter-boxes!". Which activist do you suppose started that?
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  > If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? If many businesses were doing that, that would be pretty bad, yeah. But the activist demands go far beyond that. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding. It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... > simply isn't something that exists. Quick internet search: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06-04/parents-enflamed-by-mature-graphic-novel-in-k-6-library-nmusd-mulls-book-policy https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06... Excerpts from the book in question: https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-flamer-by https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-...
Tao3300 2y ago
I still think the cake thing was weird. I mean, why would you want someone who doesn't like you or hates your lifestyle to make you a cake? You really think they're going to do their best work? Hey, Person-Who-Doesn't-Like-Me, commit to this creative project celebrating what you don't like about me. I can't wait to see it.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  If a generally-open-to-the-public business refused to service women or black people or Muslims, should we be okay with that too, because hey, they probably don't want someone who dislikes them to provide them a product?
  - Tao3300 2y ago
    You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say it was okay. I said knowingly forcing someone to do this is a good way to get a shitty cake.
    - paulmd 2y ago
      At the end of the day the person coming to a public accommodation for a service or good doesn’t and shouldn’t need to know anything about the religion of the owner. Why should they? What does that have to do with me buying a muffler from their store or a bouquet of flowers? Living in a world where we have to follow all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor (including, yes, racism) would be a social nightmare and incredibly disruptive to social order. Which it was.
      - Tao3300 2y ago
        You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say anything about buying mufflers or flowers, or "all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor". I'm not talking about broad principles and generalities here. The cake thing was weird. I wouldn't expect to get a very good cake by pressing the issue. I should think it much more likely I'd get some haphazardly-assembled, bare-minimum, passive-aggressive excuse for a cake.
TulliusCicero 2y ago
> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? > It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. Treating it like this taboo mysterious thing is worse than being matter of fact about how it works. Sex is a fact of life, just like many other things taught at school. > Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. And? Is it bad to teach things to kids now? Those other gender identities are out there, why would it be wrong to teach about? > Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men). > These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. [Citation needed] here for most of this. You really think requiring businesses to serve gay people is unpopular with...gay people?
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  > This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. It should not have to do with religion. It would be if it is a custom order; custom orders can potentially be anything. If they refuse a custom order, they can lose money and they can get a bad reputation, but that isn't to be disallowed, I think (unless they are going against what they have advertised). They should not be allowed to refuse to serve black people, or white people, or gay people, or transgender people, or tall people, or bilingual people, etc, regardless of what is being ordered (including custom orders), and regardless of their personal opinions of such a thing; they should serve them anyways. (They may refuse to serve foreigners who do not have the correct money; if that is the case, then the customer will have to exchange their money elsewhere first, and then this business will be able to serve them.) However, they may refuse to write certain words on the cake (regardless of what those words are, or what language they are written in), refuse to copy a complex diagram, refuse to bake a cake with a colour (or combination of colours) that they do not have, refuse to cast a spell on it, refuse to throw it at the wall, refuse to put a 3' cake into a 2' box, refuse to make something that you do not know how to make (especially if the customer refuses to explain), refuse to make something if the customer does not speak your language (and nobody is available who can translate; although if such customers are common then it would be good customer service to hire someone who does know their language), etc. If the customer is able and willing to alter the decorations themself when they get home, they can order a plain cake (or whatever parts they are willing) and then do the rest by themself at home. However, refusing a custom order can give them a bad reputation and cause them to not earn the money from the sale that is not made; so it is better to accomodate reasonable custom orders if they can. > If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? I should think it depends on what exactly is ordered, like above. If black people come in and say they want to order a wedding cake, then it is not OK to refuse; they should bake a cake (and sell it to them, for the same price that they would charge anyone else) anyways. If they ask them to draw specific pictures on the game, then they might refuse (although it may give them a bad reputation, and they would not earn the money from the lost sale), although if the order is reasonable then it would be better to not refuse (regardless of their personal opinions). > This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. You are probably right; it is probably an exaggeration and that is what it seems to me, too. (I do not have any actual data or reports about this, though.) About the second part, that is a separate issue but also probably right. > This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men). That is what I thought too. It will have to be considered individually for each kind of sports. It will also have to be considered why they have gender segregation, and if they should have gender segregation, and if so, what criteria they should use (it is not necessarily as simple as only yes and no). And you are probably also right some will have women with an advantage over men (on average it will be; but this is not always the case between two specific individuals). (On average, men will usually have more physical strength, but women will usually have more physical endurance. This is what I had read in a scientific article about women hunting.) However, it is not necessarily only per sport; some are team sports with different designations of the people in each team; possibly women will have an advantage on average in some positions but not others, and tall people will have an advantage in some positions but not others, etc.

Martinussen 2y ago

That entire paragraph is mostly a strawman, or, if you're feeling charitable, coming from an extremely surface-level awareness of the actual issues they're talking about.

anal_reactor 2y ago
Not necessarily. I can recall that a few years back I was browsing some right-wing forum and someone wrote "they will force you to have sex with them" which seemed absolutely ridiculous. Then I was browsing a left-wing forum and the concensus was "refusing to date black people is racism and therefore the worst thing you can possibly do, refusing to date transsexuals is kinda allowed but we'd rather see you do". I had a "shit, they were right" moment.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  I submit that the idea that it’s racist at face value not to date a Black person is ridiculous. If we indulge that type of view with any sort of seriousness, we’re just lending undue legitimacy to that idea. It is no more or less ridiculous than me being sexist because I am not interested in women. I’m not sexist. I’m just not into women. Reasonable people can identify the difference. We shouldn’t mistake crazy views for sane ones.
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    The argument goes like this: if a sizeable part of the society refuses to date black people, then black people are in a disadvantaged position. > It is no more or less ridiculous than me being sexist because I am not interested in women I tried saying this but "race is race and gender is gender, two totally different things".
- beej71 2y ago
  Who is forcing you to date trans people? No one. They were not right. C'mon.
  - gampat 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - beej71 2y ago
      And then were they forced to date trans people? No.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - gampat 2y ago
        [flagged]
red-iron-pine 2y ago
"Anything I don't agree with is a strawman"
- Martinussen 2y ago
  Not at all, but I would absolutely argue pretty much all instances of "List of single-sentence heavily polarised and editorialised talking points" are. You're not looking to engage in a good-faith discussion by throwing out a pile of points and hoping nobody puts in the effort to actually engage with every single one - look at the sibling thread to my comment and the disproportionate amount of effort it takes to respond without just being pulled aside to debate the minutiae of specific events. Of course, that is all assuming they actually have some level of familiarity with what the topic being discussed and the talking points they are using. They could simply be uninformed, but trying to engage in rhetoric before learning more at that point doesn't seem like it would be in good faith either way. (That is not to say that one should never respond to an argument that takes way more rigor than throwing it out there took, but it's definitely not "should always" either :p.)

cogman10 2y ago

The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues. To the first example, it's the same as whining about restaurants being forced to serve black patrons. If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? Regardless, conservatives won this one. Business owners can discriminate based on sexuality. Hurray? Yet why is this activist bringing up a case they already won? The next examples of "how-to" manuals in elementary schools simply isn't something that exists. Further, it's frankly cover for the real agenda, pulling out any book making even the most glancing reference to homosexuality (billy has 2 dads) or past racism (MLK existed). It's a lot of hot air and fire over books not shelved in elementary schools. Perhaps in highschool or junior high, which is age groups where more explicit texts are acceptable. > and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. Completely the author, a conservative that likely does not support gay rights, opinion. > the controversies keep activists in business. I actually agree with the author here. Yes, the controversies keep the activists in business, but WHO are the activists? The answer isn't who the author identifies. Consider how many rightwing outlets repeated the lie "Now schools are letting kids identify as cats and poop in litter-boxes!". Which activist do you suppose started that?

Georgelemental 2y ago
> If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? If many businesses were doing that, that would be pretty bad, yeah. But the activist demands go far beyond that. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding. It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... > simply isn't something that exists. Quick internet search: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06-04/parents-enflamed-by-mature-graphic-novel-in-k-6-library-nmusd-mulls-book-policy https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06... Excerpts from the book in question: https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-flamer-by https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-...

Tao3300 2y ago

I still think the cake thing was weird. I mean, why would you want someone who doesn't like you or hates your lifestyle to make you a cake? You really think they're going to do their best work? Hey, Person-Who-Doesn't-Like-Me, commit to this creative project celebrating what you don't like about me. I can't wait to see it.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
If a generally-open-to-the-public business refused to service women or black people or Muslims, should we be okay with that too, because hey, they probably don't want someone who dislikes them to provide them a product?
- Tao3300 2y ago
  You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say it was okay. I said knowingly forcing someone to do this is a good way to get a shitty cake.
  - paulmd 2y ago
    At the end of the day the person coming to a public accommodation for a service or good doesn’t and shouldn’t need to know anything about the religion of the owner. Why should they? What does that have to do with me buying a muffler from their store or a bouquet of flowers? Living in a world where we have to follow all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor (including, yes, racism) would be a social nightmare and incredibly disruptive to social order. Which it was.
    - Tao3300 2y ago
      You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say anything about buying mufflers or flowers, or "all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor". I'm not talking about broad principles and generalities here. The cake thing was weird. I wouldn't expect to get a very good cake by pressing the issue. I should think it much more likely I'd get some haphazardly-assembled, bare-minimum, passive-aggressive excuse for a cake.

TulliusCicero 2y ago

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? > It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. Treating it like this taboo mysterious thing is worse than being matter of fact about how it works. Sex is a fact of life, just like many other things taught at school. > Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. And? Is it bad to teach things to kids now? Those other gender identities are out there, why would it be wrong to teach about? > Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men). > These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. [Citation needed] here for most of this. You really think requiring businesses to serve gay people is unpopular with...gay people?

zzo38computer 2y ago
> This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. It should not have to do with religion. It would be if it is a custom order; custom orders can potentially be anything. If they refuse a custom order, they can lose money and they can get a bad reputation, but that isn't to be disallowed, I think (unless they are going against what they have advertised). They should not be allowed to refuse to serve black people, or white people, or gay people, or transgender people, or tall people, or bilingual people, etc, regardless of what is being ordered (including custom orders), and regardless of their personal opinions of such a thing; they should serve them anyways. (They may refuse to serve foreigners who do not have the correct money; if that is the case, then the customer will have to exchange their money elsewhere first, and then this business will be able to serve them.) However, they may refuse to write certain words on the cake (regardless of what those words are, or what language they are written in), refuse to copy a complex diagram, refuse to bake a cake with a colour (or combination of colours) that they do not have, refuse to cast a spell on it, refuse to throw it at the wall, refuse to put a 3' cake into a 2' box, refuse to make something that you do not know how to make (especially if the customer refuses to explain), refuse to make something if the customer does not speak your language (and nobody is available who can translate; although if such customers are common then it would be good customer service to hire someone who does know their language), etc. If the customer is able and willing to alter the decorations themself when they get home, they can order a plain cake (or whatever parts they are willing) and then do the rest by themself at home. However, refusing a custom order can give them a bad reputation and cause them to not earn the money from the sale that is not made; so it is better to accomodate reasonable custom orders if they can. > If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? I should think it depends on what exactly is ordered, like above. If black people come in and say they want to order a wedding cake, then it is not OK to refuse; they should bake a cake (and sell it to them, for the same price that they would charge anyone else) anyways. If they ask them to draw specific pictures on the game, then they might refuse (although it may give them a bad reputation, and they would not earn the money from the lost sale), although if the order is reasonable then it would be better to not refuse (regardless of their personal opinions). > This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. You are probably right; it is probably an exaggeration and that is what it seems to me, too. (I do not have any actual data or reports about this, though.) About the second part, that is a separate issue but also probably right. > This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men). That is what I thought too. It will have to be considered individually for each kind of sports. It will also have to be considered why they have gender segregation, and if they should have gender segregation, and if so, what criteria they should use (it is not necessarily as simple as only yes and no). And you are probably also right some will have women with an advantage over men (on average it will be; but this is not always the case between two specific individuals). (On average, men will usually have more physical strength, but women will usually have more physical endurance. This is what I had read in a scientific article about women hunting.) However, it is not necessarily only per sport; some are team sports with different designations of the people in each team; possibly women will have an advantage on average in some positions but not others, and tall people will have an advantage in some positions but not others, etc.