7 ms·

> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about ([...] lgbtq [...]) or we need to go back to not discussing

> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about ([...] lgbtq [...]) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company. Does this cut both ways, where LGBTQ+ people also don't have to listen to how straight everyone is? I doubt it. So yeah, how about no? How about there is agreement or nothing? Because there's no way straight people are going to agree to disagree about whether they should be allowed to discuss their sexuality.

nyanpasu64 5y ago
I'd be fine with either not discussing relationships in public, or openly discussing both straight and non-straight relationships. Not sure which is more likely though.
mechanical_bear 5y ago
You constructed a straw man out of his comments very effectively. I didn’t gather that he meant you can’t mention your life, significant other, etc. I read it as maybe don’t discuss the political aspects of LGBT issues, etc
- hedgewitch 5y ago
  If you don't understand that the problem is that detractors have made simply being LGBTQ+ a political issue, you are not qualified to have an opinion here. I'm curious what you think you mean because there is no good answer. I also wouldn't have had to comment at all if people weren't casually asking people to instate don't ask don't tell in social settings.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Remember to interpret someone's arguments in the strongest possible sense. Chastising others is great for moral superiority but it is a poor tool for discussion.
    - hedgewitch 5y ago
      You know, telling people they're acting morally superior when they're confronting the fact that people are calling aspects of their identity controversial and acting like said parts of their identity simply shouldn't be discussed in public is not a good look.
      - mechanical_bear 5y ago
        I never said aspects of your identity are controversial. You are looking to be offended here, not have a conversation.
        hedgewitch 5y ago
        No, you didn't. The original person did. You then told me I was making a straw man by calling him out for it. You could have just as easily not commented and I could have been dealing with the original commenter. You decided to comment, defending his absurdity. You don't get to now tell me I am "looking to be offended," especially when you take the side of the less reasonable position.
        vorpalhex 5y ago
        Do you really think the whole spectrum of LGBTQ identities isn't controversial? We aren't saying good or bad, we aren't assigning value, we are simply saying controversial. Like, obviously you feel you have to fight everyone if there is so much as a chance someone is attacking you - that sort of supports the argument, no? And no, my original argument was not that LGBTQ aligned folks should go back into the closet or any such nonsense as that. It was mostly that if you have hot takes on deep in-community debates (I give several examples above), maybe don't share them on twitter and disown everyone around you who disagrees. Again, read arguments in the strongest possible sense. Read the entire context.
        hedgewitch 5y ago
        So, there are two points that you've yet to address and I doubt ever will, which casts an extremely negative light on your argument: 1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole. Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though straight people have been afforded that right and freely talk about their marriages in front of people who are affected by laws outlawing their unions? Am I to believe that you're saying that we shouldn't talk about whether trans people should be allowed to change their names without gender/sex reassignment surgery, even though straight people regularly change their names, get plastic surgery, and what-have-you? There are no good answers. The very fact that you've not acknowledged that there is no good answer is the problem here. You could just accept that you're wrong, that this is offensive no matter how it is interpreted. But no, you feel an incessant need to defend yourself because you, as a straight man, couldn't possibly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues and, thus, couldn't possibly be offending people. 2) You have yet to acknowledge the fact that you could just casually throw that in there without a second thought is the problem. The fact that you didn't need to think "does LGBTQ+ really belong here?" Your very doing that contributes to anti-LGBTQ+ and "don't say gay" mentalities.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Nobody can stop you if you want to be oppressed but that is not in any way representative of LGBT.
    - hedgewitch 5y ago
      Nobody can stop you from trying to shut down arguments by telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws somehow isn't a form of oppression that is above and beyond what would be called a microaggression, but, if you did, I'd hazard a guess that you aren't part of the oppressed party and aren't qualified to speak on their behalf.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws Discussing your existence?!? Who the F said your existence can't be mentioned?!? You're really not doing your cause any good with these ever more ridiculously hysterical arguments.

nyanpasu64 5y ago

I'd be fine with either not discussing relationships in public, or openly discussing both straight and non-straight relationships. Not sure which is more likely though.

mechanical_bear 5y ago

You constructed a straw man out of his comments very effectively. I didn’t gather that he meant you can’t mention your life, significant other, etc. I read it as maybe don’t discuss the political aspects of LGBT issues, etc

hedgewitch 5y ago
If you don't understand that the problem is that detractors have made simply being LGBTQ+ a political issue, you are not qualified to have an opinion here. I'm curious what you think you mean because there is no good answer. I also wouldn't have had to comment at all if people weren't casually asking people to instate don't ask don't tell in social settings.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Remember to interpret someone's arguments in the strongest possible sense. Chastising others is great for moral superiority but it is a poor tool for discussion.
  - hedgewitch 5y ago
    You know, telling people they're acting morally superior when they're confronting the fact that people are calling aspects of their identity controversial and acting like said parts of their identity simply shouldn't be discussed in public is not a good look.
    - mechanical_bear 5y ago
      I never said aspects of your identity are controversial. You are looking to be offended here, not have a conversation.
      - hedgewitch 5y ago
        No, you didn't. The original person did. You then told me I was making a straw man by calling him out for it. You could have just as easily not commented and I could have been dealing with the original commenter. You decided to comment, defending his absurdity. You don't get to now tell me I am "looking to be offended," especially when you take the side of the less reasonable position.
        vorpalhex 5y ago
        Do you really think the whole spectrum of LGBTQ identities isn't controversial? We aren't saying good or bad, we aren't assigning value, we are simply saying controversial. Like, obviously you feel you have to fight everyone if there is so much as a chance someone is attacking you - that sort of supports the argument, no? And no, my original argument was not that LGBTQ aligned folks should go back into the closet or any such nonsense as that. It was mostly that if you have hot takes on deep in-community debates (I give several examples above), maybe don't share them on twitter and disown everyone around you who disagrees. Again, read arguments in the strongest possible sense. Read the entire context.
        hedgewitch 5y ago
        So, there are two points that you've yet to address and I doubt ever will, which casts an extremely negative light on your argument: 1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole. Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though straight people have been afforded that right and freely talk about their marriages in front of people who are affected by laws outlawing their unions? Am I to believe that you're saying that we shouldn't talk about whether trans people should be allowed to change their names without gender/sex reassignment surgery, even though straight people regularly change their names, get plastic surgery, and what-have-you? There are no good answers. The very fact that you've not acknowledged that there is no good answer is the problem here. You could just accept that you're wrong, that this is offensive no matter how it is interpreted. But no, you feel an incessant need to defend yourself because you, as a straight man, couldn't possibly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues and, thus, couldn't possibly be offending people. 2) You have yet to acknowledge the fact that you could just casually throw that in there without a second thought is the problem. The fact that you didn't need to think "does LGBTQ+ really belong here?" Your very doing that contributes to anti-LGBTQ+ and "don't say gay" mentalities.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Nobody can stop you if you want to be oppressed but that is not in any way representative of LGBT.
  - hedgewitch 5y ago
    Nobody can stop you from trying to shut down arguments by telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws somehow isn't a form of oppression that is above and beyond what would be called a microaggression, but, if you did, I'd hazard a guess that you aren't part of the oppressed party and aren't qualified to speak on their behalf.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws Discussing your existence?!? Who the F said your existence can't be mentioned?!? You're really not doing your cause any good with these ever more ridiculously hysterical arguments.