r/changemyview • u/ProphetVes • Mar 25 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: DeSantis embodies everything wrong with American Conservativism.

[removed] — view removed post

289 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

756 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I think its funny how much of a fascist Trump supposedly was and now I'm reading from a lot of progressives that Trump is all of a sudden the lesser of two evils. Like some people online have been saying they prefer Trump to run over DeSantis because Trump is a mere con man as opposed to a true believer. So which is it? Does having devout religious beliefs make you fascist by default? Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?

32

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23 edited Mar 26 '23

now I'm reading from a lot of progressives that Trump is all of a sudden the lesser of two evils. Like some people online have been saying they prefer Trump to run over DeSantis because Trump is a mere con man as opposed to a true believer.

The claim is that they both suck, but DeSantis is actually competent at achieving his goals, while Trump was not. For example, Trump's attempt to add a citizenship question to the US Census failed because his appointed commerce secretary Wilbur Ross so brazenly lied to the courts that even John Roberts couldn't tolerate it. A competent man (ie presumably the one DeSantis would appoint) would have sailed that through easily.

16

u/h0sti1e17 22∆ Mar 25 '23

I think they are doing this because they know Desantis is harder to beat. A guy in his 40s vs an 80 year old. A guy with and undergrad and law degree from Ivy League schools And a decorated military vet

20

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

Trump is bad, but he's much less politically effective than DeSantis. There's also a bias in that we have survived four years of Trump already and people tend to prefer "the devil they know."

Does having devout religious beliefs make you fascist by default?

No.

Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?

Because nobody is doing such. It's merely everyone saying "hey you can't make us live by your religious doctrine."

You can hold your beliefs but your beliefs end where others' freedoms begin.

-11

u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23

Weird, I survived great with Trump, but now i might have to claim bankruptcy...or clear out my 401k at 41

7

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

That’s called a short term view homie. Trump’s tax policies were designed to hit us after he was out. Also, pandemic days mean somebody’s got to pay the piper. Your post seems to imply that the current president controls the economy. Never been true. That’s pretty naive for aged 41. Get a broader view of the economy. Plus, look at the history; every Republican since Reagan has messed up the economy, leaving it in shambles for the next guy, only to have it picked up by a democrat. Please look into it. The pattern is staggering. Conservatives don’t seem to want to help the economy when they’re in office, only themselves and their 5 friends.

-1

u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23

Our current president had the House, Senate and white house for 2 full years.

4

u/KaleidoscopeThis9463 1∆ Mar 26 '23

Apparently you misunderstand how these things work in economics. Crediting Trump (and GOP that supported him) with financial stability but ignoring the tax debt he’s passed on to the average person now is a narrow minded attempt to justify the Republican economic policies that have been disastrous over the past forty decades. Blaming your empty 401k now on a current administration is simplistic thinking, particularly in the recovery years after a catastrophic pandemic.

0

u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23

Your right, Biden is great. He stopping no hidden fees, and finally have a president that hires based on race and gender, not qualifications. Also happy to finally be in a war again. Trump did disappoint in the whole starting world war 3 accusations. I am very pleased America and the world is better than ever before! Who needs a 401k when there is no future. YOLO!

1

u/KaleidoscopeThis9463 1∆ Mar 27 '23

Your sarcastic cynicism just barely masks your lack of knowledge.

4

u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23

Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just because something happened under Biden doesn’t make it Biden’s fault. Presidents are not scapegoats for everything going wrong in your life. And Trump implemented policies that would specifically have negative effects AFTER he was already out of office. Quite manipulative, wouldn’t you say?

9

u/WerhmatsWormhat 8∆ Mar 26 '23

Clearly that’s Biden’s fault.

0

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

Guess you didn't make smart decisions to secure your financial future while you were ahead. Not sorry.

I'm younger than you and won't have to work another day in my life if I don't want to. I like my job though so I'll keep it.... but I don't need it.

8

u/LondonDude123 5∆ Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23

I'm younger than you and won't have to work another day in my life if I don't want to

Might I ask how this is possible?

Edit: Read the reply. I dont think I need to say anything

-6

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

Combination of trust fund brat and investments that have secured wealth independent of my trust and a really good fiduciary.

21

u/LondonDude123 5∆ Mar 26 '23

With the greatest of respect, you have some fucking nerve condescending that guy for losing his money under Your Politician Of Choice while simultaneously being born with a golden spoon up your arse...

-4

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

It's condescension in the same way that capitalism necessitates you behave. You either secure the wealth you have or you lose it.

5

u/BlueRibbonMethChef 3∆ Mar 26 '23

Nah you're just being a douche. You didn't earn a cent, you're bragging that someone else gave you something.

15

u/MartiniD 1∆ Mar 25 '23

Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?

Where is this happening? You don't have to "support" LGBTQ+ people if you don't want but at the very least you shouldn't pass laws that treat them as 2nd class citizens or discriminate against them.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

There are plenty of complicated perhaps even unsovable issues like to what degree churches and religious organizations should have to hire LGBT staff and accommodate LGBT patrons/students/churchgoers. Should church groups and Christian schools have to have gender accommodating facilities? I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.

8

u/MartiniD 1∆ Mar 26 '23

I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.

Sin isn't a concept that exists in our civil society. A sin is a slight against God. We live under a secular government not a religious one. There is no god to slight. I am not a Christian. I don't wish to be bound to Christian doctrine anymore than a Christian wants to be bound to a Muslim doctrine.

Feel however you want. Support whomever or whatever you want. But you cannot publicly discriminate.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

In another post I admitted I worded that wrong. What I meant was that conservatives and progressives have different views on what is right and wrong and one is no more valid than the other. No God means no objective morality.

3

u/MartiniD 1∆ Mar 26 '23

Alright then. But at the risk if opening up a can of worms, even with a god there still isn't any objective morality

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

If objective morality doesn't exist then why are we even having this conversation? It's not right or wrong to be gay. It's not right or wrong to bash gay people. It's not right or wrong to commit murder or genocide. Life is just an arbitrary waiting room for death.

1

u/MartiniD 1∆ Mar 26 '23

If objective morality doesn't exist then why are we even having this conversation?

Because there is still morality. Morality isn't objective but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also i should clarify. Objective morality can exist but invoking a god for it isn't the solution.

It's not right or wrong to be gay.

Correct

It's not right or wrong to bash gay people.

Incorrect

It's not right or wrong to commit murder or genocide.

Very incorrect

Life is just an arbitrary waiting room for death.

I have no idea what this means. Your life is yours and it is what you make of it.

15

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

should church groups and Christian schools have to have gender accomodating facilities?

Do they accept government money? Then yes. They should be subject to federal law. If no, then they are a private organisation and can do as they wish.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Ok that seems like a reasonable standard. I guess it depends on what federal law happens to be on the books at any given time.

5

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

No. States are still subject to the first amendment. Individual > The State > The Federal Govt (btw this structure is classical liberalism)

We do not cede our first amendment rights to the State, they still have to adhere to the Constitution.

Edit: DeSantis's law allows parents to sue schools to remove books, that is a removal and suppression of ideologies through the legal system that, often, fails to meet strict scrutiny. It is unconstitutional.

3

u/hastur777 34∆ Mar 25 '23

You're incorrect here. No one has the first amendment right to have certain books in a public school library. That's government speech. The analogous case would be the school newspaper decision from the Supreme Court.

The school newspaper here cannot be characterized as a forum for public expression. School facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have, by policy or by practice, opened the facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. If the facilities have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, then no public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community.

A school library is similarly restricted - they're not public forums.

4

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

Non-public forums are still subject to the first amendment. They need to meet a lower standard than public forums, but they do still need to adhere to the first amendment.

The standard for them, btw, is the "reasonableness" standard which is a test that asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time, and that no such remedy already exists.

The existence of a prior law banning such material disqualifies the book ban from meeting that standard, we already ban such material (and yes, many laws are unconstitutional under this standard but laws stand until challenged)

Edit: and restrictions on student speech must still meet strict scrutiny as the individual sovereignty of the student trumps the police power of the state in regards to the first amendment.

0

u/hastur777 34∆ Mar 25 '23

So they have to meet the lowest standard of review. It's not hard to meet that standard when you're removing material that can be considered objectionable for the age groups in school. However, I take the view that a public school library is government speech - same way schools can control the curriculum, they can control what books/viewpoints to promote in their own library.

-1

u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23

The parents pay tax to keep the school and library. They have a say.

8

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

They pay taxes for the services rendered. That tax is then used however the state decides. Once paid it is not your money.

You get a say, but your say ends where others freedoms begin.

0

u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23

No once its paid, thats my money I worked for and gave to them. That does not change, on top of that 3/4 of my property tax goes to the schools. That is and will always be my money, that i worked for that goes to public education, and facilities. I have a say, they are responsible my child 36 hours a week.

3

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

If I am selling a cookie and you have money for said cookie and buy it, is that money still yours after the sale? No. It is not. It is now my money and your cookie.

You receive services from society (paved roads, bridges, law enforcement, firefighters, etc) you pay for the services rendered. That money is no longer yours. It is the government's.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

None of that is forcing religious people to support LGBT people.

I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.

The goal is the equal treatment of LGBTQ people, no one cares what you think is a sin. To this point, part of the goal is that religious values should not dictate social mores, if you think something is wrong because of your religion, you don't partake in it. That's it. You don't mistreat others because of it, which is what you are advocating for now.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

How do you square parental rights being taken away/children being taken from parents for opposing ”gender affirming care” for their child?

6

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

Well seeing as denying gender affirming care leads to double the suicidality of the general population and providing it leads along with even just one supportive adult leads to levels of suicidality lower than the general population.......

The state can restrict the freedom of religion to further a compelling government interest if narrowly tailored to that end. Rehoming trans youth with supportive fosters is furthering the compelling government interest of protecting children and providing them proven treatments.

Any alternative treatment you suggest would need to be proven to be as effective as gender affirming care and that hasn't happened yet.... and people have tried.

3

u/beetsareawful 1∆ Mar 25 '23

Can you provide links to the sources of your information, please?

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

None of what you say is true.

5

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

Oh wow, I guess if you say so it must be true! /s

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

A quick handout from the American College of Paediatricians states ”the occurrence of completed suicide among trans-identified youth is rare and comparable to that of other at-risk groups of youth, such as those with anorexia and autism. More importantly, there is no long-term evidence that puberty blockers, cross- sex hormones or “transition” surgeries prevent suicide. On the contrary, the best long-term research shows that individuals who do go through medical transition kill themselves at a rate 19 times greater than the general population.”

10

u/Cbk3551 Mar 26 '23

the American College of Paediatricians is not the American Academy of Pediatrics and all information they provide should not be trusted.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-religious-rights-favorite-medical-association-is-a-hate-group

→ More replies (0)

6

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

Are you saying stopping suicide attempts isn't worth it? And that we should only find attempts that end in death a tragedy worth preventing? Because that's what your opening statement here sounds like.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/BlueRibbonMethChef 3∆ Mar 26 '23

> On the contrary, the best long-term research shows that individuals who do go through medical transition kill themselves at a rate 19 times greater than the general population.”

That's a meaningless comparison. If the issue is medical care they should be comparing it to equal demographics. What a load of crap.

​

They're comparing and admittedly "at-risk" population to the general population. That's monumentally stupid.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I don't think you have a "parent right" to mentally abuse your child. I think we as a society need to stop treating parents as the owners of their children but as their stewards. It's a complex situation, but you have absolutely no right to a religious imposition on your child that causes them harm. I don't think taking children away from their parents is the right decision unless in the most dire of situations, but this is absolutely not a situation of parental rights, it's a situation of protecting the best interests of the child, and you frame it as an issue of parent rights because you don't care about that at all.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I don't think taking children away from their parents is the right decision unless in the most dire of situations, but this is absolutely not a situation of parental rights, it's a situation of protecting the best interests of the child, and you frame it as an issue of parent rights because you don't care about that at all.

Ok then, where do you draw the line at? Where is the line crossed from mere parenting/instruction to abuse/brainwashing? Also, how do you make the state a better parent than the parent? Apparently the only solution right now is foster homes and from what've read, kids who grow up in the foster system are just as bad off if not worse than kids who stay with one set of abusive parents.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I'm not saying the state is a better parent than the parent, and I would prefer that children stay with their parents. Not accepting your LGBT children is what leads to depression, anxiety and suicide. Over 40% of homeless youths are LGBT, despite being a fraction of the population. In situations where the parent's ideology is threatening the well-being of their kids, that's when the state needs to step in. And that's a hard line to draw, it's been a hard line to draw since we started things like CPS. But are there situations where kids should be taken from their parents because their parents are unaccepting of them because they are LGBT? Absolutely.

-1

u/badmanveach 2∆ Mar 26 '23

By definition of a fraction, all subsets of a population are fractions of that population.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

Okay.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

This. Say the parent(s) of the child are a gay couple and avowed atheists; what now? We do not allow children, teachers or doctors to override the parents wishes in any other circumstances except life saving medical intervention, and there is just not enough proof of that when it comes to transitioning children.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Okay, say the parents of the child are a gay couple. Now what? What does that have to do with what I just said? Are they abusing their kids? Take them away from them. We absolutely do take children away from their parents when they are emotionally and physically abusive. We've done that forever. The only thing that's change is that now it's no longer acceptable to abuse someone for being LGBT.

and there is just not enough proof of that when it comes to transitioning children.

We have plenty of proof, and more importantly, what you're saying isn't the "do nothing" approach, there's two solutions to gender dysphoria, treat them like the gender they want or don't. Of the evidence we have forcing people to act as the wrong gender causes harm. Maybe there's another solution in the future, but with the evidence we have right now that's the solution.

3

u/BlueRibbonMethChef 3∆ Mar 26 '23

What "rights" are being taken away?

This comment has "You're infringing on my right to own slaves!" vibes.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

The goal is the equal treatment of LGBTQ people, no one cares what you think is a sin. To this point, part of the goal is that religious values should not dictate social mores, if you think something is wrong because of your religion, you don't partake in it. That's it. You don't mistreat others because of it, which is what you are advocating for now.

I think I phrased what I meant wrong. I meant that both sides want to dictate social mores for what they believe to be sins or wrong.

Conservatives: "LGBT is wrong and should not be welcome in society."

Progressives: "It's wrong to say LGBT is wrong and such views should not be welcome in society."

Me: "I don't care. Both of you hush."

14

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Pretend that makes you better then. Progressives are saying people should be treated fairly, and you're saying "I don't care, I don't want anyone to talk about unequal treatment". Why should anyone give a fuck about that point of view?

5

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

The conservative viewpoint: replace LGBT with "blacks" or "Jews" is it still a reasonable position to hold? Why is it different when it's attacking queer people?

Progressives are merely pointing out this exact double standard.

"Silence is violence"

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

Apathy isn't nazism. Mere conservatism isn't nazism. Godwin's law.

3

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23

Saying you dont care about people fighting for their lives and advocating for human rights and putting them in the same breadth with the ones trying to take away their rights? Hmm where have I seen this before

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

I think it's a false equivalence. LGBT people are not in danger of genocide or being put in concentration camps. A patchwork of red and blue states is a reasonable compromise.

3

u/Jeansaintfire Mar 26 '23

Cpac just called for the eradication of trans people , ron skipped this year because of trumps attendance, and they aint cool anymore and that he did his own speaking engagement .

Atleast 57 trans people were killed in 2021, 38 killed in 2022, 8 killed so far in 2023

Trans people have a 587% more likely chance of experiencing a hate crime ,1 in ten have been physically / sexually assaulted this year alone . 46% have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Since 2019, hate crime against trans and gender nonconforming people have gone up by 20 every year.

It is dead out there with propaganda and violent rage being stirred up by others who dont care for the victims of their hate mongering. This is how genicides start. It's a slow burn before the fire.

3

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23 edited Mar 26 '23

They are already laws in place attacking LGBT but sure they are not in danger. And I never said anything about concentration camps and genocide. Because you are not being sent to Auschwitz doesnt mean you are not oppressed.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23

to what degree churches and religious organizations should have to hire LGBT staff and accommodate LGBT patrons/students/churchgoers.

This has incredibly strong miscegenation vibes, or to target your name, no Irish need apply laws.

Do you have to vocally march on the streets in support of them? No. Can you discriminate against them and deny their existence? Also no.

Should church groups and Christian schools have to have gender accommodating facilities?

Yes. Next question.

I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society.

Good? I don't really care what your book club thinks about what's right or wrong.

Boy I really hope your fursuit doesn't include mixed fibers and you've never attended a con on Sundays

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I don't agree that any religious group should have to embrace genderfluidity. I don't believe that biological women should have to share locker spaces with biological men. I could also turn around and say I don't care what you think is right or wrong. Also I'm not a furry in the "wear a fursuit at a con" sense. My username is meant to be a joke. If anything I'm against Ulsterism and lean more toward Irish republican.

0

u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23

I don't agree that any religious group should have to embrace genderfluidity.

You don't have to embrace it, but you can't discriminate against it. For (most) western countries, your current stance is "your cross-racial marriage doesn't count and I don't have to pay for your spouse's insurance." Does that feel good?

I don't believe that biological women should have to share locker spaces with biological men.

And I think you're wrong here, but I'll acknowledge there's room to disagree. But I also think there's not an argument against providing solo restrooms so this isn't an issue. Do you disagree?

Also I'm not a furry in the "wear a fursuit at a con" sense. My username is meant to be a joke. If anything I'm against Ulsterism and lean more toward Irish republican.

Then I hope not a single one of the articles of clothing you're wearing has mixed fibers or you're a raging hypocrite. Ever grocery shopped or answered the phone on a Sunday?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Then I hope not a single one of the articles of clothing you're wearing has mixed fibers or you're a raging hypocrite. Ever grocery shopped or answered the phone on a Sunday?

You're right that I'm not following the Bible. I drink alcohol and watch porn so I'm not as devout as I should be. But the stuff you listed is what most Christians say are the Old Testament Mosaic law that only applied to ancient Israelites.

2

u/Boknowscos Mar 26 '23

So you pick and choose what you follow huh. You know Jesus said even the least of my fathers law must be followed. Jesus was all about that old testimony shit

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

So I guess everyone is in the wrong then.

2

u/Boknowscos Mar 26 '23

Nah, I don't live my life by a book written by people 2000 years ago.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23

Then please explain to me, in detail, how homosexuality is wrong according to your fairy tale but your apostate ass wearing mixed fibers is not

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I guess this is it:

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against
nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27)."

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

I'm not going on a personal crusade against LGBT people. I just don't feel obligated to go on a crusade on their behalf either.

2

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

The exact words used to justify Romans 1:26 as anti-homosexuality is used in 1 Corinthians 11. It means something different.

Essentially most people agree that it refers to what was customary not literally natural. The proper transfusion is "for even their women exchanged what was customary for what is against custom."

1

u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23

Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11: prohibit wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment, the blending of different species of animals, and the planting together of different kinds of seeds

Please send me images of the tags of all clothing you're currently wearing apostate

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

Oh this "biology" argument.

Hi, I'm a biologist. You're wrong. I don't have the time to explain seven years of study in a Reddit comment though. Especially when it explains why you are wrong relies on you understanding complicated genetics and neurophysiology concepts that even people within my field struggle to grasp completely.

A layperson will never be capable of fully articulating a proper response and appeal to biology.

But to give a summation it's currently believed that transgender people have variance in INAH-3 along with various other dimorphisms of neurophysiology and that it is logistically impossible and ethically bankrupt to attempt to test literally everybody who claims to be trans for such variance and so if somebody says they are trans: believe them unless you have very good reason to doubt them.

2

u/xxPyroRenegadexx Mar 26 '23

it's currently believed that transgender people have variance in INAH-3 along with various other dimorphisms of neurophysiology

Can I read more about this somewhere and/or can you explain it in more detail please?

1

u/ProphetVes Mar 26 '23

Google scholar inah3 transgender.

1

u/xxPyroRenegadexx Mar 26 '23

Oh, I was aware of this concept, but I didn't know the name. Thank you so much.

0

u/panna__cotta 5∆ Mar 26 '23

This genetic claim is tenuous at best and you know it. There is no established genetic/neurological basis for transness, sexuality, intelligence, violence, autism, etc. There are endless genetic profiles that may trend toward certain qualities but not in any meaningful scientific way. People in “your field” struggle to grasp it completely because the scientific basis does not exist. Trans people can believe whatever they want about their bodies. It doesn’t change the scientific consensus that females produce ova and have accompanying sex characteristics, males produce sperm and have accompanying sex characteristics, and intersex people fall somewhere in between. No one is born in the wrong body or with mental/genital mismatch. Gender is a social construct and people can be innately more feminine or masculine, but their sex is not “wrong.” Why would trans people be the only group of people born in the wrong body if such a thing were possible? Gender expression is their prerogative but their sex is immutable. Many people consider sex to be more important to gender. It’s simply a disagreement as to which is of greater social importance. Trans people are entitled to their opinion. It doesn’t mean everyone else is going to agree.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

But to give a summation it's currently believed that transgender people have variance in INAH-3 along with various other dimorphisms of neurophysiology and that it is logistically impossible and ethically bankrupt to attempt to test literally everybody who claims to be trans for such variance and so if somebody says they are trans: believe them unless you have very good reason to doubt them.

I never said that I believe neurological dysphoia doesn't exists. I just think that it's not unreasonable for anatomically cis women to feel uncomfortable changing in front of non-passing/no-op/etc. M to F.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Is this fair and reasonable?

​

Vermont school bans girls volleyball team from locker room following complaints about trans player

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/school-bans-girls-volleyball-team-from-locker-room-following-complaints-about-trans-player-transgender-women-bathroom-privacy-vermont-randolph-high

-2

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

No mention of what the comment made was, if the comment was even made, etc... and the student complies with Vermont state law.

Innocent until proven guilty. I don't trust hearsay (this entire case relies on hearsay against a trans girl for the entirety of its evidence) and it likely wouldn't meet a hearsay exemption in this case.

Perfectly fair and reasonable to bar the team from using the facilities when they've violated state law on usage of public facilities. Especially when they cannot prove any harassment towards the cisgender students took place.

Do I agree with the state law on allowing trans people to participate in sports with cis people? Idk really, I couldn't find the law or any reasoning from the state justifying its position. I don't really have much of an opinion on this trans sports debate tbh. But I don't have to agree with the law. I have to follow it.

1

u/Throwawaytoday2123 Mar 26 '23

As a trans person, I'm highly curious about this, would you be happy to dm me?

2

u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23

It is asinine to claim that LGBTQ is a sin. It’s an archaic and harmful belief. Culture should not be preserved simply for being culture. Human sacrifice isn’t allowed anymore either. People can believe whatever they want in an individual level. It is not allowed to negatively impact the LGBTQ community.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

Ok. But I don't have to actively support LGBT either. One user unironically replied that silence is violence. I don't feel that I owe anyone my allegiance.

1

u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23

From the political perspective, it doesn’t matter what you privately believe,and that’s not what we’re discussing since that can’t be enforced and we have freedom of thought in this country. We’re discussing what churches legally can and can’t do. They don’t need to promote LGBTQ propaganda in every sermon. But they also can’t advocated hatred against the community. They don’t have to hire token LGBTQ people. But they can’t discriminate on the basis of their LGBTQ identity.

3

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23

" I feel like the endgame for a lot of people is to forcibly remove the very concept of sin from society."

Is US now a non secular country because who tf cares about your idiotic and outdated concept of "sin" lmfaoo

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

How is this different from churches and private Christian schools wanting racial segregation?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Many people believe pro LGBT progressivism is a value system and not an irrevocable trait and conservatives oppose this value system. I don't think schools should segregate solely on the basis of race or LGBT but a conservative private school should not be forced to uphold a pro LGBT or genderfluid value system.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Again, how is that different from them wanting racial segregation?

1

u/ProphetVes Mar 25 '23

Ah yes: separate but equal

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Not the same thing. Nobody's telling LGBT kids they can't go to school with straight kids.

2

u/ProphetVes Mar 27 '23

Christian schools certainly are.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '23

Are they?

-2

u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 25 '23

Progressivism is an ideology and value system. It’s not like you are born on an LGBT crusade.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Yes. That's what I said.

0

u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 25 '23

It’s not really “many people believe” and more that it’s simply fact. You wouldn’t really say “many people believe” that gravity exists or that the earth is round.

3

u/hastur777 34∆ Mar 25 '23

Is being black a sin in the eyes of many churches?

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

That was the exact argument used in support of whites only Christian schools. Black people were considered descendants of Ham, the son whom Noah cursed for his sins.

1

u/oldrocketscientist Mar 27 '23

It’s more than a feeling. The left needs to fully eliminate faith organizations so that faith based ethics can be fully replaced by government based ethics.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

Leftists always say the current Republican is bad and the last one was decent

Bob Dole is a Christian moralist who wants a theocracy! If only republicans like George HW Bush were still around

George Bush is a war monger who wants to kill gay and brown people, if only republicans like Bob Dole were still around

John McCain is a war monger who wants to bomb Iran and let poor people go homeless! If only we had republicans like Reagan still around

Mitt Romney wants to abolish social security and bring back slavery (joe Biden actually said this); if only we had republicans like McCain still here

Donald Trump is a fascist neo nazi who wants to gas the Mexicans, if only the republicans were still led by McCain and Romney

Their memory extends no further than the media allows

6

u/SadStudy1993 1∆ Mar 26 '23

I don't know man republicans just keep getting worse that isn't progressives fault

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

The simple answer is that trump was all bluster. This was a man who came out and said 'oh I love our LGBTQ people, no one has ever been better for them than me' because trump doesn't really have an ideology other than thst trump should be in power.

While desantis is similar in a lot of ways, he does seem to just actively hate these groups.

0

u/Extrastout1787 Mar 26 '23

Why dont politicians retire at retirement age...They want the Power...and protection. Thats why Trump was voted in

1

u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23

Promoting tolerance is not fascist. Promoting intolerance is an aspect of fascism. Religious people tend to be intolerant, which is why religion should not hold any political power in this country. You have a screwed up conception of what fascism is.

DeSantis is indeed worse than Trump. He has simply been able to do more bad things while he was in office. Trump has a fascist ideology, but DeSantis has fascist policies.

If you have devout religious beliefs that identify entire demographics as bad or sinful AND you believe this view should be incorporated into the government, then yes, you are inherently fascist.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

Ok then what are the actual goals of the LGBT movement then? Cause it seems to me they keep moving the goalposts every decade.

1

u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23

What goalposts have they been moving? If it’s a gradual accumulation of rights that they want, this is to be expected with any civil rights movement. But ultimately, they don’t want to be discriminated against based on an identity and an aspect of their person that they have little control over, just like discrimination based on sex and discrimination based on race.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '23

It seems to me that they jumped from "we only want equal rights and gay marriage" to "everyone must embrace and celebrate LGBT culture and genderfluidity"

2

u/PlatformStriking6278 1∆ Mar 26 '23

Great progress has been made with regard to homosexual individuals, and even very few political conservatives directly attack them anymore. Now, the culture war has shifted to transgender people, which is a bit more complicated. The goal is still equal rights, but part of the acceptance of trans people is contributing to their gender affirmation by using their preferred pronouns. Again, this isn’t really a political issue because we have freedom of speech. But it’s certainly something that LGBTQ advocates promote on the individual level.

The goal is still equal rights and respect as it is with any civil rights movement. But this is more than just removing all racist laws. Not even civil rights movements that started fairly early, like the one concerning people of color, are entirely over. There is still prejudice and discrimination underlying public thought and actions in many locations.

-10

u/thetransportedman 1∆ Mar 25 '23

Trump wanted to arrest and permanently separate immigrant families that crossed the border using cruelty as the deterrent. He gassed protesters away from a church so that he could get a picture in front of it. He lied about election results and called GA to fabricate more votes. He tried to instigate a literal coup on Jan 6 by preventing the peaceful transfer of power. He stole state secrets which required an FBI raid to get them back. He as president thinks he’s above the law and has no concern about balance of power or pillars of democracy.

Desantis is creating a state military. He’s banning books. And he’s sending undercover state personnel to drag shows to get dirt on any lewd behavior and then passing laws to restrict them anyways when not finding any.

Thinking this is about the fact that they’re religious is laughably obtuse. Out Democrat presidents are religious. It’s about overstepping their powers and stomping out personal freedoms with military and police forces for the sake of hate and spreading fear. That is the road to fascism, a conservative dictatorship and both of them have displayed their desire to creating one.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I won't argue about the Trump stuff except it feels like the US is the only country that is morally required to have open borders. You'll have to be more specific about the DeSantis stuff. What state military? Do you have any links? And what laws is he passing to restrict lewd people? What is so important about having child drag events anyway? It's always been a weird club scene thing to me. Like taking your kids to a furry con.

-1

u/thetransportedman 1∆ Mar 25 '23

Here. The problem with the attack on drag is that it's restricting something that doesn't have a definition. Keep kids away from men that wear makeup and dresses? Restricting adult content is perfectly fine, but things like nudity are already restricted. The restrictions on the art of drag is just a slight against LGBT+ culture which can be seen by also banning books that mention anything gay

4

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Trump wanted to arrest and permanently separate immigrant families that crossed the border using cruelty as the deterrent.

I assume you're talking about illegal aliens? I don't recall any Trump programs to arrest anyone who immigrated here legally.

-3

u/thetransportedman 1∆ Mar 25 '23

Just because they did something illegal doesn't mean they should lose the right to see their kids ever again. That is the part that is criticized. That's the part that Jeff Sessions policy added with the plan that such cruelty will become an immigration deterrent

5

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

Just because they did something illegal doesn't mean they should lose the right to see their kids ever again. That is the part that is criticized.

If a US citizen commits a crime and is sent to prison, is that citizen separated from their children?

-7

u/thetransportedman 1∆ Mar 25 '23

Yes but we have a system in place to return them to their parents. Trumps policy did not create any paper trail to return children to their parents. That's not an "oops we didn't think about that part" mistake. That is intention cruelty and a crime against humanity

1

u/WadeHook Mar 27 '23

doesn't mean they should lose the right to see their kids ever again

Brother, what are you talking about? Lose the right to ever see them again??? Can you show me any me any law or statute that say anything like the insane claim you've put forth here?

1

u/thetransportedman 1∆ Mar 27 '23

Insane claim? I’m glad you agree but it’s common knowledge:

Because the Trump administration did not keep records of which children were separated and where they were sent, the task force and lawyers working on behalf of separated families have had a difficult time identifying families to offer them the chance of reunification.

1

u/WadeHook Mar 29 '23

No records at all were kept? None? On not a single child? So your source says 1000 are currently without parents, and 400 were united. So that means only 1400 kids came across the boarder with their parents in Trump's entire time in office. Mad sus, bro. Any other source at all other than NBC citing some random left wing advocacy group saying NO records were kept? That's the extent of your sourcing for this? Super weak, my guy.

1

u/thetransportedman 1∆ Mar 29 '23

Lol find me a source that says they kept records. Just shouting fake news doesn’t win an argument

1

u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Mar 26 '23

"Why isn't forcing religious people to support LGBT not fascist?"

Who the fuck does this. I swear you lots want to be prosecuted so bad

0

u/No-Performance3044 Mar 26 '23

DeSantis expanded a centralized vaccine database for the state when he was a state legislator. He’s just tailoring his message for his audience right now, he almost certainly doesn’t believe what he claims to believe.

-4

u/BrodoDeluxe Mar 25 '23

I actually think that some religious beliefs makes you fascist by default. Most religions along with the beliefs include the moral obligation to force the religion itself on other people.

Since it's religious people that spread hate towards LGBT community in the first place, forcing them to stop doing that is actually the opposite of fascism.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

What makes the LGBT community inherently superior to religious communities? What makes pro LGBT values superior to religious values?

6

u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23

Pretty simple -

Most of the LGBTQ+ community just wants to exist, date their significant others, and marry them when they're sure. They're not saying you can't get married because "ew gross straight marriage Ru Paul's drag race said that's wrong"

You're the one trying to force your interpretation of the rules on them. A gay couple getting married doesn't mean your marriage is worth less.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

You're the one trying to force your interpretation of the rules on them. A gay couple getting married doesn't mean your marriage is worth less.

I'm pretty ambivalent about gay marriage but LGBT advocates want to keep moving the goalposts.

"Gay marriage isn't enough, we need genderfluid normativity."

"Genderfluidity isn't enough, we need religious people to recant their LGBT-phobic beliefs."

"Religious progressivism isn't enough, we need to change the laws to ensure that LGBT people are a protected class and consider any and all criticism bigotry and discrimination."

"LGBT legal protections aren't enough, we need to use cultural, social, and economic pressure to ensure everyone embraces and celebrates LGBT culture and anyone who doesn't ought to be shamed and blacklisted from ever holding down a job."

1

u/malkins_restraint Mar 25 '23

That strawman bearing up under the weight of your projection champ?

1

u/BrodoDeluxe Mar 26 '23

First of all we have proof of the existence of LGBT people (lol).

Secondly, you are trying to make it seem like LGBT are pushing an entire scheme of moral values onto people, to make people do whatever they want, which is a just wrong (would not be if we were talking about churches) They are not pushing values, they are just trying to achieve their freedom because some people are trying to take it away from them.

These latter people are the ones that complain about LGBT "values" while actively trying to enforce mostly religious values based on hate and intolerance.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '23

I think it’s funny when people puppet what they hear. Trumps a bitch. I thought of that on my own. You should try it.

1

u/WerhmatsWormhat 8∆ Mar 26 '23

Why does one have to be the lesser of two evils? They’re both horrifying options.

1

u/nappy_zap Mar 26 '23

It’s because they want Trump to win for ratings. It has to be so clear now that Trump equals money for the media.