Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't know, though. An angry guy getting angrier is kind of what angry guys do, so fk 'em.

I think it's good the younger generation(s) are growing up in a world where tolerance is displayed. Especially if they're being raised in a bigoted home where LGBTQ is bad or something. Crosswalks and such are a simple way to broadcast tolerance. I like that my kids have been raised in a world with pride flags. I think the first pride crosswalk we saw was in Banff and we all thought it was pretty cool. It's nice to have public policies and displays that are inviting to everyone.

But “F” them, and then also asking why are these people getting more vocale contradicts itself . This is exactly why . Because angry people will be angry , and these things make them more angry

So are we agreeing why people are becoming more “angry”? So what do you or anyone want changed ? The younger generation is more accepting . The angry people will stay angry . And we’ll continue to support and change the young people but understand the angry people will stay angry

The reality is one will lead to the other . So just ignore the angry people unless they break the law

But at some point pushing the boundaries of equality vs “pride/awarness” starts pushing more and more people to a vocale minority and harder to ignore

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But “F” them, and then also asking why are these people getting more vocale contradicts itself . This is exactly why . Because angry people will be angry , and these things make them more angry

So are we agreeing why people are becoming more “angry”? So what do you or anyone want changed ? The younger generation is more accepting . The angry people will stay angry . And we’ll continue to support and change the young people but understand the angry people will stay angry

The reality is one will lead to the other . So just ignore the angry people unless they break the law

But at some point pushing the boundaries of equality vs “pride/awarness” starts pushing more and more people to a vocale minority and harder to ignore

Haha, I'm not catering to some angry moron's stupid feelings. Seriously, you have to bulldoze morons; not sit them down and hear them froth. Just keep pushing them out of the way.

Ultimately, a conservative is just somebody who like things the way they are and is unconcerned with how the status quo affects people who are not flourishing in it. It's a flawed worldview. If we're not progressing, we're stagnating (or even moving backwards). You cannot let boat anchor-style thinkers dictate what we do. So yeah, fk 'em.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I posted this in the Alberta thread, but it fits here too, speaking of small town homophobes.

Residents to vote on bylaw that would force Alberta town to remove its Pride crosswalk
Westlock could be 1st town in province to lose rainbow crossing, acting mayor says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ylaw-1.7049801

The rainbow crosswalk is the only piece of town infrastructure that would violate the proposed bylaw, he said. If the bylaw passes, the town would be required to remove it.

"It is a direct response to the rainbow crosswalk," he said. "These two matters are not isolated; they are connected."

Bakker submitted her petition to the town at the end of September. It was formally verified on Oct. 30. Its contents were then formulated into the wording for a bylaw, which was presented to council for first reading on Nov. 27.

Councillors said Bakker's petition targets a minority group.

"In my opinion, this is lipstick on bigotry," Coun. Laura Morie said at the Nov. 27 meeting.

This makes me want to privately fund a study that conveniently concludes that rainbow crosswalks meaningfully decrease pedestrian deaths and injuries vs. the alternatives, and then lobby to get the Alberta Traffic and Safety Act updated accordingly so they're required everywhere.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You really can’t name any examples of a law or policy you’d like to see changed?

I did. All of them. Everywhere. Even the ones people are thinking about making. Get rid of those, too.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I am not in the middle. I believe these groups should have every right afforded to every other Canadian. I believe anyone who commits a crime against a person of these groups should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I think the protests are rediculous, abhorrent and any other adjective we want to use.

But I also realize people will hate other people - and within the law can do what they want. People hate other people for many stupid reasons. If they are not breaking the law other then disassociating with these people what do you want done?

It has been asked many times in this thread- But what do you actually want to change? Other then wishing "People would be nicer?/Not ignorant"

Colored crosswalks, story time, etc doesn't change people's minds (In fact it probably adds to their anger) -

These also aren't things, and I quote, that contribute too "you either believe LGBTQ people should be able to live their lives just the same as anyone else without discrimination, or you don’t"

So what do you think Canada needs to do differently? Other then removes freedom of speech from people who don't like this community? Because that is the only way to actually silence a person. Make it criminal to express that opinion.

Why does someone owe you a list of Canada-specific laws and policies before you validate their experiences and concerns with the anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies around the world?

Why do you think anyone is even seeking your validation in the first place?

And why do you think rainbow crosswalks or story time have anything to do with changing anyone’s mind? Is that what you believe the purpose of story time and crosswalks are? Because I have news, my man: they’re for telling stories and crossing the street.

[you&me]

I feel like some of the questions asking for specific changes should be made, have been asked in good faith and seem reasonable in order to qualify the feelings of those affected and quantify what can be done.

It seems odd that the same posters that are often so quick to dismiss the "feelings" and "lived experience" of those that have expressed discomfort with the situation in and around the C-Train stations are the same to now dismiss anyone asking to quantify the changes that would improve the lives of the LGBTQ+ community.

Soooo... are we cool with wanting to change "everything, all of it" for the reason of "just 'cause" in all situations that someone feels vulnerable, or just some times?

[MoneyGuy]

28.6% turnout is not atypical. In smaller communities it’s generally around 30+%.

Cue the conversation about compulsory voting, which is a bad idea.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

This makes me want to privately fund a study that conveniently concludes that rainbow crosswalks meaningfully decrease pedestrian deaths and injuries vs. the alternatives, and then lobby to get the Alberta Traffic and Safety Act updated accordingly so they're required everywhere.

Here you go!

http://library.tac-atc.ca/publicatio...8002023N55.pdf

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Love to have strangers on the internet tell me I have nothing to worry despite my lived experience.

Who has said you have nothing to worry about?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by you&me

I feel like some of the questions asking for specific changes should be made, have been asked in good faith and seem reasonable in order to qualify the feelings of those affected and quantify what can be done.

It seems odd that the same posters that are often so quick to dismiss the "feelings" and "lived experience" of those that have expressed discomfort with the situation in and around the C-Train stations are the same to now dismiss anyone asking to quantify the changes that would improve the lives of the LGBTQ+ community.

Soooo... are we cool with wanting to change "everything, all of it" for the reason of "just 'cause" in all situations that someone feels vulnerable, or just some times?

It’s bad faith when multiple examples have been brought up, the thread is actually based on one of the examples, it’s in the first post, and the people asking have weighed in on the same issues they’re now asking for proof of the very existence of in their multiple-year posting history. Bad faith questions get flippant responses. And it’s fair to question how much effort people owe others who ask for things just to pick them apart.

But sure, let’s talk about the c-train. Who are you referring to? What would you like to change? Please list every law and policy you think should be changed to solve people feeling uncomfortable on the train so I can validate your feelings and quantify what I, guy on the internet, will do to solve it, which is absolutely something I will do and not something I will ask for again in 6-12 months when the topic re-appears.

[blender]

For what it's worth, I feel that speaking up and speaking out against bad faith protest or discrimination is a valuable contribution. I certainly feel that there are people who take their lead from my actions; my kids, my nephew, my staff and co-workers.
The counter-protest in Kamloops I referenced earlier is another example of a non-policy action that can make a difference.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by you&me

I feel like some of the questions asking for specific changes should be made, have been asked in good faith and seem reasonable in order to qualify the feelings of those affected and quantify what can be done.

It seems odd that the same posters that are often so quick to dismiss the "feelings" and "lived experience" of those that have expressed discomfort with the situation in and around the C-Train stations are the same to now dismiss anyone asking to quantify the changes that would improve the lives of the LGBTQ+ community.

Soooo... are we cool with wanting to change "everything, all of it" for the reason of "just 'cause" in all situations that someone feels vulnerable, or just some times?

This is just textbook whataboutism. Do you actually have anything to contribute to this discussion?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Here you go!

http://library.tac-atc.ca/publicatio...8002023N55.pdf

Here’s another one.

https://assets.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites...fety-Study.pdf

[you&me]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is just textbook whataboutism. Do you actually have anything to contribute to this discussion?

I actually don't have anything to contribute, and was only reading the thread in hopes of gaining some perspective. Some good-faith posters have asked some reasonable, seemingly genuine questions about what they specifically could do, or what more broadly could be done, and the responses amounted to "All of it. Everywhere".

I mean, I don't think Cliff's question was in bad faith; what laws or policies need to be changed? If no one can point to any laws or policies that need to change and it just boils down to bigots being ####ers, short of waiting for the old ####s to die off, how does that change? To be fair, your reply to him was engaging but a little vague - how exactly do "areas such as health care and housing often underserve(sic) the queer (especially trans) community", and what changes could be made to address that?

And you're right, it was a whataboutism. I didn't mean to take anything away from any of the posters here, but you have to appreciate it's a little difficult to swallow that in some cases, the "lived experience" anecdotes seem to have to be taken at face value, yet in other instances, ridiculed as disingenuous, or fear-mongering. To be clear, I think anyone with a different lived experience deserves to have their opinion considered valid, especially when it comes to things like feelings of personal safety.

[CliffFletcher]

The only policy changes put forward have been removing the ban on donating sperm, and preferential treatment in public housing.

It seems pretty clear that the discrimination people with non-standard sexuality still suffer from in Canada is outside the scope of public policy. Violence and hate speech are against the law, and those laws are enforced. Yes, they’re still broken. But that’s true of other targeted identities and individuals. Anti-semitism has been illegal for decades, but people still deface synagogues and threaten Jews.

So we’re down to the level of attitudes and unwanted speech. And if you look around the world, the only countries where the state can suppress unwanted attitudes and speech are states where people with non-standard sexuality don’t have any rights in the first place. Every society liberal enough to tolerate minority identities also has broad protections for unpopular speech and expression. That’s not a coincidence - it’s the way liberalism works.

It’s up to those of us who aren’t bigots (which thankfully in Canada today is the great majority) to use our social persuasion to marginalize those who are. As Sliver said, setting an example to those around us. There will still be miserable losers and religious fanatics who carry out hateful speech and deeds. When they do, we should ensure they’re subject to the the full force of the law.

[Fuzz]

So you are just gonna ignore my post about the laws forcing teachers to out kids?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you are just gonna ignore my post about the laws forcing teachers to out kids?

It has to be Canadian nation-specific, it can’t come from the provincial level nor be anything included in any other country.

It’s called good faith Fuzz, look it up. We can’t go around suppressing speech, which nobody has asked for.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by you&me

I actually don't have anything to contribute, and was only reading the thread in hopes of gaining some perspective. Some good-faith posters have asked some reasonable, seemingly genuine questions about what they specifically could do, or what more broadly could be done, and the responses amounted to "All of it. Everywhere".

I mean, I don't think Cliff's question was in bad faith; what laws or policies need to be changed? If no one can point to any laws or policies that need to change and it just boils down to bigots being ####ers, short of waiting for the old ####s to die off, how does that change? To be fair, your reply to him was engaging but a little vague - how exactly do "areas such as health care and housing often underserve(sic) the queer (especially trans) community", and what changes could be made to address that?

And you're right, it was a whataboutism. I didn't mean to take anything away from any of the posters here, but you have to appreciate it's a little difficult to swallow that in some cases, the "lived experience" anecdotes seem to have to be taken at face value, yet in other instances, ridiculed as disingenuous, or fear-mongering. To be clear, I think anyone with a different lived experience deserves to have their opinion considered valid, especially when it comes to things like feelings of personal safety.

Nobody owes you perspective. If you genuinely wanted to gain any, you could’ve actually read the thread and you would have come up with multiple answers to the question (considering even “good faith Cliff” came up with one without having it repeated to him). You could have read the first post, or done even minimal research.

Instead you narrowed in on one flippant answer from someone tired of answering the same question one hundred times to people who already know the answer, people like yourself who treat it more as some argumentative challenge where they can flex random whataboutisms, argue against ridiculous strawmen, or do basically anything they can do avoid actually gaining perspective.

You’re not here to listen or gain anything, so why pretend?

Looks up the resolutions around “parental rights” the UCP have passed at the last two AGMs. Look up the other what’s happening in other provinces like Saskatchewan. Look up the hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills in the US.

Reducing it down to just anecdotes about “lived experience” is just evidence that you don’t actually care and are, yourself, arguing in bad faith.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody owes you perspective. If you genuinely wanted to gain any, you could’ve actually read the thread and you would have come up with multiple answers to the question (considering even “good faith Cliff” came up with one without having it repeated to him). You could have read the first post, or done even minimal research.

Instead you narrowed in on one flippant answer from someone tired of answering the same question one hundred times to people who already know the answer, people like yourself who treat it more as some argumentative challenge where they can flex random whataboutisms, argue against ridiculous strawmen, or do basically anything they can do avoid actually gaining perspective.

You’re not here to listen or gain anything, so why pretend?

FWIW, I didn't feel owed any perspective. I was even going to write something to make that clear, but didn't. Now I wish I had.

I'll re-read the thread.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Looks up the resolutions around “parental rights” the UCP have passed at the last two AGMs. Look up the other what’s happening in other provinces like Saskatchewan. Look up the hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills in the US.

Reducing it down to just anecdotes about “lived experience” is just evidence that you don’t actually care and are, yourself, arguing in bad faith.

Appreciate the direction on the search. Here's a link to a CBC article for those interested.

A relevant quote (context is this is from the UCP's AGM in November 2023):

Attendees at this weekend's AGM passed a non-binding resolution that would require the written consent of parents whenever a student under 16 wants to change their name or pronouns at a school.

I couldn't get a lot more out of that article as it focused on a myriad of the UCP's Fox News-influenced gripes. This Edmonton Journal article from November 3, 2023 narrows in a bit more on our thread topic:

Members of Alberta’s ruling United Conservative Party approved a resolution calling for a requirement that teachers, schools and school boards get written consent from parents before using chosen names and pronouns of students Saturday.

It was one of 30 policy proposals put to a vote at the UCP’s annual general meeting in Calgary. Almost 3,800 people gathered at the BMO Centre — the largest provincial party meeting in Alberta’s 118-year history, UCP leader and Premier Danielle Smith said.

Approval from members is non-binding on the government, and doesn’t guarantee the ideas will translate into legislation.

...

However, speaking to reporters, Smith was non-committal about bringing forward legislation like that seen in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick that will require teachers and schools to get parental consent before allowing students under the age of 16 to change their names or pronouns.

So, yeah, conservatives continue to disappoint and it's mind-boggling trying to understand their perspective. These are not well-intentioned people promoting these agendas.

I think it boils down to a difference in the mind of a left-leaning person versus the mind of a right-leaning person. Right-leaning people clearly have a lower capacity for empathy. And why are they so adamant about inserting their lack of tolerance into situations where people are trying to advocate for tolerance? I don't get it. Why can't they understand such an easy-to-envision scenario: a young person is closeted at home because they're being raised in a bigoted family, but they can let their guard down at school and be themselves. If my son wanted to start transitioning away from my bigoted house where I rail against gay people all the time into a more genuine version of himself at school with his peers, why would a conservative person want to sabotage that for him? What do they get out of that? Why do they want to insert themselves into his very personal journey AND in a way that has no upside for him - it could only harm him.

It's so back asswards.

Anyway, I don't expect Pepsi or anybody else to need to hold my hand through any of this. I know you have your own life, stresses and struggles to navigate and you are under no obligation whatsoever to steer me through mine; however, I will keep my ears open as to what the LGBTQ community does expect out of a guy like me. Obviously there isn't enough time in the day for me to take up everyone's cause, but I want to be sure I'm at the very least doing better than just "neutral" on these important issues. I didn't vote for UCP because of their stance on this issue and others like it, but that's pretty bare minimum IMO. Only dopes, morons and #######s voted UCP, so it's a pretty low bar to clear and I like to aim a little higher than that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It seems pretty clear that the discrimination people with non-standard sexuality still suffer from in Canada is outside the scope of public policy.

This is incorrect. In B.C., the government has mandated that development of all public policy take into account GBA+ and Indigenous-related analysis.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

FWIW, I didn't feel owed any perspective. I was even going to write something to make that clear, but didn't. Now I wish I had.

You’ve always approached the topic in a genuine way and always shown you actually consider different perspectives, even if you didn’t agree with them, so it’s not something you needed to make clear. You’re appreciated.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Anyway, I don't expect Pepsi or anybody else to need to hold my hand through any of this. I know you have your own life, stresses and struggles to navigate and you are under no obligation whatsoever to steer me through mine; however, I will keep my ears open as to what the LGBTQ community does expect out of a guy like me. Obviously there isn't enough time in the day for me to take up everyone's cause, but I want to be sure I'm at the very least doing better than just "neutral" on these important issues. I didn't vote for UCP because of their stance on this issue and others like it, but that's pretty bare minimum IMO. Only dopes, morons and #######s voted UCP, so it's a pretty low bar to clear and I like to aim a little higher than that.

Just to be clear, nobody expects anything of you other than treat LGBTQ people like you would treat anyone else and, best I can tell, you do that.

And there’s the whole “if you see something, say something” as being the object of someone else’s hate in public is a very isolating, anxiety-inducing experience, so having another stranger there to speak up with you is great.

But, mostly, it would be nice if people just didn’t see it as some political agenda or thought experiment to engage with every time the topic comes up. Like, here’s some of the types of comments from people who “support” LGBTQ people:

- It’s not your right not to be hated
- Some people suck
- Both sides need to meet in the middle
- Jews are victims of hate crimes too
- We can’t legally restrict speech or someone will do it to you
- You don’t care when people feel uncomfortable on the train, so…
- Life is better every day!
etc.

None of this is helpful. And, not that we’re going to solve anything, but at least there’s a lot of posters who don’t feel the need to dismiss, diminish, or mansplain every concern while engaging in constant whataboutisms or arguing against points that nobody brought up. The fact that there’s any need to clarify that “I understand being hated is not a right” or “I do not wish to limit free speech” when neither of those things were even suggested in the first place shows the intent behind the people arguing against them. Misdirect, misrepresent.

It comes back to a previous post I made. These are all just efforts to make the problems seem abstract and unsolvable. “If you don’t give me a list, there must be no list, I guess we’ll just have to stand against bigotry like we always do.” The thing is, when YOU talk about standing against bigotry, you mean it, because I’ve seen you interject and actually say something when you see something.

Cliff and guys like him, on the other hand (and I know you like him), doesn’t. Despite the very moving “we must stand up against bigotry!” platitude, he has:
- argued against gender-affirming care
- argued with people concerned over anti-LGBTQ bills in the American politics thread (and then pretended he couldn’t name one anywhere here)
- shared anti-trans catholic mom blogs and tried to pass them off as scientific papers
- never stood up to bigotry here, possibly the easiest platform to do so on (and not just in situations where he could have missed in, but in threads where he was an active participant, defended the right to share the bigoted opinion, or even criticized people for using “bigot” as a label)

Last time he was confronted with the fact that he never confronts far right beliefs, he said he didn’t see any value in being one of the people to stand up against it.

People don’t need to be given a list of laws and policies worldwide before they “gain perspective,” change behaviours, or take action. And who is going to believe they will when the type of people demanding it can’t even raise a finger to shut down someone making fun of pronouns.