Sure. Trouble is most assholes don’t think they’re assholes, but instead are pretty sure it’s the other guy or gal; they’ll tell you at length how it’s not them, couldn’t be. This is the message of nearly every trial I’ve ever been involved with, as well as on topics like race, lgbt issues l, etc.
All you can do is not be complacent, check for blind spots and planks in your own eye as well as specks in the eyes of others. And if one is so inclined, one trains and prepares, to be ready.
These two sets of experiences are not mutually exclusive. The Green Book citation stated that it was virtually unknown outside the black community.
As to the bolded part, RB, I for one hope not. I, find your perspective enlightening. Those of us who are not "plugged in" to that...or any other... community "don't know what we don't know". I would choose education over ignorance.
"It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
-Maple Syrup Actual
Making an allusion to something that isn't readily apparent and then saying "trust me you'd know about it if you needed to" is a weak appeal to authority that does nothing to change my mind (if you care).
I challenge your assertion that violence is increasing against lgbt people. I say this as someone who lost two family friends to a grisly murder during 1999's "summer of hate." Back then making fun of effeminate lisps/mannerism was widely accepted in society. Sure, the most progressive would then roll their eyes, but offenders weren't chastised or disciplined as they would be today. It wasn't that unusual for gay kids to show up to school with bruises & black eyes - often from their parents. Anti-gay sentiment was so widespread, that it was even preferable to argue "gay panic" when your client killed a robbery victim.
Against that backdrop of torture and murder just 20 years ago, we are objectively seeing sooooo much less lgbt violence today. But social media + the proliferation of cell phone video has made the world seem so much smaller than it was. Today a beating in Dallas or a firing in Detroit *feels* close to home on the west coast and the availability heuristic & denominator neglect skew our perceptions of reality.
That doesn't mean we haven't seen an uptick in violence post Trump or that reports of hate crimes aren't increasing. But the macro trend is downward - and massively so!
I know more than you probably suspect, but welcome additional knowledge if you'd care to share. But I am entirely unpersuaded by "because I said so" appeals to authority. My position on antidiscrimination laws comes from an attempt to achieve as consistent & coherent of a philosophical position as I can. For me, that mostly comes down to the golden rule: "treat others as you'd like to be treated."But when you speak about anti discrimination laws not being necessary, you speak from a place of not knowing, at best.
If I, a cis male, were to try and force my way into a women's gym I would not be treating the gym owner and gym patrons as I'd like to be treated. On the flipside, if I, as the owner, allowed a male to join a women's gym I would also not be treating that male client as I'd like to be treated (I'd want no special treatment without a very compelling reason). Thus discrimination is not inherently bad but merely an occasional byproduct of the free association of free people.
Discrimination crosses the line when it systematically denies a group of people reasonable access to society's goods & services. Aimee Stephens, the trans activist fired from a funeral home for violating its dress code, was able to find another job as an autopsy technician. Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, the gay wedding activists, were able to find plenty of other bakeries willing to make their cake.
So with no widespread denial of goods, services, access, etc why do you want to forcibly remove consent from third parties? Consent is underlying the issue here: who has the right to withhold it, who has the right to demand it from others...
Last edited by 0ddl0t; 10-19-2019 at 09:53 PM.
I said the people that need these resources can find them. You don’t - do you ? Otherwise, I don’t really care that you wish to substitute your own authority, assertions, and a priori statements about maga hats for what me and mine and the orgs who try to help such people have seen. You are an outsider to these concerns, and you are not at risk.
This isn’t a court. It isn’t a classroom. I am not being paid to argue with you or educate you. I will say gay and trans panic defenses continue to be good law in over 40 states. “Jokes” about it are common among comedians, and if someone speaks out against such jokes, right now, here, today, they’re ridiculed as over sensitive. Because that’s the reality of the culture that persists today.
We aren’t going to resolve our disagreements on pistol forum, and the decisions I make, the counsel I give if asked, and the steps I take to keep myself and my loved ones safe are entirely unrelated to anything you, a stranger on the internet, say or do. All of these steps I take are evidence based. I do my best. As we all must.
I’ve said what I have to say on this topic.
Perhaps it was not your intent, but I interpret the above as:
Rather than find errors in my reasoning you're shutting down all communication and will instead quietly focus on mandating new laws to force others into compliance with your point of view because you either see mere questioning as a personal attack or me as incapable of change.
I'd counter with "a truth too delicate to question may well be false."
Of course you do. I see your points as, hey I don’t live this, never have, never will, but I don’t want lgbt people to enjoy the same anti discrimination protections other groups enjoy, and i also like pretending that most of the bad stuff is in the past. I’ve made up my mind and I’m right
I’ve pointed out several errors in your reasoning - just one being your mention of gay panic defenses as if they were a thing of the past, when they are in fact still good law in 42 / 50 states. You mention some of the people who were fired for being lgbt getting new jobs as if that ended the inquiry or settled the matter for everyone in a similar situation who can’t or incurs unsustainable losses while they look and can’t pay bills because they’re not working - that just isn’t how anti discrimination law works, nor how a justiciable case / controversy works. You know this when it comes to a gun control law like the NYS law regarding transporting firearms, but when it comes to lgbt people, nope, all is well if they get another job. Etc.
What do you think I have to gain from continuing this with you? Enlightenment from a theoretician on the sidelines? An education of a woman who has been assaulted about and discriminated against, as has her wife and many others, what risks she and those like her face? Education of an lgbt attorney on points of lgbt law ? Shall I impart a lifetime of experience in a post or series posts on pistol forum, and if I phrase things just right, you’ll have an aha moment, in which the scales will fall from your eyes? I rather doubt it. I’ve tried communicating with you privately before, and was ignored. I take that as emblematic of your actual willingness to learn and reason on these topics.
Believe and do as you think best. I will do the same.
Last edited by Medusa; 10-20-2019 at 05:45 AM.
Gotcha. It makes more sense now.
As for safe spaces in general, I agree with your stance. "Safe spaces" as a concept always strike me as a privileged clubhouse of sorts or a place to control speech you don't agree with rather than a place to avoid *real* danger. As you said, if it's real, call 911.
Chris
It does seem to me every time I read of an attack on an LBGT person and "gay panic" comes up, it's always a scenario where the victim was engaged in the sex trade or using dodgy personals sites. That strikes me as a risky behavior regardless of your orientation. I wonder what the rate of violence is for straight individuals engaged in similar activities is as a comparison.
Often times, it feels more like doing stupid things in stupid places withstupiddangerous people.
And no, I do not support those laws. At attack is an attack, regardless of the motivation or whatever mitigating factors the aggressor might think they have.
Chris
There are reasons why certain people engage in sex work, and not always because they are stupid or morally dissolute. As you say, you shouldn’t be able to beat a murder rap by invoking lgbt panic. But it’s still a defense that’s still out there. The lack of protections for sex workers, and the reasons for that lack of protection, is another topic, but I support legalization.
Most cases you read about are sensational or sordid. Sometimes it becomes sensational and viewed as sordid simply because an lgbt person is involved. Usually the reporting is disrespectful as well, not perhaps intentionally, but because respect isn’t even a concern. But there are also many cases not widely known or reported.