GLORIOUS OFFICIAL IWAKU ELECTION 2016 THREAD | ALL OTHER THREADS INFERIOR

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hecatoncheires

Hecatoncheires

un jour je serai de retour près de toi
Original poster
DONATING MEMBER
FOLKLORE MEMBER
9hooP0T.gif

HEY FUCKERS, I HEAR THERE'S AN ELECTION HAPPENING SOON.

So lemme get out ahead of this, before General Chat turns into Iwaku's own version of The Purge.

Y'know, more than it fucking is already.

Politics threads tend to go to hell in a hand-basket faster than you can scream "HITLER WAS RIGHT", and with this current election cycle that's never been more true. At the end of the day, we're a roleplaying forum and we really don't need politics coming into spoil everyone's nice time: this is a place folks come to for escapism, after all, so having the election cycle chase them here is less than ideal.

BUT WAIT, I'M NOT FINISHED.

At the same time, we also don't want to go laying down blanket statements about what you can and can't say on Iwaku. Goes against that whole "flexibility of speech" thing we have written down somewhere that @Jorick and @Astaroth keep yelling at me about whenever I suggest we just ban all of you and have done with it. With that in mind, we're gonna try and find ourselves a middle ground solution that allows folks to have their say without the entire forum descending into a clusterfuck of angry, bipartisan bullshit.

Again, more than it already is.

SO HEY, YOU GOBSHITES WANNA TALK ELECTION 2K16?

YOU DO IT IN THIS THREAD AND THIS THREAD ALONE.

To prevent me from rambling, lemme bullet-point how this is gonna work:
  • WE'RE KEEPING THINGS LIGHT. NO BIG RANTS ABOUT HOW HILLARY'S A FUCKING LIZARDWOMAN AND/OR HOW TRUMP IS HITLER 2.0.
  • We're keeping shit civil, too. Discussions are cool, but if you start slinging insults about (or, given how you fuckers tend to work, passive-aggressive sniping) you will get spanked.
  • Any overtly rant-like/insulting/snipey posts will get edited by our lovely security team to be more user-friendly. We will insert butterflies, rainbows and other nice suggestions so you all maybe calm the fuck down or something. You'll know they've edited a post cos it'll be all red. Like the blood of our enemies.
  • Gary Johnson is my husbando. You can't have him. He's mine.
  • Seriously. Mine.

Hopefully that clears everything up about the purpose of this thread. Now go fucking kill each other.

Or don't, actually. I think that's why I got asked to write this.
 
  • Love
  • Nice Execution!
  • Like
Reactions: determinator, Drakken, Zoidd and 32 others
Uncle Legens Legentis said:
I don't see there being any major indication that a majority of businesses would pick up that practice.
Society is more tolerant than it's ever been before. Coupled with a profit incentive, and that progression continues.
Click to expand...
Over the whole country, sure. But think on a smaller scale.

The Bible Belt? Bumfucknowhere, Georgia?

I lived in Marietta, GA, which is rich, white, christian suburbia. I got a lot of shit when I didn't dress appropriately for my sex. I would not be surprised if legislation like this made that city completely unliveable for gays, blacks, transgender people, even unmarried mothers. (Marietta isn't even Bumfuck nowhere)

There's also that glorious time in our history where Oklahoma had "Black Wall Street" where all the blacks congregated because nobody else wanted them. They were living great and doing well until... Whites decided to go in and massacre them. This might be a bit fearmongery but at this point it seems like Trump & Co. are really up for anything.

Anyway, this highlights another issue. When communities outcast people, those people cluster together in their own communities. And if those communities are communities of minorities that are widely hated, we get people starting wars in those communities when tensions are high. See: our not so great recent-history with mosques.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dervish
I'm sure everyone would like to believe that everyone else is inherently nice and the majority of people are looking out for eachother. But what actually happens is that people with minority or politically incorrect opinions simply do not share those opinions anymore. They don't actually change them.

There are plenty of racists, sexists, etc., people still out there who seem totally normal and only keep it to themselves because they know those views are frowned upon. Not every bigot broadcasts their bigotry.

This is why Trump being the face of the US is problematic (among other reasons, obviously). Trump shares this politically incorrect opinions and he is in a place of heavy influence. Not only politically, but also socially. Now these people who were previously quiet about their opinions can feel validated and go "The president of the USA has the same opinion as me!" And they find courage to share and act on their politically incorrect opinions.

Many people who you thought you knew come out of the woodwork and you come to find out that the majority of people in your area hate X or has a poor opinion of Y. They were only fake nice to you before because they had to be. Now that they don't - whether because they're more courageous due to Trump or whether they feel empowered by new legislation - they can "show their true colors" so to speak and you're screwed. (And I speak about this from experience...)

Ideally, we could just move some place that accepts us but it's possible that no one will. What is more likely though is that you won't have enough money, or even the ability to move. We still have kids that are becoming homeless because their parents threw them out when they found out they were LGBT. There are many places in the USA that are not progressive. There are some places in the USA where you are an outcast if you're not going to church every sunday.

Things have gotten so much better even in just the last 10 years. It's true. But the USA still has a long way to go and Trump & Co. are going to rewind that progress fairly quickly. A lot of the US is progressive, but not every place is. And some places may be progressive but they are run by people who are not, and those people enact regressive laws.

I'm trans (FTM). You would never know this looking at me. I'm legally male and because of where I grew up (GA) I have hidden that I am trans, even though I've finished transition for years. For fear of how people would treat me if they knew. I have trusted some people with this information (that I was born female) in discussion of where our nation is headed, and they tell me I shouldn't worry because nobody can tell I'm not male and it won't apply to me.

THIS ISN'T THE FUCKING POINT!!!

Not everybody passes, and even if I do pass, if some jerkwad found out about my birth sex I'd still be screwed anyway. And furthermore, trans people are PEOPLE, gay people are PEOPLE, non-white people are PEOPLE, PEOPLE should be treated like PEOPLE!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Hellis, Indabayou, Dervish and 1 other person
Vardoger said:
Over the whole country, sure. But think on a smaller scale.

The Bible Belt? Bumfucknowhere, Georgia?

I lived in Marietta, GA, which is rich, white, christian suburbia. I got a lot of shit when I didn't dress appropriately for my sex. I would not be surprised if legislation like this made that city completely unliveable for gays, blacks, transgender people, even unmarried mothers. (Marietta isn't even Bumfuck nowhere)

There's also that glorious time in our history where Oklahoma had "Black Wall Street" where all the blacks congregated because nobody else wanted them. They were living great and doing well until... Whites decided to go in and massacre them. This might be a bit fearmongery but at this point it seems like Trump & Co. are really up for anything.

Anyway, this highlights another issue. When communities outcast people, those people cluster together in their own communities. And if those communities are communities of minorities that are widely hated, we get people starting wars in those communities when tensions are high. See: our not so great recent-history with mosques.
Click to expand...
If anything, Trump's victory goes to show that silencing these people or forcing a charade upon them is only going to backfire. We can't rely on government to fix this internal strife (given how spectacularly it has failed), and so it's up to individuals to mend these rifts on a more personal level. As time goes on, the minority-friendly youths of today will become the workers and business owners of tomorrow. They won't care about how others define themselves. Baby Boomers are dying off. Nonetheless, I do not think people should live in fear for their opinions, no matter how hateful.

Young consumers are also significantly less inclined to partake in businesses that do discriminate. Rather than tell the bigots of the world that we'll censor them, fine them, or even lock them up, let the consequences hurt them more for their actions and less for their views. Laissez-faire, let the problem sort itself out.
 
I wish I lived in your ideal world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kagayours and Sidhe
So instead of listening to random journalists on this defence act, let's actually look at the source.
Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
Defines "discriminatory action" as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:
  • alter the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person;
  • disallow a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
  • withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person; or
  • withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.
Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.
Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.
Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.
Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.
Click to expand...
 
Seems like not only does it allow businesses to refuse to provide services to homosexual couples, but anybody who has sex outside of marriage.

The fuck is this, the 19th century?
 
MurderDeathKill said:
Just wanting to interrupt this little photo gallery to post this:
Trump demands cast of 'Hamilton' apologize for 'rude' behavior towards Pence

I personally look forward to the president doing something exceptionally stupid like getting somebody arrested because they said something he didn't like. Totally looking forward to that.
Click to expand...
Trump is kind of the king of lawsuits, he loves suing everybody for things he doesn't like them saying. I doubt him being president would change that.
 
Vardoger said:
You mean the source that was linked to in the article I posted? The same source that proves exactly what the article said it said?

What's the point of your post?
Click to expand...
Oh this is just Gwazi. Who think Sargon Of Akkad is a good source on feminism. This is how "debate" is done on the net. Call people defensive, sore losers, alarmist when their basic rights are threatened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sidhe and Greenie
Vardoger said:
You mean the source that was linked to in the article I posted? The same source that proves exactly what the article said it said?

What's the point of your post?
Click to expand...
Being honest I didn't read through the article itself to notice it did that.
I just noticed it was an article rather than the bill directly, that the person was using a fear mongering title, and figured it'd be more productive to just look at the bill directly.

I'll admit jumping the gun in assuming the Journalist didn't care to show sources. But I still think it'd be more productive to read the bill itself before taking in someone else's opinion on the bill.
 
Generally speaking, that journalist have a far better grip of legislative then you and I, seeing how that person have covered and followed this kind of stuff for year. You can't just go "It is fear mongering" because the truth of the matter is uncomfortable. It isn't fear mongering for LGBT people when you look at the new cabinet . It is the truth. It is time to try and attack every single journalist that doesn't share your pinon as "Fear mongers".
 
MurderDeathKill said:
Seems like not only does it allow businesses to refuse to provide services to homosexual couples, but anybody who has sex outside of marriage.

The fuck is this, the 19th century?
Click to expand...
It's funny, because I'm married and I could still be discriminated against if people took offense to the fact that I was pregnant when I got married. =/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back