You're viewing a single thread.
My dad hated Reagan but he was sad when he shot. As a union worker, he voted democrat but didn’t want to see anyone murdered.
It’d be nice to get back to that level of civility where we can disagree and not cheer the death of others.
It'd be nice to get back to that level of civility where we can disagree and not cheer the death of other.
Thick irony when talking about the guy who quite literally cheered as AIDS wreaked havoc on gay people
You have a cote for when Reagan cheered ? So far nobody can produce one.
guys.
Guys.
GUYS!
Reagan didn't literally text me the party popper emoji when freddie mercury died so he must be a friend to the lgbt spectrum
Ah the straw man argument. Well played.
you've been provided evidence of reagan's attitude on the aids pandemic
you just haven't addressed it because it's easier to pretend it hasn't been provided than confront the fact that gop daddy might not have been the second coming of christ
The claim is he cheered.
His attitude was indifference. Most Americans didn’t care gay people were dying.
It’s the same attitude you saw with monkey pox. As long as the gay people were impacted. Most people didn’t care.
we could argue until we were both blue in the face and your position would still be that because he didn't literally crack out a fortnite dance that it doesn't really count as cheering and that therefore he was as sympathetic as it was possible to be
the fact is he abused his position to cause more gay people afflicted by HIV to die than had to, and entirely because it suited him to do so
Words have meanings. I get it’s easy to throw a slur at someone but I don’t make up lies to dehumanize people. It’s that simple.
please could you be specific about the slur that was thrown at mr president reagan?
Taps temple Trickle down slurnomics
Reagan is a slur.
Taps temple Trickle down slurnomics
I don't think “He was just indifferent towards the death of entire sectors of the population based on their sexual identity” is the solid refutation you think it is
"Cheered" doesn't necessarily mean getting up and doing a cheerleader dance while yelling. It can also mean encouraged.
He was in a position of power to ease the suffering of victims of a pandemic. He didn't act until he couldn't avoid it anymore. It doesn't matter if his intent was apathy or hatred. His actions are what matters and for the leader of a nation to refuse to act on a public health crisis is abhorrent and inexcusable behavior.
Permanently Deleted
The distribution of power in the US is top-down. As the head of state, he was responsible for either instituting or delegating the policy and procedures of dealing with the aids pandemic. This ranges from healthcare to public outreach. He hired his cabinet, he had tremendous power to sway and inform public sentiment. He was one of the most popular candidates in the history of the US. He won 49 states in his re-election. The ignorance and homophobia that exploded in this time could have been mitigated to a large degree.
You're correct on saying it was mishandled on many levels. Those levels were all largely subordinate to Reagan's cabinet. The director of the CDC is appointed by the president. He could've.influenced how aids was researched, treated, spread, and traced. The responsibility for the poor treatment of aids falls squarely on Reagan's shoulders
I don't disagree with that at all. I think that is very well stated in fact.
Flip side, it would be real nice if the regressive right hadn't systematically assassinated every left leaning leader through the 70s, and then used public policy to murder thousands of other "undesirables," and then come in and tone police and try to use civility to circumvent criticism.
How many deaths does Reagan get to cause before it exceeds "Agree to disagree" territory?
We can disagree if Reagan was good or bad without wishing death on people. To me that just shows what type of person you are if you cheer the death of people.
While I may not shed a tear when certain people die, I never wish death on anyone. It what keeps us human.
I mean... Reagan not only cheered on the death of LGBTQ+ people, he actively caused many of those deaths because of his policy decisions during the AIDS crisis.
Civility is out the window. But it was Reagan who threw it.
You hate a cite where Reagan cheered the deaths on gay people? I grew up during Reagan and I don’t remember that.
His administration, and his press secretary, used to refer to AIDS as "the gay plague" that only affected "fairies". And because it only affected the undesirables, they dragged their feet on addressing the issue. Reagan's actions were genocidal.
You said Regan cheered. Where did Reagan cheer?
You’re citing an asinine statement that his press secretary said but not cheering from Reagan or a statement from Reagan.
Can you cite where Reagan cheered ?
Pedantic little wanker, aren't you?
Not at all. It’s a common myth that people recite but can never backup. I don’t remember Reagan ever cheering about gay people dying.
He also didn’t go out of his way to help gay people even though he was friends with several. Most were not openly gay but it wasn’t a secret. Working in Hollywood, Reagan knew many.
excuse me until i receive photographic evidence of reagan literally cumming in his pants as a white house aide whispers in his ear about deaths that he's caused i'm not going to accept any possibility that he was anti lgbt
I showed you evidence that his administration's official position was that it was fine for LGBTQ+ people to die of AIDS. Quotes from his press secretary, the official who speaks on the administration's behalf. Audio recordings of the room, which included Reagan, erupting into laughter when talking about gay people dying.
I gave you more than enough evidence that he supported the death of LGBTQ+ people.
Your argument is insufferably pedantic.
No 'sis-sis-boom-rah' from Reagan, 0/10, evidence insufficient /s
You said Reagan cheered. Yet, that isn’t at all what happened.
Not they didn’t say it was ok they died. They said it was contained to the gay population. We didn’t have any good treatments for it at the time. You’re trying to twist things into something that was not said.
It was originally called grid for because they thought it was a gay disease.
Faucci was heavily involved and he’s the one who rejected most the experimental treatment options.
Why I’m glad he retired. The man has done enough damage.
The aids epidemic was a scary time to grow up but I don’t once remember anyone cheering over it. People were scared. People that caught hiv were Ostracized from society.
I never wish death on anyone. It what keeps us human.
So, you wouldn't wish death on, say, Hitler? Would you say those that did in WW2 were no longer human?
Hey! Say what you want about Hitler, but he did kill Hitler. Show some respect!!!!1!!
Hitler took away the greatest prize of WWII so Russia could not have it and frankly that's a monumental disgrace that he did that
The title of "the guy who killed Hitler" is now a moot reward
No, I would wish for his rule to be ended.
I find that a fundamentally ridiculous point of view, that human life is something so valuable that, paradoxically, no amount of human lives ended could ever justify wishing death on someone, but props for consistency, I guess.
I choose not to dehumanize people.
If Hitler had been captured, what would killing him have done? I am against the death penalty as well.
Just wish for a solution to the problem. There is no reason to celebrate the death. Just my opinion.
I choose not to dehumanize people.
That presumes that wishing for someone's death dehumanizes them.
If Hitler had been captured, what would killing him have done? I am against the death penalty as well.
Created an example and a precedent that rulership is not a shield against punishment? Removed a vile human being from existence? Avenged the literal millions of helpless innocents he ordered slaughtered?
Just wish for a solution to the problem,
Death is often a viable solution. Oftentimes more viable than the alternatives.
All other options having failed, sometimes that means they're no longer breathing.
I just love (/s) how tone is policed harder than literal stochastic terrorism from the right.
They can tolerate killing people, but they draw the line at uncivil words!
(Unless of course those uncivil words are said towards the people being killed, then they conveniently didn't hear them.)
No, I would wish for his rule to be ended.
Hard to rule when you are dead. Thats probably the reason why people cheer and not for the death itself.
We can as soon as "the other side" stops calling for our extermination.
Nobody is calling for you extermination unless you’re convicted of the death penalty which I’m against as well
Idk how to take "Transgenderism must be eradicated" other than as a statement of extermination or destruction of an identity as their goal.
Who said that?
Michael Knowles is responsible for that quote. However it's a very common mainstream right wing tactic to say things in the same spirit of "transgenderism must be eradicated" stopping just shy of blatant calls to violence or genocide. Here's a full breakdown of this tactic using this exact quote. Here's what it looks like when you take this line of reasoning to it's full conclusion. Here's what genocide actually means since it's often just thought to be mass murder, which is inaccurate. Here's an example of a US state seeking to enable a form of trans genocide. Here's a breakdown of 37 US states taking steps towards trans genocide. Here's an example of Jordan Peterson engaging in blood libel a tactic largely used against Jews that has been applied to other marginalized groups to dehumanize them. A tactic popular among Nazis. There's plenty of examples of right wing pundits and politicians making thinly veiled endorsements of trans genocide out there if you look for them and are willing to recognize their dog-whistling for what it is
Trans people do not find your definition of genocide and not a single bill is suggesting genocide.
Can you point to a specific bill you have an issue with? Most deal with children and hormones. That’s wildly unpopular with the voters and I suspect that’s what driving the bills.
What elected politician is running on the platform of killing the trans people?
I am not sure what Peterson or Knowles’s have to do with anything. Peterson isn’t even American and Knowles is a shock journalist from what I can tell. His job is to rile people up and it appears to have worked in your case.
Trans people don't find? Fit? I'm assuming fit. cultural genocide refers to the erasure of a groups cultural identity. Which absolutely fits their current situation.
I never said they were currently victims of genocide, but we are not far off from it at all. The bills regarding children and hormones are to cause enforced detransitioning. If you're broader with your definition of genocide, and there's good reason to be; these bills if passed and enforced, could reasonably be considered acts of genocide.
SB 254 was the bill from Florida I linked in my above comment was an example of the more rigid definition of genocide. It would allow children to be forcibly moved to Florida into the custody of their parent who lives there. A state that recently banned gender affirming care (hormones), relaxed death penalty restrictions, and a separate bill that allows for the death penalty of child sexual assault. An act thag the right wing is more than happy to accuse trans people of.
Just because it isn't happening right now doesn't mean it isn't a serious threat to a very marginalized community. If you'd read that bit about dog-whistling or watched the video linked on Michael Knowles, you'd know that politicians dont have to say the quiet part out loud. They're able to communicate their position through coded language and apeals to the more extremist demographics in their party. Desantis is running almost exclusively on an "anti-woke" platform. A part of that platform is pushing anti-trans sentiment and legislation. Trump has included gutting trans rights as a part of his platform. Their intent is clear.
Peterson and Knowles both have a clear and obvious effect on political discourse in the US. Particularly about things like LGBT rights, racism, misogyny and plenty of other hot button topics right now. Their part in all of this is obvious
Yes, fit. Trans is not a culture. The culture is Estonian, Jewish, etc.
No, we don't need to go broader with the definition, as words are already defined. The word bigoted is the proper word.
Yes, voters want children not to be subjected to hormones. That doesn't make it genocide as trans is neither a race, religion, etc.
You may not want to cite child rape as your tie to trans gender rights. The two are not connected at all unless I am missing something in the bill. While I am against the death penalty, there are no ties to child rape and trans gender people. So what am I missing or how does it relate to the topic?
You keep citing cases involving preventing children from transitioning. That isn't a sign that adults would be cut off from care. Two different issues and neither is genocide.
Voters are asking politicians to stop children from transitioning. As such they are taking action on it.
I don't really have a strong opinion on the topic. My best friend is trans and it took her til the age of 60 to figure it out. If someone tried to ban her getting hormones, I would vote against it. Children are a different story and I am staying out of the debate.
I'm not sure if you're purposefully ignoring or just ignorant to the research that has demonstrated that having access to gender reaffirming care significantly reduces risk of suicide in kids and teens. By banning these treatments, right wing legislatures are directly responsible for a rise in trans people dying.
Maybe you should read when I said I am not going to talk about children. As such I have not stated an opinion except the laws are not genocide. Trans people do not fit the definition of genocide. Voters can vote how they please and it's up to the courts to determine the outcome. I do not support any bans against adults. They should be free to do as they please as long as it is legal and consensual.
Culture: the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.
LGBT people are a social group. They have a distinct culture and history. Not knowing this is just ignorance on your part.
When a complex topic such as genocide is brought up, the context informs how it is defined in the conversation. Language is fluid and words have different definitions depending on their usage.
Banning gender affirming care and forcing detransitioning is a form of, or precursor to, genocide depending on your definition. As mentioned earlier, LGBT people are a social group with a distinct culture and history.
I'm not.tying child rape to trans rights. I said in literally the next sentence that the right accuses trans people of being groomers and pedophiles. All other things from that paragraph taken into consideration shows that the right could easily use and manipulate our already unjust and corrupt criminal system to justify the death penalty for trans people. Florida is a strong case for the rights attempts at genocide.
A lot of the cases cited would affect children and adults alike. You shifted the focus to children and I responded to that. The Florida laws affected gender affirming care for adults too, for example.
Most americans do not support anti trans legislation.
If you're voting republican, you're voting against your friend and you support genocide, whether you accept it or not. I'm not going to dickride democrats but they're at the very least not trying to push this garbage
They are a social group. They are not a cultural group as used in the definition of 1948. That is stretching for dramatic effect and weakens the argument. Either way, nobody is suggesting we round up trans people and mass execute them, and you just look silly claiming that.
I don't know who you think is accusing trans people of raping children. That is a legal matter; you should NOT try to tie the two together. You're citing a law that allows the death penalty for raping children, then stating it's an attack on trans people. It is not. While I am against the death penalty, the two should never be linked. Personally, I would not support the death penalty for child rapists as I don't support the death penalty. I think it is vengeance and not justice.
Since you like the daily caller, 80% of voters. That is a huge margin.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-nearly-80-of-voters-oppose-transgender-procedures-on-minors
I vote Republican, and no, I am not voting against my friend. The bills are against transitioning children and not adults. Trump supported transgender people before and while he was in office, and I has never expressed stopping adults from transitioning. She is 60 years old and the VA pays for her hormones as a veteran. As a veteran, If they tried to pull her support I would write my congress person.
Hello, Trolley
Well hello, Trolley
It’s so nice to have you back where you belong…I think it’s fine to wish that no one has to die, ever. It’s expected to wish that no one ever gets murdered, or eaten by wild tigers, or starves to death in the midst of plenty.
You can let your trolley run over and kill six people, or you can divert to a siding and kill a single person. And that single person is also Hitler in 1932, and instead of six people it’s six million. Or, rather, 11 million total victims of the camps. Or around 80 million deaths in total.
If we could, for the purposes of the thought experiment, save 80 million lives by killing Hitler in 1932, would killing Hitler be a moral act? Is it mandatory, meaning that choosing not to kill Hitler, knowing for certain what was about to happen, would be an immoral act?
The surgeon problem is a fun inversion of the trolley. You have Hitler on the operating table, and the only way you can save his life is to harvest the organs from six otherwise healthy patients. You have to kill six random people so that 1932 Hitler can love and go about his business with WWII and the holocaust. Except instead of six people, it’s 80 million. You can see it’s the exact same dilemma as the trolley problem but made more - forgive me - visceral.
If we don’t high five the surgeon who chooses to let 1932 Hitler die rather than harvesting the organs from 80 million people, it’s only because the decision is so obvious that it doesn’t even seem to need congratulations. It’s not that we’re avoiding celebrating because we would have preferred a scenario where you are a vampire and could hypnotize Hitler to give up politics and return to art school, and then fly around the world hypnotizing the other world leaders to not punish the German people over the decisions made by their government. You could hypnotize US leadership to let Japan pursue economic development, and hypnotize Japanese leadership to be a liberal democracy rather than a militarized autocracy. But those scenarios don’t seem appropriately serious enough for the discussion.
The thing is that you can’t agree to disagree with a Hitler. James Baldwin wrote
We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.
We can disagree on tax policy and agree to debate and take it to the court of public opinion.
When people talk about the ethics of murdering Hitler, it’s not about tax policy.
Nice statement but has little to do with what I said.
If they dropped a bomb on Hitler. I’d be glad the war was over. I wouldn’t celebrate the killing of Hitler.
I am not opposed to the idea people need to be killed. I’m against the idea of celebrating it.
in your hypothetical situation, a bomb being dropped on Hitler and the war being over are inexorably linked
so it seems like what you're saying is that you're not quite on the ball enough to understand your own thought experiement?
No. You’re just missing the difference and that’s fine. Not everyone is evolved enough to get it. Most people do but some people just want to cheer death.
my sweet baby boy there is no difference
if you cheer the end of a war because a bomb was dropped on somebody's head, you're cheering the fact that a bomb was dropped on that person's head, whether you realise it or not