It's always fun when I remind my gay friends they are identical and interchangeable with lesbians and trannys and must walk in total lockstep with whatever today's agenda might be on Twitter, because G is just another letter in the WTFBBQ alphabet soup.

As for RPGPundit, he's a Libertarian and he's been vocal about that forever. Libertarians were pro-gay marriage decades before the Democrats. Libertarians want government out of most (or all) areas of their lives, including laws regarding marriage.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1126826Libertarians want government out of most (or all) areas of their lives, including laws regarding marriage.

I think that protecting people from being terminated for no reason other than their identity would be a critical element in any 'pro'-identity definition.  Ie, people should not be terminated from their job for no other reason than their sexual orientation seems like a critical protection to be 'pro-gay'.  

Libertarians typically aren't inclined to believe that people should have a right to be protected from discrimination because 'government intervention'.  Or am I mistaken in this case?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126845I think that protecting people from being terminated for no reason other than their identity would be a critical element in any 'pro'-identity definition.  Ie, people should not be terminated from their job for no other reason than their sexual orientation seems like a critical protection to be 'pro-gay'.  

Libertarians typically aren't inclined to believe that people should have a right to be protected from discrimination because 'government intervention'.  Or am I mistaken in this case?

People like you fucking disgust me.  Always thinking and expecting the worst in others without proof to justify those thoughts.  In your case inspite of the clear evidence that is well known for a long time now.  RPGPundit literally BANS people who show strong alt right view points in the past.  He put a trans on the cover on one of his books.  Hell he allowed a trans to live with if I am right.  I believe he is more Pro LGTB than the vast majority of the SJW crowd.  How could you missed this, or did you choose to miss this because you wanted to think RPGPundit is something vile?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126845I think that protecting people from being terminated for no reason other than their identity would be a critical element in any 'pro'-identity definition.  Ie, people should not be terminated from their job for no other reason than their sexual orientation seems like a critical protection to be 'pro-gay'.  

Libertarians typically aren't inclined to believe that people should have a right to be protected from discrimination because 'government intervention'.  Or am I mistaken in this case?

I believe you are correct. I believe the Libertarian stance would be you have the power to not due business with anyone who would discriminate. That I think is the main tool for motivation in a libertarian society.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1126846Hell he allowed a trans to live with if I am right.

Gay, not trans. Rented a room from me for years. Tremendously nice guy.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126845I think that protecting people from being terminated for no reason other than their identity would be a critical element in any 'pro'-identity definition.  Ie, people should not be terminated from their job for no other reason than their sexual orientation seems like a critical protection to be 'pro-gay'.  

Libertarians typically aren't inclined to believe that people should have a right to be protected from discrimination because 'government intervention'.  Or am I mistaken in this case?

Those freaking libertarians and their homophobic stance on freedom of association! I would think that if you are pro- a certain group you would be not just in favor of those people being allowed to exist and enjoy the same rights as anyone else, but also advocate that other people be forced to associate with them even if they don't want to or even like each other. :rolleyes:

Not that I'm in favor of wrongful termination, but Jeezes Christ! Talk about willfully missing the point! :eek:

I don't know Pundit's views because I don't visit the Reddit subthreads where all these accusations came up.  

There are people who say 'I'm not anti-semitic because I'm not calling for a genocide of the Jewish people'.  And sure, there are people that ARE calling for the genocide of the Jewish people and in a relative way, you're not THAT bad.  But that's a long way from being 'pro-Jewish people'.  

Very clearly there are people that will draw that line in different places - some will say you must support Israel as a state, others more, others less.  Pro-LGBT is similar - supporting marriage equality is one litmus test some people might use, but that's certainly not the only one.  I think it's fair to ask someone what their criteria is to be 'pro' or 'anti' and then respond to that.  Certainly some people will make unrealistic demands and then say 'you're either with us or you're a FILTHY RACIST', but there's no problem with drawing a line.  For example, I'm a proud Catholic Christian, and I hold my Christian values to be very important to my identity.  I'm uncomfortable with evangelical 'born-again' types that seem more interested in 'saving my soul' than improving themselves as a person or applying Jesus's ministry to their own life.  If one of them calls me 'anti-Christian', I don't get offended - I'm happy to explain my views and don't mind if they feel that's not good enough.

Edit -
The following article gets at some of what I'm trying to say.

QuoteIt's not enough to say, "I'm not racist," and often it's a self-serving sentiment. Kendi says people constantly change the definition of what's racist so it doesn't apply to them. If you're a white nationalist who's not violent, says Kendi, then you might see the Ku Klux Klan as racist. If you're a Democrat who thinks there's something culturally wrong with black people, then racists to you might be people who are Republicans.

“What I do know is slaveholders identified as not racist… white supremacists identify today as not racist.

“It seems to me, that term is more of a term of denial than a term with meaning.”
 
- Ibram X Kendi, author of #HowToBeAnAntiracist
 #newsnight | @DrIbram | @KirstyWark pic.twitter.com/iPQUiOHq1r

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) August 8, 2019

Quote from: RPGPundit;1126852Gay, not trans. Rented a room from me for years. Tremendously nice guy.

Stand corrected, but still your morally above a extremely long list of SJWs.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126869Pro-LGBT is similar - supporting marriage equality is one litmus test some people might use, but that's certainly not the only one.

You may or may not be aware that around 12% of homosexuals were against same-sex marriage.  Are they anti-LGBT?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126869I don't know Pundit's views because I don't visit the Reddit subthreads where all these accusations came up.  

There are people who say 'I'm not anti-semitic because I'm not calling for a genocide of the Jewish people'.  And sure, there are people that ARE calling for the genocide of the Jewish people and in a relative way, you're not THAT bad.  But that's a long way from being 'pro-Jewish people'.  

Very clearly there are people that will draw that line in different places - some will say you must support Israel as a state, others more, others less.  Pro-LGBT is similar - supporting marriage equality is one litmus test some people might use, but that's certainly not the only one.  I think it's fair to ask someone what their criteria is to be 'pro' or 'anti' and then respond to that.

deadDMwalking -- You're making implications here about Pundit, which isn't a specific accusation, but it's still very insulting -- especially given the accusations in the OP.

LGBT rights isn't one of his usual topics, but I recall Pundit having a rant on his blog against gay conversion therapy, for example. I've argued with him in the past about specific LGBT topics -- but that's different than saying he's anti-LGBT.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126869There are people who say 'I'm not anti-semitic because I'm not calling for a genocide of the Jewish people'.  And sure, there are people that ARE calling for the genocide of the Jewish people and in a relative way, you're not THAT bad.  But that's a long way from being 'pro-Jewish people'.  

What happened to the idea of being neither pro, nor against Jewish people? Or blacks, whites, gays etc.? You walk in my shop, I'll try and make a few bucks out of you. I won't rip you off just because of the way you look or because you are in a gay couple. I'm not going to give you a discount either.

The fundamental problem with identitarian politics is it requires an antagonistic relationship among identity groups to function. And given identity is non-negotiable, it means politics ultimately comes down to force between those groups.

Quote from: Marchand;1126895What happened to the idea of being neither pro, nor against Jewish people? Or blacks, whites, gays etc.? You walk in my shop, I'll try and make a few bucks out of you. I won't rip you off just because of the way you look or because you are in a gay couple. I'm not going to give you a discount either.

The fundamental problem with identitarian politics is it requires an antagonistic relationship among identity groups to function. And given identity is non-negotiable, it means politics ultimately comes down to force between those groups.

It's the weaponising of the mindset that, if you're not a true ally who is actively pushing as hard as you can in favour of said identity group, your reservations or lack of drive - regardless of it being sex, race, gender identity, whatever - must come from a place of bigotry and therefore marking you as a sympathiser of OrangMan/Hitler and thus a heretic who must be made an example of to others.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126845Libertarians typically aren't inclined to believe that people should have a right to be protected from discrimination because 'government intervention'.

The main Libertarian point, as I've seen it, is that one person's "rights" shouldn't force other people to act against their own interests. If a company is forced to hire a specific person, then that isn't about rights, that's an abuse of government power. Same thing with pronouns forcing people to speak a certain way or forcing a baker to make a cake they don't want to make. Or, at the extreme end, the "healthcare is a right" which basically means that some doctor somewhere will be forced to treat your illness.

Protecting people from wrongful termination isn't (or shouldn't be) about rights, it is mainly about contract law and breaking said contracts.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126869The following article gets at some of what I'm trying to say.

I don't know if you are quoting this article ironically, but it is incredibly idiotic. The guy makes the case that you are racists even if all you do is allow other racists to exist.

It's an incredibly destructive ideology. If you do something that, according to the ever changing rules, I consider to be racists, then you are a racists. If you are a racist and I allow you to "persist unchecked" than that would make me a racist. Thus, I need to turn on you and try to destroy your life.

Wanna have some fun with lefties?

Invite them to contribute to LGBT-friendly self-defense groups, like the Pink Pistols.

Then sit back and giggle as the 'guns are bad' gear in their heads seizes up against the 'pro-LGBT' gear, especially since (according to them) all LGBT types are now in danger from the death rays emanated from Donald Trump's hairdo.

Let's not start veering too far off topic, people.