Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why is LGBTQ so important for liberals in terms of foreign policy?
For example, when debating Russia, arguments often amount to Russia is evil because they aren't onboard with pride. Russia isn't putting LGBTQAASASFDSFDSFDSFDSFSD people in concentration camps, they simply seem not to have pride flags while having a don't ask don't tell attitude. Why does that infuriate liberals that much?
Countries in the middle east can engage in all sorts of questionable behaviour but, often it is a lack of LGBTQ flags that infuriates the left. Again, they aren't mass-executing LGBTQ people or having concentrations camps, they simply don't celebrate it or want it rubbed in people's faces.
It seems like existence of pride parades seems to be a key benchmark for judging the moral virtue of a country. Why is this benchmark so central?
So, can you elaborate what "want it rubbed in people's faces" means? Because that's probably where you're going to find the answer to your question, since "not rubbing it in people's faces" includes
Hopefully you can see why that would infuriate anyone, much less liberals, and how it appears a little more than "simply don't celebrate it".
The problem with this is exactly what you've done here- complain about things liberals-as-in-freedom would normally have problems with yet have the intention of smuggling a bunch of progressive idpol stuff in.
In this case, you've conflated standard free speech issues with "and that's why they need special protection" (which in practice is only ever applied in a way that favors Western progressives- we can argue over is-ought, but the best way to avoid abuse of a carve-out is to not have one in the first place) and "actually yes, the government should pretend men are women" (antisocial behaviors have a bimodal distribution).
So denying the frame to the progressives by 'ruling the international LGBTQ movement to be "extremist"' is, trivially, the correct answer- the solution if your nation is looking to make relations between straights and everyone else better is always something homegrown.
I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say because I don’t know what “liberals as in freedom” or “standard free speech issues”. Can you repeat yourself with different vocabulary?
"Free speech liberals" believe that no viewpoint should be banned. Like all pure ideologies, nobody has it, and in real life there are edge cases, but that's the idea.
Freedom liberals would agree: It is ridiculous that gays cannot advocate for themselves. Some of your bullet points are standard modern liberal rights like that.
Some of your bullet points are special treatment, justified or not. I know the argument for affirmative action: [group] has been treated badly and denied opportunities, so [group members] should be preferentially considered for jobs, housing, schooling, etc. This is also the argument for the "hate crime" construct.
Unfortunately, at no point can you objectively say "[group] is equal now, no more affirmative action." In fact, it is in the best interest of [group] that they enjoy success, but are perceived to be oppressed.
And even putting all that aside: if I am punished more harshly for harming John than for harming Jack, if John is more likely to be considered for economic activities, if John is seen as inherently good because of an intrinsic property he didn't choose, such as race, sexuality, parentage...
John is a noble, and Jack is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link