#to being a socially progressive staunch lgbt ally | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tmarshconnors · 4 months ago

Text

The LGBTQ2+ movement…

The LGBTQ2+ movement has undeniably become a powerful force in contemporary culture, pushing for expanded rights, visibility, and acceptance. However, as a staunch supporter of conservative ideals, I can’t help but notice a growing divide within this movement that threatens to undermine the very principles that the original LGBT community stood for. What started as a fight for equality, personal freedom, and dignity has, in many ways, evolved into something far more complex—something that seems to be at odds with the original spirit of the movement. I mean seriously what is LGBTQ2+?!?! It’s apparently an abbreviation that includes: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, two-spirited, intersex, quest, questioning and asexual. A genuine mouthful.

The Evolution of LGBT: A Movement Rooted in Personal Freedom

The early LGBT movement was centred around the principles of individual freedom, dignity, and the right to live without persecution. Gays and lesbians sought the same civil rights as everyone else—rights to marry, adopt, and live their lives free of discrimination. Trans individuals, though often marginalised, sought recognition and the right to live as their authentic selves. The goal was simple: equality under the law and respect for personal choices.

At its core, the LGBT movement was about personal freedom—the idea that individuals should be able to define themselves and their lives without fear of repression. This resonated with many, even those who held conservative views. After all, isn’t personal responsibility and freedom something conservatives also value deeply? The focus on equality and the right to pursue happiness aligned, in many ways, with the broader American ethos of individual liberty.

The LGBTQ2+ Movement: A Shift in Focus

However, the modern LGBTQ2+ movement has shifted its focus dramatically. What was once about individual rights and personal freedom has morphed into something broader, more ideological, and often more divisive. This expansion has introduced new complexities, and some argue, contradictions, that threaten to undo the progress made by the original LGBT movement.

One of the key concerns is that the LGBTQ2+ movement now seems to focus on identity politics and groupthink, rather than the core principles of personal freedom. Instead of fighting for the rights of individuals to make their own choices, the movement has become heavily politicised, with some factions pushing for societal conformity to their worldview. This shift from personal liberty to collective ideology is problematic for many reasons. It has really been warped by the radial left.

The Internal Conflict: Radicalism vs. Moderation

The rapid expansion of LGBTQ2+ identities has led to growing internal conflicts within the movement. For example, there is a divide between those who advocate for more radical changes in society—such as redefining gender entirely—and those who simply want equal treatment under the law. This has created tension between moderates who align with the original ideals of the LGBT movement and those who push for more extreme social changes.

Radical activism, while it garners attention, often alienates the very people it seeks to convert. Pushing ideas that challenge long-held beliefs about gender, biology, and social norms can feel coercive rather than liberating. Moreover, this radicalism creates fractures within the LGBTQ2+ community itself, as not all members agree with the direction the movement is taking. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, for instance, may feel their identities are being overshadowed by an overwhelming focus on gender ideology, which can dilute the original goals of the movement.

Alienating Allies and Fuelling Backlash

The broader LGBTQ2+ agenda has also alienated potential allies. Many who once supported the movement for its focus on equality and freedom are now questioning the direction it has taken. The push for societal conformity to ever-evolving concepts of identity and language can feel authoritarian.

The insistence on compliance with new norms—such as the use of certain pronouns or the acceptance of specific gender theories—can be seen as infringing on personal beliefs and free speech. This authoritarian bent, even if well-intentioned, often drives away those who value freedom of thought and expression.

Furthermore, this shift is fuelling a backlash that could potentially undo years of progress. When movements push too far, too fast, they risk sparking resistance from the very people they need to convince. Conservatives who might have been willing to support basic LGBT rights are now being driven into opposition by what they perceive as overreach. Even within more progressive circles, there is a growing discomfort with the direction the LGBTQ2+ movement is taking.

The LGBTQ2+ movement is at a crossroads. It can continue down its current path, pushing for ever more radical changes, but at the risk of alienating both its internal members and external allies. Or, it can refocus on the original ideals that once made it a powerful force for good: personal freedom, dignity, and equality under the law.

As a conservative, I believe in the importance of individual responsibility and freedom. While I may not agree the original LGBT movement stood for, I can respect its focus on equality and the right to live without persecution. However, the current direction of the LGBTQ2+ movement raises serious concerns—not just for conservatives, but for anyone who values the principles of liberty and personal freedom.

If the LGBTQ2+ movement is to remain relevant and successful, it must reconsider its approach. It must find a way to balance the needs of its most radical members with the broader principles that once united it. Otherwise, it risks undermining its own achievements and destroying the ideals that made it a force for change in the first place.

0 notes

famoustimesofficial · 2 years ago

Text

Country Singer Maren Morris Expresses Regret for Industry’s Past Treatment of LGBTQ

During her appearance as a guest judge on Friday’s episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race, country singer Maren Morris offered sincere apologies to the contestants.

Morris shared a touching moment with Queens in the Untacked Clip, expressing regret over how the country music industry has treated the LGBTQ+ community in the past.

The Grammy winner also included LGBTQ+ activist Ts Madison, who served as a guest judge.

Morris, a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights, took advantage of the opportunity to discuss the problems with representation and acceptance in the country music industry. The episode included a challenge with a country theme.

“Coming from country music and its relationship with LGBTQ+ members, I just want to say I’m sorry,” Morris stated. “I love you guys for making me feel like a brave voice in country music. So I just thank you guys so much for inspiring me.” “I’m gonna cry,” she continued.

The queens were visibly moved by Morris’ apology and thanked her for using her platform to raise awareness of the issue. Praised Morris for his honesty and willingness to address issues head-on.

“Just you being here shows you’re an ally,” Mistress Isabelle Brooks stated to the visibly emotional country crooner. Spice said in a confessional, “I love hearing Maren share her story because a lot of times with country artists, they can’t really express their more progressive ideals. Just her being here shows she’s down to roll with the LGBT.”

LGBTQ+ Platform Support

Morris has long been a staunch supporter of the LGBTQ+ community and has repeatedly used her platform to fight discrimination and promote acceptance and love. Last year, the icon got into a fight with Jason Aldean’s wife Brittany Aldean, a conservative social media influencer, after she made transphobic comments.

Morris famously slammed Aldean as “Insurrection Barbie” and a “scumbag human,” which prompted conservative TV host Tucker Carlson to call her a “lunatic” and “fake country music singer.” In response, Morris released new merchandise that read “lunatic country music person” and announced that proceeds would be split between Trans Lifeline and GLAAD’s Transgender Media Program.

This move not only showed her support for the LGBTQ+ community but also her willingness to stand up against hate and discrimination, and use her platform to make a difference. Morris also recently hit back against Candace Cameron Bure’s comments about keeping traditional marriages at the core of the faith-based Great American Family network.

Referencing Bure’s Full House character DJ Tanner, she wrote to “make DJ gay again” on Instagram, which was a clear indication of her support for the LGBTQ+ community and her desire for more representation in media.

In conclusion, Maren has been a true ally to the LGBTQ+ community and has used her platform to promote acceptance and love. Her apology on RuPaul’s Drag Race and her actions in the past, such as her response to Aldean’s transphobic remarks and Bure’s comments, show that she is committed to making a positive impact and fighting for the rights of the marginalized communities.

Read also: SAG Awards: Recognizing the Best in the Entertainment Industry Since 1995

Maren Morris

Maren is a rising star in the country music scene, known for her powerful voice and relatable lyrics. She first rose to fame with her 2016 debut album, “Hero,” which featured the hit single “My Church.”

The album earned her critical acclaim and a Grammy award for Best Country Solo Performance.

Since then, Morris has become one of the most respected and accomplished artists in the country music world, with a string of hit singles and successful tours. Her sophomore album, “Girl,” was released in 2019, and it debuted at number one on the Billboard Top Country Albums chart.

The album’s lead single, “Girl,” became her first number one hit on the Country Airplay chart, and the album was nominated for Best Country Album at the 2020 Grammy Awards. One of the hallmarks of the icon’s music is her ability to write relatable lyrics that resonate with her fans. She has been praised for her honest and authentic songwriting, which often touches on themes of love, heartbreak, and self-empowerment……..Read More

Source: Famous Times

#maren morris #country singer

1 note · View note

usreporter · 2 years ago

Text

Queens Emotionally Respond to Maren Morris’ Apology for Country Music’s Treatment of LGBTQ+

Country musician Maren Morris offered a heartfelt apology to the contestants of RuPaul’s Drag Race season 15 while appearing as a guest judge on Friday’s episode.

In a heartfelt exchange with the queens captured on Untucked, Morris shared her regret for how the country music business has historically treated the LGBTQ community.

The Grammy winner also included LGBTQ+ activist Ts Madison, who served as a guest judge.

The episode featured the country challenge, and Morris, an outspoken advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, took the opportunity to address issues of representation and acceptance in the country music scene.

“I’m gonna cry,” she continued.

Morris’ apology moved the queens, and they thanked her for using her platform to raise awareness of the problem. The video has since gone viral on social media, with many users praising Morris for her candor and willingness to tackle the problem head-on.

“Just you being here shows you’re an ally,” Mistress Isabelle Brooks stated to the visibly emotional country crooner.

Spice said in a confessional, “I love hearing Maren share her story because a lot of times with country artists, they can’t really express their more progressive ideals. Just her being here shows she’s down to roll with the LGBT.”

Read also: “Anti-Hero” Live: Taylor Swift’s Surprise Performance

LGBTQ+ Community Support

Morris has long been a staunch supporter of the LGBTQ+ community and has repeatedly used her platform to fight discrimination and promote acceptance and love.

Last year, the country icon clashed with Jason Aldean’s conservative social media influencer wife, Brittany Aldean, after the latter made transphobic remarks.

In response, Morris released new merchandise that read “lunatic country music person” and announced that proceeds would be split between Trans Lifeline and GLAAD’s Transgender Media Program.

This move not only showed her support for the LGBTQ+ community but also her willingness to stand up against hate and discrimination, and use her platform to make a difference.

Morris also recently hit back against Candace Cameron Bure’s comments about keeping traditional marriages at the core of the faith-based Great American Family network.

In conclusion, Maren has been a true ally to the LGBTQ+ community and has used her platform to promote acceptance and love.

Her apology on RuPaul’s Drag Race and her actions in the past, such as her response to Aldean’s transphobic remarks and Bure’s comments, show that she is committed to making a positive impact and fighting for the rights of the marginalized communities.

Maren Morris

The album earned her critical acclaim and a Grammy award for Best Country Solo Performance.

Since then, Morris has become one of the most respected and accomplished artists in the country music world, with a string of hit singles and successful tours.

Her sophomore album, “Girl,” was released in 2019, and it debuted at number one on the Billboard Top Country Albums chart.

The album’s lead single, “Girl,” became her first number one hit on the Country Airplay chart, and the album was nominated for Best Country Album at the 2020 Grammy Awards.

One of the hallmarks of the icon’s music is her ability to write relatable lyrics that resonate with her fans. She has been praised for her honest and authentic songwriting, which often touches on themes of love, heartbreak, and self-empowerment.

In an industry that can be known for its formulaic and cookie-cutter approach, Morris’ music stands out for its raw and real feeling.

Read also: Stephanie Hsu Revealed Being Mistaken for Lana Condor Highlights Need for More Representation and Diversity in Hollywood

#lgbtq+#maren morris #social media #Mistress Isabelle Brooks

0 notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

Why Do Republicans Say Democrat Party

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-say-democrat-party/

Why Do Republicans Say Democrat Party

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say their party should be accepting of elected officials within the party who disagree with it on some important issues. At the same time, very few in either party say their party should be welcoming of elected officials who support groups advocating for violence against members of the other party.

But there are clear distinctions between the two coalitions in their appetite for accepting members of the party who criticize the party’s standard bearers: While most Democrats say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of elected officials who criticize Joe Biden, the majority position among Republicans is that the GOP should not be welcoming toward Republican elected officials who criticize Donald Trump, and an even smaller share of Republicans say that those who voted to impeach Trump should be accepted in the GOP.

Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the Democratic Party should be very or somewhat accepting of Democratic elected officials who disagree with Democrats on important issues, while 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say their own party should be very or somewhat accepting of Republican officials who disagree with the GOP on some important issues. Just 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans say their parties should be not at all accepting of elected officials who disagree with the party on some important issues.

The changes did not affect the report’s substantive findings.

How Partisans See Themselves: Republicans Say They Are More Patriotic Than Others Democrats Say They Are More Open

Many Republicans and Democrats also associate their fellow partisans with positive traits. And with some exceptions, these are broadly the inverse of how they see the other party’s members.

A clear majority of Democrats say that Democrats are more open-minded compared with other Americans. Republicans are considerably less likely to ascribe this trait to members of their party: 42% say members of the GOP are more open-minded than other Americans, while about as many say they are on par with other Americans .

However, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to describe members of their own party as more patriotic . By comparison, just 29% of Democrats say Democrats are more patriotic than other Americans .

While majorities of those in both parties say their co-partisans are about as intelligent as other Americans, Democrats are slightly more likely to view members of their party as more intelligent than Republicans are .

If A Party Gets What It Wants In The Pursuit Of Delivering Something Most People Want Most Of The Time So Be It

There’s nothing morally wrong with being the party of corporate interests. There’s nothing wrong, for that matter, with viewing politics as the preserve of the few, not the many. What’s wrong is lying about it. What’s wrong is treating the opposition as if it does not have a legitimate claim. What’s wrong is setting off a conflagration of white-power fury that consumes nearly everything, even the republic itself, in order to slake a thirst for power. The day Joe Biden decided to run for president was the day this white-power fury burned through Charlottesville, screaming, “Jews will not replace us.” That day, according to published reports, is the day Biden chose to fight to “restore the soul of America.”

Maybe he’s full of it. Maybe Biden and the Democrats don’t really believe what they say when they talk about everyone being in this together. That’s certainly what the Republicans and their media allies believe. A critic said Thursday that we can expect to see from Biden “lofty rhetoric about unity, while acting below the radar to smash norms to implement the Left-wing agenda.” The same day, a Times reporter asked the White House press secretary why the administration has not offered a bipartisan “fig leaf” to the Republicans, given the president putting so much emphasis on unity. Maybe the Democrats don’t mean what they say. Maybe it’s just politics-as-usual.

Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats As Socialists Since Way Before You Were Born

Paul Blumenthal

Republicans believe they have hit on a bold, brand new line of attack that is sure to doom Democrats heading into the 2020 elections. President Donald Trump made it a central point of his State of the Union. Rep. Tom Emmer , head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, promises to bring this fresh hit in his party’s effort to regain control of the House.

The big plan is to ? wait for it ? attack Democrats as socialists.

“Socialism is the greatest vulnerability by far that the House Democrats have,” Emmer told the New York Times.

As any American who has developed to the stage of object permanence can tell you, this isn’t a new plan. It is, in fact, the oldest trick in the book.

Every single political actor since the late 19th century advocating for some form progressive social change ? whether it be economic reform, challenging America’s racial caste system or advocating for women’s rights or LGBT rights ? has been tarred as a socialist or a communist bent on destroying the American Free Enterprise System.

Contemporary political conservatism has been focused on blocking social change that challenges existing hierarchies of class, race and sex since its founding in response to the French Revolution. Socialism emerged as the biggest threat to class hierarchies in due time and conservatives have called everything they don’t like socialism ever since.

And then there’s President Barack Obama.

Republicans Democrats Are Increasingly Positive About Members Of Their Own Parties

When asked to rate Republicans and Democrats on a “feeling thermometer” between 0 and 100 – where 0 is the most negative rating and 100 is the most positive rating – large majorities of partisans rate the members of their own party warmly. In both parties, the shares giving warm ratings have increased since March 2016.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Republicans feel warmly toward their own party. In March 2016 – prior to the conclusion of the presidential primaries – 75% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans said that they had a warm view of their fellow partisans.

Since 2016, the shares of partisans with neutral feelings toward members of their own party have dropped from about one-in-five to about one-in-ten .

As Republicans and Democrats take an increasingly positive view of members of their own parties, they have become more negative toward members of the opposing party.

Today, 79% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans rate the other party coldly .

Three years ago, narrower majorities in both parties gave the other party a cold rating. In March 2016, 61% of Democrats gave Republicans a cold rating and 69% of Republicans gave Democrats a cold rating.

Here’s Why Conservatives Are Always Saying The Name Of The Democratic Party Wrong

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two days before the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Republican, said supporters of then-President Donald Trump’s claims of election fraud were basically in a “death match with the Democrat Party.”

A day later, right-wing activist Alan Hostetter, a staunch Trump supporter known for railing against California’s virus-inspired stay-at-home orders, urged rallygoers in Washington to “put the fear of God in the cowards, the traitors, the RINOs, the communists of the Democrat Party.”

The shared grammatical construction — incorrect use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective — was far from the most shocking thing about the two men’s statements. But it identified them as members of the same tribe, conservatives seeking to define the opposition through demeaning language.

Amid bipartisan calls to dial back extreme partisanship following the insurrection, the intentional misuse of “Democrat” as an adjective remains in nearly universal use among Republicans. Propelled by conservative media, it also has caught on with far-right elements that were energized by the Trump presidency.

Academics and partisans disagree on the significance of the word play. Is it a harmless political tactic intended to annoy Republicans’ opponents, or a maliciously subtle vilification of one of America’s two major political parties that further divides the nation?

In short: Language matters.

“It’s a one-way provocation,” he said.

Republicans Dont Understand Democratsand Democrats Dont Understand Republicans

A new study shows Americans have little understanding of their political adversaries—and education doesn’t help.

About the author: Yascha Mounk is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the founder of Persuasion.

Americans often lament the rise of “extreme partisanship,” but this is a poor description of political reality: Far from increasing, Americans’ attachment to their political parties has considerably weakened over the past years. Liberals no longer strongly identify with the Democratic Party and conservatives no longer strongly identify with the Republican Party.

What is corroding American politics is, specifically, negative partisanship: Although most liberals feel conflicted about the Democratic Party, they really hate the Republican Party. And even though most conservatives feel conflicted about the Republican Party, they really hate the Democratic Party.

America’s political divisions are driven by hatred of an out-group rather than love of the in-group. The question is: Why?

David Pozen, Eric Talley, and Julian Nyarko: Republicans and Democrats are describing two different Constitutions

Democrats also estimated that four in 10 Republicans believe that “many Muslims are good Americans,” and that only half recognize that “racism still exists in America.” In reality, those figures were two-thirds and four in five.

More Now Associate Some Negative Traits With The Other Side Than In 2016

The shares of both Republicans and Democrats ascribing several of these negative traits to members of the other party have increased significantly since the spring of 2016.

The share of Republicans who say Democrats are more closed-minded has increased substantially over this time period. In 2016, about half of Republicans said Democrats were more closed-minded than other Americans. Now, a clear majority say this – an increase of 12 percentage points. While the shift is more modest among Democrats, it is in the same direction .

Members of both parties are now substantially more likely to say those in the other party are more immoral than other Americans than they were three years ago. Today, 47% of Democrats say this of Republicans, up from 35% in 2016. The share of Republicans who say Democrats are more immoral than other Americans is 8 percentage points higher .

There has been little or no change in the shares of Republicans and Democrats saying that members of their opposing parties are lazier or more unintelligent than other Americans.

The Democrat Party: Trump Needles The Opposition By Truncating Its Name

The Democrat Party?

President Trump would prefer his supporters refer to the opposition party that way. During a rambling, two-hour speech Saturday, Trump referred to one of his critics as “the new star of the Democrat Party,” and to “the new Democrat platform” and “Democrat lawmakers.”

arrow-right

“Not Democratic,” declared Trump. “It’s Democrat. We have to do that. .?.?. I to say in the speech, the ‘Democrat Party,’ because it doesn’t sound good. But that’s all the more reason I use it, because it doesn’t.”

For the record, it’s officially called the Democratic Party, same as it has been since 1844, when it replaced its predecessor, a faction formed by Thomas Jefferson in 1798 that was called the Democratic-Republican Party. Also for the record: “Democrat” is typically defined as noun and “democratic” is as an adjective .

But references to “the Democrat Party” — and variants in which “Democrat” is used as a modifier — have been around for decades, rising and falling over the years. It’s mostly a Republican thing, a way to needle Democrats.

But it has sometimes been used by Democrats, too; President Obama said in 2009 that leaders “understand that what makes an idea sound is but whether it makes good economic sense for their workers and companies.”

Mostly, however, it’s been used in the way Trump would like — as a way to help neuter the opposition and rally the faithful.

Well, there is, of course.

Not to mention that whole “rat” thing at the end.

Partisans Say Their Differences With Other Party Extend Beyond Politics

Majorities in both parties say that, aside from political differences, people in the other party do not share many of their other values and goals. About six-in-ten Republicans say, thinking about more than just politics, Democrats do not share many of their other values and goals; 54% of Democrats say the same about Republicans.

In the current survey, politically attentive Republicans are especially likely to say Democrats do not share their nonpolitical values and goals. Among Republicans who follow government and public affairs most of the time, 70% say that, setting political differences aside, Democrats do not share many of their other values and goals. That compares with 53% of Republicans who follow government less often.

Among Democrats, the differences based on attentiveness to government and politics are more modest: 57% of highly attentive Democrats say Republicans do not share many of their other values and goals, compared with 52% of less politically attentive Democrats.

Despite Widespread Pain Economy Remains Strong Selling Point For Trump

And while Sanders and “Squad” members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib identify as Democratic Socialists, their vision is more aligned with Scandinavian nations such as Denmark and Sweden, where universal health care and a wide range of social benefits — and higher taxes — are the norm, but capitalism still prevails, rather than with countries such as Venezuela and Cuba, where the state does control major industries, and authoritarians rule.

Republicans level the socialist charge possibly in an effort to scare voters into opposing the Democratic ticket and supporting their candidate, but Schwartz says he doesn’t think it’s that frightening a label anymore.

“Clearly the ways in which socialist was a dirty word during the Cold War have declined considerably,” he says. “The fact that Bernie Sanders could mount such a challenge and be so strong despite being a self-professed socialist, I think does show that socialism doesn’t scare many American voters anymore.”

Ironically, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have themselves blurred the lines between capitalism and socialism, passing the CARES Act to aid businesses and providing $600 payments to unemployed workers in the coronavirus pandemic. Trump has also opened federal coffers to rescue farmers who have been hurt by his trade disputes with China and other nations.

Why Democrats Are Reluctantly Making Voter Id Laws A Bargaining Chip

While party leaders have long worried about the discriminatory effects of such laws, many now see other restrictive voting measures pushed by Republicans as a more urgent threat.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats, searching for any way forward on legislation to protect voting rights, find themselves softening their once-firm opposition to a form of restriction on the franchise that they had long warned would be Exhibit A for voter suppression: voter identification laws.

Any path to passing the far-reaching Democratic elections legislation that Republicans blocked with a filibuster on Tuesday will almost certainly have to include a compromise on the bill’s near-blanket ban on state laws that require voters to present photo identification before they can cast a ballot. As such laws were first cropping up decades ago, Democrats fought them tooth and nail, insisting that they would be an impossible barrier to scale for the nation’s most vulnerable voters, especially older people and people of color.

But in recent years, as the concept of voter identification has become broadly popular, the idea that voters bring some form of ID to the polls has been accepted by Democrats ranging from Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia on the center-right to Stacey Abrams of Georgia, a hero of the left.

“For me, the larger debate that is probably more critical is reforming the filibuster,” he said.

The Fight Over Voting Rights

Growing Shares Of Partisans Give Opposing Ratings To The Two Parties

Three-quarters of Republicans and 71% of Democrats now rate the members of their own party warmly and the other party coldly. In both parties, the shares holding this combination of views have steadily increased over the past three years.

The share of Republicans with this combination of views is 26 percentage points higher than it was just three years ago . Among Democrats, there has been a similar increase in the share with a warm view of Democrats and a cold view of Republicans over this period .

Men Older Partisans Most Likely To View The Other Party Very Coldly

In both parties, there are gender, age and educational differences in “very cold” ratings of members of the opposing party.

Men in both parties are more likely than women to give colder ratings to the members of the other party. About two-thirds of Republican and Democratic men give the other party a very cold rating.

Similarly, in both parties, younger adults are less likely than older people to give highly negative ratings to the members of the opposing party.

Yet the education differences in these attitudes differ among Republicans and Democrats. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats with at least a four-year college degree give Republicans a very cold rating. That compares with 51% of Democrats who have not attended college. The pattern is reversed among Republicans: 52% of Republicans with a college degree give Democrats a very cold rating, compared with 65% of those with no college experience.

Leaners Are Much Less Warm To Their Own Party Than Are Partisans

Compared with those who identify with one of the political parties, those who “lean” toward a party are considerably less likely to view members of their own party warmly. However, they are only modestly less likely to give a cold rating to the opposing party.

While about eight-in-ten of those who identify with a party say they have warm feelings toward the members of their own party, only about half of partisan leaners say the same.

Among Republicans leaners, 46% rate Republicans warmly, while about as many Democratic leaners rate Democrats warmly.

However, majorities of partisan leaners – and those who identify with a party – have negative opinions of members of the opposing party. About eight-in-ten partisan identifiers have a cold view of the other party compared with about seven-in-ten leaners .

Politically Attentive Have Stronger Feelings Toward Both Parties

Partisans who follow government and politics most closely are more likely than less attentive partisans to give a cold rating to the other party – and a warm rating to their own.

About nine-in-ten who say they follow government and public affairs most of the time give members of the other party a cold rating. By comparison, smaller majorities of those who follow government some of the time or less often give the opposing partisans cold ratings

The most politically attentive are also most likely to have warm views of their own party. Overwhelming majorities of partisans who say they follow government most of the time give members of their own party a warm rating . Narrower majorities of those who are less attentive to politics say the same.

How Is The Democratic Party Different From The Republican Party

Democrats are generally considered liberal, while Republicans are seen as conservative. The Democratic Party typically supports a larger government role in economic issues, backing regulations and social welfare programs. The Republicans, however, typically want a smaller government that is less involved in the economy. This contrary view on the size of government is reflected in their positions on taxes—Democrats favour a progressive tax to finance government’s expanded role, while Republicans support lower taxes for all. However, Republicans do support a large budget for the military, and they often aggressively pursue U.S. national security interests, even if that means acting unilaterally. Democrats, however, prefer multilateralism. On social issues, Democrats seek greater freedoms, while Republicans follow more traditional values, supporting government intervention in such matters. For example, Democrats generally back abortion rights, while Republicans don’t. In terms of geography, Democrats typically dominate in large cities, while Republicans are especially popular in rural areas.

Read more about the Republican Party.

Why Did The Democratic And Republican Parties Switch Platforms

02 November 2020

Around 100 years ago, Democrats and Republicans switched their political stances.

The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States didn’t always stand for what they do today.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice. And again, Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the party of small government became the party of big government, and the party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

Democrat Vs Republican: Where Did The Parties Get Their Names

In the United States, the words Democrat and Republican are widely used to mean the two major American political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

We often hear these words used to describe things the parties do or the people connected to them. For example, former Vice President Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate for president, and members of the Republican Party are often simply called Republicans.

The English words democratic and republicanactually have long, complex histories that go far beyond red and blue states or donkeys and elephants. Let’s take a closer look at where these two words came from and how they came to be used in the names of the two political parties.

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers. More than four in ten Democratic voters felt that most Republican voters had the country’s best interests at heart . And many tried their best to answer from the other’s perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans’ “harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.” A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to “stop abortion… stop gay marriage from ruining our country… and give us our coal jobs back.”

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOP’s “opposition to Obamacare,” “lower taxes” and to support a party that “reduced unemployment.”

Why Is The Democratic Party Associated With The Colour Blue

The idea of using colours to denote political parties was popularized by TV news broadcasts, which used colour-coded maps during presidential elections. However, there was no uniformity in colour choices, with different media outlets using different colours. Some followed the British tradition of using blue for conservatives and red for liberals . However, during the 2000 U.S. presidential election—and the lengthy battle to determine the winner—prominent news sources denoted Republicans as red and Democrats as blue, and these associations have persisted.

Read more about the U.S. presidential election of 2000.

Democrats Return The Favor: Republicans Uninformed Or Self

The 429 Democratic voters in our sample returned the favor and raised many of the same themes. Democrats inferred that Republicans must be “VERY ill-informed,” or that “Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.” Or that Republicans are “uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.”

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest – whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want “free stuff,” many Democrats believe Republicans think that “I got mine and don’t want the libs to take it away,” or that “some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.”

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side. Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, “I like a dictatorial system of Government, I’m a racist, I hate non-whites.”

0 notes

mohartproductions · 7 years ago

Photo

A map for an alternate timeline where Sykes-Picot never happened, and the British kept their original deal with The Arabs that they would stabilize The Arabian Peninsula as they saw fit, so after dethroning The Ottomans at the end of WWI, a united Arabian Kingdom was established; stretching from the south of Turkey to the very coast of The Arabian Sea, and from the coast of The Red Sea to The Persian Gulf, with Sheriff Hussein Bin Ali governing a capital state stretching from Jerusalem to Damascus. Arabia and the Near East in general is in the same timeline as a green Saharah, so the area here is has more fertile areas for agriculture, and wildlife both native to the region and from Asia or Africa like elephants; this new nation is also home to multiple cultural and religious populations as it was prior to the world war; not just including muslims but also jews, christians, zoroastrians, Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians, and other ethnic groups, and they would even form a peace treaty with the rest of Turkey and their other neighbors Egypt and Iran. The House of Saud would still exist to, and like in our own timeline would wage war with other parts of the region, only here however The Sheriff's state is large enough, and connected enough to hold back this extremist, military faction, and sure enough overthrow them completely with help from the Brits. However it's not all sunshine and rainbows from here on it. See ever since I learned the main reason why The Middle-East in our timeline became such a mess in the first place, I always thought if Sykes-Picot never happened then Arabia and the Near East in general we would have today would be more peaceful if The Arabian Peninsula was unified and became a more moderate environment, maybe the land would be even richer and the people would harness their wealth in oil and other resources to become just as modern and secular as certain Asian or European and North American cultures, but after watching Cody's recent video on AlternateHistoryHub also tackling that same what if scenario, I'm starting to think that even if the region was more moderate than the one we have in our world, it still may not be as peaceful as I'd have liked to think it was. Oh sure, on one hand we wouldn't have such notorious terrorist groups like Isis or Al-Queda, nor would we have horrific events like 9/11, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be other types of conflict in the region. One factor in particular would be because the region would be under pressure of The Cold War between America and The Soviet Union, just as the rest of the world was. This is especially prevalent when The Arabs hit their vast, vast oil supply; (just like Saudi Arabia in our world) so naturally with such a wealthy opportunity, everybody would want to be allies with Arabia. (or at least everybody wants to make Arabia their ally) There's more than one way this scenario would play out; and for me I decided to take a page from Cody's video and sort out at least three ways this would all play out.

1. America Influences Arabia - Ever since the start of The Cold War The United States and Arabia would act on a staunch anti-communist policy, the Arabs would keep oil flowing while the U.S. would help them push back Communist revolutionaries trying to weaken the monarchy. Evidently this would be idly similar to how America is allies with Saudi Arabia in our world, only here it's much larger and more connected, and more profound. To combat Communist influences, the US might support largely religious and even conservative policies in the kingdom, that'd particularly sentiment that The Arabian People's push for secularism unity were seen as socialist in nature which ironically was what The West were against, (or at least in foreign policies) so they would encourage more conservative influences throughout the region. (idly what The Sauds did in our timeline) Now bare in mind I'm not talking about the western version of conservatism, when I say conservative I mean stuff like, women separated from men, Hijab is mandatory, no rights for LGBT or other minorities, no pork, no drugs or alcohol... you know... THAT kind of conservatism... Yeah, in more ways than one this alternate timeline is probably the closest to out own. Now to be fair, it wouldn't be as fanatical, and especially not as extremist or fundamental as Wahaabism or any practice associated with The Saudis in our timeline, but it would still be conservative in nature. The good news however is it wouldn't remain this conservative forever; back in our world remaining Hashemite states like Jordan or Dubai are based on far more liberal societies compared Saudi Arabia, it's just that progress in this timeline under America's influence in conservative values would still be over a longer period of time, but perplexingly because this influence would be over a vast stretch of time this alternate timeline would probably be the safest since more traditional elements wouldn't feel as threatened, especially by Western Culture. 2. Soviet Russia Influences Arabia - If The Soviets won influence over Arabia instead things would be a bit more... well... eh... difficult to say the least. Perplexingly for their time, The Soviets were atheists (which was as something radical to The Christian West) so Soviets in the region would push to destabilize the monarchy; and maybe even influence a mass revolution, leading to a vast civil war all throughout the state. This however would be the least likely scenario thankfully. 3. The Arab Kingdom is Taken Over by Baathist Ideology - ... So what is Baathism, you may be wondering? Well Baathism is an Arabian/Near-Eastern blend of Nationalism and Socialism. In ourtimeline, proposed Baathists in the 50's believed that Arabs should unite and work together to make their society just as advanced and modern as Asian or Eurocentric cultures; in short it's suppose to be a new Arab Renaissance, second to the first one back in Medieval times, in fact the word Baath is basically an Arabic word for Renaissance. Now when put in that perspective that does sound like a nice idea... but there's a catch... because of course there is... While it's a sound proposal on paper, the approach in how to do it however would be a bit more extreme; in this case it would be to seize power and establish a new one-party authority to change The Arab State by force! ... Yeeaaah... Then again back in our world history, this ideology pretty much devolved back in the 70's, with it being Hijacked in Iraq by Saddam Huseein; (though Syria's is still around today with Assad) Anyway, like I said while this ideology does hold the great potential for social change in a unified Arab kingdom, one that the Arabs may even use to combat the influences of The USA and The USSR, this does have severe ramifications; (then again what doesn't?) since Baathist idealists would push the other people in the region into their ideal version of a modern world by force that would mean they'd would overthrow the kingdom's Sheriff or King in favor a new dictatorial figure, a more secular dictator sure but a dictator never the less. Keep in mind Wahaabism or Salafism would still exist even if it wouldn't have the political of financial power to influence the region, so even though The Saudi regime in this timeline is put out of commission, there could still be some new competing factions to take up that influence; even then either way there could still be some new internal conflict between traditionalist and secularist ideals, and if (and that's a big IF) successful this could lead to a new, third cultural marxist ideology that could compete with capitalist and communist influences, be if for better or worse.

#arab #arabian #arabia #arabian kingdom #alternate timeline #alternate universe #alternate history #middle-east #sykes-picot

3 notes · View notes

loudlytransparenttrash · 8 years ago

Text

Islam apologists, you only have yourselves to blame

I know that nothing in politics is simple enough to be condensed down to a single issue but as close as this last election was, there's a number of factors that helped swing the election in favor of Trump. One of them was his no nonsense approach to Islam. For years Muslim moderates, liberals and anti-extremists have been writing, lecturing and studying how to effectively reform Islam, deradicalize its followers and make it more compatible with the 21st century. Recognizing the distinction between people and ideas, these reformers promote tolerance and peace towards Muslims but unapologetically critique the ideas held in the Quran. This approach represents the very essence of American values - treat all individuals equally but scrutinize all ideas rigorously with critical thinking and rationality.

But at every turn, the reformers have been attacked, not just receiving threats from Muslims but by other liberals. Sam Harris was called an Islamophobe for criticizing the bad ideas held in the Quran. Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim of Pakistani origin and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-muslim from Somalia are still being labeled anti-Muslim extremists by the SPLC because they talk about reforming Islam. Only two days ago Ali had to cancel her trip to Australia as she received death threats. Death threats for speaking about Islam. Dr. Bill Warner, an Islamic scholar who has studied the Quran for over 30 years, was told by the president of a Florida college that he should be censored and never be allowed to speak because he was critical of Islam. When did it become standard practice for universities to support the censorship of ideas? Ali Rizvi, Wafa Sultan, Sarah Haider and other critics of Islam have all faced the same explosive reactions from leftists, the defenders of Islam, who don't have the slightest clue what they're defending. Merely scrutinizing an ideology is treated as social barbarism by those unable to draw the distinction between criticism of an ideology and contempt for its practitioners. Ironically, those actually living under oppressive Islamic regimes are often grateful for the secular voices speaking out on their behalf because with Islamic blasphemy and apostasy laws they have no voice.

The left loves to assure us that terror has nothing to do with Islam yet these terror groups are only following and copying what’s in the Quran and Hadith. It’s why we have the term “moderate Muslims” as they aren’t following their Quran, many Muslims have never even read it, they don’t adhere to the fundamentals of Islam as ISIS does. When you really start getting into the meat of the Quran and Hadith, there are doctrines that pose staunch opposition with classical liberal values. It's easy to say the critics are taking the Quran out of context but there are hundreds of Islamic scholars and clerics all studying the context and none of them can agree on one interpretation. That’s why Dr. Shabir Ally can talk about the fair nature of Islam while Abu Bakr al-Baghdadithe, who also has a PhD in Islamic studies is running a campaign of hate and terror in the name of Allah. They get their fundamentals directly from the Quran and the Hadith. There isn’t a moderate version and a terror version, it comes from the same book. The same verses can and are interpreted in different ways by different sects but the fact that it’s full of bloodshed, hatred towards infidels, beheadings and mutilation, they leave the door wide open to such easy interpretation.

Many educated Muslim apologists arguing for the peaceful nature of Islam often avoid the Hadith, avoid violent verses from the Quran, and jump through hoops to try to interpret “beat them,” “slay them,” or “If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” in a peaceful way. But how on earth do they expect a billion Muslims - many in highly illiterate regions - to all interpret them as anything other than literal? Their violence and views come directly from the Quran and the Hadith, and for this reason alone these texts are imperfect and subsequently, so is Islam. The Quran is full of contradictions, granting Islam a tremendous amount of power because it can claim to be a religion of peace while simultaneously advocating jihad. People often say things like Islam was the first to give women their rights but Muslims are given the right to rape infidel women, permitted to rape and beat their wives and take part in polygamy. Muhammad himself at the age of 53 married and had sex with a 9 year old girl.

In Saudi Arabia, one of the most devout Muslim nations and home of Islam's most holy site requires women have chaperones at all times, forbids them to drive, forces them to cover from head to toe and whipping and stoning women for being raped or holding hands with another female. Muslim women are denied education and within many Muslim countries only a quarter of the women are literate. In many Muslim nations they give women half a testimony in court, they aren’t allowed to speak or defend themselves in court without a male relative to speak for them and they’re often beaten or killed if they stray from any of these laws. God forbid if she has a bacon cheeseburger, wants to wear a t-shirt in summer or have a one-night stand. Even in the more “moderate” Muslim countries such as Turkey, their public swimming pools have great imposing dividing walls to keep women out of sight. Women aren’t even allowed to pray with the men, they are sent to the back or into another room. And god help her if she wants out of Islam. In some Muslim countries there are laws in place that condemn apostate with a death sentence while the rest have some other form of punishment for apostasy. They all at the very least have blasphemy laws that requires punishment of anyone who criticizes Islam or Muhammad. So much for freedom and women’s rights... The worst part is, Canada has recently voted for this exact Sharia law to be introduced into the country.

Apologists claim that the radical views and actions of many Muslims don’t represent Islam and they are using a peaceful religion for their extremism but religious extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are non-violent. The problem isn’t fundamentalism. The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam. These “radical views” which the left disassociates with Islam are really the most authentic display of Islam. It’s why 50 Muslim countries ban LGBT groups, 10 Muslim countries can legally kill gay people and many more legally whip and imprison gays, 16 Muslim countries ban all Jewish people from entering - how can they say it’s only a tiny fraction of Muslims who hold these extreme views when we are talking about entire Islamic countries following none other than Islamic law? We cannot be silent on this issue. We cannot let fear blind us or lose our compassion but we need to be discussing ways to promote assimilation and secular Western values.

Unfortunately the second we start to have this conversation, the Islamophobia card gets pulled out by privileged, blue haired buffoons who have never had their clitoris sliced off, have never had acid thrown on their face and have never been forced into arranged marriages against their will as those who they are calling Islamophobic have. Their idea of oppression is not being given free tampons from the government. They fail to distinguish the difference between anti-Muslim and anti-Islam so anyone who questions Islam must automatically make them Islamophobics who hate all Muslims. Phobia means an irrational fear and there is nothing irrational about approaching Islam with calculated caution but if you question it you are called a racist. Islam is not a race. It is a belief and a way of life that people of many different races choose whether or not to follow. It is an idea and if we can’t criticize an idea, then free speech is truly dead. All ideas should be questioned, no belief should be able to go unquestioned. If a belief is true then it will hold up to scrutiny and if it doesn’t then why try to hide it? There are thousands being killed and millions suffering worldwide in the name of a religion and yet some people are still concerned that we shouldn’t challenge a belief system for fear of offending? If terror attacks shake the beliefs of Muslims worldwide as much as they say they do and then it should lead them to question the violent nature at the core of their ideology and embrace an overhaul and begin to hold Islam to the same standard we demand and expect from other religions.

The fact is a lot of Americans are afraid because they don't understand what's going on, they know there's a problem and they want to solve it in a kind and compassionate way but sadly the voices of reason, those that may be able to provide an actual viable solution are squashed. We should be having calm and rational conversation and debating how Islam needs to reform itself to be compatible with classical liberal values in the 21st century. Instead the conversation is constantly being hijacked by the apologetic, irrational left with character assassinating slurs which has silenced many great minds on the issue. Rather than having a progressive conversation about Islam, most politicians keep silent or make excuses for it, allowing someone like Trump to step in because he's the only one that has ever addressed it. It’s why we have to put aside the septic PC gag and talk about this rationally because by silencing the intellectuals, the Muslims calling for reform and the anti-extremists, liberals on the left have handed a platform to Trump on a silver platter. The left only have themselves to blame for the rise of the Trump to presidency. Islam is guilty and the more you try to convince us it’s peaceful, the more we will prove to you that it isn’t. We must speak out and Islam must be criticized without relent for dogma, inequality, unwarranted violence and sexism have no place in the evolution and future of mankind.

#islam #islamophobia #muslim #muslim ban #islamic #anti islam #social justice #anti social justice warriors #SJW #anti sjw #islam1

359 notes · View notes

phaylenfairchild · 6 years ago

Text

Do You Know What A MAP Is? I Just Found Out And Now I’m Warning Friends

It’s not a geographical survey, it’s something much more sinister.

Imagine me, your friendly neighborhood Trans Cat Lady as I sip my tea browsing Facebook, as one does on a warm, summer Friday night, and suddenly discover a plethora of posts across my feed referencing MAPs.

Just when you think you’re an enlightened, modern individual with your finger on the pulse of social matters, something comes out of left field and reminds you that you’re not running in mainstream anymore. I had to look deeper, realizing the context of a MAP was not by any means indicating navigation or a request for directions.

No, it’s something much more horrific than I ever anticipated. MAP is an initialism, self-created by the proud individuals it references, as “Minor Attracted Persons.”

Pedophiles. Adults sexually attracted to and aroused by minor children. This is their self identifier. MAP.

This had to sink in. It wasn’t just one post, but several, in fact, many being shared by people far more alert (Thanks Ambien) than I am to developing news and trends.

Sitka Falardeau

MAP’s have been using social media under this self-identifier for some time, sprouting up and organizing mostly from the blogging site, Tumblr. Currently, there is a petition to have openly expressing MAPs removed from the site.

In one facebook post, a user shared a status of collected photos of the Men and Women who were proudly identifying as MAPs. This is where I learned that a sect of the MAP community also identify as NOMAPs– or, “Non-offending Minor Attracted Persons.” That’s their way of stating that they keep their hands to themselves despite their sexual desires directed at children. Support systems have popped up for MAPs and NOMAPs, seemingly established with the intent of intervening before they can harm an innocent child and there have even been writers who had come to their defense and claimed themselves as allies to the MAP community. They want you to believe it is a mental illness.

Mental illness never has a targeted victim. Mental illness is an affliction of the sufferer wherein we do ourselves great harm. Those will mental illness do not typically seek out specifically defenseless people to harm. Do not let these sympathizers equate mental illness with child rapists- or any violent act that robs a victim of agency. Child molesters actively and covertly plot and design their heinous acts of attack. That is cunning, not mentally ill.

What absolutely blew my mind is that they were sharing their photos and discussing their fears at “outing” themselves as if they were victims of social oppression or religiously motivated constructs of unprovoked fear and hatred. I was startled at how they postured themselves in much the same way the LGBT community had as we squared off with politics and religion to earn acknowledgement, equality and pride. I was overwhelmed by a sense of indescribable dread. Here’s why…

Since the burgeoning of my own self awareness and subsequently imposed shame regarding my gender as a result of seeing anti-LGBT evangelists and politicians behind their podiums using fear tactics to influence their audiences against me, I have lived in fear of this false equivalency. They would typically say things like; “This LGBT community is the downfall of civilized society, soon they’ll be adding a ‘P’ to include and protect child rapists and other atrocious acts like bestiality!”

I remember how scared I was that anyone would ever presume I was, or would advocate for those who victimized children and animals. Still, these influencers with platforms were forming the opinions of millions that I was no different than a pedophile or a person who was sexually drawn to animals. As a Trans woman, this is ongoing, as politicians have been declaring us a threat to their wives and daughters if we want to use a public bathroom. One propaganda film from the hate group Nation For Marriage used the act of implied pedophilia to promote anti-transgender legislation.

youtube

I’ve been warning Parents I know about the uprising of MAPs, so that they can both protect their children from predators and prepare themselves for the inevitable onslaught of comparisons that will be made to the LGBT community in November by conservatives looking to be elected and the evangelists lobbying for them.

Let’s simply make this clear now. It is embarrassing that we live in an era where I must differentiate these things.

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual preference. It is not a consensual act with a mutually informed adult. Children cannot consent. Pedophiles are child rapists, full stop.

There is no such thing as a MAP. Do not normalize or sanitize child predation by allowing them the dignity of identifying themselves as anything but a sexual threat to children. They are pedophiles. Child sex offenders. There is no pathway to acceptance by using confusing/deceiving identifiers or disarming the public perception by legitimizing their crimes.

There is no relationship at all between pedophilia and gender identity or sexual orientation. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, despite how anti-LGBT activists will push this misleading narrative until it fits their agenda. It is a sickness that manipulates and abuses power over vulnerable children and young people who don’t understand what is happening and causes them long-term emotional distress and psychological damage.

Watch how quickly anti-LGBT lobbyists and politicians forget that the biggest pedophilia scandal came right out of the Catholic church wherein thousands of young boys were groomed, not by gay men or transgender women, but by heterosexual religious leaders who they, and their families, trusted.

Here is the bottom line, folks. In the act of sex, there should never be a victim. There should never be engagement with an entity who cannot give- regardless of reason- permission or who inherently cannot understand via means of rationale or awareness the concepts or consequences of sexual activity.

Watching self-described MAP’s discuss the day they can be “Out of the closet” has been one of the most audacious and disturbing things I have ever seen- and I’ve seen a lot. Part of me reacted impulsively, with disgust and disbelief as I flipped through their photos- some of them young, some of them old. Men and women. They looked like typical college students and every day senior citizens you might see sitting on a park bench reading a book. That alarmed me the most. We have this mythology in our minds of what a child sexual predator looks like… it wasn’t any of these people. Then it occurred to me how comfortable they’ve gotten, clearly, in order to have the confidence to share their own photos with each other so casually fearing no judgement or persecution. Utterly enabled. Making their own representative flag.

Yet, LGBT people who harm no one are trying to thrive under this oppressive administration wherein we’re thrust constantly under the foot of moral and religious justice. We transwomen are being persecuted and declared dangerous to women and young girls while these individuals who actually prey upon children with sexual intent are developing active communities and supportive encouragement?

How long before someone declares me intolerant for rejecting criminal behavior or child rapists- active or inactive. How many times have we stood to fight hate and been told “Don’t fight hate with hate” as if defending ourselves against a bile-spewing opposition is the the same thing as inciting hatred toward innocent people. I won’t allow a gaslighting here. I won’t be told that defending marginalized or voiceless communities who stand under assault and terror is reverse-hate. Children have no voice against the pedophiles who place them in their crosshairs.

Showing no tolerance for those who intend to harm children is not hateful- if that is your reaction, you need to deprogram. Your concern shouldn’t be resting on predators; Your concern should be firmly on the children whom it is our duty to protect from them.

A shocking development recently came to my attention via an investigative journalist who shared with me some of her own discoveries. She states that most self described MAPs aren’t, in fact, MAPs at all, but members of a nefarious organization of trolls from the website 4Chan who have, in the past, created and distributed fake posters targeting Oregon Pride by advertising that the organizers of the annual event were suddenly inclusive of NAMBLA- a controversial group of male pedophiles that, in reality, the LGBT community patently rejects. The goal of creating such false and misleading advertisements was specifically to discredit, or call into question the alignment of LGBT Oregonians by deceiving the general public regarding its activities and intentions.

Fake Poster created by anti-LGBT members of 4Chan implying the inclusion of pedophiles at Oregon gay pride

There is no question that it is entirely plausible that MAPs- at least the ones campaigning for visibility and inclusion so vocally online- could be shill groups intent on targeting and damaging the reputations, calling into question the ethics, and creating diversions with the goal of derailing the progressive mission of the LGBT community by feigning inclusivity beneath our umbrella. That would of course, be an ingenious way to mold external perceptions of us, even of our most staunch supporters, by slipping deceptive, toxic propaganda into the mainstream and branding it with our “Pride” message.

body[data-twttr-rendered="true"] {background-color: transparent;}.twitter-tweet {margin: auto !important;}

@CandyArachnid very close to literally everything involving “MAPs” is a psyop

— @Novoselician

body[data-twttr-rendered="true"] {background-color: transparent;}.twitter-tweet {margin: auto !important;}

hey yall stop spreading this MAP thing, screenshots from /p ol / have indicated it's a FUD campaign to encourage harassment/violence against trans people due to similar flag colors and fake accounts. sharing callout posts about it is helping that tactic work.

— @MaxKriegerVG

Yes, it’s getting more and more challenging, as LGBT people, to filter what is real and what is not. Not only are we under a barrage of attacks daily from political activists, now there are shill organizations pretending to be supporters or members of the community who are intent on maligning us from the inside with the deliberate intention of, not just discrediting LGBT people and advocacy groups, but demonizing transgender people specifically by means of association with pedophiles.

In any case, be aware that MAPs are out there, some fake with an anti-LGBT political agenda, but some, unquestionably, very, very real. 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse. The best course of action for all of us is to continue unanimously rejecting it, because those who put children in danger do exist, whether “Out” or not… and that is a fact we cannot tread lightly on, but instead come down upon with a heavy fist.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2MMPaKE via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

Why Do Republicans Say Democrat Party

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-say-democrat-party/

Why Do Republicans Say Democrat Party

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

The changes did not affect the report’s substantive findings.

How Partisans See Themselves: Republicans Say They Are More Patriotic Than Others Democrats Say They Are More Open

Many Republicans and Democrats also associate their fellow partisans with positive traits. And with some exceptions, these are broadly the inverse of how they see the other party’s members.

If A Party Gets What It Wants In The Pursuit Of Delivering Something Most People Want Most Of The Time So Be It

Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats As Socialists Since Way Before You Were Born

Paul Blumenthal

The big plan is to ? wait for it ? attack Democrats as socialists.

“Socialism is the greatest vulnerability by far that the House Democrats have,” Emmer told the New York Times.

As any American who has developed to the stage of object permanence can tell you, this isn’t a new plan. It is, in fact, the oldest trick in the book.

And then there’s President Barack Obama.

Republicans Democrats Are Increasingly Positive About Members Of Their Own Parties