Senator calls LGBTQ+ people 'filth,' says most don't want them here
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
tahlequahdailypress.com
A state senator said during a public forum in Tahlequah that LGBTQ+ people are "filth," and that he and his constituents don't want them in "our state."
It's beginning. All over again. Fuck. We gon' have to destroy some Nazis again, aren't we?
yes, we do. let's finish the job this time so our grandkids won't have to deal with this shit
Sadly,many of these new Nazis are the grandchildren of the people who fought the original Nazis.
*Children
Both are correct
Nah. Those grandkids would be GenX. We're famous slackers.
It's the Millennials and GenZ who have forgotten the face of their fathers.
(Not that many of us GenX fuckers aren't conservative as fuck.)
I had assumed the guy who said it, Tom Woods, was old as balls and just out of touch. I was wrong. He was born in 1994 or 1995 according to Wikipedia.
No more of this forgiveness "healing" buttpat bullshit America loves to do with its internal enemies.
End every nazi. Give every apologist life in prison. Ban all nazi/MAGA/confederate iconography and treat anyone found with it as enemies of the state and treat them as such.
We can't just keep forgiving them every time they fuck around then shocked Pikachu when they take another swing. Crush them.
That will involve armed liberals confronting these animals on the streets. Don't see that happening. If they want to march in my town, I'll be front and center. And I will start shit. What are they gonna do? Kill me in a firefight?
Easy for me to say in my weird space. I'm middle-aged, had a pretty great life, all in all. Also got little kids, I'd rather die than see them grow up in a fascist state. I'd count it a win if I take 2-3 of 'em first. Show that we'll fight back.
Y'all do as you like. But don't come crying "No more guns!" when the fascists start up the trains.
remember how we needed socialism for that. start organizing.
Liberals: "The Christo-fascists are taking over! And getting more blatant about it every day"
Yep. Have been for some time. They're more and more in our face about it.
Liberals: "The 2A is ancient bullshit! Give up your guns!"
Well now, hold on a moment...
Saw a wild video a year or two back. Iranian Jihadis running and gunning down a residential apartment block. This was in response to protests. Women wanting rights are some such crazy thing. They were firing indiscriminately into apartment buildings.
Commented a time or three on reddit, "That can't happen in America. We'd shoot back. Or they wouldn't even start." (Much like Ohio class boomers, deterrence is a thing.) Buried in downvotes. 🤷🏻♂️
I'll do what I can for y'all. Won't be much I fear. But I'll fight the Nazis, the ones literally marching in our streets, and it may mean my personal extinction. I'll be scared shitless, but I'll fight, and I have the means and training. Do you? I suggest y'all join me before you end up on trains.
My plan is to boldy say something snarky right before getting shot and hope someone films it so I can be turned into a meme before everything collapses. (In actuality my mental health is way too poor to keep a gun in easy access. Maybe a crossbow or something would be better for me, or I could get a proper medic bag and help that way)
Ding, ding, ding...
There's your problem, right there. Christians continue to tell us who they plan on attacking next and we, as a society, allow them to continue to be the shittiest human beings on planet Earth, unabated. These people are heavily mentally ill. And they keep... What's the word they like to use..? "Grooming" kids to make sure the priests and the pastors have a brand new group of idiots for the next generation.
This has to be stopped. Believing utter bullshit should not be a protected class.
I'm really tired of these assholes using religion as a basis to make and change laws. They're forcing Christianity on everyone else. I guess freedom of/from religion is there with the separation of church and state, in the trash.
Using religion as a basis to change laws is what they do. It's why they were threatened, under the penalty of death, by most of the countries in Europe, to leave. Everybody was sick of their shit. Imagine a massive group of Marjorie Taylor Greens. That is what sailed to America. Imagine being a Native American, living your best life, and that is what shows up on your shores.
This narrative that Christians left to "avoid religious persecution" was started by, you guessed it, the Christians, who are always the "victims" even when they themselves initiated the problem. The truth is, they came here so they could continue to persecute others. How many infected blankets did they hand out to the natives, knowing it would kill them? They have always been terrible people. Always.
The founding fathers were not even Christians, they were deists. At that time, just like today, you can't make a law without including the Christians or they'll destroy society. They have to be getting talked about favorably or they kill everyone around them; the inquisition, the Nazis, etc... All done by Christians. And yet we made them a federally protected class. For what? What warrants that? They aren't threatened. They're not a minority class, that is to say, not a small number of the population... They have churches seemingly on every corner in every city and town in the country. Everyone else has to be protected from them.
And one of the lesser, yet still egregious tactics that they use is to have prayer meetings at public schools and at jobs. I've lived in the South my entire life and almost every place I've ever worked, there's been a morning meeting where somebody prays at the end.
We, as a society, need to reevaluate the need to list religion as a protected class, because let's face it, the Christians think their religion is the only one that meets that criteria. They are nothing but a federally defended terrorist group.
Blows my mind that there aren't violent LGBT folks out there. I'm not advocating violence, but I'm impressed with the self control.
There absolutely are, never forget the first pride parade was a riot.
"When did you ever see a fag fight back? ... Now, times were a-changin'. Tuesday night was the last night for bullshit ... Predominantly, the theme [w]as, "this shit has got to stop!"
"...the crowd shouted "Pigs!" and "Faggot cops!" Beer cans were thrown and the police lashed out, dispersing some of the crowd who found a construction site nearby with stacks of bricks....Garbage cans, garbage, bottles, rocks, and bricks were hurled at the building, breaking the windows. Witnesses attest that "flame queens", hustlers, and gay "street kids"—the most outcast people in the gay community—were responsible for the first volley of projectiles, as well as the uprooting of a parking meter used as a battering ram"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots#
The reason the riots were successful?
Be like water.
They used guerrilla tactics to out maneuver the police. They did not present a stationary target.
Sylvia Rivera Patron Saint of the Bick
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a43877100/stonewall-riot-leaders/
That's mindless violence. I was thinking much more focused.
Edit cause people can't think:
I'm discussing history, not calling for, or advocating anything.
I'm not calling for violence, I was remarking that it's interesting how poorly treated lgbt folks are and how well behaved they are in comparison.
A riot, especially one from many years ago, is not the historical anecdote I was alluding to. The fact that a riot from decades ago was linked to me proves my point.
Lastly, riots are mindless. It's what a crowd does when anger boils over (as someone said to me) rather than the exact opposite, which is planned, calculated, etc.
I'm not devaluing those affected by the shit that was happening prior to stonewall. I'm saying it's remarkable that a riot happen instead of people hunting down the cops that were targeting them.
The combination of competence, the necessary skills, intelligence, and most importantly, the willingness to sacrifice oneself to effect change is...rare. It's also uncertain whether results would be positive.
Consider what is needed to pull off 'focused' violence - that is to say, assassination of key targets. You need to be sufficiently skilled to manage at least one successful strike. You cannot communicate with people to do this - it's far too easy to get caught in the modern day. You need supplies and equipment, and sure, guns are somewhat easy to get in the US, but they aren't the only thing you need. You need access and information, some of which is public, but some of which can be hard to get, and can draw attention by being sought (keep in mind algorithms are pattern matching to find this stuff).
Then consider the potential outcome of these actions. As mentioned before, organizing is impractical since it would mean getting caught before doing anything with much higher probability. Regardless of your skills, the chance of getting caught approaches 100%. You may be able to take out two or three key senators, or if you're very good and very lucky, a few supreme court justices, before being caught. At this point you will either be imprisoned, or you commit suicide to avoid this fate.
And what's the result? Violence of this sort to effect change is hard to pull off, but even harder to predict the outcome of. If you've succeeded in all plausible goals, you might manage to change the makeup of the supreme court - that's probably the best possible outcome you can hope for with this sort of violence, but right now on the gay front, the supreme court shockingly has yet to do anything too bad, so you may not want to provoke that shit. But there are a lot of possible bad outcomes. And as someone smart enough to pull this off, you're smart enough to see that. It could lead to increasingly strict rules, to retaliation against the group you're trying to help - it could even be the catalyst to strengthen your opponents position enough to make things worse elsewhere.
The idea of someone killing a bunch of the key bad guys is great, but it has so many impracticalities, and worst of all, such an uncertain and potentially worse outcome that it's probably just a bad idea overall, even as much as I too sometimes wish someone would just kill some of these motherfuckers already.
I think you're overestimating the competence of LEO. Christopher Dorner was hunting cops (vs unarmed lawmakers) in the midst of one of one of the US's largest man hunts and he got away with it for two weeks.
Stonewall as a riot isn't as notable as an outburst as it was a starting point. What would become the LGBTQIA+ of the time were underground. There were frequent police raids of establishments and there was violence all the time but none made the news. It was swept under the rug. Stonewall was noisy and it got a lot of the cis hetro folk actually talking about things that had previously been relegated to innuendo or silence.
In the aftermath of the riots the Queer community noticed and organized. There had been nice quiet liberation marches in the past where people dressed in their Sunday best and tried to look respectable or ride the line so people could be confused about who might actually be breaking some laws in bed. But they devised something noisier than a riot. Taking all the stuff reserved for the clubs and spilling them onto the street. Pride was conceived as an Independence day style celebration with "the Battle of Stonewall" as it's memorial date. It was conceived at the time as a type of violence, not against people but against the silence. To keep people talking by being unabashed and even they were surprised how many queer people actually existed. The community due to external threat had been anonymized, atomized and carefully concealed so nobody had any clue how many queer people were actually out there. It was always just assumed to be a very few. Prides were hardcore shows of force where people courted arrest and police violence. One could see the continued Pride societies as being a safety measure. They are an organized entity, yes they are largely organizing parades and municipal events... But they are also highly socially connected and technically mobilizable. It's a measure of keeping in touch and having an internal structure of people who know how to organize.
It's also important to remember that the community has a continuity problem. There's not as many queer elders as there should be because AIDS survivorship selected for those who were closeted, lived an exclusive heteronormative life style except for partner or just weren't out having a good time in public. Those who remained to steer the ship were the quiet and mild mannered who were tangential to the violence. Everyone was slow to move on AIDS because it was thought to be a scourge on the obcene and it mowed down the community in the thousands. The crisis created a stunning loss of experienced liberation fighters at the same time it forged the survivors into a harder core of seige style organization with lesbians at the fore who used primarily beaurcratic means to fight. That beaurcratic framework is what survived and currently endures. It is quieter and fairly peaceable now but technically speaking you need a certain level of hardship and something that makes enough people angry to do violence to cause people to be primed to fight. The LGBTQIA are generally just invested in being happy and living their lives and their strongholds are cities. It's harder to be queer in a smaller town when people like you are scattered over a distance because those connections are harder to maintain.
Ok, I'm not interested in that event though. Again, I was only remarking it is notable that there isnt violence targeted towards the repressors. That's it. Hearing about an event from many years ago only proves the point.
I'm not saying stonewall was this, or that, or anything. I'm not discussing demonstrations, riots or any such gatherings, valid or not, violent or not.
I'm not advocating for violence or decrying it.
I'm only. Only. Only. Mentioning it is interesting that reality is a given way. That it's remarkable. Your later discussion probably touches on why.
My dismissal of stonewall as a relevant point is only because it's not of the type of event I was describing the absence of. Riots are not the type of premeditated, planned, definitive events I was describing the absence of.
Then you very obviously did not read the last half of my post which explains why the community is largely fairly beaurcratic and how we went from very punchy to fairly tame forms of resistance. The reason the movement works in rhetoric and democracy is tied up in a mass die off of the more revolutionary actors due to the AIDs crisis.
You literally cannot understand how the relationship of organized resistance for the modern movement is without recognizing the massive heelturn in strategic planning that the events of Stonewall and the AIDs crisis represented. You have to understand the psychological and social engineering of why people didn't rise up earlier before that turn and the lessons that were learned and expanded upon to create a more aggressive approach. You can throw a tantrum about how people keep mentioning Stonewall when they talk about culture shifts or you can read past that and realize it for what it was. A massive shift in tactics that marked an actually very aggressive fight which changed again when the community started dropping like flies and other more subtle groups inside the movement became the ones keeping the lights on.
I'm not trying to understand anything! I literally made an observation. Not an argument FOR that observation. I only remarked that the LGBT community is harassed and targeted, and, it's interesting that they are so peaceful. Thats it. Hard stop.
I was referring to targeted violence, not riots. That's the only reason I discarded that event. I did not make claim that I needed an explanation or clarification.
I can understand the points you made just fine, and have all throughout this thread. Again and again I say: they are not on topic for my comment!
All I'm saying is that is is remarkable that there are not assassinations happening. I didn't put a value judgement on that, or anything at all.
Assassinations and riots are entirely different.
You made a comment about admiring "self control" and then started talking about wanting examples for something that doesn't exist and then people started talking about the types of resistance that DO exist because it seemed you wanted examples...
I think where this breaks down is that A) self control has nothing to do with it and people want to correct that misconception and B) you are asking for something more fundementally basic than people expect. Very well. Here is political resistance theory 101.
Assassinations tend to sow empathy for and consolidate the power/positions of the groups who are targeted. For example we look at JFK rather more warmly in retrospect then people did when he was alive. The criticism for risky political moves and his extramarital affairs made the question of his Presidential campaign being successful kind of anybody's guess... But when election time rolled around LBJ won in a landslide victory the sort that is historic. Because all of a sudden his party had a martyr.
Assassinations don't work...or they don't work the way you think. Conservatives love cloaking themselves in the cosplay of being the oppressed. Nobody wants to fuel that delusion because they would use that to burn us all down.
We're out there. Arm the working class and all it's minorities! (But yeah, defence only)
Offense is the best defense 🧐
We can be better, IMO
Can we afford to though?
I believe we need to live by example and embrace martyrdom, while simultaneously doing as much as possible to increase the quality of living, for those who will do the same in the future. Violence isn't a part of that picture, but I acknowledge the right to self defense.
I understand if you don't want to embrace that.
The best "offence", is love, kindness, and sense of community; a place to call "home".
Whitequark
Purpleneutron
No, https://mastodon.social/@whitequark
Gay man calls republicans "filth", says most don't want them here
Straight man calls republicans "filth", says most don't want them here
Most call Republicans filth, gayly saying we don't want them here.
That's not a wrong statement.
Ok, I think I get it now, making sure that school children are taught your religious beliefs isn't indoctrination but teaching them that it is wrong to beat someone to death for their gender expression is.
I don't know if one can project any harder than this
ayo gays are fun. republicans are not.
Funny, but I feel the same way about Republican politicians.
I disagree. I don't feel murderous of any LGBTQ+
Read again, I said nothing about the LGBTQ+, and didn't imply I feel that way either.
You're missing the point that I'm not stupid enough to say so blatantly here. Hence the innuendo. Take your time.
I got the innuendo you were making, but I didn't like the implication of what you said in response to my statement.
I think you actually didn't but whatever. You're so sensitive to shit that ain't there IDGAF.
Yes, I can clearly see how much of a fuck you don't give. Have a good life friend.
There's too much comrade on comrade violence on Lemmy.
Oklahoma, where a non binary kid just died maybe because of bullying
What's terrible is that he said this when people were asking about that specific incident.
Regardless of what actually killed Nex (their injuries or otherwise), they died because of the bullying.
I'd say to him. Too fucking bad dipshit this is america. If u dont like me being here rest assured I do not care and you can kiss my ass lol and if u wana try and kick me out theres the second amendment so that I can kick you out of this lifetime :)
I share your sentiment, but be very careful with comments wishing harm on U.S. senators. You never know who is reading, and they can and will take your comment seriously.
They didn't wish I'll to this guy. They promised to defend themselves from him.
Sure. We can discuss semantics all you want. But the message agencies like the secret service and similar don't care about that. They read "I will kill you," and that triggers an investigation regardless of reasoning.
Who wants to tell him? Who wants to tell him that every national popular vote for the last 20 years says that most people don't want Republicans here.
Hey now, I may not want them in power, but I’m fine if they are here assuming they can keep their hate and bigotry to themselves.
We're quite fond of them in ours, we'll trade some white supremacists.
If I'm filth, this jackass and everyone that thinks like him is a radioactive dumpster burning tires.
I can't wait for these fossils to die off
I can't access the article. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that an ( R ) is involved.
Hopefully archive.ph will be your friend
https://archive.ph/2jthM
Hitler said the Same Thing and that's why he went to HEAVEN! Also I'm NOT Racist OR a White Supremacist!
They recognize I am attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time.
I have a feeling archive.ph will be your friend
https://archive.ph/2jthM
Senator is correct, we don't want these people anywhere around our children. Go be gay in Kansas, it's way better.
1 in 6 highschoolers identify as LGBTQ+. It is, in fact, the children who are gay.
Won't somebody think of the children?