LGBT Politically Correct Police

They both derive from passion.

Being benevolent or being malevolent does make a difference.

Which is why Yoda told us we need to let go of our emotions lest we be drawn into the dark side of the force. Didn't you guys learn anything from Anakin Skywalker? Let it go.

Humans are bound by emotions.

Why is "hate" even a part of the discussion? It seems as though something that doesn't effect your everyday life isn't something that constitutes a strong emotion like hate.


There's two sides of the coin in everyone, a denial of both is delusion.

It's an apt analogy for your continued attitude towards the transgender community.

Speaking of tweets:

YOU SAID IT RU -- OH WAIT

It's not "progress". The anti-bigotry movement, for lack of a better term, is in no way vindicated by some random joker losing his job. It is, however, a completely valid and commendable example of an employer expressing his constitutional right to free association. The company, after all, doesn't have to fire you for being a bigot if they don't want to.

As for the other example, I might *think* firing someone for being homosexual is bigoted and backwards and you might think firing someone for being a happily notorious bigot is unnecessarily harsh, but in the end what matters is that one is illegal and the other is not. If you don't think employment discrimination against LGBT should violate Title VII you have legislative remedies available to you.

I don't know what you think you're trying to say. Both tweets are not in conflict with each other or Bacon's overall point.

One can both declare that calling someone a slur is bad and trying to coerce that person to shut up is also bad.

Find me the tweet where Ru-Paul says people shouldn't be allowed to use racial slurs and there's the point you're trying to make.

Publicly shaming behavior one deems unacceptable is not self-evidently bad or wrong.

So when people used to publicly shame gays for their sexual preference it wasn't bad?

I'm relating back to the OP. The thread is only 5 pages long. Do try to keep up.
Bolded the word you missed.

1) It was not limited to shaming. It was criminalized until like 10 years ago.

2) I didn't say it was never bad. I said it was not self-evidently bad. If, for instance, a 14-year-old gets bullied and kills himself, that may be some evidence that the public shaming as applied there was wrong. If, however, we are dealing with a public shaming that is entirely reactive to the target's public conduct and stops once the conduct ceases, I don't see how that's a problem. The target can stand up for himself if he has the courage of his convictions (commence the marketplace of ideas!) or stop giving his shamers ammunition.



Well, that would be a Title VII violation.

In the present question, I would personally never support a law that forced employers to retain employees who specifically choose to publicly voice opinions the employer deems harmful to their business.

Reading comprehension, have some.

One of my friends who goes to the gym with me is FTM, several of my neighbors are transgender, several of my best friends are transgender, i've gone to HIV positive group meetings with half our group transgender. I've interacted with more transgenders in my lifetime living in Los Angeles, when the rest of your experiences of transgenders are based off wikipedia or some fringe.

What is unanimous is the hatred we have for this fringe LGBT and the bad name it gives the rest of us. I invite you and the other LGBT to pull off this hyper-sensitive attitude in a major LGBT community you'll be laughed at and ridiculed. Why? Because we have more important matters to concern ourselves than changing the opinions and words of others.

Continue to victimize yourself in your irrelevant LGBT town, see how far that gets you in life. The rest.of us have learned how to live alongside heterosexuals without the PC police.

So its bad but not self evidently bad?

What are the rational reasons for discriminating against gay people again? There are rational reasons for shaming bigots like their promotion of violence and disorder to maintain an illogical standard.

What he's saying is that it, in of itself, is not bad. The ways in which it can be used however have potential to be bad.

you're going to have to drop 'rational' to get any responses.

It is sometimes bad, but not self-evidently so.

It can be bad. Usually when you're shaming somebody relentlessly for something they have no capacity to change.

IMO this is the root of most out-and-out bullying: you shame somebody for something they can't change, they don't change, and your options are to either relent or escalate. So you escalate.

I hate you all and you all suck... There...

For ***'s sake, I don't care where you live. I don't care where anyone on these boards lives because it has *** all to do with an argument.

You, along with RuPaul, don't want to acknowledge '***' as derogatory because it is not personally offensive to you. Guess what? You don't speak for everyone in the community, you aren't familiar with everyone's circumstances, and for the love of all that is *** holy, WeHo is not the center of the LGBT universe. You're not an authority. You're not the top rung of the ladder. You're not the person us country bumpkins aspire to be. You're a gay dude living in a sanitized, insular bubble where the biggest concern is that your tank top isn't tight enough or The Abbey ran out of Corona Light.

LGBT equality isn't a done deal because your neighborhood is some modern gaytopia. Get over yourself.

Because I don't find it offensive you shouldn't either! I literally know dozens of these types of people! DOZENS!!!!!!

I know what self evidently means, he avoided my question so I assumed his answer.


Right so it should be acceptable when you don't find it wrong and unacceptable when you do. Who the hell put you in charge?

You sir get the "missing the point" award. It doesn't matter if you DO find it derogatory. They're just words, you are in 100% charge of how much they harm you. Get over it, or remain the victim. That's your choice.

No one, unfortunately, which is why I am reduced to evaluating this on a case-by-case basis, providing examples and explaining reasoning which you are free to agree with or not.

I mean, it's because I am NOT in charge and explicitly have no desire to be in charge that I find shaming potentially prosocial: it's really the only non-coercive tool we have has humans to correct others' bad behavior.


You are entitled to this view, but others are entitled to think it makes you a merciless *** when somebody says to you "it hurts me when you call me a ***" and you respond with "your feelings on the matter mean less to me than my unwillingness to engage in the slightest effort to police my behavior", and the scorn others are, in this hypothetical scenario, 100% correct to heap on your wack *** is a cross you're just going to have to bear.

Which shouldn't be so hard. They're just words, after all!

I really don't know how to enunciate this any clearer. The words are a symptom. The illness is the widely accepted attitude that minority groups, transgenders in this case, are not worth the basic respect afforded to those groups privileged enough to not be subjected to similar treatment. It is not just the words, and "getting over it" is meaningless when faced with the oppressive reality the words helped create.