I'd recommend Contrapoints You Tube channel some of her videos are quite arty but they are well thought out and an insider's perspective. Also Philosophy Tube and others have done videos on transgenderism and Council of Geeks IDs as gender fluid.
LGBTQ acceptance dropping among Millennials
- Thread starter Skanky Vamp
- Start date
There just isn't a good casual word for a mixed group or group of women or even a singular female that isn't either insulting or excessively formal. I experimented with dudette but it sounds like smurfette and a bit silly. Dudess doesn't sound right either - whereas males have guys, dude or in the UK bloke.
Girls or ladies are the most common ones I hear, but it depends on the person, I have no issues with guys or dudes to me it's a unisex term.
thrasherpix
Scooby
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 5,335
- Age
- 44
I don't think it's been mentioned here, so I will. I respond more to tone than actual label. "Dyke" can be a playful/friendly, neutral, or fighting word depending on the tone and how it's used, for example. But then again, so can the word "you."
This might be why I personally haven't run into the militants in real life, though have encountered them online where tone is absent (and, I've noticed, often assumed to be the worst possible tone regardless of the circumstances--hell, I've given sincere compliments online only to be yelled at for "sarcasm").
(That said, there are a very few words that some people try to "reclaim" and failed at so that it's virtually always negative, even when people claiming it's not who use it on themselves. I know I've changed my mind on one word being okay in certain circumstances, but years of observation make me frown on it no matter who uses it and to whom and in what context because of its baggage and effects no matter how well meaning one might try to make it.)
This might be why I personally haven't run into the militants in real life, though have encountered them online where tone is absent (and, I've noticed, often assumed to be the worst possible tone regardless of the circumstances--hell, I've given sincere compliments online only to be yelled at for "sarcasm").
(That said, there are a very few words that some people try to "reclaim" and failed at so that it's virtually always negative, even when people claiming it's not who use it on themselves. I know I've changed my mind on one word being okay in certain circumstances, but years of observation make me frown on it no matter who uses it and to whom and in what context because of its baggage and effects no matter how well meaning one might try to make it.)
Faith 2019
Woman verses Woman
@BuffyForever85
The problem with Trump, and more so if he gets reelected in 2020, there will be eight years were a new crop of teenagers will grow up to feel -- that it is moral and ethical to place other people down. Seeing foreigners coming to America, ended up in cages, having children taken away from their mothers, seeing foreigners within America being treated unwell. Having America withdraw from the international community, and when it is forced to engage in foreign affairs -- they will always look at foreigners as undesirable people. Wars happen because countries do not understand each other. With America becoming more withdrawing from the international community, the risk of a war will only increase.
ICE founded 2003 (way before Trump), those ”cages” supposedly 2015 (hm, who was president then? The guy called ”deporter in chief” maybe)
Perhaps calling something a ”fence” rather than a ”Wall” makes a great moral difference?
No one has to like Trump, but it is not as if Obama walked on air or Clinton was some paragon of delight who definitely would never have gotten into war (she voted yes to Iraq after all, great call! And the ”fence” and ICE).
I’m more concerned about kids growing up with no stress tolerance because people are telling them every fifth minute that they’ll be at war because part of the country voted for the wrong guy and screw them, they’re the enemy too
thrasherpix
Scooby
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 5,335
- Age
- 44
Ironically, the best policy about immigration reform (IMO) was being done by the Bush administration, though it was in the early stages and probably would've taken a dark turn somewhere. It looked good at first, it did set standards but looked fair and not xenophobic to me (that's the impression I remember feeling at the time) that should please the most people on both sides. But then 9/11 happened and that got totally derailed.
9/11 screwed so much up, not just that. If it were the Buffyverse, I'd say Wolfram & Hart were behind 9/11 (I'm half-serious, half tongue-in-cheek about certain conspiracy theorists).
Unfortunately, issues get exploited for partisan politics rather than for ethical and moral reasons. One of the most extreme examples I recall offhand was how drastically things changed after President Obama became POTUS. There used to be a regular (can't recall now if it was every month, every other week, or even every week) in which large crowds protesting the war in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and the like, that would be in the scores, maybe even exceeding a hundred in any one spot in the cities (even some towns). And then IMMEDIATELY after Obama assumed office, those scores were reduced to maybe a dozen, and finally dwindled to nothing (I felt sorry for those I passed, I could tell how upset they were that they'd been used by people who didn't genuinely care about the issues, only about exploiting them for partisan politics).
This was in spite that nothing had actually changed, and President Obama had already broken promises he'd made while campaigning before getting elected (something to do with Verizon and surveillance, I forget the details, and I think there was more). I'd say that in some ways it got worse, especially with how drone strikes got used so much, some of them (like "double taps" that hit a target, and then assuming compatriots try to help then hit them again to take those out, but can also take out emergency responders and general good samaritans) sounding disgraceful to me, like if that was done to us by any nation I'd support declaring war against them, and for that reason consider it atrocious that we'd do that. It's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when we do it.
Oh, and this is depressing...there used to be a woman who protested President Obama getting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and I couldn't even find her name on the wikipedia link on the prize (though it had other protesters). It's like she's being disposed of down the memory hole until no one remembers. Luckily I was finally able to remember the name:
en.wikipedia.org
For those of you not old enough to remember (or have destroyed your long term memory through stress and/or drug abuse, legal drug abuse counts), she used to be a big name among Democrats. They used her (exploited is the more proper word in hindsight) and turned her into a celebrity and empowered her to be a constant nuisance to President Bush, though toward the end of Bush's term there was some bickering because she opposed Democratic politicians who were talking big but doing nothing.
And then when President Obama won she was forgotten along with the rest of the the very few still protesting the war. When she continued to protest, including against President Obama, a great many Democrats acted as if they didn't know who she was or ever heard of her. She got really disillusioned and fell into far left political groups (actual far left, not centrists that get called far left in the USA because they're not far right enough), hating on Democrats as much as Republicans. And I really don't blame her. I disagree with her on a lot, but I felt really bad for how she was treated by Democrats that she thought were her supporters once Obama won the White House.
Not to say Democrats are the only ones who do this. Partisan politics gets dirty like this on all sides.
9/11 screwed so much up, not just that. If it were the Buffyverse, I'd say Wolfram & Hart were behind 9/11 (I'm half-serious, half tongue-in-cheek about certain conspiracy theorists).
Unfortunately, issues get exploited for partisan politics rather than for ethical and moral reasons. One of the most extreme examples I recall offhand was how drastically things changed after President Obama became POTUS. There used to be a regular (can't recall now if it was every month, every other week, or even every week) in which large crowds protesting the war in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and the like, that would be in the scores, maybe even exceeding a hundred in any one spot in the cities (even some towns). And then IMMEDIATELY after Obama assumed office, those scores were reduced to maybe a dozen, and finally dwindled to nothing (I felt sorry for those I passed, I could tell how upset they were that they'd been used by people who didn't genuinely care about the issues, only about exploiting them for partisan politics).
This was in spite that nothing had actually changed, and President Obama had already broken promises he'd made while campaigning before getting elected (something to do with Verizon and surveillance, I forget the details, and I think there was more). I'd say that in some ways it got worse, especially with how drone strikes got used so much, some of them (like "double taps" that hit a target, and then assuming compatriots try to help then hit them again to take those out, but can also take out emergency responders and general good samaritans) sounding disgraceful to me, like if that was done to us by any nation I'd support declaring war against them, and for that reason consider it atrocious that we'd do that. It's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when we do it.
Oh, and this is depressing...there used to be a woman who protested President Obama getting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and I couldn't even find her name on the wikipedia link on the prize (though it had other protesters). It's like she's being disposed of down the memory hole until no one remembers. Luckily I was finally able to remember the name:
Cindy Sheehan - Wikipedia
For those of you not old enough to remember (or have destroyed your long term memory through stress and/or drug abuse, legal drug abuse counts), she used to be a big name among Democrats. They used her (exploited is the more proper word in hindsight) and turned her into a celebrity and empowered her to be a constant nuisance to President Bush, though toward the end of Bush's term there was some bickering because she opposed Democratic politicians who were talking big but doing nothing.
And then when President Obama won she was forgotten along with the rest of the the very few still protesting the war. When she continued to protest, including against President Obama, a great many Democrats acted as if they didn't know who she was or ever heard of her. She got really disillusioned and fell into far left political groups (actual far left, not centrists that get called far left in the USA because they're not far right enough), hating on Democrats as much as Republicans. And I really don't blame her. I disagree with her on a lot, but I felt really bad for how she was treated by Democrats that she thought were her supporters once Obama won the White House.
Not to say Democrats are the only ones who do this. Partisan politics gets dirty like this on all sides.
Faith 2019
Woman verses Woman
@Taake
America has been at war for 18 years since September 2001. I was born in April 1990, and I was way to young for the first Iraq war to understand it and the standoff during the whole of the Clinton Administration. They are not wars like World War II, or the Vietnam war were most of the debates about the war happened in presidential elections of 1968 and 1972. Studying the Vietnam war is hard to find in bookstores, but you have volumes about World War II. And even if you study the Vietnam war, its primary about the actions within the white house or protesting during the 1960's. The war did not happen until 1975 under the Ford Administration, and for some reason, you could not find a market in TV or in books, talking about the Vietnam war in the Ford Administration. What happened with the students, what happened with the counter culture, what happened with the anti-war protesters -- they declared victory when Nixon resigned. The war ended in the Ford Administration, and the anti-war protesters, and the counter culture, they were already past the era of their lives.
With the wars America has gotten into since 9/11 are still going on with one way or the other. It has become a low simmer war, with reports of a American killed from time to time. The media is not interested in the wars, Hollywood has given different versions of the wars, bookstores has given us stories about the wars. The factor is, George W Bush is out of office since January 2009, and his replacement Obama has left office too. America is now on its third president dealing with these wars, and the media is given more time debating Trump's tweets on Twitter. The wars have become so dull and boring, when a American does get killed in combat, it ranks as being equal with news stories of car accidents were someone gets killed too. Soon, reporting about a American being killed in combat is like reporting about a suicide. Change the subject or I will change the channel.
With America becoming so numb about long term wars, it has become so uninterested with foreign cultures. With my generation, and the younger people under me, when we see current affairs with American foreign polices -- the first thing we ask is, who in the hell is making money from this engagement. I read a great deal and read a lot of history, and when I read history of the United Kingdom -- I am asking, nice story -- but who is making the money to tell me this story. When I read stories about Kings and Queens of England, and the countless people who were killed for treason against the crown. They never were thinking, that in America in the 21st century, a publishing company will be writing about my story and publishing a book. And America has become so numb with wars, that the American readers of these books with be thinking, who is making the money for telling my life's story with understanding my life's story and my time in history too. Because of the wars, Americans are looking at foreigners and foreign culture as pure entertainment value. Take the United Kingdom, with current events, you can show us the queen and royal family and we change the channel. On the other hand, if the IRA decided to blow up people and kills a vast amount of people, we become glued to the TV and online media. Yes, the queen is entertainment, but 100 dead English people is a greater entertainment value. America is bored seeing one death, now if there is 100 deaths, that is interesting to us.
Relating this to the post I responded to, it would seem that it matters little who gets elected because it is unlikely any candidate is going to make the people less numb concerning war and the future looks bleak.
But this is getting very off topic.
Faith 2019
Woman verses Woman
@Taake
There is a new report with millennial's, 59% are leaning Democrat and 32% are leaning Republican. This is the widest shift with any generation in American history. I see my generation supporting gays and lesbians, different cultural issues, because they can grow up in a rural community, have very few people to interact within their community, and live in a community that is very white, very settled, and very much the same year after year. But, they engage in social media, and engage with foreigners as friends. Even that their foreign friends are very different than they are.
Sure 🙂
Democratic leadership has a vested interest in keeping people of color dependent on the government. They cannot win elections without the "People of Color vote". They have instituted policies which have incentivized (through welfare and other programs) the breakup of family units and generational poverty. When in power, they do absolutely nothing to help improve the lives of People of Color. They perpetuate the idea that People of Color are victims and can't possibly succeed because everything is against them, and that all conservatives are racists who will never allow them to get ahead. They do not ensure proper elementary/high school education for People of Color (for example, 75% of black boys in California cannot read). They pretend that the only way a person of color can succeed is with government help or reparations. It is insulting to People of Color in this country and their history of accomplishment and contributions to this nation.
They also push identity politics so that the color of your skin is more important than your actions (or the content of your character).
This is why every Democratic presidential candidate publicly supports open borders, because that translates to more votes (including the ability to change the demographics of conservative districts) and more power for them. More poor people to vote for them and to provide cheap labor to their and their donor's companies. Also, illegal immigration negatively impacts Black employment, and is another way these Americans are kept dependent on government.
And they are doing the same thing with the LGBTQ community. Democrat leadership are intentionally creating a rift between the LGBTQ community and the straight community, because it serves their own purposes.
Last edited:
Skanky Vamp
I love you
Cohen
That actually makes a lot of sense. I definitely sense a pushed rift between LGBT+ and conservative communities.
DeadlyDuo
Scooby
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 9,611
- Age
- 36
Polls aren't entirely accurate. Unless they question literally every millennial in the world, their "results" are always going to be skewed by their sample size. They interviewed under 2000 millennials, but there is more than 2000 millennials in the US and the rest of the world. A lot of factors influence someone's views eg if you're religious then you're less likely to be accepting of LGBT than someone who's not religious (though that's not to say that all religious people aren't tolerant or don't accept it.).
If your sample size is majority one group (eg religious) and less of the other (non-religious) then of course the results are going to look negative in comparison to previous polls where the mix of groups might be different.
That's like asking a group of twenty people on here if they like Kennedy. Depending on who you ask, either she's the worst thing to happen to the show, or she's not that bad. Your results are then skewed by who you ask. If you ask 20 Kennedy haters then you're going to get 100% "she's the worst", you ask 20 Kennedy likers then she'd come across as more popular than she actually is. If you ask 10 haters and 10 likers then she's at best a divisive character. As it is, Kennedy is a generally unpopular character within the entire Buffyverse fandom. However, unless you ask each and every fan in the fandom what they think of Kennedy, then your results are never going to be 100% accurate and at best can only offer a generalised perception.
2000 isn't really that big of a sample size when you think of how many people live in a country. It's about all the primary schools in a small district of a city (so not even all the primary schools in the city).
If your sample size is majority one group (eg religious) and less of the other (non-religious) then of course the results are going to look negative in comparison to previous polls where the mix of groups might be different.
That's like asking a group of twenty people on here if they like Kennedy. Depending on who you ask, either she's the worst thing to happen to the show, or she's not that bad. Your results are then skewed by who you ask. If you ask 20 Kennedy haters then you're going to get 100% "she's the worst", you ask 20 Kennedy likers then she'd come across as more popular than she actually is. If you ask 10 haters and 10 likers then she's at best a divisive character. As it is, Kennedy is a generally unpopular character within the entire Buffyverse fandom. However, unless you ask each and every fan in the fandom what they think of Kennedy, then your results are never going to be 100% accurate and at best can only offer a generalised perception.
2000 isn't really that big of a sample size when you think of how many people live in a country. It's about all the primary schools in a small district of a city (so not even all the primary schools in the city).
nightshade
And then you get me who thought you were talking about President Kennedy!
The Bronze
Rogue Demon Hunter
So essentially people of colour vote against their own interests and the white Republican voters are the ones looking out for them?
You're quite sure that the system isn't stacked against them and that the legacy of slavery ending 150 years ago and segregation ending 50 years ago has been evened out?
I didn't say anything about voters, I was talking about party leadership and how they have created a system that oppresses People of Color.
But yes, American People of Color when they vote for Democrats they are voting against their interests. It is in their interest to vote for those who increase POC employment. Who protect POC jobs from illegal immigrants. And who don't actively create policies which are designed to keep POC beholden to the government.
I didn't say anything to that effect. What I said was that the Democratic Party (the party of pro-Slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation) has created a system which keeps Black Americans down.
Name the Stars
You can't see the stars, love. That's the ceiling.
I thought there was a bit of a switch? I could be wrong, but I've read quite a few books about the Southern strategy...
That's trickle down economics and there's only one problem with it....it....doesn't . .work.
Also I don't get it either but it appears your parties switched places over time.
That's not what trickle down economics is.
Even if Southern Strategy was real - which there isn't any evidence for - what about everything that happened before Nixon? What about everything that's going on right now? If there are Southern racists in the Republican party right now, that still doesn't absolve the Democrats for what they're doing right now. Which is really what I was talking about anyway. My comment about slavery etc was just an aside.
But I'll leave this thread for things more applicable to LGBTQ.
Even if Southern Strategy was real - which there isn't any evidence for - what about everything that happened before Nixon? What about everything that's going on right now? If there are Southern racists in the Republican party right now, that still doesn't absolve the Democrats for what they're doing right now. Which is really what I was talking about anyway. My comment about slavery etc was just an aside.
But I'll leave this thread for things more applicable to LGBTQ.
Name the Stars
You can't see the stars, love. That's the ceiling.
To be honest I think both parties are racist in some ways, and not in others.
But that's my last thought, I'll get back on topic! ❤
Buffy Summers
There are some bad people everywhere. Which is why we need to stop identifying one group as good people and the other as bad people.