I hear what your saying, my own opinion (and it's really only that) is that America is still a very white-Christian nation, just from this forum alone I find that Americans (or at least users who identify themselves as such) don't realise how racist/homophobic/faith-driven their outlook on life is... and that standpoint seems to be considered "the norm".
I'm not including you in that although I know we spar across quite a wide political divide
I should have made it clear that I knew I was uber-generalising, sorry dude
We are a widespread nation. Things differ from one region to another. The blindness to our outlook goes beyond just the racist/homophobic/faith-driven (just to clarify, faith-driven means politically, not personality) and into everything. You see it in our nearly even political divides. Each side thinks their world view is normal. They don't realize their view might be unacceptable to some or that many others think differently until they go online or turn on the news.I hear what your saying, my own opinion (and it's really only that) is that America is still a very white-Christian nation, just from this forum alone I find that Americans (or at least users who identify themselves as such) don't realise how racist/homophobic/faith-driven their outlook on life is... and that standpoint seems to be considered "the norm".
I'm not including you in that although I know we spar across quite a wide political divide
A Carl Peter Værnet type of person ( a "discriminatory" type person) is not an isolated incident. A large chunk (arguably a majority) of Germans at the time agreed with what they were doing. You could even go on to say that up through teh 1960s most people in the world agreeed with Carl's work and of course Britain used his method on gays up through that era post WW2. It took a great deal of debate in British politics to end the various experimentations and things, and eventually it was repealed but I don't buy into saying that the private sector should be allowed to do things that the government sector cant.
Yeah the midwest is definitely nowhere near as liberal as the majority of the west coast and the northeast. The perception that America is still very close-minded and religiously oriented comes almost exclusively from the midwest and the south anymore. The cities seem to be improving, but there's still a massive rural population out here and the mindset is almost exclusively anti-liberal. Since the "family value" group also tends to be the loudest in making their opinions heard, in regards to media and political debate, they usually get the most attention outside the U.S., and since it's still a very prevalent opinion on LGBT topics and other more liberal issues it gets pushed ahead as the generalization of the States.Out on the West-coast, our viewpoint is generally more liberal than the UK's, as people don't bat an eye at homosexuals, atheism is common, and legalization of drugs is happening. We are a very, very diverse nation that is absolutely massive compared to the UK, and your stereotype is built mostly on the vocal members from the Bible Belt area. When I've been out to Georgia or Texas, people aren't entirely sure how to react to me and presentation; that is how different it is from coast to coast.
Likewise, I feel lumping the majority of UK citizens in with the "government control, obey authority, the state should provide a dozen safety nets, privacy isn't that big of a deal if you aren't doing something wrong" mindset. But then I'm also labeling an area about the size of the West Coast, which is a bit less extreme
I just want to check that you're using state-sponsored human experimentation based on discrimination as an argument that the private sector can't be discriminatory?
Great. What does that have to do with anything, and what's the problem?For example a parent could force a child who they think is gay (though say an android spy device the parent installs or computer activity monitoring) and bring them to me a doctor that can "cure the homosexilist disease", aka Rick Perry's definition of homosexual.
I kind of chimed in without looking at what the "private discrimination" chat was about, I see you said people should be able to fire/hire based on any factor they want. That's fine, its pretty much going to be that way anyways regardless of whether its made illegal to ask and or fire/hire based on sexual orientation. I was thinking of the Texas GOP support for gay therapy & the vetoed Arizona bill. I suppose those are both government issues but the private sector carries over into government too.
That's a strange one.... I wouldn't say the tweet was completely pro-gay, I kind of got the since the original Lotus PR tweet sort of derided gays with the pic of two men kissing as a lot of people would feel uncomfortable with it. Not to say even most would find it offensive but I thought he could have picked a different kind of tweet if he wanted to show support for the gay community.
The bigot one that apparently informed us that homosexuality is a sin against God that needs to be cured? You weren't CC'd? I mean, I put it with the ones from work telling me about sexual harassment trainings and how we almost got a raise this year, but didn't.
The Obama memo; you know the LBGT mafia. It's sort of like a fruit cocktail expect a bit more fruity with an extra dash of Mao Zedong to give it that extra socialist taste.
Obama's got his militia defending his memo, need to assembly the Justice League. America is ailing, we need a Ron Paul or better yet Jeb Bush to fix this mess.
1. This isn't the political debate thread, I'd rather not talk who should be president.
If you'd been paying attention you would know that is far from true.
It's a term used to describe the activist wing of the LBGT community that actively work to publicly destroy anyone that says anything they deem homophobic. See: Alec Baldwin.
That's what I presumed, but I'm wondering what he's implying by saying Obama is involved and by calling it a socialist movement. Don't get me wrong, the side for equal rights has it's share of overly aggressive supporters, but to call an entire group a mafia for having a conflicting stance is a bit abrasive. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be taken kindly if I called supporters of the "family values" group to be part of a mafia, so I'm really wanting clarification here.
