I would argue that the connection is a lot older than Nazis. The era around 1250 responded to a nasty wave of the Black death by Christian leaders collaborating to simultaneously fight the population decline by criminalizing abortion friendly midwifery and ostracize and subjugate gender and sexual minorities because they feared the collapse of society due to a population bust. As such what was taught by the church up to that point began to get new connotations. Jewish populations were persecuted and killed as scapegoats for the cause of the plague. Folk medicine women and non-conforming men were killed and condemned for witchcraft. While women stepped up to fill the roles of men during the plague once the population was rebounding their power of place in society was to be broken as the Church leaned on it’s misogynistic practices and preached of the dangers to society and the family…

Nazisim is just a more modern echo of well established means to break the power of non compliant of groups who can be scapegoated or subjugated into subservience to Christians who feel threatened, a group that centers nominally celebate and wealthy men whose only contact with women is in a subordinate role.

So… The law isn’t static. With the previous Supreme Court ruling lending more power to the constitutional right to own and carry guns all those laws that you mentioned that originally banned him no longer have rock solid ground for existing at all.

Basically a state can pass any law it likes, it’s only once it gets used against someone that it can go through the process of being tested as a valid law by punch testing it’s capacity as constitutional violation. If there is a change to the precedent of the Constitution then then anything still in the appeals process can invoke the law as long as they can bring up reasonable proof that a current trial can support questions of constitutional violations.

His defense was basically capitalizing on a change in the law to bring into question every gun law on the books that was, prior to the new Supreme Court ruling was considered fairly standard… If the Supreme Court judged the state law in conflict with the new established constitutional interpretation basically the arrest isn’t valid and the persecution would have to reconstruct the case from scratch and re-trial… And creating a domino effect potentially destroying all state gun restrictions. It’s not surprising that they ruled how they did. They’d get so much kickback…

If someone’s fundamental rights are violated in the process of enacting the law the trial conviction is considered invalid. So he’s kind of has been under shrodinger’s conviction for a federal crime, neither considered a vaild nor invalid convict until this box was opened.

The concept of the European style family is a tool of conservative control. When you create specific boundaries on what is considered kinship you create subjects of economic categories. If you get a bunch of kickbacks for playing by the rules then there are also people who are purposefully excluded from playing to create additional economic goads. Like if you are disowned from your family you can lose generational wealth and support which is designed to keep young people in line by way of fear . Welfare and social securities weakens the economic ties of the family politic control to make you reliant on the support of the people you are related to by blood and to keep people who might be your chosen family at a distance unable to help.

So called “family values” aren’t lovely dovey nice things. They are to make being an individual with different needs a failure state.

Pretty sure she’s just bin-ornery on account of getting space dumpstered for a millenia.

I am sorry that you aren’t comfortable with hardcore Prides. There are family friendly ones if you want to go but these are spawned by a history of protests. They remain protests. The community of Prides remain as a core of organization and links of communication that can be mobilized if shit goes really south. Nobody is forcing people to go to them.

Also I will save people some time, using a video of someone who straight up says they have never BEEN to one? Really? If this person hasn’t even attended one why are they speaking out about them? They do not actually know about them. If you have fallen for this respectability politic what I say is still relevant.

You may be gay but that doesn’t make you tolerant of the community. You don’t want to be a part of the wider community or the cutting edge of the cultue that’s fine. But there are a lot of people particularly gay and lesbian people who once they “got theirs” peaced out and decided that they could disappear into the mass of the hegemony with barely a whisper. Not everyone wants to do that. Not every one can. Trans advocacy was key to making same sex marriages legal, we have been there since the beginning facing the same persecution… and some people remember and are helping to pay that back.

You want to play house and sneer at the queers great. You became what the people who fought for you fought against. Bigoted people will look to you and use your bigotry to excuse their own. That you echo their fucking talking points like a parrot who takes treats from their hands tells me you enjoy being kept. That you are as incurious about the community as the person in this video and you are using them to soothe your own bigotry just like others will use you. You don’t have to like the community but you don’t have to fuel some bigots fucking ego for them either. Sometimes it’s tactful to keep your opinions to yourself.

Ookay… That is a very outsized violent reaction. I think you may have had a bit too much internet for one day.

Would you be willing to tell us about it? Why is life so much worse now than the period of stuff like the AIDS crisis, Section 28 and Romer v Evans… Before the widespread recognition and legalization of same sex marriage and the lowered barriers for trans people to change their identification documents that resulted.

I think you have people legitimately confused for your reasons because a lot of that history is painted as essentially a war and mass genocide by inaction primarily of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. While I know of a few of my trans elders have said that there was less individual heat on trans identities as there are now, it still doesn’t seem like on the whole it was a great time. People were still murdered for being trans and a lot of the fight for non-binary trans people were struggling with much deeper form of erasure.

I think people are concerned that what you are putting forward is your personal experience which may be narrower than the full encompassing experience of the entire LGBTQIA which it is assumed the question is being asked about. The birds eye veiw, of all the identities and the culture of the movement from that full ten year span. It’s generally assumed by younger people that most things are better now because at least we aren’t dropping like flies so it’s natural that the reaction to your opinion is disbelief.

*Edit, Removed an example event that was in the eighties.

Would like to suggest that you are in fact not okay with LGBTQ+ people. You enjoy the inflated concept of your own tolerance of them - but only when they mince delicately around your sensibilities.

Might as well say " I am tolerant of briefly being in the same space as with queer people but only when they are isolated and never in a situation where their culture, needs or comfort is centered." It’s a low bar dude. You don’t have to like it It’s not for you and nobody is waiting on your blessing.

But that’s the thing isn’t it. People cling to the idea that in that trash heap is a sparkle of the genuine even as the recognize the garbageness of the garbage pile. There’s layers to the onion. As long as there’s something that reads convincingly as genuine people will clap themselves on the back for spotting the contrivance while still at some minute level still buying into the perceived core aspect of the show.

Also let’s not forget that Hugh Laurie receives tons of letters from fans in desperate undiagnosed medical situations on a regular basis. Just because you aren’t fooled doesn’t mean that’s a universal.

Depends on what you mean. Is it hate speech from a court of public opinion standpoint? Probably. Is it from a legal one? The US doesn’t have a hate speech law on the books just “Obscenity law” which allows things to be censored.

Canadian law has hate speech but it might not fit that either as to legally be chargable as hate speech it needs to fit the criteria. In this instance it could be argued use of an N slur is Denying, minimizing or celebrating past persecution or tragedies that happened to group members… but it would ALSO need be performative in a public space, intended and performed for a large group. If it’s basically in the scope of him having a private conversation with individuals it isn’t a chargeable offence to public order. If he was shouting it in the street sure but consequences wise it’s analogous to someone shouting “The Duck army is coming!” over and over again outside your house 3am. It’s a public nuisance ordinance. If you call the cops will come over and stop it only if someone complains and at worst they will escort you away and issue a fine but nobody is going to do hard time for heralding the Duck army’s arrival or hate speech.

So like is it hate speech? Maybe. Is he a racist dick who deserves condemnation for being a hateful racist dick? Yes.

I mean… I regularly work under NDAs in tv and they are usually pretty mild but I did one season of… Something that came out inside the past 10 years…and the entire thing was mad brained including the NDA. Production wise these sleazy reality tv things are grifts. If the core reality of them is questioned then it hurts the “integrity” of the brand and ultimately the production company’s bottom dollar. If you don’t buy into the reality aspects those shows lose most of their appeal.

I can’t even begin to say how weird it was to be crew. There’s like this whole fast-track culture where if you’re a little competent they will invite you onto the next project with basically the same responsibilities but a jacked up important sounding title. From a technical standpoint I’ve seen more discipline and good practice on film student projects. They are their own little worlds inside film and if they don’t work more reality tv they don’t have recognized transferable skills that easily ports to other positions in the industry, so if they want to switch you become a person who has a bunch of entrenched bad habits you have to be trained out of and rehumbled before you can reliably get jobs. The people who get sucked into that world basically live in golden handcuffs.

I was a localization playtester at Koei for their release of Gundam Musou and played the game 40 hours a week as a job looking for errors in the Subtitles. We started with the subtitle with Japanese version and so about two weeks in I get a massive anime style fever and end up living stuck in the video game’s stupid hackneyed story mode. Everybody in the dream was speaking Japanese way beyond my extraordinarily basic level so I was frustrated that I couldn’t understand anything, It was a dull and repetitive hack and slash which I would occasionally revive and wake up from briefly to sigh with relief that it was over at last before passing out and going right back in. I was rescued 16 hours later by my housemates who were worried when I didn’t check in.

It was bizarrely hellish.

You know… For a second when he was talking about Brown V Board of Education I wondered if he maybe he was actually going to refer to some of the major desegregation issues. Like how a lot of quality education was actually negatively impacted because the way it was handled. Desegregation caused a massive firing of black teachers because parents of white kids coming into previously black only schools pulled all manner of nonsense like "Well what if my sparkling white menstruating girl child has to share a room with a male black teacher… That’s just wrong! " (yup… That was a ‘legit’ concern from white parents of the time) or how sudden staff redundancies would two teachers one from the black school and the other from the white to be considered and the one chosen to stay was damn near always from the white school despite the teachers being both very qualified. The narrative of "well the black schools were impoverished with budget staff and students had sub par outcomes so we should choose the ‘most qualified’ candidate " was a lot of the justification used at the time and a lot of it was blatantly untrue… The black schools may have seen less infrastructure funding but the teachers were just as good. That lack of black teachers also spiraled into a lot of biases on behalf of the sudden white dominant teacher population that turned black students into “problem children” amd second class citizens in schools where they had once been absolutely comfortable causing a lot of issues to domino out from that move.

I doubt that’s his reasons because it seems like Clarence Thomas is well bought and paid for…But… Maybe it’s coming from a genuine place? He’s old enough to have seen that change happen first hand and be very negatively effected… If so maybe he does fondly remember an all black school? His takeway may be influenced by that kind of rosy nostalgic lens.

I will say that there is a marked and growing distain for mixed liberal ideologies. There is a lot of this idea that every socialist needs to be some kind of pure strain to count or take basically the Marxist definition as the only viable one. It kind of ignores a couple of centuries of Socialist thought. A lot of people basically think “means of production” means nothing less than everyone working in a co-op and discounts a lot of past socialist wins as “not socialism”. It’s an important thing to remember about Marx, the world he lived in was very different. Damn near everything at the time was privatized. Water, sanitation, post, fire service, public health and public health regulatory bodies… None of that existed under the perview of Government auspice. Socialist strains more to the legacy of Robert Owens, Daniel De Leon, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and other ethical socialists have had significant wins. Some places took it further than others but the one thing that was allowed to happen in a lot of places was complacency. The 1980’s and 90’s created a liberal fervor that has continued to walk back a lot of significant wins made by the Socialist movements of the early 1900’s and the civil rights movements… But because a lot of the functions of Socialist wins have become the air we breathe people do not associate them with socialism anymore. The issue with peaceful integration is that private gains are always incentivized so complacency cannot be afforded.

It seems weirdly controversial but Non-Marxist socialists exist. Marx was one very popular voice in a sea of people with somewhat related but sometimes contradictory ideas. Some philosophers have been retro-branded as proto-socialists because they existed before Marx who just coined the term. Looking at his contemporaries there’s good reason why he became popular. A lot of what was out there was much drier, committed to peaceful reform. It didn’t tap into people’s anger or emotion in the same way. Right now we deal with a lot of that issue on the left. It is an old struggle. People who are bombastically angry and turning around and biting people for not being “enough” of something. Not fitting a narrow definition. Half my issue with Communist parties I have looked at joining is they aren’t great at being collaborative. Increasingly I have found the argument around “centrism” to stop meaning “people who support the basic status quo” which it seemed to have evolved to being interpretable as for a minute… To a more worrying definition about anyone willing to work across any ideological lines set down by the one guy people bothered to read.

This use of “centrism” as though it’s a plotable point on a map seems to me a worrying fiction. The post moves to create division and self satisfaction where none need exist.

It seems they are utilizing it the way people on the right do. If you are queer for instance and you come across a gathering where a bunch of people are flying the stars and stripes you remove yourself from that situation because those people are almost always not safe. Those people have used it as a symbol of fear and intimidation wrapped up cloak of patriot rhetoric for a good decade now.

Anyone feel like a $1000 fine for Trump is basically just equivalent to fining him a buck for a swear jar?

Yup and so am I. It’s not a free pass for either of us.

Truth. Marriages at a super young age were not normal outside of nobility doing it for political alliance reasons and even then the general advice were not to try for a pregnancy because your risks of killing a young spouse were astronomically high. However the concept was popularized by fiction that basically wanted to trade on the idea of a gritty nasty medieval age where the darkness of the human soul cam be laid bare and how mankind has evolved into a kinder more civilized place… basically the same thematic itch as Warhammer grimdark logic.

In regards to the whole “darkness of the human soul” thing it really doesn’t stack. People just want to believe their personal id (as in the Freudian concept, not “identity” ) is more universal than it is.

I know it’s a joke but it still feels like lampshading a transphobic statement. One day it would be nice to go through a comment section about stuff like this and not be personally and explicitly reminded that people draw a connection between transness and wanting to do unspeakable shit to kids. It hurts even when it is sarcasm.