Question for African American/Black Posters here. (Not troll thread)

[Rav1nHunter]

I meant in regards to their experience in America. There has been no historically oppressed group in America other than African Americans.

Blacks win the suffering Olympics in the U.S. but Jews just edge them out on the world stage.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

When trans/gay people get fucking whipped to death in a field for 400 years then they can start comparing their plight.

Missed the point by a scary margin.

Nobody compared the difficulties that LGBTQ people face with the low-points of slavery or the holocaust. When you compare two things, you compare their comparable elements, this much is obvious and innate to how speech works.

If you were playing basketball and said something along the lines: "I'm just like LeBron", you're obviously comparing your skill set to his and not his heritage as a black man descended from slaves to yours. This is because language works in this way - it does away with redundancies because it is obvious that you are only comparing contextually comparable traits. So when someone says that LGBTQ people face difficulties comparable to those of civil rights movement era blacks, it is obvious that this refers to difficulties tied to employment and social marginalisation, and in this regard, the claims of similarity are not all that outrageous.

 

[Son of Jamin]

That's because the prevailing position on masculinity clashes with the first example and not with the second. When a man wears a dress he is standing up to the majority position in this regard, when he wears FUBU he doesn't challenge anything, just wears something associated with urban black people for the sake of his own vanity.

Good reply but I'm not fully content since so many times the far left has voiced their loud opinions when the superior dresses up as the subordinate. Men are supposedly superior to women.

 

[EGarrett]

It literally is. Civil rights are natural and inalienable rights and need not be negatively codified for their infringement by the government to exist. Crimes and discrimination can be committed by omission as well as action.

Oh really? So you've said that lack of protection under the law is "literally" the same as institutionalized action? Good. Tell me more about this.

So in your world, "women are not penalized for not having sex with someone" LITERALLY is the same policy as "women may not have sex with anyone?"

Spoiler alert: You will not be ducking or avoiding this.

No there isn't. The extent to which businesses should be allowed to discriminate (and are allowed to discriminate for that matter) is competence in the workplace and demonstrable skills. Any other discrimination not only infringes on any and all civil/human rights acts/conventions,

Which is based on your above assumption. We'll see how that works out for you.

but also allows the possibility of a discriminated group not being able to find employment anywhere which infringes on any other civil/human right which has an economic component to it.

You don't understand economics. In a free market, businesses tend toward hiring the most effective-labor as a matter of natural selection. This is why illegal immigrants have no trouble finding employment, even though the government tries to PENALIZE businessmen for hiring them.

And if you disagree, then name an ethnic or gender group that was uniformly denied employment in a free market WITHOUT government mandate?

The full extent of a human being that isn't discriminated against is one where said human being has the legal guarantee of respect their innate rights as humans. One does not need to have segregation laws passed against them to be considered discriminated against. Discrimination in this context means the disadvantaged inequality of one group when compared to others, in this regard if the overall population enjoys protection by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but LGBTQ persons do not - they are quite simply discriminated against by the legislator that omitted them from said act.

All of this is bald assertion with no support except your first claim. So again, we'll see how that works out for you.

Yes, there was. The national policy was differently enforced in the various states due to the very nature of sovereignty in a federation, but there was one.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, condoned slavery as part of the supreme national law of the United States.

What was the Federal Law against homosexual activity?

So visibility is an integral element of human rights?

Yes it is, when we discuss the effect of the policies, which I mentioned IN ADDITION to the letter of the policies themselves.

And if you disagree, tell me, would you rather live in a country where there is a penalty of death for having dark skin, or one where there is a penalty of death for preferring white wine over red wine, which can't be confirmed unless someone actually sees you drinking wine?

Hand-holding, pink-wearing gays need more protection than straight ones? Masculine transsexual women are more deserving of civil rights than feminine ones?

I hate to break it to you, but homosexuals are not necessarily "hand-holding, pink wearing" stereotypes. A sexual preference does not dictate your dress or personality.

You're missing the point by a mile.

The point isn't a practical one such as which form of discrimination had more severe repercussions; the point is a legal one - do LGBTQ persons face regular infringements of their human rights and are these infringements similar to those faced by black people, and by this it isn't meant "is a trans person getting fired due to discrimination similar to a black person getting lynched",

Good. We've established that there is no comparison whatsoever between slavery and ANYTHING gay people have had to face in the United States.

no, what's meant is "is an LGBTQ person being fired due to discrimination similar to a black person getting fired due to discrimination", and in that sense it absolutely is. Both were fired not on the grounds of professional merits, but on the grounds of perceived undesirability.

Unfortunately for you, a lot more has happened to black people than just getting fired from jobs due to discrimination. And in those things, there is no equivalent that the homosexual community in the United States has had to face.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Good reply but I'm not fully content since so many times the far left has voiced their loud opinions when the superior dresses up as the subordinate. Men are supposedly superior to women.

No no, I get you and my reply was only half-serious. A lot of liberal men today would wear skirts not to make a point but to be a part of the "outrage" culture.

 

[Rav1nHunter]

Missed the point by a scary margin.

Nobody compared the difficulties that LGBTQ people face with the low-points of slavery or the holocaust. When you compare two things, you compare their comparable elements, this much is obvious and innate to how speech works.

If you were playing basketball and said something along the lines: "I'm just like LeBron", you're obviously comparing your skill set to his and not his heritage as a black man descended from slaves to yours. This is because language works in this way - it does away with redundancies because it is obvious that you are only comparing contextually comparable traits. So when someone says that LGBTQ people face difficulties comparable to those of civil rights movement era blacks, it is obvious that this refers to difficulties tied to employment and social marginalisation, and in this regard, the claims of similarity are not all that outrageous.

Maybe you haven't had your ears open the last couple of years but they are directly pretending they are suffering the same.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Huh? How little do you know about US history?

Native Americans being displaced, mass murdered, and having federal lands allocated to them only to be told they could not sell them to anyone but the federal government at a fraction of the market value? They've been almost wiped off the face of the planet despite being the original inhabitants of what became the most powerful country in world history.

Native Americans were not oppressed citizens of the United States...they were conquered people's from a foreign land. Big difference.

Chinese immigrants being murdered and deported in mass after the Chinese Exclusion Act?

Chinese immigrants were prohibited from migrating here for awhile. Again they were not oppressed citizens of the United States.

Women not being allowed to vote, own real property, practice law, or own businesses?

I'll grant you a couple of points for this one. Still not comparable in scope and magnitude.

LGBTQ persons being arrested for homosexual acts, institutionalized for homosexuality, and still to this day not being protected against employment discrimination?

That is not oppression.

Japanese citizens being put in internment camps during WWII?

Not even fractionally comparable to the African American experience.

Mexican immigrants being shipped it by big American business to fulfill labor demands and to bust strikes, only to thereafter be lynched and deported?

These were mutually agreed upon contracts and arrangements...not oppression.

Arabs and Central Asians being summarily arrested and denied due process following 9/11?

Gigantic reach

 

[MiniCraque]

I meant in regards to their experience in America. There has been no historically oppressed group in America other than African Americans.

...you can't be serious.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Oh really? So you've said that lack of protection under the law is "literally" the same as institutionalized action? Good. Tell me more about this.

So in your world, "women are not penalized for not having sex with someone" LITERALLY is the same policy as "women may not have sex with anyone?"

Spoiler alert: You will not be ducking or avoiding this.

Which is based on your above assumption. We'll see how that works out for you.

I can't believe that your capacity would be so low as to think that the relationship between the omission of "gays cannot be discriminated against in the workplace" and "gays must be discriminated against in the workplace" is legally the same as it would be between the the omission of "women are not penalized for not having sex with someone" and "women may not have sex with anyone". It's literally shocking to me that a person that thinks this is a comparable legal construction would have the intellectual capacity to turn on a computer.

These are not the same thing at all. Not even similar. Not at all.

Neither of those things should or would ever need to be codified. The "women are not penalized for not having sex with someone" right stems from the basic freedom of people to do anything which is not prohibited and needs not be put in place, and the "women may not have sex with anyone" prohibition would go against such a right, while according to the 1964 Civil Rights act "gays cannot be discriminated against in the workplace" doesn't stem from anywhere and its omission allows the possibility of discrimination.

Lack of protection in the above context was referring to civil rights, and civil rights absolutely need to be codified, especially if the right to employment is defined as a civil right but a category of the populace is omitted from being protected by this right. Having sex is not a civil right but stems from the basic human right of freedom to conduct any act not deemed as illegal or restricted.

You don't understand economics. In a free market, businesses tend toward hiring the most effective-labor as a matter of natural selection. This is why illegal immigrants have no trouble finding employment, even though the government tries to PENALIZE businessmen for hiring them.

And if you disagree, then name an ethnic or gender group that was uniformly denied employment in a free market WITHOUT government mandate?

I would appreciate you not prejudging which sciences I understand or not.

In a free-market, employers have no idea which workers are going to be most effective, and similarly educated people are bound to apply for the same position. In these cases employers are forced to judge prima facie the applications that they receive. In this application reviewing process all people should be protected from the prospect of discrimination. I would have 0% problems with an employer firing a LGBTQ person after a lower degree of efficiency has been established.

You should also consider that this point isn't a practical one, but a legal one, where the answer is going to be theoretical rather than practical.

However, as for the practical cases, studies were conducted in Germany that showed employers renters were more likely to dismiss applications from people with foreign sounding names. I'm sure Germany isn't isolated in this regard, but this serves to illustrate the imperfection of the free market.

As for illegal immigrants, I doubt that they normally apply for jobs where one would care about the desirability of the employee.

All of this is bald assertion with no support except your first claim. So again, we'll see how that works out for you.

Aah yes, the if-apple-is-on-the-ground-the-why-is-the-canary-depressed tactic. Your initial argument is something to be ashamed of intellectually. It's not my fault you have no grasp over the difference in the need to codify basic human rights and the need to codify prohibitive penal rules.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution

, also known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, condoned slavery as part of the supreme national law of the United States.

What was the Federal Law against homosexual activity?

Policy and law are completely different things and I was refering to policy if I'm not mistaken, there was a national policy against homosexual activity as all states has sodomy laws at one point. I'm not even going to pretend to know as much about US law to try and quote that there was a federal law putting this in place.

And if you disagree, tell me, would you rather live in a country where there is a penalty of death for having dark skin, or one where there is a penalty of death for preferring white wine over red wine, which can't be confirmed unless someone actually sees you drinking wine?

Not the point. The point would be that there are unjust death penalties in both cases handed down by a state which clearly doesn't care about human rights. In this regard, both situations are comparable.

I hate to break it to you, but homosexuals are not necessarily "hand-holding, pink wearing" stereotypes. A sexual preference does not dictate your dress or personality.

Unfortunately for you, a lot more has happened to black people than just getting fired from jobs due to discrimination. And in those things, there is no equivalent that the homosexual community in the United States has had to face.

Yes, I am aware of the heinous things black people endured up until the most recent historic period, but again, we cannot compare things which are incomparable. It was no one's intent to compare this and you're just stretching the argument beyond its limits.

 

[cabal]

This person, that gained a decade of fame being elected in the ranks of the communist party ( distincted by the democratic one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Luxuria and several appearances in tv shows , was declared , seriously THE ITALIAN OBAMA because "she" is ..well, a trans person.
Recently SHE was harassed by the african pushers
http://www.ilmattino.it/home/luxuria_spacciatori_uomini_minacce-478131.html.

 

[EGarrett]

I can't believe that your capacity would be so low as to think that the relationship between the omission of "gays cannot be discriminated against in the workplace" and "gays must be discriminated against in the workplace" is legally the same as it would be between the the omission of "women are not penalized for not having sex with someone" and "women may not have sex with anyone". It's literally shocking to me that a person that thinks this is a comparable legal construction would have the intellectual capacity to turn on a computer.

Wrong, stupid. You didn't follow the point.

You complained about lack of protection under the law for discrimination against gay people, meaning the government doesn't punish discrimination. But this is different than Jim Crow, which was institutionalized action, where the government REQUIRED discrimination.

These are VERY different categories, but you claimed they were *literally* the same.

Thus, the question of the distinction between "women are not penalized for not having sex," and "women may not have sex?"

These are not the same thing at all. Not even similar. Not at all.

Neither of those things should or would ever need to be codified. The "women are not penalized for not having sex with someone" right stems from the basic freedom of people to do anything which is not prohibited and needs not be put in place, and the "women may not have sex with anyone" prohibition would go against such a right, while according to the 1964 Civil Rights act "gays cannot be discriminated against in the workplace" doesn't stem from anywhere and its omission allows the possibility of discrimination.

Congratulations, you just admitted to your own idiocy, because the previous exchange was...and I quote:

EGARRETT: "Lack of protection under the law is not institutionalized action."
PORKPIEPUSHER: "It literally is."

...and you won't be getting out of that.

I would appreciate you not prejudging which sciences I understand or not.

I don't care about your feelings. You're going to have to show me what you understand and don't, and if you screw up I will rip you to shreds. Because I do understand every single concept I'm bringing up.

In a free-market, employers have no idea which workers are going to be most effective, and similarly educated people are bound to apply for the same position. In these cases employers are forced to judge prima facie the applications that they receive. In this application reviewing process all people should be protected from the prospect of discrimination. I would have 0% problems with an employer firing a LGBTQ person after a lower degree of efficiency has been established.

WRONG and you tried to duck my claim, which doesn't surprise me. Hiring is about cost-efficiency, not a resume. A person's productivity is measured against the cost to hire them, which is exactly why businesses will hire minorities, illegal immigrants, and women if those groups prove to be productive beyond their cost as compared to someone who is "claimed" to be more valuable and thus demands more money. The written qualifications in this case, are the yolk and not the ox, and those disadvantaged groups NEED THAT FREEDOM to be hired. Because the government can hand a degree or a law to someone that makes them get hired, but can't hand out productivity.

Businessmen are forced via natural selection to hire that most cost-effective labor, which is why businessman have a documented track record of hiring illegal immigrants, and before them, minorities and other disadvantaged groups.

No government policy is needed to enforce this, and in fact will only cause businessmen to then have to hire people who are LESS productive. Since if they were, the law wouldn't be needed.

NOW, don't think you're ducking my question.

Name an ethnic or gender group that was uniformly denied employment in a free market WITHOUT government mandate.

You should also consider that this point isn't a practical one, but a legal one, where the answer is going to be theoretical rather than practical.

No buts. You're going to have to defend both. The letter of the law AND the effect of it. Because I know the letter in this case FAR better than you do, and intellectually I grasp the practical effect of it better.

...and the question of the letter of the law is in front of you. I gave you the EXACT Article and section of the Constitution which condoned slavery.

What was the federal law that outlawed homosexuality?

However, as for the practical cases, studies were conducted in Germany that showed employers renters were more likely to dismiss applications from people with foreign sounding names. I'm sure Germany isn't isolated in this regard, but this serves to illustrate the imperfection of the free market.

We're talking about the United States. Your half-assed reference to "studies in Germany," though, is noted. I can smell weakness.

As for illegal immigrants, I doubt that they normally apply for jobs where one would care about the desirability of the employee.

Here are some numbers for you from Pew Research. The type of things you don't have.

It's estimated that Illegal Immigrants make-up 3.6% of the United States Population. But they are over 5% of the workforce. Which means that, despite the government trying to STOP businessmen from hiring them, they are overrepresented in the workforce. If there were no penalties, it's obvious that they would be FAR more represented.

Why is this the case? Because ultimately, people hire the most cost-effective labor. They don't care who is Mexican or American, gay or straight, black or white, or man or woman. People who discriminate go broke. The only way they don't is if the government intervenes via Jim Crow to force everyone else to do the same dumb thing.

Aah yes, the if-apple-is-on-the-ground-the-why-is-the-canary-depressed tactic. Your initial argument is something to be ashamed of intellectually. It's not my fault you have no grasp over the difference in the need to codify basic human rights and the need to codify prohibitive penal rules.

Re-read what I said above, stupid. You didn't grasp the argument. It's only going to get worse for you too. Because I'm keeping track.

Policy and law are completely different things and I was refering to policy if I'm not mistaken, there was a national policy against homosexual activity as all states has sodomy laws at one point. I'm not even going to pretend to know as much about US law to try and quote that there was a federal law putting this in place.

You want to talk policy, so I gave you Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. Slavery was a NATIONALLY-condoned institution, protected by federal law.

What was the federal law against homosexuality?

Shall we assume that you can't answer? Because you actually know nothing and your "arguments" are garbage.

Not the point. The point would be that there are unjust death penalties in both cases handed down by a state which clearly doesn't care about human rights. In this regard, both situations are comparable.

That IS the point, cupcake. Because the practical effects of law matter, which is why I pointed out that the practical effects of laws against black people are different than those against gay people due to their enforceability.

Now, don't try to duck the question. I'll make it even clearer for you.

Would you rather live in a country where there is a penalty of death for having YOUR skin tone, or a penalty of death for preferring the wine that YOU like, where no one can even see you drink wine if you don't do it publicly?

Yes, I am aware of the heinous things black people endured up until the most recent historic period, but again, we cannot compare things which are incomparable. It was no one's intent to compare this and you're just stretching the argument beyond its limits.

The exact point of this thread is to compare the plight of black people and gay people. I mentioned slavery myself, which definitely CAN be compared and, when the comparison is done, it's obvious that there's nothing like that even remotely that gay people in the US have had to deal with, and you've acknowledged that I was absolutely correct.

This pattern will only continue until you make an excuse to run away from this discussion. Then you'll know who really knows and understands what they're saying between the two of us.

 

[all caps]

I wasn' a part of any civil rights movement and, as far as I know, I've never been oppressed. So I'm not sure. Any family I have that may have gone through it are long past dead. Sorry to be of no help.

 

[KantoTerror]

If you're black, it's because you're born black...if you're born with a penis, you're a dude...you can chop it off, put a hollow cavity in there....it doesn't make you a woman...you're just a dude who chopped off his penis and put a hollow cavity where his penis used to be...now if people won't recognize you as some other fucking gender, they're not being offensive...they're keeping it real.

 

[Rematch]

Hell no that comparison is not legitimate. It's offensive actually.

In fact no group should compare their hiustorical plight to African Americans. There is no comparison.

Well... Unless, of course, you're Native American.

 

[ehtheist]

. Every step down trans "civil rights" asks the regular public to actually give up rights to accommodate them. . , come on i have the right to a sexual relationship with you

I have to ask, what right is being given up here?

 

[Gutter Chris]

I have to ask, what right is being given up here?

Right of consent/ right to choose if you want to have gay sex.

I meant that they trick folks and dont tell em the truth about what they really are sometimes and I have read a lot of articles where they say they dont have to disclose

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Wrong, stupid. You didn't follow the point.

You complained about lack of protection under the law for discrimination against gay people, meaning the government doesn't punish discrimination. But this is different than Jim Crow, which was institutionalized action, where the government REQUIRED discrimination.

These are VERY different categories, but you claimed they were *literally* the same.

Thus, the question of the distinction between "women are not penalized for not having sex," and "women may not have sex?"


Congratulations, you just admitted to your own idiocy, because the previous exchange was...and I quote:

EGARRETT: "Lack of protection under the law is not institutionalized action."
PORKPIEPUSHER: "It literally is."

...and you won't be getting out of that.

O.K. How do I make this simple...

I claimed that lack of protection of LGBTQ persons under law in regards to their civil rights was institutionalised discrimination.

Right.

If you define a right as something which needs to be guaranteed to everyone, for example the right to employment without undue discrimination, and then proceed to omit LGBTQ persons, you are doing the equivalent of proscribing that LGBTQ persons may legally be discriminated against, and that is discrimination in itself. Of course, Jim Crow laws proscribed that blacks must be discriminated against rather that they may be discriminated against, but we're not talking about the severity of discrimination but rather if it exists due to an omission of LGBTQ persons and if this is to be considered as an "institutionalised action".

Now since we discerned that omission of codification can lead to discrimnation, and has in the case of LGBTQ persons, we should talk about institutionalisation.

Institutionalization, /ɪnstɪˌtjuːʃ(ə)n(ə)lʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/, "the action of establishing something as a convention or norm in an organization or culture."

How do we determine if the lack of access to a right is enshrined as a societal norm? The most obvious way would be to go to the social contracts, statutes or laws that govern these rights, civil rights in this case. And when we inspect if LGBTQ persons are covered by the guarantee non-discrimination on employment (again, only using this as an example), we see that they are not.

So, from the above we can conclude that LGBTQ persons are put at a disadvantage that constitutes discrimination and that they are put in such a position by the basic act governing civil rights in a given society.

I don't care about your feelings. You're going to have to show me what you understand and don't, and if you screw up I will rip you to shreds. Because I do understand every single concept I'm bringing up.

No you don't. You don't to an embarrassing degree, and you can shred me on this point as much as a slightly autistic Labrador.

WRONG and you tried to duck my claim, which doesn't surprise me. Hiring is about cost-efficiency, not a resume. A person's productivity is measured against the cost to hire them, which is exactly why businesses will hire minorities, illegal immigrants, and women if those groups prove to be productive beyond their cost as compared to someone who is "claimed" to be more valuable and thus demands more money. The written qualifications in this case, are the yolk and not the ox, and those disadvantaged groups NEED THAT FREEDOM to be hired. Because the government can hand a degree or a law to someone that makes them get hired, but can't hand out productivity.

Businessmen are forced via natural selection to hire that most cost-effective labor, which is why businessman have a documented track record of hiring illegal immigrants, and before them, minorities and other disadvantaged groups.

No government policy is needed to enforce this, and in fact will only cause businessmen to then have to hire people who are LESS productive. Since if they were, the law wouldn't be needed.

Productivity, /prɒdʌkˈtɪvɪti/, "the effectiveness of productive effort."

It's obvious that cost-efficiency is judged against cost, but its is not judged only against cost. The only system where cost-efficiency is judged only on cost is one where productivity is constant. Now, imagine if you will that you are hiring someone (it's painfully obvious you never have), but most of the times you will already have a certain salary that you're willing to give in mind. Of course, in an ideal world you would upon the act of hiring know exactly how productive the person you're hiring is going to be so that you know which salary to negotiate, but that is not possible as we do not know the future. So when several applications come in, all with the same competences, you must imagine that you will offer the applicants the same salary - meaning that it is not productivity which is constant, but more likely it is the offered salary which will be constant.

The above meaning that in a hiring situation, where you have comparable candidates, the salary is constant and actual productivity is a future unknown and doesn't even enter into consideration; so in such a situation the employer should be able to make a judgement call, but not one that involves his saying: "you can't work here, you're a f@g". This is where the government and the law come in.

TBH, the situation that you're talking about with illegals being employed and the salary not being enshrined in a contract but given after the work as an index of productivity, is one of menial manual labour, and I don't think we were talking about grass-cutting jobs here.

Name an ethnic or gender group that was uniformly denied employment in a free market WITHOUT government mandate.

No buts. You're going to have to defend both. The letter of the law AND the effect of it. Because I know the letter in this case FAR better than you do, and intellectually I grasp the practical effect of it better.

I now you think you sound tough, but dude, you don't. Your claims so far have nothing to do with any kind of basic legal understanding so I'm putting you somewhere in the "legally uneducated" lot. Maybe a small business owner paying 2-3 Mexicans to deliver newspapers, and I'm being generous in my assessment, but that's about it.

And concerning denied employment, I'm sure that you could have done a quick Google search yourself, but:

"In order to examine racial discrimination, the Urban Institute relied on a matched pairs study. They studied the employment outcomes for Hispanic, white and black men who were between the ages 19–25 in the early 1990s. The job position was entry-level. Thus, they matched pairs of black and white men and pairs of Hispanic and non-Hispanic men as testers. The testers applied for the advertised openings for the new positions. All of the testers were given fabricated resumes where all characteristics but their race/ethnicity was nearly identical. In addition, they went through training sessions for the interviews. If both people in the pair were offered the job or if both were rejected, the conclusion was there was no discrimination. However, if one person from the pair was given the job while the other was rejected, then they concluded there was discrimination. The Institute found out that black men were three times more likely to be refused for a job compared to white men; while the Hispanic men were three times more likely to be discriminated."

In conclusion, when not talking about menial, gutter-cleaning jobs (your forte it seems), black and Hispanic people get refused on the pure basis of their blackness/brownness prior to any examination as to their productivity.

...and the question of the letter of the law is in front of you. I gave you the EXACT Article and section of the Constitution which condoned slavery.

What was the federal law that outlawed homosexuality?

What was the federal law against homosexuality?

Shall we assume that you can't answer? Because you actually know nothing and your "arguments" are garbage.

Well, I already made the distinction between policy and law, but I guess Section 839(a) of the Code of Military Justice was federal law outlawing sodomy as a crime (not misdemeanour or infraction of the military code but crime) and proscribing a court marshal for it.

Other than that the Civil Rights Act is a federal act and we already established that it was discriminatory.

Re-read what I said above, stupid. You didn't grasp the argument. It's only going to get worse for you too. Because I'm keeping track.

I literally don't get it. You are clearly wrong in the regard that discrimination exists insofar as the Civil Rights Act allows for LGBTQ persons to be denied employment and that it is a federal and basic act. The only way in which anything can get worse for me is the fact that I am liable to keep subjecting myself to discussing this colossally simple matter with a 12yo.

That IS the point, cupcake. Because the practical effects of law matter, which is why I pointed out that the practical effects of laws against black people are different than those against gay people due to their enforceability.

Why do you keep using words that you clearly don't understand?

Enforce, /ɛnˈfɔrs/, "to compell obedience to." Meaning that if discrimination of LGBTQ people is not explicitly forbidden there is no way to compel those discriminating against them from doing it. FFS, discrimination is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Would you rather live in a country where there is a penalty of death for having YOUR skin tone, or a penalty of death for preferring the wine that YOU like, where no one can even see you drink wine if you don't do it publicly?

I would much rather live in the country handing out death penalties for drinking wine, but that is not and never was the point. Me being more easily detectable as someone to get the death penalty does not mean that the level of discrimination is different in both cases. In the two cases the "my skin tone" people and the wine drinkers are discriminated against to the SAME and COMPARABLE degree, which is the point.

The exact point of this thread is to compare the plight of black people and gay people. I mentioned slavery myself, which definitely CAN be compared and, when the comparison is done, it's obvious that there's nothing like that even remotely that gay people in the US have had to deal with, and you've acknowledged that I was absolutely correct.

Did I at any point say that LGBTQ people suffered anything remotely comparable to slavery? I interjected in this mess of a thread when I saw your boneheaded and cringe-worthy comment implying that discrimination cannot be committed by omission of a given group from a list guaranteeing certain rights to ALL other groups, and I stand by it. Any time you tried to drag the discussion into the realm of slavery, I was clear in stating that that wasn't the point or the scope of my comment.

This pattern will only continue until you make an excuse to run away from this discussion. Then you'll know who really knows and understands what they're saying between the two of us.

Ah, the validity of our arguments is to be measured by how long I can scream against a wall? Gotcha.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Claiming that that is being killed for being trans is not exactly accurate though, is it?

Well I guess Emmet Till wasn't killed for being black then, he was killed for whistling at a white woman.

Point being, their trans status is what makes the target of that attack. If they weren't trans, I don't think they would be killed in that scenario.

 

[Hatredcopter]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a troll, race baiting, flaming thread. I'm asking a genuine question here.

I was listening to a Joe Rogan Pod Cast, it may have been the Ben Shapiro one or the Jordan Peterson one, I'm not 100 percent sure to be honest.

The topic of the new genders, transgenders, biology of sex came up.

And one of the mentioned that the absurdity of comparing the gender movement, their pronouns (non binary, Ze, Zer etc) and how they often compare themselves to the Civil Rights movement by African AMericans.

Here is my question for those here whom are black/African American (actually to all who want to answer)

Do you believe that this comparison is legitimate?

Comparing the struggles of those whom are Non-Binary/Transgender etc to the plight of African Americans in this country in terms of being recognized, respected, etc?

Do you have a problem with this or are offended by it?

All opinions welcome.

they're pretty similar tbh
i mean, after a year at college i went home
"mom, dad, i found myself...
i'm black.
i think i knew it all these years
but this past year has confirmed it"

"shanice, go get my fucking shotgun...
you got less than 5 mins to get outta my house
you're dead to me..."

 

[Trotsky]

Native Americans were not oppressed citizens of the United States...they were conquered people's from a foreign land. Big difference.



Chinese immigrants were prohibited from migrating here for awhile. Again they were not oppressed citizens of the United States.



I'll grant you a couple of points for this one. Still not comparable in scope and magnitude.



That is not oppression.



Not even fractionally comparable to the African American experience.



These were mutually agreed upon contracts and arrangements...not oppression.



Gigantic reach

So, your argument boils down to the assertion that incarceration, wage denial, land seizure, deportation, institutionalization, lynching, and denial of due process are not "oppression." It wouldn't be wrong for society to choose to jail you for an immutable characteristic such as who you are attracted to or the limits of your intelligence.

Gotcha.

At least you actually affirmatively stated your argument. I expected less.