LGBT Prediction That Is Worth the Paper It's Printed On

[old]

4 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

they are the more likely they are to have beliefs that are downright bigoted. 

Ah...but there is the rub.  You claim they are bigoted but if they gain enough sway then you'll be labeled the bigot and their beliefs will be the right/true/compassionate believes.

Lol....the utter fickleness of modernity. No wonder people are so confused, up is down, down is up-wait a few years and then up will be up and down will be down.

So glad there is something that has been teaching the same faith for 2000 years. I never have to worry about this junk.  So nice.

[NeuroTypical]

Jeez - talk about a timely article.  This is about gay folks who had left the church, finding ways to come back.  It's long, but worth a read. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/05/31/latter-day-saints-reconciling-faith-and-sexuality/

 

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, old said:

Now that I haven't seen.  I'm very much intrigued about this, where do I go to find progressives opposed to interracial relationships? Strangeness.

Observe any university-level conversation among black progressives regarding marriage of blacks to whites, especially of black men to white women.

[Phoenix_person]

First things first, equating LGBTQ identity/behavior to suicide is disgusting. As a former believer, I understand where views like that come from. As a suicide survivor (and just barely), believe me when I say that you're going to push more people to my side than yours with rhetoric like that. That's all I'm going to say on that subject. Please don't push it any further. I would prefer not to get banned from these forums.

12 hours ago, old said:

It's a double-standard.  "I don't believe they should change their stance, I just believe they should go out of business". "That's not persecution, though, it's just free will at work".

It's all cool man, you reserve the right to persecute others by calling others bigots, homophobes, effectively stating those churches should die; but that's not persecution.

I don't believe that churches should go out of business, but it's very likely that quite a few will if they continue to preach against LGBTQ people. That's not persecution, it's just the reality of the world we live in. FWIW, I'm perfectly content to end up being wrong about this. 

12 hours ago, old said:

Protestantism (which is what most people in the west think is Christian-will die sadly.

Why would you persecute Protestants like that? 😉

To be clear, I don't believe that any major Christian denomination is going to disappear entirely. When I talk about churches closing their doors, I'm talking about individual congregations, not the monoliths of Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/Orthodox/etc faiths.

12 hours ago, old said:

Your own version of history...you are more than welcome to create your own reality; it won't do you any good though.

......

Christianity is the greatest force for good in the world; it conquered the world, not by force but by it's example.  

Well, it looks like we're both re-writing history, apparently.

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'd really like to see what example of "hateful behavior" you're citing here.  It may very well be that the behavior you cite is something we would agree is very hateful.  And I'd point out that the few who behave this way are certainly not representative of the Christians we know.

I think I've mentioned before that this isn't the only place I go to discuss politics and religion with "the other side", it's just the least toxic. And boy howdy is "non-toxic" becoming rare in a lot of conservative spaces. This forum is where I go when I (a cishet non-Jewish white man) want a break from being called every racist and homophobic slur in the book. It used to be limited to Gab and other bottom-shelf websites, but ever since Elon legalized free speech on Twitter, it's blown up there, and apparently Zuckerberg decided to match, because there's been a noticeable uptick in Nazi hate speech there as well. I realize that you can always find the worst in humanity if you look hard enough, especially in the digital age, but it seems like it's hiding in plain sight more and more.

And in case you think I'm being hyperbolic, here's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Yes, Barry posted it as bait (and FWIW, he very rarely gets "political"). But it's an accurate snapshot of what it can be like to navigate political discourse in even some of the more mainstream corners of the internet.

Offline, I spend a lot of time doing work in political organizing spaces (with a faith-based organization, believe it or not). That means I'm at city council and school board meetings a lot, as well as sitting in on town halls from both parties. I've had great conversations with conservative folks, especially up here in a purple state (Texas was... a different experience). I've also been called multiple slurs to my face and even had someone tell me, in person, that I "should finish the job". 

In both online and in-person political circles, it's rare that I see LGTBQ issues mentioned without the words "groomer" and "pedo" being thrown around. Those words have practically been defanged from overuse (ditto "woke"and "DEI" in derogatory use). If one doesn't want to be called a hateful bigot, then perhaps throwing homophobic slurs at people simply for being LGBTQ or defending them isn't the best idea.

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It may also be that what you're calling "hateful" is simply expressing our own opinions and beliefs.  I don't see why anyone would consider the simple, logical, unemotional expression of our beliefs and stating facts as something to be called "hateful."

That's not it. I've said it before and it bears repeating: I don't believe that there are hateful bigots on this forum. Some of the terminology I use may seem excessive in that light, but believe me when I say that my view of conservative Christianity would be considerably different if my overall experience in conservative Christian spaces, both online and IRL, was more like this and less like Gab. If it seems that I'm calling anyone here hateful or a bigot, please accept my apology and know that that isn't the case. 

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

He didn't just say heterosexuality.  It is the one man, one woman, married nuclear family that he was describing.  And among the rising generation, that is now the minority.  About 85% of millennials and gen z say that marriage is not important to them.  And over 20% identify as non-binary.  And the adults are saying that there's nothing wrong with it.  So, no, it (the one man/one woman married nuclear family) is not the norm in our society.

Many people never get married.  Many others have children out of wedlock and separate or raise the child without marriage.  And a greater number of couples are LGBT unions.  And, of course, polyamory.

This seems to be turning into an argument of belief vs practice. In practice, which is what I meant, heterosexuality is still very much the norm. I'm willing to (quite gladly) concede that this isn't the case for belief. 

Let's look at interracial couples*. Interracial couples make up roughly 30% of couples in the US (with same-sex couples having a slightly higher percentage, for whatever that's worth). 94% of Americans approve of interracial relationships. So about 2/3 of Americans approve of the relationship without adhering to it themselves. I see the same thing happening in regard to LGBTQ identity. They're still very much a minority in this country, but they're more accepted by the cis-het demographic than they used to be. And in the case of the LGBTQ community, that means less people being violently assaulted, ruthlessly bullied, and generally discriminated against, and I would hope that those benefits can be appreciated regardless of religious belief, benefits that were largely the result of the Pride campaigns and school curriculums that conservatives are fighting against. And yes, a by-product of those things is that more people are coming out because they feel safe questioning their sexuality. After all, unlike interracial couples, most queer folks are able to hide in plain sight if they want or need to.

*Yes, I know a different discussion has sprung up around this. I'll address that in a different post.

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm interested - how come you believe that?  

I mentioned the Sacred Band of Thebes earlier. They supposedly defeated a Spartan unit (and historians have theories about them, too), but the Spartans got the movie deal? C'mon, man. For real though Greek history is filled with some pretty "alpha" gay dudes. So how is it that homosexuality is viewed as emasculating and weak? Perhaps we should ask the guys who eventually conquered them, the same empire that eventually converted to Christianity and abolished the old sexual traditions.

Also, I was well into my 20s when I learned that at least some of the Shakespeare sonnets I read in high school were more probably than not written for men.

11 hours ago, old said:

Except this argument completely destroys the fundamental reason why homosexuality became accepted.

It was said homosexuality is inborn, innate and cannot be changed, at that at most it's 1-2% of the population.  Except it's clear that it's not genetic.

~20% of the youngest generation identifies as LGBTQ+ compared to 1-2% of Gen X and older.  Genetics don't change that fast. So clearly something has happened and it's not biological.

Something DID happen. Society started softening its attitudes towards the LGBTQ community, which meant that people started to feel safer coming out, which meant that more people came out. It also means that more people with LGBTQ traits are able to identify it at a younger age and grow into their sexuality in a safe environment.

[Phoenix_person]

8 hours ago, old said:

I'm very much intrigued about this, where do I go to find progressives opposed to interracial relationships? 

The suburbs, mostly. And they're primarily liberals, not leftists/progressives.

[old]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

First things first, equating LGBTQ identity/behavior to suicide is disgusting.

It is not. Do you not understand what homosexual behavior does to the physical body?

Anal cancer, anal leakage, throat cancer, extremely high rates of STDs, Grinder ain't named grinder for nothing! The hundreds if not 1000s of sexual partners.  Anyone who denies the actual real destruction of the physical body due to homosexual behavior and the mental/spiritual damage due to living such a lifestyle is in utter denial of reality.

It's actually quite disgusting that those who advocate the most for these types of behaviors and identities are the ones who care the least about the massive destruction these things do to the individual.

It's actually quite demonic; it's very similar to the drugs given to those who are suffering from depression and suicidal thoughts.  If you ever look on the actual known side-effects of drugs given to "help" with depression and suicide, the KNOWN side effects are suicidal thoughts!!!!

Giving people medicine that has the exact side effect of the very thing they it is supposed to cure...it's almost as if the doctors WANT to kill off those who have depression and suicide.

It's the same thing with LGBTQ+; the physical, spiritual, and mental damage of it is massive. Sadly, most of these individuals even prior to engaging in the LGBTQ+ lifestyle/community/identity are already suffering from some form of sexual abuse and trauma...so what does society do????

Encourage them to live a life that introduces MORE sexual abuse and trauma...brillant, just brillant.

https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ajad/v3-i2/11.pdf

and look up "The Health Hazards of Homosexuality"

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I think I've mentioned before that this isn't the only place I go to discuss politics and religion with "the other side", it's just the least toxic. And boy howdy is "non-toxic" becoming rare in a lot of conservative spaces. This forum is where I go when I (a cishet non-Jewish white man) want a break from being called every racist and homophobic slur in the book.

And I've done the same (mirror image).  And I've had the opposite experience.

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

And in case you think I'm being hyperbolic, here's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Yes, Barry posted it as bait (and FWIW, he very rarely gets "political"). But it's an accurate snapshot of what it can be like to navigate political discourse in even some of the more mainstream corners of the internet.

Those tweets don't even make sense.  I can't tell who is supposed to be what here?

Barry says he's against Nazi's.  (Wow, really risky comment there.  I'm sure he'll get a lot of flack for that. )
Rock replies that this was obviously paid for by Mossad.

I can't tell if these are ironic or whatever.  Maybe you can interpret since don't spend time on X.

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Those tweets don't even make sense.  I can't tell who is supposed to be what here?

Barry says he's against Nazi's.  (Wow, really risky comment there.  I'm sure he'll get a lot of flack for that. )
Rock replies that this was obviously paid for by Mossad.

I can't tell if these are ironic or whatever.  Maybe you can interpret since don't spend time on X.

All I know about Barry's politics is that he's mostly apolitical, though when he does bring up politics he tends to swing in both directions. He's mostly a sports parody account, though.

Here's more from the guy that replied to him, from a keyword search.

Barry and another (less apolitical but still very nonpartisan) sports comedy account I follow have noticed upticks in flagrantly antisemitic and at times blatantly pro-nazi responses when they take even the softest swings at the right (lefties who don't get the bit usually either block and move on or try to have a serious debate; the latter never goes well for them). Barry's tweet was intended to illustrate that point, and it worked. Here's the other guy (3 Year Letterman). I don't even think he was trying to bait anyone here, except maybe Elijah.

Here's a source you may be more familiar with, and a sampling of responses to a fairly tame post making fun of white supremacists. Note how many people in these comments have blue checkmarks, indicating that they pay monthly to have their content prioritized in the feed (and often monetized).

Seth's follow-up tweet didn't go well either, in case you're wondering. Definitely some hit dogs hollering.

I know the internet isn't the most accurate picture of our society, but it offers glimpses of how our minds work when we're shrouded in faceless anonymity. I've been poking the right wing bear for years on the internet. And with the lone exception of Gab (which I gave up after my incident because I needed some peace), I don't even necessarily seek out the extreme elements. But they sure are easy to find these days. Even just 5 years ago, you wouldn't see stuff like this on the major social media outlets without severe backlash. Now, it's just another Tuesday. And if they're willing to say stuff like this in defense of Nazis and white supremacy, imagine the kinds of things they're spewing with impunity about the LGBTQ community.

I know my side can be toxic and hateful towards Christians. I hate that, truly, especially when it's aimed at well-meaning people, which is how I've always viewed you. I'm sorry that you've had that experience. 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

38 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I know the internet isn't the most accurate picture of our society.

Nope, full stop.  No modifiers.  That's all you need to know about what you've cited.

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Nope, full stop.  No modifiers.  That's all you need to know about what you've cited.

I used to feel that way. Then Georgia elected a woman who does photo ops with Nick Fuentes and pushes antisemitic conspiracy theories. Then the Minnesota GOP officially endorsed this guy to challenge the DFL state representative who represents my former district. His name is Wes Lund, if you want to look him up. He likes to show up at city council meetings wearing shirts that say things like "It's okay to be white" and "White Lives Matter". He doesn't have a shot a winning, luckily, but guys like him are running for office in far less blue places. BTW, the district he's running in is home to a considerable portion of our (legal) Somalian and Mexican immigrants. I don't know who's in charge of endorsements at the MNGOP, but they're not sending their best and brightest.

 

Point is, the internet trolls are being legitimized. Seeing hateful rhetoric online is one thing. That's been a problem for years. But now they're running for public office, and some of them are winning. They're getting into school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and the United States Congress, and they're bringing their hateful alt-right ideas with them to marginalize anyone who doesn't fit their particular conservative archetype. You can certainly make an argument that the same is happening on my side. I'm not saying that's right. It's not. But given the choice between defending 7% (LGBTQ) of our country's population or 70% (Christians), I'm going to stand with those who have a stronger need for allies. FWIW, I also try to be a voice of reason in the face of some of the more extreme elements on my side. I don't have any particular amount of concern for Christianity specifically, but a lifetime ago I swore to defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I'm no longer bound to that oath, but I still try to live by it the best I can. And ultimately, if they can come for Christianity, they can (and do) come for less prominent/powerful religions in this country.

[NeuroTypical]

Oh yeah, there's a never-ending river of never-depleted horrible and toxic out there on the internet.  Like @Phoenix_person, I also go slugging it out online, and yes indeed, our precious thirdhour is indeed a small island of calm in a sea of acid.  

I'm reminded of how folks reacted after Roe v. Wade got overturned:

Mind you, this was before Musk bought Twitter and fired all the censors who filtered out all the objectionable content. 

 

I've personally been called a Nazi, and also a nazi bootlicker.  I've been told to unalive myself more times than I can count.  I've been told to drink bleach and die in a hole (years ago when it was said in seriousness, before the phrase became an ironic hammer). 

My favorite is when I got banned from a Star Trek facebook forum, that was discussing politics, for saying something positive about Trump:

They banned me before I could respond.

 

I'm so sad to see the immediate 1000x rise of antisemitism come back.  Folks who three months ago were telling me about how the right wants to commit genocide on trans people, are now shouting "from the river to the sea" and "normalize the intifada", and opining about how every zionist, and all of Israel, must be utterly obliterated.  I see this on Twitter/X, Tiktok, instagram, facebook, youtube comments.  

If you're a random acquaintance with any Jewish folk, it might be worth just stopping by or dropping a quick line, asking them how they're doing.  And if they're worried, letting them know that you're happy they're around.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I used to feel that way.

And we have members of Congress who are supporting Hamas and calling Israel the aggressors -- even calling them Nazis.  Like that even makes any sense.

They are saying to national news "From the Rivers to the Sea." Which mean they want the extermination of Jews in Israel.  MEMBERS OF CONGRESS calling for extermination of Jews.

And I have no idea who those people are in those image, nor do I have any background on what they're doing.  So, how can I take seriously the idea that they are somehow representative of mainstream conservatives?

I have no idea who Nick Fuentes is until I just looked him up.  That is one of the problems here.  You're going out of your way to pick random people as examples when most conservatives don't even know who they are.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

They're getting into school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and the United States Congress, and they're bringing their hateful alt-right ideas with them to marginalize anyone who doesn't fit their particular conservative archetype.

Just to be clear, I know zero principled conservatives who recognize, much less align with, what's been labeled the "alt-right".  I'm not happy with the name.  It's meant to smear folks on the right, and associate them with horrible people. 

Sort of like how the folks on the left are sort of uncomfortable with the antifa types who push flaming dumpsters against the only exit to a police station, trying to burn the building down, in the name of defending minorities and being against fascism.  

Whereas the right will occasionally be personality driven, the left is "the streets".  The militant left is far more well-versed in local small group organizing for acts ranging from civil disobedience, to burning down police stations, to organizing riots that smash starbucks and targets.  The small groups come and go, forming, doing their DO, then disbanding.

They were real good at organizing on pre-musk Twitter.  This was on a letter in Denver, promising violence and mayhem if various DefundTheCops demands weren't met:

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

But given the choice between defending 7% (LGBTQ) of our country's population or 70% (Christians), I'm going to stand with those who have a stronger need for allies.

I get it.  Something to consider: It's ok to be vocal against lawlessness, violence, hatred, and bigotry, no matter where you find it.  It's ok to say "no thanks PinkPower (or whatever LGBTQ org is riling folks up for mayhem), I'm not going to support you with your instigating mayhem.  You do more harm than good with those tactics."

I'll do it: This guy is an idiot:

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

I was in the army during the Vietnam conflict.  My MOS was welder, and I was attached to 164th Engineers in Texas when me and everybody else in the battalion received order for Vietnam.  Just as we were shipping out – my name and one other person were removed from the train that was about to leave.  Do not know what happened to the other guy but I was transferred to a state side intelligent unit. I think I am the only welder to ever be attached to an intelligent unit.  The reason I bring all this history up is to explain how I obtained information about interrogation and behavior modification technics.

There is a lot of criticism concerning military intelligence – mostly by people that know nothing about it.  There is a lot of dark operations in military intelligence – because dealing with enemies during conflict is dark. It is not as difficult as one might think to convince someone that something that is false is true. Likewise, it is not that difficult to convince someone to do a thing that they would reject as evil.

I can understand how a person could be convinced they are an integral part of the LGBTQ+ community.  I understand it is possible that I could, under extreme circumstance beyond my control, become a participant in the LGBTQ+ community.  I have posted before that I am not certain that we have agency during our mortal experience.  The reason I post this is because I believe it is very possible that in the life after this experience – it is likely that we will discover many that we thought are undeserving of forgiveness to end up exalted and many we thought in this life to be noble and great – turn out to be a disappointment.  I believe this is in part the reason we should not judge (especially condemn) those we encounter in this life.

Humans are an intelligent species capable of learning.  Any cognitive behavior is capable of definition and modification through a process of learning.  It is true that some are more susceptible than others to cognitive behavior modification.  It is also true that some are more susceptible to habitual or addictive behaviors.  I personally believe that nothing in this universe happens without incentive. I do not believe any human will pursue any behavior without encouragement or what many call peer or associated support.

I believe that the kingdoms of glory are in essence safe spaces for various behaviors individuals prefer.  When I say safe space – this is a space where they are safe from scrutiny. It is logical to me that the safe space for adultery is among those whose behavior is conducive to adultery.  The safe space for those who are chased is among those whose behavior is chased. 

I am an individual that loves logic and reason. I cannot connect to any logic within the LGBTQ+ community.  It is not that a person within such a community is incapable of logic (doing a math problem) – just that the choice to be one or all of LGBTQ+, to me is completely illogical. As long as I am left to think for myself – I will choose the discipline, difficulty and effort to be heterosexual and honor the preservation of life and hold the highest honor for those that sacrifice that others can be born and exist.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I have no idea who Nick Fuentes is until I just looked him up.  

That's simultaneously surprising and refreshing, and it's something you don't have in common with multiple members of Congress and at least one former president. For context, AFPAC was billed as an "alternative" to CPAC (from which Fuentes is banned; he was also kicked out of Charlie Kirk's org, TPUSA). Paul Gosar also spoke there. America First is a movement started by Fuentes that has been lauded by Trump, MTG, Gosar, and several other prominent MAGA politicians and activists. I tried to come up with a leftist equivalent to this picture. The best I could come up with is that it's like Ilhan Omar shaking hands with Shaun King, which somehow feels like an insult to both Omar and Fuentes. So I guess I'm not very well-versed on the non-elected extremists on my side either.

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

For context, AFPAC was billed as an "alternative" to CPAC (from which Fuentes is banned; he was also kicked out of Charlie Kirk's org, TPUSA). 

These facts should tell you that he was a poor example of Conservative thought.

Can you say the same about the masses of liberals that are calling for the extermination of Jews?  Members of Congress are not just "talking to them" or "shaking hands with them."  They are themselves calling for the extermination.  And the mainstream media is supporting them.

As such, you can't deny that antisemitism is mainstream liberalism today.

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

These facts should tell you that he was a poor example of Conservative thought.

True. But that doesn't change the fact that he has considerable influence, or that elected members of Congress were in attendance. It may be on the far right, but the far right seems to be getting bigger by the day. 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Can you say the same about the masses of liberals that are calling for the extermination of Jews?  Members of Congress are not just "talking to them" or "shaking hands with them."  They are themselves calling for the extermination.  And the mainstream media is supporting them.

As such, you can't deny that antisemitism is mainstream liberalism today.

I think I've previously acknowledged (and condemned) the fact that some people on the left have taken anti-Zionist rhetoric too far, to the point of taking into the realm of antisemitism. I condemn it every time I see it. And yes, I do see it out there. I also see a lot of people who mistake anti-Zionism of any sort with antisemitism. Anti-Zionism supports a true two-state solution. But that's not the current fight. The current fight is to get Israel to stop blowing up children. If I seem soft on my side, it's because I've seen too many Palestinian kids with missing limbs and heads. I imagine that may be fueling some of the rhetoric we've seen in the halls of government. It doesn't make it right.

I don't love the fact that "FTRTTS" has become a battle cry for people who I know for a fact bear no ill will towards the rank-and-file citizens of Israel, but it underscores the fact that a truly peaceful coexistence between the two nations may not be possible. 1948 isn't far from living memory, when over a half million Palestinians were forced from their homes. Israel deserved their own nation, but that wasn't the way to go about it. Not even close. I would hope that it goes without saying that I don't want to see either side eradicated. Most of us don't. We just want Palestine to be free. That puts us in a position where we're at odds with both the Israeli and US governments. But as I said elsewhere, I prefer to stand with the little guy whenever possible.

Edited June 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

If you're a random acquaintance with any Jewish folk, it might be worth just stopping by or dropping a quick line, asking them how they're doing.  And if they're worried, letting them know that you're happy they're around.

I've checked in on a few. Most of them are Jewish atheists who are pro-Palestine, and certainly very much against any further Jewish loss of life as well. There's a reason why the left's stance for over 6 months has been to call for an immediate ceasefire. We don't want any more death on either side. 

Edited June 4, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

My favorite is when I got banned from a Star Trek facebook forum, that was discussing politics, for saying something positive about Trump:

They banned me before I could respond.

 

Transformers fandom.

https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Jazz_(G1)/toys

All of the toys from the classic 1984 line-up originally came from other toy lines. Most of these were from the Diaclone toy line produced by Hasbro's Japanese partner Takara. One of these Diaclone-era figures transforms into a Porsche 935 Turbo, and when released as a part of the Diaclone line its vehicle mode livery was directly copied from a real-life race car, the Martini Racing #4 vehicle. Hasbro only made minor alterations to the deco before releasing this toy as Jazz. 

Even as early as 1986 it was becoming apparent that only providing minor alterations was a bad idea, as a version of Jazz that was made available in 1986 as a mail-in offer lacked the faux references to Martini Racing. Ever since then, Hasbro has gone back and forth with Jazz' vehicle mode colors. This includes a plain white vehicle mode and a vehicle mode with music notes and the #1 on the side. 

Well, IDW Publishing, the company that had the license to a number of Hasbro's properties in the 2010s, started going hardcore "woke" in their Transformers and G. I. Joe books. This caused the fandom to start rifting apart over political differences, with those people who just didn't want to have to deal with real-life politics in their escapism being lumped in with the more conservative members of the fandom as "haters" & such. The then-ongoing culture wars over the 2016 Ghostbusters film, the Disney-era Star Wars movies, and other controversial works, widened the divide. 

In 2017, Hasbro decided to release another Jazz figure. What nobody at Hasbro initially realized is that the person who designed his vehicle mode design scheme used a text-replacement system created for the franchise to hide the term "MAGA" on the toy's deco. It wasn't until the toys shipped to retail that the first purchasers noticed this. 

For obvious reasons, this incident caused quite the uproar in the fandom. Most people agreed that this had no place in the franchise, and considered it fair that Hasbro summarily fired the designer responsible for it. However, several of the more left-leaning and "progressive" people in the fandom, including the people in charge of certain prominent fan websites, decided it was not enough. In their eyes, Trump was a bigot, anything related to Trump was bigoted, and since Jazz was a "black" character this represented nothing short of a hate crime. 

Yes, even though Jazz is a robot, because he was voiced by Scatman Carothers in the 1980s cartoon series, these individuals decided that he was "black". 

This incident essentially marked the point of no return, and the fandom is *still* split on political grounds. 

As if that wasn't bad enough, when Hasbro decided to release another new Jazz figure in 2021, he was the #14 vehicle. 

Cue Jenevieve Franks, whose entire claim to fame is having minor roles at IDW as a "consultant", immediately going berserk on social media and claiming that this was somehow a reference to white supremacy. This left a number of individuals, like myself, trying to tell folks to calm down and wait for Hasbro to explain. 

Well, remember what I said about the original 1984 Jazz figure having originally been recycled from the Diaclone toy line? 

In the original Diaclone product catalog, the Porsche 935 Turbo was... item number #14. It turns out that Martini has #1 and #41 Porsches in addition to the #4 Porsche, so the designer went with #14 as a nod to the Diaclone origin. Franks has yet to apologize for the panic she caused. 

IDW would eventually be stripped of the Joe and Transformers licenses, and it seemed like the world was about to heal. 

...Then the cartoon for Transformers: Earthspark had an episode involving pronouns and a robot character declaring itself to be non-binary...

Yeah...

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just to be clear, I know zero principled conservatives who recognize, much less align with, what's been labeled the "alt-right".  I'm not happy with the name.  It's meant to smear folks on the right, and associate them with horrible people. 

Totally agree. “Alt right” is a slur leftists use when they meet someone who is uncomfortable with letting grown men identify as women and beat up natural born women in boxing classes. 
 

Some conservatives use the term “woke” the same way when they meet someone who says who doesn’t bow down to Alex Jones or thinks the death penalty should be abolished 

Edited June 4, 2024 by LDSGator

[Phoenix_person]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Totally agree. “Alt right” is a slur leftists use when they meet someone who is uncomfortable with letting grown men identify as women and beat up natural born women in boxing classes. 
 

I'm aware of the implication, which is why I'm careful about the context in which I use it. When I say "alt-right", I'm talking about people who deny the Holocaust, think white people are being bred into extinction, and spit slurs faster than Eminem spits verses. 

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm aware of the implication, which is why I'm careful about the context in which I use it. When I say "alt-right", I'm talking about people who deny the Holocaust, think white people are being bred into extinction, and spit slurs faster than Eminem spits verses. 

Totally fair. I’d use “alt right” or “crazy” in those cases. 
 

When I say “woke” I mean someone so PC that if their child was stabbed by a minority, their first thought would be to lecture the child about “racism” as their kid bleeds to death.  

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

When I say "alt-right", I'm talking about people who deny the Holocaust, think white people are being bred into extinction, and spit slurs faster than Eminem spits verses. 

When I ask myself which presidential candidate these folks are more likely to vote for, I get the following:

holocaust deniers: Biden.  I say this after looking at all the visceral hatred and antisemitism coming from left of center.  Historical ignorance is surely nothing new, it's something every generation has to learn themselves out of.  But understanding the tragic elements of Jewish history in Europe has a mitigating factor on Jew-hatred, and Jew-hatred is growing as a tool of folks who figure Israel is the bad guy in the current conflict.  And those folks ain't on the right side of the political spectrum. 

Racists: Split down the middle.  I mean, all the "our white bloodlines are being polluted" folks seem to be on the dumbest and nastiest fringes of the right.  But anyone who looks can find endless examples of folks hating white folk.  These are the "it's impossible for blacks to be racist" folks.  These are the Kendian antiracists who follow the philosophy of "if you're not actively trying to correct racial injustices, you're being racist".   If we're gonna call the first group alt-right, what should we call the second group?

Slur spitters: Also plenty on both sides.  The right does indeed have these nasty people in abundance.   But holy crap does the left have them too.  I've lost track of all the conservative black content creators telling stories about their abuses at the hands of the left.  Folks who were active in the trans movement and 'grow out of it' or change their views, regularly get called some of the most horrible things utterable.  The insult "Karen" started as a stereotypical white liberal woman who wants to talk to your manager.  Now she's a name you get called when someone is accusing you of being a white supremacist patriarchical colonizer nazi.  And I'm setting aside the attempts to cancel, attempts to harm, and actual threats of violence, and just focusing on the words I've seen.  Did you know the racoon emoji is a racist dogwhistle for black folks who hate other black folks because they might vote Trump? 

I'd be ok with the term "alt-right", if folks knew it doesn't have anything to do with conservatism, or Christianity, or classic liberal beliefs.  I'm not sure very many people know that. 

Edited June 5, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]