Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2023 1:13:10 GMT
Tolerance means hating the right people.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on May 23, 2023 1:15:50 GMT
Demisexual: A desire to have sex with Maui from "Moana." You're welcome!
Or Demi Moore, which would bring a lot of guys ages 30-60 into the tent.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 1:16:07 GMT
They’re not sisters and they’re not nuns.
This is is disgusting. It’s bigotry and it shouldn’t be celebrated.
The Los Angeles Dodgers, who faced enormous backlash over last week’s choice to disinvite the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence from their annual LGBTQ+ Pride Night, reversed course on Monday. The team apologized to the group and extended a new invitation for it to attend the festivities, which are scheduled to be held at a June 16 home game. The Sisters have accepted the invitation.
The Sisters, who describe themselves as “a leading-edge order of queer and trans nuns,” employ humor and religious imagery to call attention to sexual intolerance. The Dodgers will be presenting the group with a Community Hero Award — the same award it had previously been in line to receive.
“After much thoughtful feedback from our diverse communities, honest conversations within the Los Angeles Dodgers organization and generous discussions with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the Los Angeles Dodgers would like to offer our sincerest apologies to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, members of the LGBTQ+ community and their friends and families,” the team said in its statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 1:21:05 GMT
It’s hard to fathom that mocking nuns is considered witty and edgy in 2023, and can garner an invite and an honor from a Major League Baseball team. There are few nuns left. Most are old. And those that are left have done more with their lives to help the poor and the downtrodden than these bigots will ever do. This is the kind of person who should be honored: news.nd.edu/news/sister-rosemary-connelly-to-receive-2023-laetare-medal/ |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 1:31:10 GMT
Yes. Only “conservative Catholic organizations” take issue with the “Sisters” and see the act as mocking them. That’s how the media usually treats a complaint of this nature, right? The Dodgers are inviting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence back to the team's Pride Night on June 16 after receiving backlash from the LGBTQ+ community for the move.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are a nonprofit organization that fundraises and volunteers to help the LGBTQ+ community. The group also dresses in drag as nuns, which is something some conservative Catholic organizations take issue with, claiming the LGBTQ+ group is "mocking" them.
"After much thoughtful feedback from our diverse communities, honest conversations within the Los Angeles Dodgers organization and generous discussions with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the Los Angeles Dodgers would like to offer our sincerest apologies to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, members of the LGBTQ+ community and their friends and families," the Dodgers said in a statement.
The team also said the Sisters have accepted their invitation.
"We are pleased to share that they have agreed to receive the gratitude of our collective communities for the lifesaving work that they have done tirelessly for decades," the statement read.abc7.com/los-angeles-dodgers-pride-night-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence/13285867/ |
|
|
|
Post by gordonbombay on May 23, 2023 2:50:17 GMT
I just dont understand why teams do this shit at all are they really struggling to sell tickets and need a gimmick night? Its lose lose lose and its a third rail right now. Why grab it? To gain what
|
|
|
|
Post by ecwyanks on May 23, 2023 4:07:19 GMT
I just dont understand why teams do this shit at all are they really struggling to sell tickets and need a gimmick night? Its lose lose lose and its a third rail right now. Why grab it? To gain what To show they are true social justice warriors. |
|
|
|
Post by elcircogrande on May 23, 2023 13:26:24 GMT
These corporations have gotten way too comfortable dealing with these queers. It's time for marketing policy to be driven by the right, which is why I've drafted the following message to my own local baseball team:
I have been a fan of the Richmond Flying Squirrels since the beginning, and my allegiance has always been based on the logical belief that Nutsy and Nutasha are as hostile to sexual and gender minorities as I am. I recently found out that the team has entered into a business relationship with the degenerate city of San Francisco and regret to inform you that I can no longer support the Flying Squirrels until they apologize for turning their backs on their true fan base.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 13:31:40 GMT
Let’s assume this teacher is wrong. That his argument is wrong. But isn’t his larger point correct? Liberals love to reach a conclusion, refuse to argue how or why they reached the conclusion, and then want the rest of us to accept their conclusion as settled science. A perfect example of this is our friend oop’s conclusion of bad gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder. He’s absolutely sure if this, and would take issue with anyone who said it was. But he absolutely can not tell us how he reached this conclusion. He can’t site even an article in the news or a study he read to explain what shapes his reasoning. He knows what it isn’t, but can’t tell us what it is. And if you ask him to explain, you’re a bigot. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 13:34:49 GMT
These corporations have gotten way too comfortable dealing with these queers. It's time for marketing policy to be driven by the right, which is why I've drafted the following message to my own local baseball team: I have been a fan of the Richmond Flying Squirrels since the beginning, and my allegiance has always been based on the logical belief that Nutsy and Nutasha are as hostile to sexual and gender minorities as I am. I recently found out that the team has entered into a business relationship with the degenerate city of San Francisco and regret to inform you that I can no longer support the Flying Squirrels until they apologize for turning their backs on their true fan base. Is this your take on the “Nuns”? I mean, fuck, even South Park won’t run the episode featuring Muhammad. And I’m pretty sure the Dodgers would honor some gay men’s group who dresses up as Muhammad and called themselves the Flying Prophets. So why is this group not looked at the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by elcircogrande on May 23, 2023 13:36:09 GMT
All this time, I thought the consensus was that not being able to make fun of Muhammad was viewed as a negative aspect of Islam, particularly among the American right. I was way off!
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 13:38:57 GMT
These are not serious arguments.
Liberals don’t want to defend these things. Just like they don’t want to defend abortion.
So they just accuse you of a civil rights violation if you think that a book that teaches kids about eating poop for sexual gratification might not be appropriate for middle school kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on May 23, 2023 13:52:14 GMT
Let’s assume this teacher is wrong. That his argument is wrong. But isn’t his larger point correct? Liberals love to reach a conclusion, refuse to argue how or why they reached the conclusion, and then want the rest of us to accept their conclusion as settled science. A perfect example of this is our friend oop ’s conclusion of bad gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder. He’s absolutely sure if this, and would take issue with anyone who said it was. But he absolutely can not tell us how he reached this conclusion. He can’t site even an article in the news or a study he read to explain what shapes his reasoning. He knows what it isn’t, but can’t tell us what it is. And if you ask him to explain, you’re a bigot. What is there to "explain"? Particular words have particular meanings. You are basically demanding that "liberals" explain why "cat" means "cat" and "dog" means "dog." |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on May 23, 2023 14:27:46 GMT
Let’s assume this teacher is wrong. That his argument is wrong. But isn’t his larger point correct? Liberals love to reach a conclusion, refuse to argue how or why they reached the conclusion, and then want the rest of us to accept their conclusion as settled science. A perfect example of this is our friend oop ’s conclusion of bad gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder. He’s absolutely sure if this, and would take issue with anyone who said it was. But he absolutely can not tell us how he reached this conclusion. He can’t site even an article in the news or a study he read to explain what shapes his reasoning. He knows what it isn’t, but can’t tell us what it is. And if you ask him to explain, you’re a bigot. What is there to "explain"? Particular words have particular meanings. You are basically demanding that "liberals" explain why "cat" means "cat" and "dog" means "dog." I think you've got it backwards. The definitions of man and woman -- especially the "scientific" definitions -- have been long established. The X and Y chromosomes determine the biological sex, reproductive organs, and sexual characteristics that develop in a person. Female is XX. Male is XY. Now, if you want to argue that "gender" is a separate term from sex, and that it's just a social construct, that can be chosen, and represented in the way a person chooses, I'm fine with that. I'm not sure when that split happened, or who decided it, but if that's what "gender" is, then that's fine. But activists continue to argue beyond this point. The argument is that a trans woman isn't just representing themselves as a woman, but is 100% authentically a woman, and was that way from birth. The argument isn't that they've chosen to represent themselves in a gender of their choosing, that is opposite of their biological sex, but that they were misgendered at birth, based on a "guess" by the doctors and/or parents. They would say that the gender is innate. And this leads to statements like, "men can get pregnant" or "men can menstruate". And, there isn't any attempt to specify that they mean women who identify as men, or women who's sex is male, but who's gender is female. And, any attempt to clarify this is shouted down. That's a pretty big change, definitionally and societally. And, if you want others to accept this, then I think it's reasonable to ask for the argument in favor of this change, and not just demand that it be accepted, and that those who refuse to accept it are bigots. |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on May 23, 2023 14:32:13 GMT
You would be surprised how little any of this latest "national conversation" crosses into my orbit unless I read about it here. As an experiment, you should avoid Twitter and right-wing media for, say, a week, and see how infrequently you end up encountering these issues that seem to you like all anybody is talking about.
|
|
