It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

LGBT Activists Arm for Further War on Free Speech

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Thing that gets missed a lot is, feminist ideology is running the show even in the LGBT community. Even those in that category, they will support a feminist ideology even if it doesn't benefit them, or even harms them. And some will soley adhere to such an ideology, because they can use it as leverage against those that they -really-, don't like. It's really rather stupid. Feminist ideology is undoubtably strong, but essentially they're being used, and they don't care because they can use it as a weapon against probably an exaggerated enemy, that they don't like. And if not feminism to go up against that, then what? Religion? Lol. They'll jump on the band wagon, even at personal expense, because there aren't, as they see it, other options.

So as far as free speech issues, that absolutely does exist even within the lgbt community, as it does outside. The whole of "lgbt" is under an umbrella of feminist ideology, as default, and do something different, you'll get even worse outcomes than outside.

That's also what I wanted to mention, this isn't even really about the lgbt community speaking out, attacking others, or speech. Most I'd say are reasonable. But the main thing that comes out on top, the thing to be reckoned with, is feminism. Not even lgbt stuff. That's a group, but feminism is the engine. What really in actuality, would be limiting speech.


edit on 4-7-2015 by ghaleon12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ghaleon12
Thing that gets missed a lot is, feminist ideology is running the show even in the LGBT community. Even those in that category, they will support a feminist ideology even if it doesn't benefit them, or even harms them.


I thought I'd heard it all since I joined ATS - - - and lived near 70 years as a woman.

I think some people just need to find an excuse.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

All it takes is one or two with the right funding.





Do you believe in an all powerful LGBT lobby that has complete control over every action of the Democratic party, American academia and Hollywood?

Yes or no?


Do you believe there isn't?

Yes or no? and WHY.


Here's some ammo for your "yes" ...

Gay & Lesbian Rights & Issues: Background

HRC, USA's biggest LGBT lobby, releases 2015 Corporate Equality Index; Omaha's biggest employers ranked





Clearly, there is no all-powerful, unified LGBT lobby. I realize that you ignore a common turn-of-phrase (like in your first link in which the word "lobby" is used singularly) when it suits what you imagine to be your witty repartee, but, sad to say, the multiple groups across the country that work for LGBT rights, and even pointing at one of the largest, HRC, does NOT prove even one small element of the OP's article.

You never get tired of merely stirring the pot, rather than actually doing any cooking, eh?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ghaleon12

Define "feminist ideology."



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Well, feminism and anything lgbt go hand in hand. Are you lgbt, one or more? It is set as default for anything lgbt related, and this topic is about free speech. To utilize feminist ideology to benefit themselves, isn't outlandish, as I said it is strong and what other options do they have, probably not religion. And it essentially becomes a symbiotic relationship, beneficial to both.


edit on 4-7-2015 by ghaleon12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ghaleon12
Haha.

Well, feminism and anything lgbt go hand in hand. Are you lgbt, one or more? It is set as default for anything lgbt related, and this topic is about free speech. To utilize feminist ideology to benefit themselves, isn't outlandish, as I said it is strong and what other options do they have, probably not religion. And it essentially becomes a symbiotic relationship, beneficial to both.


I don't know if this breaks the rules or not.

But, I think you're nuts --- in your personal ideology.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Go ahead, but I at least said anything in 2 posts. You're 70 though? Holy crap, I'd like to hear your story on how you got here, lol.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ghaleon12

I wouldn't discount feminism outright. There are equity feminists who deserve a fair chance, though I do know what you mean. It is the one's who believe the mind is a blank slate, and gender is a social construct that are dangerous. See the case of Bruce or Britney, and gender assignment, I Forget the exact names

However Identity politics is the enemy, the rank and file of people under a common label, the essentialist attitude, which forms a more subversive form of bigotry, by way of tribalism and mob tactics, one prone to the suppression of dissent, base propaganda and even violence. This spans all ideologies throughout the whole political spectrum.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you're talking about Caitlyn Jenner She is transgender, nothing dangerous about that



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ghaleon12

Are you GLBTQ+?

Second, can you explain more on how the GLBTQ+ has a Feminist ideology? like specifics not vague text



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ghaleon12

I wouldn't discount feminism outright. There are equity feminists who deserve a fair chance, though I do know what you mean. It is the one's who believe the mind is a blank slate, and gender is a social construct that are dangerous. See the case of Bruce or Britney, and gender assignment, I Forget the exact names



What are you people talking about?

I am a 68 year old woman who grew up in the feminist movement.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It is the one's who believe the mind is a blank slate, and gender is a social construct that are dangerous. See the case of Bruce or Britney, and gender assignment, I Forget the exact names


I don't get it either, Annee.

Can you please explain this? I am having a hard time trying to figure out what the heck you mean here? Expectations of gender roles and how they are expressed are indeed a social construct but one's internal sense of gender of being male or female comes from within. And what does "Bruce or Briteny (sic) and gender assignment" have to be with being dangerous?

Can you elaborate on your point and maybe I'll get it? If I do get it and you are wrong, I can possibly shed some light on this subject if you choose to have your awareness raised.

Thanks.
edit on Sat Jul 4th 2015 by EKron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




"Discrimination" or hate is so vague that any sort of regulation risks abuse.

Discrimination is quite clear cut (as is "hate",btw.)
It means applying a different standard of treatment to a group as opposed to others because the members are part of that group and for no other reason. It can apply to favoritism as well as discrimination. Neither is optimal.


And to think that one may get jailed for what he says, no matter how stupid, is frightening.
Indeed.
Who has been jailed for that?

edit on 7/4/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
So what have we learned so far ...


There is no evidence of a unified, all-powerful "gay lobby" that is controlling the actions of the Democratic party, American academia, and the American entertainment industry (aka Hollywood).

There is no evidence that the Canadian human rights tribunals work anything like what is described in the article.

There is no evidence that the free speech or religious freedom of the American people will be shut down by the ruling on marriage equality in Obergefell ...

... so the key points of the OP article are lies. As are most of the "supporting details."



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Ahhhhh, the "Nice Law" as I call it.

Doesn't the UK have this too?


No.
Without looking too much into the paranoid translation of this law, I can tell you that the laws we have in the UK do not infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, or freedom of religion.

The laws we have protect people from hate speech and incitement to violence.

For example, you cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.
You cannot stand on a street corner preaching violence against others.
You cannot hold a meeting spreading propaganda about a group in our society intending to encourage violence against those people.

Or rather, to be more accurate, you can do these things but you will likely face a court for doing so.

If you promote criminal acts, or encourage others to perform criminal acts, you can be held accountable for that.

This is where things get a little icky in the USA, you guys seem to want to believe so desperately in absolute freedom of speech, regardless of the consequences of that speech, but at the same time selectively want to pick and choose what criminality should be allowed to be promoted or openly preached depending on whether you also hate the victim.

For instance, you would all agree that promoting the abuse of children should be a crime, yes?
Or, does that fall under freedom of speech? Can someone hold a meeting promoting the idea that kiddy fiddling is perfectly fine and everyone there should immediately go out and kidnap a child?

No, of course not. You would all abandon this "fight to the death" mentality of defending absolute and total freedom of speech if this was the subject of it. There is not a single person here who would think that this would be okay.

Hoe about animal welfare? If someone wanted to hold a meeting telling all who came that they should go out and kill peoples pets, you would be outraged, right?

How about Muslim extremists? If someone wants to hold a meeting proclaiming that all those in attendance should start attacking people, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they would be arrested and charged, and everyone would agree. Even if they were having a meeting talking about Jews, or Christians, and how they should all be treated unfairly, you would have a whole army of Americans suddenly deciding that their absolute freedom of speech is suddenly not that important after all.

This is the contradiction you have in the US. You all scream about your rights to absolute freedom of opinion and speech, but that only applies if the opinion and speech is something YOU agree with. If it's something you personally loathe and think is disgusting, you suddenly change your minds about that absolute freedom and want those people to be silenced.

America really needs to get a grip with this issue. Freedom of opinion and speech either applies to everyone, or you admit that there needs to be restrictions on what qualifies as a crime.

Where does free speech become a crime?
You can't have it both ways, you either accept that some things should be criminal, or you grant all the same absolute freedom of speech.

Personally, I think we in the UK have it right.
People can have any opinion they like, they speak about all kinds of controversial subjects, but the moment it crosses the line into promoting criminality (whether that's physical violence against others or discrimination) then it needs to be treated as hate speech and prosecuted.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

For instance, you would all agree that promoting the abuse of children should be a crime, yes?
Or, does that fall under freedom of speech? Can someone hold a meeting promoting the idea that kiddy fiddling is perfectly fine and everyone there should immediately go out and kidnap a child?


Are we counting the enclaves of the Catholic church in the US? Because there is clear evidence that for decades there has been, perhaps not mandated child molestation, but clear awareness and cover-up of same. Perhaps that doesn't cross the line over into free speech, but still.
edit on 8Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:57:14 -050015p082015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you missed my point.
No one is suggesting that anything criminal like this should be decriminalized or ignored, this is about where freedom of speech becomes promotion of criminal acts, and the hypocrisy of so many Americans who claim to want absolute freedom of speech, but only when it suits their own bigotries.

The fanatically religious are a great example of this too.
They preach about their freedom of speech, but when the speech goes against them it's "hate speech" and should be criminal.
The radical Christian can get an audience and preach about the evils of gay people, and they'll use their freedom of speech to defend themselves against even the slightest criticism of their opinion, but if a Muslim were to make the same statements about Christians in an open space like that those same defenders of absolute freedom of speech would demand that action be taken to silence them.

Americans do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, they believe in absolute agreement of their speech.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

... or maybe you missed mine?


I agree with what you're saying.

My point is, using some of the same arguments we see here daily for actions trying to hide behind our US freedom of speech and religion, one could argue that this heinous crime committed by officials of the Church and protected by the leaders of the Church should be protected under our First Amendment freedoms.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: Daedal

As a Canadian, I can tell you that the article is BS. Not every complaint made to one of the provinces' Human Rights Tribunal results in a hearing. In fact, it acts as a Better Business Bureau for those kind of complaints, and attempts to resolve them informally through mediation.

We had a case in British Columbia in 2009 where a man brutally attacked another man in a gay bar for bumping into him on the way to the bathroom, leaving him with permanent brain damage. Despite the fact that gay slurs were slung by the attacker at his victim, it was ruled not a hate crime.


Thanks for that report and reality check. I kinda figured the source story was click-bait BS.
Its getting harder and harder to know what's true anymore.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013



Thank you for saying it, i think a lot of people agree and are afraid to say it




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join