- cross-posted to:
- christianity
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- christianity
- politics
Bubba Copeland shot himself in front of police on Friday, days after he begged 1819 News not to expose his private life.
Bubba Copeland shot himself in front of police on Friday, days after he begged 1819 News not to expose his private life.
Maybe we shouldn’t be outing anyone. One’s personal sexuality isn’t anybody else’s business. Even if one is a bigot.
I think there is a good argument to be made for outing someone closeted who is using their power to oppress LGBT+ people, but there is also a trend of labeling any homophobic politician as being in the closet when a lot of them are just plain old bigots.
I’m sorry, but I must vehemently disagree. There is absolutely no reason to discuss publicly someone’s private sexual preferences. Otherwise, you have the society they want where witch-hunts can be started over rumors.
That is also bad, and should not be tolerated.
If I’m being oppressed I would like to know if the thing I’m being opposed for is something my oppressor practices. That is called injustice.
It’s called none of your business. You can’t expect someone to adhere to a standard you refuse to recognize. It’s classic, “Rules for thee…”
But I can expect them to adhere to a standard they’re using to oppress me.
That is actually a different thing. And I agree, but you still shouldn’t be outing them.
Excuse me? Are you for, “rules for thee but not for me”? I cannot decipher your actual stance.
I can’t fathom why, when I’ve stated it multiple times in the clearest possibly English.
Don’t out anyone. No exceptions.
If you make exceptions then it’s you who is creating “rules for thee…”
But if your oppressor is LGBTQ+ and oppressing you for being LGBTQ+ it is “rules for thee…”
Tell me I’m wrong, you nut.
Most importantly, in this case I don’t think we should be defending the rights of an oppressor over the rights of the oppressed.
Edit:
I could go on. The exact reason someone would not want to be outed is because of the social stigma created by the oppressor. So your stance is doubly absurd.
Yes. He is "rules for thee…"ing you.
But when you out him you become the one not abiding by your own rules. Twice. Once for the outing, because you don’t want to be outed. And again for not holding yourself to your own standard of not having rules that don’t apply to you.
If you think that some people don’t deserve to have their rights protected, then you are the oppressor.
nah, if you’re an elected political official with power over other peoples lives, and you’re a bigot, it’s open fuckin season, and i’d recommend outting every single last goddamned one of them
Except he wasn’t outed as a bigot. He was outed as “not a bigot”.
All Republicans are hypocritical bigots, by definition. It’s the core of their political party, it’s who they signed up to be identified with, it’s who they are, or in the case of this poor bigoted fuck, were. I don’t want to see any “but this was a nice republican” bullshit. After the Southern Strategy in 1964, all Republicans are trash, every single one.
Institutionalized racism, misogyny, homophobia, and white Christian separatism as party platform. No matter how “conservative” Republicans claimed to be, The Southern Strategy was the core value and singular driving force for the past 60 years. MAGA isn’t a symptom, it’s result.
Maybe the politicians, I could agree with that, but most Republican voters are not on board with the southern strategy and all of this other stuff.
All the majority know is that they hate Democrats, and that is why they vote the way they do. Human beings are creatures of habit after all.
Besides, even if a group of people are doing bad things en masse, it’s ultimately counterproductive to lump the followers in with the leaders. It makes it harder for the followers to break from the leaders that are leading them down the wrong path.
I am anti-republican politics, and I don’t get along with Republican voters, but I’m not going to call the guy at the gas station evil because he votes Republican because his dad voted Republican because his dad voted Republican.
“They don’t know what they’re voting for” is not a defense, frankly. If you’re truly ignorant of what a party stands for and you just can’t bring yourself to vote for their opponent, maybe don’t vote at all?
If you vote Republican then you are “on board” with the southern strategy and all of this other stuff. That’s what voting signifies, that’s the whole point of voting. It’s a binding statement to the world that you want the person or group you’re voting for to be in charge, and in the case of Republicans we know very well what them being “in charge” entails.
They aren’t evil, doesn’t stop them being ignorant, stupid, wrong, and detrimental to society. Ebola isn’t evil, but it’ll fuck up your life if you don’t kill it first.
Republican voters are cancer, they might not want to kill you, but they will.
fuck. and. you.
It’s certainly a not big enough deal for them to leave.
I am.
If they’re voting to for and supporting the party that does evil stuff, it really doesn’t matter the reason they do it for.
I didn’t vote for the Nazis to kill the Jews, I just wanted my taxes lowered :(
Out the ones that could be a part of the ones who could effect change so they can be ousted and replaced by another run-of-the-mill Republican demon. Smart. Real big-brained move.
Mmmmmmmm… No, you know what? fuck that. You don’t get to be a bigot and then expect privacy in your own life. Response to even if one is a bigot
Exactly.
This is classic conservative rules for thee bullshit.
This is anti-conservatives sinking to the level of conservative rules for thee bullshit.
You’re literally saying “it’s ok to be queer, unless…” Either it’s ok, it it’s not. Spoiler alert, it’s fucking ok.
Yes I’m saying it’s ok to be queer and not ok to be intolerant. What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?
No one is saying that it is ok that he was outed. They’re saying he was making rules as a Republican official that bound LGBTQ people and the instant those rules would apply to him he killed himself…
Rules for thee but not me.
Do u get it now, junior?
Plenty of people are saying exactly that. Are you reading a different thread?
Go back to Reddit, you muppet.
Uk u lost when you resort to “go back to reddit” followed by an ad hominem.
Typical Redditor. Thinking every insult is ad hominem. You don’t get to start throwing insults around and not expect some in return.
You have it exactly backwards though. You don’t get to expect privacy in your own life if you refuse to respect the privacy of others.
Also, why would you fight bigotry by demeaning the very thing they oppose with their bigotry? You’re only adding fuel to the fire.
Paradox of intolerance. Your argument is invalid.
Wrong. You don’t have to tolerate bigotry to respect sexual privacy. You have no argument.
Imagine outing someone as straight. Essentially it’s a weird attempt to enforce a degree of group think