Woke is alive and well

[Stirlingsays]

Can a woman have p****?

Only if she asks very nicely.

 

[Stirlingsays]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2038322303327404499

Is he wrong?

Brilliant.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Hitler was famously a big fan of gay Jewish men.

Ernst Röhm was gay and headed the SA, the Nazi paramilitary wing.

He wasn't Jewish but you can't have everything.

Eventually he had him shot.

Again, you can't have everything.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Ernst Röhm was gay and headed the SA, the Nazi paramilitary wing.

He wasn't Jewish but you can't have everything.

Eventually he had him shot.

Again, you can't have everything.

Great - that doesn't change the fact that Hitler and the Nazi regime were strongly opposed to homosexuality, and gay men in particular.

Early Nazism had some exceptions, like Röhm, but as you acknowledge, this was violently ended and the repression intensified over time.

Hitler also wasn't vegan.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Great - that doesn't change the fact that Hitler and the Nazi regime were strongly opposed to homosexuality, and gay men in particular.

We can definitely say he certainly over did most of the things he was opposed to.

However, being opposed to homosexuality in practical terms is just supporting the continuation of the human race.

But that doesn't mean you have to be against individuals or their private lives.

Early Nazism had some exceptions, like Röhm, but as you acknowledge, this was violently ended and the repression intensified over time.

It was, but it wasn't ended because he was homosexual.......Röhm was gay but he was also a social conservative, which is more common than people think.

Hitler also wasn't vegan.

I know, he was a vegetarian for medical reasons.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

However, being opposed to homosexuality in practical terms is just supporting the continuation of the human race.

But that doesn't mean you have to be against individuals or their private lives.

Gay people existing doesn't threaten the continuation of the human race - straight people aren't going to stop having kids because homosexuality is accepted.

It's also very hard to say you’re “opposed to homosexuality in practical terms” but not against individuals - those two things aren’t separate.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Gay people existing doesn't threaten the continuation of the human race - straight people aren't going to stop having kids because homosexuality is accepted.

Who mentioned existing? That's your language. Propagating and expanding (as has happened) does reduce birth rates (especially importantly amongst females who are more prone to bisexuality) and that does factor in.

The reason homosexuality was always opposed was hardly down to a dislike of males with fashion sense.

It's also very hard to say you’re “opposed to homosexuality in practical terms” but not against individuals - those two things aren’t separate.

Well there is a difference, one is about how a topic is treated in media and education and the other involves direct intervention into people's lives.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Who mentioned existing? That's your language. Propagating and expanding (as has happened) does reduce birth rates (especially importantly amongst females who are more prone to bisexuality) and that does factor in.

The reason homosexuality was always opposed was hardly down to a dislike of males with fashion sense.



Well there is a difference, one is about how a topic is treated in media and education and the other involves direct intervention into people's lives.

There are much simpler, and far more impactful levers we can pull to address declining birth rates - the existence of bisexual women is barely a consideration to any real discussion of that topic.

The reason homosexuality has historically been opposed also had very little to do with birth rates.

How a topic is treated in media and education inevitably impacts people’s lives, which is my point - you can’t so easily separate the two.

 

[Stirlingsays]

There are much simpler, and far more impactful levers we can pull to address declining birth rates - the existence of bisexual women is barely a consideration to any real discussion of that topic.

Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.

Again, I find this use of the word, 'existence' troubling as no one is being destroyed here, no male or female is lost. Whereas this isn't the case with birth rates below replacement.

The reason homosexuality has historically been opposed also had very little to do with birth rates.

Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.

How a topic is treated in media and education inevitably impacts people’s lives, which is my point - you can’t so easily separate the two.

It does but indirectly, which I implied anyway.

Also, the change in favour of homosexuality also affected those who disapproved for the reasons stated plus others. So why the consideration only going one way? But again, I'm interested in hearing your argument.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Genuinely, why would I?

You are indifferent ? To a quack surgeon and their scalpel doing some frightening stuff ? I feel sorry for you.

And you gotta respect my FEELINGS

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.



Go on, I'm interested to know your thoughts.



It does but indirectly, which I what I implied anyway.

Also, the change in favour of homosexuality also affected those who disapproved for the reasons stated plus others. So why the consideration only going one way? But again, I'm interested in hearing your argument.

Well birth rates are predominantly an economic problem, although there are obviously cultural factors - the most consistent correlations across countries are the cost of living, higher female education levels and urbanisation. There is huge decline in heterosexual couples having children - that can’t be explained by anything to do with homosexuality.


The core resistance to homosexuality historically is surely a religious/moral one - religious texts and doctrine shaped laws and social norms for centuries.

I may be wrong, but tracking of fertility rates seems a fairly new thing, and I don’t think it was much, if any, of a consideration in most of the historic resistance to homophobia.


I accept that social change around homosexuality hasn’t only affected one side of the argument, but I don’t think those impacts are equal - you’re weighing off criminalisation, violence and worse against people feeling socially uncomfortable.

 

[georgenorman]

 

[Stirlingsays]

Well birth rates are predominantly an economic problem, although there are obviously cultural factors - the most consistent correlations across countries are the cost of living, higher female education levels and urbanisation. There is huge decline in heterosexual couples having children - that can’t be explained by anything to do with homosexuality.

No, it's a factor, though not in the way you appear to say, but even then it's only one factor.

The rather stunning obvious refutation of this is that in significantly poorer countries the birth rates are higher. These poorer countries rarely if ever have pro homosexual media or education. In fact, economically you see the opposite to what you say: the higher the standard of average living the lower the birth rates.

An increase in the promotion of alternative sexual lifestyles from one that actually produces the next generation is also a rather stunningly obvious factor.

But it's not a factor on its own.

The core resistance to homosexuality historically is surely a religious/moral one - religious texts and doctrine shaped laws and social norms for centuries.

That's not an answer is it.

Why would there be a religious and moral objection to homosexuality?.....in pretty much all traditional religions and in some secular societies as well.

I may be wrong, but tracking of fertility rates seems a fairly new thing, and I don’t think it was much, if any, of a consideration in most of the historic resistance to homophobia.

Yes, it's still about fertility.....it appears I'm going to have to answer the original question I posed at you...at least for ancient societies and why 'homophobia' was part and parcel wider group protection.

Rather obviously for most of human history the average life expectancy was no higher than 35......Having an thriving and growing number of non child producing adults is about as irrational as it gets in that environment......the male numbers in your village could literally decide whether you survived a raid or not.

I accept that social change around homosexuality hasn’t only affected one side of the argument, but I don’t think those impacts are equal - you’re weighing off criminalisation, violence and worse against people feeling socially uncomfortable.

Again, the social factors are far far worse than some people feeling uncomfortable. You just don't appear to recognise them. As for less violence against homosexuals.....Is that really the case?
It wasn't legal to commit violence against homosexuals anyway.

I was raised in the 80s and I certainly don't remember an environment like that.