In response, he has faced the consequences of his words, with people calling for him to resign (which he refuses). Instead, he goes on the attack saying that right-wing speech was being “demonized.”
He said recently, “I am tired of folks on the right being demonized for our speech,” he said, claiming that “folks on the left burn, beat, rob, loot — take over entire cities — and get a pass.”
Here's the thing: IF you are going to make vulgar, abhorrent comments - bad comments - then people will hold you accountable for your words. That isn't "demonizing" right wing free speech, it's calling clearly bad and harmful words "Bad."
We no longer allow vulgar comments about women, black folks and other minorities to be uttered publicly without repercussions. Some on the Right have to begin to recognize that you have free speech - the freedom to make vulgar, despicable language - but you will be held accountable for your vulgar words.
And holding people accountable is not an attack on the Right or on free speech. It's recognizing harmful, dangerous words for what they are.
Those on the Right (or otherwise) will just have to recognize that such speech IS vulgar and expect consequences. Get over it. You lost this "battle" and if you STILL think it's okay to make these sort of harmful comments, know that there will be consequences. Better yet, recognize the long history of abuse and harm done to our dear family and friends in the LGBTQ crowd, admit that this was wrong, and turn around and repent and get on the right side of history and decency.
And if you are a conservative who recognizes how harmful Robinson's words are, the question for you is: Will you now use this opportunity to speak up and denounce those on your side who are resorting to oppressive, vulgar language to attack fellow citizens, neighbors, friends and family?
64 comments:
Marshal, you can google the guy's name and "lt governor north carolina" and it will be the first thing that pops up. I'm not giving any more support to this pervert's immorality than I would to a KKK advocate's words.
And hopefully, even YOU would agree that his words are vulgar and disgusting.
If you're aware of what Google can do for you, it would make sense that you would actually use it to inform yourself of what he said. Nothing he said is vulgar or disgusting. What I've seen indicates blow back has been similarly a distortion of his message as you're clearly indicating of yourself. I've long held the same position on what is appropriate for school kids...even up to high school. His message is sound, righteous and moral.
So, in order to make your case, provide the words you find objectionable and a link with which one can check your understanding. I've done my homework and your post shows you either know next to nothing about his exact words or are again promoting, enabling and defending immoral behaviors.
How about this... all conservative christians are pigs living in the filth of their own shit.
Is that an offensive statement to and about conservative wing nuts? Of course it is. And what do we want someone like that in a position of responsibility and government? No it's an offensive statement portraying deep ignorance and a dangerous state of mind.
But tell me horseshit face... You're fine with me calling you and Is your loved ones demonpig full of filth and menace? Got it, shit for brains. You're fine with it and that's how we refer to you and yours from now on.
But other people are not fine with it and we will not abide by it.
Let me repeat that again:
We will not abide by it. This sort of of menacing and vulgar talk Seeking to further oppress historically oppressed people will not stand in a free society.
This guy should be fired. If he had any Christian decency at all, he would resign. He's shown he has none of that, so he should be fired.
And, Lest I be misunderstood... it is NOT OK for me to refer to Marshal's loved ones in such a vulgar manner. That was an object lesson to hopefully provoke Marshal to take a stand for decency. If Marshal or anyone else is a decent human being then they can acknowledge that our loved ones - human beings created in the image of an Almighty and holy God - should NOT be referred to in such vulgar manner as this low life oppressor is doing.
To categorize a whole swath of historically oppressed people in such a manner is part of the reason they've been historically oppressed. If they were as he falsely accuses them of being, then they are a threat and a danger and must be stopped. That sort of language from a public official will not stand.
Decent and rational human beings will not stand for it. The time of such oppression by people like Marshal and the people he defends is over. If you can't embrace liberty and some basic rational decency then move the hell away or climb back under a rock.
"all conservative christians are pigs living in the filth of their own shit.
Is that an offensive statement to and about conservative wing nuts?"
Sure it is. However, you've proven you have no idea what Robinson said. At the same time, I've no doubt you took great pleasure in speaking profanity about conservatives and me directly. Not surprised at all, in fact.
So, will you quote exactly Robinson's words and provide a link by which one can check your understanding?
Good gosh, Dan. I told you I did my homework. I insisted I know his words are sound, righteous and moral. That's 180° the opposite of what you claim to know, and instead of proving what you claim, you engage in your unique brand of grace embracing. Get a grip. Demonstrate this Christian character you profess.
You KNOW what was said. It's in the fourth paragraph here...
https://www.wral.com/lt-gov-robinson-defends-homophobic-comments-dismisses-calls-for-resignation/19915242/
It's exactly what you think it is. This is an elected represented supposed to be representing ALL of his constituents, but instead, for some portion of them, he calls them this vulgar, dehumanizing term.
YOU YOURSELF don't want that term to be used about your loved ones and I wouldn't do it, because it's wrong.
And that's the difference between us - I know it's wrong and YOU defend this sort of vulgar attack on an historically oppressed people.
There is NOTHING - and don't misunderstand me: NOTHING IN ANY POSSIBLE STRETCH of the imagination except for the very most depraved and oppressive sorts of minds - that is sound, righteous or moral about his attacks. Shame on him and shame on you for defending him.
If you can't recognize how very evil such language is, that's exactly part of the problem. God have mercy on your soul.
This oppressor has also said (and here, he was fine), "To me, it is against the tenets of my religion," he said of homosexuality and transgenderism. "But we do not live in a theocracy, and I do not have the right to tell anyone what they practice in their home.”
If he thinks it's against his religion, that's fine. That's fine for him to say so like that. And he's right when he notes that we don't live in a theocracy of this pervert's little tyrant god. If he had just said something like that, no problem.
But he didn't stop with that sort of reasonable (if wrong, I believe) language. But no. He attacked an historically oppressed group, dehumanizing them in a vulgar and sickening and dangerous manner.
As a more rational person correctly stated, “Whether that is his meaning or not, it is his words that are actually painting the picture that we as a group should not exist."
Thank God for reasonable people. May the crazy oppressors' eyes be opened and may they be removed from power until such time as they repent from their evil ways.
? What in the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that he didn't say what was quoted in the 4th paragraph?
Ah, I think I see. You're seeing Robinson backpedaling, trying to suggest he was "only" calling LGBTQ reading material by this term to be a significant difference.
It's not.
He needs to go.
And I've looked at at least one of the books he was attacking. He's crazy. It's a children's educational cartoon book and there is no "pornography" in it. He's showing himself to be the pervert by his attacks, seeing "pornography" where there is none, confusing educational material for some sick fantasy, in his mind, but not in reality.
IF Robinson meant to say "I think cartoon pictures of little girls without a shirt on in the context of an educational book is pornographic... but I love and respect and hold in high esteem LGBTQ folk in general... I just don't like this cartoon picture..." THEN he should apologize for how it sounded. Period. BEGIN with the apology, not an abusive "WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED..." as if Christian people are somehow being oppressed!
The notion is stupidly offensive.
Christians can't, for dozens - hundreds? - of years, demonize (literally) and marginalize and oppress gay folk and then, when called on it, claim that THEY are being oppressed as Christians.
There is a real history of oppression, bullying, harassment, abuse, neglect and murder of LGBTQ folk and you can't act like that isn't a reality or that the church hasn't been part of that.
IF he was merely saying (and no one believes his protests that he was doing this) "I don't like cartoon pictures of girls wearing no tops in an educational book being in schools..." THEN BEGIN with the apology for how it clearly sounded. Until that happens, this oppressor should be removed from office.
I'm entirely fine with people making mistakes, learning from those mistakes and then apologizing and moving on. But to try to take HIS attack on LGBTQ folk and turn it into some kind of "but... whine/moan... THEY are trying to silence Christians" THAT gaslighting tactic, itself, is part of the real history and efforts to oppress.
Open your eyes.
I meant to add, that's the OPPOSITE of an actual apology or recognition of wrongdoing.
Marshal, on topic comments that are not an egregious and cowardly attack on historically oppressed comments can be made. You whining and making obscure and disrespectful comments while defending perverts who attack the historically oppressed will NOT remain.
You want your comments to remain? Be respectful, comment on topic, be clear and don't attack people.
It's really not that hard for rational adults interested in conversation.
Marshal is a broken record and demonstrates his sheer stupidity to not get by now that he can’t take wild leaps off the edge of his flat earth.
And what a hypocrite: he’s such a coward he can’t stand to face a single word from me.
Marshal, attacking historically oppressed people will not get you or this Robinson pervert ANY credibility. You've lost this argument nationally and morally and rationally and biblically and I think it burns you all up to think that OTHER people consider YOU perverted and deviant when you want to believe that it's others who are deviant when they're just living decent lives.
You want to call people marrying and loving another something bad but hate to think that when you attack historically oppressed and marginalized people, that we should remain silent and let you all have your pissy little ways and give in to your emotional rants and attacks because you're too emotionally fragile to face confrontation.
You lost. Get over it. If you can't recognize and repent for your deviance, then just crawl back under a rock. The attacks and oppression of you and Robinson are not going to be tolerated in rational, moral company.
You lost. Go away.
Marshal can only choose to attack innocent, good people with stupidly false claims. For Marshal, good is bad, up is down, evil is to be defended.
But it's not going to happen here. I don't know how else to say it: YOUR attacks - like the attacks of oppressors like Robinson - will not be allowed here. Free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to give you a platform for your hate speech.
Nice projection, liar. For me, good and evil are clearly explained in Scripture. You hate Scripture and love perversion and demonstrate this fact routinely. Calling Robinson an "oppressor" evidence. That's true hatred. May God grant you the epiphany you so desperately need.
Robinson is using a vile word in reference to innocent sex educational material and by extension, LGBTQ folks themselves. This makes him part of the historic oppression of this group of people.
As a point of reality, LGBTQ folks have been oppressed throughout US history and much of world history.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Insofar as churches have often demonized, attacked and belittled/mocked LGBTQ people instead of standing up for them...
insofar as churches and Christian families have kicked LGBTQ folk out of their fellowship instead of welcoming them in AS THEY ARE...
insofar as churches have mocked and attacked "the gay agenda..."
Churches have been a part of that very real oppression.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
NONE of that behavior in church history has been moral. It is NOT moral to oppress as LGBTQ people have been.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
When emotionally fragile and arrogantly presumptuous churches and Christians like Robinson complain about "christians" being forced to "give up free speech" and that they are under attack, WHEN in reality, we were just pushing back against his and your style attacks/oppression, they further oppress the LGBTQ community and their allies.
It would be akin to Nazis complaining that their "free speech" was being stolen because people opposed to fascism mock them or refuse to give the Nazis a platform to spew their bigotry.
This denying of reality and trying to suggest that the OPPRESSORS are being oppressed is part of the oppression.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Please answer the questions if you're going to comment here.
"Calling Robinson an oppressor" is true hatred..."
Of course, NOT if he's oppressing gay folk. And listen to what LGBTQ people are saying. They'll TELL you that these sort of vile oppressive words ARE HARMING them.
The reality is in their testimony, because THEY are the ones who would know.
Thus, you're just flatly mistaken. The fact is, Robinson's sorts of words ARE oppressive and his suggestion that sex educational cartoons are somehow indecent shows his indecency.
You're just wrong and the evidence demonstrates it objectively.
Here's a question for you to answer (carefully): Do you think cartoons in sex educational books for students is "pornographic," Marshal?
If you agree with Robinson on that, do you recognize how very creepy that makes you and him appear to normal people with healthy views of human sexuality?
Do you peruse cartoon sex ed books to get a rise, Marshal?
Marshal, if I say the problem is that people have been oppressed in the past like this man is oppressing LGBTQ people right now, today, by their own testimony, and you respond with "answers" that are oppressive, that only serves to strengthen my argument. And your oppressive comments will not remain.
You've lost. Repeated ongoing historic attacks against LGBTQ people have been found to be oppressive. You and your oppressors have been weighed in the scales of righteousness, reason and history and you've been found wanting.
If you can't make an argument argument in support of your oppression that isn't oppressive, that's part of why you lost.
You all have been found to be part of the bad guys of history. I don't know what else to tell you. Your arguments themselves are bad and oppressive.
Like the KKK types had to do in the sixties and beyond.... go and crawl under a rock. You're not welcome in reasonable respectful society.
Marshal continues to mix his unsupported, stupidly false claims with attacks on people and his emotional distress questioning why his comments have been deleted. Here are parts of his comments that I'll post in order to address his questions/false claims, with the oppressive bits deleted.
Marshal (in a now-deleted comment, because he continued his actively, hateful oppression) said...
"But you're only asserting my comments are "oppressive". You delete them afterwards with no effort to argue in what way they might be...which is understandable since you can't make such an argument because my comments are perfectly fine...except that you don't like them because of your devotion..."
...and the rest of the sentence was an attack on historically oppressed people.
He then cited my comment...
""Repeated ongoing historic attacks against LGBTQ people have been found to be oppressive.""
And then Marshal continued the attack (here, I'm printing the part that isn't an attack)...
"They've been asserted to be "oppressive" by those..."
As a point of reality, factually undisputed except by the oppressors, LGBTQ people HAVE been oppressed through the ages, and throughout US history and throughout much of the last century.
It's not disputed or disputable that LGBTQ people have been...
Abused
Mocked
Verbally attacked
Constantly demonized
Kicked out of homes
Kicked out of churches
Bullied
Fired from jobs
Beaten
Raped/Sexually assaulted
Criminalized
Killed
and otherwise oppressed.
This is indisputable by those familiar with facts in the real world.
Even when there was no particular evidence of folks engaging in sexual behavior, JUST THE APPEARANCE or admission of being a homosexual or transgender or lesbian or otherwise non-binary and LGBTQ... JUST THE APPEARANCE has resulted in ALL the above.
These are the facts in the real world.
Do you recognize and agree with that reality, Marshal?
Don't downplay the reality.
Don't blame the victims.
Don't defend the oppressors.
Just answer that question or go away, knowing that we all see that you're siding with the actual perverts and deviants - those who'd oppress the oppressed. And knowing that we will not abide by your indecency or attacks and that such deviancy will not be permitted in decent adult company.
Marshal also said, in his attack comments that have been deleted...
"This is how you people roll. If you don't like the truth, you call the truth an attack. Even if a truth claim can be proven false, you don't do a damned thing to provide such proof."
Okay, here's your chance to acknowledge the facts, the truth and admit their reality, instead of trying to deny it.
LGBTQ people have been beaten, bullied, harassed, fired, kicked out of their homes and churches, oppressed and killed JUST for being LGBTQ for decades.
Do you admit that reality?
Can you call all of these very real historic oppressive acts literally evil and oppressive?
Do you recognize that LGBTQ people will tell you this is NOT uncommon, even today?
Reality is not in dispute here, the facts are clear. LGBT and their allies will tell you the reality, if you don't recognize it. BUT, if at this point, you're not familiar with this real history of oppression, that is part of the problem.
IF, on the other hand, you say, "We oppressors are TELLING all these gay folk that they are wrong and that they have NOT experienced this oppression..." that, too, is part of the oppression.
Nazis, too, will tell you that they did nothing wrong.
Rapists, too, will tell you that "they deserved it..."
We don't believe oppressors when they say there was no oppression. We believe the oppressed.
Or at least, decent people do.
Marshal said in a now-deleted comment that continued his ugly, oppressive attacks...
"I don't blame the victims of unwarranted attack, but the victims do invite those attacks by their personal choices, in the same way a thief invites attack by law enforcement for his choices."
The victims DO invite the attacks... are you just too blinded by hatred to see that you are literally blaming the victim here?
Good God in heaven! Your human traditions and perverse hatred has made you blind and dangerous.
You're like the rapists and rape-defenders who blame women for "asking for it..." by "dressing provocatively."
No victim of oppression "asks for it" or "invites" the abuse they receive by oppressors.
Say that to yourself as many times as it takes for it to sink in.
Marshal continues the oppression and attacks based on nothing but hatred and venom and stupidity. Now Marshal has found a list of books about LGBTQ topics, primarily defending human rights as it relates to LGBTQ. Or at least that's how it looked on a quick glance to me...
And Marshal refers to this list as proof of indoctrination of evil, as opposed to people standing up for human rights. That's how depraved Marshal has become. He sees people defending human rights and he thinks it's evil. What kind of sick man does that?
Marshal said, in a now-deleted comment...
"You assert these books...wholly unnecessary for kids of any stripe"
Unnecessary? SAYS WHO?
WHO the hell are you to determine that LGBTQ adults or kids don't need books to support them in the light of the very real oppression that has happened for decades/centuries? Who are you to say that the rest of us don't ALSO need such books so that we don't remain wallowing in ignorance and hatred?
The presumptuous arrogant asinine authoritarianism that you exhibit with this comment is PRECISELY why these books need to exist. So that, at the least, Marshal's family and children can unlearn the hatred and oppressive attitudes that old white conservative bigots have been passing on for generations.
If nothing else, you're making the case why people like you have 1. Lost this argument and 2. Need to be shunned and removed/unwelcomed from polite society.
You've lost. Your children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews will view you as a sad bigot who confused being a rational, good citizen with oppression.
For your own sake, stop perpetuating this oppression.
God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.
Marshal and his gang think God is law. White law. They want God to enforce white law. To them, Jesus is a white man.
They haven’t met Jesus.
Dan: "Unnecessary? SAYS WHO?"
Marshal:
Says me and all others for whom honesty and truth is important and essential, particularly as it concerns raising kids.
STOP. Says WHO? No one give a flying fuck what Marshal who disagrees with homosexuality and is unable to express it in any way beyond oppression.
So truly, try again: ON WHAT RATIONAL, MORAL BASIS should Marshal get to make this call?
Merely THINKING that you and those who agree with you are right is not enough. Be a big boy. Try to give an adult answer.
I'm giving you a chance.
Regardless of what you say, Honesty and Truth ARE important to me and Feodor and people like us. We don't disagree with you because we're choosing to be dishonest and uncaring of Truth. We disagree because you're wrong, so that answer is insufficient.
Come on, you can do it: WHY do you and people who agree with you get to make this call?
Also Marshal... "I'm one for whom honesty is important."
Come on. Don't be obtuse. You can't seriously think that I invest all this time and effort in conversations like this because I value dishonesty.
Can you at least agree that I - a straight white Christian faithful to one wife for nearly 40 years and who was raised in a conservative background - have no reason to value dishonesty and no motive to lie to you just for giggles? Can you at least acknowledge that I honestly truly sincerely believe what I'm saying is right?
Come on. Find some common ground in reason and decency.
So, Marshal answered the question and showed precisely part of the problem with modern Trump-stye conservatism: They don't believe anything that isn't part of their partisan belief system.
Never mind how irrational it is to say that people like me - people that Marshal doesn't know and has no reason to suspect of evil intent - are just deliberately lying and making stuff up for the fun of promoting evil. Marshal just doesn't understand how irrational that is and, looking at the life of people like me (and truly, this is not about me), to look at such lives of social workers, teachers, healthcare workers, mental health workers, pastors, deacons, Sunday School teachers, etc, etc... people who have been faithful to their wives, loving parents, concerned citizens, etc, etc... and say, "Well, he supports LGBTQ people, therefore, everything he says must be lies and intentional efforts to spread information to deliberately promote evil..."
It's just insane, irrational and completely divorced from reality. And once again, it's truly not about ME, individually. All of us are flawed human beings, imperfect and prone to error. But to presume that we all are deliberately promoting evil is just crazy.
Marshal seems to be me to be divorced from reality in many ways (this is just one of them), but never have I thought that he was deliberately making things up. I believe he truly believes what he says he believes. I have no reason to think otherwise. I think he's WAY wrong oftentimes, but I don't think he's making it up.
Today's white conservatives have no such moderating grace. All who disagree are "enemies of the state," "deliberate promoters of evil..."
What do we do with that level of irrationality?
It's sad, dangerous, pathetic.
"They don't believe anything that isn't part of their partisan belief system."
Our "partisan belief system" is based on that which is proved true, factual and logical. Why would we believe anything which isn't? What you derisively refer to as "modern 'Trump-style' conservatism", therefore, is really just conservatism. Truth, facts and logic are anathema to "Trabue-style" "progressivism" and "christianity".
It's not the least bit irrational to say "people like you" are liars, because it's based on YOU whose dishonesty is legendary and at this point a given. You affirm that fact again by asserting I said make stuff up for the fun of it. I never considered whether or not you take personal pleasure in lying, though considering how often you lie, it shouldn't surprise me to learn you do. But lie and promote evil...as well as lying that you don’t...is demonstrably true.
Then to list "social workers, teachers, healthcare workers, mental health workers, pastors, deacons, Sunday School teachers, etc, etc... people who have been faithful to their wives, loving parents, concerned citizens, etc, etc." as if the jobs of these people mitigate their complicity in lying and promoting evil is a most dishonest ploy. If you know people like these and they're all defending the LGBT agenda as you do, then they're clearly "people like you" who deliberately lie.
Therefore, it's totally sane, rational and aligned with reality to acknowledge you and those like you are deliberately lying and promoting evil considering the many facts and proofs I've provided in response to your defense of immorality and disorder. Being prone to error is one thing. Continuing to perpetuate proven lies is quite another.
"Marshal seems to be me to be divorced from reality in many ways..."
Not to honest people of character. Find one and ask.
"I think he's WAY wrong oftentimes, but I don't think he's making it up."
You've never come close to proving me wrong and since facts and evidence support me, there's no chance you ever will. Thus, since what I know...not "believe"...is supported by facts and evidence, I'm clearly not making anything up. But being the liar you are, you want it to be so.
"Today's white conservatives have no such moderating grace."
It's absolutely racist, and thus another lie, to suggest my position is "white", as if only white people speak the truth. But there are conservatives of all races who also acknowledge the truth, and there are also those who are homosexual (though they do promote some of the immorality and disorder you defend as well).
"All who disagree are "enemies of the state," "deliberate promoters of evil...""
Yet another lie to assert any conservative says such a thing. You're an enemy because you intentionally promote evil. What do we do with that level of irrationality which is so clearly sad, dangerous and pathetic?
Here's where you delete so you can lie about what I just said and then do nothing to prove me wrong.
The problem, Marshal, is you can't point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where I've made things up, where I've deliberately lied or deliberately made a false claim. You can't point to ANY PLACE in all our ten plus years of discussions. But I will gladly give you that chance.
And here, I'm not talking about places where you merely disagree with my opinion. Your disagreement with my opinion doesn't make what I said a false claim.
And I'm not talking about me using hyperbole or turns of phrase that you find objectionable.
Nor am I talking about me making mistakes. I DO make mistakes, although I don't know that you have ever successfully noted that I have, in fact, made a mistake.
I'm talking about instances where I knowingly made a false claim to you. I have many flaws, but in these kinds of discussions, I can safely say I've never deliberately made a false claim. Why would I? My point in these discussions is to seek and promote understanding and truth and facts. Making up a claim knowingly would UNDERMINE my positions/views, not strengthen them.
So, you now have two options: Point to a place where I knowingly made a false claim (and you can't, because I haven't) or admit you are wrong to make that suggestion, because that claim, itself, is not something you can prove.
Can you raise the bar any higher so you can make it harder to prove what is easily seen by anyone who reads your comments?
I'll just point to this post. You lie when you say Robinson is attacking LGBT people. That's an outright lie and you haven't provided any proof of it. Indeed, saying his opinions are vulgar is a lie. You can't say it's your opinion while calling his opinions about a specific act "vulgar". Calling his opinion vulgar is vulgar. Especially since his description is accurate.
Aside from that, I'm not going to play your games about backing up what is the fact of your corrupt character, where whatever you do or say is acceptable no matter what it is or to or about whom it is leveled, while anything anyone else says is "vulgar" or "oppressive" or whatever other crap you say to spin it your way. In that, your entire method of discourse is a lie.
So, if you can't provide evidence to support your charge against Robinson, you've lied.
Marshal... " You lie when you say Robinson is attacking LGBT people."
When someone refers to a group of people by derogatory names, that IS an attack. Literally. Now, he tried to go back and clarify, he wasn't talking about the people, as a whole, just material talking about sexuality and transgenderism. THAT MATERIAL, he later clarified (in contrast to his original words) is _______... and then he filled in the blank with a dehumanizing, demeaning attack word.
So, it's like if he said, Being straight should NOT be talked about in high school and any material talking about straight sexuality is [demeaning attack words].
CLEARLY, to many LGBTQ folk and their allies, we recognized such words as having the effect of ATTACKING LGBTQ people. Now, it may not have been Robinson's INTENTIONS, but it is the effect those words had, especially in the context of a group of people who have for decades been attacked and demeaned and dehumanized by referring to them, as a group, by these demeaning words.
If you're a rational adult, you can't make such statements and pretend that there is not a real history of oppression as context. It serves as another attack.
Now, YOU PERSONALLY, may want to put on rose colored glasses, ignore history and reality and say, "la dee dah! As a privileged white straight guy, I don't see these words to be an attack..." But YOUR privileged little opinion doesn't erase the harm and attack of such words.
In other words, just because you don't think it's an attack doesn't mean it's NOT an attack. AND, if Robinson seriously did not mean to demean, devalue, literally dehumanize LGBTQ folk, that doesn't make his words any less an attack.
My dear grandmother was raised in the racist south and into the 1980s would refer to black people by using the N word - AND SHE SAID IT SWEETLY, not meaning to be insulting or attacking black people. But in the context of reality and a history of oppression, such words DO dehumanize and attack, regardless of intent.
Rational adults should be able to recognize that.
So, 1. It WAS literally a dehumanizing attack and 2. Therefore, it was not a lie for me and others to recognize it as such. and 3. IF I'm mistaken (and I don't know how one gets a "ruling" on whether or not I'm mistaken in my opinion), it's NOT because I have deliberately made a false claim.
Therefore, regardless of your opinion about my opinion, it is NOT a false claim. I have now spent time clarifying precisely why I and many others recognize his words were an attack, vulgar because they were dehumanizing and demeaning. Therefore, having given you a chance to point to ANY false claim I have ever made, you have failed to do so.
Now, you can apologize or you can leave.
The quote, one of them, from Robinson minus the attack word.
"There's no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that ...."
And then he inserted the literally obscenely dehumanizing attack word. Now let's set aside for a minute the lesbian gay and bisexual folks that his words attack and causes harm to. He says specifically "transgenderism and all that..."
IF he were merely talking about pictures that he thought were naughty in a sex ed book, why mention specifically transgenderism? If he was complaining It's only about naughty pictures in books, why did he not say that? Why didn't he say there's no reason to have the pictures of any kind of sexuality in educational books in high schools?? Why did he single out LGBTQ folk? "Transgenderism..."?
Make no mistake: This was clearly an attack. Literally an attack on LGBTQ people. Specifically an attack by his own words singling out LGBTQ people.
No amount of denial by useful idiots will change that reality. Get off the side of oppressors.
Here's another hateful, oppressive attack from this asswipe (from your video)...
"The idea that our children should be taught about concepts of transgenderism... IS ABHORRENT."
What a shithole kind of thing to say. To hell with him and you and any one who supports these deviant comments. "concepts of transgenderism..."? Being a transgender person is a reality in this world. Dipshits like you and him don't have to like reality, but it IS a reality. For transgender folk to endure attacks like this that dehumanizes and demeans them is despicable.
I can't say it enough: To hell with you and Robinson and any deviant asshole who would say anything like that. Have you read "George..." One of the books this pervert attacks? You almost certainly haven't. Here's one review:
"Parents need to know that George is a book about a transgender fourth-grader who increasingly learns to be herself and to tell others about her secret. Along the way, she finds many supportive advocates, but her greatest ally is her best friend, Kelly. Some kids taunt George, and she's called a freak and gets punched by a school bully. Some people, such as George's brother, assume George is gay, but she says she doesn't "know who she liked, really, boys or girls." The book deals with sexual identity, but there's no sexual activity. "
You don't have to LIKE transgender people. You don't have to invite them to your home. But you sure as hell will not hound them and shame them and suggest that your deviant opinions about them means one little bit. If you can't say something nice, shut the hell up.
You and Robinson can go be your deviant selves under a rock, but your time is OVER. No More attacks from deviants like you.
Robinson pretends to be open to having freedom saying the gov't doesn't have a say in their lives, but THEN he goes on to say this sort of shit. To hell with you all. Go crawl under a rock.
You lose.
You lose being a decent person. You lose any credibility when it comes to suggesting you support human rights. You lose any credibility when it comes to saying you're a follower of Jesus. You lose any credibility as having rational, moral opinions.
You and Robinson are laughingstocks and pathetic jokes. Shame on you. Your descendants will almost certainly be ashamed of your perverse, sick, hateful opinions.
Marshal continues with his attacks and oppression. Which will no longer be accepted in decent, rational society.
Marshal cannot abide the New Testament Gospel of Jesus Christ.
"Marshal continues with his attacks and oppression."
Another lie. It never stops with you.
Let me try it this way:
There two people, one person identifies as "Rachel Levine" and the other, "Caitlyn Jenner". Are these two people men or women?
Well, if you're speaking of Caitlyn Jenner, the celebrity, she's a woman.
I don't know Rachel Levine. I am sure they are whoever they say they are.
What's difficult about this concept to you?
IF a person says, I identify as a woman, please refer to me as She/Hers... then I will do so.
IF a person says, I identify as a man, please refer to me as He/Him... then I will.
And IF a person says, I identify as gender fluid, please refer to me as they/them... then I will.
Why? Because I'm not a jerk. What do I care what someone else considers to be their gender? What business of mine is it?
The answer is, I don't care... because why would I? ...because it's none of my business!
It's none of your business, Marshal. What the hell is wrong with people like you that you're SO obsessed with what gender people are? Get the hell out of everyone's pants/dresses and just mind your own business. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Don't be a jerk.
It's such an incredibly small thing to ask: Would you please refer to me as She? Yes! It costs me not a single thing.
Again, that people like you and Robinson want to attack, demean, dehumanize and mock others is a shame for YOU. You all are an embarrassment to your families and you will go down in history (if at all) as oppressive jerks.
Rachel Levine (I see who she is, now - ADMIRAL Levine... DR Levine, an impressive woman, it seems, worthy of your respect, and you will NOT demean her here, just by way of warning given your history of oppressive comments) going to the bathroom in the women's bathroom is not hurting anyone, is not hurting you, is just a basic human right and you should stay the hell out of her bathroom and business.
Now listen to the wise words of Dr Levine and HEED their wisdom.
"Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.
And so I think it is so important not to live your life in fear, and
to be yourself and to help people.
And that's what I've tried to do."
Words to live by. Words not unlike what Jesus would say.
Give up the fear and trembling, Marshal. Embrace basic human decency and kindness. Work to help, not cause harm.
Join the right side of history, humanity, healing and human decency.
Marshal said... "Another lie. It never stops with you."
Marshal uses words and LGBTQ folk will tell Marshal that those words are demeaning, harmful, oppressive. Dan listens to what LGBTQ people say and notes, factually, that such words are oppressive attack words.
Marshal says, apart from ANY support, that, "I don't think my words are attack words or cause oppression..."
I am basing MY conclusions on the results and reality of how your words impact others.
Marshal is basing his unsupported claim on his own gut feelings. As if saying, "If I don't think it causes harm, then it doesn't... regardless of what the oppressed people would tell me..."
Marshal's unsupported claims are based on his own arrogance and ignorance, as if HE gets to decide for historically oppressed people what is and isn't harmful FOR THEM.
Dan's supported claims are based upon the reality of what historically oppressed people will gladly tell anyone who listens.
And yet, Marshal says I'm lying. Again, without support.
Marshal: Do you acknowledge that LGBTQ people will gladly tell you that words like the one Robinson and you use ARE harmful to them? Can you acknowledge that reality?
Do you think YOU are in a better place to decide what's best for LGBTQ people than they are?
See if you can answer those questions without resorting to attacks, demeaning, patronizing language or delusion.
I didn't ask what those two people believe about themselves. I asked a simple, straightforward question of YOU. You dodged it. Thus, the question remains unanswered. If they insisted they were wombats, my question to you would've been, "Are these to individuals wombats or human beings?" Why do you live in fear? Answer the question: Are these two people men or women?
Marshal... "I asked a simple straightforward question of YOU. You dodged it."
Marshal's question: "There two people, one person identifies as "Rachel Levine" and the other, "Caitlyn Jenner". Are these two people men or women? "
Dan's DIRECT answer: "if you're speaking of Caitlyn Jenner, the celebrity, she's a woman."
That IS a clear, direct and correct answer. What part of DIRECT ANSWERS are you failing to understand?
As to your question about Levine, I said, clearly, directly, factually:
"I don't know Rachel Levine. I am sure they are whoever they say they are."
Rachel Levine says she's a woman. I said she's who she says she is. Again, a direct, clear question.
Can you at least admit that this claim that I "dodged" a question is objectively clearly stupidly false?
Don't say anything else here ever again until you directly answer THAT question. It should be easy (hint: There's ONLY ONE factual answer.)
As to the rest of your attack questions/comments, they are precisely the sort of oppression that cause harm to historically oppressed people. YOU HAVE LOST. You can't make these attack comments any polite, respectful, reasonable adults any more.
Now admit you made a mistake and apologize.
"I didn't ask what those two people believe about themselves. I asked a simple, straightforward question of YOU."
Marshal believes he's a Christian. I don't believe it for a minute. He's a stone cold brutalist anti-Christ liar.
Marshal... "I didn't ask what those two people believe about themselves."
And I don't give a damn what YOU may think about these two women's gender. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT. You're an oppressor who lives in fear and cowardice and loathing of that which you can't understand.
Listen to the wise words of Dr Levine and stop living in fear.
One other question you can answer, Marshal (after you admit your error first):
Science shows that folks who tend to be conservative tend to have enlarged amygdala in their brain. This is the part of the brain that has to do with fear and the area is being researched still. But what if you found that it's biologically proven what seems apparent to many experts: that conservatives tend to live in fear and this makes them less rational? IF that were determined to be objectively factual and proven, would you then make an effort to not live in such fear?
"On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/
"Most societies are divided into a party that wants change (the more liberal party) and one that is afraid of change (the conservatives). The liberal party is generally more intellectual and the conservative party is more anti-intellectual.
The conservative party is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies like Communism. To a conservative, the world really is a frightening place."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
Marshal... "I didn't ask what those two people believe about themselves."
I didn't delete your mocking, ignorant and abusive comment about the wombat (for now, but I probably will, because it is part of the oppression script). But here's the difference and the explanation to help you understand that which you're ignorant of and live in fear of:
Science shows us that gender identification in humans is not a simple, grade-school binary option. Gender is more complex than that.
Species identification, on the other hand, is not in dispute. It's coming from a place of ignorance to compare the two.
"A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder."
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender
Marshal is holding up his a junior high degree. It’s rather more complicated.
“In humans, the presence of the Y chromosome is responsible for triggering male development; in the absence of the Y chromosome, the fetus will undergo female development. More specifically, it is the SRY gene located on the Y chromosome that is of importance to male differentiation. In very rare circumstances, a gene translocation will result in the SRY-gene transferring to an X chromosome. In most species with XY sex determination, an organism must have at least one X chromosome in order to survive….
In an interview for the Rediscovering Biology website, researcher Eric Vilain described how the paradigm changed since the discovery of the SRY gene:
For a long time we thought that SRY would activate a cascade of male genes. It turns out that the sex determination pathway is probably more complicated and SRY may in fact inhibit some anti-male genes.
The idea is instead of having a simplistic mechanism by which you have pro-male genes going all the way to make a male, in fact there is a solid balance between pro-male genes and anti-male genes and if there is a little too much of anti-male genes, there may be a female born and if there is a little too much of pro-male genes then there will be a male born.
We are entering this new era in molecular biology of sex determination where it's a more subtle dosage of genes, some pro-males, some pro-females, some anti-males, some anti-females that all interplay with each other rather than a simple linear pathway of genes going one after the other, which makes it very fascinating but very complicated to study.”
Marshal tried commenting without answering the question he must answer.
Can you at least admit that this claim that I "dodged" a question is objectively clearly stupidly false?
Don't say anything else here ever again until you directly answer THAT question. It should be easy (hint: There's ONLY ONE factual answer.)
The question... is Caitlyn a woman?
The direct, clear answer... She's a woman.
I didn't ask if you agreed with my answer.. I pointed out that it is a direct and clear answer and not a dodge. Do you recognize this reality??
Can you just do the adult thing and admit that I did not dodge the question... I answered it directly?
Try to join reality. When you do , do the right thing and apologize for making a stupidly false claim... and then doubling down and continue attacking the clear answer.
Good Lord. The hatred and venom that Marshal stores in his soul. He's fairly frothing at the mouth in his hatred and fear of that which he doesn't understand.
Marshal, until such time that you admit that I LITERALLY, DIRECTLY, CLEARLY answered your question, you can't comment on my blog. On any post.
There is no dispute in the reality of it all. You asked if I thought (as if it matters) if Jenner was a man or a woman and I ANSWERED DIRECTLY, "a Woman."
You HAVE to demonstrate that you recognize that basic little bit of reality. You don't have to LIKE an answer for it to be a direct, clear answer. You don't have to AGREE with an answer for it to be a direct, clear answer. The indisputable fact is I clearly answered your question, directly.
Can you acknowledge reality?
Marshal... "The reality is your "direct" answer was submitted with equivocation."
You asked if Jenner was a woman or man. I said "She's a woman."
WHERE is the equivocation?
THERE IS NONE. That IS a clear, direct answer. What alternate bizarro world are you living in?
Do you recognize the reality that this WAS literally a clear, direct answer, with NO equivocation?
Do you understand what equivocation means?
Do you understand how very bizarre this is?
I think this is a case that you aren't truly this delusional, you DO recognize that I gave a clear, direct answer... but you're just too embarrassed to admit it.
Admit reality, Marshal. I won't think lesser of you. We all make mistakes. You clearly made a mistake in these repeated false claims. Just admit it.
Marshal said to delete him, he doesn't care if I ever let him comment here again.
I am CLEARLY going out of my way to let you comment here. I'm just trying to establish a basic point of reality that any first grader should be able to agree with. You asked a question. I answered it DIRECTLY, with NO equivocation.
I am open to conversation, but if you are truly completely delusional and unable to admit this basic observable real world fact, what would be the point in letting you comment here? It's not like one can have a reasonable conversation with a completely delusional person.
Here's yet another way for you to answer the question:
You asked if Jenner is a man or a woman. I answered "She's a woman." What could I POSSIBLY have said that would have been MORE direct and clear?
I THINK you're confusing "You should be clear and direct" with "you MUST agree with me and ANY answer - no matter how direct and clear - that doesn't bow to my will, is NOT a direct answer."
But that isn't how words work. You understand this, right?
Stop. Take a breath. Look at what was said and what was asked. You've gotten yourself lost in an emotional frenzy, it appears. You asked a question, I answered directly and clearly.
Do you see that NOW?
There's only ONE correct factual real world answer here, Marshal. If the question is, is she a woman or man?, then the answer, she is a woman IS a direct and unequivocal answer. That's just reality.
whether or not you agree with my answer, it IS a direct answer... until you can admit to reality you can't post here.
If the question is: Does this sentence contain a noun? and I answer, Yes, it contains a noun, then I HAVE answered the question clearly and directly. It doesn't matter if you agree with the reality of the Noun, it IS a clear and direct answer.
If I answer (incorrectly), "No, there is no noun in that sentence..." then I STILL have answered the question directly. It doesn't matter if I was actually wrong, it STILL is a direct and clear answer.
Do you not understand how words and communication work?
Feodor.. Of those freaky 5, which do you feel is most connected to reality? Least?
I would guess Stan and Neil are probably the best (most) educated of the 5, with Craig coming in 3rd and Glenn 4th and Marshal 5th.... Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think easily Glenn is the least connected with reality. Then Marshal. Then Neil, Stan and Craig.. In that order.
But it's hard to say. They all pretty consistently seem to act irrationally.
Look Marshal, do this: Ask Craig or Stan or Neil or even crazy Glenn (who appears to be the least connected to reality of all of you).. ask them if I did not give a direct and clear answer to your question. I am a 100% confident that even they will acknowledge, yes, Dan gave a direct answer.
You're just way out in left field on this... ask someone you trust. Connect yourself with reality. For your sake.
Marshal says he won't ask anyone else whether or not he's made a simple mistake. His pride prevents him from admitting - maybe from even seeing - that he's just made a series of clearly false claims because he's failing to see that reality is reality.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times and ways I offered him a chance to admit to reality, he stubbornly refuses.
You can't say I haven't gone out of my way to give you a chance to show you understand reality and thus can continue to comment here.
And for the record: You're not banned from here (unlike what you've done with Feodor). I'm just asking you to recognize reality and admit it and, at this point, apologize for your stubborn and rude refusal and false accusations in denying reality.
So, don't bother playing the martyr card.
There has been a growing tendency among conservatives to abandon principles that were losing the debate in the public square and instead ride on ginning up prejudice in order to retain unity and power. Evangelicals have seen the need to do the same.
So, I would say that conservatives-now-extremists see the light best, as it shines on them. In which case, Marshal is the best channeler of digging deep into the lie, doubling down on the lie, and, ultimately, myth make.
It's not irrational to lie if that is the best chance for survival. Lying is their only option for possible survival and, so, their only effective strategy. Marshal is the most brazen, most determined liar, and the most callous. All of which serves as the standard for best liar. Even Craig and Stan cannot stand his slurping love for Trump. But, as I say, Trumpers have the most power to carry on. Marshal has given himself over so much to his rage that he loves it, smiles at it, plays at it.
But, then, Marshal belongs to the most permeable denomination to modernity, and so, for conservative wing of it, the least dogmatically thorough and, thus, the least cohesive. Least cohesive opposition to modernity is what lands Marshal so comfortably in the land of white American myth-making. His real religion is in "White America." The others are more distant from such absolutist white nationalism. His love is a corrupted patriotism, which means his rage is patriotism in his mind.
Stan and Neil and the fake Scotsman appear to be rational but their biblicism is only rational in a 19th century radical, white Protestant milieu - where reasoning refused to enter modernity. Stan is the most tranquillized. Neil the most compartmentalized. The fake Scotsman the most bizarrely archaic.
Which leaves Craig. Craig plays outer band battles. He's always outside his territory pointing fingers, and then cannot even say a word when his own territory reflects back to him worse hypocrisies and crimes. Craig is the most disenchanted because he is the most uneasy with dogmatic determinism. He doesn't want it messed it with because he needs to see God's creation as threatening, human feelings as threatening, and bodily sensuality as threatening. So he doesn't dive in any truly committed fashion into hard, line drawing Calvinism. He is a Presbyterian through and through. So at the same time he judges the world, Craig most wants the world to work. Again, his Presbyterianism keeps him working hard for this world.
That tension is greatest in Craig: the world is wicked; I need to see God's grace taking effect (John Knox, in other words). Craig wants to be a healer. He wants to be a Dad. He wants to be a Dad with a good outcome. I don't think he has found that.
Craig's disenchantment could make him more realistic than Marshal's authoritarian-abandon-as-last-strategy. But he has too much pain to allow himself enough humility to break. So he remains a wooden post on the outer bands of bleak theology and also, at the same spot but relative to the center point in the other direction, a wooden post on the outer bands of love.
Marshal, here's the ENTIRETY of the exchange. It comes down to you asking if Jenner is a woman and me saying, UNEQUIVOCALLY Yes. Period. But here...
Marshal...
There two people, one person identifies as "Rachel Levine" and the other, "Caitlyn Jenner".
Are these two people men or women?
Dan Trabue said...
Well, if you're speaking of Caitlyn Jenner, the celebrity,
she's a woman.
WHAT in the name of all that is holy is unclear or equivocating about that?
I continued to address the Levine question, because I DIDN'T KNOW HER. Not knowing her, I could not give a direct answer. So, I said...
I don't know Rachel Levine. I am sure they are whoever they say they are.
What's difficult about this concept to you?
I went on and talked some about WHY I would say a woman who tells me she's a woman IS a woman, but that doesn't change that my answer was clear and direct and without a single obfuscation.
IS JENNER A WOMAN?
YES.
IS JENNER A WOMAN?
YES!
It doesn't get any more direct than that.
DO you at least acknowledge that there was nothing hard to understand about my direct answer to your direct question about Jenner?
And if so, then WHAT did I say that was equivocating?
Marshal claims he’s a Christian but he doesn’t have the DNA.
Marshal... "Thanks for admitting you're a liar. I am willing to concede your answer is...at least now for certain...direct. And your direct answer confirms that you lie intentionally."
? Are you saying NOW that when I directly answered your question "Is Jenner a man or a woman?" and I answered "Jenner is a woman" that this WAS a direct and clear answer?
That there was NO obfuscation or dodging, it WAS a direct and clear answer?
The amount of struggle I go through to get a direct and clear answer from you is not really worth it, and yet I keep giving you grace and opportunity.
IF you are now finally admitting I gave a direct answer, then ADMIT you were wrong to say I was dodging.
Marshal continued with actual obfuscation, saying... "And your direct answer confirms that you lie intentionally. Jenner and Levine are most emphatically and factually MEN, and you damned well know it without question."
I do NOT know that. I accept that they are women because THEY are the ones who know themselves, NOT me and sure as hell, not you. You are not them. You are not a gender studies expert. WHY would anybody care what YOUR PERSONAL hunch is about people you don't know in an area where you're not an expert?
Do you acknowledge the reality that not everyone shares your ignorant, anti-science opinions on this topic? That when I and others say, "She's a woman..." we aren't lying, we're operating on the best knowledge we have. It's possible that all this Jenner stuff has been a prank and he's literally a man pretending to be a woman. But I have no data to prove that, nor do you.
Here's the thing, Marshal: The experts and science in this field run contrary to your puny ignorant hunches. We are NOT lying when we accept personal and expert opinion.
Because, of course, we're not.
Marshal continued... "THAT was the main point I sought to confirm, and I was willing to endure your whining about dodging to guarantee there was no mistaking your intentional lying..."
Your question was "Is Jenner a man or a woman." I answered directly and clearly without dodging that she is a woman because that's what I think the data shows.
THERE WAS NO DODGE.
Disagreeing with your flaccid little broken and ignorant opinion is NOT dodging.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
If you can acknowledge you made a mistake (and you literally, objectively, factually have in the real world), then you can comment here again. But show me that you're not delusional.
I'm just asking you to recognize reality. Failing that, you're done on this blog.
Dan, come on, man. Marshal cannot live his life in the midst of reality. He sees reality as his enemy. All the way from Calvin this is bedrock truth for radical protestants.
Read the first 9 pages of - Book 1 - of Calvin's Institutes and you will see why your contemporary faith is another world from Stan and Craig and Marshal and Neil and the fake Scotty.
Post a Comment