It's easy to bag 'corporate pride' for being insincere ( because a lot of if is) but it's also a sign of general societal acceptance that would provide some reassurance to those who feel surrounded by bigots
I also feel this way. Even though they might be doing it for capitalism reasons, it still gets the message out there, in your face, and shifts the Overton window. A good thing but for a bad reason. I'll take it.
Yeah. It might not be some massive move, but it does mean something. It's great to see your employer, other possible employers, your local politicians, your municipal services, and even just random businesses that you might use (or not) show that they're accepting, especially when the status quo is to keep quiet to satisfy bigots.
I think the same every time there is criticism of "pinkwashing" and "rainbow capitalism".
Yeah, some may be doing it just for profit and as a PR stunt, but it still matters.
I remember pride parades in London and Brighton were full of corporate floats like those from Deliveroo, Starbucks and National Rail.
Did they do it just for promotion? OK, maybe. But it still sends the message. A message that says that when you go into a National Rail train or a Starbucks café you can feel safe. And a message that other companies can also join and show that support without fearing that may damage their business with them.
Unfortunately, those messages are still needed today, so I don't really care very much if they do it for marketing as long as it still works for the cause.
If you are going to a bar and see they have tuned their logo to show the pride colors during June, they may be doing it for marketing, but at least you will know you can come in and feel safe there.
I even saw a float from the Premier League in Brighton and we know how much work is still needed there.
A message that says that when you go into a National Rail train or a Starbucks café you can feel safe.
But is that message backed up by anything concrete? In a different comment thread here, I linked to a local initiative called Emergency Entrance where this is backed up by an action plan that participating venues need to adapt at a shop level and carry out at any time of the year.
I even saw a float from the Premier League in Brighton and we know how much work is still needed there.
That goes against your thesis though. It's an example of a well-known organisation that did not do nearly enough work to be considered safe, and yet it can very easily adopt the colours without any tangible commitments.
I understand that maybe corporate participation in Pride sends such a message of safety. But if that message isn't backed up by concrete actions to offer actual safety, that can even be dangerous.
Idunno, tolerating our symbology for a month doesn't mean tolerating us ever. They're still gonna call me "sir" if I go in there, even if they gave/sold me a shirt with a pride-ified version of their logo on it. I'm not convinced that the filthy rich co-opting our symbols for profit for a moment is really of benefit when it doesn't actually mean anything.
It's fully vacuous and may even devalue our symbols, I say. Seems like exploiting us and supporting us would look different.
A useful rebuttal in LGBTQ Nation explained why “cis is a slur” is total bullshit: People who say that cis is a slur don’t offer an alternative term to use that is non-offensive. Because they don’t offer alternative inoffensive terminology, as there is with all other slurs, it’s clear it’s not the word cis they’re objecting to, but the existence of any words to describe the fact that some people are transgender, and some people aren’t.
If you were to ask one of these morons, I bet they'd say that the alternative non-offensive term is "normal". "Normal" is a safe and reassuring blanket that tells them that they don't have to change, that they're in the right, and that all these other people are abnormal deviants.
The other portion of it is that they themselves didn't choose the name "cis" and so they feel as if they are being labeled, and labeling is what they do to others to subjugate and humiliate them as abnormal, so that's how they feel now that they are the ones being labeled.
They don’t like the idea of the term cisgender because it implies that there’s another option, and they don’t believe there is. So why define a disparity where none exists?
There’s no logical argument that can alter their perception
Trans folks are such a small sliver of the population, it’s very difficult for most people to know a trans person.
On top of this, many trans people try to live “stealth” so they’re not harassed for simply existing.
It’s sad, because this is a known phenomenon. It’s the “why” of why LGB acceptance has grown in the last several decades, it turns out when friends and loved ones are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, it becomes something people are more willing to accept.
LGB is about 3.5% of the population while T is about 0.3%.
It’s so much harder for people to meet a trans person to begin with, just based on numbers. This puts trans people at a natural disadvantage in being able to grow acceptance in society.
Now this is where I put on my tinfoil fucking hat.
I feel like conservatives chose trans people as a target because they know this, too. They know the small numbers mean acceptance will be an even slower and harder road than for the LGB part of the community. They’re fucking banking on it, so they can continue to sew division and hate.
Very much on point, and this is where the age-old tension between “a duty to come out” versus “a right to choose if and when” remains still relevant.
I do not want to take the position that there is such a duty, but I have to admit that I’m uneasy that our 2010s-present queer media does not even acknowledge the tension.
I think we should normalize referring to people who are straight but haven’t explicitly told people they’re straight as not having “come out” as straight. It’s a heteronormative bias. If anything we actually don’t know if they’re straight. More importantly, I think it helps illustrate the bizarre nature of the “duty to come out” as you call it.
Number of times I’ve been party to conversations where the prevailing attitude was that because someone didn’t announce themselves as gay, then they couldn’t possibly be gay.
“Were you talking about sexuality at any point?”
“Had they been attracting the interest of the opposite sex, or same sex for that matter?”
“Was there any conversation or non-verbal interaction where their sexuality might have been vaguely relevant?”
“Did you declare your own sexuality to them?”
“Yeah, but that’s different!”
Fuckers never can explain what they think is different about it, funnily enough.
See also: straight people getting in a lather because a gay person is flirting with someone of the opposite sex.
Plus, sexuality is really apparent when you see couples; two guys who are together are clearly not straight - you don’t need to get to know either of them to know that.
However, the point for most trans people is that they want to pass, and just live as the gender that corresponds to their gender identity. If they pass it’s just not apparent they’re trans until you get to know them - even leaving the stealth aspect aside.
I feel like conservatives chose trans people as a target because they know this, too. They know the small numbers mean acceptance will be an even slower and harder road than for the LGB part of the community. They’re fucking banking on it, so they can continue to sew division and hate.
I'm sure this was a deliberate choice since they lost on gay acceptance. They are using the same techniques and talking points as well. It's also backlash since there was more acceptance in some circles and had to jump on it before it became widespread since most people haven't thought about it before. Got to get that indoctrination in first or else it won't stick
It wouldn’t surprise me. They did this with abortion rights. The American right used the topic to scare the evangelicals into becoming an ally. “Pro life” and all the rhetoric around calling abortion murder is nothing short of marketing genius. (Evil genius.) How can you even begin to respond to it? You can tell them that abortion isn’t murder until you’re blue in the face and even if you convince someone all they have to do is find folks on the fence and tell them “the left is murdering babies” and they’re on board. It’s so direct. Why would you want to side with the “baby murderers”? More importantly, why would you miss an election? The left are “murderers” sent by “demons” and will take office if you don’t act.
Neat, but the question is: Are there more openly LGBTQ+ people because their numbers are simply growing, or is it a function of society becoming more accepting, so fewer feel a reason to hide it most of their lives? (my bet is on the latter)
Secondly, even with the increase in trans population, you’re still looking at a way smaller T community than LGB, which still makes acceptance an uphill battle for trans identities.
It’s definitely the latter, the common analogy is to left-handedness and acceptance. Anyone who works in queer health or population health is very familiar with stigmatization vs. identification and under-reporting issues.
Other people here are already doing a great job of covering the “what we think” and “whether welcome in queer spaces or not” aspects of your question, so let me dive into this part instead:
…someone who’s not in the space or actively an ally. I would more accurately describe myself currently as a “don’t care” person in the sense that to me it genuinely does not matter what someone identifies as or who someone is attracted to.
Ever watch the TV show Ted Lasso? There was a scene in the final season where one of the players on the football (soccer) team came out as gay. The other players tell him they “don’t care”, meaning to be supportive but not actually succeeding. Ted gives a speech and, as his character admits afterward, makes a poor comparison — but still does a good job of communicating to the others that they should care. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcaUZ9R0y2c
So, like… I’m glad you’re not antagonizing any of us, but that’s just kind of the bare minimum for being decent, you know? And that is somewhat similar to racial discrimination: as a white person in North America, telling Black people I “don’t care that they’re Black” would tell them I haven’t considered that being Black is something core to their identity and how they experience the world because of the way society works. It would tell them I still see whiteness as the “default” but it’s “okay” to be something else. It would tell them that I might say something if I witnessed blatant racism happening, but they shouldn’t count on me to do so because I haven’t made any effort to learn how racism actually works and I might back down if I feel speaking up would put myself at any risk. But I do care, so I try to educate myself, and I look for opportunities to practice anti-racism. I absolutely make mistakes, but they tend to be easily forgiven so long as I show a willingness to listen, learn, and try.
But hey… I freely admit that I was way older than 18 when I finally started listening to people and began understanding all of this! So I absolutely don’t mean to “rake you over the coals” or anything. I just tell you these things because I hope you grow into a better person faster than I managed to. 🙂💜
One other bit to add here to this fantastic post - sometimes people like to over-correct their speech, and it’s actually a form of deflection. The classic example of this is “I don’t see race” when talking to someone bringing up an issue with bigotry. Often times people are trying to quickly get across that they don’t think they’re racist or that this wouldn’t happen or apply to how they think. But it’s also a lie, they do see race, what they meant to say is that they don’t use race for a determination of value or to discriminate in this context.
To make it really clear why it’s a wrong statement, in case anyone doesn’t see how it’s an over correction, is to imagine it’s another characteristic such as ability. Would you tell a person in a wheelchair that you ‘don’t see disability’? An unhoused individual that you ‘don’t see income/housing’? A divorced person that you ‘don’t see marriage’? These are real human characteristics and attributes, they absolutely exist and we shouldn’t focus on erasing them.
I see this happening so often and it honestly just baffles me. It costs nothing to actually take the time to care and to acknowledge when things aren’t the way they should be. Even when you screw up yourself, the outcome is soo much better so quickly when you’re willing to just say “I hadn’t thought of that, I didn’t mean to make things worse”, or “you’re right, that sucks”. Just that acknowledgement makes such a big difference.
People are terrified of acknowledging any sort of privilege or discrimination or even just significant difference sometimes, maybe because they feel like it’ll make them feel like they’re on the outside or something? But acknowledging oppression in a world that denies it is exactly what puts you on the same page with other people when they’re suffering, not joining in on insisting that everything is fine.
It’s so much easier not to be a jerk. But I think people get caught up in this idea that their thoughts in any given moment are the be all and end all of what they are. Growth isn’t permissible because growth implies that something is wrong in the first place. I suppose in a punitive-minded society it makes some sort of sense.
I see that you don’t mean any offense, but this is an odd question as written. You’re basically asking what an extremely large, diverse group of people thinks about an even larger, more diverse group of people, and there’s no way to give an accurate answer. We have all kinds of thoughts about cishet people, some unkind, some sympathetic, and most of us have cishet friends and family members. I’d say that on average, LGBTQ+ people have a more negative opinion of cishet people than cishet people have of themselves, because, on average, cishet people do not understand LGBTQ+ people, and in some cases, actively hate us. It’s hard not to think of cishet people as a group as, in some way, hostile, even though not every cishet person is in any way a threat. We can’t tell which ones are going to hurt us, intentionally or otherwise, so we lean towards caution and distrust.
I personally trust cishet people as a group less than I used to, because I just see more and more disappointing things over time. But it’s not a case of going from “I think cishet people are ok” to “I think cishet people are bad,” it’s a case of going from"I think cishet people are ok," full stop, to “I think cishet people are ok, but am I going to be disappointed again today?” And, to be clear, I don’t get disappointed just because someone accidentally says something offensive, that happens all the time. I can usually tell when people mean well, and I know it’s hard to get it right when you don’t know what it feels like to be on the other side. I do get disappointed when someone says or does something that lets me know they would be happier if I didn’t exist. That’s very different from just saying something awkward out of ignorance, and it happens more than I like to acknowledge.
As for your second, more specific question, how LGBTQ+ people would view you in particular, I can’t speak for anyone but myself. I think you seem nice, but you also seem to be missing one of the most important aspects of the distinction between cishet and not, which is that as a cishet person, you have the option of saying you don’t care about gender and sexuality. No one is going to beat you up because you’re cishet, and you can go about your business without ever worrying about it. As a trans, queer person, I don’t have that option. Someone might beat me up because I’m trans and queer, and it doesn’t matter that I don’t think it’s a big deal. Other people do think it’s a big deal, and they can make it a big deal for me in the worst possible way. I have to worry about how cishet people see me, while they don’t have to worry about how I see them. They outnumber me, and are more likely to be in positions of power than LGBTQ+ people, so they are more likely to make trouble for me than vice versa.
… except in explicitly queer spaces. In those spaces, LGBTQ+ people will usually outnumber cishet people, and if cishet people come in and give us grief, we can push back. Some of us can’t push back anywhere else, and it can make a big difference to have literally any space where it’s okay to tell someone to go be cishet somewhere else, politely or otherwise. Any cishet person will eventually be told something like that if they spend a lot of time in LGBTQ+ spaces, usually not because they are bad people, or even because they did anything wrong, but just because we are really tired of having to put up with people who don’t understand. If it happens to you, just remind yourself that the person yelling at you had probably gotten to the point where they were like, “if I hear one more straight person talk about their gay friend as a reason why they don’t have to remember my pronouns, so help me…” (Yes, it’s a little like “I have a black friend,” but there’s a difference between mentioning that as your experience, which is what you did, and using it as an excuse for bad behavior, which you are not. But being friends with people who are queer or trans just gives you information about those people, not queer or trans people in general, so be careful about drawing conclusions).
I see a lot of cishet people in queer spaces absolutely lose their minds over getting yelled at by queer people, because they’re sure what they did wasn’t bad enough to justify the amount of yelling, and that always makes it worse. In general, if you get a response online that seems totally disproportionate to what you actually said or did, the response isn’t about you, and you don’t need to take it personally. You have the option of trying to clarify what actually happened, or of walking away, and the latter is often better for the well-being of all concerned.
And that brings me to the answer to your last question, about what attitude you should have going into queer spaces. I’d recommend going in with the idea that it’s not about you, whatever you find, and however you’re treated. You’ll be more welcome in some queer spaces than others, and also, at some times more than others. There’s nothing you can do to avoid that, although you can and should try to figure out what is most likely to upset people. You don’t need to understand why a particular thing upsets people, and you won’t be expected to understand or to get everything right, but you will be expected to apologize for something you didn’t mean to do. Some things are going to upset people no matter how good your intentions are, and you can’t control that, either.
Based on what other people are saying, you’ll probably be welcome here, and everything will be fine, and possibly I am a pessimistic old grouch who should go back to living under my bridge (lol). I have plenty of time for cishet people, even though I am an old grouch, and I hope you have only good experiences here. But maybe it’ll help you at some point to be aware of the grouchier side of the coin.
My wife came out to me as bi after we got married so we are in a straight presenting relationship. We are still in a monogamist relationship and from an outsiders perceptive nothing has changed. But for us internally its different but overall much better. Her honesty has let me explore portions of my own sexuality away from the heteronormative assumptions which has been great. We are both more open and honest since the whole experience. It started with mall things like both admitting that the actress in a show is hot but it was a prompt to be more open about everything in our relationship from kink, monogamy, jealously etc. It is totally worth it from my end as a spouse of a bi women. We aren't out here having threesome constantly but that doesn't mean she still isn't bi.
From her standpoint she has been coming out to her friends and family and most people are supportive. There was a one big fight with one of her
"friends" who didn't understand why she was saying that she was bi now. This was hard for everyone.
However, the disconnection from the rest of the queer community since she is an straight appearing relationship is hard. She has said that she wishes she had more friends in her situation. The ironic situation is since she is a therapist is that a large percentage of her clients have come out as bi in the exact same situations as her. They are all women is happy relationships who are bi with straight male partners. They all feel the same way and she is even starting a therapy group for them to talk about their situation. So you are not alone in this situation and coming out you might find some friends who are in the same situation.
Her honesty has let me explore portions of my own sexuality away from the heteronormative assumptions which has been great
This is really the most personally beneficial and freeing part of being gay for me. Once you realize that you're simply never going to be just a normal guy, you're free to stop bothering with even trying to be. You're free to let yourself be who you actually are rather than what society tells you you should be. Sure, that guys are hot and fun and cute is a nice bonus, but it's the liberation from oppressive social structures that I value more than anything else.
However, the disconnection from the rest of the queer community since she is an straight appearing relationship is hard.
That's super valid, and there is a lot of awareness in the community that this is an issue. On one hand, there is the simple fact that bi people in monogamous relationships simply don't face the same level of societal opposition that more visibly queer people do. But that's not a bad thing! However, it can create a bit of a disconnect, and more negatively, a little bit of resentment from this idea that bi people haven't "earned" a place in the community, which is of course absurd. But we're dealing with people, and particularly, people that have often been hurt and come to find community and connection in that hurt. It's always gonna be a little messy.
Once you realize that you're simply never going to be just a normal guy, you're free to stop bothering with even trying to be. You're free to let yourself be who you actually are rather than what society tells you you should be.
This is really a freeing experience. I feel like everyone should get a chance to do this both sexually and for their day to day life.
Any judge who makes a ruling based on their personal beliefs rather than on factual evidence is not truly acting as a judge, but rather as a petulant child determined to force everyone else to do things their way. Allowing even a single ruling of law to be based on personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, reduces the entire court system to nothing more than a mockery of legal justice.
A judge can’t make rulings solely based on facts, because facts cannot provide a foundation for ethics. Facts can only tell you the way things are, not the way they should be. Rulings should be informed by facts and based on the values of society as a whole.
I agree that they shouldn’t be based on the judge’s personal beliefs. I suppose our judicial system kind of makes this inevitable, though…
IANAL, but I dare guess judges do need beliefs. In the beginning, people thought Black people were not humans, and so equality of people in constitution did not apply. I might be factually wrong on this, but let's assume it. To overcome this, some judges had to abandon their racism and understand black people are people.
And while some areas of human issues can be discussed scientifically, like racism being completely wrong, some are difficult.
And if science can't overcome an unjust law today, judges have to listen to their heart and do the right thing. Probably the left thing these days, though...
It seems like you just negated your own point though? If the justices believe black people do not have rights, and make rulings based on that, then they have ignored the letter of the law. On the other hand, ruling in favor of black people’s rights is actually making a judgement that follows the constitution (which makes no mention of race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else). Saying that all people are equal does not just apply to the people that you personally find equal, it means ALL. Making a judgement that same-sex couples have the same rights to marriage does not mean that a judge overcame their bigotry, it simply means that a judge ruled in favor of the letter of the law and did not let their personal feelings get in the way – they dd the job they were hired for rather than becoming a vindictive dictator.
I noticed. What I wanted to say was it can become a battle between the correct belief and the wrong belief. Especially if the law itself is interpreted wrongly and scientific evidence is difficult to acquire (which sometimes is).
True, if they don’t have an existing law to work from then you have to determine what the law should say. The problem is the current justices have set out to take away people’s rights rather than defend them. Like allowing same-sex marriages harms nobody, but conservatives would have you believe they are some how directly harmed by this (your hurt feelings do not constitute actual harm) or that children will somehow be sexually exploited by it (to which they’ve never been able to show a single case where that was true).
So maybe my earlier statement could be clarified by saying that making laws which intentionally sets people apart, allowing freedoms for one group while taking them away from another group for no reason other than “I don’t like something about them” is what is making a mockery of the legal system. I mean I could make the case that conservatives should not be allowed to vote based on their recent history of electing criminals and con men, as this is causing actual harm to the collective nation and to individuals, but that’s still just a judgement based on my personal beliefs even when actual physical and monetary harm can be shown, because such a law would still be taking away the rights of one group while still providing the same rights to another group that can have the same problems (even though those incidents are greatly reduced).
It's not a matter of science vs belief, it's a matter of law versus dogma.
Law is a consensus that, at least in a democracy, aims to set some rule and the consequences of it in advance so that whenever a case applies it is at least relatively predictable and applied equally in each case.
If you pass judgement based on the things you like, or in the religious beliefs you profess you're not following the law, your imparting dogma. Imposing it, in fact, over others.
You can absolutely make unjust laws, but at least those are the result of a process. In a democracy you can at least understands what steps lead to rectifying an unjust law.
If a person with power decides they don't like you and they apply that belief inconsistently, irrationally and without following consistent rules there is no recourse or path for society to correct itself (beyond violent revolt, presumably).
Judges don't need to listen to their heart. Judges need to apply laws generated in a functional system that captures the will of an informed people in a predictable, equitable manner. Judges ruling based on personal beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, are a tyranical manifestation and a very scary thing.
Bots are routinely rounded up and banned. A lost follower is not necessarily an unfollow.
The article is reaching for a narrative. The lady they talk about has done other things in this period of time. Other stuff has happened. The change in followers is minuscule in relation to the magnitude, so it could be noise.
It could be homophobia obviously. It could be some controversy about unfortunate body image declarations. It could be noise. It could be the war on Middle East and a round of banned bots. It could be too much time since the last record. She could be losing the spotlight. The social network could be purging deleted accounts.
The reason “homophobia” is a guess. The reason “bots” is another. None invalidates the other because in both cases you have to make assumptions about the motives of 100.000 entities.
Also could be 5.100.000 followers lost and 5mil gained. The article talks about the delta, but there is not a reliable analysis about the composition of the following and its change over the last months, except one simple number.
However, I can't say I listen to or follow Billie Eilish - I only found out about her coming out from reading this, in fact - but even as someone who's just mildly aware of her, I will say I've never assumed her to be straight. My gaydar's probably better tuned than the average person's but even so, I feel like her being some flavour of queer was fairly obvious and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's influenced / shaped the kind of audience she has.
Unfortunately, I suspect an artist who's less obviously queer would lose a larger following for coming out. But yes, Billie Eilish only losing 100K followers is really encouraging still!
Yes, but it’s just not statistically significant. Unless we see longer-term trends of her follow count, this could easily be a random fluctuation, bot crackdown, etc.
Amazing that when pressed it's never "I don’t like acknowledging gay people exist" (the truth), it's "I just hate corporations doing virtue signaling and pretending to give a crap. Now I have to deal with them shoving politics in my face."
But...
Come Memorial Day/July 4th they love the American flag. Come the winter they even get angry when Jesus/Christmas is not proudly show in storefronts and in ads.
They are so onboard with celebrating dead soldiers by getting sweet deals on mattresses and trucks, but god forbid a pride symbol show up. Because suddenly they're cynical consumers who don't want to be pandered to.
Can we please move past this puritanical fear of the existence of sexual acts between consenting adults?
Edited to add:
Stewart added, “I personally don’t feel comfortable with the plus category only because I don’t understand it and I have never gotten a clear answer.”
I doubt this person has ever had an honest conversation on the subject. Aside from that, “I don’t understand this” is not an excuse to vote against something, either bring in someone to explain it to you or abstain from voting because you aren’t qualified.
I’m really resisting the urge to post a question on !asklemmy on your behalf :) edit
I’m sorry for writing this, reading back I feel it’s in bad taste. Sorry, again.
At least when "I don't understand this" is used as an excuse to for things like this.
There are times where I feel like I don't understand things, maybe partly because I'm probably autistic and probably deal with dpdr. I'm still not confident in my understanding of sexual attraction. Gender is still a mystery to me and I consider myself under the trans umbrella and spend a lot of time in trans communities, so it's not from a lack of trying. Emotions(?) like pain and hunger also confuse me (at least one person has told me they're not emotions, but for me there seems to often be a disconnect between the stimuli and my brain's reaction to them so I'm often not sure how to answer when someone asks if im hungry or if something hurts because im not sure how my experience map to their words). But I don't use my lack of understanding to tell others they should not take pain pills, for example.
The whole premise that trans healthcare isn’t “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition” would seem to apply to an awful lot of modern healthcare. Florida should also decide that, say, hair transplants, penis pumps, and Viagra are not constitutional. Funny how modern healthcare is fine when it’s something old, rich, white men want to have, but not when it’s something trans people need.
Just thinking that I can listen to the radio and hear an ad for ED pills. And they are also available without an in person doctor office visit. I wonder if they advertise in Florida.
Note: I am pro telehealth. I have no issue with ED pills being prescribed via phone or video call and shipped to you.
Oh yeah they’ve always balked at access to medically necessary items like tampons, birth control pills, and whatnot but oh no gotta keep those hard-ons well into your 80s…
Yeah, I have no problem with telehealth either, as long as access to healthcare is available to all. It’s just the double standards that are really annoying me here, because the constitution mentions Viagra exactly the same number of times it mentions trans people.
But I suppose it’s pretty futile expecting right wingers not to be inconsistent, illogical hypocrites.
Did it…? Peace talks definitely didn’t, but if “that ^” had been enough, there wouldn’t’ve been proud “ex-nazis” 30 years later, or any modern neo-nazis.
Not to mention the fact that Nazism thrived on the devastation wrought by Germany’s defeat in 1918.
And It wasn’t the World War II that broke the cycle of wars in the heart of Europe (WWI was consequence of the war in 1870). It was the project to build a peaceful European union.
lgbtq_plus
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.