I'm a few weeks late in replying to your comment, but we didn't have moderation when you posted this. A few of us have just started moderating, literally today, so please give us a bit to catch up.
Please check out the stickied thread about what kind of rules and guidelines you would like to see, if you haven't already. We don't have those guidelines to work with yet, but blatant bigotry, trolling, and spamming are our first targets while we work out the details.
Honestly, even as a bi trans person, I’m horribly concerned and quite mad at how exponentially shamelessly sexualized LGBT (especially Q) merch has gotten over the years. It just feels tacky and like it wants to paint all LGBT people as hypersexual fetishist nymphomaniacs.
Oh, so we’re gatekeeping which bi trans people get to be LGBT people just because they don’t agree with everything the mainstream does? I thought we agreed that it wasn’t an okay thing to do.
Do you think Starbucks is selling dildos? We're talking about rainbow coffee cups. I'd like to see a coffee cup that paints an entire group of people as "hypersexual fetishist nymphomaniacs"
lots of people here seem to be indicating that target and starbucks are doing this because it's not profitable to do rainbow capitalism. it still is, as much as rainbow capitalism is kinda revolting conceptually. nothing has changed except the following:
far right nazis, emboldened by the increasing political power of nazi homophobes like trump, desantis, and like 60% of gerrymandered state legislatures, are sending death threats to places that put up pride decorations and products. they're also showing up to harass and scream at employees about it.
it's terrorism. this is what conservatives do. and starbucks and target are full of cowards for letting terrorists dictate their behaviours.
quickly editing in sources since some homophobe in other replies tried to lie about it:
It's about time. Corporations are finally starting to realize the vast majority of their customers are not onboard with the increasingly radical leftist agenda. Go woke and go broke.
Friend, my account is less than 24 hours old has has karma of -236 (probably lower by the time I finish writing this) almost entirely due to this thread. So let's talk about echo chambers, yours and mine.
Everyone (from across the political spectrum) knows reddit's r/politics abhors balance and neutrality in favor of extreme far-leftist idiocy. It's widely assumed that's due to the mods, so I figured there's no way that bizarre phenomenon could be repeated on another platform. Well I don't think it can be explained by moderation in the present thread. I think it's clearly that all the children from r/politics flocked here, creating a self-manifesting filter-bubble. It's a pretty interesting phenomenon, really. I don't think I've ever seen something like that manifest anywhere else.
Ideally, if this is m/politics, it should be well-balanced, encompassing perspectives from all sides, and always upvoting the level-headed conservative viewpoints. In this day and age, when the Left has gone so off-the-deep-end crazy, embracing evils such as homosex and baby slaughter, a balanced m/politics would downvote all extremist viewpoints, which means basically anything from the Left these days.
I commented on this article shortly after joining, when there were very few other comments on the article, with fingers crossed that all of the naive children from r/politics wouldn't be here en masse. Clearly I was wrong. But as you grow up, and become more conservative (like we all do with life experience), you'll learn that almost every adult is essentially conservative, and striving to become more mature (ie more conservative and traditional) as we age. Obviously some people fail at that goal, and yes there are some 80yo stoners out there who act like teenagers, but by and large the filter-bubble of normal adults is extraordinarily huge.
You think that because it appears as if there is a 50% split ideologically in the US that somehow you're in the majority. Not only are you thoroughly not, but the 50% split is an allusion created by voter suppression and gerrymandering. And this is not opinion.
I find it fascinating to hear that perspective. Among conservatives, it's widely acknowledged that the Left is crazy, and has become increasingly crazy over the years. Conservative basically means normal, ie not crazy — we like preserving traditional values, whereas the Left like violently destroying everything we hold dear. I don't mean to dispute your perspective; we're all entitled to one. I just find it interesting, and without a doubt crazy.
As for your assertion that I'm condescending, I'm sorry for whatever I said that came across that way. I am praying for you and everyone else in this thread, that we may all come to be one in Christ.
You regularly ‘communicate’ with a man that has been dead for over 2000 years by talking to your ceiling, because you believe that (despite being dead) he has magical powers.
That sure would sound crazy if it wasn't true. But the part about Jesus being dead is not true at all. 500 witnesses observed His resurrection (See 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.) Why do you think Christianity has spread so far and wide, and has so many converts? Why do you think the Bible has been accepted as the word of God and foundation of Western Civilization for generation after generation? Do you think our forefathers were all dumber than you? They weren't. The truth is God is irrefutably real, and you'd know that if you open your heart to receive Him.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
And dead people all over Jerusalem ‘rose from their graves and wandered around’… yeah.. sure they did bud. Whatever you say.
These are Stories. Not facts, stories. Stories written for children, about magical wizards.
You are the literal equivalent of the kid that -actually- believes in Santa Claus and can’t stop telling everyone around him that he’s the smart one who is going to get all the presents.
First off I am only four years old, and secondly, are you trying to tell me there's no such thing as Santa?
Joking.
Yes, the Bible is filled with stories. Some of them are parables to teach us moral behavior, while other stories are historically accurate. You use the word "story" as if you don't understand the difference between fiction and nonfiction. All biblical stories are either nonfiction or parables.
You're the one who seems like you're trying to prove how smart you are, by questioning the word of God. But who ever gave you permission to do that? The comfort of the Bible is that we know what to think, how to think, and how to behave. It is juvenile to question and doubt; it is mature and wise to accept God's word and do God's will.
No, I do not claim to be smart. I'm a humble servant of God.
Dude, in the comment just prior to that one, you just used the bible as a source of evidence to prove to us all that the bible is true. I have absolutely no doubts about who you think you are.
Since you seem to love proselytising to others I’m going to reverse UNO you dude.
Try reading: ‘The Demon Haunted World’ by Carl Sagan, or ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins.
Surely someone so confident in your faith as you can stand up to one little book can’t you? What do you have to lose but the ability to learn and grow?
I grew up an atheist, surrounded by secular culture. While I haven't read either of those particular books, I've read so many other arguments against God over the years. Yes, my faith is strong, but no, I don't desire to subject myself to the temptation to deny God. I have no doubt the books offer thought-provoking and compelling arguments, as both of those authors are intelligent. And I have no doubt that some Christians have read them and offered critiques and rebuttals, as with any opinionated book. Also I have so many books that I've bought but haven't read yet, and I'm working through them slowly, but I keep buying more! I'm pretty frugal overall, but I definitely lack some self-control when it comes to buying books. So overall, no, I won't read those, but I honestly do appreciate your recommendations. Thank you.
Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving deity create a universe with pointless suffering? Why do infants get cancer?
Why do terrible diseases like shingles and smallpox exist and why did it take humans to eradicate them? Do you think humanity was acting immorally when they created vaccines to combat these deadly viruses? Surely we were working contrary to god's will and that is a sin, right?
You'd need infinite wisdom to understand every decision God makes. I certainly don't have that. But I do trust that God's in control, and He has His reasons. And I also know that we're given challenges and tests of faith in life. That's all part of the exercise of God's creation. It's a moral test to filter us.
Do you think humanity was acting immorally when they created vaccines to combat these deadly viruses?
That's an extremely interesting question, and I wish it wasn't buried in this thread about SBC.
I find it interesting to consider the question from a Darwinian perspective first. Through medicine, we humans have nearly eliminated our own survival of the fittest. We keep our weak alive long enough to reproduce and spread their genes. The result is that we're far weaker as a species than if we took a (decidedly unethical) approach of abandoning all medicine, allowing the infant mortality rate to skyrocket back to premodern norms, and allowing common ailments to destroy us. So inasmuch as morality and Darwinianism are both held their by advocates to be "laws", yes, medicine is unlawful in a sense. (That's twisted, I know! Just interesting to consider.)
From my own Christian perspective, no, God made us in His own image, and so just as He created us, the universe, and everything in it, we create things all the time too — including vaccines. God's in control, so anything we create is something we were allowed to create. Our actions are not always condoned, as we could use any invention for good or evil. God loves life, so vaccines saving lives are good. If He really wants to take someone out, He will.
Honestly I love that question. Thanks. I hope I elaborated enough.
"As for your assertion that I'm condescending, I'm sorry for whatever I said that came across that way. I am praying for you and everyone else in this thread, that we may all come to be one in Christ."
bit of a cheeky cunt there then arent ya. i almost respect it lol
Oh boy, you're asking for a rant. I'm going to do you a favor and spare you the fifty paragraph reply. Sorry, you're asking a completely legitimate question if you're coming from a leftist perspective and you really don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just not going to type all of that out here.
As humble Christians, I'm sure you'd all eagerly learn from it how to better yourselves and become upstanding conservative citizens. So sorry to disappoint.
How odd to be so vocal about being right and then refuse to elaborate when people are earnestly and respectfully asking for your opinion. Are you secretly ashamed to preach what you actually believe?
I'm an advocate of staying on topic. And besides, anybody prompting me for a rant just wants to laugh at the crackpot and click the downvote button. That's not very respectful at all. Accept the word "no" if you want to be respectful.
Nope. I want you to answer it. I'll read it. I'll refute it.
I won't convince you that your God isn't real. Your heels are dug in and I respect your convictions.
But there is obvious room for you to learn and grow because no one cares that you're gay for Jesus. We care that you are weaponized stupidity holding our country and the world back with your regressive world view.
Traditional values like what? Be specific. I bet many of us would disagree that those values are worth preserving.
Can you cite any examples of physical violence committed by "the left" and what specific political objective those incidents achieved?
It's ironic that you act like the other side is unreasonable when you start with the assumption that "the left" is inherently unreasonable and impossible to have a dialogue with. You aren't leaving any room for conversation. I am willing to listen to your arguments, but we also need to be able to "agree to disagree" without dehumanizing each other.
Traditional values like what? Be specific. I bet many of us would disagree that those values are worth preserving.
If this thread about Starbucks is any measure, no almost nobody here would agree with me. Since Adam and Eve, marriage has been a holy union between one man and one woman (up until a few years ago). And by "man" and "woman" I mean strictly according to their chromosomes. Who in m/politics is going to upvote that? Anyone other than me?
(Edit: after submitting this comment, I realized I misread "disagree" thinking you said "agree" for some reason. I'm sure you're right that many here would disagree! IMHO, we should always seek to follow the ways of our forefathers who gave us this civilization.)
There's no way I could enumerate all traditional values. It'd be a 700-page book. So I'll leave the list at that one. It's one of the most important traditional values anyway.
Can you cite any examples of physical violence committed by "the left" and what specific political objective those incidents achieved?
Look, this is just so off-topic, and only shows that you don't bother to expose yourself to any non-leftist news. The past decade has been filled with a ton of answers to this question, and you can find more on a weekly or daily basis. There's no way I could list them all. There's so many that it's even difficult to choose one. All I can say is you ought to broaden your news sources.
It's ironic that you act like the other side is unreasonable when you start with the assumption that "the left" is inherently unreasonable and impossible to have a dialogue with. You aren't leaving any room for conversation. I am willing to listen to your arguments, but we also need to be able to "agree to disagree" without dehumanizing each other.
I agree, and I'm sorry. I'm just a fan of sticking to the topic, which in this case is Starbucks and pride decorations. Obviously that's a can of worms, so here we are. It's my fault for leading the conversation to the big picture without wanting to discuss the big picture. That was a mistake. Sorry. I don't mean to be shutting down conversation, and I do recognize that you have a valid point here. Maybe we'll find a different thread in the future that strikes me as more conducive to unpacking these topics.
But as you grow up, and become more conservative (like we all do with life experience)...
I don't accept the premise that everyone gets more conservative as they get older. That does not stand up to study as far as I am aware. Here are some example sources to back up this claim: 12.
...you'll learn that almost every adult is essentially conservative...
By what measure or definition are you using the word "conservative" here? What is the cutoff for an "adult", is that the same as being able to vote or are you drawing an arbitrary line at an older age? Surely you are not suggesting that "almost every adult" is a GOP voter, because even Trump would not be so brazen as to pretend there are no Democrats at all!
...and striving to become more mature (ie more conservative and traditional) as we age.
I completely reject the equation of maturity with "conservative and traditional". This is just nonsense that reveals the magnitude of your bias. I am not going to argue that almost every adult is naturally more liberal or progressive, that is just absurd and has no basis at all in reality or facts.
Thank you for including sources! I dispute them, but I value the fact that you included them. Here's why I dispute them:
The first one is from the University of Chicago, which is one of the most left-leaning institutions in the nation. They took their data from the Michigan Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study. A different study in a more typical part of the US, using the same methodology, would yield quite different results.
The second one is an editorial from the Guardian, a left-leaning publication. That's not to say it's entirely false, but it's certainly biased. Also millennials are still too young to observe this effect very well, and the articles all about millennials.
And a couple more reasons:
This is entirely anecdotal, but personally, I have become way more conservative with age, having been a drugged out punk youth, and gradually transforming into a Christian conservative adult. I know quite a few people who changed similarly, and I know nobody who changed in reverse. Anecdotal, I know.
I think having Trump in office generally delayed the effect of young people becoming more conservative. Not that Trump is all that conservative. But few young leftists looked at Trump and said "I like that guy." And by "few" I mean yes, there really were a few, but it was not close to the majority.
By what measure or definition are you using the word "conservative" here?
In the broad American sense: someone who wants to preserve traditional Judeo-Christian values, with either a strong belief in "liberty or death", a strong support for the police, or — in cases where cognitive dissonance runs strong — both.
What is the cutoff for an "adult", is that the same as being able to vote or are you drawing an arbitrary line at an older age?
Your guess is as good as mine. It's subjective.
Surely you are not suggesting that "almost every adult" is a GOP voter, because even Trump would not be so brazen as to pretend there are no Democrats at all!
Ha, do not underestimate Trump! Lol. I do think if you look at voter affiliation by age bracket, there's a certain age threshold above which 50% or more voters are right of center.
I completely reject the equation of maturity with "conservative and traditional".
I respect your rejection of that equivalence. I am certainly biased, as I believe we all are. That assertion just reflects my experience. Take it or leave it.
Social movements like equality and abortion are extremely popular, both amongst the voting population and the public in general.
Why do you think massive corporations jump on this stuff? They want the free PR so they can make more money! Corporations do not have political ideologies unless they are privately held and run by individuals--any company that has public investment is legally obligated to increase profits above all else.
Look up "rainbow capitalism" and you'll realize that the actual activists, the real leftists you are so scared of, don't like what they see any more than you do, but because of the empty slogans and meaningless marketing gestures. Because it's not real progress!
Why do you think massive corporations jump on this stuff? They want the free PR so they can make more money! Corporations do not have political ideologies unless they are privately held and run by individuals--any company that has public investment is legally obligated to increase profits above all else.
Just a minor point here... corporations absolutely do have political ideologies. those ideologies are dictated, as you mentioned, by seeking profit. Which is why they interfere in politics so much- it's less expensive for them to create a favorable regulatory frame work in place than it is to actually not be assholes. For example, one of the things that directly lead to trump's victory in 2016, was an episode where the Koch plant in Corpus Christi, TX got dinged by the EPA back around 2000. (technically for not reporting benzene leaks. unofficially, they removed monitoring equipment and were letting that shit go. because the EPA relies on self reporting... they actually have no proof at all that they were leaking shitloads of benzene.)
this lead the Koch brothers to back republicans basically everywhere, including Trump, where some of the stuff he actually did... involved deregulation of environmental protections. Yeah. Because not leaking freaking toxic pollution into the air, directly harming residents in the area is too expensive and too burdensome.
edit to add: on the other end of the spectrum, you have companies taht are definitely afraid of things like climate change (and whose business won't be adversely impacted by those regulations) absolutely lobbying for things to reduce the impact of climate change. (or, because their business is predicated on building solar or windmills, and such like.)
Very good points! I should have been more specific that corporations are usually not motivated by the social side of most political issues. Anything that impacts them financially, though, is certainly fair game from that perspective.
Mostly trying to clarify that Target almost certainly didn't have trans-oriented swimming suits for adults because the corporation or even the CEO cares about that issue in an ideological, philosophical or moral sense. They had those products because there was a market for them and they saw a way to meet that demand. That's it.
I understand why a domestic beer company would sympathize with the far right-- that's pretty much their customer base. But why are companies like Starbucks and Target doing it? Doesn't seem like a smart financial move.
it's happening because the far right/nazis are sending in death threats and screaming at their employees over it. because they're terrorists. it has nothing to do with sales or their customer base, they're just worried someone is going to get shot
which is not a reason to give in. it's pathetic that they did. but the reason it's happening is terrorism.
If being normal seems far-right to you, then you just might be far-left. The vast majority of normal conservatives, which is everyone from far-right to center-left, do not want sexual immorality constantly shoved down their throats. It's an extremely tiny percentage of the population who think that's a good idea. Like any company, 100% of Starbucks' activity should be to maximize shareholder profit.
For the entirety of human history, up until a few years ago, it was widely acknowledged that these are sins. Read the Bible sometime, and you'll learn. God does not make mistakes. God is good! And it's through God's grace that I easily forgive you for lack of understanding, your insult, and your missing punctuation.
“Normal” people aren’t bigots who go around saying that companies who dare to acknowledge the basic fact gay or trans people exist in the world, as ‘Sexual immortality getting shoved down our throats’.
It’s hateful religious crap like you are spreading right now that gets shoved down our throats more than anything else, that’s the real bullshit right there.
You misunderstand. What I said is not hateful, at all. Of course homosexuals exist, just like thieves, murderers, and practitioners of every other sin exist. Everyone acknowledges that. The issue is whether we repent for our sins and do God's will, or take pride in our sins and reject God. Pride itself is a sin (and some say it's the root of all other sins). That makes pride in sin a compound sin. The so-called "pride decorations" in this article are all about pride in sin (specifically the sexual immorality type). While the far-left activists think that's wonderful, and want to call everyone "hateful" and a "bigot" if we disagree, the truth is I expressed neither hatred nor bigotry. I hope we call all come to Christ, and the first step for many is to eliminate all these repugnant "pride decorations".
Spoken like a true Leftist. Someday, when you start to grow up, you may recall that we Christians actually practice inclusivity instead of just pretending to.
Can you relax? Having your beliefs is one thing, but equating gay people to thieves and murderers is another. Most people from the time they are born have had their sexual attractions set in stone. Most men are attracted to women and vice versa. It is literally the same way for gay people.
Stop sexualizing children! There is no "gay gene". (Follow the science, or don't you like that idea anymore) Sex is strictly reserved for a grown man and woman who are joined in holy matrimony. Children are not sexual, even slightly, until puberty.
Ignoring the religious elements, this is factually incorrect. Nobody likes to talk about it, but it's common for pre-pubescent girls to masturbate. George Carlin even had a bit about it!
Now, that's generally not talked about for good reasons--we don't want to rile up the pedophiles, and we don't want to rile up the people who are so aggressively religious that they can't acknowledge biology. But the fact of the matter is that people don't become sexual the instant they reach their country's age of consent or the instant they get married.
There's nothing wrong with you disliking those facts, but they are what they are.
Some people start feeling attraction at a very young age. It may not be sexual but the attraction is there. I'm a straight man and I've literally found girls to be beautiful for as long as I can remember.
You've got my upvote for that. I agree. But there's such a huge difference between recognizing prettiness and wanting to marry a girl and get her pregnant.
To keep this on-topic, the unstated implication here is that some young boys may appreciate handsomeness in their male peers, and it's suggested that's a precursor to adult homosexual urges. As long as we can agree such kids are not sexual, then that seems fair.
To be clear, as a fellow heterosexual man, there have been times when I've appreciated handsomeness. Like if a guy is built, and has a hot wife hanging on his massive arm, of course I have some sense of appreciation. That's radically different from a homosexual urge.
Also it should be noted that children who suffer sexual abuse often become hyper-sexualized long before they're ready, and because it's traumatic, of course this can result in them having homosexual urges, or hating their body and wishing they were the opposite sex. As mature adults, we should council them to seek Jesus and follow His word, instead of giving into the evil temptations of the demons taking advantage of their trauma and nativity.
I had my first real crush on a celebrity with sexual feelings associated when I was 8 or 9 years old. I've heard similar stories from others first hand. It's normal.
You were being influenced by social norms long before you were old enough to form memories, and likewise not being aware of societal expectations does not mean it is not happening or does not have an effect.
you realize that most people in the world aren't christian, and would take issue with your particular world view?
they have a different faith than you. and you have no real justification that your faith is more right than anyone else's- even if it's one of the larger ones.
and your faith certainly doesn't give you the right to terrorize anyone. or actually use violence, which is absolutely happening. Which is why people are saying you are being hateful. because your defending hate and violence and bigotry.
God is not real, and even if he was he would be a real asshole that I would have no interest in listening to. Your idea of morality is nonsense and irrelevant, not to mention disgusting. You are a hypocrite, too, rejecting everything that your supposed savior preached.
If Jesus was real, I sure hope he wouldn't love you.
Our Creator is most certainly verifiably real. What's truly amazing is that you can deny Him, and you can insult me for loving Him, and you can go on behaving like that for years and years, yet He will still love you and He will still be eager to forgive you.
The only reason you're Christian (or say that you are) is because your parents are/were. Not because it's the Truth.
If there was a real Truth like you think there is, we wouldn't have over a billion Hindus who are also Hindus for no other reason other than THEIR parents were, nearly 2 billion muslims who are muslims for no other reason than THEY are. Etc.
Why should I believe YOUR weird stories are any more real than any of their weird stories? Or believe any of the ancient Greeks who believed to the point of their lives that their weird stories were also true, etc? They all are just as convinced they're right as you, why shouldn't I believe them or anyone else instead?
Even within all the modern Christian sects - let alone all the historical ones - you can't get your stories straight. Why should I believe any one of them over another?
I was raised an atheist, in point of fact. I grew up feeling nihilistic and depressed, and I honestly wasn't even aware that it was a problem until my thirties. I was always surrounded by an atheistic and secular culture, where nihilism and depression are just sorta normal. I came to God much later in life, as the Holy Spirit reeled me in. At this point I can attest that I know Christianity is true, through first-hand experience. I certainly was not raised by Christian parents, and it's still difficult for them to accept my Christianity. They have no desire for salvation or God's love.
That said, I agree with you on a couple of points:
Many people do unthinkingly follow their parents' belief system, and it would be preferable if we all learned to think for ourselves. (Infant baptism is contentious for precisely this reason. I do not support it.) That doesn't necessarily mean it's good to reject your parents' beliefs, but you should be aware of the counter-arguments, and choose your beliefs intelligently.
There are so many religious factions with different beliefs, and from the outside that can certainly seem to nullify it all. Many of these differences are essentially unimportant, though. (Details) Churches have split over these differences, despite the Bible telling us to be one in Christ. The thing is, all Christians (with very rare exception) agree on the essentials of the Nicene Creed. So yes, there are a bazillion factions, and no I don't know for sure that my personal interpretation of scripture is perfectly accurate, but in essence there is only one Christianity.
There's a lot more I could write in response to your thoughts, but I'll spare you the book-length reply. I just want to add that the Bible documents a ton of people who witnessed Christ's miracles and resurrection, and if you dig into historical sources you find nothing to contradict those claims. You mentioned the ancient Greeks, and they were the first non-Jews to readily embrace Christianity. Why do you think that was? When you genuinely open your heart to Jesus, you receive veritable and irrefutable proof that it's true. That's why Christianity has so successfully spread far and wide.
I don't know if you think I'm a "nazi" — I am most certainly not — but in any case you can see who upvotes and downvotes any comment by going to more > activity.
The majority of that 71% thought "homosexuality is a disgusting sin, but A) it's not the government's job to enforce that, and B) I'm terrified of appearing homophobic in front of this survey-taker, because the tyrannical Left is likely to cancel me, and I can't afford to lose my job."
But saying "Sure, just let the figs get married so we can finally be done with this discussion forever" is extremely different from saying "I love rejecting God's will! I love pretending I'm not who God made me!" I love pretending God makes mistakes! I love rejecting God's holy word! I love succumbing to Satan's temptation, and engaging in repulsive acts that would make any normal Christian want to vomit! And what's more, I have pride in my evil rejection of God, because I'm basically a minion of Satan and wouldn't have it any other way! So yes, I want 'pride decorations' shoved down my throat everywhere I go, because it reminds me I'm in the presence of pure evil!" Yeah, 71% do not think that way. It's a tiny contingent of perhaps 0.01% who happen to be young, naive, nihilist, depressed, and plagued by demons.
But the fear of getting canceled for being homophobic is very real and widespread.
[citation needed]
Do you think the opposite is not true? Is it not possible for people to feel pressured to oppose a popularly held view because their particular social circle might cancel them?
Any citation I could give you — and there are hundreds of thousands out there — would be from a conservative or right-wing source that you'd probably dismiss out-of-hand for being biased.
As for the opposite being true: well I suppose it depends on one's social circle, but sure in some cases. I mean that basically explains why so many Germans went along with the Nazis, and why today's Chinese are so apprehensive to speak out against the CCP. I hope we can agree that living in fear of getting canceled is a bad thing.
Because the pendulum is swinging and it's going to swing hard to the right, this is what happen when people go around labeling anyone they disagree with as sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racists, etc.
but rainbow capitalism still works for profit. the reason they're backing away is terrorist threats from the far right, and harassment of staff and management. they're literally scared that the death threats they get over this stuff is going to result in a mass shooting. and thanks to accelerationists in US nazi politics, it realistically eventually will
that's no excuse to cave to these people. but that's the reason it's happening.
Oh please companies don't give a flying fuck if their employees suffer, the only logical explanation for companies stopping being on board with the LGBTQ crowd is that the profits aren't big enough to be worth the trouble of supporting them.
do the research yourself you lazy lying scum, target directly explained why they pulled merch and there's no reason to believe we'll find anything different if starbucks talks to the media about it.
re: starbucks, nothing is clear bc starbucks corporate isn't even admitting that they're pulling decorations yet, but internal communications and rumours specifically mention the threats against target
Honestly, Starbucks is owned by Nestle, a scumbag of a company if you don't know already, they stole from public water sources in 3rd world countries the sold it, they also use child labor galore. We should all just avoid it anyway, fuck nestle.
Companies not giving a shit about their employees and being targeted by far right are not mutually exclusives, both can be true at the same time, also, nothing i said was even remotely homophobic, but go ahead and be angry it entertains me
As a left-of-center BT, the vast majority of companies indeed don’t actually care about these causes. Unless it’s like Ben & Jerry’s where the founders and leaders love to do activism and change the world with their business, which is not the norm.
What's a BT in this context? I'm conservative (obviously, if you've read my other comments in this thread), but I can add to this that Patagonia is similarly genuine in their leftist activism.
BT as in LGBT—bi and trans.
Patagonia is still controlled by the guy that supposedly gave the company away. Their commitment to their warranty is admirable, but it’s by no means an entirely altruistic operation.
Thank you for defining "BT" — I wouldn't have guessed, but I suppose I should have.
I don't just mean their warranty. They're all about environmental protections and various other leftist causes. At least that was my impression. I've read many times that they've gone to great lengths to stand up for their beliefs.
That said, I recognize you may know more about them than I do.
Add comment