⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.
You have to select one over the alternative because Black people are the most LGBTphobic race in the US, and expanding LGBT rights into Africa from Europe is neocolonialism
Unless this is intended to be just some silly hypothetical game, like "would you rather eat shit or take it up the butt?", the premise of your question is just wrong. Sticking up for people's rights is about looking at various situations and being able to tell the difference between right and wrong. No part of that necessitates that one segregate people into different teams and pick a side.
2.
Because some darker toned egg producers are reasonably cute.
Whereas cosmetically, medically and surgically inspired non-egg producers can only TIUTA.
Though at the end of the proverbial day, all a part of life's rich tapestry.
TIUTA?
It's an acronym.
Though I suppose that it would be correct to say that potential entry/outlet ports number either 2 or 3.
It's an acronym.
I figured so
Though I suppose that it would be correct to say that potential entry/outlet ports number either 2 or 3.
OK, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Yes, I suppose that such things can get messy.
That would make sense if it was LGBT vs Canadians (because Canadians are pro LGBT and LGBT are pro Canada). This is LGBT vs blacks (when LGBT people are very pro BLM but Blacks usually don't reciprocate). The majority of blacks believe that TW are men (and it's higher than any other racial group).
Not one word of this response addresses my point.
It doesn't matter if a majority of people within a group believe something, that doesn't have anything to do with the principals/values that guide ones belief system.
I believe in fair treatment for all. Black people are treated unfairly, so I oppose it. LGBT people are treated unfairly, so I oppose it. The only time one has to choose is when there is a conflict, there isn't one here.
The game you're playing is to start with generalizations (black people do not like gays) and then pretend the generalization = the whole, as if "black people" are the Borg, all speaking with one voice as one unit. And then you take it a step further by pretending this is about the individuals at hand and not the principals at work. That's not how reality works. You have black people that oppose LGBT and you have black people who advocate on behalf of LGBT, as well as black people who are LGBT. The only choice is whether to abandon my principals. Sorry, that's not something I am willing to do.
It's insane that I have to explain this, this is kindergarten level stuff.
The reason blacks don’t like gays and LGBT is because they get more attention than blacks. Suddenly colour is less important than gender. Is it because it is more visible than colour?
If there is an individual black person (Jammal) that happens to view Transwomen as degenerate men pretending to be women so they can rape little girls in bathrooms to fulfill their pedophilia urges (and this black person believes the majority of transgenders are pedophiles that should be burned and/or lynched), then would you act with your principles and advocate for their rights even if you know they won't reciprocate or go blue MAGA with it and not necessarily join the KKK, but just be indifferent to if that hypothetical transphobic black suffers?
If this hypothetical Jammal exists then he's a delusional disgusting individual with regards to how he views the trans community. That is completely irrelevant to whether I would advocate for his rights.
Rights are not something we pick and choose whom to grant them, they are by definition granted to everyone and only removed if warranted. The test of whether you actually believe in the principals behind any given right isn't whether you are ok with them being used when you agree with them, but whether you'd fight to protect the rights of those you disagree with. If you only believe in my right to free speech when I'm advocating for your political causes then you're just a political hack trying to impose your will on everyone else.
So yes, if Jammal's rights are being violated I would fight to protect them, because a violation of one person's rights is a violation against all of us. That's how it works.
You have to select one over the alternative because Black people are the most LGBTphobic race in the US
I don't think you have to agree with the majority of black people's views to "stick up for" black people (as in supporting their rights). This is only a contradiction is "sticking up for" a group means agreeing with the opinions they disproportionately hold.
expanding LGBT rights into Africa from Europe is neocolonialism
Not everyone agrees with that, though I guess if someone thought spreading western values was neocolonialism but wanted to spread tolerance of gay people, they'd be a hypocrite. But supporting civil rights doesn't mean accepting the statement "expanding LGBT rights into Africa from Europe is neocolonialism."
you would be willing to fight for the controversial rights of those that you would disassociate with? I couldn't do that.
Then you're just an empty vessel. You have no principals nor do you believe in anything. There's right and there's wrong, you either fight for what's right, or you're just fighting for your tribe. The latter is just warfare, a thirst for power. I find that a contemptible way to operate.
I believe in what I believe in because I care about what's right, but if you need a selfish reason, once rights no longer exist for one group there's nothing to garantee your rights either. Hence the saying, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.
A perfect example of this would be the debate on due process. Why do we care if illegal immigrants are deported without a hearing? Get them out, right? Well, if there's no hearing then how do we even know they're undocumented in the first place? What's to stop the government from rounding you up and sending you to a foreign torture prison and justifying it by claiming you were an illegal? Answer: nothing.
