Remember these same assholes that started this shit in the 90’s about the “Gay Agenda” converting all the children? According to that very same fear mongering, we’re all supposed to be gay by now, cuz that’s how that works…
We would be if not for their efforts
Oh?
It couldn’t be that they were wrong right?
Yes, they were wrong. There was no “Gay Agenda” trying to convert people to being gay. That kind of dumb activity is apparently only meant for the religious nutjobs trying to turn people straight, which was and is a real thing that happens.
They’re being sarcastic lol
You sure about that?
Look, I’ve seen the gay agenda first hand and all I can say is that Lisa Frank did an ✨ a m a z i n g ✨ job.
From a purely numbers standpoint, aren’t they kind of fight?
Not many gay people were “out” in the 90s. Tons of gay people out today.
So from a recordable numbers standpoint, the number of known gay people HAS gone up drastically since then.
I think the bigger question to that fear mongering would be:
“Yeah? And?”
They’re not right because they numbers didn’t go up from conversion. They went up because people could admit who they are without fear of violence. The true number didn’t change, we just became capable of getting a more accurate count.
Right, I think this is the point that the above comment is making as well. That the numbers of publicly/out gay people went up because of a more accurate count thanks to a less hostile sociopolitical climate.
I think the point that’s being confused in that comment is that the fear mongering was obviously bullshit, and modern bigots pointing at any increase in LGBTQ+ identification nowadays may continue to use those statistics as justification for anti-LGBTQ+ platforms. Instead of engaging that argument that the hate mongers have always known is in bad faith, it’s much more to the point nowadays to make them explain what they think is wrong with increased LQBTQ+ identification, or as the original comment put it, “Yeah, and?”
Thats exactly what I just said though…
No, it isn’t. You responded to a comment about conversion and are making it sound like conversion was successful.
I think they were saying conversion may seem successful to some because of how the numbers look.
No, I said thats how the census views it. All the census is, is a collection of numbers without context. 1990s, not that many recorded gay people. Key word RECORDED. Today, much higher. Therefore the census sees a jump. The conservatives tried playing this off as a scare tactic, as “THERES MORE GAY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!!! AHHHHH!!!”
And I said my response was
“Yeah? And?”
Ah, it came across as thinking they were actually right, that conversion was the reason for the increase. I think that misunderstanding is why you’re attracting down votes.
I understood you. I don’t think it’s you, there are many who were never trained in deductive reasoning. It sucks because it limits effective communication.
“We wouldn’t have so much Covid in America if we’d quit testing.”
Yeah, that tracks.
All those people were always gay though. They’re just safe enough now to say it.
My god, the downvotes. Had the same thought. No one was out in the 80s and 90s, I was there. I can see idiots thinking people were converted, hence the rise in numbers.
I think the vast majority of people are saying, “Yeah? And?” People generally don’t give a shit any longer. Notice the conservatives aren’t banging the gay-hate drum and have pivoted to trans people?
TBF they are often caught banging the gays like drums…they needed a new enemy that they haven’t got caught banging repeatedly. So much self-loathing in that party.
…you’re either an idiot, or trolling. Either way, you deserve the downvotes.
How am I an idiot for saying that census data shows more people admitting to being gay, and it not being a problem?
Because it’s not that they were “fight” (sic), but that people aren’t as afraid to be honest.
Yeah, obviously. But autism rates are going up because doctors are better at diagnosis and people are more comfortable being identified as different, which some assholes attribute to vaccines. Of course they’re not going to look at higher rates of LGBTQA+ self identification as a sign that people are more comfortable being themselves, but instead as evidence that CRT or fluoride or whatever is at fault and must be banned.
You tripped in a circle jerk and got taken out of context or just misunderstood and pounced on. I am pretty sure everyone in this chain is pro-LGBT or at the very least not homophobic. When passions are high and people are defending a cause close to them, the internet has them trained to go off on a hair-trigger. I catch myself doing it too. Sometimes it is justified when an actual shithead comes in and says some evil stuff, but the friendly fire can be just as brutal. I got banned from a subreddit (and ended up leaving reddit mostly), because a mod that likely shares ideologies with me permabanned me for “being racist” for using the word “criminal” (which they read as “black”). The one person in my life that means everything to me, is black…I am 99% sure I am not racist, and she would SO TELL ME if I was! 🤣 Don’t take it personally, and don’t let the overzealous push you away.
Are not familiar with the right-wing fear mongering about the “Gay Agenda”? Read about it.
Don’t worry, when people start catching up to this one, they will downplay it and start pushing Order 66.
I want off Mr Bone’s Wild Ride!
Yes, you’d know this, too, if you’ve done any research on Rule 34.
No, no, no. Just searching “rule 34” won’t give you any credible results, you have to include at least one politician’s name in the search.
Rule 34 is required to start the Lemon Party.
The plans include constructing “freedom cities” on empty federal land, investing in flying carmanufacturing, introducing baby bonuses to encourage a baby boom, implementing protectionisttrade policies, and over forty others. Seventeen of the policies that Trump says he will implement if elected would require congressional approval. Some of his plans are legally controversial, such as ending birthright citizenship, and may require amending the Constitution.
I’m not even shocked anymore. Flying cars?
I used to chuckle about people pushing flying cars.
Aircraft typically use their main engines to push themselves around on the ground. It’s ridiculously inefficient. If you add an otherwise more efficient drivetrain that powers the wheels, that’s added weight, added complexity, and these hybrid trains usually suck at both jobs anyhow.
Further, flying will always be more fuel inefficient because in addition to moving, you’re spending some energy on staying in the air.
The best approach, if your rich enough to afford entertaining this notion, is just to have 2 vehicles, one a car designed to do car-things and the other an aircraft (probably a far 103 compliant ultralight.)
And if you are rich enough, please please get any of the large number of quad-rotor designs that are coming out- and right me in the will. (For some reason they forgot that bird strikes shatter rotors and the disc planes are literally at neck height. Just saying. Cf this one)(also, just for the record my 150 rc helis have enough energy to decapitate you in the rotors if you disrespect it. These, when they shatter, are basically thrown straight out and are flying daggers.)
They don’t mean flying cars that can drive arming, they really mean safer helicopter/air taxis (so quad+ copters). A bunch of tech billionaires are likely behind that inclusion, because they want to be the next air Uber, and it might actually be easier to automate than cars on the road.
I’d still a fucking terrible, noisy, dangerous, and inefficient way to do it though. Mass transit to airports, or high speed rail between more cities, is a much better investment, but can’t be as easily exploited by the tech bros.
they really mean safer helicopter/air taxis (so quad+ copters). A bunch of tech billionaires are likely behind that inclusion, because they want to be the next air Uber, and it might actually be easier to automate than cars on the road.
no. it won’t be safer.
not once you have to start dealing with air congestion. access to landing locations, Routing. seeing obstructions and maintaining safe flying patterns. basically all the shit you see cars doing now? like running kids over, hitting boulders? when you’re flying… everything happens faster. when you’re flying between tall buildings a hundred feet from the ground; you have half a second to regain control of that aircraft before you smash into a building. There is a reason that helicopter flights over most metropolises are extremely restricted. and AI piloting is going to be just as geographically dumb as self driving cars are- and for aircraft that could be a death sentence for hundreds of people if, for example, they wander into tower-controlled space, or congested airspace on approach to an airport.
by the way “flying car” almost always has meant something that can do both. probably the least ridiculous was the aero car form the 50’s. or from the 40’s there’s the ConVair model 118 ConVairCar which was a massive flop because it’s roof mounted engine drove the wheels on the ground.
it’s only a recent trend where …I like to call them idiots… like Musk…have begun referring to Personal Air Vehicles as ‘flying cars’, and that’s probably to evoke the idea that they could be super common. (nope. they’ll never replace normal cars. Tons of gas is ‘wasted’ in traffic each year, sure. But aircraft will always be less effecient than a car. which is less efficient than a railroad.) which is kinda the same idea of calling them ‘flying cars’ back then… too… listen to to the Airphibian advertisment. This one was somewhat more reasonable… the idea being you convert into a car by removing the propeller hub and tail/wing section after flying into hangarage.
Also, most of the newer things are more or less based off of Moller’s Skycar 400. advances in motor/jet engine technolgy has made it somewhat more reasonable… though, my personal favorite is the Hiller V1 pawnee- which technically it was a ground effect system, but it had the distinct advantage of being intuitive to operate on a level none of the others were. if you can balance on two feet you could safely operate it.
an honorable mention is the Avrocar, which was meant as a close-support vehicle for the army. if you look up the skirts of a hovercraft, you’ll see an avrocar. (it’s problem was that it was horribly unstable, especially outside of ground effect. Slap on a skirt, though, and it operates beautifully.)
Oh. an then there’s the Malloy hoverbikes. all I’m gonna say on that one is that New Zealand engineers are an entirely unique breed.
Unfortunately, it looks like Trump is headed for a landslide unless something significant happens within the next few weeks. Buckle up!
No, he isnt, thats just fear feeding fear.
Or is this naive optimism? We HOPE he isn’t, but all signs indicate OP of this comment is correct. Don’t bury your head in the sand. Recognize the reality and keep fighting to turn it around. And definitely DO NOT join in the gaslighting bullshit. Biden didn’t just “have a bad debate night”. He’s senile and has dementia… Don’t try to pretend he doesn’t. Stick to the fact that at least with him we’ll get a not batshit insane cabinet, and at least the government will be fighting against the fascists in the upcoming civil war, instead of fighting with them.
Current polls show Trump gained a slight advantage after the disaster of a debate. Most voters don’t seem to be supporting Biden, so much as not supporting Trump. So it’s still a stupidly close race. Not to mention current polling is based on turnout from 2020 with some educated guesses, that have all undercounted Dem votes in every election since then.
The outlook isn’t good, but Trump is further from win than is immediately obvious.
I hope you learn to appreciate the irony of burying your head in the sand while you tell others not to bury their heads in the sand. Reality is exactly what I recognize.
Fear feeding fear. Stop it.
“…unless something significant happens…”
Yeah, like all of us voting.
All of us were always going to vote… Let’s be honest. But that’s not going to be enough. Biden needs millions of young progressives to turn up and vote for him, but to get them to do that, he’s going to need to start meeting them halfway, instead of continuing to meet Republicans/fascists halfway.
If they choose the vote for trump with more steps by not voting blue, I hold them fully accountable. Sorry.
Because it couldn’t possibly be that we ALL need to compromise to make this work. Biden, as far as I’m concerned, did in fact meet us at least part way. Not even close to where I’d want but not nothing either. And in doing so probably alienated more conservative voters. So they didn’t get everything they wanted and neither did we. But in the process we all got some of what what we wanted.
If “kids these days” can’t figure out that democracy is fundamentally a compromise in which nobody is 100% happy then truly we’re fucked.
When did megacorps, billionaires and insider trading political dynasties ever have to compromise?
When did megacorps, billionaires and insider trading political dynasties ever have to compromise?
For starters, some random examples would include state minimum wage laws, environmental regulations (e.g. banning drilling in the arctic, banning certain chemicals, etc), and labor protections generally.
Sure, but Democrats seem very easy to discourage into not voting compared to conservatives.
Are you easily discouraged? Do you stamp your feet an yell when you don’t get 100% your way, 100% of the time? Or do you recognize that other people exist and have different needs and wants?
It’s a fact that Democrats and progressives don’t show up as consistently to vote as conservatives. It’s just not part of the culture like it is for conservatives.
Trump is a convicted felon and it does not make a difference for his voters. Biden has a bad debate and Democrats are fleeing left and right. That’s how you lose elections.
Oh well I guess just don’t bother to vote then since clearly we’re gonna lose
/s
One is a cult of press-stamped NPCs, the other is a massively varied collection of people that want everything their way or they are taking their ball and going home. It is a rough position to be in when your party has to cover “everyone that isn’t a conservative”…it’s a huge majority of people to gather up under one umbrella.
Not according to anything I have seen. He is slightly ahead in the polls by less than half the margin of error of said polls (which are rarely accurate, but more of a weathervain)…so…
