I bet Target sure is glad that donating to anti gay marriage politicians in 2010 bought them so much good will with conservatives
They weren't supposed to eat my face.
Let’s all unite around pride in America instead of falling into the trap of dividing along lines of identity politics.
They say, totally not engaging in "identity politics" 🙄
This is why anybody who thinks these zealots have a legitimate place in our political system is fooling themselves. Their entire basis of rhetoric is fundamentally dishonest. They don't represent any sort of valid ideology; they're a disease that needs to be cured, not negotiated with.
Isn't it their Right as a Business to sell what they want? Why is the Government trying to interfere with the Business' Freedom of Speech???
The GOP is for corporate rights until they aren't.
GOP uses governance the same way WWE uses athleticism - it's just a gimmick for quick money.
See Disneyworld.
Party of small government everyone..
Remember how many years Ru Paul was on TV... Mrs. Doubtfire... Various Broadway shows... These clowns weren't saying anything as a group back then, but they are now, all of a sudden and in unison - weird huh?
Almost as if it's just the latest manufactured moral panic for a desperate group of losers who can't win without cheating.
"Transanity" lmao. What an absolute dork
I’m sitting in Target right now in a very red state and it’s business as usual. I think most people have moved on except for these ding dongs. The gop is SO ridiculous. They have NOTHING with regard to policy so they create these stupid fucking arguments and battlegrounds that literally change nothing in our country other than create divides. It’s pathetic.
I feel like they DO create change in our country, and if they're not stopped they will one day be successful in making it illegal to be anything besides monogamous, Christian, and straight.
I'm a new migrant from reddit. Are most of the posts on this politics community gonna be from 'lgbtqnation.com'? Is this just another r/politics echo chamber that I should stay clear from?
Do you and your fellow paste eaters need a safe space so that you can openly talk about genociding trans people?
Cause Twitter’s still open for business, and has a heavy right-wing slant (as with most social networks)
I said r/politics is an echo chamber filled with heavily bias sources and automatically I'm a paste eater that loves trans genocide? Come on, man.
You know there's people in between 'WE NEED TO FORCE EVERYONE TO ACCEPT EVERYONES FEELINGS' and 'LETS GO BRANDON KILL THE COMMI'S AND LETS INVADE THE CAPITOL'
Right?
Yeah, you are coming across as a paste eater, honestly. Nobody’s upset because of “feelings”. I’m upset because a bunch of worthless lowlife paste eaters are conspiring to make my fucking health care illegal. I have every right to be furious about that, and when chuds like you rock up to one of these threads to signal your hatred, I won’t HESITATE to tell you to crawl back into your filthy hole.
are conspiring to make my fucking health care illegal
Who's doing this? Can you provide any source for people in the United States trying to make health care illegal?
If I wanted to get my foot amputated for funsies,are my health care 'rights' being taken away if a doctor doesn't do it, or insurance doesn't pay for it?
Ok so being trans is “for funsies”?
If there was any doubt you’re a total chud, that comment erased it.
Did you miss Dobbs, or something? Man, you really only just crawled out from under that rock, huh. Last reply, since you don’t seem super capable of digesting new information (must be all that glue you love to chew):
LOL fuck off
Thank you for your perspective. You're an r/politics user I assume!
lol what an incel
By your lack of response to my comment, I assume you don't know how to read, or you are one!
I guess those are synonymous, though.
LOL incel
I see a single post from this site on the first page. What in particular do you disagree with about the article? Reading the article, the headline is completely accurate.
I don't entertain or give clicks to bias sources. If I offered you a newsnation or w.e. is the alt right sites, and the headline is accurate to what the article is about, does that make it a good article?
It's not just the headline is accurate to the article. The article is not inaccurate in anyway itself. I obviously knew you didn't read it before making your comment, just wanted to make sure.
Are you part of the crowd that shouts "woke" and "groomers" at gay people? Because the GOP has made being gay a political issue and reporting on their attempts to do things like pressure businesses is relevant political news.
No I tend not to shout at any people in almost any circumstance.
Do you think that every source is equally respectable?
If you find the idea that queer people have the right to exist to be too much of an echo chamber for you, then that's a bit telling.
"But the bias!"
Maybe it's just me, but if I wanted to know what was going on in the queer communtiy, I would say queer people are the best people to listen to. Just like how if I wanted to learn about the struggles of bring black or a woman, I would consider them the go to source. I wouldn't go to the people causing the problems. Like I wouldn't go to David Duke to learn about what black people go through. Or Andew Tate on how to treat women.
In those case, the article calls out the lies from the sources you say we wouldn't take, so of course I'm not gonna listen to them. Because they're not just biased. They're lies. In this case, it's things such as tuck swimwear being sold to kids. That was heavily reported on, despite being false.
To help explain what a bias actually is, think of it this way:
One article says Bill punched Jim. Billy is a bully. We have someone saying they saw it.
The other article says Bill did not punch Jim. He is fine. We have the video to prove it.
Now, both do have a bias. Yes. One says he's a bully, the other says he's not.
But one of them makes a claim, says they have someone who saw it, but it turns out it was a lie.
So one of these is a bias, one of these is a lie. It's slander.
Should we find articles without a bias? Arguably. But for starters, if the non-biased articles agree with the biased article and all the facts, and they do show with the same video that Bill did in fact not punch Jim, then I would argue the bias isn't the issue. If Bill didn't punch Jim, then there's no real reason to say he's a bully.
Similarly, it is a fact that right wing news sources lied about the swimwear. And they have an anti-LGBTQ+ bias. But we know it was a lie.
So when an article calls it out and has a bias that trans people are fine, there's no reason to beleive its not. And the bias that the right are being bigoted ans trying to take away the rights from trans people then becomes less of a bias and more of just facts.
So we can find another source for this, but when they simply just list the facts, it will only back up this article.
If you find the idea that queer people have the right to exist
The left wing echo chamber is always so consisten with their strawman arguments.
Nobody here has questioned if queer people have the right to exist. My girlfriends queer and who knows, I might be.
I've read a few threads on this politics community, and when you have people spouting off about how construction workers are too stupid to drink water when they're thirsty, then you have the source 'lgbtqnation' being on the top of the community, yeah those two put together makes me roll my eyes and wonder, where are the communities that talk about real issues.
Where are the communities that talk about the cost of living
Of the availability of homes
Of the legalization of drugs and releasing inmates that have non violent drug offenses.
Where are the discussions about how terrible single parent households are for a thriving society?
Where are people on this website that talk about issues that the majority of people face, rather than hot topic social issues that impact less than 1% of people?
Do you really think queer people only make up less than 1% of the population?
? So statements against picking on (LGBTQ, here) people is too much politics, activism for you?
Fuck you.
When I want to read about politics, no I don't care about lgbtqnation's stances on identity politics. I was hopeful we'd have more discussion on actual policy here.
That's the problem, the extremes on each side want to make it about identity.
Whatever candidate doesn't trash the otherside and actually wants to work together to find good solutions will have my vote. RFK Jr, at this point, is the only one I've seen do that.
You missed the point of the article. It's trying to say that it isn't "each side making it about identify." It's trying to say that politics are inherently about identity, always has been, and that's just the true nature of politics in general.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News