Comment by norea-armozel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by norea-armozel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Rural America didn't start your culture war.

As someone from Kansas I can say that many people in that state have wanted and pursued legal/social action against LGBT people for as long as I can remember. Whether you want to admit it or not there's a strong undercurrent of anti-LGBT still alive and well in parts of the country, especially in the rural areas. The only time these folks "tolerate" LGBT people is when we toe the line of what is deemed "normal." So, if you're an effeminate gay man well it sucks to be you in rural (and most of south central) Kansas. If you're transgender (like me) it's double that. Basically, if you're not presenting straight (aka "normal") then you're boned.

>Incidentally, people in cities try to push around rural folks all the time - forcing them to bake gay wedding pizzas...

And all that talk about forcing people to cater gay weddings, well that's part of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as one other commentor pointed out. If we throw out that law then that means I can open any public facing business like a bakery and refuse to hire or serve Christians. Let's see how long before this country goes back to the days of the Thirty Years War where we're even asking people if they're a Catholic or not before transacting business. Seriously, think about the consequences of this before asserting that anyone's force to do anything because as long as you got a society you got compromises and more so if you got government with relatively uniform laws. Those compromises ensure sectarianism is kept to a minimum. Now which do you want if you're a rural Christian American, sectarianism where you got an equal chance of being the victim of it or possibly having to cater gay weddings once in a while but getting paid well? BTW, catering in this instance isn't celebrating sin either nor does any part of the Bible say you can't economically benefit from transactions that are not in themselves sinful (ex. you can still sell guns to people whether or not one of them happens to be plotting murder for which you have no foreknowledge of).

I don't recall Kansas folks trying to tell NY what to do about LGBT. That's the point I was making.

Let's see how long before this country goes back to the days of the Thirty Years War where we're even asking people if they're a Catholic or not before transacting business.

We're already there - just ask Brendan Eich, Curtis Yarvin or Donald Sterling. Companies do check social media to make sure people haven't expressed views outside the overton window, e.g. being anti-gay or anti-fat.

See also my reply to Rayiner which asks the question why people who prefer not to buy health insurance (as opposed to people who prefer sex with men) don't also get equal protection under the law. Personally I quite enjoy sectarianism - I like the transactional society, where even a Nazi can peacefully purchase a Pepe-as-Hitler cake without getting sucker punched by a cowardly masked thug. (I have no strong opinion on forcing someone to sell it to him, though I support cultural norms that would encourage it.) But most of the people I see pushing a culture war - and I admit, I've never been to Kansas - are opposed to that.

>I don't recall Kansas folks trying to tell NY what to do about LGBT. That's the point I was making.

As someone who was born/raised and lived in Kansas until three years ago I can say that Kansas evangelicals have regularly tried to browbeat leftists and moderates in other states and cities.

>We're already there - just ask Brendan Eich, Curtis Yarvin or Donald Sterling.

Are any of these people unable to find work, pray as they wish, or life safely without threats or acts of violence? If the answer is no then their public faux pas aren't equivalent to being actually ARRESTED and KILLED as many folks (even German Princes) were during the Thirty Years War. The fact you want to dilute the impact of religious sectarianism shows your inherent dishonesty on these matters.

>Companies do check social media to make sure people haven't expressed views outside the overton window, e.g. being anti-gay or anti-fat.

That's called capitalism. Don't like capitalism then abolish it. Because the moment you become a professional or an entrepreneur under capitalism you become private property of the board of directors and anyone else who has legal authority to hire/fire you.

>See also my reply to Rayiner which asks the question why people who prefer not to buy health insurance (as opposed to people who prefer sex with men) don't also get equal protection under the law.

Well I prefer not to have to wear pants at work but that doesn't mean I should have the liberty to lounge around in my pajamas like some lazy ass college student. We do things like insurance mandates as a compromise between having a sprawling public bureaucracy versus a series of small and possibly more efficient private bureaucracies (as this point I'm not convinced of this benefit myself). Like it or not, that's the way our system works. Want to live in the US then you get health insurance (for now). Want to drive a car then you get car insurance, too. All this libertopia nonsense doesn't work especially in the US where private businesses are effectively the second federal government.

>Personally I quite enjoy sectarianism - I like the transactional society, where even a Nazi can peacefully purchase a Pepe-as-Hitler cake without getting sucker punched by a cowardly masked thug.

I'm sure you'd love it in Mugabe's Zimbabwe or 1990s Balkan states then where if you don't toe the line you're dead. Because that's where sectarianism leads. It's not many little enclaves that live in peace, it's many little enclaves that shoot at each other literally. And those Nazis do deserve a swift kick in the breeches since their ideology by definition seeks to abolish all democracy. You can't co-exist with someone who wants to disenfranchise you. It's either their way or the highway (which usually ends at a death camp). And they have no qualms with using violence to ensure their way is accomplished.

The fact you want to dilute the impact of religious sectarianism shows your inherent dishonesty on these matters.

Your previous goalpost was "asking people if they're a Catholic or not before transacting business."

Moving the goalposts isn't "inherent dishonesty"?

We do things like insurance mandates as a compromise between having a sprawling public bureaucracy versus a series of small and possibly more efficient private bureaucracies (as this point I'm not convinced of this benefit myself).

And similarly, we could ban gay sex because it spreads AIDS. Don't like it? Move.

Notice how your argument can be applied to defend any law apart from laws against emigration?

Me misspeaking: Personally I quite enjoy sectarianism - I like the transactional society, where even a Nazi can peacefully purchase a Pepe-as-Hitler cake without getting sucker punched by a cowardly masked thug.

...Because that's where sectarianism leads...And those Nazis do deserve a swift kick...

Entertaining how you simultaneously criticize me for (accidentally - I meant to say "enjoy the absence of sectarianism") saying I support sectarianism, then engage in it a couple of sentences later.

>Moving the goalposts isn't "inherent dishonesty"?

What I stated was an example and there's no historical trend as it stands towards there being anti-Catholicism resurgence (for now). But as an example none of your examples apply even in Eich's case considering he's head of new business venture in browser micro-payment systems. And he's still a major contributor to various JS standards. So, pardon me if I don't buy your bullshit when it comes do your fantasy of anti-Christian sentiment being some sort of thing here in the States (hint: it's not).

>And similarly, we could ban gay sex because it spreads AIDS. Don't like it? Move.

Not comparable because everyone benefits from sharing the costs of health insurance. It's why roads aren't wholly private anywhere in western-style countries. The cost of infrastructure isn't easily serviced by isolated bureaucracies or revenue streams. As for gay sex spreading AIDS I gotta burst your bubble but sharing needles among heroin addicts has a similar to GREATER transmission rate. Also, having sex unprotected whether it's homosexual or heterosexual produces exactly the same results. So, you're deflecting by trying another dishonest comparison. I suggest you retract it.

>Notice how your argument can be applied to defend any law apart from laws against emigration?

Nope, because you're trying to find an absolutist position where none was stated. I think you need to read what I wrote again then actually address my points and not your imagined version of them.

>Entertaining how you simultaneously criticize me for (accidentally - I meant to say "enjoy the absence of sectarianism") saying I support sectarianism, then engage in it a couple of sentences later.

There's nothing sectarian about excluding those who support state violence as a means to destroy democratic processes and free association of various ethnic and religious groups. Nazism is by definition incompatible with a free and (classically) liberal society. You can either have Nazism or you can have liberalism. You cannot have both. They're matter/anti-matter in terms of analogies (most apt IMO).

As for gay sex spreading AIDS I gotta burst your bubble but sharing needles among heroin addicts has a similar to GREATER transmission rate. Also, having sex unprotected whether it's homosexual or heterosexual produces exactly the same results.

A simple glance at the CDC stats suggests that gay sex is actually far more dangerous than heterosexual sex. Receptive anal sex is about 2x as dangerous as sharing needles.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimates/riskbehaviors.html

I'll speculate that knowing the truth does not change your views at all, right?

There's nothing sectarian about excluding those who support state violence as a means to destroy democratic processes and free association of various ethnic and religious groups. Nazism is by definition incompatible with a free and (classically) liberal society. You can either have Nazism or you can have liberalism. You cannot have both. They're matter/anti-matter in terms of analogies (most apt IMO).

The same was said of papists and is currently said of Muslims. But I guess sectarianism against groups that you dislike is good, while all the other kinds are bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com