Well others with huge behavioral problems like those with paranoia are also upfront with their views...

@ 1 - Those groups often overlap.

You know what I dislike about pundits?

When they take an argument that all will agree with (the Earth is warming; prejudice is bad) and lump in a bunch of more specific political stances (therefore we should impose carbon taxes; therefore we should allow cheap unskilled labor in and drive up the costs of housing).

How about you stop that?

Bigotmania! Come one Come all! Step right up! Slog Productions presents Bigotmania! Next to the three headed lady, the cloven foot boy, the weightlifter who bench presses 10,000 lbs! Yessiree folks, we have all the sideshows, all the freaks, come join us for Bigotmania!

"Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." - Walter

@5 "People who are against gay rights are, almost invariably, opposed to straight rights as well."

I genuinely don't understand this statement, can you provide a couple of examples?

The majority of Republicans do NOT agree the Earth is warming:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/g…

I'm just saying.

We saw a lot of pussyfooting around with the Anita Sarkeesian thread yesterday--primarily along the lines of "Her work has little merit, but she doesn't deserve to be raped or murdered."

I admit it: I am bigoted. I am prejudiced against pedestrians at 3rd and Virginia. I think they're all going to jaywalk in front of my speeding vehicle when it's only 25% of them.

permanent legal limbo and semi-serfdom...

First, there ain't no "semi" about it.

Second, this is the entire point of "hate" and "bigotry" - it's about creating classes of people that can be safely marginalized and oppressed, as a means of social control, mostly for the economic benefit of the oppressors.

I'm thinking of the guest Dan had on the Lovecast recently and the discussion around slut-shaming: the leaders were privileged women, using it as a means of social control over lower-status women.

If you actually gave two shits about stopping immigration and correcting the ills a flood of cheap labor does to the lower classes here, you'd just have strict enforcement against employers - you know, some of those mandatory minimum, zero-tolerance policies. Instead we talk about shipping them back.

Willful ignorance indeed...crazy like a fox is the correct term, I believe.

@7,
I'm guessing Ken @5 is saying the people who want to repress gays also want to suppress straights when it comes to sex. In other words, these people fear and hate sexual freedom--for anyone--and accepting gays would also be sort of accepting sexual freedom. They don't want anyone, straight or gay, to have sexual freedom, so it gives them a non-bigoted path to rejecting gays.

That's the theory, at least, that I think @5 was stating.

@5 That's a pretty terrible argument. It assumes that there is some kind of social harm from accepting "a wide variety of sexual relationships and practices", which you'd be hard pressed to show. And if you accept that ridiculous premise , you then have to believe that somehow having gay people get married, people who already engage in sexual acts presumed to be negative, encourages other people to engage in a different set of sexual acts than they otherwise would have. I'm not sure which of those completely unsubstantiated claims is more ridiculous.

Here's a similar argument: making abortion legal encourages people to have unsafe sex, so we should make abortion illegal. The only difference is that in my ridiculous argument, the underlying premise that unsafe sex is a problem is actually well founded.

From UChicago Secrets:

#3520

I've noticed that UChicago Secrets has danced around issues of race, gender, sexuality, etc., without anyone really coming out and taking a strong stand as a bigot. Well I'm here to do that.

I am a racist, but more importantly I'm an unapologetic racist. There, I said it. You might ask why? Have you ever fucking played against Protoss? That shit is absurd. Chargelot Archon is a bullshit unit composition that requires no micro. Dark Templar, Collosus, Oracles, are any of their units not just utter shit? We all know that race takes the least skill to play but is the easiest to lose against when they do dumb shit. 90% of their strategies are gimicky, and they ruin an otherwise beautiful game.

And I'm tired of these SJW types defending Protoss and saying that everyone else has Terran privilege. Yes Terran dominated the GSL for 2010 and 2011 and yes in the early days of Wings of Liberty Terran was the strongest race. But you can't hold the Terrans of 2014 accountable for the bunker rushes that MVP and MKP pulled all the time.

And now Terrans even get flamed when we play a defensive, turtle-mech style because we're appropriating Protoss strategy. Bullshit. Look back at the early days of Broodwar - Terran has always had turtle-mech in their repertoire of strats.

Escape your politically correct bubbles and enter reality UChicago - Protoss is a joke.

- An unapologetic racist

@12 Major brain fart, that makes sense.

Steinberg's argument is the argument of someone trying to be cleverer than he is. Open bigots can not be reasoned with. People who have subtextual bigotry can be. This country has shifted massively on the gay marriage question. Was that because all the bigots died? No, it's because they changed their mind because those who supported it *engaged* those who opposed it. They reasoned with them, they came out to them, they showed by example that their marriage/family could be just as good or bad as anyone else's. And eventually, the "bigots" came around on the subject.

@17, I'm afraid the massive shift is mostly because so many gays came out, the bigots (many of who are in business) decided that they'd be better off financially if they engaged gays as customers/clients rather than vile non-humans. I don't hear about a massive change of heart; I hear opportunism.

"I think there's some truth to the conservative claim that giving people too much sexual freedom destroys the traditional family."

Hey Ken @19, fuck you. It is not theirs to give in the first place. I thought you were a conservative, not a fascist.

It's a result of politcal correctness and progress. The crypto-bigots know that even other bigots will throw them the first stone if they hate openly. It's a bit frustrating sometime, but it beats the alternative.

@22 - The question then becomes how much stock do you put in the value of "the traditional family"? For me, that's very little, as it's defined by conservatives. For conservatives, it's everything, making their terror at expanded sexual freedom make a lot of sense.

@9 - I try to stay out of those threads for just that reason. There is way too much qualification whenever Anita Sarkeesian comes up. "I don't agree with everything she says, but..." "Her academic rigor is lacking, but..." "I think she focuses too much on a few bad examples, but..."

If you want to say someone doesn't deserve death and rape threats, just say that. Saying it unconditionally doesn't mean you worship that person or even have to be their best friend. Qualifying it like that just sounds too much like trying to keep a safe distance from the pariah so everyone else still thinks you're cool.

@15 - That was win.

@13 Actually the premise @5 is that tolerating "a wide variety of sexual relationships and practices" makes people uncomfortable. And in reality people don't like it when their partner wants a relationship or practice that makes them uncomfortable. So they make bullshit arguments to bully whatever vanilla or "traditional" behavior they enjoy. Straight sex, only missionary, silent woman, or whatnot. Different is not necessarily bad though, what they fail to realize is that forcing people into the closet with fear tactics makes for bad relationships, it's better to know who you're with.

And I don't know why you don't appreciate abortion access but if it's because of your premise "making abortion legal encourages people to have unsafe sex" that's a ridiculous reason.