Let's get down to brass tacks... (SJWs/influence in movies)

[Yukaphile]

It's not so much their actions but their general mindset. Do you really trust a guy who thinks "female breadwinners are unnatural" and subscribe to that old-time religious intolerance to actually be impartial to people not of his faith or women? That said, that's the alt right, not the moderates. The moderates can be just as secular as Democrats. Likewise, conservative Democrats could be religious, or semi-religious. It varies.

[Yukaphile]

Oh, and look at what Pence, of that old-time religiously intolerant hard right did? In his own state, tried to pass a law that would make conversion therapy for gay boys legal, which is just shocking the penis, basically torture to minors, and claimed it "cured" him, and that he also wanted to redefine the term "rape" in his state. That's a bit frightening to me, because it was probably what many of these hard righters are trying to do, redefine it from "rape" to "forcible rape." Probably because they think you can't trust women, they got us kicked out of God's paradise, and will seduce you and cry foul and accuse you of rape when you haven't raped them, so they want to see bruises and so on across the victim's bodies. It's horrifying, because then you can literally go inside a woman who's sleeping, and if she wakes up and is scared, doesn't say anything, that's a legal form of rape. We need to put the burden of blame ON THE ATTACKER and not the victim. I see that so often. I don't get why that's so hard.

[Darth Wedgius]

It's not so much their actions but their general mindset. Do you really trust a guy who thinks "female breadwinners are unnatural" and subscribe to that old-time religious intolerance to actually be impartial to people not of his faith or women? That said, that's the alt right, not the moderates. The moderates can be just as secular as Democrats. Likewise, conservative Democrats could be religious, or semi-religious. It varies.

As long as you consider that a lot of people complaining about SJWs are not alt-right, that's fine. SJWs want discrimination by sex or race, and I very rarely hear anti-SJWs say they want that kind of discrimination. You may personally be in favor of discrimination in favor of women (that's my suspicion), and I likely won't change your mind if you are, but just recognize it for what it is.

I do run into an unfortunate amount of anti-semitisim among anti-SJWs, but I see that in SJWs too.

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh, and look at what Pence, of that old-time religiously intolerant hard right did? In his own state, tried to pass a law that would make conversion therapy for gay boys legal, which is just shocking the penis, basically torture to minors, and claimed it "cured" him, and that he also wanted to redefine the term "rape" in his state. That's a bit frightening to me, because it was probably what many of these hard righters are trying to do, redefine it from "rape" to "forcible rape." Probably because they think you can't trust women, they got us kicked out of God's paradise, and will seduce you and cry foul and accuse you of rape when you haven't raped them, so they want to see bruises and so on across the victim's bodies. It's horrifying, because then you can literally go inside a woman who's sleeping, and if she wakes up and is scared, doesn't say anything, that's a legal form of rape. We need to put the burden of blame ON THE ATTACKER and not the victim. I see that so often. I don't get why that's so hard.

Conversion therapy is not just shocking the penis. Look it up here. There is only anecdotal evidence of it working, but I'm fine with it being legal on a voluntary basis. What's wrong with people being allowed to choose their own treatment, even if science doesn't back it up?

You're assuming the motivations behind people's actions and then using your own assumptions as evidence. I keep pointing that out, but you keep doing it, and I'm sure you'll continue after this. Your own "we need to put the burden of blame on the attacker and not the victim" ASSUMES that there was an attacker and a victim. The honest approach is to use the frames "accused" and "accuser." See how that works? Because "attacker" and "victim" assumes the guilt of the accused, something not done in our legal system.

[clearspira]

Oh, and look at what Pence, of that old-time religiously intolerant hard right did? In his own state, tried to pass a law that would make conversion therapy for gay boys legal, which is just shocking the penis, basically torture to minors, and claimed it "cured" him, and that he also wanted to redefine the term "rape" in his state. That's a bit frightening to me, because it was probably what many of these hard righters are trying to do, redefine it from "rape" to "forcible rape." Probably because they think you can't trust women, they got us kicked out of God's paradise, and will seduce you and cry foul and accuse you of rape when you haven't raped them, so they want to see bruises and so on across the victim's bodies. It's horrifying, because then you can literally go inside a woman who's sleeping, and if she wakes up and is scared, doesn't say anything, that's a legal form of rape. We need to put the burden of blame ON THE ATTACKER and not the victim. I see that so often. I don't get why that's so hard.

Conversion therapy is not just shocking the penis. Look it up here. There is only anecdotal evidence of it working, but I'm fine with it being legal on a voluntary basis. What's wrong with people being allowed to choose their own treatment, even if science doesn't back it up?

You're assuming the motivations behind people's actions and then using your own assumptions as evidence. I keep pointing that out, but you keep doing it, and I'm sure you'll continue after this. Your own "we need to put the burden of blame on the attacker and not the victim" ASSUMES that there was an attacker and a victim. The honest approach is to use the frames "accused" and "accuser." See how that works? Because "attacker" and "victim" assumes the guilt of the accused, something not done in our legal system.

This is why America has such a mixed rep abroad. You're big on democracy and freedom, you have great tourist destinations, are great innovators in science and technology, you make great films... and you also have shit like anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, creationists, and conversion therapy.
You're a bit like drunk Tony Stark - awesome, but operating on a logic all of your own.

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh, and look at what Pence, of that old-time religiously intolerant hard right did? In his own state, tried to pass a law that would make conversion therapy for gay boys legal, which is just shocking the penis, basically torture to minors, and claimed it "cured" him, and that he also wanted to redefine the term "rape" in his state. That's a bit frightening to me, because it was probably what many of these hard righters are trying to do, redefine it from "rape" to "forcible rape." Probably because they think you can't trust women, they got us kicked out of God's paradise, and will seduce you and cry foul and accuse you of rape when you haven't raped them, so they want to see bruises and so on across the victim's bodies. It's horrifying, because then you can literally go inside a woman who's sleeping, and if she wakes up and is scared, doesn't say anything, that's a legal form of rape. We need to put the burden of blame ON THE ATTACKER and not the victim. I see that so often. I don't get why that's so hard.

Conversion therapy is not just shocking the penis. Look it up here. There is only anecdotal evidence of it working, but I'm fine with it being legal on a voluntary basis. What's wrong with people being allowed to choose their own treatment, even if science doesn't back it up?

You're assuming the motivations behind people's actions and then using your own assumptions as evidence. I keep pointing that out, but you keep doing it, and I'm sure you'll continue after this. Your own "we need to put the burden of blame on the attacker and not the victim" ASSUMES that there was an attacker and a victim. The honest approach is to use the frames "accused" and "accuser." See how that works? Because "attacker" and "victim" assumes the guilt of the accused, something not done in our legal system.

This is why America has such a mixed rep abroad. You're big on democracy and freedom, you have great tourist destinations, are great innovators in science and technology, you make great films... and you also have shit like anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, creationists, and conversion therapy.
You're a bit like drunk Tony Stark - awesome, but operating on a logic all of your own.

Guilty as charged. Indeed, we have a whole state set apart mostly for these cases.

[Yukaphile]

Conversion therapy, traditionally, has been done against the patient's will. By stupid parents who think it would help "cure the gay." Same mindset that a man has in thinking "I can rape a lesbian straight!" Conversion therapy is torture, period. It should be illegal.

[Mecha82]

Fact that conversation therapy is real thing and some how not illegal is really telling how far both right wing religious nutcases in USA are willing to go as well as really disturbing. At least to anyone who has empathy and isn't sociopath like those that are all for that.

[Yukaphile]

Wha...? But... b-b-but I'm a left-winger! I'm hard left according to Slash! I should be in favor of hurting young boys! What gives?

[Mecha82]

Let's be honest. It's Slash. His not really worth wasting time on.