Forum

Sakagami Tomoyo wrote:

I can only speculate as to why someone with a progressive mindset might move to such areas, but I would imagine it rarely involves them having much choice in the matter for one reason or another.

People generally move to the gulf region for cheaper housing and lower taxes. Anyone who moved here for "career" would have other choices in the matter. I would consider the number of minimum/low wage people that move this distance "because I needed to for job" to be so infintessimal as to be insignificant. (if only because no way does a company paying moving expenses for that and that alone could sap most of the pay someone makes)

Quote:

Christians have argued (and some extremists still do) that engaging in homosexual sex should be banned, or even that having the desire is grounds for locking up or otherwise punishing people.

Christians also have (and extremists still do) argued that adultery should be banned and even "thinking" adulterous thoughts is essentially committing the deed. And apparently it was technically illegal in Virginia until a court case in 2005. If the VAST majority of Christians were half as strident and loudly intolerant as they're made out to be then the US would look a LOT more like the Middle East. Do most Christians think "homosexuality" is wrong? Probably (polls are implying that this is declining). But guess what, there's literally DOZENS of strains of Christianity in the Western World and MOST of them also believe all the other ones are ALSO "wrong" and that a good chunk of them are probably going to hell, so what does it matter? They bully the homosexual kid in a pink tutu? Probably. They ALSO bully the heterosexual kid in the Naruto cosplay. They also bully the fat kid that stutters, and the gamer that has cheetos stained fingers, and a whole bunch of OTHER people that are DIFFERENT, and a bunch of those bullies aren't even Christians, they're just people bullying the "outsiders". They use Christianity as an excuse? ok, get rid of it and they'll just find another one.

Quote:

Broadly speaking people can say these things, and broadly speaking it's not okay

To quote my first year Philsophy instructor "ALL morality is arbitrary", as such WHO DECIDES what is "ok". The current (in the US) moniker to use for a certain ethnic group is "African American". What about people who are (point of fact) NOT "American"? I've read online comments from Brits that like to poke Americans on that by including a white guy in their group that is in fact AFRICAN and the rest are all Brits and then calling out Americans when they use the "standard" nomenclature.

And that's the core PROBLEM. People are a-holes. We ALL need more empathy. Are there people that hurl epithets in order to bully minority groups? Of course. Are there ALSO people like in the above example that are just looking for a fight/problem? Yes. How about if instead of ASSUMING the worst, we stopped and had a conversation about the issue to try to bring real understanding. Yes, some people will not be moved off hardline stances. But you'll PROBABLY get better results than "preaching" at everyone that they're wrong. It's not working for the Christians aiming at the homosexuals and its not really working in the other direction either.

HeeroTX wrote:

People generally move to the gulf region for cheaper housing and lower taxes.

If people are moving there because of the lower living expenses, it sounds like it's more of a need than a want.

HeeroTX wrote:

Do most Christians think "homosexuality" is wrong? Probably (polls are implying that this is declining). But guess what, there's literally DOZENS of strains of Christianity in the Western World and MOST of them also believe all the other ones are ALSO "wrong" and that a good chunk of them are probably going to hell, so what does it matter?

It matters because they're treating other people like crap, including people who have the same religion as them but differing on a few details, in the name of a religion which is theoretically all about being decent to other people.

HeeroTX wrote:

They bully the homosexual kid in a pink tutu? Probably. They ALSO bully the heterosexual kid in the Naruto cosplay. They also bully the fat kid that stutters, and the gamer that has cheetos stained fingers, and a whole bunch of OTHER people that are DIFFERENT, and a bunch of those bullies aren't even Christians, they're just people bullying the "outsiders". They use Christianity as an excuse? ok, get rid of it and they'll just find another one.

Just because they'll find another excuse is not a good reason to deny them this particular one. Keep knocking down their excuses, you'll whittle away at the number of people being intolerant. You'll never entirely eliminate them, but it's better than doing nothing and just letting a lot of them keep going at it. I just don't think it's a big ask to get Christians to add homosexuality to the list of things they were once dead set against but have come to accept as actually being okay.

HeeroTX wrote:

To quote my first year Philsophy instructor "ALL morality is arbitrary", as such WHO DECIDES what is "ok". The current (in the US) moniker to use for a certain ethnic group is "African American". What about people who are (point of fact) NOT "American"? I've read online comments from Brits that like to poke Americans on that by including a white guy in their group that is in fact AFRICAN and the rest are all Brits and then calling out Americans when they use the "standard" nomenclature.

There is no one person or group that decides what is okay and what isn't; it's a constant debate that society engages in to work these things out. In the case of said ethnic group, the problem is that many demand it to be used as a blanket replacement for "black", and thus disregards black people who are of African descent and have nothing to do with America, and black people who aren't of African descent (and usually don't have anything to do with America either). And, as mentioned, people born in Africa who aren't black. (And various other details, like how white American is still treated as the default/"real" American when there are Native Americans with a much better claim to being just called American than the European Americans.)

HeeroTX wrote:

And that's the core PROBLEM. People are a-holes. We ALL need more empathy. Are there people that hurl epithets in order to bully minority groups? Of course. Are there ALSO people like in the above example that are just looking for a fight/problem? Yes. How about if instead of ASSUMING the worst, we stopped and had a conversation about the issue to try to bring real understanding. Yes, some people will not be moved off hardline stances. But you'll PROBABLY get better results than "preaching" at everyone that they're wrong. It's not working for the Christians aiming at the homosexuals and its not really working in the other direction either.

Absolutely agreed that the ultimate root of the problem is that people are arseholes. And yes, what we should be doing is having conversations and trying to sort these things out reasonably. The trouble is that the homophobic Christians tend not to be willing to come to the negotiating table; all that's left is preaching and hoping to get through that way.

Sakagami Tomoyo wrote:

The trouble is that the homophobic Christians tend not to be willing to come to the negotiating table; all that's left is preaching and hoping to get through that way.

The core of your complaint can be distilled down to this, so let me offer you three examples of people:
-I know a Fundamentalist Christian woman that is really preachy as ****. A lot of people don't want to ever talk to or be around her (INCLUDING people that go to her church)
-I know a trans woman that is preachy as ****. A lot of people hate talking to her or needing to socialize with her (including people who 100% agree with her views)
-I know an moe fan that is preachy as ****. Most people don't want to engage them or otherwise go into a discussion with them (including a few OTHER moe fans)

Do you see the common narrative thread? I know other people that fall into the same groups as the 3 listed above that consistently have pleasant and intelligent discussions about a variety of topics, including sometimes the very issues in question and yet people still are willing to (and sometimes enjoy) talking to them. Why do you think that is?

But please, continue "preaching" at people you disagree with because you don't like how THEY "preach" at you. I'm sure that's bound to work EVENTUALLY. Rolling Eyes

Ah. To clarify then, I'm not advocating preaching to that extreme degree, and certainly not preaching as a default tactic or to use on everyone. More as sort of a last resort/counter to the preaching that sort of homophobe is likely to be doing about how the gays are evil or whatever.

And granted, odds are it won't change their minds, but traditionally people who are heavily discriminated against really do have to pull out all the stops to get through to the general public that maybe they do have the right to exist and be treated fairly.

Sakagami Tomoyo wrote:

More as sort of a last resort/counter to the preaching that sort of homophobe is likely to be doing about how the gays are evil or whatever.

And granted, odds are it won't change their minds, but traditionally people who are heavily discriminated against really do have to pull out all the stops to get through to the general public that maybe they do have the right to exist and be treated fairly.

Martin Luther King & Jackie Robinson turned opinions because it was difficult to DEMONIZE them. Attitudes towards LGBT people are changing because more and more people look around and realize they have a gay friend or a trans-neighbor or whatever and see that "hey, that person isn't so bad". It's EASY to demonize the "unknown". Being preachy HELPS those efforts because why would I have any reason to learn more about you if I can't stand listening to you or being around you because you're REALLY annoying.

It's actually my biggest issue with American politics today. Instead of discussing issues to find reasonable compromise solutions to our problems, the political parties just demonize the other side and each "team" calls the other "team" evil and we don't get anywhere productive.

It's time to get saucy. またやろぜ！！

As much as there's an elephant in the room that human thinking itself needs an evaluation, mainly because it's been proven that there's a lot of good and bad eggs in every basket these days, I honestly think Christianity as a whole needs a wake up call long due since the 1990s. While Lunar's still needing to recoil from that atrocious DS game and its own shoe it needs to put on its other foot regarding the "power of men" (like pollution, destroying the environment, turning science into its own creed than a craft of wonder and exploration, discarding morals and virtues because of the entitled delusion of "hey we're men we can do ANYTHING we want"), you'd think people these days would realize "hey, maybe we should reconsider our religion to not be so fearmongering and reliant on preying on misfortune", but nope. There's even the fact that the church itself needs to realize that much of its doctrines and creeds, including the Bible itself, have been widely warped over the course of time through political bents and self serving interests far from its original iteration and meanings. Not even the original teachings of Buddha are that warped.

As for banning Christianity as a whole from Japan, the Toyotomis and Tokugawas really knew what they were doing back then around the turn of the 17th Century. Nobunaga had a valiant vision where peoples of all creeds could come together peacefully, but let's be fair here: by that time the Aztecs were being wiped out by the Spaniards, the Incans were going to see Atahualpa executed even if they got the Treasure of the Langnatis together, and even into Japan, having a Christian version of the Ikko Ikki and learning that said foreign creed is actually hellbent on converting all they meet in the world with fear and force if they don't get their way is something to truly fear.

As for Answerman's choice picture of the topic, wow did he choose a right enough picture for this entire debacle.

HeeroTX wrote:

Martin Luther King & Jackie Robinson turned opinions because it was difficult to DEMONIZE them. Attitudes towards LGBT people are changing because more and more people look around and realize they have a gay friend or a trans-neighbor or whatever and see that "hey, that person isn't so bad". It's EASY to demonize the "unknown". Being preachy HELPS those efforts because why would I have any reason to learn more about you if I can't stand listening to you or being around you because you're REALLY annoying.

It's actually my biggest issue with American politics today. Instead of discussing issues to find reasonable compromise solutions to our problems, the political parties just demonize the other side and each "team" calls the other "team" evil and we don't get anywhere productive.

Granted, preaching is something that's amazingly easy to get very wrong and difficult to get right. And the "two extremes" nature of modern politics these days is certainly very problematic, and not just in the US. (Also arguably not exactly a new development but history repeating itself, but that's another discussion.)

However. Even if preaching does turn a number of people off, when you get preaching and/or propaganda from just one source, repetition and lack of an opposing viewpoint do eventually get through to people. Not everyone of course, but enough. Homophobic Christians aren't about to stop preaching, so the LGBTQI community and those who think they deserve a fairer go do need to speak up to improve things. As you say, attitudes change largely because people realise that people they know are queer and not actually the devil. But a key part of that is a lot of people being able to be openly queer, and to make that happen does take a certain amount of standing up and telling people that the homophobic stuff is BS.

mangamuscle wrote:

Because it is a warning that such a thing can happen in the near future in any christian country. Nowadays there is this sense of superiority "We christians do not breed terrorists, Islam is at fault" when the simple truth is that it is not the specific religion, but the lack of separation of church and state at blame

Well, technically, what breeds terrorism is the leaders of terrorist groups, who have their own personal reasons for starting them up in the first place. Of course, the point still stands that said leaders could potentially be of any religion popular enough to have at least a group of easily-influenced people and are naturally inclined toward violence.

FloozyGod wrote:

I'd like to hear from an Australian about "specific ways" in which U.S. law enforces Christian believe, but you didn't give any. The FIRST AMENDMENT of the the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The first one to come to mind are blue laws, which prohibit businesses from operating on Sundays unless they sell things considered necessary in an emergency. Where the line is drawn varies (some towns allow fuel stations to operate on Sundays because driving is considered necessary in an emergency, and some do not), but the basis for these laws is invariably Biblically inspired. They can be held up in court because there are secular reasons for the law, but it's pretty obvious that they're made to emulate Biblical law. (After all, why not any of the other six days of the week?)

HeeroTX wrote:

Sakagami Tomoyo wrote:

I can only speculate as to why someone with a progressive mindset might move to such areas, but I would imagine it rarely involves them having much choice in the matter for one reason or another.

People generally move to the gulf region for cheaper housing and lower taxes. Anyone who moved here for "career" would have other choices in the matter. I would consider the number of minimum/low wage people that move this distance "because I needed to for job" to be so infintessimal as to be insignificant. (if only because no way does a company paying moving expenses for that and that alone could sap most of the pay someone makes)

Interesting. I've known a few people who have moved from here in California to Texas, and the reason for all of them is the same: There is a specific company they want to work for, and it's located in Texas. Certainly, I know that Texas has a lot of businesses doing high-profile work, and I know that's also due to the lenient business laws and low business taxes in Texas.

(bold emphasis below added by me)

leafy sea dragon wrote:

Interesting. I've known a few people who have moved from here in California to Texas, and the reason for all of them is the same: There is a specific company they want to work for, and it's located in Texas.

Sure, but that's still entirely optional. I know people that feel the same way about California and/or NY. Heck, a BUNCH of voice actors have moved from Houston (and Dallas) to California "for work", but that's a choice they made. I'd say anyone who moves from TX to CA and then complains about the politics of the West Coast or expects them to change is a whiner who should've thought of that BEFORE they moved. The question is "what is more important to you?" career success or "quality of life"? There's plenty of people that quit high paying jobs because they hate the work/life balance.

It seems like every year there's stories about people that want to "live their dream" living in Japan, and are then brutally disabused of their notion that Japanese society will change the parts they don't like to accommodate them.

leafy sea dragon wrote:

mangamuscle wrote:

Because it is a warning that such a thing can happen in the near future in any christian country. Nowadays there is this sense of superiority "We christians do not breed terrorists, Islam is at fault" when the simple truth is that it is not the specific religion, but the lack of separation of church and state at blame

Well, technically, what breeds terrorism is the leaders of terrorist groups, who have their own personal reasons for starting them up in the first place. Of course, the point still stands that said leaders could potentially be of any religion popular enough to have at least a group of easily-influenced people and are naturally inclined toward violence.

What you and many people do not realize is that in countries where there is no separation of church and state, the official religion is in charge of education and before they know how to read and write children are teach to follow "the word of God", that is the reason islam is such a fertile ground for manipulation, even if you are not a cleric you only need to quote words from the book of their faith and many people will do normally unthinkable things.

Before you say "but that will never happen here", what do you think is the objective of the educational vouchers the republicans have championed for years? To make private education the new normal and by private I mean owned or controlled by religious organizations". It would take time, but hey, 20 years ago it was unthinkable that the new normal would be to have gestapo surveillance at airports (that could have been easily prevented with locked cockpits like european flights had for decades).

* By religious organizations I mostly mean evangelicals.

leafy sea dragon wrote:

Interesting. I've known a few people who have moved from here in California to Texas, and the reason for all of them is the same: There is a specific company they want to work for, and it's located in Texas. Certainly, I know that Texas has a lot of businesses doing high-profile work, and I know that's also due to the lenient business laws and low business taxes in Texas.

I live in California purely because the property I own is here, and being a landlord for dozens of tenants is easier when done locally. Although it's not as if California is lacking in right-leaning people or communities, especially the further away from Los Angeles and San Francisco you get. My family is for the most part right-leaning, though not religious.

Religion (not just Christianity, but almost all of them) is just one reason people might oppose homosexuality or trans people. I've met plenty of people who are either neutral or against them despite not being religious. Funnily enough, I've met gay/bi people who hate trans people. Ideologies come in all types, and don't fit into neat boxes.

-Stuart Smith

Stuart Smith wrote:

You must not talk to a lot of athiests then. Whenever a church gets shot up, lots of people gleefully dance in celebration, if they weren't the ones doing it in the first place. Churchs are the targets for a lot of attacks.

You definitely do not talk to a lot of atheists. Or rather, you probably don't realize that many of the nice people you talk to every day are atheist.

There's really not a lot available for people to tell the difference between a non-vocal atheist and a non-vocal believer. Most people don't run around saying "I'M ATHEIST!" or "I'M CHRISTIAN!"

The only people who gleefully celebrate when a place of worship, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other, are complete and utter not-so-nice-people. Every religion is full of not-so-nice-people, as is atheism, there are Christians who say "good riddance" when a mosque is shot up too. Said not-so-nice-people are not representative of others who share the same faith (or lack thereof).

Quote:

The recent Digimon game has Sistermon removed from the US version because she is based on a nun

Actually, you've got it backwards. There are several instances of believers getting angry with Japanese cultural imports because of the portrayal of their faith or holy symbols in said imports. Sometimes that anger was very reasonable, other times it was pretty silly. Regardless, as a result of those incidents, Japanese companies have started removing religious references from their localisations (or asking licensees to do it). When Christian symbols are removed from anime, it's because they're worried about offending Christians.