• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Pentagon to Allow Transgender Individuals to Enlist Despite Trump Objections

I don't know too much about Australian geography but I think Perth was the most vulnerable. I've heard that Perth is geographically isolated and small enough where everybody knows your business. Is there any truth to that?

I've not heard that before - i think darwin was the most at risk, and they were bombed by japanese in WWII - but you're right in saying perth is very isolated.
Definitely got a bit of a 'small town complex' - but some people like that, i guess.

There was actually a plan to give up the top half (or thereabouts) of australia to japan for a while there during the war - things were not looking good. I grew up in perth, and it's a fucking long way from anywhere (except, y'know wilderness and farm land. It's not a bad part of the world).

But yeah, the ANZUS Treaty has seen australia join in virtually every american theatre of war since then - something that i think we really need to reassess that blank cheque of support for american wars; too many problematic things have happened in the last couple of decades, and i can't see the yanks coming to our aid again. We don't have enough oil (we steal it from the Timor Sea :\)
 
Edit: they do deserve human rights and respect, just like any other person. I never said they didn't.
 
Last edited:
so the implication of your comment is what exactly?

forget 'back in the closet'. trump and all his vile supporters need get in the bin.
 
so the implication of your comment is what exactly?

forget 'back in the closet'.
Public expressions of sexuality should go back into the closet. This includes heterosexual couples.

If this is not agreeable, then I will go the other direction and say being naked in public is not a crime, and neither is having sex in public, however and with whomever (consenting) you want. Public masturbation is hereby permissable.
trump and all his vile supporters need get in the bin.
Specifically, you may not...post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason"
 
Public expressions of sexuality should go back into the closet. This includes heterosexual couples.

Why? What is wrong with public expressions of sexuality? Surely not what you wrote below!

If this is not agreeable, then I will go the other direction and say being naked in public is not a crime, and neither is having sex in public, however and with whomever (consenting) you want. Public masturbation is hereby permissable.

I don't belive that sort of slippery slope argument works. What we are doing is trying to understand a natural expression of human gender and sexuality. We are not trying to introduce things into our society that do not naturally arise, such as public masturbation or public sex. We are not discarding our moral taboos on everything, just embracing a select few persistent and unavoidable truths heretofore considered taboo. Your fear of sudden overwhelming impropriety appears to be a huge exagerration with no particular logical basis. I'd be curious as to how you would substantiate this concern.

Specifically, you may not...post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason"

That's simply ridiculous B_P. I think its quite clear what BLUA RULE 4 is referring to, and its not that. You are stretching the meaning of it into absurdity. I really wonder what your point is. 8(
 
Last edited:
Specifically, you may not...post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason"

That rule is only for me and other conservative leaning individuals. Those with trump derangement syndrome get a pass bc Drumpf is like literally Hitler!!!
 
That rule is only for me and other conservative leaning individuals. Those with trump derangement syndrome get a pass bc Drumpf is like literally Hitler!!!

745.jpg
 
I can't answer your question ali, because I can't speak for other people...

but here you are, two sentences later, doing exactly that:

I don't think a single person in this thread or forum hates transgender people...

if you don't want to answer the question or discuss these issues in more general terms that's fine but you seem happy to do it from your perspective:

Hate isn't a product of ignorance and fear, and to think it is, is illogical and unreasonable.
this seems to be exactly the kind of generalisation you tell me i should not be making.

I think its presumptuous to think that people who argue contrary to transgender issues are hateful.
maybe not consciously.

alasdair
 
Sometimes i feel like i'm sitting in a nursing home, humouring some old codger farting on about kids these days...

Except , that's not fair on elderly people - they're not all "conservatives". I like having fun, getting nakes, having sex, taking drugs.
I assume others do too. Some like different drugs to me, or different sex than me - but i'm a balanced, happy, open person - so i don't resent or judge anyone for that, and i don't see why anyone would, if nobody is getting hurt.

So often, i see "conservatives" happy to justify and rationalise some pretty disturbing shit; war, sexual abuse and all forms of hate.

But when people are just trying to live their lives and find happiness in whatever way works for them - out come the snide, cryptic remarks.

Are you actually going to articulate your postition here, b_p? Or is "get back in the closet" as good as you're going to offer?

See - the closet's full, mate.
It's full of closet nazis. And closet paedophiles, and closet incest freaks. Actually - sorry, my mistake, it's just donald trump. He's a fat old cunt isn't he?

The closet thing is crap, so I've got a better mantra for you; mind your own fucking business. It's pretty simple, and it means people can do whatever the fuck makes them happy. I think the yanks call that "freedom", or some bullshit.
I just call it "not being as arsehole".
<3
 
FYI: This has already gone way off track. My original two controversial statements were: Transgender people have a mental illness, and mental illness should not be normalized. And second, that public displays of sexuality are a manifestation of depravity and should be discouraged. That's my stance, attack that, and not make up stuff about hate, and implying that I disagreeing with fundamental human rights or understanding for trans people. That treacherous display is often seen spacejunk, and I resent that.

Why? What is wrong with public expressions of sexuality? Surely not what you wrote below!
If this is not agreeable, then I will go the other direction and say being naked in public is not a crime, and neither is having sex in public, however and with whomever (consenting) you want. Public masturbation is hereby permissable.

My point with this is, the arguments being used for normalizing behaviors that were once taboo, could potentially be argued for other paraphilias that are currently against the law. I would argue that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and not inched further and further into accepting various paraphilias as acceptable and normal in society. I don't want groups like NAMBLA or the incest & necrophilia advocates to be covered under the same human rights protections as the LGBT folks are.
What is gross and abnormal to rest of society, is fine and acceptable in their eyes, much like how homosexuality and transgenders were before the 70s. However through years of public attention and normalization, these are now 'brave and heroic' individuals for stepping forth, getting tremendous coverage through the media - despite being a small population group.

I don't belive that sort of slippery slope argument works. What we are doing is trying to understand a natural expression of human gender and sexuality. We are not trying to introduce things into our society that do not naturally arise, such as public masturbation or public sex. We are not discarding our moral taboos on everything, just embracing a select few persistent and unavoidable truths heretofore considered taboo. Your fear of sudden overwhelming impropriety appears to be a huge exagerration with no particular logical basis. I'd be curious as to how you would substantiate this concern.
First of all, I don't have a fear of a sudden overwhelming impropriety arising out of no where, it takes time to implement a controversial change, like decriminalizing public nudity. Second, that exaggeration is because I could imagine a society where everyone can still go about their day, even if public nudity and public masturbation was destigmatized, where its normal to walk around nude and pleasure yourself without harming anyone else. People can't help being born naked, and by virtue of human rights and self-expression, one shouldn't be punished for walking around naked. Its the people who do not understand that need to be educated and become more tolerant of our natural human bodies.
I just think it is going in the wrong direction. Others will think its going in the correct direction, and to them I ask: What is their end game?



That's simply ridiculous B_P. I think its quite clear what BLUA RULE 4 is referring to, and its not that. You are stretching the meaning of it into absurdity. I really wonder what your point is. 8(
I am not streatching its meaning. Trump supporters are a group, implying that they should go to the bin is derogatory. As are feminists, nazis, liberals, conservatives, racialists, and any other group you can think of. As long as hate isn't promoted on the boards, they should have their say, so that an informed discussion can happen on both sides, without resorting to fallacies, deception, and other malicious tricks.
 
but here you are, two sentences later, doing exactly that:

ali, I think you're mistaken in understanding what I wrote. I can't speak for other people because doing so would take away their voice, yes this is right. But that second part i'm speaking about my own impressions i've gathered from reading the posts by other people. I don't think people in this thread, or in this forum hate transgender people because I have not seen evidence to show that they do hate them. If I said that people do or don't hate transgender people, then I would be speaking for them. I do see a lot of people projecting in this forum and speaking as if they definitively know the thoughts and intentions of other people. I've pointed out this issue in another thread.

if you don't want to answer the question or discuss these issues in more general terms that's fine but you seem happy to do it from your perspective:
I'm a bit confused by your statement, how is being happy to talk about issues from my own perspective, in lack of a better word not-desirable? Our own perspectives is the primary way of talking about the issues.
Despite its irrelevance to this topic, I'll try to answer your question... but i'll have to refer to myself, and hope that my understanding of what I think hate is, will generalize to the rest of the rationally thinking, human population/

This question is almost as difficult to answer as "what is love?" Rarely do I feel hatered, but its one of the many range of emotions I'm am thankful to feel as a complex human being blessed with intellect and joy for life. When it comes to matter of love of hate, I'm of the impression they are opposites. Unlike fear, which is non-mutually exclusive with the negative emotions of hate. Hate is felt when a situation is so unfavorable to myself, that it deserves my focus, and is difficult to retreat from it. Much like love, when a situation is so favorable to me, that it deserves my wholehearted attention.
Fear is the aversion of the situation.
Ignorance is just not having the right amount of information, which seems neutral.




ali said:
b_p said:
Hate isn't a product of ignorance and fear, and to think it is, is illogical and unreasonable.
this seems to be exactly the kind of generalisation you tell me i should not be making.
I am not convinced that hate is a product of fear and ignorance. Saying that hate is a product of fear and ignorance, is assuming that its true in all cases; which is not the case. Fear is its own emotion, and ignorance is a state of being uninformed. Someone who is uninformed and fearful, isn't hateful, it's something else. Its these little deviations from our common understanding of words and their meanings that, I believe, is devaluing our language and causing chaos in debates. How can I argue with someone, when we don't agree on the same definitions of the words we use? Might as well think that all hope is lost if we cannot communicate with eachother effectively, and resort to meaningless screeches and grunts. (yes, I used another exaggeration 8))

It is illogical and unreasonable to think hate is a product of ignorance and fear because believing so would be irrational. Rationality is defined as "the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic." I don't see the logic between linking ignorance and fear to hate. But I am perceptive enough to understand that people who react, do it based on a whole slew of emotions that can be interpreted by others as ignorance and fear.

maybe not consciously.
What's your argument?
 
Sometimes i feel like i'm sitting in a nursing home, humouring some old codger farting on about kids these days...

You're being very condescending by saying this among the people you're supposed to respect and debate. How are we supposed to respond when you feel like you're sitting in a nursing home, humoring old codgers... Indirectly, someone could attribute that you're also ridiculing folks this way, especially if your comment was to be taken as if the folks on this forum are behaving like old codgers. Not to mention your snide comment that homophones and racists are getting old and dying.

You're purposefully creating a hosile atmosphere by mentioning these generalities.
Fortunately, a lot of homophobes and racists are getting old and dying.
Except , that's not fair on elderly people - they're not all "conservatives".
These statements are simply inflammatory. Why are all your arguments based on homophobia and racism? You seem obsessed with issues dealing with sex, race, and identity politics and appear to bring it into every single argument.


I like having fun, getting nakes, having sex, taking drugs.
I assume others do too. Some like different drugs to me, or different sex than me - but i'm a balanced, happy, open person - so i don't resent or judge anyone for that, and i don't see why anyone would, if nobody is getting hurt.
I'm aslo a balanced, happy, and open person!
I don't know how you are in person, but you appear very judgemental on this forum. You don't appear judgemental on those issues that also apply to yourself, but you do seem very judgemental against anyone taking a contrary position to liberal and left politics. Going as far as suggesting people who have certain opinions are racist and homophobic, when nothing of that sort was present.

So often, i see "conservatives" happy to justify and rationalise some pretty disturbing shit; war, sexual abuse and all forms of hate.
You have a misguided conception of what conservativism is. I could say the same thing about liberals rationalizing some pretty disturbing shit, normalizing corruption of social norms, encouraging immoral behaviors, and destabilizing the foundations of nations.

But when people are just trying to live their lives and find happiness in whatever way works for them - out come the snide, cryptic remarks.
Life isn't all about hedonism, there are other facets of life that are worth preserving.

Are you actually going to articulate your postition here, b_p? Or is "get back in the closet" as good as you're going to offer?
Which position do you want me to articulate on? This discussion was on transgenders being allowed into the military, my position was that the military has medical standards, and transgenders have a significant abnormality, which is primarily psychological. Their condition is significant enough to affect behavioral, cognitive and emotional patterns; and this is a risk in military operations. Especially that transgender issues, their neurology, psychology, and other biological factors are still unknown to science. People with a mental disorder can and do lead normal lives, some of those with Down syndrome have perfectly normal IQs, but still happen to have the physical characteristics. That doesn't mean that having Down syndrome should be normalized, and taught that these people are privileged or special. They have a disorder that they cannot help having, their lives can be made more accommodating, but ignoring that they have a condition, and treating them as if they are normal people is polite, but to make it acceptable for people to have some kind of disorder is fundamentally wrong. I'd be more accepting of finding cures or the causes of these disorders, rather than normalizing transgender people as something normal.

See - the closet's full, mate.
It's full of closet nazis. And closet paedophiles, and closet incest freaks. Actually - sorry, my mistake, it's just donald trump. He's a fat old cunt isn't he?[/quote]
This is offensive to those who are fat, old, and cunts.

Specifically, you may not...post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason


Mind your own business when it comes to anything that doesn't concern you. If you have borderline personality disorder, and identify with everything/nothing, then i'm sorry you've been afflicted with such a condition. I hope that the doctors and scientists will one day be able to find a cure. Meanwhile, i'm glad you are still able to stay happy, balanced, and open minded. :)
 
I want to chime in (without mentioning names) that they seem perpetually outraged, lacking any sense of humor or warmth..but it is easy to misread a personality based upon their politics that are opposite one's own. My point is...let's stay on topic and not analyze each other. <3
 
People often fear what they don't understand. And people often end up hating what they fear.

But while both fear and ignorance can lead to hate. With groups like homosexuals and such, I tend to think ignorance is the cause far more often than fear.

Few people fear gays or trans people. But most people are ignorant of them. Ignorant of the kind of people they are, why they make the choices they do, and do the things they do. And all that ignorance is how people turn groups of humans into 'them and us'.

And not understanding people frequently leads to hate. It's probably the most common cause of hate.

Most people in the world are fundamentally good, not evil. And humans in general tend to have similar core moral beliefs wherever you go.

The reason most people hate any other group of people is they don't understand all the reasons for who and what they are and how those reasons make them alike.

A left wing tolerant kinda person would generally like to believe they could never be a racist. But in truth, in another life they could well have wound up a racist had their lives gone different. Both them and your average racist have their reasons for who they are. And those reasons aren't that they're just fundamentally bad evil people. Most people aren't.

In a strange way, I often envy the ignorant haters. There are many groups of people that frustrate me and cause problems for me. But I can't hate them because I know why they do it. It would be so much easier if I were ignorant and could just fill in the gaps with ignorance and just hate them.

I've spent a lot of time among ultra right and ultra left wing groups, seeing how they behave when they think they're among their own kind. What amazes me is how similar they are. They are only enemies because they don't understand how alike they are. They are ignorant.

Imagine if we made every homophobe live among a close circle of gay people like family for a year.

People always talk about how they have gay friends or trans friends, but that's not the same. It's not the same if you have one or two gay friends and almost never talk about gay rights with them, that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about say, a homophobe having to spend a year living exclusively with a group of gay rights activists, being compelled by social pressure to fit in with them and appear to be one of them.

Sure, many would still not agree by the end, but I'd bet they'd be a lot more understanding.

I often find myself feeling very conflicted. Cause I grew up around extreme right wing types like family, seemingly one of them. Then as an adult I made friends with and have lived for a long time with many people who were ultra left wing.

Obviously I have my own beliefs and disagreements, but the point is, no matter how much either sides behavior and beliefs might infuriate me, I just can't bring myself to hate either, even though they are so opposed to each other. Because I understand them. I understand what they think andwhat they're trying to do in a way you'll only know if you've had little choice but to spend extensive time with people like that and learn to live with them.

It would be so much easier if I were more ignorant of one side and could just hate them like I see others do.

So my point ultimately is I wonder how different the world would be if everyone were made to have such personal insight into the groups of people they think they hate.

Fear can lead to hate, but I think ignorance is the primary cause of hate. Because most people are ordinary humans with reasons for their beliefs. Flaws and good sides, and if you had to see all of it. You wouldn't be able to hate them.

Most people aren't fundamentally evil, and I don't think there are many people that most people could continue to hate if they truly understood them.

Continue to disagree yes. But hate, hate requires either ignorance of the person or people you hate, or for the person or people you hate to truly be bad, horrible evil people. And the latter is almost never the case.

Ignorance is what breeds hate. Far more than fear ever could.
 
What about the opinion of believing that being LGBTQIA is having a mental illness?

Homosexuality is no longer classified as a psychiatric disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), which reflect empirical evidence that homosexuality is not inherently linked to psychopathology. Homosexuals are more likely to experience psychological problems such as depression or anxiety as a result from stigma and prejudice.

See for an interesting discussion about the history and attitudes about homosexuality in the mental health field.
 
excellent post jessfr. very well put.

Yep, great post. I agree with the idea of prejudice being born of ignorance more than visceral hatred. But it doesn't need to be. Ignorance should probably amount to a blank canvas upon which experience creates rather than assumptions or heresay.

Don't know if I made sense there. Um.
 
This piece on the relationship between cruelty and the nuances of "other" is very timely.

I'm trying to be mindful of the request for opinions and providing interesting cited content. :\

Sociological experiments like the ones below that reveal the heart of darkness in each of us are fascinating.
All quotes except the last below are excerpts from the first link.

Why humans are cruel

Why are human beings so cruel to each other? And how do we justify acts of sheer inhumanity?

The conventional explanation is that people are able to do terrible things to other people only after having dehumanized them. In the case of the Holocaust, for example, Germans were willing to exterminate millions of Jews in part because Nazi ideology taught them to think of Jews as subhuman, as objects without the right to freedom, dignity, or even life itself.

Paul Bloom, a psychology professor at Yale, thinks this explanation of human cruelty is, at best, incomplete. I spoke to him about why he thinks its wrong to assume cruelty comes from dehumanization — and about his grim conclusion that almost anyone is capable of committing staggering atrocities under the right circumstances...

Sean Illing

Can you sum up your argument about the roots of human cruelty?

Paul Bloom

A lot of people blame cruelty on dehumanization. They say that when you fail to appreciate the humanity of other people, that’s where genocide and slavery and all sorts of evils come from. I don’t think that’s entirely wrong...

You can’t humiliate animals — only people. So dehumanization is real and terrible, but it’s not the whole picture.

Paul Bloom

Think about it this way: We’re all sensitive to social hierarchies and to a desire for approval and esteem. So we often fold to the social pressures of our environment. That’s not necessarily evil. I come into my job as a professor and I want to do well, I want the respect of my peers. There’s nothing wrong about that.

But our desire to do well socially can have an ugly side. If you can earn respect by helping people, that’s great. If you can earn respect by physically dominating people with aggression and violence, that’s destructive. So a lot depends on our social environment and whether it incentivizes good or bad behavior.

This applies to so many threads going on here: the essential argument is that the cruelty is partially the result of a dysfunctional society, as opposed to simply dysfunctional people. (Don't get me wrong. There are definitely a few dysfunctional posters.)

Paul Bloom

...We have this horrible tendency to overestimate the extent to which we're the moral standouts, we're the brave ones. This has some nasty social consequences. There was a great article that came out in the Washington Post last week about people who say, “I'm confused about the people who have been sexually assaulted, because if it happened to me, I would say no way, and I would put the person in their place, and I would speak out.”

This attitude is oftentimes scorn towards people who get harassed. They’re somehow morally weak, or maybe they’re just not telling the truth.

It turns out that one of my colleagues, Marianne LaFrance, did a study a while ago in which they asked a group of people, “How would you feel if you had a job interview and someone asked you these really sexist, ugly questions?”

Just about everybody says, “I would walk out. I would give the person hell,” and so on. Then they did it. They did fake interviews where people thought they were being interviewed, and people asked the sexist, ugly questions, and all of the women were just silent.

The point is that we don’t behave in stressful situations the way we think we would or the way we would like to. So yeah, if you and I were in Nazi Germany, we’d like to think we’d be the righteous ones, we’d be the heroes. But we might just be regular old Nazis.

There are so many clever sociological experiments that show people don't behave the way they self-righteously claim they will. The results, as the famous Stanford Prisoner Experiment that was halted after six days so elegantly illustrated, scare people and they should. The "guards" were also traumatized upon finding out what they were capable of doing to the "prisoners". More information about Stanford Prisoner Experiment, including the book, film, and documentary It has a great FAQ page to orient yourself

Although it's a different thread, seeing the reactions here of males to women recounting (we're aren't in court, just 'so-called judging') their experiences of sexual harassment and abuse automatically leads to males accusing women of lying for some reason. The "here's what I would have done" attitude is also apparent. Frighteningly accurate.

Women also bring their own baggage to judging other women, as well.

See Roy Moore for the 'power of denial' and being a generally horrible human being.

(I'm addressing male-to-female abuse because the thread does. Males reporting abuse is also a complex topic.)

Another great experiment that could not be done today due to ethical considerations was done by a teacher named Jane Elliott. It's known as the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Experiment. It shows how discrimination impacts performance (unsurprisingly it's negative. Surprisingly it can be seen in two days.) The Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes Follow-Up shows that it's not just an Aryan thing. ;)

A Class Divided

Elliott divided her class by eye color — those with blue eyes and those with brown. On the first day, the blue-eyed children were told they were smarter, nicer, neater, and better than those with brown eyes. Throughout the day, Elliott praised them and allowed them privileges such as a taking a longer recess and being first in the lunch line. In contrast, the brown-eyed children had to wear collars around their necks and their behavior and performance were criticized and ridiculed by Elliott. On the second day, the roles were reversed and the blue-eyed children were made to feel inferior while the brown eyes were designated the dominant group.

What happened over the course of the unique two-day exercise astonished both students and teacher. On both days, children who were designated as inferior took on the look and behavior of genuinely inferior students, performing poorly on tests and other work. In contrast, the “superior” students — students who had been sweet and tolerant before the exercise — became mean-spirited and seemed to like discriminating against the “inferior” group.

“I watched what had been marvelous, cooperative, wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders in a space of fifteen minutes,” says Elliott. She says she realized then that she had “created a microcosm of society in a third-grade classroom.”

It's amazing how quickly the results of discrimination impacted the class members. Long-term effects on the students are also discussed.

The participants in these experiments are affected by what they see themselves doing, whether in the receiving or giving end.

------------

Transgender individuals couldn't be more "other" and it's apparent that people fit their 'truths' to the desired outcome.

-----------

Seeing Roy Moore supporters change their opinion about 'what matters' as the revelations poured out (mostly of Moore's own mouth) was twisted, to say the least. No one should forget Trump and the GOP were shameless in their support of Moore. The party of family values showed its true colors and they are ugly.

-----------
There's also a great back-and-forth about the attitudes of white supremacists in there, although it's worth mentioning that the chant is also "Jews will not replace us".

------------
I think this article is very applicable to CE&P. Each participant creates the environment here, and it can force others into a reactive position. :\
 
Last edited:
>>A left wing tolerant kinda person

This is a myth. I mean I grew up thinking the left was tolerant and understanding. They aren't. Lefties (if I can generalize and I will) are among the most self righteous, pompous, arrogant, just downright mean people to anyone who does not think or vote like them.
 
Top