I think there is a good argument to be made for outing someone closeted who is using their power to oppress LGBT+ people, but there is also a trend of labeling any homophobic politician as being in the closet when a lot of them are just plain old bigots.
I’m sorry, but I must vehemently disagree. There is absolutely no reason to discuss publicly someone’s private sexual preferences. Otherwise, you have the society they want where witch-hunts can be started over rumors.
there is also a trend of labeling any homophobic politician as being in the closet
But if your oppressor is LGBTQ+ and oppressing you for being LGBTQ+ it is “rules for thee…”
Tell me I’m wrong, you nut.
Most importantly, in this case I don’t think we should be defending the rights of an oppressor over the rights of the oppressed.
Edit:
I could go on. The exact reason someone would not want to be outed is because of the social stigma created by the oppressor. So your stance is doubly absurd.
But if your oppressor is LGBTQ+ and oppressing you for being LGBTQ+ it is “rules for thee…”
Yes. He is "rules for thee…"ing you.
But when you out him you become the one not abiding by your own rules. Twice. Once for the outing, because you don’t want to be outed. And again for not holding yourself to your own standard of not having rules that don’t apply to you.
I don’t think we should be defending the rights of an oppressor over the rights of the oppressed.
If you think that some people don’t deserve to have their rights protected, then you are the oppressor.
I think there is a good argument to be made for outing someone closeted who is using their power to oppress LGBT+ people, but there is also a trend of labeling any homophobic politician as being in the closet when a lot of them are just plain old bigots.
I’m sorry, but I must vehemently disagree. There is absolutely no reason to discuss publicly someone’s private sexual preferences. Otherwise, you have the society they want where witch-hunts can be started over rumors.
That is also bad, and should not be tolerated.
If I’m being oppressed I would like to know if the thing I’m being opposed for is something my oppressor practices. That is called injustice.
It’s called none of your business. You can’t expect someone to adhere to a standard you refuse to recognize. It’s classic, “Rules for thee…”
But I can expect them to adhere to a standard they’re using to oppress me.
That is actually a different thing. And I agree, but you still shouldn’t be outing them.
Excuse me? Are you for, “rules for thee but not for me”? I cannot decipher your actual stance.
I can’t fathom why, when I’ve stated it multiple times in the clearest possibly English.
Don’t out anyone. No exceptions.
If you make exceptions then it’s you who is creating “rules for thee…”
But if your oppressor is LGBTQ+ and oppressing you for being LGBTQ+ it is “rules for thee…”
Tell me I’m wrong, you nut.
Most importantly, in this case I don’t think we should be defending the rights of an oppressor over the rights of the oppressed.
Edit:
I could go on. The exact reason someone would not want to be outed is because of the social stigma created by the oppressor. So your stance is doubly absurd.
Yes. He is "rules for thee…"ing you.
But when you out him you become the one not abiding by your own rules. Twice. Once for the outing, because you don’t want to be outed. And again for not holding yourself to your own standard of not having rules that don’t apply to you.
If you think that some people don’t deserve to have their rights protected, then you are the oppressor.
That is absolute bullshit. Youre just a troll, as it turns out.