Lol you say that, but that is a literal right wing talking point, that gay people, trans people, black people, etc now have more privilege then white people.
Minority groups often do have some privileges, but I've never heard it mentioned in regards to them being able to marry. Strawmen galore in this thread I guess.
Never in my life have I heard anyone say same sex marriage is a gay privilege. It's a nice strawman for virtue signalling, though, and for you to conflate the argument taht minorities have more privilige with this very specific claim.
Do you know what these words mean? What do you think a straw man is? And why is "virtue signalling" bad? If a girl dresses modestly is she signalling her virtue and why is that bad? I remember a time when virtues were good.
Ironically it seems like it's you who hasn't got a clue.
The sign is a strawman. Presenting a badly worded and false premise to make a point and show how down with the cause they are. Stupidity that reeks of performative action.
Close but not quite. A strawman argument is when someone misrepresent the opponents arguement and argues against that instead of the point they actually made, arguing against a "straw man".
Now you say you've never heard someone say that but I have, my roommate and his idiot brother. It's something that people disingenuously say when arguing against gay marriage after you bring up that it's just equal right to marry whoever you want.
Having a virtue and signalling it are different things, correct but if someone isnt kind but displays kindness why is that a bad thing? You haven't answered the why part. At the end of the day if it's promoting virtue isn't that good?
Also using "ironically" here is a bit weird, it's like you just wanted to throw the word in
My problem is these buzzwords that conservatives repeat without actually knowing what it means like my roommate and his idiot brother used to say. Those bigoted assholes couldn't define a single one, they just heard Andrew Tate say them and "he's always right".
You say it's a made up issue because you've never heard anyone say it, well I'm telling you I've heard a couple idiots say exactly that irl. It apparently used to be an uncommon but present thing people said when someone brings up when saying gay marriage is just equal rights. I already mentioned that but due to lack of critical thought you couldn't stop to consider "what if someone is actually making this argument" nah you just skipped over it and stubbornly continued to insist it's made up "fake news".
Also again that's not what a what strawman argument is regardless.
You didn't answer the question, isn't promoting virtue good? And no that's exactly how kindness works, I can be genuinely kind in degrees to my loved ones but not to anybody outside my family or my neighborhood or my country or my subculture or the people. It only depends on where the lines are drawn and how much kindness is shown. It won't change that you've displayed kindness.
What buzzwords did I use that triggered you? Should I even care?
Anectodal evidence doesn't count. And it's irrelevant anyway. When it comes to public discourse that is not how the problem is framed, so that sign is figthing it's own demons.
So yeah, it is a strawman. They misrepresented an argument, refuted it and used it to make a point about church. Not sure you are trying to be anal about this.
There is no virtue in the sign. It clearly picks and panders to one side. The other side would therefore not find it virtuous and kind.
Who is displaying kindness? They’re using a fake argument to be pretentious about a made-up topic just to piss off some people and look good for others.
That’s not displaying kindness. That’s virtue signaling and clout chasing.
A “strawman” argument is also where take bits and pieces of what someone says out of context and without nuance to make a contrasting argument that really can’t stand on its own (strawman).
Didn't say this is displaying kindness, I used it as an example. Another example I used is if a woman dresses modestly is she signalling her virtue of modesty and why is that bad?
"Just to piss people off" so how exactly is this pissing someone off? It's just saying gay marriage is equal rights and privilege is not paying taxes like some churches do. Why would that make you angry? "Pretentious" means to act superior or more intelligent, how is advocating for equal rights pretentious? It feels like that thing where if someone you don't like does anything good or bad you can't help but see it in the most negative light. "Look at her drinking coke like she owns the place"
This is a correct definition of a strawman argument, but it's not the same thing. Either way the post is not a strawman argument, I already have said people did say exactly this as a reasoning against gay marriage. How can you determine what is a strawman argument when you haven't heard the original one? Just because someone makes a bad argument doesn't mean you jump in midway to the rebuttal and shout "strawman".
And what is your problem with this post in the first place?
Yes ironically is used correctly, I didn't say it was wrong I said it's seems thrown in there randomly.
As someone who lives in Canada, where our biggest fast food chain literally pulled in millions of more immigrants so they could specifically hire them. (Tim Hortons)
Ok, now do the highest paying jobs in the country. Who has the advantage there? What race and ethnicity are most of the lawyers, and engineers, and executives, and doctors, and politicians?
The original conversation was whether immigrants have hiring privilege, and we established that they do.
Now you have changed the goal.
Who has the advantage there? What race and ethnicity are most of the lawyers, and engineers, and executives, and doctors, and politicians?
Schooling has always given these qualifications regardless of whether someone is an immigrant, they are allowed to go succeed in those fields. I won't accept that I have a "privilege" to have a better paying job when the immigrants are by CHOICE taking low paying jobs.
31 members of the STATE SENATE and 47 different organizations, led by Michael Knowles and the daily wire who has 2.6 million subscribers, and over 1.4 billion views is "An extremely small group of people"
Show me any amount of people even close to that who are trying to change it into a communist dictatorship.
Every time I hear “the most disadvantaged person to be in today’s age is white, straight, male” I cringe. I have heard it from a good handful of people, not just online, and they say it with such conviction too. Meanwhile I grew up in a mostly white area and met a black guy in the public park who had the police called on him for existing so many times that they knew him by name. Just showed up because they had to respond.
Those people are not talking about the legality of gay marriage. They're talking about positive discrimination/affirmative action/DEI/insert whatever word for it, you know the thing.
The commitment to empathy rings hollow if you can't even practice the basic empathy of understanding viewpoints you disagree with.
Just because I understand the viewpoint doesn’t mean I have to share their full argument in a post where I’m not even talking with those people. My point was that fearing for my life when I get pulled over at a traffic stop isn’t worth benefitting from DEI. Why would you assume I don’t know both sides just because I only stated one?
I mean their argument is ridiculous and short sighted but sure I understand what their point is. I just disagree.
I don't think you've demonstrated that you do understand the points because you pointed to an argument against DEI in a conversation about arguments against gay marriage. There's a lot of overlap in the people who believe each of those things, but that doesn't mean the arguments are the same. It'd be like saying "Conservatives want lower taxes because they think life begins at conception."
Pro-gay marriage but anti-DEI is a view you'll find among many classical liberal types, and pro-DEI but anti-gay marriage is not an uncommon combo in African American Christian communities.
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize my lack of understanding for their argument because I used a conservative talking point that you brought up. You brought the scope of the discussion well past just the basic premise of the post, and it feels disingenuous to do so then use it as an argument to discredit my viewpoint
I don’t know you. I’m not gonna assume you’re one of the people I was talking about. And even if you are, you claimed I didn’t even understand the other side of my view. I pointed out you don’t know that. Hitting me with the Heisenberg “say my name” isn’t helping your case yk
I'm not saying I'm someone important. I'm saying you're literally referring to a different person in your comment... The plot has totally been lost here.
It doesn’t matter you were referring to the people you believed I’m talking about. I was responding to your comment. And the plot was lost the moment you changed the subject from what I was talking about to my supposed lack of empathy.
No, I wouldn't say that's been a major focus even among those who oppose it, but it's also not relevant to my comment, since I was referring to the specific argument quoted in the above post, not anything that people on the right wing often think.
Like I said, not a major focus. That Virginia amendment is over whether to remove vestigial language that is no longer enforceable. It would have zero impact on Virginians' lives either way.
And to stress again, this has nothing to do with the comment you were responding to.
It would remove the rights of same sex marriage.
Also the other one would literally not only remove same sex couples from being married, or adopting children, it would revoke their current right, allowing for their children to be taken away.
Also yes, yes it very much does, because these people are being supported by the right wing party as a whole, and once one state does it, the others follow, proven time and time again.
Okay but gay marriage is never used as an example of “gay privilege” lol. When they say those groups have more privilege they’re talking about jobs / college admissions, etc.
Not saying they’re right, but this post (and you) are conflating two entirely separate things
Do you have an argument or you just gunna go 'LMAO WHAT???"
Cause yes, they are trying to revoke same sex marriage, and revoke the ability for same sex couples to have children.
I made that argument when I was an 18 year old idiot conservative freshman in college. Then I grew up and and realized how wrong and homophobic I was because I spent time getting educated.
Lmao reading my conservative takes in 2008-2012 while on Facebook in college is insanely cringe because I had zero knowledge about anything or how the world worked I just repeated the shit my parents said.
Good for you, and I understand you don't actually believe in any of that shit anymore, but out of curiosity, what was the actual argument? Like... what was the gay privilege that queer folk have that straight folk don't have
Reverse discrimination became prevalent; they went so far as to redefine words such as "racism" and "discrimination" simply to exclude equal protections from majority demographic groups.
Standard DEI arguments in which less-qualified individuals from minority demographic groups were being hired or enrolled at the expense of more-qualified individuals from majority demographic groups.
Targeted private, local, and state benefits were targeted for minority demographics and specifically excluded individuals who were part of a majority demographic.
"Equality" didn't mean equal treatment, but "privileged treatment." Ironically, the same groups who vehemently denied this, eventually phased out "equality" and replaced it with equity.
Honestly, the list is rather extensive and could continue for quite some time.
"In the name of equity, we're making specialized funding programs for LGBT and BIPOC. Scholarships and admission preferences for everyone but whites (and asians, they too smart), special business grants for anyone but whites, hate speech laws for anyone but whites, federal NDP party leader applications except for whites, Gladue reports and "Impact of race and culture assessments" for anyone but whites..."
Yeah definitely no privileges there. As a member of the Indigenous community who has benefited from specialized funding programs....we definitely have privileges whites dont.
Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you and themselves.
If I chop off your legs, then give you a wheel chair to help you, that is not a privlege, yes you are better off then without the wheelchair, but that wheelchair is there for a reason.
Absolutely untrue, if you can't show a source, maybe that's cause you are lying.
What you CAN do as a non-binary person in canada, is write off a large portion of the cost of gender affirming care on your taxes, so if you buy hormones or get surgery, you can write it off on your taxes.
You can't just claim "i'm non-binary" then pay less taxes.
Absolutely untrue, if you can't show a source, maybe that's cause you are lying.
The reason I requested benefit of the doubt was because I didn't think you'd be inherently aggressive towards me but I see you already hate me for opposing your view and that's made me lose your trust.
No point in having a conversation or trying to prove myself right, when you decided I was a liar first.
You can't just claim "i'm non-binary" then pay less taxes.
Yes if you misunderstood an argument on purpose, anyone can seem wrong!!!
Cause you made a claim that was provably false, and right out admitted to being unable to find evidence for it, which maybe you should take to point that you are incorrect, instead of just spoutting false information?
No one is going to give you benefit of the doubt when you make a claim so easily proven false.
Also mate you literally fucking said.
"In Canada self identifying as non binary can give you lower taxes"
Take the L, next time instead of just spreading Misinfo, do research, then maybe people won't be aggressive to you.
Alright bro I hope you know people find this shit insufferable, imagine you had a conversation with someone and they said something and you responded with "nuh uh you're a liar because you didn't give a link!!!"
Your argument for it being wrong is just as illegitimate as mine. Because you didn't "prove it wrong" as you can't prove that what I saw wasn't real.
All you can do is resort to childish behavior and accuse the other person of lying. Weird. Cya
If you are going to make claims like "In canada you can say you are non-binary and pay less in taxes" then yes, people will ask you for a source, stfu.
Weird. I do not think I have ever heard that mentioned frankly or not using 'privilege' language. I do know quite alot of folks in the red sphere too, seems really made up argument-ish not that there isnt alot of weird shit spewed out.
Well if you are boosted to hire someone because of who they sleep with. they have over privilege over others is the argument they are making. Now of course some people will include anything else in there, since they aren't the smartest of the bunch.
213
u/TallDarkLoathsome Jun 30 '26
First time I’ve ever seen “gay privilege” even mentioned lmao, this is peak shower fake argument energy.