I believe in proportionality. So long as their current actions stay in damaging inanimate symbols that’s where it should stay. If they were to Remove places significant to LGBT+, then I’d consider it. If they were to start straight up shooting LGBT+ people, well…
These crosswalks were painted specifically in honor of the Pulse massacre where 50 LGBT+ people were murdered in 2016. 25 were injured or killed in a shooting in a Colorado Springs gay bar in 2022.
The shooting has been happening for years already.
The Pulse shooter wasn’t a Christian, so that’s not really a good reason to start tearing down and burning churches.
Which, I can’t believe I need to say this, is bad. I grew up in a small community that embraced Christian homophobic and transphobic abuse as a virtue, I think Christianity on the whole is more negative than positive, and I still wouldn’t destroy a random church because it’s a church. That is fash shit. You don’t target random places of worship because that’s the religion of your enemy. What is this shit.
I apologize, I’m with you on do not attack random churches and should have called that out myself in my first post and can see how what I said could be interpreted as supporting it.
I was trying to point out that LGBTQ+ people are already under physical threat and have been and the first person’s point about waiting until they are getting shot to take further action was passed already. I think the real physical threat is not understood by many. I do not think the action should be burning down random churches.
Tit for tat is a good tactic, usually. There is something to be said for a chilling effect, or “intimidation”, as a way to not just punish current behavior but to forestall future escalation. The only key is that it needs to be selective, and not permanent, and then extremely reversed when they switch to cooperation.
They preach hate, you destroy their landscaping and signage. They remove your memorial and you burn down their building.
Meanwhile you praise the episcopal church and very visibly support fundraisers by the united Methodist Church.
It only alienates the people who were already too far gone. Others will tut at the disproportionate response but agree to the middle ground of “it’s self defense, so it’s justified in principle”.
I believe in proportionality. So long as their current actions stay in damaging inanimate symbols that’s where it should stay. If they were to Remove places significant to LGBT+, then I’d consider it. If they were to start straight up shooting LGBT+ people, well…
These crosswalks were painted specifically in honor of the Pulse massacre where 50 LGBT+ people were murdered in 2016. 25 were injured or killed in a shooting in a Colorado Springs gay bar in 2022.
The shooting has been happening for years already.
The Pulse shooter wasn’t a Christian, so that’s not really a good reason to start tearing down and burning churches.
Which, I can’t believe I need to say this, is bad. I grew up in a small community that embraced Christian homophobic and transphobic abuse as a virtue, I think Christianity on the whole is more negative than positive, and I still wouldn’t destroy a random church because it’s a church. That is fash shit. You don’t target random places of worship because that’s the religion of your enemy. What is this shit.
I would destroy every single thing that I think has something to do with an irrational belief.
Christian billionaires do fund a lot of the anti gay conspiracy media. I would specifically focus on those entities.
I apologize, I’m with you on do not attack random churches and should have called that out myself in my first post and can see how what I said could be interpreted as supporting it.
I was trying to point out that LGBTQ+ people are already under physical threat and have been and the first person’s point about waiting until they are getting shot to take further action was passed already. I think the real physical threat is not understood by many. I do not think the action should be burning down random churches.
I like the cut of your jib.
Tit for tat is a good tactic, usually. There is something to be said for a chilling effect, or “intimidation”, as a way to not just punish current behavior but to forestall future escalation. The only key is that it needs to be selective, and not permanent, and then extremely reversed when they switch to cooperation.
They preach hate, you destroy their landscaping and signage. They remove your memorial and you burn down their building.
Meanwhile you praise the episcopal church and very visibly support fundraisers by the united Methodist Church.
It only alienates the people who were already too far gone. Others will tut at the disproportionate response but agree to the middle ground of “it’s self defense, so it’s justified in principle”.
Gotta shift the center somehow.