HomeskillitMoorman

You don't find nuance because you are trying to put me in a box because you are so entangled into this one side vs the other nonsense and you are oversimplifying something that is far more complex. I've said many times that I don't like indoctrination of anything resembling religion, which I do agree that for the extremists which I believe are a small but loud percentage of the LGBTQ+ side as I think is the case for most things, and I am not in favor of pushing anything like that on any children. I don't want to create more of something that is incredibly tough to deal with on anyone. But you are way oversimplifying it when you are calling it a temporary confusion of a growing body...that might be some of them...but for some people this never goes away. That's like going back to the "just pray the gay away!" garbage. People who say those things will take some personal anecdotes about people who used to be gay and were "saved" from it or in this case the kids who also had things change and actually turn the tables on the kids who are actually suffering from this and make it their fault because why can't they just get over it like the other ones? The reality is that there may not be a "cure" to this and some people struggle with it their whole lives and some people do transition because of it. I don't disagree with what you're saying some of the big pharma and corporations are trying to do, but make no mistake, it's the same exact thing that churches and corporations on the other side are trying to do. For example on the Conservative side, they are against natural psychedelic medication like shrooms or MDMA that there has been incredible research on, especially for PTSD and for active and ex-military. Why? Because there's no money in it. Those medications are not designed to keep you hooked like all the man-made medications are and actually help people get off of the ones they have been attached to. This is what I think the bigger problem is, people choose a side and will turn a blind eye to what "their" side does and that's why these things largely continue. And that's what both sides want. They are both in bed with Big Money. And the priority is just the outrage itself. Look at this exact thread that we're in...Chik-Fil-A didn't even do anything like target children. Reading their statement, I'm not even sure I understand what the anger is about. They're being lumped in with extreme takes...which is what a lot of what you are doing is.

Christian groups, ESPECIALLY Catholic groups never mock LGBTQ+??? They do it all the time. And talk about targeting children...the Catholic church LITERALLY to this day is protecting Priests that molested young boys, some of them are still even on INCOME! Where's the outrage there? Yours, like most people, is selective. Cult-like religious group that shuffles Priests around and sends them overseas past jurisdiction and hides them and pays them...OK...but put a Trans dude on a beer can and this CANNOT STAND!!!

That's too broad for me to answer like that. If you're talking about the small number of extremists that are actually trying to groom or encourage surgeries at young ages, yes. There are some that are simply saying that it's OK to be gay if that's what you are or even acknowledge you could have something like gender dysphoria and want to offer resources. I don't want to get too far into it but I believe you can think two things at the same time. I don't like the idea of kids getting permanent type surgeries...but I also have a lot of empathy for kids that have gender dysphoria and I understand it's a lot easier to say "just wait a decade or two for when you're an adult" when they are going through the kind of mental and possibly physical anguish that they are. I don't think there are perfect answers for some of this stuff, it's really complex. I want for us to do everything we can to help a child cope with this until they are older but honestly am not sure if making certain things "illegal" is the answer either. I certainly wouldn't push for a kid to have an impactful surgery though. But the extreme indoctrination I'm against I believe is the same as religious indoctrination. Both are brainwashing. Both can be destructive. I don't think the hardcore Christians in theory are any different than these people that they are complaining about.

Who isn't "allowing" you or anyone else to speak out against anything? There's so much victimhood over this. There is social media, probably thousands of videos on Youtube, forums, literally you can speak out against this stuff wherever you want as you literally are doing right now as we speak. I see podcasters all over the place discussing this stuff and being against LGBTQ+. What do you think is lacking in content? If a player came out and ripped Christianity or Catholicism and some of the damage that it does to people, this same organization would probably tell them to apologize. There was a player, I think in the NBA, who years ago when a terrorist was killed simply said "may God be with the victims and this terrorist" or something to that effect and simply explained that in his beliefs he hopes that this person that did these horrible things can somehow be redeemed by God as he doesn't want Hell for anyone and he was basically lynched by Christians who tried to paint him as a horrible person for not wanting eternal damnation for him. He never said the guy didn't deserve to die or any consequences, just that he didn't agree with that part of it. I fail to see how this is different. My point is that both of these extreme sides of these groups, especially when it comes to what they see as religion, for some it's Christianity and for some it's the aggressive LGBTQ+ movement, for some it's just Trump....whatever it is...they are all the same in the end. They are in outrage when people simply don't believe what they do. My issue with someone like you is you only see it from one side, like so many who have chosen a side do.

And the Christian/Conservative religion literally to this day still push for laws to not allow homosexuals to get married because they personally believe it is wrong after already doing it for hundreds of years. Is that better? I've just never understood the whole obsession with either side to impose their beliefs onto other people. There is a simple solution of letting people do what they want as long as they are not hurting someone.

This is the same guy that went on Twitter and ripped a flight attendant for "making" him and his wife clean up popcorn that their child spilled. He's an entitled prick. I've been reading some of the Politics forum today and it doesn't surprise me that you would fall in line behind him. I don't care about what he posts, I believe in the freedom for people to be able to do that. But there's also a freedom people have to call out those that make public statements. Isn't that exactly what Bud Light had to face from it's largely Conservative consumer base that still enjoyed pisswater to this day even with so many great beer options available? And take a second to think about this...he is trying to rally people to boycott companies that think differently than he does...and people basically rallied against him because he thinks differently than they do. What's the difference? I think both sides are at fault but people like you try to present it as being one-sided. There is also a high level of hypocrisy when Conservatives were outraged at players for kneeling during the anthem even if they were just expressing their beliefs and said they shouldn't be able to do that if the teams owners objected to it because that's who they work for. Why is this different if the Blue Jays object to it when he works for them? I'm on neither side, I just find it so amazing that both sides don't see that they are complaining and demonizing the other side for literally the same exact nonsense.

The only thing the Bud Light thing meant is that Conservatives have horrible taste in beer and were actually still drinking that piss water instead of all of the incredible beer options that exist today. Everyone else moved on from that horrible beer a long time ago.

This is so all so dumb. Basically a head-to-head battle of fake religions that both mock each other but both think they're in the right and the other is in the wrong.

Haha that's what I was going to say. How is this any different than cancel culture? So many of those same people have become just as reactive and petty as the people they complained for so long about.

Reminds me of this:

The debates on how many 1st rounders we traded for Watkins were some of the boards finest moments

Kinda gross that he did an interview with someone like Tomi Lahren but for the most part he took the high road. I though Beanes comments when they cut him though were supportive. He hinted that he believed Matt and that he needed to put his full focus into dealing with the accusations. The ugly parts are the false accusations and what men go through when it comes to them. On the flip side, it can also unfairly make a woman who’s actually been abused or raped look like she’s crying wolf because of frauds like this one. It sucks all around.

This stuff is so frustrating. My dad is old and it's hard helping him from out of state to get all of these different apps and streaming sites to be able to even just watch all the Bills games. You should be able to watch everything if you pay for Sunday Ticket, this is all just so stupid.

Yeah, there's a very toxic Politics section people can find here for that to get it all out. I'm glad it exists because it probably lessens what we see on the football forums. But unless you're influenced by characters in the media on either side, I probably wouldn't recommend.

He had 2 catches for 29 yards against Florida...

I like the player but like others here I don't really have faith that Dorsey will effectively use him. He didn't even utilize 1 good TE, I'm not sure how there are expectation that he's going to utilize 2.

Right, and I think some of it is this classification that you have to be part of one side. You can be someone that has both liberal and conservative views. In fact, that's what MOST people probably are. Both parties have always wanted this, to make people choose a side or classify other people as being something. I might have a conversation with a woman whose conservative and we would probably find a good amount of common ground. Same would go the other way. I'm weary of anyone who chooses a side because you don't have to.

No, but I also think those toxic apps are not a good source of information or judge of women in general. Most people I interact with don't care about politics and it mostly doesn't come up in our conversations when we hang out. If people are making their politics outwardly known in their profiles, they're probably the extremes. Also, if someone is only seeking a partner that shares all of their political beliefs on either side, they want to live in an echo chamber, that wouldn't be someone I'd be interested in anyways. I see you added this part: I see plenty of attractive women that identify as liberal, but they’re really not. They just think they are. I know this because I won’t date someone who’s belief system is antithetical to mine, and when it comes up .. we usually have a ton of common ground. I think a lot of people would find common ground because most people are moderates of each side. The extremes on both sides are a small percentage and are weaponized by the media and political people on both sides to make you believe the other side is evil.

You're basically just a product of Fox News. There is no real measured difference in women who are liberal or conservative, most people in general aren't even heavily political. You're just going off of the extreme TikTok "liberals" that you're told to look at. Just like I don't think most Conservative women are fat hillbillies. All that stuff is just so silly and childish.

I agree on the first part but if you go back and some of this thread...lotta victims here.

I believe most politicians from both sides are protected by the elites, historical evidence would probably side with me on that one, and Trump in the past himself has been protected as well. Was he targeted in this case? I would agree, yes. But are you willing to agree that it's the same exact thing he wanted to do to his competitors? Because it is. The only difference is it didn't work when he wanted it. The intent was the exact same.

This is an interesting victimhood thread comprised of a lot of people who probably go around saying you shouldn't have a victimhood mentality.

That's actually EXACTLY what I'm saying! Trump wanted the same exact thing to happen to his competitors that is happening to him right now. The only difference is the other side leveraged more power to get it done against him. So the difference is an imbalance of power, the levels of insidious corruption are the exact same, one just wasn't able to execute on it.

So you're basically validating what I'm saying...Trump wanted the same exact thing that's happening to him right now to happen to his competitors from the other side in the past...the outrage from Republicans is only there because it "worked" in terms of the indictment (I don't think anything's really going to come out of it). But in principle, it's what Trump was calling for to happen to his competitors in the past. I'm not saying I side with anyone because I don't side with any political party, I'm saying it's hypocritical that people are making Trump out to be some kind of martyr when he would've laughed if the same thing happened to Hillary or Biden, as would probably every Republican. It's selective outrage, it's the same exact thing conservatives complain about from the radical side of the Left. It's literally no different. What you're arguing much more is an imbalance of power than actual intent or level of corruption. Trump DID want for his competitors to get indicted just the way he did now, the only difference is he didn't have the connections to make it happen. The level of corruption is the same, you're basically giving him credit because his corruption didn't happen to manifest into the same results. From purely a morality standpoint, if the Bills tried to record the practices of other teams but couldn't get their hands on the right technology to do it, would that make them more virtuous than the Patriots who were able to accomplish it? The Republican party is no better than the Democrat party, that's the part where you're still heavily brainwashed. They're all the same.

Lot of hypocrisy here. Trump has literally wanted other former Presidents or candidates to get indicted for very similar things in the past. Why is that somehow different? I think all of these politicians on both sides are shady that have done all of these things and think they should all be thrown in jail. Then we might actually get somewhere. Acting like one party is virtuous and honest is beyond absurd.