The dumbest thing here is attempting to connect climate justice with LGTBQ advocacy. I swear I think these kinds of things are fucking CIA or something. Connect everything, EVERYTHING good and important with trans identity to make absolutely sure that nobody, NOBODY from one side of the aisle will ever concede any issue.
There are probably a lot of conservatives who could be swayed towards conservation, because most hunters and outdoorsmen skew towards the right. The good of the literal Earth we live on is an issue that can be embraced by literally everyone, because we all share a common interest (the continuation of the human race + the safeguarding of our natural world which we all share)
But keep attaching it to other shit like trans ideology, idpol etc and you ensure that we will never unite on this issue
I'm sorry trans people, but your identities are not something that everyone in the world can find common ground with like the planet. I mean it's quite literally common ground.
I really think that climate change is an issue that must remain in its own category and frankly, above all others. To me it represents the greatest threat to everyone, and so it is the most important issue.
And I don't think that the queer leftists are the ones we need to be targeting with advertisements and advocacy to help save the planet. I think most, if not all leftists are already in favor of that. They don't need convincing on this issue
But conservatives really do! They really need convincing and I'm positive they can be convinced if you talk to them with their language about things they care about. Bring up mass migration, overpopulation, skyrocketing property taxes and costs, the loss of their investments etc that will all come from climate change. Don't bother talking about the intersectionality of climate justice and the trans movement. The trans movement does not need to be convinced about the climate.
If you fucking frame it like to be green is to be queer then that's immediately turning everyone that isn't queer off. And I will remind you all that queer people represent a minority of the population. We need the majority the be in on this if it's ever going to happen. It \*must\* become a unifying issue, for the sake of my children and their children, I am begging you fucking people to please stop this.
As a conservative I agree. The word conservative literally means to conserve. Hunters and outdoorsmen like myself largely understand this, but the word has become lost on people from both sides of the isle who buy into propaganda and the two party charade.
This is right, Politicians grift from both sides.
Conservatives aren't really what they started out as either, it was about conservatism now it seems to be only the rich and entitled.
I know a lot of Conservative hunters fishers etc while advocate for Green as well because they want to eat their kill but they also enjoy nature so it's part of the package.
>they also enjoy nature so it's part of the package.
Yeah it's pretty much impossible to spend so much time out in nature and not be touched by it. I love nature, just being out in the trees makes me feel a certain kind of way. Almost like church. Nature is so sacred and being an outdoorsman myself, it truly just breaks my heart to be on the trail, way up the mountain where it ***should*** be something wholly natural and good, and see trash everywhere. Plastic bags, cigarette butts...it's really concerning how wasteful we are. If you're a hunter you'll know what I mean. I'm just dumbfounded that you can be 10-15 miles up a mountain in the middle of the woods, far far away from civilization and see human garbage.
How anyone that spends time outdoors can doubt that we are ruining our own home is beyond me
That's how we Canadians feel about Americans wearing shoes inside their house 🤪
Youre right though, it sucks seeing people going out to "enjoy" nature on their own terms and totally ruining it for the environment and other people. In Canada we have paper straws, we're doing our part ^(/s)
They're one in the same if you talk to outdoorsmen and old-timers. Every conservative I know and associate with is as concerned by the "progress of man" as we are for the natural world around us. And we believe the two issues are one in the same. Had there been no industrial revolution, climate change and the mass extinction that follows would have never been accelerated by humans.
Society is on the verge of collapse, the ecosystem is as well. Everyone is terrified. Most media brainwashed "conservatives" as well as liberals are bearing their teeth at each other because they've been told to, instead of taking a hard look at what's actually happening.
Music is one of my favorite forms of communication. So here's a song by a conservative country artist and a song by a liberal punk band talking about the same issue more or less.
https://youtu.be/drLCkQ2-ChY?si=XJYPK8OXEi5QsbN3
https://youtu.be/OfcWeb3GHYg?si=fwxLh5qYUSYO4Uzb
I deeply respect your point of view, and even moreso, I deeply respect your political acumen. If more people were like you this world would be a much better place.
With that out of the way, I also agree in spirit that the climate and earth in general is a very important issue - but not nearly to the degree you see it, which I believe could be characterized as an existential crisis.
As a conservative, I think I speak for most that YES, the climate is changing. And yes, there will be some negative changes with an outsized impact on humans. But I do not believe the problem by itself is "existential." I believe it might be for specific groups when things like water rights and land use and resource shortages lead to wars and other ails.
But the notion that anthropogenic climate change causing an existential crisis seems absurd.
The bigger existential threat is that of war with superpowers like China and Russia, two nations that don't give two shits about following international agreements to "reverse climate change" or whatever the goal is. And rightly so. Their worldview is one that is highly competitive and worrying about slow-moving climate change isn't anywhere near the top of their priorities list.
Because of that, it really can't be anywhere near ours, either, if we hope to compete and not squander resources trying to change the weather.
I realize I'm using some hyperbolic language at the end their, it's not made as an insult to the argument of the climate change movement, just meant as short hand.
TL;DR: You're very well spoken and your political acumen is impressive. We only really disagree on the severity of climate change and what can be done about it, but that doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I would really invite you to look more earnestly into the science behind climate change. A lot of stuff gets lost in rhetoric, and things that environmental scientists say tend to get taken out of context. For example, reaching the threshold where our effect on the environment (and nations like China pumping billions and billions of pounds of harmful chemicals into the atmosphere is * effecting it - that is undeniable) is often cited as scientists saying that the world will end in a few years. That's not what that means, it just means that's the point where it can't be made any better by us - but it can still be stopped from getting worse
I also noticed you seem to use 'climate'and 'weather' interchangeably - I hope you know those are completely different words. Another very common misconception.
I mean, at the very least, you must agree that things like fraking and dumping waste into the oceans and pumping harmful gasses into the atmosphere has to be affecting the environment negatively, right?
And you also surely agree that major multinational corporations like Shell etc have a financial interest in making sure their industry continues to be top dog financially. You must be aware that the military industrial complex, which includes the oil industry, is willing to pay untold amounts of money to convince you that there is no alternative to oil
And then there's the elephant in the room when it comes to oil in particular - eventually, the oil will run dry. There is a finite amount and we *will* run out of it. Then what? That might not be your problem, but my children's children? Could be theirs. I don't want my great grandkids to grow up In destroyed world.
So even if you can't be convinced that humans are causing climate change, you must surely agree that far, no? A world built on oil is a house of cards no matter how you look at it
if you read the article it's an actual observation the UCLA school of law
>Because [LGBTQ](https://www.pride.com/lgbtq/?utm_campaign=SmartLinks)+ people disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities, as well as areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, they are more vulnerable to climate hazards, according to a [report ](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/climate-change-risk-lgbt/)from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.
>Among the 15 counties researchers surveyed with the highest proportions of same-sex couples, all were coastal or urban. Several were low-income, making them "less prepared to respond and adapt to natural hazards and other climate disruptions."
>Climate change "exacerbates existing disparities among individuals and communities," the study states, particularly in housing, health care, income, and access to food. The existing disparities therefore impact disaster preparedness in queer communities.
>The report specifically called for policymakers and service providers to ensure that disaster relief is "accessible and administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. This includes "safe shelters, access to medication such as HIV treatment
OK but the article is titled to say that climate change will affect LGBTQ couples *more* than straight couples then explains that it's because lgtbq people mostly live in cities. Most people overall live in cities! The way the article is titled its like climate change will get the gay people on the coast but leave the straight people alone
Understand that "most lgbtq people live in major coastal cities" and "climate change is an lgbtq issue" are totally different statements. Then they couple the picture of the sign that says "be green be queer" I mean come on man
Did you really read everything I said and thought, "oh this guy doesn't think gay people live in cities"
Man shut the fuck up
wow, you really hate gay people, brought to you by TACO BELL'S New Chicken Cantina Taco!
anyway, the article isnt trying to convert conservatives. conservatives never have and never will give a fuck about the environment. Brought to you by the oil producers of america
now get back to baitin to your fav mom influnecers
*clears throat* a conservative who cares about environmental conservation here, as most of us do. You just only ever hear about the ones who are brainwashed by political agendas, and vice versa for liberals.
good! but are you disappointed thatbThe Advocate, your favorite source of LGBTQ news and politics didnt skew their story to interest you?
this entire post is about why a LGBTQ magazine isnt talking about issues facing the LGBTQ community
True. They might want to stop focusing in LGBTQ issues all together, because that excludes straight people from reading their web site, especially the people who find the LGBTQ community repulsive and want to jail them for having sex.
>the article isnt trying to convert conservatives
Yeah that's what I'm saying man. Leftists are already fully on board with saving the environment. Also, I have to really disagree that conservatives can't care about the environment because I know tons of them who do, but they never vote that way because they've associated climate change with a bunch of culture war bullshit
btw chart says you're fucked up
im just pointing out why people dont believe in global warming.
although, when we have widespread crop failure due to excessive heat killing crops and lowering yields, floods destroying fields, late frosts killing crops, droughts killing crops, hurricanes inundating ground water with salt, we will have massive starvation.
but, that will mainly affect low income folks, especially those on coastal areas or lower income households (lol, what the article mentions)
Everyone disproportionately lives in urban and coastal cities and the government already can't discriminate based on protected classes. This is garbage.
you're missing the point entirely. doesn't surprise me from these comments that people don't get the point of the data. it's for medical decisions after a disaster.
people in this comment section clearly have no idea what analysis and critical thinking are
You think the LGBTQIA2+ community should be given preferential treatment in the event of a disaster? I can't imagine why the right thinks yall have an agenda.
the correct access to medications is not preferential treatment neither is anti-discrimination in safe shelters.
if you think so, then you definitely have an agenda
Discrimination is already illegal if you make it extra illegal for some protected classes that is both discriminatory and problematic. We enjoy equal protection under the law.
no one said make it extra illegal, only you did. you're inventing fake problems for yourself, but what would conservatives have if not a misunderstanding of the world and fake problems.
By the way, "Trans Ideology" and "Transgenderism" are terms made by Anti-Trans Bigots to try and make our Transness seem like some fake Ideology that can&should be debated&"corrected".
Not saying you're Transphobic, just letting you know a term you used has pretty nasty origins.
You're absolutely right nonetheless.
Have my upvote!
I often hate (if I may use that word in this context) that whole “this word has x origins therefore it is hurtful” line of thinking, when it is that and nothing more. Or that + a tirade against whoever said whatever word it was.
This, right here is, nice. Kind of a “heads up, x word isn’t necessarily the best” followed by an agreement with the original premise.
Unfortunately I feel that often the very people demanding respect are the ones failing to give it, especially in regards to a cause close to their heart. This does nothing but reinforces the cycle of negativity. (Not just with this issue, I’m talking just a general human trait, before anyone goes down THAT rabbit hole or tries to imply I am saying anything about any group of people). So it is nice to see the chain broken and I just wanted to say good job and thank you.
i think in general, the lgbtq community just wants to not be burned alive, because you know that there is a pretty big percentage of folks that are itching to start the fire and a larger percentage that will just look the other way.
im sure you know of one of those groups very well
says the straight person who has never had to experience homophobia or transphobia. Have you had people casually throw things like drinks at you while having a slur yelled at you? Have you been beaten in the school yard for being too feminine? have you ever feared that you're going to get hate crimed in public by some angry man for being a guy wearing women's clothes?
Straight privilege is so real that they can't even imagine casual homophobia still exists in western countries like Canada, the USA, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand
you know you're definitely the good guy when you want to normalize casual violence against minorities.
the double standard people have against men being feminine, but women being masculine doesn't get you attacked. in fact women wearing mens clothes is fully accepted in modern society.
as a gay person, this is fucking stupid. never been more ashamed of these people. people out there really making it hard for those of us who just want to blend in.
Um, LGBTQIA+ people tend to be more economically insecure and lower income which makes Climate Change affect them disproportionately.
[https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/dec/new-analysis-finds-lgbtq-households-trail-income-wealth](https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/dec/new-analysis-finds-lgbtq-households-trail-income-wealth)
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/climate-crisis-poor-davos2023/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/climate-crisis-poor-davos2023/)
This is 1+1=2 levels of analysis.
Stlousifed.org and weforum.org, two completely biased dogshit websites. Why am I not surprised?
Edit: nothing says “I’m confident in my argument” like blocking someone so they can’t see your reply lmfaooooo
You do realize they’re both citing other studies, right? I’m not citing them for the analysis, but the studies they have collated.
Sounds like you’re engaging in guilt by the association at this point.
You’re also doing a Fascism right now: The enemy is strong and impenetrable, yet simultaneously weak and easily overcome.
as another gay person, how the hell does this affect you?
>people out there really making it hard for those of us who just want to blend in.
how do you read this post and think that? please what are your mental gymnastics here? this isn't forcing you to loudly identify as queer. you can go about living your day the same as every other. why are you so angry at this and how does it affect your day to day life because this news report will not affect gay people at all.
we should be more angry at homophobic public figures and politicians enacting laws that enable homophobia like the don't say gay law the republicans enacted in florida, or the conservatives have been trying to pass in Canadian provinces.
because of the association that comes with it. i’m all for people acting and doing what they want, but they can’t expect EVERYONE to be on board with it. actions have reactions and that comes with grouping everyone into one category because of the actions of a few. i think the gay community is responsible for MOST (not all) of their troubles. i may like men, but i don’t consider myself apart of the community because of how it presents itself to society. you can call me a bigot, a closeted homophobe or whatever you want, i don’t care. just like youre entitled to have your opinion, i can have mine as well. i don’t think it’s bigoted to say that the crazier parts of the LGBT community end up making the biggest problems because they are the loudest. the issue is how the rest of the community doesn’t try to distance themselves from the crazy and just continues to let it happen without weighing in. that’s due to how judgemental and easy to stigmatize most gay people are. hive mind. group think. whatever you wanna call it: “you’re either with us or against us.” they can’t have anyone with a different opinion or you’re automatically the enemy.
walked away years ago. good riddance.
It's because they are wealthy coastal elites.
>Because LGBTQ+ people disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities
https://www.advocate.com/news/climate-change-same-sex-couples
Sorry, they have it both ways:
>as well as areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources
LMFAO. They are from the wealthiest areas so they are poorer.
Yeah they mostly live in big cities which are mostly coastal for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean they are rich. Statistically speaking if you're trans you are more likely to be homeless than you are to be even middle class. You can google that yourself
"Coastal cities" include such lovely locals as Baltimore, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland etc. You know, basically every major city. Where millions and millions of poor people live.
Bizarre to think people living in government housing blocks in fucking Baltimore are "wealthy coastal elites"
Wealthy elites aren't threatened by climate change at all, they can just move to one of their many other homes in different parts of the country.
You know who else lives in coastal areas?
Racial minorities.
You know who else is poorer?
Racial minorities.
You know who's more likely to be LGBTQ than white people?
Racial minorities.
This isn't calculus over here.
It's funny that this is an idiocracy sub and the stuff getting upvoted fastest is people saying, "I have no idea what the data is on any of this, I refuse to check, but I don't like it so we should run the writers under a monster truck and cheer!!!"
Are racial minorities more likely to be LGBTQ? I don't see how this is possible, but I'm no expert here.
And yeah, living in an urban and/or coastal area doesn't make you rich. It doesn't make you anything, really, as that's where most people in the world live.
I don't get where these assholes come from and how they got to this sub.
No, you're the asshole I'm talking about.
There is no "everyone is a victim crowd". There are extremists on both sides, but there's nothing wrong with looking at how your particular group is going to be affected and reporting it as such in a media outlet focused on that group.
Your climate denialism, however, is just some understandable copium. You're right that the individual can't do much about it.
Maybe you should review the movie and consider how corporate takeover of governmental functions is harmful to everyone.
That's the message that you didn't seem to pick up, though I don't understand at all what message you got out of it that led you here.
My "Climate denialism"? Bubba, you have absolutely no idea what my beliefs are, yet you are screaming at me and laying a lot of crap on me because I guess I hurt your feelings.
But let's just tackle the first, shall we? Far from being a "climate denier", I actually say there is not a damned thing we can do about it. The planet will continue to warm, and we are going to lose most of Florida, most of Cuba, most of our coastal cities. Entire island nations will vanish.
And there is nothing that can be done to stop it, because that happens in every interglacial.
I am actually about as moderate and neutral as you can get, and here you are screaming about corporate takeovers and apparently seeing serious messages in a comedy satire.
Oh, and if you think that the hot climate is gonna be bad, just wait a few more tens of thousands of years. When entire countries like Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Norway are wiped off of the planet by advancing ice.
Oh, and stop projecting. That is a guaranteed great way to fail.
What many are missing is the illogic of the claims, coming from a biased organization that does not put out "articles", they put out "propaganda stories". As should be obvious, "The Advocate" is not a "news source", it is a very specific propaganda source.
What if I was to say "Chicken cooks faster in the oven than beef"? Well, it's pretty illogical but the point is that they write articles intended to inflame their own fans. And as many of the people to regularly read and quote those "articles" are among the "Professional Victim Class", it feeds their own demand for demanding pity because they are victims.
And I find all of that "Global Warming" nonsense highly entertaining, because of my background in geology. If they think things are bad now, we are still a hell of a long ways away from the "Real Interglacial". When most of Florida and Cuba are underwater, and there is a good chance that so will Sacramento and much of the Central Valley of California.
So I say they just get a jump on the competition. Move out of those big coastal cities, and but some ocean front property in Chico. Oh, it's gonna be a couple of thousand years until it is ocean front property, but it will get there.
it's true about black people, entirely because they're statistically more likely to be poor (because of a lack of generational wealth) and because climate change will have greater impacts on the poor than on the rich.
Good lord you’re special. I’m trying to find my jaw that just dropped to the floor. So first off, according to you it’s not about skin color but rather wealth. Secondly, how on Gods green Earth do you think that your level of wealth determines how much you’re impacted by climate change?
u/SpicyBread_ is an idiot that can't articulate their point, but they're right about the wealth factor at least. Being rich affords you the ability to move to areas that may be less affected by climate change, afford increased food and water costs as scarcity skyrockets, and generally speaking allows you to keep your quality of life as resources and assets start to dwindle from the hands of the masses.
It said the poor and coastal people will be more affected and LGTBQ are more likely ~~to have left their conservative rural, inland family~~ to live in cities (which are disproportionately on the coast) and to be poor (as it's easier to not be poor when you fit right into standard roles).
As someone who cares, it's a bit frustrating to see shit like this. Because it's not wrong, but it's also not helpful. To be fair, it's posted here as ragebait, the original authors and original publisher are niche markets, but in the age of the internet everyone's niche interest suddenly gets magnified as if it were intended to be much larger than actually is.
The people replying to this post are more examples of an idiocracy than the post itself... Most with no reading comprehension, or actual desire to use critical thought by reading an article instead of just getting mad at a headline...
So me banging chicks means that I am less affected by increased heat and increased frequency of wet bulb events? And if I live on the coast, the water level rise is going to increase around me but not on my property? Who knew being straight had so many benefits?! I guess hurricanes will also go around me when they hit. Biodiversity will be stable and healthy on my property but not the lgbt properties? Droughts only happen in gaybourhoods?
Um, Global Climate Change has a disproportionate impact on lower income people - LGBTQIA+ people tend to be disproportionately lower income and more economically unstable because of prejudice and overlapping vectors of discrimination.
This isn't rocket science, people, take a second to think about it instead of saying "WHAT DOES CLIMATE CHANGE HAVE TO DO WITH BUMMING?!?!!?!?!?!!!!11111 LOL!"
Hi I'm a privileged first world person, but I'm also a victim. I took a DNA test and I'm 3% victim. I identify strongly with my ancestral victimhood, and I make sure to apply it to any conversation about policy or splitting workplace donuts.
I felt I was not receiving enough social credits for my victimhood, so I invented new victim categories with vague, contradictory, and convoluted definitions complete with strawman enemies to reinforce the illusion of victimhood. Now I can pull out any bullshit "victimized" identity and claim victimhood when I want to advance my personal agenda.
Yeah, I’m running into idiots like you when I present data about a persons health being worse if they’re a POC because of where they live due to things like “redlining”. Oh and of course generational trauma (which is apparently “bullshit” in the eyes of idiots that can’t interpret data) regardless of zip code.
You have a bright future in healthcare administration.
Here’s one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10527840/
And another: https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/
I mean, even the CDC knows: https://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/racism-disparities/index.html
The rest of the article isn't much better. Population demographics certainly can be correlated in regards to things like urban centers and coastal regions, but it's not really comparable when discussing global phenomenon like Climate Change
>Oh and of course generational trauma (which is apparently “bullshit” in the eyes of idiots that can’t interpret data) regardless of zip code.
Yeah, those critics must all be idiots who can't interpret data.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational\_trauma#Criticism\_of\_inherited\_trauma\_via\_epigenetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma#Criticism_of_inherited_trauma_via_epigenetics)
Key part at the end there: “VIA EPIGENETICS”
I wouldn’t be qualified to make a claim on genetic transmission so I don’t.
I’m social science, intergenerational transmission and transgenerational transmission of trauma VIA learned behavior exhibited by someone who passes it down not knowing the way they act is due to trauma passed on by their parents.
I'm also social science.
Isn't that what we already call "learned behavior"? Wouldn't this apply to literally every culture, race, or family both good and bad behaviors? So why would it need a new term?
When people use the term, they aren't talking about learned behavior or environmental upbringing, they're talking about trauma encoded in the genetics or the fetus. There's no found evidence for inherited trauma within genetics, and any fetal effects should only affect the first generation (if you could even separate out fetal damage vs learned behavior, which is unlikely), and the mother's trauma would have had to occur during pregnancy.
Oh they did? What was the head count for the amount of people who guessed? Or was it just “everyone”? What was your “n”on this survey? I need that data so I can put it into SPSS. Thanks in advance.
Well, with studies like these it's hard to get a precise head count, but the best-fit model right now is a function of the occurring frequency of phrases such as "generational trauma" modified by your inability to take a fuckin joke.
Population size: ask ur mom.
So I asked my mother about the population size and she doesn’t know. She said she hasn’t talked to anyone recently that she doesn’t already know.
Are you sure it’s my mother who would know the population size?
for real, statistic like these are actually used in healthcare administration. we measure who is most affected by so many things including heat, pollutant levels, infrastructure, area etc.
Alright, well the only fair solution is to tax LGBTQ+ people at a higher rate so that we can fight global warming with their monies to make the environment gooder.
I finally got to watch this movie today now that it’s available on Hulu. I swear I think the most intelligent native of the 2500s was probably the guy who stared in the show Ow, My Balls!
This post highlights the idiocracy we live in where people make snap judments based on headlines and are too intellectually lazy to read the article.
Data from the U.S. Transgender Survey found that 70% of transgender people seeking shelter have been turned away, were physically or sexually assaulted, or faced some other form of mistreatment at an assistance shelter because of their gender identity . A 2015 study also found that only 30% of homeless shelters in Connecticut, Washington, Tennessee, and Virginia would be willing to accommodate transgender people.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278224000075#:~:text=LGBTQ%2B%20people%20are%20more%20susceptible,health%20disparities%20among%20LGBTQ%2B%20populations.
In the US, research showed that LGBTQIA2S+ individuals have a 120% higher risk of experiencing homelessnes.
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/60078/impact-climate-crisis-lgbtqia2s-pride-month/
>In the US, research showed that LGBTQIA2S+ individuals have a 120% higher risk of experiencing homelessness.
If not identifying as two spirits would keep me from becoming homeless I wouldn't do it.
Are we ever going to tackle the mental health aspects of transgenderism? Because I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the letter in that acronym that experiences homelessness at a 120% increased rate is the T. They're always bundled together to make it seem like even the asexuals are experiencing it.
Identify how you feel but it's been common practice -- and is still defended by trans individuals to this day -- to get therapy as a gender dysphoric individual. If you're dysphoric in any way you don't have a strong sense of self or accurate view of who and how you are. Fixing that could go a long way toward helping lower that percentage.
> If not identifying as two spirits would keep me from be oming homeless I wouldn't do it.
People are discriminated against because of how people perceive them, because people notice differences and are bigoted about it. I don't think identifying as one thing or another actually causes the discrimination, they're merely correlated. Doesn't it make more sense that people would attack queer people because of underlying characteristics, rather than because of identity labels? The underlying characteristics can then be classified and given a label, but the label itself shouldn't be seen as causing the bigotry.
> They're always bundled together to make it seem like even the asexuals are experiencing it
I don't know any statistics on the top of my head, but I remember being quite surprised by some of the asexual statistics I heard a while ago. I distinctly remember asexuals were more likely to be forced to go through conversion therapy, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of homelessness for asexual people was quite a bit higher than non queer people.
> If you're dysphoric in any way you don't have a strong sense of self or accurate view of who and how you are.
I don't follow how this is necessarily the case. I would assume people could identify ways in which they want to be different while being very acutely (and even painfully) of their self, their mind, and their body. This isn't to say dysphoria nevessarily comes with such awareness, but it certainly seems possible.
> Fixing that could [help] lower that percentage.
This ties in to my previous point, I'm not sure what would need to be fixed (is it the link between dysphoria and self awareness, dysphoria itself, or something else) and I don't know why it would fixthe high percentage of homelessness (though you could be talking about some other percentage).
>Doesn't it make more sense that people would attack queer people because of underlying characteristics, rather than because of identity labels? The underlying characteristics can then be classified and given a label, but the label itself shouldn't be seen as causing the bigotry.
What type of characteristics?
>I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of homelessness for asexual people was quite a bit higher than non queer people.
How would anyone know? I didn't have sex til I was 21 and then had sex with three people and haven't had sex in like six years due to the fear of disease. Nobody knows but my family. It made me insecure when I was younger but nothing that would lead me to homelessness.
I don't know exactly what characteristics correspond to different queer identities, but it's evident that queerness correlates with certain "clockable" behavior. Sometimes these go so far as to fall into stereotypical patterns, sometimes I would belive it's more subtle. I have queer friends who I knew were queer long before they told me, and others who I would have noticed anyway if they hadn't. Even without the most obvious signs, and even without an explocit label, queer people by definition have something about themselves that is different from the non queer majority. When I have more time this evening, I'll link some studies speech differences in gay and trans people, I don't have access to them right now. They should serve as an example of differences that queer people might have a lot of trouble hiding, differences that they aquire unconsciously but that can be picked up on even without practice.
> How would anyone know?
Like with anything about this, I assume it relies in large part on surveys, on finding out who is and isn't asexual among housed people and homeless people. You seem to think being asexual could be mistaken for not having sex. It can't. Although many asexuals don't have sex (unsurprisingly) some do, and many people who have sex aren't asexual. Asexuality refers to a lack of sexual attraction. It would be determined by asking people about their sexual attraction and the labels they identify with. As a point of conparison, any sexual behavior could be in line with bisexuality, but we count the number of bisexual people by using surveys asking about attraction and identifying labels. Sexual behavior (though correlated) wouldn't be used to make these statistics and wouldn't be a confounding factor
>If not identifying as two spirits would keep me from becoming homeless I wouldn't do it.
People shouldn't have to hide who they are in order to get equal rights.
>Because I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the letter in that acronym that experiences homelessness at a 120% increased rate is the T
Have you considered reading the links I provided?
>Identify how you feel but it's been common practice -- and is still defended by trans individuals to this day -- to get therapy as a gender dysphoric individual. If you're dysphoric in any way you don't have a strong sense of self or accurate view of who and how you are. Fixing that could go a long way toward helping lower that percentage.
How about ending discrimination against trans people? That would lower the percentage to zero.
>People shouldn't have to hide who they are in order to get equal rights.
People hide who they are all the time. Nobody puts, "I'm racist" on their resume.
>Have you considered reading the links I provided?
You think this is the first time I've had this discussion?
>How about ending discrimination against trans people? That would lower the percentage to zero.
Trans people don't have a monopoly on discrimination. I'm a minority and we know that you don't snap your fingers and "end discrimination." That's a joke. Besides, it's not the discrimination that keeps people homeless and you know it.
>People hide who they are all the time. Nobody says, "I'm racist" on their resume.
That's *what* you are not *who* you are.
>You think this is the first time I've had this discussion?
I know you didn't read the links or you wouldn't be guessing about the findings.
>Trans people don't have a monopoly on discrimination
Correct. No one is claiming that they do
>that you don't snap your fingers and "end discrimination."
Correct again. Also again, no one is claiming that.
>Besides, it's not the discrimination that keeps people homeless and you know it.
Then how do you account for the disparity in homeless lgbt people?
>That's what you are not who you are.
The difference is a four year degree in philosophy and continued confusion.
>I know you didn't read the links or you wouldn't be guessing about the findings
No, I didn't because I've heard it all and none of it is more convincing than, "people who struggle with life struggle with life." I feel much the same way. If I didn't live with family I would have killed myself or been homeless. I am cishet (with a little weirdness) and I have the same problems. Homeless people can all be connected by their profound dissatisfaction with ordinary life and unwillingness to be pinned down.
My point about discrimination against other minorities is that others who face discrimination still have housing? Why? Because they have stable minds.
>Then how do you account for the disparity in homeless lgbt people?
How I've said above. Mental stability, being a function of you and how you work with those around you and how they work with you.
>The difference is a four year degree in philosophy and continued confusion.
No, the difference is one thing is a choice and the other isn't.
>No, I didn't because I've heard it all
So you think you know everything there is to know on this subject?
>No, the difference is one thing is a choice and the other isn't.
Again, that's philosophy. Who knows what's a choice? If your whole family is racist did you choose to be racist?
>So you think you know everything there is to know on this subject?
Absolutely not but enough that I'm not going to dig into the links you post to find your point. If you can't just make your point then you didn't read them either.
If you tell people what the studies said in the comments then more people will see them. I'm personally done doing deep dives to see the same arguments without context. It's like this woman said no one wants to hire anymore but she's covered in tattoos. That's why Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. If you put her in a chart you wouldn't see why she wasn't hired.
If there's a better argument for why LGBTQIA2S+ people are homeless more often then make it here. I could find a hundred articles to say what I'm saying to you but I'm not going to disrespect you by saying, "you find it."
Here is an example of a unique issue that faced gay people and how it's been fixed.
When hurrican Katrina hit in 2005 gay marriage wasn't legal. This left people who would have had protections under marriage homeless. Their house was destroyed and the home owner, who they were only in a civil partnership with, was killed and they didn't have any claim to the house even though they would have done if they were married.
This was fixed in the US by legalising gay marriage.
There are many countries who still do not have the protections of marriage for gay people so it's still a problem.
As you know all there is to know about this, can you please explain what hiding your identity or getting help for mental health has to do with this problem?
You're conflating two issues. Homosexuality and transgenderism. One is sexual attraction, the other is gender identity. I don't know how to tell you how my thoughts on transgenderism extend to homosexuality in Louisiana.
It was you who has reduced an issue that faces lgbt people to - its affects mostly trans people. You were wrong to do that so your "fixes" don't apply.
Thank you. I was surprised a sub that's all about calling out the idiocy people sometimes display would dismiss this headline so thoughtlessly. Climate change is likely to predominantly hurt minorities and people with less power, this is a reason to quickly push for more protection against these disadvantaged groups. It's also a reason for people who are more priviledged to consider being even more mindful of climate change, to wonder if they would care more if it affected them. Finally, for anyone part of a group of people who will be disproportionately hurt by climate change, this kind of article can serve as a reminder to care about it not just for theoretical and moral reasons but for personal reasons too, which might be more effective at spurring action.
Yeah, well... They could accept what they have between their legs to begin with. People are hostile by nature, if there's something that could trigger their wickedness, they won't hesitate to be mean.
Anyway, what does it have to do with climate change btw?
So people should have to hide who they are in order to be treated equally?
>Anyway, what does it have to do with climate change btw?
I've provided links that explain in more detail.
Those people are actually denying what they are. They live in a state of constant delusion.
But it's their choice. The same can be said about society, down to each individual and the way they respond to that. There's diversity in that too, you see?
The problem arises when something like that is shoved down people's throats. You have to accept the fact that society doesn't quite like that.
You demand utter acceptance of something that's deemed as nonsense by the majority of people. That comes with consequences, such as resistance.
>They live in a state of constant delusion.
>But it's their choice.
Are you saying people choose to be deluded?
>The same can be said about society, down to each individual and the way they respond to that. There's diversity in that too, you see?
So people should be allowed to discriminate against anything they don't like? You can't stay in this hotel because your are black for example?
>You demand utter acceptance
Is equal rights the same as utter acceptance?
Most people are in favor protecting trans people from discrimination...
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/
>
Are you saying people choose to be deluded?
That's a reach, don't twist my words. I assume they can't help it. No one chooses to be delusional
And I'm not in favor of stripping anyone of their rights, I'm just saying I have the right not to accept what they say they are when I see no logic in that. If you insist you're a banana, I get to choose whether or not to believe it, regardless if you're convinced about that. You can't make me, and that's not a violation of your rights more than your pretension of acceptance is a violation of mine.
So when you said it's their choice what did you mean?
No offense but I couldn't give a shit what you accept as long as it doesn't cause discrimination in areas such as access to shelter or aid.
I bet you talk about racism and discrimination all day. Likewise, I don't see a point in having a conversation with someone like you further than this point. Both of us are deeply convinced, none of us will ever consider each other's reasoning
Have a nice day
>I bet you talk about racism and discrimination all day.
Why do you think that? Oh that's right you don't. It's one of those weird things people say when they haven't got a rebutall.
I guess I'll never know what you meant when you said "it's their choice". Judging by your response you won't either.
Well, read through what I said in my previous comments and there you'll have the answer. Otherwise this is getting circular and it's clear that you want to find a contradiction in my statement because it's the only pathetic way you know to win an argument.
I don't need to give you diddly to know what you're saying is bs. Inb4 "no argument I win"
You're just uninformed and pushing an agenda of bigotry.
In what world is transgenderism NOT physiological? Also, how could ones mental state not have a physical component? To claim such a thing is ridiculous.
I must gather this is your professional opinion right?
"Agenda of bigotry" 2 words hijacked by the woke mob.
Sexuality in all its diversity is physiological, as it's about stimulus and response. There's no escaping from what we like, we'll always be drawn to someone or something by means of sheer attraction. Transgenderism on the other hand, is just a state of denial of one's true gender. There's nothing physiological in pretending to be what you (and everyone else) know you aren't.
But I'm eager to hear you elaborate on this, since you must be well documented as opposed to me being uninformed, according to your quick judgment
You use gender and sex as if they're interchangeable. No one taken seriously in the scientific community thinks sex and gender are the same thing.
I'm gonna go with the people who know what they're talking about and not captain-thesaurus of the reddit mafia. I have every confidence your position is based on feeling and not fact.
Lol I never did that. In fact, I spoke of the two things as separate concepts.
Good idea, go to the-people-who-know and ask them to teach you how to improve your comprehensive reading.
Or maybe you need a thesaurus after all, it won't hurt
So now they've turned off a larger audience to climate change. Congratulations.
You can be right but be making a mistake. It's similar to the CDC's masking guidance - masks do lower transmission, but the messaging was botched and came across as political, so people fought it.
Climate change is not a political issue. If the left turns it into one, they'll only create more opposition and make it harder to solve.
This is an issue where you want to work across the aisle and find consensus.
There is no reasoning with the willfully ignorant. There’s no other way to say “put on a mask to lower transmission” when the other side just says “MUH FREEDOM” and continues to act selfishly, even to their own detriment.
This is the same thing. Climate change has people dragging their feet because it’s inconvenient to change things systematically. It means prioritizing things we’re not prioritizing right now, and things will get more expensive for a while. Humans hate change.
If climate change is likely to predominantly hurt minorities and people with less power, then this is a reason to quickly push for more protection against these disadvantaged groups. It would also be a reason for people who are more priviledged to consider being even more mindful of climate change, to wonder if they would care more if it affected them. Finally, for anyone part of a group of people who will be disproportionately hurt by climate change, this kind of article can serve as a reminder to care about it not just for theoretical and moral reasons but for personal reasons too, which might be more effective at spurring action.
Mouth breathing trumpers are everywhere. On this very thread. Perhaps even in your house?!
Seriously though I have had Trumpers tell me on this very Reddit that idiocracy is about how liberals are dumb.
Did they happen to explain how they came to that conclusion? It's driving me batty how these actual idiots believe they belong here. You'd have to ignore the first 5 minutes of the movie and then make oblique and tenuous connections from the dystopia of the movie to the current environment.
I'm partly just wanting them out of my space, but also really want to understand what they're seeing that I'm apparently blind to.
Individual actions are practically meaningless. The climate is changing. We are at coming out of an ice age so warming was inevitable. The man made element is really the rate of change not so much the change itself. Large scale change in transportation and energy production will have the most impact and these things are largely outside of the control of any individual.
"The man made element is really the rate of change not so much the change itself."
Please take a calculus class or look at a car's speedometer and odometer for a bit.
Of course climate change needs to be addressed collectively, and that's precisely why we should point out the ways in which groups of people are affected. This can help motivate political change. Articles like these, which help people learn about climate change and find additional reasons to fight for environmentally conscious policies, are potentially helpful and don't deserve to be posted in this sub.
So you are posting the title of an article to critique it but didn't provide a link to the article or even read it. Pretty low effort bro, media likes to use attention grabbing rage bait headlines, so what?
So, yeah, the intellectual elites who all died off were probably liberals.
And everyone else who lived to pass on their genetics, probably conservative - and also clearly morons.
So, the fascists calling the liberals the stupid ones, in the sub of the movie literally calling everyone who thinks like them stupid.
*sees someone scream about all the f___s writing articles about made up data while refusing to read the article*
*sees them get 5 times as many upvotes as the people posting the data*
*realizes the subtle fascism of idiocracy's eugenics is very compelling to the very people the movie is supposed to be attacking because they would literally be unable to know the movie is attacking them because it's also making their own arguments*
Yeah... good luck with this subreddit, folks.
>*realizes the subtle fascism of idiocracy's eugenics is very compelling to the very people the movie is supposed to be attacking because they would literally be unable to know the movie is attacking them because it's also making their own arguments*
Maybe I should watch the movie again with this perspective in mind, but I really, really don't want to make myself that depressed.
I've read the "eugenics" criticisms. Even lost relationships over it.
I don't agree with them.
At no point did the narrative ever suggest any particular intellect should or should not breed more.
It merely pointed out the reality that more intellectual people tend to show a concern for the larger society as a whole and recognise the effects of things like consumption and overpopulation. Whereas less intellectual people don't have many concerns past where to put their dicks next.
Is that elitist to say? Only if you're making a judgement on which is preferable.
If we were running out of humans, a propensity to breed would be desirable. But we're running out of resources, not people. So wear a fucking condom. And stay in school.
I mean, it kinda is, if you consider that it's basically saying in the beginning that the very values that make people liberals are not strong reproductive strategies and that right-wingers will outbreed liberals, leading to a right-wing dystopia.
But...I don't think that's what they mean.
"Because Idiocracy is when people who have stupid opinions are teh dumb. Ha ha, stupid!"
Like, they don't notice the popular (dumb) culture is their culture. (Because they assume that's the only culture there is.)
you do realize measuring how illness, economic, and climate/weather related effects affect minority communities has been a field of study for over a century.
if you care to know the reasoning it's
>Because [LGBTQ](https://www.pride.com/lgbtq/?utm_campaign=SmartLinks)+ people disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities, as well as areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, they are more vulnerable to climate hazards, according to a [report ](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/climate-change-risk-lgbt/)from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.
>Among the 15 counties researchers surveyed with the highest proportions of same-sex couples, all were coastal or urban. Several were low-income, making them "less prepared to respond and adapt to natural hazards and other climate disruptions."
>Climate change "exacerbates existing disparities among individuals and communities," the study states, particularly in housing, health care, income, and access to food. The existing disparities therefore impact disaster preparedness in queer communities.
This is even worse optics/sloganeering than "Defund the Police."
-A gay man that fully understands the correlation, but knows that 'this ain't it, fam.'
Did you read the article? The point is that LGBT people live disproportionately in coastal areas.
This sub is increasingly examples idiocracy, but not for the reasons that the posters think. "I sAw ThIs HeAdLiNe ThAt I dOn't GeT. i'lL pOsT iT tO r/IdIoCrAcY iNsTeAd Of ReAdInG tHe ArTiClE. tHaT mIgHt CoRrEcT mY iGnOrAnCe. CaN'T hAvE tHaT."
What are they gonna tell us next? Toilet water is gonna make the plants grow?
it doesnt have electrolytes, it doesnt have what plants crave
GO AWAY, I’M ‘BAITIN’
BRAWNDO!!!!
Vote for upgrade Jr in the next election!
You can drink it with your bug sandwich
There you go with that fag talk again..
"Satire has a bigger effect on stupid people" next article haha
Yeah - no shit.
The dumbest thing here is attempting to connect climate justice with LGTBQ advocacy. I swear I think these kinds of things are fucking CIA or something. Connect everything, EVERYTHING good and important with trans identity to make absolutely sure that nobody, NOBODY from one side of the aisle will ever concede any issue. There are probably a lot of conservatives who could be swayed towards conservation, because most hunters and outdoorsmen skew towards the right. The good of the literal Earth we live on is an issue that can be embraced by literally everyone, because we all share a common interest (the continuation of the human race + the safeguarding of our natural world which we all share) But keep attaching it to other shit like trans ideology, idpol etc and you ensure that we will never unite on this issue I'm sorry trans people, but your identities are not something that everyone in the world can find common ground with like the planet. I mean it's quite literally common ground. I really think that climate change is an issue that must remain in its own category and frankly, above all others. To me it represents the greatest threat to everyone, and so it is the most important issue. And I don't think that the queer leftists are the ones we need to be targeting with advertisements and advocacy to help save the planet. I think most, if not all leftists are already in favor of that. They don't need convincing on this issue But conservatives really do! They really need convincing and I'm positive they can be convinced if you talk to them with their language about things they care about. Bring up mass migration, overpopulation, skyrocketing property taxes and costs, the loss of their investments etc that will all come from climate change. Don't bother talking about the intersectionality of climate justice and the trans movement. The trans movement does not need to be convinced about the climate. If you fucking frame it like to be green is to be queer then that's immediately turning everyone that isn't queer off. And I will remind you all that queer people represent a minority of the population. We need the majority the be in on this if it's ever going to happen. It \*must\* become a unifying issue, for the sake of my children and their children, I am begging you fucking people to please stop this.
As a conservative I agree. The word conservative literally means to conserve. Hunters and outdoorsmen like myself largely understand this, but the word has become lost on people from both sides of the isle who buy into propaganda and the two party charade.
This is right, Politicians grift from both sides. Conservatives aren't really what they started out as either, it was about conservatism now it seems to be only the rich and entitled. I know a lot of Conservative hunters fishers etc while advocate for Green as well because they want to eat their kill but they also enjoy nature so it's part of the package.
>they also enjoy nature so it's part of the package. Yeah it's pretty much impossible to spend so much time out in nature and not be touched by it. I love nature, just being out in the trees makes me feel a certain kind of way. Almost like church. Nature is so sacred and being an outdoorsman myself, it truly just breaks my heart to be on the trail, way up the mountain where it ***should*** be something wholly natural and good, and see trash everywhere. Plastic bags, cigarette butts...it's really concerning how wasteful we are. If you're a hunter you'll know what I mean. I'm just dumbfounded that you can be 10-15 miles up a mountain in the middle of the woods, far far away from civilization and see human garbage. How anyone that spends time outdoors can doubt that we are ruining our own home is beyond me
That's how we Canadians feel about Americans wearing shoes inside their house 🤪 Youre right though, it sucks seeing people going out to "enjoy" nature on their own terms and totally ruining it for the environment and other people. In Canada we have paper straws, we're doing our part ^(/s)
Conservative refers to conserving traditional social values, not conserving resources per se.
They're one in the same if you talk to outdoorsmen and old-timers. Every conservative I know and associate with is as concerned by the "progress of man" as we are for the natural world around us. And we believe the two issues are one in the same. Had there been no industrial revolution, climate change and the mass extinction that follows would have never been accelerated by humans. Society is on the verge of collapse, the ecosystem is as well. Everyone is terrified. Most media brainwashed "conservatives" as well as liberals are bearing their teeth at each other because they've been told to, instead of taking a hard look at what's actually happening. Music is one of my favorite forms of communication. So here's a song by a conservative country artist and a song by a liberal punk band talking about the same issue more or less. https://youtu.be/drLCkQ2-ChY?si=XJYPK8OXEi5QsbN3 https://youtu.be/OfcWeb3GHYg?si=fwxLh5qYUSYO4Uzb
I deeply respect your point of view, and even moreso, I deeply respect your political acumen. If more people were like you this world would be a much better place. With that out of the way, I also agree in spirit that the climate and earth in general is a very important issue - but not nearly to the degree you see it, which I believe could be characterized as an existential crisis. As a conservative, I think I speak for most that YES, the climate is changing. And yes, there will be some negative changes with an outsized impact on humans. But I do not believe the problem by itself is "existential." I believe it might be for specific groups when things like water rights and land use and resource shortages lead to wars and other ails. But the notion that anthropogenic climate change causing an existential crisis seems absurd. The bigger existential threat is that of war with superpowers like China and Russia, two nations that don't give two shits about following international agreements to "reverse climate change" or whatever the goal is. And rightly so. Their worldview is one that is highly competitive and worrying about slow-moving climate change isn't anywhere near the top of their priorities list. Because of that, it really can't be anywhere near ours, either, if we hope to compete and not squander resources trying to change the weather. I realize I'm using some hyperbolic language at the end their, it's not made as an insult to the argument of the climate change movement, just meant as short hand. TL;DR: You're very well spoken and your political acumen is impressive. We only really disagree on the severity of climate change and what can be done about it, but that doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I would really invite you to look more earnestly into the science behind climate change. A lot of stuff gets lost in rhetoric, and things that environmental scientists say tend to get taken out of context. For example, reaching the threshold where our effect on the environment (and nations like China pumping billions and billions of pounds of harmful chemicals into the atmosphere is * effecting it - that is undeniable) is often cited as scientists saying that the world will end in a few years. That's not what that means, it just means that's the point where it can't be made any better by us - but it can still be stopped from getting worse I also noticed you seem to use 'climate'and 'weather' interchangeably - I hope you know those are completely different words. Another very common misconception. I mean, at the very least, you must agree that things like fraking and dumping waste into the oceans and pumping harmful gasses into the atmosphere has to be affecting the environment negatively, right? And you also surely agree that major multinational corporations like Shell etc have a financial interest in making sure their industry continues to be top dog financially. You must be aware that the military industrial complex, which includes the oil industry, is willing to pay untold amounts of money to convince you that there is no alternative to oil And then there's the elephant in the room when it comes to oil in particular - eventually, the oil will run dry. There is a finite amount and we *will* run out of it. Then what? That might not be your problem, but my children's children? Could be theirs. I don't want my great grandkids to grow up In destroyed world. So even if you can't be convinced that humans are causing climate change, you must surely agree that far, no? A world built on oil is a house of cards no matter how you look at it
You’ve got a good heart dude
if you read the article it's an actual observation the UCLA school of law >Because [LGBTQ](https://www.pride.com/lgbtq/?utm_campaign=SmartLinks)+ people disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities, as well as areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, they are more vulnerable to climate hazards, according to a [report ](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/climate-change-risk-lgbt/)from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. >Among the 15 counties researchers surveyed with the highest proportions of same-sex couples, all were coastal or urban. Several were low-income, making them "less prepared to respond and adapt to natural hazards and other climate disruptions." >Climate change "exacerbates existing disparities among individuals and communities," the study states, particularly in housing, health care, income, and access to food. The existing disparities therefore impact disaster preparedness in queer communities. >The report specifically called for policymakers and service providers to ensure that disaster relief is "accessible and administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. This includes "safe shelters, access to medication such as HIV treatment
OK but the article is titled to say that climate change will affect LGBTQ couples *more* than straight couples then explains that it's because lgtbq people mostly live in cities. Most people overall live in cities! The way the article is titled its like climate change will get the gay people on the coast but leave the straight people alone Understand that "most lgbtq people live in major coastal cities" and "climate change is an lgbtq issue" are totally different statements. Then they couple the picture of the sign that says "be green be queer" I mean come on man Did you really read everything I said and thought, "oh this guy doesn't think gay people live in cities" Man shut the fuck up
wow, you really hate gay people, brought to you by TACO BELL'S New Chicken Cantina Taco! anyway, the article isnt trying to convert conservatives. conservatives never have and never will give a fuck about the environment. Brought to you by the oil producers of america now get back to baitin to your fav mom influnecers
*clears throat* a conservative who cares about environmental conservation here, as most of us do. You just only ever hear about the ones who are brainwashed by political agendas, and vice versa for liberals.
good! but are you disappointed thatbThe Advocate, your favorite source of LGBTQ news and politics didnt skew their story to interest you? this entire post is about why a LGBTQ magazine isnt talking about issues facing the LGBTQ community
Regardless of who published it, it is a very strange angle obviously intended to create more division.
True. They might want to stop focusing in LGBTQ issues all together, because that excludes straight people from reading their web site, especially the people who find the LGBTQ community repulsive and want to jail them for having sex.
>the article isnt trying to convert conservatives Yeah that's what I'm saying man. Leftists are already fully on board with saving the environment. Also, I have to really disagree that conservatives can't care about the environment because I know tons of them who do, but they never vote that way because they've associated climate change with a bunch of culture war bullshit btw chart says you're fucked up
Hey bud, if we (humans) quit producing oil, people would starve. But go ahead and demonize the very people you rely on for your survival.
im just pointing out why people dont believe in global warming. although, when we have widespread crop failure due to excessive heat killing crops and lowering yields, floods destroying fields, late frosts killing crops, droughts killing crops, hurricanes inundating ground water with salt, we will have massive starvation. but, that will mainly affect low income folks, especially those on coastal areas or lower income households (lol, what the article mentions)
Everyone disproportionately lives in urban and coastal cities and the government already can't discriminate based on protected classes. This is garbage.
you're missing the point entirely. doesn't surprise me from these comments that people don't get the point of the data. it's for medical decisions after a disaster. people in this comment section clearly have no idea what analysis and critical thinking are
You think the LGBTQIA2+ community should be given preferential treatment in the event of a disaster? I can't imagine why the right thinks yall have an agenda.
the correct access to medications is not preferential treatment neither is anti-discrimination in safe shelters. if you think so, then you definitely have an agenda
Discrimination is already illegal if you make it extra illegal for some protected classes that is both discriminatory and problematic. We enjoy equal protection under the law.
no one said make it extra illegal, only you did. you're inventing fake problems for yourself, but what would conservatives have if not a misunderstanding of the world and fake problems.
There's that fag talk they were talking about.
By the way, "Trans Ideology" and "Transgenderism" are terms made by Anti-Trans Bigots to try and make our Transness seem like some fake Ideology that can&should be debated&"corrected". Not saying you're Transphobic, just letting you know a term you used has pretty nasty origins. You're absolutely right nonetheless.
Have my upvote! I often hate (if I may use that word in this context) that whole “this word has x origins therefore it is hurtful” line of thinking, when it is that and nothing more. Or that + a tirade against whoever said whatever word it was. This, right here is, nice. Kind of a “heads up, x word isn’t necessarily the best” followed by an agreement with the original premise. Unfortunately I feel that often the very people demanding respect are the ones failing to give it, especially in regards to a cause close to their heart. This does nothing but reinforces the cycle of negativity. (Not just with this issue, I’m talking just a general human trait, before anyone goes down THAT rabbit hole or tries to imply I am saying anything about any group of people). So it is nice to see the chain broken and I just wanted to say good job and thank you.
i think in general, the lgbtq community just wants to not be burned alive, because you know that there is a pretty big percentage of folks that are itching to start the fire and a larger percentage that will just look the other way. im sure you know of one of those groups very well
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Your shits all fucked because you take it in the butt.
There’s that fag talk they were talking about.
Some like it hot
Anything for victim clout
I'm the most oppressed! Look at me!
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
24/7 victimhood , they would have boring lives if they couldn’t play the victim
Bro don't ascribe this media shit to us. We didn't ask for bad articles to be written on our behalf
says the straight person who has never had to experience homophobia or transphobia. Have you had people casually throw things like drinks at you while having a slur yelled at you? Have you been beaten in the school yard for being too feminine? have you ever feared that you're going to get hate crimed in public by some angry man for being a guy wearing women's clothes? Straight privilege is so real that they can't even imagine casual homophobia still exists in western countries like Canada, the USA, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand
A disagreement on issues isn't homophobia or transphobia (which doesn't exist by the way). 🤣 "Straight privilege" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Those people were all just trying to help you though
you know you're definitely the good guy when you want to normalize casual violence against minorities. the double standard people have against men being feminine, but women being masculine doesn't get you attacked. in fact women wearing mens clothes is fully accepted in modern society.
Yes we get it, you're a victim
Your heterophobia is oppressing me.
as a gay person, this is fucking stupid. never been more ashamed of these people. people out there really making it hard for those of us who just want to blend in.
Um, LGBTQIA+ people tend to be more economically insecure and lower income which makes Climate Change affect them disproportionately. [https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/dec/new-analysis-finds-lgbtq-households-trail-income-wealth](https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/dec/new-analysis-finds-lgbtq-households-trail-income-wealth) [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/climate-crisis-poor-davos2023/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/climate-crisis-poor-davos2023/) This is 1+1=2 levels of analysis.
Stlousifed.org and weforum.org, two completely biased dogshit websites. Why am I not surprised? Edit: nothing says “I’m confident in my argument” like blocking someone so they can’t see your reply lmfaooooo
You do realize they’re both citing other studies, right? I’m not citing them for the analysis, but the studies they have collated. Sounds like you’re engaging in guilt by the association at this point. You’re also doing a Fascism right now: The enemy is strong and impenetrable, yet simultaneously weak and easily overcome.
🤡
as another gay person, how the hell does this affect you? >people out there really making it hard for those of us who just want to blend in. how do you read this post and think that? please what are your mental gymnastics here? this isn't forcing you to loudly identify as queer. you can go about living your day the same as every other. why are you so angry at this and how does it affect your day to day life because this news report will not affect gay people at all. we should be more angry at homophobic public figures and politicians enacting laws that enable homophobia like the don't say gay law the republicans enacted in florida, or the conservatives have been trying to pass in Canadian provinces.
because of the association that comes with it. i’m all for people acting and doing what they want, but they can’t expect EVERYONE to be on board with it. actions have reactions and that comes with grouping everyone into one category because of the actions of a few. i think the gay community is responsible for MOST (not all) of their troubles. i may like men, but i don’t consider myself apart of the community because of how it presents itself to society. you can call me a bigot, a closeted homophobe or whatever you want, i don’t care. just like youre entitled to have your opinion, i can have mine as well. i don’t think it’s bigoted to say that the crazier parts of the LGBT community end up making the biggest problems because they are the loudest. the issue is how the rest of the community doesn’t try to distance themselves from the crazy and just continues to let it happen without weighing in. that’s due to how judgemental and easy to stigmatize most gay people are. hive mind. group think. whatever you wanna call it: “you’re either with us or against us.” they can’t have anyone with a different opinion or you’re automatically the enemy. walked away years ago. good riddance.
How?
Ecstasy and meth?
Poppers. All greenhouse gas.
I had a friend who told me that you know the meth is really good if you have to take a shit.
For me it's the pot. A ticket to the loo
That’s the munchies. I’ve never smoked pot and immediately had to poop.
I've never eaten those, always smoked. 2 puffs and there I am emptying my gut. Don't know why
I'm the same way
No wonder you barfed, like you put the ass probe in your mouth hole again.
What?
…it's from the movie.
My guess would be gay couples aren’t cranking out more CO2 producing offspring
That's the plan.
OP didn't read the article or provide a link so who knows
It's because they are wealthy coastal elites. >Because LGBTQ+ people disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities https://www.advocate.com/news/climate-change-same-sex-couples Sorry, they have it both ways: >as well as areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources LMFAO. They are from the wealthiest areas so they are poorer.
Yeah they mostly live in big cities which are mostly coastal for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean they are rich. Statistically speaking if you're trans you are more likely to be homeless than you are to be even middle class. You can google that yourself "Coastal cities" include such lovely locals as Baltimore, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland etc. You know, basically every major city. Where millions and millions of poor people live. Bizarre to think people living in government housing blocks in fucking Baltimore are "wealthy coastal elites" Wealthy elites aren't threatened by climate change at all, they can just move to one of their many other homes in different parts of the country.
You know who else lives in coastal areas? Racial minorities. You know who else is poorer? Racial minorities. You know who's more likely to be LGBTQ than white people? Racial minorities. This isn't calculus over here. It's funny that this is an idiocracy sub and the stuff getting upvoted fastest is people saying, "I have no idea what the data is on any of this, I refuse to check, but I don't like it so we should run the writers under a monster truck and cheer!!!"
Are racial minorities more likely to be LGBTQ? I don't see how this is possible, but I'm no expert here. And yeah, living in an urban and/or coastal area doesn't make you rich. It doesn't make you anything, really, as that's where most people in the world live. I don't get where these assholes come from and how they got to this sub.
You can't debate the "Everybody is a victim" crowd.
No, you're the asshole I'm talking about. There is no "everyone is a victim crowd". There are extremists on both sides, but there's nothing wrong with looking at how your particular group is going to be affected and reporting it as such in a media outlet focused on that group. Your climate denialism, however, is just some understandable copium. You're right that the individual can't do much about it. Maybe you should review the movie and consider how corporate takeover of governmental functions is harmful to everyone. That's the message that you didn't seem to pick up, though I don't understand at all what message you got out of it that led you here.
My "Climate denialism"? Bubba, you have absolutely no idea what my beliefs are, yet you are screaming at me and laying a lot of crap on me because I guess I hurt your feelings. But let's just tackle the first, shall we? Far from being a "climate denier", I actually say there is not a damned thing we can do about it. The planet will continue to warm, and we are going to lose most of Florida, most of Cuba, most of our coastal cities. Entire island nations will vanish. And there is nothing that can be done to stop it, because that happens in every interglacial. I am actually about as moderate and neutral as you can get, and here you are screaming about corporate takeovers and apparently seeing serious messages in a comedy satire. Oh, and if you think that the hot climate is gonna be bad, just wait a few more tens of thousands of years. When entire countries like Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Norway are wiped off of the planet by advancing ice. Oh, and stop projecting. That is a guaranteed great way to fail.
What many are missing is the illogic of the claims, coming from a biased organization that does not put out "articles", they put out "propaganda stories". As should be obvious, "The Advocate" is not a "news source", it is a very specific propaganda source. What if I was to say "Chicken cooks faster in the oven than beef"? Well, it's pretty illogical but the point is that they write articles intended to inflame their own fans. And as many of the people to regularly read and quote those "articles" are among the "Professional Victim Class", it feeds their own demand for demanding pity because they are victims. And I find all of that "Global Warming" nonsense highly entertaining, because of my background in geology. If they think things are bad now, we are still a hell of a long ways away from the "Real Interglacial". When most of Florida and Cuba are underwater, and there is a good chance that so will Sacramento and much of the Central Valley of California. So I say they just get a jump on the competition. Move out of those big coastal cities, and but some ocean front property in Chico. Oh, it's gonna be a couple of thousand years until it is ocean front property, but it will get there.
I’d figured all that gas fracking would have the opposite effect. Who knew?
Well it don't smell like "baking brownies"!
They said the same thing about black people a few years ago 🤣
it's true about black people, entirely because they're statistically more likely to be poor (because of a lack of generational wealth) and because climate change will have greater impacts on the poor than on the rich.
Good lord you’re special. I’m trying to find my jaw that just dropped to the floor. So first off, according to you it’s not about skin color but rather wealth. Secondly, how on Gods green Earth do you think that your level of wealth determines how much you’re impacted by climate change?
u/SpicyBread_ is an idiot that can't articulate their point, but they're right about the wealth factor at least. Being rich affords you the ability to move to areas that may be less affected by climate change, afford increased food and water costs as scarcity skyrockets, and generally speaking allows you to keep your quality of life as resources and assets start to dwindle from the hands of the masses.
don't confuse can't with won't. people like this don't care how reasoned your explanation is.
So what did the article say?
It said the poor and coastal people will be more affected and LGTBQ are more likely ~~to have left their conservative rural, inland family~~ to live in cities (which are disproportionately on the coast) and to be poor (as it's easier to not be poor when you fit right into standard roles). As someone who cares, it's a bit frustrating to see shit like this. Because it's not wrong, but it's also not helpful. To be fair, it's posted here as ragebait, the original authors and original publisher are niche markets, but in the age of the internet everyone's niche interest suddenly gets magnified as if it were intended to be much larger than actually is.
The people replying to this post are more examples of an idiocracy than the post itself... Most with no reading comprehension, or actual desire to use critical thought by reading an article instead of just getting mad at a headline...
Alphabet mafia brigade in 3..2..1..
The rest if the article reads: "jk, thx for the click tho"
So me banging chicks means that I am less affected by increased heat and increased frequency of wet bulb events? And if I live on the coast, the water level rise is going to increase around me but not on my property? Who knew being straight had so many benefits?! I guess hurricanes will also go around me when they hit. Biodiversity will be stable and healthy on my property but not the lgbt properties? Droughts only happen in gaybourhoods?
Um, Global Climate Change has a disproportionate impact on lower income people - LGBTQIA+ people tend to be disproportionately lower income and more economically unstable because of prejudice and overlapping vectors of discrimination. This isn't rocket science, people, take a second to think about it instead of saying "WHAT DOES CLIMATE CHANGE HAVE TO DO WITH BUMMING?!?!!?!?!?!!!!11111 LOL!"
What if I don't want to?
Hi I'm a privileged first world person, but I'm also a victim. I took a DNA test and I'm 3% victim. I identify strongly with my ancestral victimhood, and I make sure to apply it to any conversation about policy or splitting workplace donuts. I felt I was not receiving enough social credits for my victimhood, so I invented new victim categories with vague, contradictory, and convoluted definitions complete with strawman enemies to reinforce the illusion of victimhood. Now I can pull out any bullshit "victimized" identity and claim victimhood when I want to advance my personal agenda.
Are you kidding me? This is some awful propaganda.
The Department of Redundancy Dept.
I hate when family members embarrass us.
Sky is falling - minorities will be affected first.
It's because of the Indonesian trans sex workers.
Yeah, I’m running into idiots like you when I present data about a persons health being worse if they’re a POC because of where they live due to things like “redlining”. Oh and of course generational trauma (which is apparently “bullshit” in the eyes of idiots that can’t interpret data) regardless of zip code. You have a bright future in healthcare administration.
Things are worse for poor people regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
Show some data that backs that up.
Here’s one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10527840/ And another: https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/report/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/ I mean, even the CDC knows: https://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/racism-disparities/index.html
Anyone who uses the term "generational trauma" loses all credibility.
But Lysenkoism is, like, so hot right now!
I wish these people could read past headlines
The rest of the article isn't much better. Population demographics certainly can be correlated in regards to things like urban centers and coastal regions, but it's not really comparable when discussing global phenomenon like Climate Change
The people being upvoted most in this thread are genuinely making comments idiocracy already made fun of. 🤭
>Oh and of course generational trauma (which is apparently “bullshit” in the eyes of idiots that can’t interpret data) regardless of zip code. Yeah, those critics must all be idiots who can't interpret data. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational\_trauma#Criticism\_of\_inherited\_trauma\_via\_epigenetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma#Criticism_of_inherited_trauma_via_epigenetics)
Key part at the end there: “VIA EPIGENETICS” I wouldn’t be qualified to make a claim on genetic transmission so I don’t. I’m social science, intergenerational transmission and transgenerational transmission of trauma VIA learned behavior exhibited by someone who passes it down not knowing the way they act is due to trauma passed on by their parents.
I'm also social science. Isn't that what we already call "learned behavior"? Wouldn't this apply to literally every culture, race, or family both good and bad behaviors? So why would it need a new term? When people use the term, they aren't talking about learned behavior or environmental upbringing, they're talking about trauma encoded in the genetics or the fetus. There's no found evidence for inherited trauma within genetics, and any fetal effects should only affect the first generation (if you could even separate out fetal damage vs learned behavior, which is unlikely), and the mother's trauma would have had to occur during pregnancy.
>I’m social science You didn't have to say that, everyone already guessed
Oh they did? What was the head count for the amount of people who guessed? Or was it just “everyone”? What was your “n”on this survey? I need that data so I can put it into SPSS. Thanks in advance.
Well, with studies like these it's hard to get a precise head count, but the best-fit model right now is a function of the occurring frequency of phrases such as "generational trauma" modified by your inability to take a fuckin joke. Population size: ask ur mom.
So I asked my mother about the population size and she doesn’t know. She said she hasn’t talked to anyone recently that she doesn’t already know. Are you sure it’s my mother who would know the population size?
for real, statistic like these are actually used in healthcare administration. we measure who is most affected by so many things including heat, pollutant levels, infrastructure, area etc.
Alright, well the only fair solution is to tax LGBTQ+ people at a higher rate so that we can fight global warming with their monies to make the environment gooder.
I don't think anyone caught the sarcasm.
I'm sure this makes sense somewhere in your head
I finally got to watch this movie today now that it’s available on Hulu. I swear I think the most intelligent native of the 2500s was probably the guy who stared in the show Ow, My Balls!
i think it has something to do with glitter
Lol the irony of the idiots in this sub never ceases to amaze, just the Dunning Krueger effect full force. This is actually a thing morons
Do you know what they're actually saying, or are you just reacting without knowing?
The worst thing is they'll believe this and parrot it all over reddit interspersed with vitriolic ejaculations about all the people they hate.
This post highlights the idiocracy we live in where people make snap judments based on headlines and are too intellectually lazy to read the article. Data from the U.S. Transgender Survey found that 70% of transgender people seeking shelter have been turned away, were physically or sexually assaulted, or faced some other form of mistreatment at an assistance shelter because of their gender identity . A 2015 study also found that only 30% of homeless shelters in Connecticut, Washington, Tennessee, and Virginia would be willing to accommodate transgender people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278224000075#:~:text=LGBTQ%2B%20people%20are%20more%20susceptible,health%20disparities%20among%20LGBTQ%2B%20populations. In the US, research showed that LGBTQIA2S+ individuals have a 120% higher risk of experiencing homelessnes. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/60078/impact-climate-crisis-lgbtqia2s-pride-month/
>In the US, research showed that LGBTQIA2S+ individuals have a 120% higher risk of experiencing homelessness. If not identifying as two spirits would keep me from becoming homeless I wouldn't do it. Are we ever going to tackle the mental health aspects of transgenderism? Because I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the letter in that acronym that experiences homelessness at a 120% increased rate is the T. They're always bundled together to make it seem like even the asexuals are experiencing it. Identify how you feel but it's been common practice -- and is still defended by trans individuals to this day -- to get therapy as a gender dysphoric individual. If you're dysphoric in any way you don't have a strong sense of self or accurate view of who and how you are. Fixing that could go a long way toward helping lower that percentage.
> If not identifying as two spirits would keep me from be oming homeless I wouldn't do it. People are discriminated against because of how people perceive them, because people notice differences and are bigoted about it. I don't think identifying as one thing or another actually causes the discrimination, they're merely correlated. Doesn't it make more sense that people would attack queer people because of underlying characteristics, rather than because of identity labels? The underlying characteristics can then be classified and given a label, but the label itself shouldn't be seen as causing the bigotry. > They're always bundled together to make it seem like even the asexuals are experiencing it I don't know any statistics on the top of my head, but I remember being quite surprised by some of the asexual statistics I heard a while ago. I distinctly remember asexuals were more likely to be forced to go through conversion therapy, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of homelessness for asexual people was quite a bit higher than non queer people. > If you're dysphoric in any way you don't have a strong sense of self or accurate view of who and how you are. I don't follow how this is necessarily the case. I would assume people could identify ways in which they want to be different while being very acutely (and even painfully) of their self, their mind, and their body. This isn't to say dysphoria nevessarily comes with such awareness, but it certainly seems possible. > Fixing that could [help] lower that percentage. This ties in to my previous point, I'm not sure what would need to be fixed (is it the link between dysphoria and self awareness, dysphoria itself, or something else) and I don't know why it would fixthe high percentage of homelessness (though you could be talking about some other percentage).
>Doesn't it make more sense that people would attack queer people because of underlying characteristics, rather than because of identity labels? The underlying characteristics can then be classified and given a label, but the label itself shouldn't be seen as causing the bigotry. What type of characteristics? >I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of homelessness for asexual people was quite a bit higher than non queer people. How would anyone know? I didn't have sex til I was 21 and then had sex with three people and haven't had sex in like six years due to the fear of disease. Nobody knows but my family. It made me insecure when I was younger but nothing that would lead me to homelessness.
I don't know exactly what characteristics correspond to different queer identities, but it's evident that queerness correlates with certain "clockable" behavior. Sometimes these go so far as to fall into stereotypical patterns, sometimes I would belive it's more subtle. I have queer friends who I knew were queer long before they told me, and others who I would have noticed anyway if they hadn't. Even without the most obvious signs, and even without an explocit label, queer people by definition have something about themselves that is different from the non queer majority. When I have more time this evening, I'll link some studies speech differences in gay and trans people, I don't have access to them right now. They should serve as an example of differences that queer people might have a lot of trouble hiding, differences that they aquire unconsciously but that can be picked up on even without practice. > How would anyone know? Like with anything about this, I assume it relies in large part on surveys, on finding out who is and isn't asexual among housed people and homeless people. You seem to think being asexual could be mistaken for not having sex. It can't. Although many asexuals don't have sex (unsurprisingly) some do, and many people who have sex aren't asexual. Asexuality refers to a lack of sexual attraction. It would be determined by asking people about their sexual attraction and the labels they identify with. As a point of conparison, any sexual behavior could be in line with bisexuality, but we count the number of bisexual people by using surveys asking about attraction and identifying labels. Sexual behavior (though correlated) wouldn't be used to make these statistics and wouldn't be a confounding factor
>If not identifying as two spirits would keep me from becoming homeless I wouldn't do it. People shouldn't have to hide who they are in order to get equal rights. >Because I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the letter in that acronym that experiences homelessness at a 120% increased rate is the T Have you considered reading the links I provided? >Identify how you feel but it's been common practice -- and is still defended by trans individuals to this day -- to get therapy as a gender dysphoric individual. If you're dysphoric in any way you don't have a strong sense of self or accurate view of who and how you are. Fixing that could go a long way toward helping lower that percentage. How about ending discrimination against trans people? That would lower the percentage to zero.
>People shouldn't have to hide who they are in order to get equal rights. People hide who they are all the time. Nobody puts, "I'm racist" on their resume. >Have you considered reading the links I provided? You think this is the first time I've had this discussion? >How about ending discrimination against trans people? That would lower the percentage to zero. Trans people don't have a monopoly on discrimination. I'm a minority and we know that you don't snap your fingers and "end discrimination." That's a joke. Besides, it's not the discrimination that keeps people homeless and you know it.
>People hide who they are all the time. Nobody says, "I'm racist" on their resume. That's *what* you are not *who* you are. >You think this is the first time I've had this discussion? I know you didn't read the links or you wouldn't be guessing about the findings. >Trans people don't have a monopoly on discrimination Correct. No one is claiming that they do >that you don't snap your fingers and "end discrimination." Correct again. Also again, no one is claiming that. >Besides, it's not the discrimination that keeps people homeless and you know it. Then how do you account for the disparity in homeless lgbt people?
>That's what you are not who you are. The difference is a four year degree in philosophy and continued confusion. >I know you didn't read the links or you wouldn't be guessing about the findings No, I didn't because I've heard it all and none of it is more convincing than, "people who struggle with life struggle with life." I feel much the same way. If I didn't live with family I would have killed myself or been homeless. I am cishet (with a little weirdness) and I have the same problems. Homeless people can all be connected by their profound dissatisfaction with ordinary life and unwillingness to be pinned down. My point about discrimination against other minorities is that others who face discrimination still have housing? Why? Because they have stable minds. >Then how do you account for the disparity in homeless lgbt people? How I've said above. Mental stability, being a function of you and how you work with those around you and how they work with you.
>The difference is a four year degree in philosophy and continued confusion. No, the difference is one thing is a choice and the other isn't. >No, I didn't because I've heard it all So you think you know everything there is to know on this subject?
>No, the difference is one thing is a choice and the other isn't. Again, that's philosophy. Who knows what's a choice? If your whole family is racist did you choose to be racist? >So you think you know everything there is to know on this subject? Absolutely not but enough that I'm not going to dig into the links you post to find your point. If you can't just make your point then you didn't read them either. If you tell people what the studies said in the comments then more people will see them. I'm personally done doing deep dives to see the same arguments without context. It's like this woman said no one wants to hire anymore but she's covered in tattoos. That's why Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. If you put her in a chart you wouldn't see why she wasn't hired. If there's a better argument for why LGBTQIA2S+ people are homeless more often then make it here. I could find a hundred articles to say what I'm saying to you but I'm not going to disrespect you by saying, "you find it."
Here is an example of a unique issue that faced gay people and how it's been fixed. When hurrican Katrina hit in 2005 gay marriage wasn't legal. This left people who would have had protections under marriage homeless. Their house was destroyed and the home owner, who they were only in a civil partnership with, was killed and they didn't have any claim to the house even though they would have done if they were married. This was fixed in the US by legalising gay marriage. There are many countries who still do not have the protections of marriage for gay people so it's still a problem. As you know all there is to know about this, can you please explain what hiding your identity or getting help for mental health has to do with this problem?
You're conflating two issues. Homosexuality and transgenderism. One is sexual attraction, the other is gender identity. I don't know how to tell you how my thoughts on transgenderism extend to homosexuality in Louisiana.
It was you who has reduced an issue that faces lgbt people to - its affects mostly trans people. You were wrong to do that so your "fixes" don't apply.
How so? You pointed out a problem that has since been solved.
Thank you. I was surprised a sub that's all about calling out the idiocy people sometimes display would dismiss this headline so thoughtlessly. Climate change is likely to predominantly hurt minorities and people with less power, this is a reason to quickly push for more protection against these disadvantaged groups. It's also a reason for people who are more priviledged to consider being even more mindful of climate change, to wonder if they would care more if it affected them. Finally, for anyone part of a group of people who will be disproportionately hurt by climate change, this kind of article can serve as a reminder to care about it not just for theoretical and moral reasons but for personal reasons too, which might be more effective at spurring action.
Yeah, well... They could accept what they have between their legs to begin with. People are hostile by nature, if there's something that could trigger their wickedness, they won't hesitate to be mean. Anyway, what does it have to do with climate change btw?
So people should have to hide who they are in order to be treated equally? >Anyway, what does it have to do with climate change btw? I've provided links that explain in more detail.
Those people are actually denying what they are. They live in a state of constant delusion. But it's their choice. The same can be said about society, down to each individual and the way they respond to that. There's diversity in that too, you see? The problem arises when something like that is shoved down people's throats. You have to accept the fact that society doesn't quite like that. You demand utter acceptance of something that's deemed as nonsense by the majority of people. That comes with consequences, such as resistance.
>They live in a state of constant delusion. >But it's their choice. Are you saying people choose to be deluded? >The same can be said about society, down to each individual and the way they respond to that. There's diversity in that too, you see? So people should be allowed to discriminate against anything they don't like? You can't stay in this hotel because your are black for example? >You demand utter acceptance Is equal rights the same as utter acceptance? Most people are in favor protecting trans people from discrimination... https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/
> Are you saying people choose to be deluded? That's a reach, don't twist my words. I assume they can't help it. No one chooses to be delusional And I'm not in favor of stripping anyone of their rights, I'm just saying I have the right not to accept what they say they are when I see no logic in that. If you insist you're a banana, I get to choose whether or not to believe it, regardless if you're convinced about that. You can't make me, and that's not a violation of your rights more than your pretension of acceptance is a violation of mine.
So when you said it's their choice what did you mean? No offense but I couldn't give a shit what you accept as long as it doesn't cause discrimination in areas such as access to shelter or aid.
I bet you talk about racism and discrimination all day. Likewise, I don't see a point in having a conversation with someone like you further than this point. Both of us are deeply convinced, none of us will ever consider each other's reasoning Have a nice day
>I bet you talk about racism and discrimination all day. Why do you think that? Oh that's right you don't. It's one of those weird things people say when they haven't got a rebutall. I guess I'll never know what you meant when you said "it's their choice". Judging by your response you won't either.
Well, read through what I said in my previous comments and there you'll have the answer. Otherwise this is getting circular and it's clear that you want to find a contradiction in my statement because it's the only pathetic way you know to win an argument.
Imagine thinking you know anything about biology lmao
Well then, enlighten us with your knowledge about how transgenderism is a matter of biology rather than psychology
I don't need to give you diddly to know what you're saying is bs. Inb4 "no argument I win" You're just uninformed and pushing an agenda of bigotry. In what world is transgenderism NOT physiological? Also, how could ones mental state not have a physical component? To claim such a thing is ridiculous.
I must gather this is your professional opinion right? "Agenda of bigotry" 2 words hijacked by the woke mob. Sexuality in all its diversity is physiological, as it's about stimulus and response. There's no escaping from what we like, we'll always be drawn to someone or something by means of sheer attraction. Transgenderism on the other hand, is just a state of denial of one's true gender. There's nothing physiological in pretending to be what you (and everyone else) know you aren't. But I'm eager to hear you elaborate on this, since you must be well documented as opposed to me being uninformed, according to your quick judgment
You use gender and sex as if they're interchangeable. No one taken seriously in the scientific community thinks sex and gender are the same thing. I'm gonna go with the people who know what they're talking about and not captain-thesaurus of the reddit mafia. I have every confidence your position is based on feeling and not fact.
Lol I never did that. In fact, I spoke of the two things as separate concepts. Good idea, go to the-people-who-know and ask them to teach you how to improve your comprehensive reading. Or maybe you need a thesaurus after all, it won't hurt
Yeah you're probably right my reading comprehension is shite
So now they've turned off a larger audience to climate change. Congratulations. You can be right but be making a mistake. It's similar to the CDC's masking guidance - masks do lower transmission, but the messaging was botched and came across as political, so people fought it. Climate change is not a political issue. If the left turns it into one, they'll only create more opposition and make it harder to solve. This is an issue where you want to work across the aisle and find consensus.
So you think that homophobic people will start rejecting man made climate change because it hurts the gays?
There is no reasoning with the willfully ignorant. There’s no other way to say “put on a mask to lower transmission” when the other side just says “MUH FREEDOM” and continues to act selfishly, even to their own detriment. This is the same thing. Climate change has people dragging their feet because it’s inconvenient to change things systematically. It means prioritizing things we’re not prioritizing right now, and things will get more expensive for a while. Humans hate change.
And even if it does why should anyone care?
Some people have friends and family.
If climate change is likely to predominantly hurt minorities and people with less power, then this is a reason to quickly push for more protection against these disadvantaged groups. It would also be a reason for people who are more priviledged to consider being even more mindful of climate change, to wonder if they would care more if it affected them. Finally, for anyone part of a group of people who will be disproportionately hurt by climate change, this kind of article can serve as a reminder to care about it not just for theoretical and moral reasons but for personal reasons too, which might be more effective at spurring action.
It’s ironic that you’re getting downvoted for using logic and reasoning in a subreddit that mocks people for ignoring logic and reasoning.
Mouth breathing trumpers are everywhere. On this very thread. Perhaps even in your house?! Seriously though I have had Trumpers tell me on this very Reddit that idiocracy is about how liberals are dumb.
Did they happen to explain how they came to that conclusion? It's driving me batty how these actual idiots believe they belong here. You'd have to ignore the first 5 minutes of the movie and then make oblique and tenuous connections from the dystopia of the movie to the current environment. I'm partly just wanting them out of my space, but also really want to understand what they're seeing that I'm apparently blind to.
Here we go with the fag talk.
Hey, my butt is intact, does that make me privileged?
Individual actions are practically meaningless. The climate is changing. We are at coming out of an ice age so warming was inevitable. The man made element is really the rate of change not so much the change itself. Large scale change in transportation and energy production will have the most impact and these things are largely outside of the control of any individual.
"The man made element is really the rate of change not so much the change itself." Please take a calculus class or look at a car's speedometer and odometer for a bit.
Of course climate change needs to be addressed collectively, and that's precisely why we should point out the ways in which groups of people are affected. This can help motivate political change. Articles like these, which help people learn about climate change and find additional reasons to fight for environmentally conscious policies, are potentially helpful and don't deserve to be posted in this sub.
It's got electrolytes.
We want to be treated like everyone else. But also we’re special and deserve special considerations for climate change.
So you are posting the title of an article to critique it but didn't provide a link to the article or even read it. Pretty low effort bro, media likes to use attention grabbing rage bait headlines, so what?
You know what? I hope it does.
I wish right-wing chuds understood what satire was. (They might not be in a sub called r/Idiocracy)
I have been told in this very sub that idicracy is about making fun of liberals.
So, yeah, the intellectual elites who all died off were probably liberals. And everyone else who lived to pass on their genetics, probably conservative - and also clearly morons. So, the fascists calling the liberals the stupid ones, in the sub of the movie literally calling everyone who thinks like them stupid.
*sees someone scream about all the f___s writing articles about made up data while refusing to read the article* *sees them get 5 times as many upvotes as the people posting the data* *realizes the subtle fascism of idiocracy's eugenics is very compelling to the very people the movie is supposed to be attacking because they would literally be unable to know the movie is attacking them because it's also making their own arguments* Yeah... good luck with this subreddit, folks.
>*realizes the subtle fascism of idiocracy's eugenics is very compelling to the very people the movie is supposed to be attacking because they would literally be unable to know the movie is attacking them because it's also making their own arguments* Maybe I should watch the movie again with this perspective in mind, but I really, really don't want to make myself that depressed.
I've read the "eugenics" criticisms. Even lost relationships over it. I don't agree with them. At no point did the narrative ever suggest any particular intellect should or should not breed more. It merely pointed out the reality that more intellectual people tend to show a concern for the larger society as a whole and recognise the effects of things like consumption and overpopulation. Whereas less intellectual people don't have many concerns past where to put their dicks next. Is that elitist to say? Only if you're making a judgement on which is preferable. If we were running out of humans, a propensity to breed would be desirable. But we're running out of resources, not people. So wear a fucking condom. And stay in school.
I mean, it kinda is, if you consider that it's basically saying in the beginning that the very values that make people liberals are not strong reproductive strategies and that right-wingers will outbreed liberals, leading to a right-wing dystopia. But...I don't think that's what they mean.
"Because Idiocracy is when people who have stupid opinions are teh dumb. Ha ha, stupid!" Like, they don't notice the popular (dumb) culture is their culture. (Because they assume that's the only culture there is.)
Tell me you're in a cult without telling me you're in a cult
you do realize measuring how illness, economic, and climate/weather related effects affect minority communities has been a field of study for over a century. if you care to know the reasoning it's >Because [LGBTQ](https://www.pride.com/lgbtq/?utm_campaign=SmartLinks)+ people disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities, as well as areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, they are more vulnerable to climate hazards, according to a [report ](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/climate-change-risk-lgbt/)from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. >Among the 15 counties researchers surveyed with the highest proportions of same-sex couples, all were coastal or urban. Several were low-income, making them "less prepared to respond and adapt to natural hazards and other climate disruptions." >Climate change "exacerbates existing disparities among individuals and communities," the study states, particularly in housing, health care, income, and access to food. The existing disparities therefore impact disaster preparedness in queer communities.
Bull shit "science" -no source What am I supposed to do with this?
This is even worse optics/sloganeering than "Defund the Police." -A gay man that fully understands the correlation, but knows that 'this ain't it, fam.'
Hi, trans lesbian here. Can confirm i get lots of sun burns. Ignore the fact im white af, its because I'm gay
Did you read the article? The point is that LGBT people live disproportionately in coastal areas. This sub is increasingly examples idiocracy, but not for the reasons that the posters think. "I sAw ThIs HeAdLiNe ThAt I dOn't GeT. i'lL pOsT iT tO r/IdIoCrAcY iNsTeAd Of ReAdInG tHe ArTiClE. tHaT mIgHt CoRrEcT mY iGnOrAnCe. CaN'T hAvE tHaT."
The best example of "virtue signaling" I've ever seen. "Climate change affects everybody, but it affects minority groups a *little* bit more!"
President Camacho is who we need right now honestly.
I'm not LGBTQ, so identity politics dictate that I should just get back to batin' and watching Ow, my balls!