• Raab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Equal means equal. Your argument just creates a different hierarchy does it not?

    • molten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      So I guess setting equality as the goalpost is fine. But I just don’t think that straight people are really all that into having recognition for being straight. And I don’t think that LGBT want straight people to be treated worse in order to achieve equality. So maybe not the best goalpost but it’s close. Fish and birds have very different needs and equality is not really going to make it better without a lot of nuance.

      Like the guy on fire begging for water doesn’t deserve it more than you but if you point at him and say “no fair what about equality” it kind of ignores all the important context and makes you look like a dick.

      • Raab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        And straight people aren’t all that into being bashed and berated for being straight. I want equality, and to me that means equal, no context needed. So it comes off as extremely hypocritical when I see straights, whites, whatever it may be, getting the same treatment that they get ridiculed for. Your analogy works for a lot of things, but not for the way anyone should be treated. Period.

        • molten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No context needed? So like the narrowest scope for equality? Like you want straight people to be treated as lesser? Killed in other countries? Or maybe context would help with that type equality. Let’s make the straights experience what the lgbtqia+ people did/do and that’s equality.

          Anyway, equality is great but we ain’t even fucking there yet. Give the LGBT peeps their pride and celebration in the places where they won’t be fucking killed for it. If I would be killed for having six toes in Australia and had just recently made it closer to being treated like another person in my own country I’d celebrate the shit out of my sixth toe all the god damn time. When someone comes to my six toe party/game/whatever with five toes, who cares. Live and let live. I’m celebrating with my six toed goblet and my six toed hat. When they show up and ask for a five toed goblet because it’s only equal I’d probably make fun of them for having absolutely no understanding of what’s being celebrated or why and tell them they could have one for a million dollars or whatever too. But I’m sure the straight name tag and recognition is ‘equally’ meaningful to straight people, right?

          • Raab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            This comes off as incredibly dense. Equality in the highest form, with no negatives. Notice who’s the one heated here, and who’s the one with beliefs of human equality, bar none. I accept no blame as a supporter, and I will give no shade neither here nor there. And yeah, it is meaningful and I expect your acceptance, as I give to you and anyone else, friend.

            • molten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Sorry if you think I’m heated. I’ll tone it down. I really tend to overuse expletives for emphasis. I want to be clear that I understand you. However, I think that “equality in it’s highest form” is some kind of platonic magic that doesn’t exist in the reality we live in and is completely irrelevant to any of this. Like, it’s pretty ridiculous to remove context from a situation and just blanket “equality” on something. Your version is some really thoughtless black and white stuff that could use maybe a minute of consideration. Like treating someone without legs the same as someone who can walk and forgoing ramps because that’s equality in the highest form. “With no negatives” would require the legless fella to have legs. And would that require giving them legs to achieve equality? What about the legged people who didn’t get a hugely expensive surgery? Is equality giving them cash to equal that out? I’m saying it’s actually always complicated. Equality with context (and even really really simple thought) concludes that treating everyone equally means treating some people differently. Because, y’know, you can’t ask a paraplegic to use the stairs in most cases.

              But I’m mostly just responding to inform and explain in case there’s any chance of education or open mindedness and it seems like we’re not getting anywhere.

              • Raab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’m in no need of informing, and your analogies fall short of making a point. I don’t mind if you want to focus on what separates us, but this has been a waste of my time, and there is no conclusion when met with ignorance.

                • molten@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Hey let’s drop it. I didn’t mean to touch a nerve. I’m sorry for wasting your time friend. Hope you have a nice night.