It often takes a personal stake in the game to motivate some people to activism. Why someone becomes an advocate for a worthy cause isn't as important as the fact that they are an advocate. Charles Barkley can reach a lot more people than I can. So, thanks Chuck for doing your part. I don't care why you did it, but you did. So, thanks. BNM
(Somewhere at the NBA league office.) 'Well. Mr. Silver looks like we must make the necessary changes to the all star game in 2017. This is just not morally right and fans will rightfully condemn us for not pulling out of Charlotte. But where should we move it too?" "Well. What about Portland as an alternative?" Long silence..... (.....howls of laughter.) "OMG. That's the best one I've ever heard..... Ummm....... can someone get Pyongyang on the line. We NEED a realistic change of venues here! Har Har Har!"
Yet the NBA makes billions from China and a majority of the players have been going over there for appearances each off-season. The laws there are much more discriminating and very open about it. If the NBA stands up and makes a change, the message may appear sincere, but I doubt it truly is. It is a slippery slope. Is it necessary to only advocate when it is convenient or should it be done across the board? If it is done across the board, too much money will be lost.
Should a transgender genetic male with a penis have a right to use a female restroom? Should a genetic female have the right to use a restroom free of any male genitalia? You can't have both. Sometimes rights come into conflict (as in my example). In those cases, corporations and leagues should stay out of the politics. Should gay people be allowed to form a union like a marriage? IMHO, sure. (this is much closer to your Red example) But, there are many places they can get married. My problem is with corporations or people with a bully pulpit trying force a state to impose fines upon churches or the like to conform to the corporation's opinion of what is right. With racism, there is no countervailing constitutional right that should allow it. Racism is wrong--going any direction. Religious freedom and the GLBT[keep adding letters] movement have countervailing beliefs. Religious freedom is guaranteed expressly in the Constitution. It gets more complicated here, which is why states should be free to address it how they wish within the bounds of the Constitution--and without interference from Elitist leagues or "thinkers". As in my bathroom example we have here conflicting rights.
I'm not sure how long it's been since I directly interacted with someone whom I know is openly gay. Certainly don't avoid gay people, but I just don't really know any. I don't know of any at work, I don't know of any at church, don't have any in my family. My neighbors a couple houses down might be gay, but I don't talk to my neighbors, so I don't really know. Closest I know of is that a couple of my church friends have gay daughters, but I haven't seen any of them in several months. Honestly, Kingspeed is the only gay person I've had any interaction with in probably the past 5 years. I guess that makes me weird.
I know of at least one more gay person on the forum other than KS, but they haven't posted in a couple of years because this place is politically retrograde. And one is more than zero. The point was "everyone knows someone."
Sure, I know of crandc too, but she's never around. And I don't actually know her or Eric, just like I don't actually know you. And there are many other gay people I have known, but that I don't really know anymore. Former coworkers, college classmate, brother's roommate, etc. I guess I would say, there's not really anyone in my life at the moment who is homosexual. Not by choice, mind you, but that's just the way the cards have fallen.
Making the distinction that online interactions are lesser and that you don't actually know people online is hilarious. I know you better than half my co-workers, because we actually fucking talk to each other.
Sorry, I'm going to need you to numerically quantify the significance of verbal and personal interaction, as well as the impact of username anonymity relative to the concept of "kennen" (the German word for personal knowledge, as contrasted with "wissen", which is factual knowledge) before I can render an opinion regarding the legitimacy of my earlier statement. Get on that, would ya?
Well, Bob... you're the one making the statement that online people aren't knowable, so if you could provide your documentation your own damn self, that'd be super-great. Also I need it by Friday. Thanks!
