I mean, they -are- just an entity out to make money. It just so happens there's more money in paying lip service to progressive social issues than being an outright bigot - in the West, anyway - so they've tailored their public statements to reflect that, even if a lot of their internal politics are a lot more fucky so they can continue to market themselves in more Conservative countries. Still, it is a big deal that huge corporations are bothering to take this shift to begin with and supporting LGBT issues (even if it's just to get consumer brownie points) goes a long way to normalizing them so we can stop having these fucking debates with troglodytes about whether an entire section of the population deserves the right to exist.
They know they're losing the demographics war.
Young people growing up aren't getting more conservative; quite the opposite in fact. Liberal adults aren't defecting to the conservative side. They have no population outside of the largely uneducated white male, and that demographic is doing nothing but shrinking in proportion to the overall population.
Basically, the only way new conservatives are being created is adult conservatives teaching their children. Which is why they fight so hard to stop things like education about LGBTQ people, teaching narratives that actually show the horrors of slavery and racism and its effects on minorities, and so forth. And why they make shows like this.
Because hating those people are effectively the only platform conservatives have, and if kids grow up not afraid of these people, the conservatives will have nothing to run on.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
You sure came in swinging and now are trying to weasel your way out of the awful behavior your actions would allow to continue to happen.
Absolutely disgusting and you should at least show a little shame.
- - - Updated - - -
This you?
That is not, in fact, what the bill is about. It may be what some of its supporters are saying it's about, but that's not the same thing. What it actually says is this:
Note that it doesn't mention anything about sex; it focuses entirely on sexual orientation and gender identity.Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Several amendments to this bill were proposed, based both on opposition to the first half and the fact that the second half is incredibly ambiguous. All of them were rejected by the state senate. Among these rejected amendments were:
*An amendment that would have altered the wording on state standards requiring schools to teach the benefits of heterosexual marriage, by changing "heterosexual" to "monogamous"
*An amendment clarifying that the language in the bill would not limit the obligation of school personnel to report suspected abuse or neglect
*An amendment defining sexual orientation and gender identity
*An amendment that would specifically only ban instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity that is non age-appropriate
*An amendment allowing discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity as it pertains to family structures, historical events, and prevention of bullying
*An amendment clarifying that students are allowed to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with each other
*An amendment requiring the Department of Education to create a pamphlet to help parents teach their children about sexual orientation and gender identity
Another amendment, which I'm listing separately because it directly relates to your assumption about the bill, would have changed "sexual orientation or gender identity" to "human sexuality or sexual activity". This one was directly addressed by the original author of the bill, who said that such a change would fundamentally undermine the intent of the bill. So you see, despite what they may be saying in public, it's quite clear that they're not banning discussions of sex, but discussions of identity.
Last edited by DarkTZeratul; 2022-04-08 at 05:15 AM.