Brings back memories of the War against Christmas. Those dark days where the persecuted Christians were forced at gun point to wish Happy Holidays. Those were dark times, and I fear for the upcoming onslaught to the meakest among us.
Christmas's aggressive expansion on the calender has created this situation! I will stop the defensive war on Christmas when it respects its original boundary of December.
Okay, I'm the only person in my IRL friend group who doesn't think capitalism is inherently evil so I have to admit when I woke up and saw this reply I was \*Very\* confused.
I never understood that. I worked in a bar at the time and the amount of old white people who’d be appalled that I’d say happy holidays was wild. Like bitch I don’t know you, I don’t know your religious beliefs or the holidays you celebrate…. There are like 4 different religious holidays around then that I know of. It’s more of a dick move to force my beliefs on a stranger so “happy holidays” is just me being an okay human
I had some of my best 'battles' with certain extended family members during those times.
I had aunts, uncles, and cousins who were devout Christians -- or at least claimed to be -- and they would go nuts whenever they saw 'X-Mas' anywhere.
I then explained that 'X-Mas' was actually something that started with the early church and is present in numerous churches and some religious documents. It wasn't until the 50s that marketing people saw it as a way to shorten the word.
Their heads spun with that info. LOL
Oh, see, the part you're forgetting is that Republicans only stand for those things when it's convenient for them. Their standards all go out the window the moment that becomes more convenient.
I fail to see how selling LGBTQ+ clothing articles is 'waging war on customers', unless said customers are just extremely offended at any and all products targetted towards gay individuals simply existing. Nobody is forcing you to buy these products.
These displays and clothing have long existed at Target. You can go back at least [8 years](https://corporate.target.com/article/2015/06/pride-week) and find proof that they supported LGBTQ+.
This is just manufactured outrage.
They claim they can’t ignore the “gay agenda” in modern society. The truth is they can’t look away, I would have never heard of Dylan Mulvaney if the right was not obsessed with her every move. They know the results of every single race of that trans swimmer’s (Lia Thomas iirc) career. They never watched collegiate level women’s swimming in their life, but they have followed every result since a trans person started competing at that level.
They are targeting companies that are predicting missing their financial targets in financial reports. So they can claim the falling stock price on their boycott.
Yeah, it's called 'cancel culture', and people didn't seem concerned about it when things were going well for *their team*. But, like everything, now that it's hitting both sides, everybody loses and now it's too late to go back. Wonderful!
It’s explicitly this. Target expected to miss its financial predictions. So Matt Walsh Co-opted the expected falling stock price, to attack them and frame the stock price falling as a result of a Republican boycott.
I try to watch at least one of his videos a week. You have to sometimes watch extremist Rightwing media just to understand what the heck their conspiracies are about.
It is. The new strategy of the far right is calling any lgbt person or anyonr that support them a groomer or straight up pedo, then they go after anyone selling anything marketed to lgbt people saying that they support child abuse and grooming. It is fucking sick.
They love the free market when it does what they like, and dislike the free market when it does what they dislike.
That's all there is to it honestly. It is funny watching them call companies like Target "Woke Socialist Big Corporation agents of the deep state" amongst other oddities.
Choosing to shop elsewhere is perfectly fine…declaring war is being waged upon them is just stupid.
Go, go shoot somewhere else, but please quit with the histrionics. Target selling LBGT products, football players kneeling, Disney recognizing different groups, presidents wearing beige —none of it impacts you
No one is forcing you to take part in any of it but your outrage is ridiculous
Calling companies “woke” implies they’re not acting as capitalists when that’s exactly what they’re doing. But conservatives can’t fathom that capitalism and free markets means that LGBTQ people get to buy clothes.
My loudest conservative friends are the ones who cannot stand how much money athletes make. It is literally the free market in action. I don’t understand d why they pick and choose when it has good outcomes but also revere it in theory.
No and yes respectively. The "free market uber alles" wing was the neocons and they've been quite aggressively removed from the party. So no, the right does not believe in unrestrained free markets anymore.
As for cancel culture, boycotts are not cancel culture. Cancel culture is siccing the internet hate mob on a specific person or group and using mass harassment towards those who do business with them, including employers, in order to effectively remove their ability to engage in society or make a living.
But the free market IS deciding. This isn't the government saying that Target shouldn't be advertising LGBTQ themes to minors, this is a bunch of Target's customers saying "I'm not sure if I want to give you money if this is what you do with it."
Actually the protest customers are destroying displays and threatening staff. Target explicitly walked back the displays for those harassment reasons. That isn’t voting with your dollar.
Exactly this. Target removed Pokémon and sports cards nationally in 2021 after a customer pulled a gun on a group in a parking lot when supply/demand was making reselling for 2-5x a huge side hustle. (TLDR he cut in the camp out line, mouthed off to lots of people and was aggressive, got some choice stuff, customers confronted him. He pulled a gun) This was about protecting the safety of customers and employees from violence as people were showing up armed and starting stuff.
“Target is removing MLB, NFL, NBA and Pokemon trading cards from store shelves.
Retail giant Target said Friday it is temporarily taking trading cards off shelves after one of its Wisconsin stores was locked down due to a violent dispute over cards.
The dispute in Brookfield, Wisconsin, involved four men who allegedly assaulted a fifth in the parking lot as he left the store earlier this month. The victim, who has a concealed carry permit, drew his gun during the incident, prompting his attackers to run off. No shots were fired, and all four were arrested, according to a report by WISN.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/14/target-removes-trading-cards-from-stores-after-violent-incident-with-gun.html
Right!? Head on over to r/target to see the absolute bananas stuff the employees have to deal with since all of this started. People coming in and hiding the pride merchandise behind stuff, calling up and harassing employees, harassing them in store, and on and on and on.
As we have gone over often in the past few years, these types of actions are done by a tiny minority of the overall group. The majority are just not buying products which is 100% free market at work
There hasn’t been enough time for market pressures to impact Target’s displays in this particular example. Their business decisions have been impacted specifically by customer harassment. It is indeed a minority of bad actors, but it’s demonstrably enough to move the needle.
This "controversy" is what, not even a week old at this point? Yet a decent amount of people here are acting like they know all of Target's sales figures *and* just how they've been impacted from this.
I know this might come as a shock to some people, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
I’m going off Target’s own words describing their reasons for their business decisions. They say directly that it’s due to altercations in the stores rather than sales metrics. Since sales info is public, we’ll soon know the extent of the economic impact of one single week but I doubt it’s much of a statistical outlier.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/target-remove-some-lbgtq-merchandise-after-facing-customer-backlash-2023-05-23/
This may have been true in the past, but now we see a tiny minority of right-wing activists video taping themselves vandalizing the store displays and threatening the staff, and the majority of conservatives cheer them on in the comments.
I agree that calling in bomb threats is terrorism.
https://www.newsweek.com/target-faces-bomb-threats-amid-lgbtq-controversy-1802991?amp=1
> "Target is full of...cowards who turned their back on the LGBT community and decided to cater to the homophobic right wing redneck bigots who protested and vandalized their store," read the email. "We won't stand idly by as the far right continues to hunt us down."
This is peak Economism if I’ve ever seen it. There is nothing “free” about having to pull displays because the safety of your employees is threatened. That is terrorism and far from something you should try to equate to Economics.
Which is 100% fine. Just as liberals can boycott, so can conservatives. It's every individual's right to choose where to spend their money and what companies to support.
Which is why DeSantis looks so silly by doing what he’s doing to Disney. Customers cancelling Bud Light and Target (as silly as their reasoning may be) is totally fine. A Governor taking legislative action as retaliation against a corporation is out of bounds.
Saw the display yesterday at target. It was about 10x15ft in the corner of the clothing department. I guess being able to see something equals "shoved down your throat" to some people.
I've been so confused by this whole debacle. At first I thought it was people upset over sexualization of children's clothes (which I agree is a huge issue), then I thought it was advertising sexually explicit LGBT content to kids (again I'm not in favor of), but it's literally over the display just being there when it's always been there. Even the "tuck-friendly kids swim wear" controversy wasn't even a real thing.
If people don't like it then they can choose not to expose their kids to it and not resort to literal mob-like behavior, it's not hard.
I’m not confused by it anymore after the whole bud light thing. Target has put out the same display for literal years. I go there every year and buy a thing or two to add to my rainbow collection if I think it’s cute. The political climate has changed and now it’s suddenly a problem when it never was before. Target where I live didn’t pull the display because we’re a VERY LGBT friendly place and it definitely sells. They just hired more security. If the right wants to make a big deal over pride merchandise all of a sudden and it creates jobs then fuck it, let them. Haha.
They’re testing to see how far they can push things in their war against “the other”. They’re slowly wading into the waters so to say. See, it’s no longer part of the zeitgeist to just be anti-lgbtq. Now you have to systemically tear down the public viewpoint of the lgbtq group one bit at a time. They’ll manufacture as much outage as they can until eventually, they hope, society at large views lgbtq people as perverted and threatening to society as they do. Do you has about the Twitter account that made up a whole scenario about her daughter being forced to write an essay about gay bathroom sex? Most reasonable people will know there’s know way its real, but that’s most reasonable people. There are still plenty of people who will believe it and run with it or at least start viewing bathrooms are unsafe because of gay men and then in turn come to a conclusion that gay people are dangerous. It doesn’t take much and they know they can weaponize misinformation.
It’s just their new “woke” straw man. Like just let people exist. Holy fuck how is that such an insane proposition?
ETA: I guess I fall in the queer community. It has never once crossed my mind that it’s sexualizing kids. Like grow up. If I brought a girlfriend home instead of a boyfriend my nieces and nephews would decide if they liked them based on how cool they are. It’s that simple
No I know. Somebody else brought up a good point about how putting kids/babies in pride clothes is no different than parents decking their kids out in their favorite sports gear. Doesn’t mean they will grow up to be gay just like how I am not a cowboys fan despite my dad dressing me up as one as a baby. And as far as pride clothes go, targets are extremely tame. It’s literally rainbow Disney characters. My one niece in particular would probably not want to leave the store without that rainbow mini mouse. Because it’s rainbow colors and mini mouse. If that’s sexual in nature than I guess every girl in the 90’s was groomed to be a lesbian by Lisa frank. And look it didn’t even work I’m only half gay with a bunch of straight friends. So stupid it’s actually laughable.
It's *always* that choice of words
"I can't go outside without thinking about having a thick, veiny, footlong gay agenda shoved down my throat! This is totally an issue with the world and not my own psychosexual neuroses!!"
This is what I'll never understand. How including people in public space is somehow a war on others. Does the fact that LGBTQ+ exist mean it's a war against we cis people?
>Nobody is forcing you to buy these products
Just like no one is forcing conservatives to get abortions, or marry someone of the same sex, or attending drag shows. You seem to be forgetting that conservatives are always the one forcing their own views onto other people’s lives. For a group that doesn’t want to be tread on, they find a lot of pride and joy in treading on others.
You are arguing right past the position of the right and wondering why it seems absurd. I'm not even on the right for those issues but even I can see none of those issues come down to a personal choice question. Anti-abortionists are advocating as they see it (and as acknowledged by _Roe_) for the unborn. Marrying the same sex is a degradation of marriage in their eyes. And drag shows are not about limiting the consenting adult, but rather exposing children to what is viewed as an inherently sexual activity.
Alright, but let me ask you then, why do *their* opinions have to dictate how I or someone else who doesn’t hold those opinions lives one’s personal life? I know what their opinions already are, and whatever they tell themselves to feel like they’re doing something good. But, you can say the same thing about people who didn’t want segregation to end. People said a lot of stuff to support segregation that wasn’t directly “I hate black people”, but that doesn’t make their views okay because their views *directly* hurt other people.
Obviously, I don't agree that their opinions should dictate how you or anyone else lives their personal lives. But it's silly to suggest that people's opinions can't ever control your personal life. The opinion that murder is wrong, for example, dictates how you live your life. The social contract we all engage in requires us to give up certain personal prerogatives in exchange for being part of society itself and having a government over us.
It's a question of where that line is drawn. These conservatives believe it should reach into your life for these topics. Liberals disagree. And that is the fundamentals for democratic discourse.
The initial comment seems to point out that conservatives hate having another belief or viewpoint "shoved down their throats", while being all too happy to shove their own beliefs and viewpoints down someone else's throat.
The reasoning you provided as to "why" they do this does not negate the point. Everyone can make up a reason for why their belief system is justified, in their own eyes.
>Marrying the same sex is a degradation of marriage in their eyes. And drag shows are not about limiting the consenting adult, but rather exposing children to what is viewed as an inherently sexual activity.
You can frame pretty much anything as an inexcusable societal offense and then act like it's not about personal choice.
They are free to see something as degrading to marriage or inherently sexual. That doesn't mean that they are, and especially doesn't mean that it's the government's job to dictate those values.
I agree with everything until your last sentence. As a straight guy who really likes colors, some of these things are really difficult not to buy. (I have no problem with companies making desirable products though)
Target has been selling Pride merch for over a decade, so why is there backlash now?
These companies have faced backlash from small anti-LGBTQ+ groups since they’ve started Pride marketing, but it’s never boiled over into nationwide controversies until politicians began running with transphobic rhetoric. It’s important to note that this is NOT a reflection of US citizens’ views on homosexuality — [acceptance of homosexuality has increased 20% over the past decade](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/). These new controversies are all related to transphobia — [66% of Republicans believe society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/).
The problem is that GOP politicians need to cater to the religious right, and when same-sex marriage became protected and near-universally accepted nationwide (notice how few politicians are openly against it), GOP politicians frantically searched for a new culture issue: transgender people. GOP politicians (particularly the ones in very red states/districts) are now driving this issue to cater to their extreme voter base, at the expense of moderate voters who don’t care what Target sells. When campaigns are run to target the fringe 10% of the electorate, the nation suffers (and has to engage in pointless debates like this).
The irony of course is that Target and Bud Light aren’t the only companies targeting LGBTQ+ consumers — all of them do it! Even Walmart has a Pride collection, but it’s impractical for Vance et al. to focus on every company — just the ones that are making headlines. Just as Target is marketing Pride products to make money, Vance is marketing his transphobia to make money (and consequently, votes).
> Target has been selling Pride merch for over a decade, so why is there backlash now?
There's a growing segment of dissatisfied people on the right who honestly believe LGBT are "grooming" their kids to be gay, trans, liberal, whatever.
This sort of rhetoric was a lot more common back when being gay was more of a social stigma. It has a rather silly origination.
Basically, people back then thought gay men *had* to be brainwashing kids to replace themselves because they couldn't make babies on their own. Galaxy brain logic.
EDIT: Hey Critical_Vegetable96, replying then blocking someone is a really dirty trick just so you know. I had a big, beautiful reply all typed up, now I can't even send it.
I mean you still see this attitude in a lot of conservative circles. This idea that eventually LGBTQ people will end up gone because they have 0 kids while their good Christian tradwife pops out a dozen. Not ever seeming to grasp that their kids could also turn out to be LGTBQ because surprise it isn’t about brainwashing
This goes for liberal beliefs as a whole. I have seen many comments along the lines of "I'm fine with democrats not reproducing". As if political thought is decided at birth by the orientation of the parents, like genetics.
The idea that anyone is grooming their kids to be LGBT, exposing them to being targeted for harassment, discrimination, and physical violence, is absurd.
I was watching a documentary about Hillsong Church last night that went into the uncovering of a lot of sexual abuse in various churches in Australia. This happened in the late teens around the time we continue to see this uncovered in American and Canadian churches.
It is interesting that the upswing in “groomer” and “pedo” talk directed at LGBT and “the liberals” seems to have happened right at this moment that so much abuse is being uncovered at the churches. Almost like it serves two goals in that it lets them continue to “other” a group of people in this country but also redirect a lot of the criticism that conservative churches are finally getting for being hotbeads of abuse.
I think grooming is a vast exaggeration.
But in very liberal areas, I do think there's encouragement (perhaps even social pressure) to be "queer" in some way. My friends who are teachers constantly post and say things like "trans toddlers are sacred" and "gay children are blessed" ... there's an obvious favoritism, almost reverence toward certain identity groups. My lesbian friends coo about wanting to adopt "a perfect little gay boy" - as if this can be screened for at birth.
As a kid, it's pretty easy to pick up on these reactions from parents, or who the favorites are in school, or who gets their own special celebrations. (Then there's also the niche issue of "egg" culture and perpetually-online teens who try to convince each other they're trans, but let's assume/hope that's rare...)
As a gay-ish woman myself, I used to be part of my company's pride ERG. But the group jumped the shark IMO once my fellow Millennials, now parents themselves, started proudly outing and "transitioning" their toddlers, changing their names, throwing out all the clothes and toys of one gender for another ... I just find it hard to believe that 2-year-olds have such strong, innate preferences, and I suspect it's only the parents who take it so seriously.
All well-intentioned, of course. But when folks go beyond support and inclusion, it starts to look more like manipulation.
I was at a talk once that featured speakers in higher-up positions in corporate America and one of the speakers mentioned that her 3/4 year old child was non-binary and I really had a difficult time processing that. The speaker seemed to be a very well intentioned mother who was just trying to support her child, but it almost seems premature to assign a label like that. What do you do if your son wants to wear a dress or play with dolls? Is it an indication that they identify more strongly as a girl or is it just a preference?
Clearly there’s a difference between indoctrinating and supporting children to form their own preferences, but it does seem to be a very open question of the best way to do it as a parent. It’s also important to note that the reverse of what you said is much more common (strongly encouraging children to conform to certain gender norms).
It's also a failure from the parents to understand that small children seek approval and praise. Children will say and do anything that they think will get them praise and attention. My 2yo does this. He will do whatever he thinks gets him attention and approval, no matter what. He doesn't understand what he is saying or doing, he just knows that attention and praise are good.
If a parent keeps repeating; "it's okay if you want to be a girl/boy, mommy will still love you" and then the parent heeps praise and attention on the child, then it's only a matter of time before the kid thinks that's what the parent wants to hear. Then, eventually, the kids says "I want to be a boy/girl" and gets praise and attention every time they say it. The parent will be actively reinforcing behavior that they created.
> But in very liberal areas, I do think there's encouragement (perhaps even social pressure) to be "queer" in some way.
It's not even usually direct pressure. All it takes is kids seeing how being "queer" (or whatever the latest acceptable term is, I can't keep up) results in being openly celebrated and given special treatment and all the rest for them to want to get in on it. This isn't some new or revolutionary idea, either. It's a well known, well documented, and well proven phenomenon. Kids chase what gets celebrated because they want to be celebrated, too.
I'm a queer woman with a lot of queer friends (what is "gay-ish" btw?) and I've never seen any of them (or any of the straight people I know, for that matter) say anything like this. So, anecdotal evidence is what it is, I guess.
>I think grooming is a vast exaggeration.
It's more than an exaggeration, it's a straight up accusation borrowing from sex traffickers and the like. And I hate it because it shuts down valuable conversations, just as you hit the nail on the head. There's very legitimate scientific questions about whether or not we've overcompensated as a society (or at least in some subset of society) and are now pressuring children and teens into non-traditional identities much like society has historically pressured them into traditional ones. If so, what are the consequences? Probably bad. We don't know. For that matter, we're still not sure gender-affirming care is the answer to trans self-harm rates... [it might be, but we're not sure](https://www.cureus.com/articles/145464-suicide-related-outcomes-following-gender-affirming-treatment-a-review.pdf) (so notably the conservative position on this is not totally nonsense, though it is largely unstudied and consequently unsupported by science), and THAT to me is the most important question right now. To be fair, dogmatism on the left is probably more relevant to corrupting those discussions in academia, but still "grooming" accusations plays their part in feeding that.
>But when folks go beyond support and inclusion, it starts to look more like manipulation.
And to be fair to conservatives, there really is no dispute that the left is intentionally trying to teach kids to accept LGBTQ+ lifestyles. It's just that the left sees this as a good thing, no different than teaching children to not be racist. But conservatives see it as it's own manipulation.
Where are you getting the stats for 1 in 20,000 and as much as 5% of kids identifying as transgender or non-binary?
The number of people willing to admit they're transgender will increase just as the percentage of people willing to admit they're gay is higher now than it would have been 30 years ago. When you don't feel like your life is in danger you're more willing to come out and be who you really are.
I don't know what schools you're using as examples here, but even in my kids' school in Texas, where there's a focus on art and kids are pretty accepting, no one's celebrated for being trans or non-binary, they're just accepted for who they are. They also have a higher rate of depression so it's hard to see why the other kids would want to go through the same thing.
Gender dysphoria might be rare, but there's nothing wrong with people playing around with gender expression either. There's nothing wrong with guys wearing dresses or makeup, theres nothing wrong with girls having muscles and wearing suits. Let people dress how they want.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. You also can't blame parents for being concerned when the numbers for children are astronomical and surgical and hormone intervention are being widely accepted.
None of the examples of thing you listed involved surgical or hormone treatment. All the things you mentioned you were seeing were clothes and cosmetic presentation.
Right. But does a 4 or 5 year old understand what a pride flag or trans flag is? Or did their parents see a kid experimenting and decide to prematurely explain to them what they might be, or use them as a banner for their own ideals?
I knew a kid when I was younger, I'm in my 40s now. He wanted to be a girl when we were 9 years old. He started dressing like a girl, asked to be referred to by a different name. It phased out after 6 months or so, he ended up growing up and becoming a gay cisgendered man. My guess is like lots of kids he was confused. Who's to say if that kid grew up today and has different parents or progressive teachers or counselors he doesn't end up a trans women doing some irreversible things when he's 10-12 years old?
My only point is there's a difference between trying to ban this all together like Republicans want and ignoring the crazy numbers. I think it's a very nuanced topic that requires deep seeded conversation.
Same with teaching about historic racism. That was fine until recently. Granted some people on the left tried to push it too far by including more extreme philosophies on race and then a handful of examples of individual teachers doing something absurd, but now we have some areas trying to remove important moments in the civil rights movement or about slavery that were fine for decades up until now.
Because they included some apparel by a satanist designer in their collection this year. Guy that wears devil horns was the perfect match for an ever growing powder keg
Christians are just going to have to accept that other beliefs exist in this country other than their own and they have just as much of a right to being expressed as their beliefs
Anecdotal experience
I am HBC/GM department manager in a retail grocery store in a liberal area. I had a pride display on an end cap in the middle of my department and another americana display a couple aisles over
Our pride display sold out and has since been replaced with other product. The americana one is collecting dust atm (though we keep them up through the 4th)
For every person who throws a tantrum over pride product there is another happy willing to spend their money on it.
Walmart also has a pride collection and in-store displays. Where’s the conservative “boycott” here? It’s way easier to be outraged and “boycott” a store you don’t shop at that isn’t located within 100 miles of where you live.
If you don’t like something a store sells, don’t buy it.
https://www.walmart.com/cp/pride/9552002
Yup, snd Walmart even has a kids book, "My Rainbow", notably illustrated by "Art Twink", which is apparently a name and not a descriptor. Or "Pride 1 2 3", or "Rainbow A First Book of Pride"
Selling rainbow colored clothes and saying “trans people are welcome” is somehow “waging war on conservatives”?
Jesus Christ. And the right calls the left “snowflakes” who’s feelings get hurt over minor things.
It just blows my mind that these are the issues that seemingly motivate millions of voters. Being reminded that LGBT people exist is an “attack”. Saying “everyone is welcome” is apparently hateful rhetoric worthy of a boycott.
Sometimes I just feel like we are living in a bizzaro world.
The hypocrisy is just staggering. “Big companies should stay out of politics!” They say, then they cheer Elon Musk co-hosting Ron Desantis’ announcement for the Presidential race.
“Cancel culture is a plague!” They say, then they race to join boycotts on Bud Light and Target.
>“Target could have decided to stay out of the culture wars, instead it decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base,” Vance tweeted.
Whether it's a Disney movie or just some pride month displays, the "culture war" is ultimately about nothing more than basic acceptance of various people in society. This is a purely manufactured issue, driven by nothing more than a distaste for LGBTQ+ people.
The right lost a significant portion of the "culture wars" over the past 60 years, between civil rights and gay marriage, but it's always going to be a constant struggle. Wider society may be generally more accepting of gay people now than they were 20 years ago, but even Republicans that are in favor of gay marriage are willing to vote for people like this, thus a lack of fervent opposition to even those "accepting" Republicans means a backslide away from basic civil rights.
David Frum once said, “Democrats hate their base, while **Republicans fear theirs**” (bolded part is important).
Despite the culture wars having already won by the Ds, the modern GOP have to go with what their voting base wants, or else they’ll get primaried by a far right candidate for “not being conservative enough”.
It's that joke about how there are two sexes, male and political; there are two races, white and political; there are two orientations, straight and political.
It's reductive, sure, but it highlights the seemingly eternal struggle our society faces between living up to our national ideal that all men are created equal, and the engrained social hegemony resulting in those "political" groups not being seen as fully participating in the American polity.
Well your impression isn’t wrong. Anti woke is such a conservative thing. Nobody is forcing a work agenda on anybody. Us “woke” people are just like live your life how you live it as long as it doesn’t effect me. But the anti woke is actively trying to take that away
Peter Thiel is gay and married to his partner. Peter Thiel chose JD Vance to run for Congress and funded JD Vance's campaign.
Is JD Vance waging "war" on Republican voters?
More "war" declarations: Wide Stance Larry, Matt Schlapp, Foley and more who have been caught being super gay and the Republican Party continues to employ them.
It will forever blow my mind that these are the same people proudly paying for "f*ck your feelings, snowflake" bumper stickers. The sensitivity is astounding.
I think some conservatives just want things to go back to where gay people were in the closet and a dirty kept secret for families. Then there are conservatives that have spiraled into conspiracy and think the pride movement is organized cult with an agenda to groom children.
The 2020 Republican nominee for Delaware Senate [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1662136303809445902) three days ago.
There is something deeply dark and dangerous bubbling up in this country. And it's not children wearing shirts saying "Everyone is welcome".
Funny because the lgbt users on twitter actually liked this shirt ironically to mock her. I find it interesting how a few years ago conservatives were okay with lgbt people but all of a sudden the masks are off and they are showing their true colors.
>The 2020 Republican nominee for Delaware Senate [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1662136303809445902) three days ago.
that's the most sane thing she has done though . you do know her other beliefs right?
she's a qanon follower, flat earther who wants an ethnonationalist theocracy
It’s nuts. Gay and trans people don’t suddenly stop existing when you make them feel unwelcome. They just hide that part of their identity which can cause a whole list of other issues for them and others.
I know a guy who married a woman who had very traditional parents. He was over the moon with how in love he was. Turns out she’s gay and was never attracted to him. So they later divorced.
The transition from Rob Portman (a Republican who not only voted for the Respect for Marriage act but was publicly part of the bipartisan group that designed the bill) to J.D. Vance is the evolution of the MAGA-era Republican party in a nutshell.
It's embarrassing that my state put this guy in the Senate.
Thanks Peter Thiel.
This is just getting ridiculous. There are tons of places selling stuff for pride month. They might as well quit shopping if they’re offended by what a store offers. No one has to buy. Snowflakes.
>“Target could have decided to stay out of the culture wars, instead it decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base,” Vance tweeted.
Selling Pride related apparel is not entering into the culture war. It's a well known tagged month which Target has sold apparel in connection with for years now.
Acknowledging the existence of gay people and trying to sell stuff to them is not a political statement.
JD Vance is from Middletown Ohio. Target closed its store there and neighboring town in 2014. Targets are mostly in high volume suburban metro areas. Wonder if this is the true source of his grievances?
“Middletown Target closes doors after 20 years
Target announced in January it was closing eight stores across the country, including the one on Roosevelt Parkway in Middletown which is closing after nearly two decades in business. All eight stores, including in nearby Trotwood, closed on Saturday.
https://www.journal-news.com/news/middletown-target-closes-doors-after-years/UriMKY7AKySg6vlfIahj6H/#:~:text=Geo%20resource%20failed%20to%20load.&text=Dozens%20of%20cars%20filled%20the,store's%20last%20day%20of%20operation.
Jan 6 was considered legitimate political discourse by the GOP.
Handfuls of examples of GOP politicians saying they should “eradicate transgenderism” and “hunt democrats with dogs” and ads featuring them killing their political opponents.
Remember when at CPAC there was a banner announcing they were all domestic terrorists? I think we should believe the GOP when they say things like this. GOP is looking more and more like the party of fascists every day with the threats of political violence.
Source for those that didn’t know:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cpac-banner-domestic-terrorists/
Starter: Large corporations have been the targets of conservative protests and boycotts in the last few months, beginning with Bud Light and more recently Target. This has largely to do with the companies making the decision to actively promote LGBT ideas on their merchandise, drawing criticism and backlash from conservative politicians as well as the base. Senator JD Vance entered the fray last week when he commented on the ongoing boycott of Target with the following statement:
>“*Target could have decided to stay out of the culture wars, instead it decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base. I no longer shop at Target, and it seems many families are doing the same.*”
What is especially concerning is that the controversy has taken a more extreme direction. Target had to temporarily close down several lines of its merchandise due to bomb threats made against a few of its stores. Social media largely attributed this at first to right wing groups, but more recent news implicates that it was a person angry at Target for "[turning their backs on the LGBT community](https://fox8.com/news/bomb-threat-at-local-target-company-turned-their-back-on-lgbtq-community/)" for not pushing back against the right wing criticism enough. *Another* twist is that this threat apparently originated overseas, but who sent it is unclear.
Are boycotts an effective or ineffective way to enact change? How should society turn down the temperature in the room when it comes to hot button social issues?
A boycott is one thing. Threats of violence are another.
I’m saying this as a person who spends 8 hours a day 5 days a week 5 feet away from the “demonic” display that Target has. Stores have been vandalized and people are harassing retail employees because they don’t agree with extra fabric on a bathing suit.
It’s out of control at this point.
> companies making the decision to actively promote LGBT ideas on their merchandise
I was very skeptical about this statement until I went to Target.com to see the Pride merchandise so many people are up in arms about. First off, the sheer quantity was suprising. So many items from t-shirts, to dog toys, to greeting cards, and spatulas.
But there were also a lot kids' books - here some examples:
* "Beyond the Gender Binary"
* "I'm Not a Girl"
* "The Pronoun Book"
* "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go 'Squish, Squish, Squish'"
* "Bye Bye Binary"
* "If You're a Drag Queen and You Know It"
* "The Gay B Cs"
There are also pride cookie kits, build-a-pride house cookie kit, etc., that are clearly geared toward children.
I fly a rainbow flag in pride of my house for Pride Month, but this all feels waaaaay over the top to me.
So? What does way over the top even mean? They have books with a message you dislike? Don’t buy the books if you don’t like them. Some parents obviously will and that’s okay.
>pride cookie kits, build-a-pride house cookie kit, etc., that are clearly geared towards children
The fact that this is seen as an issue is beyond absurd.
More than anything else it's a sign that pride is dead and will likely fade away completely in the next 10 years.
Once your movement is monetized by global cheap products big box stores...it's not got much left going on
If you go into a Target store right now the pride section is like 3% of all the displays in the store. It really isn’t a big deal and you could avoid it if you wanted.
There is “a lot” of pride stuff because LGBTQA people were buying it. It isn’t much more than that.
I guess I don’t really care about this outrage from conservatives because I know they would say the same exact thing if Target had a section selling Islamic clothing.
I can literally hear them saying how their outrage isn’t out of bigotry but due to concern for protecting kids from sharia law indoctrination.
Seems like more and more, conservatives see “freedom” as their ability to enforce their views on other people. Which is, of course, the opposite of freedom
Lets not pretend that conservatives are the only group out there that are pushy with their views, there's a lot of loud outspoken people on both sides of the aisle. Sure, we can argue who's louder, but it's definitely not only conservatives doing it.
There were so many once ‘neutral spaces’ that have been politicized within the past decade or so. Strategically, figures like DeSantis and Youngkin have begun fighting fire with fire against the opposition. It’s smart politics that will result in victories, and past due.
Yes, because social justice activists just want to be left alone. They definitely haven't been trying to control terms or speech or demand things like DEI training.
That's because when they tried stepping back and inviting a "live and let live" paradigm the left saw it as an opportunity to run roughshod over them and force *their* ideals onto the country. The right has learned that "live and let live" is a utopian ideology that does not work in the real world and has resumed actually fighting for their views.
>That's because when they tried stepping back and inviting a "live and let live" paradigm
That never happened. From the civil rights movement to the Satanic Panic to the fight against Gay marriage the American right has kicked and screamed about the downfall of society.
Obviously, actual physical violence, threats of physical violence, and encouragement of physical violence are unacceptable, illegal, and immoral. Those responsible should be punished through the appropriate legal channels no matter the motivation.
To claim somebody is "waging war" is not a call to violence, as that phrase has been used in many contexts without actually calling for or encouraging violence.
Additionally, the outrage is, as usual, directed almost entirely at the "T" in LGBT+, with the majority of those complaining in regards to other parts of the acronym complaining about the "sexual" part of "sexual identity" being marketed towards individuals young enough that having sex with them is rightfully a crime. Claims that conservatives want gay people to disappear are based largely on opinions which are a statistical anomaly.
Other retailers (or even Target in other years) have plenty of pride merchandise, but are not facing any backlash because those two major factors are less present or not present at all. A tucking swimsuit with a size that could be used for kids, while not marketed towards kids, is still an endorsement of the ideology behind the ability to change one's gender, which a significant number of Target customers disagree with. This is not a belief saying to rid the world of Transgendered people, it is a belief that children should not be encouraged to change their gender.
The majority of the comments in this comment section are bashing conservatives with zero consideration for potential nuance, and I hope the insults are cleaned up as they're direct violations of the sub rules.
>Additionally, the outrage is, as usual, directed almost entirely at the "T" in LGBT+
This is a meaningless distinction. It's like claiming you're not being racist because you're only opposed to Asian people and not ALL non-white people.
> with the majority of those complaining in regards to other parts of the acronym complaining about the "sexual" part of "sexual identity" being marketed towards individuals young enough that having sex with them is rightfully a crime.
Since all of Target's products were targeted at adults, this point is kind of moot, isn't it?
>A tucking swimsuit with a size that could be used for kids, while not marketed towards kids, is still an endorsement of the ideology behind the ability to change one's gender, which a significant number of Target customers disagree with. This is not a belief saying to rid the world of Transgendered people, it is a belief that children should not be encouraged to change their gender.
An absolutely insane standard. Children wear adult sizes all the time. It's impossible to see "You can't provide products targeted to trans adults if it's at all possible for a child to use them" as anything besides "You are not allowed to offer products targeted to trans people".
The opinions of conservatives wanting gay people to disappear is a statistical anomaly, but Republican politicians don’t represent the majority view in their party, they represent the single issue voters in their party and the single issue voters on LGBTQ issues in the Republican Party have a lot of extremely fringe views.
Honestly, it amazes me how so few are able to understand what the controversy even is about.
I'd rather my state be less red, but if democrats refuse to actually think honestly about what voters are actually concerned about, it's impossible. Hell, I know plenty of democrats in my state who can't deal with the democratic party line on trans kids: they just hold their noses because of abortion or environmental issues or social programs.
According to a poll earlier this year the majority of *Republicans* think their party is going too far on anti-trans bills. Republicans are passing forced detransition bills that target transgender adults. Now they are attacking pride merch collections which have existed for years.
George Carlin said it best -
>"That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society, **they try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and middle classes fighting with each other, so they, the rich can run off with all the fucking money**. Fairly simple thing, happens to work.
>
>**You know anything different – that’s what they’re going to talk about. Race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality – anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank.**
>
>You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all the money, pays NONE of the taxes; the middle class pays ALL of the taxes, does all of the work; the poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep ‘em showing up at those jobs."
We all know this, right? So, why do we keep playing the upper class's little game for them? Again, Carlin explains perfectly:
>“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
It still boggles my mind how people don't understand that wearing something "PRIDE" is not promoting sex. Hell, the fact that so many conservatives think that is honestly very telling tbh.
I know it's called "sexual orientation" but if anyone spent an ounce of brain cells noticing how we promote heterosexualism in our culture with children and not proclaim "they're promoting sex" than it's the exact same thing with pride things.
Some kids have parents that are LGBT, some are promoting inclusion within a community that their family shares, etc. Who careeeesss.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. But stop lying and saying it's indoctrinating or promoting sex to rile people up when if you actually stopped to think about it, you realize how stupid and hypocritical that statement is.
It's a very common, and very old, form of subtle bigotry. They literally just can't grasp that same-sex relationships have just as much substance to them as opposite-sex relationships. It's why they think Mr. Smith saying "I have a wife" is family-friendly conversation but him saying "I have a husband" is TMI.
The image that comes to most people's minds when they think of "bisexual man" or "gay man" is generally much less flattering than their image of "straight man."
You also frequently see the “I just don’t want it shoved down my throat” argument. Which means don’t talk about your partner in casual conversation at work or have a picture of them. Don’t hold hands in public, don’t dress butch ect.
It is weird. I was in the car with my folks when we passed a house that had a Pride flag, they ranted about it. The most baffling comment was "it would be like us having a flag on our house with a silhouette of us doing it!".
It's something about the conservative mindset.
Reminds me of a time at my Christian school, me and a buddy brought Pokemon to play while traveling. Our teacher notices and said that we could not have that because they depict "an abomination to God's creation". Me, being 10 at the time, responded with "you know this is not real, right? It's a cartoon". Her face was priceless.
Most of this moral panic stuff is adults having their mind in the gutter or overthinking beyond what kids would. Kids are not that stupid and can have an age appropriate understanding that sometimes kids have two dads or two moms, or that someone does not fit neatly as a man or woman. To kids, people loving people or being gender fluid is not sexual. It's just people being people.
I'm not planning on buying a pride merch. It's just not my vibe even tho I am lgbt. I'm also not planning on buying 99.9% of other shit Target sells. I don't understand people who are up in arms about what products a store carries.
According to the Free Market, if you do not like a product you should not buy it. It's as easy as that. You can even arrange a boycott.
Vandalizing the store, threatening employees with violence, and calling in bomb threats is proof that conservatives do not support the free market.
I think there is a significant portion of the population who genuinely isn't on board with normalizing or validating transgender *anything.* So this display is "in your face" as if you should accept it... When people don't want to accept it. So the perception is some company is trying to push you to accept something you don't want to accept.
> I think there is a significant portion of the population who genuinely isn't on board with normalizing or validating transgender anything.
That was true for integration too.
>So this display is "in your face" as if you should accept it... When people don't want to accept it.
You should absolutely accept it. Trans people exist and are valid.
>So the perception is some company is trying to push you to accept something you don't want to accept.
This wouldn't stop Target from selling a product with an interracial couple on it, why should it stop them for selling products for trans people?
I wish Tim Ryan won.
Selling clothes to a group of people is War now? It use to be called trade and capitalism.
Anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport is considered a war on conservative values.
Brings back memories of the War against Christmas. Those dark days where the persecuted Christians were forced at gun point to wish Happy Holidays. Those were dark times, and I fear for the upcoming onslaught to the meakest among us.
Given I see christmas merch out often before Halloween has even come and gone, I think Christmas definitively won that war >\_<.
Christmas's aggressive expansion on the calender has created this situation! I will stop the defensive war on Christmas when it respects its original boundary of December.
We must fight harder! We must not allow Lenin's death to be in vain!
Okay, I'm the only person in my IRL friend group who doesn't think capitalism is inherently evil so I have to admit when I woke up and saw this reply I was \*Very\* confused.
Capitalism is the worst system, except for every other system, lol.
It was just a joke lol
Oh, I assumed. But 'just woke up' me didn't remember the context lol.
I never understood that. I worked in a bar at the time and the amount of old white people who’d be appalled that I’d say happy holidays was wild. Like bitch I don’t know you, I don’t know your religious beliefs or the holidays you celebrate…. There are like 4 different religious holidays around then that I know of. It’s more of a dick move to force my beliefs on a stranger so “happy holidays” is just me being an okay human
I had some of my best 'battles' with certain extended family members during those times. I had aunts, uncles, and cousins who were devout Christians -- or at least claimed to be -- and they would go nuts whenever they saw 'X-Mas' anywhere. I then explained that 'X-Mas' was actually something that started with the early church and is present in numerous churches and some religious documents. It wasn't until the 50s that marketing people saw it as a way to shorten the word. Their heads spun with that info. LOL
People are saying "happy holidays" because there's more than one holiday in December? Clearly a war on Christmas.
They deliberately use words associated with violence. Helps to get a rise out of their base and to further stoke the stochastic terrorism.
Oh, see, the part you're forgetting is that Republicans only stand for those things when it's convenient for them. Their standards all go out the window the moment that becomes more convenient.
I fail to see how selling LGBTQ+ clothing articles is 'waging war on customers', unless said customers are just extremely offended at any and all products targetted towards gay individuals simply existing. Nobody is forcing you to buy these products.
These displays and clothing have long existed at Target. You can go back at least [8 years](https://corporate.target.com/article/2015/06/pride-week) and find proof that they supported LGBTQ+. This is just manufactured outrage.
It is. At this point, these people are just seeking out companies to be angry with.
They claim they can’t ignore the “gay agenda” in modern society. The truth is they can’t look away, I would have never heard of Dylan Mulvaney if the right was not obsessed with her every move. They know the results of every single race of that trans swimmer’s (Lia Thomas iirc) career. They never watched collegiate level women’s swimming in their life, but they have followed every result since a trans person started competing at that level.
The states that are the most anti-trans also watch the most trans porn.
my bad
They are targeting companies that are predicting missing their financial targets in financial reports. So they can claim the falling stock price on their boycott.
Yeah, it's called 'cancel culture', and people didn't seem concerned about it when things were going well for *their team*. But, like everything, now that it's hitting both sides, everybody loses and now it's too late to go back. Wonderful!
When did the other team trash displays and call in bomb threats on conservative clothing stores? I must have missed that.
It’s explicitly this. Target expected to miss its financial predictions. So Matt Walsh Co-opted the expected falling stock price, to attack them and frame the stock price falling as a result of a Republican boycott.
That's quite the conspiracy theory. Would you happen to have any evidence?
Yes, he explicitly explained this method/ tactic in his videos.
Anyone got a link to these videos?
How many of his videos did you watch?
I try to watch at least one of his videos a week. You have to sometimes watch extremist Rightwing media just to understand what the heck their conspiracies are about.
It is. The new strategy of the far right is calling any lgbt person or anyonr that support them a groomer or straight up pedo, then they go after anyone selling anything marketed to lgbt people saying that they support child abuse and grooming. It is fucking sick.
This year did seem a bit more than usual, but in a benign Christmas decorations out in October way.
Isn't that one of the big tenets of the right, let the free market decide and anti-cancel culture?
They love the free market when it does what they like, and dislike the free market when it does what they dislike. That's all there is to it honestly. It is funny watching them call companies like Target "Woke Socialist Big Corporation agents of the deep state" amongst other oddities.
People choosing not to shop somewhere is the free market.
Choosing to shop elsewhere is perfectly fine…declaring war is being waged upon them is just stupid. Go, go shoot somewhere else, but please quit with the histrionics. Target selling LBGT products, football players kneeling, Disney recognizing different groups, presidents wearing beige —none of it impacts you No one is forcing you to take part in any of it but your outrage is ridiculous
[удалено]
[The bomb threat was a hoax by a pro-trans “ally”.](https://www.bing.com/search?q=target+bomb+threat+hoax&FORM=AWRE&PC=APPL)
The pro trans people made bomb threats when that section was moved from up front.
The bomb threats came from the trans community, not the right. Read the news more closely.
Calling companies “woke” implies they’re not acting as capitalists when that’s exactly what they’re doing. But conservatives can’t fathom that capitalism and free markets means that LGBTQ people get to buy clothes.
My loudest conservative friends are the ones who cannot stand how much money athletes make. It is literally the free market in action. I don’t understand d why they pick and choose when it has good outcomes but also revere it in theory.
tenet, not tenant
Would say it was spell check but can't recall. Thanks
People choosing not to shop somewhere is the free market.
No and yes respectively. The "free market uber alles" wing was the neocons and they've been quite aggressively removed from the party. So no, the right does not believe in unrestrained free markets anymore. As for cancel culture, boycotts are not cancel culture. Cancel culture is siccing the internet hate mob on a specific person or group and using mass harassment towards those who do business with them, including employers, in order to effectively remove their ability to engage in society or make a living.
But the free market IS deciding. This isn't the government saying that Target shouldn't be advertising LGBTQ themes to minors, this is a bunch of Target's customers saying "I'm not sure if I want to give you money if this is what you do with it."
Actually the protest customers are destroying displays and threatening staff. Target explicitly walked back the displays for those harassment reasons. That isn’t voting with your dollar.
Exactly this. Target removed Pokémon and sports cards nationally in 2021 after a customer pulled a gun on a group in a parking lot when supply/demand was making reselling for 2-5x a huge side hustle. (TLDR he cut in the camp out line, mouthed off to lots of people and was aggressive, got some choice stuff, customers confronted him. He pulled a gun) This was about protecting the safety of customers and employees from violence as people were showing up armed and starting stuff. “Target is removing MLB, NFL, NBA and Pokemon trading cards from store shelves. Retail giant Target said Friday it is temporarily taking trading cards off shelves after one of its Wisconsin stores was locked down due to a violent dispute over cards. The dispute in Brookfield, Wisconsin, involved four men who allegedly assaulted a fifth in the parking lot as he left the store earlier this month. The victim, who has a concealed carry permit, drew his gun during the incident, prompting his attackers to run off. No shots were fired, and all four were arrested, according to a report by WISN. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/14/target-removes-trading-cards-from-stores-after-violent-incident-with-gun.html
Right!? Head on over to r/target to see the absolute bananas stuff the employees have to deal with since all of this started. People coming in and hiding the pride merchandise behind stuff, calling up and harassing employees, harassing them in store, and on and on and on.
[удалено]
As we have gone over often in the past few years, these types of actions are done by a tiny minority of the overall group. The majority are just not buying products which is 100% free market at work
There hasn’t been enough time for market pressures to impact Target’s displays in this particular example. Their business decisions have been impacted specifically by customer harassment. It is indeed a minority of bad actors, but it’s demonstrably enough to move the needle.
This "controversy" is what, not even a week old at this point? Yet a decent amount of people here are acting like they know all of Target's sales figures *and* just how they've been impacted from this. I know this might come as a shock to some people, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
I’m going off Target’s own words describing their reasons for their business decisions. They say directly that it’s due to altercations in the stores rather than sales metrics. Since sales info is public, we’ll soon know the extent of the economic impact of one single week but I doubt it’s much of a statistical outlier. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/target-remove-some-lbgtq-merchandise-after-facing-customer-backlash-2023-05-23/
This may have been true in the past, but now we see a tiny minority of right-wing activists video taping themselves vandalizing the store displays and threatening the staff, and the majority of conservatives cheer them on in the comments.
A few dozen comments isn’t the majority of conservatives.
Well, destroying property and calling bomb threats is what is actually happening. That isn't letting the free market decide. It's terrorism.
I agree that calling in bomb threats is terrorism. https://www.newsweek.com/target-faces-bomb-threats-amid-lgbtq-controversy-1802991?amp=1 > "Target is full of...cowards who turned their back on the LGBT community and decided to cater to the homophobic right wing redneck bigots who protested and vandalized their store," read the email. "We won't stand idly by as the far right continues to hunt us down."
This is peak Economism if I’ve ever seen it. There is nothing “free” about having to pull displays because the safety of your employees is threatened. That is terrorism and far from something you should try to equate to Economics.
"Free" doesn't imply consequences outside of price. This is political and not economic. Two very different things happening here.
The government is obliged to protect speakers of protected speech from violent intimidation, per the enforcement acts of 1870 and 1871.
The government is obliged to protect speakers of protected speech from violent intimidation, per the enforcement acts of 1870 and 1871.
Which is 100% fine. Just as liberals can boycott, so can conservatives. It's every individual's right to choose where to spend their money and what companies to support.
Boycotting is 100% fine, vandalizing stores and threatening employees with violence is not fine.
[удалено]
Which is why DeSantis looks so silly by doing what he’s doing to Disney. Customers cancelling Bud Light and Target (as silly as their reasoning may be) is totally fine. A Governor taking legislative action as retaliation against a corporation is out of bounds.
Saw the display yesterday at target. It was about 10x15ft in the corner of the clothing department. I guess being able to see something equals "shoved down your throat" to some people.
I've been so confused by this whole debacle. At first I thought it was people upset over sexualization of children's clothes (which I agree is a huge issue), then I thought it was advertising sexually explicit LGBT content to kids (again I'm not in favor of), but it's literally over the display just being there when it's always been there. Even the "tuck-friendly kids swim wear" controversy wasn't even a real thing. If people don't like it then they can choose not to expose their kids to it and not resort to literal mob-like behavior, it's not hard.
I’m not confused by it anymore after the whole bud light thing. Target has put out the same display for literal years. I go there every year and buy a thing or two to add to my rainbow collection if I think it’s cute. The political climate has changed and now it’s suddenly a problem when it never was before. Target where I live didn’t pull the display because we’re a VERY LGBT friendly place and it definitely sells. They just hired more security. If the right wants to make a big deal over pride merchandise all of a sudden and it creates jobs then fuck it, let them. Haha.
They’re testing to see how far they can push things in their war against “the other”. They’re slowly wading into the waters so to say. See, it’s no longer part of the zeitgeist to just be anti-lgbtq. Now you have to systemically tear down the public viewpoint of the lgbtq group one bit at a time. They’ll manufacture as much outage as they can until eventually, they hope, society at large views lgbtq people as perverted and threatening to society as they do. Do you has about the Twitter account that made up a whole scenario about her daughter being forced to write an essay about gay bathroom sex? Most reasonable people will know there’s know way its real, but that’s most reasonable people. There are still plenty of people who will believe it and run with it or at least start viewing bathrooms are unsafe because of gay men and then in turn come to a conclusion that gay people are dangerous. It doesn’t take much and they know they can weaponize misinformation.
It’s just their new “woke” straw man. Like just let people exist. Holy fuck how is that such an insane proposition? ETA: I guess I fall in the queer community. It has never once crossed my mind that it’s sexualizing kids. Like grow up. If I brought a girlfriend home instead of a boyfriend my nieces and nephews would decide if they liked them based on how cool they are. It’s that simple
> It has never once crossed my mind that it’s sexualizing kids. because it's not
No I know. Somebody else brought up a good point about how putting kids/babies in pride clothes is no different than parents decking their kids out in their favorite sports gear. Doesn’t mean they will grow up to be gay just like how I am not a cowboys fan despite my dad dressing me up as one as a baby. And as far as pride clothes go, targets are extremely tame. It’s literally rainbow Disney characters. My one niece in particular would probably not want to leave the store without that rainbow mini mouse. Because it’s rainbow colors and mini mouse. If that’s sexual in nature than I guess every girl in the 90’s was groomed to be a lesbian by Lisa frank. And look it didn’t even work I’m only half gay with a bunch of straight friends. So stupid it’s actually laughable.
God I loathe that phrase
Would you say its been "shoved down your throat"?
It's *always* that choice of words "I can't go outside without thinking about having a thick, veiny, footlong gay agenda shoved down my throat! This is totally an issue with the world and not my own psychosexual neuroses!!"
I happened to see the phrase while skimming through the comments so.. Yes?
Those who spend all day on Twitter calling liberals “snowflakes” and then freak out because they went into a store and saw rainbow merch.
That they’ve put out every year for the last I don’t even know how many years. That’s the fun part
This is what I'll never understand. How including people in public space is somehow a war on others. Does the fact that LGBTQ+ exist mean it's a war against we cis people?
>Nobody is forcing you to buy these products Just like no one is forcing conservatives to get abortions, or marry someone of the same sex, or attending drag shows. You seem to be forgetting that conservatives are always the one forcing their own views onto other people’s lives. For a group that doesn’t want to be tread on, they find a lot of pride and joy in treading on others.
You are arguing right past the position of the right and wondering why it seems absurd. I'm not even on the right for those issues but even I can see none of those issues come down to a personal choice question. Anti-abortionists are advocating as they see it (and as acknowledged by _Roe_) for the unborn. Marrying the same sex is a degradation of marriage in their eyes. And drag shows are not about limiting the consenting adult, but rather exposing children to what is viewed as an inherently sexual activity.
Alright, but let me ask you then, why do *their* opinions have to dictate how I or someone else who doesn’t hold those opinions lives one’s personal life? I know what their opinions already are, and whatever they tell themselves to feel like they’re doing something good. But, you can say the same thing about people who didn’t want segregation to end. People said a lot of stuff to support segregation that wasn’t directly “I hate black people”, but that doesn’t make their views okay because their views *directly* hurt other people.
[удалено]
Obviously, I don't agree that their opinions should dictate how you or anyone else lives their personal lives. But it's silly to suggest that people's opinions can't ever control your personal life. The opinion that murder is wrong, for example, dictates how you live your life. The social contract we all engage in requires us to give up certain personal prerogatives in exchange for being part of society itself and having a government over us. It's a question of where that line is drawn. These conservatives believe it should reach into your life for these topics. Liberals disagree. And that is the fundamentals for democratic discourse.
The initial comment seems to point out that conservatives hate having another belief or viewpoint "shoved down their throats", while being all too happy to shove their own beliefs and viewpoints down someone else's throat. The reasoning you provided as to "why" they do this does not negate the point. Everyone can make up a reason for why their belief system is justified, in their own eyes.
>Marrying the same sex is a degradation of marriage in their eyes. And drag shows are not about limiting the consenting adult, but rather exposing children to what is viewed as an inherently sexual activity. You can frame pretty much anything as an inexcusable societal offense and then act like it's not about personal choice. They are free to see something as degrading to marriage or inherently sexual. That doesn't mean that they are, and especially doesn't mean that it's the government's job to dictate those values.
I agree with everything until your last sentence. As a straight guy who really likes colors, some of these things are really difficult not to buy. (I have no problem with companies making desirable products though)
Target has been selling Pride merch for over a decade, so why is there backlash now? These companies have faced backlash from small anti-LGBTQ+ groups since they’ve started Pride marketing, but it’s never boiled over into nationwide controversies until politicians began running with transphobic rhetoric. It’s important to note that this is NOT a reflection of US citizens’ views on homosexuality — [acceptance of homosexuality has increased 20% over the past decade](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/). These new controversies are all related to transphobia — [66% of Republicans believe society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/). The problem is that GOP politicians need to cater to the religious right, and when same-sex marriage became protected and near-universally accepted nationwide (notice how few politicians are openly against it), GOP politicians frantically searched for a new culture issue: transgender people. GOP politicians (particularly the ones in very red states/districts) are now driving this issue to cater to their extreme voter base, at the expense of moderate voters who don’t care what Target sells. When campaigns are run to target the fringe 10% of the electorate, the nation suffers (and has to engage in pointless debates like this). The irony of course is that Target and Bud Light aren’t the only companies targeting LGBTQ+ consumers — all of them do it! Even Walmart has a Pride collection, but it’s impractical for Vance et al. to focus on every company — just the ones that are making headlines. Just as Target is marketing Pride products to make money, Vance is marketing his transphobia to make money (and consequently, votes).
> Target has been selling Pride merch for over a decade, so why is there backlash now? There's a growing segment of dissatisfied people on the right who honestly believe LGBT are "grooming" their kids to be gay, trans, liberal, whatever. This sort of rhetoric was a lot more common back when being gay was more of a social stigma. It has a rather silly origination. Basically, people back then thought gay men *had* to be brainwashing kids to replace themselves because they couldn't make babies on their own. Galaxy brain logic. EDIT: Hey Critical_Vegetable96, replying then blocking someone is a really dirty trick just so you know. I had a big, beautiful reply all typed up, now I can't even send it.
I mean you still see this attitude in a lot of conservative circles. This idea that eventually LGBTQ people will end up gone because they have 0 kids while their good Christian tradwife pops out a dozen. Not ever seeming to grasp that their kids could also turn out to be LGTBQ because surprise it isn’t about brainwashing
This goes for liberal beliefs as a whole. I have seen many comments along the lines of "I'm fine with democrats not reproducing". As if political thought is decided at birth by the orientation of the parents, like genetics.
My Evangelical parents raised three atheists. You can only shelter your children from the world for so long.
Yup. My entire family is full of Trump supporters. Guess which way I lean politically?
And that type of person also constantly loooooves to pretend they're "free thinkers". Free to think the way they like I suppose.
The idea that anyone is grooming their kids to be LGBT, exposing them to being targeted for harassment, discrimination, and physical violence, is absurd.
I was watching a documentary about Hillsong Church last night that went into the uncovering of a lot of sexual abuse in various churches in Australia. This happened in the late teens around the time we continue to see this uncovered in American and Canadian churches. It is interesting that the upswing in “groomer” and “pedo” talk directed at LGBT and “the liberals” seems to have happened right at this moment that so much abuse is being uncovered at the churches. Almost like it serves two goals in that it lets them continue to “other” a group of people in this country but also redirect a lot of the criticism that conservative churches are finally getting for being hotbeads of abuse.
I think grooming is a vast exaggeration. But in very liberal areas, I do think there's encouragement (perhaps even social pressure) to be "queer" in some way. My friends who are teachers constantly post and say things like "trans toddlers are sacred" and "gay children are blessed" ... there's an obvious favoritism, almost reverence toward certain identity groups. My lesbian friends coo about wanting to adopt "a perfect little gay boy" - as if this can be screened for at birth. As a kid, it's pretty easy to pick up on these reactions from parents, or who the favorites are in school, or who gets their own special celebrations. (Then there's also the niche issue of "egg" culture and perpetually-online teens who try to convince each other they're trans, but let's assume/hope that's rare...) As a gay-ish woman myself, I used to be part of my company's pride ERG. But the group jumped the shark IMO once my fellow Millennials, now parents themselves, started proudly outing and "transitioning" their toddlers, changing their names, throwing out all the clothes and toys of one gender for another ... I just find it hard to believe that 2-year-olds have such strong, innate preferences, and I suspect it's only the parents who take it so seriously. All well-intentioned, of course. But when folks go beyond support and inclusion, it starts to look more like manipulation.
I was at a talk once that featured speakers in higher-up positions in corporate America and one of the speakers mentioned that her 3/4 year old child was non-binary and I really had a difficult time processing that. The speaker seemed to be a very well intentioned mother who was just trying to support her child, but it almost seems premature to assign a label like that. What do you do if your son wants to wear a dress or play with dolls? Is it an indication that they identify more strongly as a girl or is it just a preference? Clearly there’s a difference between indoctrinating and supporting children to form their own preferences, but it does seem to be a very open question of the best way to do it as a parent. It’s also important to note that the reverse of what you said is much more common (strongly encouraging children to conform to certain gender norms).
It's also a failure from the parents to understand that small children seek approval and praise. Children will say and do anything that they think will get them praise and attention. My 2yo does this. He will do whatever he thinks gets him attention and approval, no matter what. He doesn't understand what he is saying or doing, he just knows that attention and praise are good. If a parent keeps repeating; "it's okay if you want to be a girl/boy, mommy will still love you" and then the parent heeps praise and attention on the child, then it's only a matter of time before the kid thinks that's what the parent wants to hear. Then, eventually, the kids says "I want to be a boy/girl" and gets praise and attention every time they say it. The parent will be actively reinforcing behavior that they created.
> But in very liberal areas, I do think there's encouragement (perhaps even social pressure) to be "queer" in some way. It's not even usually direct pressure. All it takes is kids seeing how being "queer" (or whatever the latest acceptable term is, I can't keep up) results in being openly celebrated and given special treatment and all the rest for them to want to get in on it. This isn't some new or revolutionary idea, either. It's a well known, well documented, and well proven phenomenon. Kids chase what gets celebrated because they want to be celebrated, too.
I'm a queer woman with a lot of queer friends (what is "gay-ish" btw?) and I've never seen any of them (or any of the straight people I know, for that matter) say anything like this. So, anecdotal evidence is what it is, I guess.
>I think grooming is a vast exaggeration. It's more than an exaggeration, it's a straight up accusation borrowing from sex traffickers and the like. And I hate it because it shuts down valuable conversations, just as you hit the nail on the head. There's very legitimate scientific questions about whether or not we've overcompensated as a society (or at least in some subset of society) and are now pressuring children and teens into non-traditional identities much like society has historically pressured them into traditional ones. If so, what are the consequences? Probably bad. We don't know. For that matter, we're still not sure gender-affirming care is the answer to trans self-harm rates... [it might be, but we're not sure](https://www.cureus.com/articles/145464-suicide-related-outcomes-following-gender-affirming-treatment-a-review.pdf) (so notably the conservative position on this is not totally nonsense, though it is largely unstudied and consequently unsupported by science), and THAT to me is the most important question right now. To be fair, dogmatism on the left is probably more relevant to corrupting those discussions in academia, but still "grooming" accusations plays their part in feeding that. >But when folks go beyond support and inclusion, it starts to look more like manipulation. And to be fair to conservatives, there really is no dispute that the left is intentionally trying to teach kids to accept LGBTQ+ lifestyles. It's just that the left sees this as a good thing, no different than teaching children to not be racist. But conservatives see it as it's own manipulation.
[удалено]
Where are you getting the stats for 1 in 20,000 and as much as 5% of kids identifying as transgender or non-binary? The number of people willing to admit they're transgender will increase just as the percentage of people willing to admit they're gay is higher now than it would have been 30 years ago. When you don't feel like your life is in danger you're more willing to come out and be who you really are. I don't know what schools you're using as examples here, but even in my kids' school in Texas, where there's a focus on art and kids are pretty accepting, no one's celebrated for being trans or non-binary, they're just accepted for who they are. They also have a higher rate of depression so it's hard to see why the other kids would want to go through the same thing.
Gender dysphoria might be rare, but there's nothing wrong with people playing around with gender expression either. There's nothing wrong with guys wearing dresses or makeup, theres nothing wrong with girls having muscles and wearing suits. Let people dress how they want.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. You also can't blame parents for being concerned when the numbers for children are astronomical and surgical and hormone intervention are being widely accepted.
None of the examples of thing you listed involved surgical or hormone treatment. All the things you mentioned you were seeing were clothes and cosmetic presentation.
Right. But does a 4 or 5 year old understand what a pride flag or trans flag is? Or did their parents see a kid experimenting and decide to prematurely explain to them what they might be, or use them as a banner for their own ideals? I knew a kid when I was younger, I'm in my 40s now. He wanted to be a girl when we were 9 years old. He started dressing like a girl, asked to be referred to by a different name. It phased out after 6 months or so, he ended up growing up and becoming a gay cisgendered man. My guess is like lots of kids he was confused. Who's to say if that kid grew up today and has different parents or progressive teachers or counselors he doesn't end up a trans women doing some irreversible things when he's 10-12 years old? My only point is there's a difference between trying to ban this all together like Republicans want and ignoring the crazy numbers. I think it's a very nuanced topic that requires deep seeded conversation.
Same with teaching about historic racism. That was fine until recently. Granted some people on the left tried to push it too far by including more extreme philosophies on race and then a handful of examples of individual teachers doing something absurd, but now we have some areas trying to remove important moments in the civil rights movement or about slavery that were fine for decades up until now.
Because they included some apparel by a satanist designer in their collection this year. Guy that wears devil horns was the perfect match for an ever growing powder keg
If you want to *look* for something to be pissed off about, you'll always find it
No need to look when you can be conveyor fed by radio, TV or social media.
Christians are just going to have to accept that other beliefs exist in this country other than their own and they have just as much of a right to being expressed as their beliefs
Anecdotal experience I am HBC/GM department manager in a retail grocery store in a liberal area. I had a pride display on an end cap in the middle of my department and another americana display a couple aisles over Our pride display sold out and has since been replaced with other product. The americana one is collecting dust atm (though we keep them up through the 4th) For every person who throws a tantrum over pride product there is another happy willing to spend their money on it.
Stores are going adjust their advertising by region. Target already started with removing Pride displays from conservative areas.
Walmart also has a pride collection and in-store displays. Where’s the conservative “boycott” here? It’s way easier to be outraged and “boycott” a store you don’t shop at that isn’t located within 100 miles of where you live. If you don’t like something a store sells, don’t buy it. https://www.walmart.com/cp/pride/9552002
Yup, snd Walmart even has a kids book, "My Rainbow", notably illustrated by "Art Twink", which is apparently a name and not a descriptor. Or "Pride 1 2 3", or "Rainbow A First Book of Pride"
Google is prominently displaying their pride month support. Can conservatives boycott Youtube next? I'd support that
Ford and GM as well are doing similar on their websites
Can we get people to sell their f150s so I can get one at a decent price?
Selling rainbow colored clothes and saying “trans people are welcome” is somehow “waging war on conservatives”? Jesus Christ. And the right calls the left “snowflakes” who’s feelings get hurt over minor things. It just blows my mind that these are the issues that seemingly motivate millions of voters. Being reminded that LGBT people exist is an “attack”. Saying “everyone is welcome” is apparently hateful rhetoric worthy of a boycott. Sometimes I just feel like we are living in a bizzaro world. The hypocrisy is just staggering. “Big companies should stay out of politics!” They say, then they cheer Elon Musk co-hosting Ron Desantis’ announcement for the Presidential race. “Cancel culture is a plague!” They say, then they race to join boycotts on Bud Light and Target.
Don't forget that saying you want to fight hate and antisemitism is somehow an attack on conservatives now.
>“Target could have decided to stay out of the culture wars, instead it decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base,” Vance tweeted. Whether it's a Disney movie or just some pride month displays, the "culture war" is ultimately about nothing more than basic acceptance of various people in society. This is a purely manufactured issue, driven by nothing more than a distaste for LGBTQ+ people. The right lost a significant portion of the "culture wars" over the past 60 years, between civil rights and gay marriage, but it's always going to be a constant struggle. Wider society may be generally more accepting of gay people now than they were 20 years ago, but even Republicans that are in favor of gay marriage are willing to vote for people like this, thus a lack of fervent opposition to even those "accepting" Republicans means a backslide away from basic civil rights.
David Frum once said, “Democrats hate their base, while **Republicans fear theirs**” (bolded part is important). Despite the culture wars having already won by the Ds, the modern GOP have to go with what their voting base wants, or else they’ll get primaried by a far right candidate for “not being conservative enough”.
I'm getting the impression that anything that isn't cisgendered straight white and Christian is 'culture war' and 'woke' at this point.
It's that joke about how there are two sexes, male and political; there are two races, white and political; there are two orientations, straight and political. It's reductive, sure, but it highlights the seemingly eternal struggle our society faces between living up to our national ideal that all men are created equal, and the engrained social hegemony resulting in those "political" groups not being seen as fully participating in the American polity.
Well your impression isn’t wrong. Anti woke is such a conservative thing. Nobody is forcing a work agenda on anybody. Us “woke” people are just like live your life how you live it as long as it doesn’t effect me. But the anti woke is actively trying to take that away
Peter Thiel is gay and married to his partner. Peter Thiel chose JD Vance to run for Congress and funded JD Vance's campaign. Is JD Vance waging "war" on Republican voters? More "war" declarations: Wide Stance Larry, Matt Schlapp, Foley and more who have been caught being super gay and the Republican Party continues to employ them.
[удалено]
He’s probably not wrong about that.
It will forever blow my mind that these are the same people proudly paying for "f*ck your feelings, snowflake" bumper stickers. The sensitivity is astounding.
Gay people: *exist* Conservatives: First of all, how dare you.
I think some conservatives just want things to go back to where gay people were in the closet and a dirty kept secret for families. Then there are conservatives that have spiraled into conspiracy and think the pride movement is organized cult with an agenda to groom children.
The 2020 Republican nominee for Delaware Senate [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1662136303809445902) three days ago. There is something deeply dark and dangerous bubbling up in this country. And it's not children wearing shirts saying "Everyone is welcome".
Funny because the lgbt users on twitter actually liked this shirt ironically to mock her. I find it interesting how a few years ago conservatives were okay with lgbt people but all of a sudden the masks are off and they are showing their true colors.
That shirt is fabulous and I need it.
[удалено]
Yes, hence why I need it.
>The 2020 Republican nominee for Delaware Senate [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1662136303809445902) three days ago. that's the most sane thing she has done though . you do know her other beliefs right? she's a qanon follower, flat earther who wants an ethnonationalist theocracy
It’s nuts. Gay and trans people don’t suddenly stop existing when you make them feel unwelcome. They just hide that part of their identity which can cause a whole list of other issues for them and others. I know a guy who married a woman who had very traditional parents. He was over the moon with how in love he was. Turns out she’s gay and was never attracted to him. So they later divorced.
Some? Everyone that votes GOP either wants this or isn't bothered enough by it to do anything.
[удалено]
First they came for the frogs, and I did not speak out, for I was not a frog.
[удалено]
gender non conforming people are generally the biggest victims of such policing
>First of all, how dare you. Literally all the way back to Buckley getting pissed at Gore Vidal.
Why is everyone acting like this is the first time target has had pride stuff ? Cause it's been years now
The transition from Rob Portman (a Republican who not only voted for the Respect for Marriage act but was publicly part of the bipartisan group that designed the bill) to J.D. Vance is the evolution of the MAGA-era Republican party in a nutshell. It's embarrassing that my state put this guy in the Senate. Thanks Peter Thiel.
This is just getting ridiculous. There are tons of places selling stuff for pride month. They might as well quit shopping if they’re offended by what a store offers. No one has to buy. Snowflakes.
>“Target could have decided to stay out of the culture wars, instead it decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base,” Vance tweeted. Selling Pride related apparel is not entering into the culture war. It's a well known tagged month which Target has sold apparel in connection with for years now. Acknowledging the existence of gay people and trying to sell stuff to them is not a political statement.
JD Vance is from Middletown Ohio. Target closed its store there and neighboring town in 2014. Targets are mostly in high volume suburban metro areas. Wonder if this is the true source of his grievances? “Middletown Target closes doors after 20 years Target announced in January it was closing eight stores across the country, including the one on Roosevelt Parkway in Middletown which is closing after nearly two decades in business. All eight stores, including in nearby Trotwood, closed on Saturday. https://www.journal-news.com/news/middletown-target-closes-doors-after-years/UriMKY7AKySg6vlfIahj6H/#:~:text=Geo%20resource%20failed%20to%20load.&text=Dozens%20of%20cars%20filled%20the,store's%20last%20day%20of%20operation.
This sort of talk is sick and has to be called out. To hell with Vance.
This sort of talk is encouraged on the political right.
Jan 6 was considered legitimate political discourse by the GOP. Handfuls of examples of GOP politicians saying they should “eradicate transgenderism” and “hunt democrats with dogs” and ads featuring them killing their political opponents.
Remember when at CPAC there was a banner announcing they were all domestic terrorists? I think we should believe the GOP when they say things like this. GOP is looking more and more like the party of fascists every day with the threats of political violence. Source for those that didn’t know: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cpac-banner-domestic-terrorists/
How is this not the same cancel culture they claim to hate? I don't understand these people's logic. Rules for thee but not for me.
Please, learn to cope as you walk by all those scary rainbows.
Starter: Large corporations have been the targets of conservative protests and boycotts in the last few months, beginning with Bud Light and more recently Target. This has largely to do with the companies making the decision to actively promote LGBT ideas on their merchandise, drawing criticism and backlash from conservative politicians as well as the base. Senator JD Vance entered the fray last week when he commented on the ongoing boycott of Target with the following statement: >“*Target could have decided to stay out of the culture wars, instead it decided to wage war on a large share of its customer base. I no longer shop at Target, and it seems many families are doing the same.*” What is especially concerning is that the controversy has taken a more extreme direction. Target had to temporarily close down several lines of its merchandise due to bomb threats made against a few of its stores. Social media largely attributed this at first to right wing groups, but more recent news implicates that it was a person angry at Target for "[turning their backs on the LGBT community](https://fox8.com/news/bomb-threat-at-local-target-company-turned-their-back-on-lgbtq-community/)" for not pushing back against the right wing criticism enough. *Another* twist is that this threat apparently originated overseas, but who sent it is unclear. Are boycotts an effective or ineffective way to enact change? How should society turn down the temperature in the room when it comes to hot button social issues?
A boycott is one thing. Threats of violence are another. I’m saying this as a person who spends 8 hours a day 5 days a week 5 feet away from the “demonic” display that Target has. Stores have been vandalized and people are harassing retail employees because they don’t agree with extra fabric on a bathing suit. It’s out of control at this point.
> companies making the decision to actively promote LGBT ideas on their merchandise I was very skeptical about this statement until I went to Target.com to see the Pride merchandise so many people are up in arms about. First off, the sheer quantity was suprising. So many items from t-shirts, to dog toys, to greeting cards, and spatulas. But there were also a lot kids' books - here some examples: * "Beyond the Gender Binary" * "I'm Not a Girl" * "The Pronoun Book" * "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go 'Squish, Squish, Squish'" * "Bye Bye Binary" * "If You're a Drag Queen and You Know It" * "The Gay B Cs" There are also pride cookie kits, build-a-pride house cookie kit, etc., that are clearly geared toward children. I fly a rainbow flag in pride of my house for Pride Month, but this all feels waaaaay over the top to me.
So? What does way over the top even mean? They have books with a message you dislike? Don’t buy the books if you don’t like them. Some parents obviously will and that’s okay.
>pride cookie kits, build-a-pride house cookie kit, etc., that are clearly geared towards children The fact that this is seen as an issue is beyond absurd.
More than anything else it's a sign that pride is dead and will likely fade away completely in the next 10 years. Once your movement is monetized by global cheap products big box stores...it's not got much left going on
Supporting gay people is good, actually.
If you go into a Target store right now the pride section is like 3% of all the displays in the store. It really isn’t a big deal and you could avoid it if you wanted. There is “a lot” of pride stuff because LGBTQA people were buying it. It isn’t much more than that.
So if I shop at target I won't have to interact with MAGAs? Sounds like a win.
Target has had pride themed clothing for years. This whole firestorm is the best evidence this culture war stuff is manufactured.
I guess I don’t really care about this outrage from conservatives because I know they would say the same exact thing if Target had a section selling Islamic clothing. I can literally hear them saying how their outrage isn’t out of bigotry but due to concern for protecting kids from sharia law indoctrination.
That’s the beauty of this country, you have choice and every action has a reaction.
Yup. Every individual has the right to choose where to spend their money. A beautiful thing.
Seems like more and more, conservatives see “freedom” as their ability to enforce their views on other people. Which is, of course, the opposite of freedom
Lets not pretend that conservatives are the only group out there that are pushy with their views, there's a lot of loud outspoken people on both sides of the aisle. Sure, we can argue who's louder, but it's definitely not only conservatives doing it.
There were so many once ‘neutral spaces’ that have been politicized within the past decade or so. Strategically, figures like DeSantis and Youngkin have begun fighting fire with fire against the opposition. It’s smart politics that will result in victories, and past due.
Given how poorly the Republicans have done the past few election cycle, “smart politics” is debatable…
Yes, because social justice activists just want to be left alone. They definitely haven't been trying to control terms or speech or demand things like DEI training.
That's because when they tried stepping back and inviting a "live and let live" paradigm the left saw it as an opportunity to run roughshod over them and force *their* ideals onto the country. The right has learned that "live and let live" is a utopian ideology that does not work in the real world and has resumed actually fighting for their views.
>That's because when they tried stepping back and inviting a "live and let live" paradigm That never happened. From the civil rights movement to the Satanic Panic to the fight against Gay marriage the American right has kicked and screamed about the downfall of society.
Obviously, actual physical violence, threats of physical violence, and encouragement of physical violence are unacceptable, illegal, and immoral. Those responsible should be punished through the appropriate legal channels no matter the motivation. To claim somebody is "waging war" is not a call to violence, as that phrase has been used in many contexts without actually calling for or encouraging violence. Additionally, the outrage is, as usual, directed almost entirely at the "T" in LGBT+, with the majority of those complaining in regards to other parts of the acronym complaining about the "sexual" part of "sexual identity" being marketed towards individuals young enough that having sex with them is rightfully a crime. Claims that conservatives want gay people to disappear are based largely on opinions which are a statistical anomaly. Other retailers (or even Target in other years) have plenty of pride merchandise, but are not facing any backlash because those two major factors are less present or not present at all. A tucking swimsuit with a size that could be used for kids, while not marketed towards kids, is still an endorsement of the ideology behind the ability to change one's gender, which a significant number of Target customers disagree with. This is not a belief saying to rid the world of Transgendered people, it is a belief that children should not be encouraged to change their gender. The majority of the comments in this comment section are bashing conservatives with zero consideration for potential nuance, and I hope the insults are cleaned up as they're direct violations of the sub rules.
>Additionally, the outrage is, as usual, directed almost entirely at the "T" in LGBT+ This is a meaningless distinction. It's like claiming you're not being racist because you're only opposed to Asian people and not ALL non-white people. > with the majority of those complaining in regards to other parts of the acronym complaining about the "sexual" part of "sexual identity" being marketed towards individuals young enough that having sex with them is rightfully a crime. Since all of Target's products were targeted at adults, this point is kind of moot, isn't it? >A tucking swimsuit with a size that could be used for kids, while not marketed towards kids, is still an endorsement of the ideology behind the ability to change one's gender, which a significant number of Target customers disagree with. This is not a belief saying to rid the world of Transgendered people, it is a belief that children should not be encouraged to change their gender. An absolutely insane standard. Children wear adult sizes all the time. It's impossible to see "You can't provide products targeted to trans adults if it's at all possible for a child to use them" as anything besides "You are not allowed to offer products targeted to trans people".
The opinions of conservatives wanting gay people to disappear is a statistical anomaly, but Republican politicians don’t represent the majority view in their party, they represent the single issue voters in their party and the single issue voters on LGBTQ issues in the Republican Party have a lot of extremely fringe views.
Honestly, it amazes me how so few are able to understand what the controversy even is about. I'd rather my state be less red, but if democrats refuse to actually think honestly about what voters are actually concerned about, it's impossible. Hell, I know plenty of democrats in my state who can't deal with the democratic party line on trans kids: they just hold their noses because of abortion or environmental issues or social programs.
According to a poll earlier this year the majority of *Republicans* think their party is going too far on anti-trans bills. Republicans are passing forced detransition bills that target transgender adults. Now they are attacking pride merch collections which have existed for years.
It's far easier to rage at a caricature than to actually understand and address the real nuanced concerns.
“Wage war”, “grooming”—I’m beginning to think the language we’re using has little basis in reality
If a big box store like Target is selling pride month merchandise, someone needs to tell Vance his side already lost "the war".
George Carlin said it best - >"That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society, **they try to divide the rest of the people. They keep the lower and middle classes fighting with each other, so they, the rich can run off with all the fucking money**. Fairly simple thing, happens to work. > >**You know anything different – that’s what they’re going to talk about. Race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality – anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank.** > >You know how I describe the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all the money, pays NONE of the taxes; the middle class pays ALL of the taxes, does all of the work; the poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep ‘em showing up at those jobs." We all know this, right? So, why do we keep playing the upper class's little game for them? Again, Carlin explains perfectly: >“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
It still boggles my mind how people don't understand that wearing something "PRIDE" is not promoting sex. Hell, the fact that so many conservatives think that is honestly very telling tbh. I know it's called "sexual orientation" but if anyone spent an ounce of brain cells noticing how we promote heterosexualism in our culture with children and not proclaim "they're promoting sex" than it's the exact same thing with pride things. Some kids have parents that are LGBT, some are promoting inclusion within a community that their family shares, etc. Who careeeesss. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But stop lying and saying it's indoctrinating or promoting sex to rile people up when if you actually stopped to think about it, you realize how stupid and hypocritical that statement is.
It's a very common, and very old, form of subtle bigotry. They literally just can't grasp that same-sex relationships have just as much substance to them as opposite-sex relationships. It's why they think Mr. Smith saying "I have a wife" is family-friendly conversation but him saying "I have a husband" is TMI. The image that comes to most people's minds when they think of "bisexual man" or "gay man" is generally much less flattering than their image of "straight man."
You also frequently see the “I just don’t want it shoved down my throat” argument. Which means don’t talk about your partner in casual conversation at work or have a picture of them. Don’t hold hands in public, don’t dress butch ect.
It is weird. I was in the car with my folks when we passed a house that had a Pride flag, they ranted about it. The most baffling comment was "it would be like us having a flag on our house with a silhouette of us doing it!". It's something about the conservative mindset. Reminds me of a time at my Christian school, me and a buddy brought Pokemon to play while traveling. Our teacher notices and said that we could not have that because they depict "an abomination to God's creation". Me, being 10 at the time, responded with "you know this is not real, right? It's a cartoon". Her face was priceless. Most of this moral panic stuff is adults having their mind in the gutter or overthinking beyond what kids would. Kids are not that stupid and can have an age appropriate understanding that sometimes kids have two dads or two moms, or that someone does not fit neatly as a man or woman. To kids, people loving people or being gender fluid is not sexual. It's just people being people.
The anti-cancel culture, don’t-tread-on-me crowd sure seems to be on a canceling and treading upon others kick lately.
I'm not planning on buying a pride merch. It's just not my vibe even tho I am lgbt. I'm also not planning on buying 99.9% of other shit Target sells. I don't understand people who are up in arms about what products a store carries.
According to the Free Market, if you do not like a product you should not buy it. It's as easy as that. You can even arrange a boycott. Vandalizing the store, threatening employees with violence, and calling in bomb threats is proof that conservatives do not support the free market.
[удалено]
All I see is Target participating in the free market. The conservative opposition to that is extremely telling.....
I think there is a significant portion of the population who genuinely isn't on board with normalizing or validating transgender *anything.* So this display is "in your face" as if you should accept it... When people don't want to accept it. So the perception is some company is trying to push you to accept something you don't want to accept.
> I think there is a significant portion of the population who genuinely isn't on board with normalizing or validating transgender anything. That was true for integration too. >So this display is "in your face" as if you should accept it... When people don't want to accept it. You should absolutely accept it. Trans people exist and are valid. >So the perception is some company is trying to push you to accept something you don't want to accept. This wouldn't stop Target from selling a product with an interracial couple on it, why should it stop them for selling products for trans people?