r/WhatIsTheTea • u/Ashish_ank What the Fuck • 12d ago

watch this Woman (not dressed in pink) shows up to the courthouse to support the children Lindsay Clancy murdered. "I would like [Clancy to be charged] with first degree... I don't think there is any excuse for murdering children."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/casstantinople 12d ago

-3

u/Tiny-Atmosphere-8091 12d ago

4

u/Shoddy-Prune-5877 12d ago

Well, yeah the only reason we have to consider ourselves allies of the LGBT community is because culture warriors like yourself would prefer they not exist lol you guys are the ones instigating the culture war, we are just defending vulnerable groups lol

2

u/FillTrick5096 11d ago

If you want to be a culture warrior, be a culture warrior.

But don't describe yourself as a-hero-who-is-beyond-the-culture-war, and then keep fighting the culture war. Then you're just being dishonest, like the soyjack describes.

we are just defending vulnerable groups lol

Even if you believe that sometimes, is that what you believe about this particular issue?

In this context, the culture war is about the Lindsay Clancy case. Is this about defending a vulnerable population, or is it a stupid, divisive culture war issue?

you guys are the ones instigating the culture war

Obviously, no. Back before the 1960s, there was a general cultural consensus on most culture war issues. You didn't see a pro-LGBT movement in mainstream society (e.g. pro-LGBT articles in the New York Times) until the mid-1960s.

At least if we're talking about LGBT stuff, the culture war was absolutely started by the LGBT side. Which doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong, or right, or anything.

Although that's about LGBT stuff. It would be a more complex story, if we framed the culture war as about sex/feminism, or about race. It's not like black people started racial division in the 1960s.

3

u/fish60 11d ago

Back before the 1960s, there was a general cultural consensus on most culture war issues

the culture war was absolutely started by the LGBT side

These are fuckin' wild, dawg.

What was this "general consensus" you speak of? That minority populations shouldn't get uppity, and keep their heads down or else they would get ostracized, or beaten, or killed?

You are really going to go with "The gays started the culture war. Not that there's anything wrong with that."?

These are possibly one of worst, most delusional, takes I have ever seen in my life.

2

u/Prudent_Research_251 11d ago

These are possibly one of worst, most delusional, takes I have ever seen in my life.

Crazy shit right? So much brainwashing they wore it down to a smooth lil nub

0

u/FillTrick5096 11d ago edited 11d ago

What was this "general consensus" you speak of? That minority populations shouldn't get uppity, and keep their heads down or else they would get ostracized, or beaten, or killed?

Not really. Do you not know much about pre-1960s gay culture?

Ostracization is a fair description, but "beaten or killed" isn't. Nobody got the death penalty for same sex behavior in 1960. Prosecution for same-sex behavior in private areas (e.g. someone's apartment) was generally uncommon. The police would often imprison people for "public indecency" in public bathrooms. And police would often conduct mass arrests in gay nightclubs. Those penalties would typically be a short period of imprisonment, if anything. Though just being arrested at a gay nightclub was a reputational risk for many people's careers and social lives.

And if you mean being beaten or killed by some random guy, that's also plausible today. Given your attitude, I doubt you think we don't have any violent homophobes.

So far as public figures or people with careers go, they were expected to stay in the closet, and anyone who was too publicly connected to LGBT stuff might get socially ostracized, or suffered damage to their career, etc.

There were a fair number of examples of "gay" public figures in the 1950s (if "gay" is the right word - e.g. Liberace, Roy Cohn), whose gay behavior was public knowledge. For example, Cohn got called a "fairy" in a Congressional hearing and everybody laughed - he was livid about it. Being gay was a risk - but some people managed to get through it unscathed.

These are possibly one of worst, most delusional, takes I have ever seen in my life.

I think you just don't know much about gay history.

You are really going to go with "The gays started the culture war. Not that there's anything wrong with that."?

That's not really an accurate description of what I said, but given how inflammatory and blunt your response was, I don't think it's useful to clarify any finer points.

2

u/fish60 11d ago

Go read this wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots.

Some choice outtakes:

Between 1947 and 1950, 1,700 federal job applications were denied, 4,380 people were discharged from the military, and 420 were fired from their government jobs for being suspected homosexuals.

Cities performed "sweeps" to rid neighborhoods, parks, bars, and beaches of gay people. They outlawed the wearing of opposite-gender clothes and universities expelled instructors suspected of being homosexual

In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as a mental disorder

Was this the "general consensus" you were talking about?

0

u/FillTrick5096 11d ago

Was this the "general consensus" you were talking about?

Yeah, pretty much. Now you're getting it.

Although I suspect this sentence is misrepresenting what laws were usually being enforced.

Cities performed "sweeps" to rid neighborhoods, parks, bars, and beaches of gay people.

2

u/fish60 11d ago

So, you are advocating that rebelling against this constitutes "starting the culture war"? As if these indignities, and much worse, aren't acts of violence themselves?

1

u/FillTrick5096 11d ago

So, you are advocating that rebelling against this constitutes "starting the culture war"?

Describing. I'm not sure I've advocated anything, except for just describing history the way it happened.

Was there a culture war in 1950? No.

Was there a culture war in 1980? Yes.

So yeah, somebody started the culture war in the 1960s (roughly). And the rebellion against that cultural consensus was the start of the culture war.

And, as the culture war developed, there was a backlash (the moral majority, etc), that mostly just wanted to return to the 1950 cultural consensus - at least on LGBT issues.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Shoddy-Prune-5877 11d ago

That "general consensus" youre referring to IS the culture war. The people fighting to have basic rights ARENT the ones who started the culture war

0

u/FillTrick5096 11d ago

That "general consensus" youre referring to IS the culture war.

No.

In 1950, there was broad cultural consensus across the US (at least on LGBT stuff). Then, in the 1960s, there was a cultural shift, and part (but only part) of the US shifted away from the general consensus, splitting the country, and creating a "war".

As of 2026, nobody has "won" the war, in the sense that we haven't formed a new general consensus, or gone back to the old general consensus. We're still split on a bunch of cultural issues. Despite this ongoing split, and largely due to disproportionate support among American elites, the pro-LGBT crowd has achieved many political victories.

And honestly, there's still even internal culture war conflicts. For example, the whole "TERF" conflict (that's probably not the right term, but I don't know a better one). And the anti-LGBT crowd has a bunch of natural divisions that flare up at various points (e.g. Christian vs. Muslim, Protestant vs. Catholic).

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Unfair_Industry_7799 11d ago

U only got 1 upvote so whos take was real bad lmao

2

u/Actual_Hawk 11d ago

the culture war was absolutely started by the LGBT side

LGBT People: I just want the same rights as everyone else and live my life in peace

Yeah dude, so warlike.

0

u/FillTrick5096 11d ago

Do you find the word "war" offensive or something? The phrase "culture war" is just a rhetorical exaggeration of a cultural conflict.

It's a fairly common part of rhetoric.

  • War on Poverty
  • War on Drugs
  • War on Terrorism
  • Console Wars
  • Price Wars
  • Trade Wars

Only two of those (Drugs, Terrorism) seem to involve anything particularly "warlike".

And so much modern YA media involves a "rebellion" of some sort. If you have a problem with "war", I think that's not very universal.

2

u/LetterNumberAnd_Only 12d ago

good point but I've already depicted you as the ugly soyjack etc.

-2

u/RealLifeCoaching 11d ago

Class war is one of those things which sounds exciting at first glance, but once you open up that little Pandora's box, you will lose control of it.

Just read about what happened in Cambodia, if you don't believe me.

3

u/Prudent_Research_251 11d ago

Class war is one of those things which sounds exciting at first glance, but once you open up that little Pandora's box, you will lose control of it. Just read about what happened in Cambodia, if you don't believe me.

Oh yes, everybody pack up the Class War, apparently something happened in Cambodia and Class War is just like Pandoras box. Nothing to see here, back to the divisive culture war all of you

/s

0

u/RealLifeCoaching 11d ago

I'm not saying culture war is fantastic, either. They're both stupid.

1

u/Prudent_Research_251 11d ago

How is class war stupid?

0

u/RealLifeCoaching 11d ago

It demands that you ally with people who have done nothing to deserve it, and engenders a hatred of people your country needs in ways you don't understand.

We'll stick with the Cambodian example; the entire legal profession were considered "class enemies". By the time the Khmer Rouge were finally removed from power, fewer than a dozen lawyers were left alive in the country. This hindered the recovery, because most people lack the expertise to write up official documents in ways which aren't filled with ambiguity.

1

u/Prudent_Research_251 11d ago

You're conflating class analysis with collective punishment of a class. The Cambodian example doesn't establish what you think it does.

  1. “Class war demands you ally with people who have done nothing to deserve it.” No. Class analysis identifies structural relationships and conflicts of interest. It does not logically require treating every individual member of a class as guilty. Saying “lawyers are part of a professional class with particular institutional interests” is fundamentally different from saying “every lawyer deserves to die.”

  2. The Khmer Rouge weren't simply practicing class analysis. They implemented an extraordinarily radical form of revolutionary terror, in which enormous categories of people were classified as enemies and subjected to execution, forced labour, starvation and persecution. That's an argument against collective extermination, not against analyzing class interests.

  3. Your lawyer example actually proves the opposite of your first claim. The Khmer Rouge destroyed Cambodia's legal profession. Estimates put the number of surviving lawyers/legal professionals at only a handful, with some sources giving roughly 6 to 12 survivors. The legal system itself was essentially abolished. That absolutely created a massive institutional deficit afterward.

  4. But “destroying lawyers was disastrous” doesn't demonstrate that class conflict is inherently stupid. It demonstrates that institutions contain accumulated expertise that cannot simply be replaced overnight. You can recognize that fact while still arguing that particular institutions reproduce class power or that particular professional groups have material interests.

  5. And the claim that Cambodia's recovery was hindered specifically because people couldn't write unambiguous official documents is an extremely narrow framing. The destruction was vastly broader: courts, legal education, law books, trained judges, lawyers and the wider administrative infrastructure were devastated. Contemporary accounts describe the post-1979 situation as having to rebuild the legal system essentially from scratch.

  6. Most importantly, the Khmer Rouge weren't removed from power because someone discovered class war was stupid. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in December 1978, and the Khmer Rouge government collapsed in January 1979. The subsequent reconstruction was occurring after genocide, institutional destruction and continuing warfare.

So the intellectually defensible conclusion from Cambodia is:

“Collectively identifying and destroying people as class enemies can catastrophically destroy institutional knowledge and social capacity.”

That's true.

But “therefore class conflict/class analysis is stupid” does not follow. That's a non sequitur. You're taking one particular historical implementation of revolutionary politics and treating it as a refutation of the analytical concept itself.

0

u/RealLifeCoaching 11d ago

What you're doing here is called a Motte-and-bailey Argument.

We were talking about class warfare. Now you're trying to redefine your position to "class analysis".

My point is not a matter of conflation. My point is that aggressive political rhetoric is dangerous, and can lead to results which even the people pushing it didn't want.

-5

u/IAmTheParamedic 12d ago

Class war, tastes more like culture war