Greatoneshere

Wow. Even I hadn't considered that possible. Welp, jig's up. After the shitty news of the last few weeks, it's clear. We lose. We lost. We never won. Let's get drunk.

More of this, please.

I am in agreement with all of that.

Movies like this are so unique but niche, I love it. Beyond the Black Rainbow was more film experience than me just watching a movie. It's great when you are in the right mood and mind set.

That's a hell of a showrunner/writer in Kyle Killen. Awake was incredibly good (never saw the other two shows he created, Lone Star or Mind Games). He also wrote the films The Beaver and Scenic Route, for what that's worth. Rupert Wyatt as pilot director is pretty great too (The Escapist, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Gambler). I'm tired of Halo games and that convoluted backstory/mythology it's created since Halo 4, but this has a lot of potential. I'm intrigued.

Beyond the Black Rainbow is one of my personal favorite trippy movies of all time. I am absolutely all fucking in for this. I hope it has the same composer and cinematographer of that film too.

Literally been saying this since my first post. Sanders, and people like her, are unique and thus completely different than any other example. It's our only way to shame our politicians into moral behavior, which is important in a democracy, which is why they are uniquely not protected, to indicate that: "hey, you can't eat here because you rip parents from kids" whereas in totalitarian states, people like Hitler and Goebbels and whoever else could walk into any restaurant and eat wherever they wanted. That's why it's allowed here, to keep them scared, in a way. It's the entire point of non-violent political protest. It's the same reason that you can yell shame at Kristjen Nielsen too. It's totally legal, and it should remain that way, for the above reasons. The cake one, totally different, and should be illegal, for reasons everyone previously outlined. Like I said, there's a reason the law separates private and public figures when it comes to libel and slander laws (there's even further breakdowns from there within those groups in the law, because it is important to have exceptions like Sanders, where you can refuse them service).

Precisely why it should (and basically is) illegal in the case of gay people, but isn't in the case of Sanders, exactly.

It doesn't matter - there doesn't need to be a pattern of behavior for it to be bigotry, it's bigotry based on its type-ifying even if it is in one instance, that is, basing the refusal of service on the couples' grouping rather than their specific person that is in a uniquely protected way (as in, if they were public figures, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, and it was based on the politics they push, like Sanders does). One instance is enough for it to be illegal. Sanders is a unique case of political protest in which service refusal is protected.

I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that distinction. Both expressions are political, but as I explained (as well as CastlevaniaNut), there's a difference between refusing service based on who you are as part of a group you are refusing rather than refusing service to you because of who you are specifically in terms of a political public figure. It has nothing to do with love. The baker refuses all homosexuality, which is bigotry. The Red Hen serves conservatives and Trump voters, just not Sarah Huckabee Sanders. One is bigotry, which is illegal, and one isn't. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but there's a clear difference regardless of both being of a political nature.

Exactly.

Fair enough.

Right, it's specific to the public figures in the White House Trump administration. I agree. I'm saying that still makes it facially different than the gay couple case. Politicians and public government officials are not a protected class like gay people are and it isn't bigotry to refuse an individual part of the Trump administration specifically whereas it is bigotry to do it to a specific gay couple because they happen to be gay generally. That's the legal (and moral) distinction I'm drawing.

If you want to leave it at that, I'm happy to, but I'm not sure how you can "agree to disagree" when the person who asked Sanders to leave had gathered the entire staff and had a vote beforehand and the premise of asking her to leave was because she was Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically (she got recognized by staff when she came into th restauarant), mouth piece of separating children from their parents (among many other evils). I think their intent makes it pretty clear who it was aimed at, no?

Right, but the difference being that the refusal was based on a problem with the type of person the gay couple actually were rather than about anything with them specifically as Bob or Ed (in terms of their specific personalities, etc.). It may have been a stance against the government, but the net effect is bigotry towards a group of people. The net effect in Sarah Huckabee Sanders' situation is the protest was political in nature directed directly at the specific person that is, in part, responsible for what is causing their protest in the first place. It is aimed at her and only her. Group of people (gay people) vs. individual (Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically). Private people (random gay couple) vs. public figure (senior White House official / press secretary). That difference between generally and specifically is very important, even if both beliefs are political in nature. How it is aimed and who it is aimed at matters, which is why libel and slander laws (as a for instance) differentiate between private and public figures. I'm happy to discuss more if I'm truly misunderstanding something.

The thing is, that's true! We are bigoted against, specifically, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, due to who she is, what she's done, who she represents, etc. That's totally the same thing as refusing service to all gay people because they are gay! Totally the same thing GUYS. Being bigoted against one person and being bigoted against an entire group = SAME THING GUYS.

Whether it's more comparable is probably irrelavant since those two incidents are entirely different as well. In the making cakes incident, the person who was refusing service was based on the premise of who the couple were generally (members of the gay community) rather than who they were specifically (Bob and Ed, or whoever, they were). In the Red Hen incident, the person refusing service was based on the premise of who the person was specifically (aka Sarah Huckabee Sanders, senior White House official), due to Sarah's political stances and policies. Refusing her service (more accurately: politely asking her and her entourage to leave) was a form of political protest at a specific public person. This isn't directed at you Spawn. I'm just amazed a lot of people don't understand this distinction. But hey, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of both the baker and the Muslim Ban, so what do I know.

Insane. Truly.

I think that's incredibly alarmist, and inaccurate to DSA's or even Sanders' policies. I'm not for the "populist" left, I'm for change from what we've had for decades, and I want that change in a left direction than a right one. No, I don't want a centrist, because that's what we've had for ages and it hasn't worked, because it led us to Trump. So no, I'm for humane, free market capitalism and that, I think, is what we'd ultimately get with people like this.

And yet, still better than all other candidates that were presented, so what's it matter? It's an incredibly positive change compared to what we've gotten for decades. Not just in terms of policy, but personality and behavior and ethics and morals. You can't just ignore those wins.

Spec Ops: The Line was an absolutely phenomenal game - I have to give it a shout out, as not enough people played that wonderful game. Agreed. I'm not sure why everyone forgets they also did the Devil Mary Cry reboot, DmC though. That game, especially the remastered version, was just as legit as Heavenly Sword, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, and Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice.

Right on point. It's amazing the lies societies and civilizations tell themselves when the truth is right there, staring them in the face.

Well put. It is indeed a medical condition, just not a mental illness. And the body is indeed the "flaw", not the gender identity.

This is actually a big win for trans people - just ask one of them. To be acknowledged that what you are isn't a medical condition but "natural" in the same ways straight or gay people are considered "natural" makes them feel validated - as they should. It was the same with homosexuality. And it does given the alt right less fodder if they can't point to science (they rarely can these days anyway, but every little bit helps). So this does help, though what you say is also important with regard to acceptance and understanding. And yes, mental health disorders can be based on their destructiveness. That's how many of them have been discovered - it was hurting themselves or the people around them. Transgenderism doesn't hurt anybody. Destructiveness is a key factor in determining mental disorders (not the only factor however, of course). Narcissistic personality disorder, for example (a mental health disorder our very president suffers from) is only diagnosable through its destructiveness on and towards others, as all its symptoms only exhibit themselves from how the person treats others.