0.03% of the population is a huge amount of people to not give a fuck about.
It would be even easier for people such as you to STOP PRETENDING YOU’RE A VICTIM!
What next indeed!?
Cats and dogs lying with each other?
Sex with ducks?
Where will it all end?
Who the hell else are my neighbors at the lagoon supposed to have sex with? 
(For those who always grab the knife by the sharp end: said neighbors are ducks)
It’s also a low estimate. One survey that asked people whether they were transgender got a 0.5% affirmative response; the going estimate in the field, as far as I can tell, is 0.3%.
Let’s try 0.03%. That’s three of every ten thousand people, or three hundred in every million. In North Carolina, about three thousand people are transgender, by that very low estimate. On our nation, it’s 90,000.
A law that regularly makes life very difficult for 3,000 people is a terrible law. But that’s likely a small estimate by an order of magnitude.
By your definition of “affiliated”, you are affiliated with a transgendered person because they live in the same country as you. You may notice that I didn’t say “interact”; yes, you may have to interact with people who aren’t like you. That’s not bullying - it’s the cost of living in society, just as it has always been.
I mean, you could go live alone on a mountaintop and feel satisfied that you aren’t being bullied into living amongst the rest of the country. The rest of us won’t miss you.
Your grandparents?? So I was right in my assumption that you never saw the 1950’s idyllic life to which you aspire. Nobody here has suggested that nothing good existed during that period of life. But it is undeniable that life - even for those white Christians you hold in such esteem - is better now. Life span, infant mortality rate, standard of living…all improved.
If you lived in the 1950’s, you would have lived in a house about 1/4 the size of what people are used to today. There’d likely be one bathroom for the entire family. There’d only be one car, too. Your television, if you had one, would be a small black and white set that only got three channels. No cable. No internet. No video games. You may or may not have air conditioning. The top income tax rate was 91%. The news would routinely remind you of the real risk of being annihiliated in a nuclear attack; your kids would be taught that putting their head under a desk would protect them from radiation poisoning. You had to deal with diseases that are not worrisome now, and many maladies and chronic conditions had far less effective treatment than found today. Hell, even your food choices were considerably reduced compared to today, both in the type of restaurants you could go to and the diversity of selections at the grocery.
And this is without even getting into the disadvantages of being non-white, non-Christian, or otherwise non-conforming.
So, yeah, you’re an idiot.
Wait, what? The sheriff visited your father’s hotel room and told him he had to leave town because he wasn’t Christian? How would the sheriff even know? Seriously, that never happened.
Your stories become more fantastic by the day.
That’d be nice, but 2016 America doesn’t use firehoses or police dogs on people trying to vote, for instance. It just demands extra paperwork.
I basically agree with the last paragraph. There were good things in the goold old days (variously defined), and we should be able to recognize that, and where possible to preserve or restore those elements, for the improvement of our present and future society.
The five specific points you cherish, however, were not these things. Supermajority whiteness was unhelpful at best, often much worse. The rest is, indeed, simply wicked, and we shall be much better off to leave it behind.
Oh piss off, you stupid cissy. It’s a perfectly useful descriptive term that simply and without injecting bias describes an attribute that no other term describes.
Well shit, how many more groups were unjustly marginalized in the 50s? Throw ‘em on the pile! The point (being that in the 50s if you didn’t belong to a very specific group of people and were in any way “different”, you were gonna have a bad fuckin’ time) is only strengthened the longer the list gets. Because the more qualifiers are needed, the more clear it becomes that the 50s sucked for most people.
My guess would be that they were wearing symbols or clothing associated with another religion. For example, many people wear necklaces or have bumper stickers with religious symbols on them, or wear clothing like turbans or headscarves, or body markings like the dot associated with Hindu practice in India. Orthodox Jews, for example, are really easy to pick out from a crowd.
If you’re going to piss all over social science , why do you expect us to take it seriously when you cite it?
She said her father was singled out for being atheist. What identifying clothing do atheists wear?
It could have been something as simple as someone inviting him to church, and him giving just a bit too much detail as to why he wouldn’t want to. In some small towns in the 50’s and 60’s that could be classified as “hate speech”.
No. She said he wasn’t Christian not that he was atheist.
Given the traveling salesman aspect I presume he was Jewish, which people took very badly once upon a time.
In which post did she say that? I was talking about her comment in post 430, which just said ‘non-christian’, not ‘atheist.’ I would think it’s more likely that an atheist would get caught by not wanting to lie in response to a question like ‘which church are you going to on Sunday’ or ‘will you pray with me’ than by clothing choices. It’s still pretty a pretty reasonable thing to happen in the 1950s. (I always ‘liked’ the catch-22 of ‘we’ll persecute you if you answer honestly, and if we find out you answered dishonestly we’ll use that to justify future persecution’)
That was my understanding, too.
Because if anybody is discriminating against you because of your height, you shouldn’t just take it like a little bitch and do nothing about it.
“You’re staying at the hotel? That’s no good! Come and join us for dinner!”
“Well, I appreciate that; thanks.”
“No problem! My wife is making bacon-wrapped shrimp!”
“Um.”
“Not a fan? We could do beef stroganoff, with extra sour cream!”
“Er.”
“Or chicken and biscuits! Surely you can’t pass over that!”
“I see what you did there.”
I’m more worried about the .5 kid.
Where did she say atheist?
because short men, in and of themselves, are indisputably real. You can see it, measure it, etc. Once you have that, then I accept social science. 100% of men under 5’6’’ are under 5’6’'.
With transgenders, what a transgender is in and of itself is still not known fully. Once it is, if it ever is, then I’ll accept the social sciences. When you and others can show me a large, widespread representative sample that <99% of transgenders have brains unique from both heterosexual and homosexual regular gendered people, then I’ll join your view.