No context needed? So like the narrowest scope for equality? Like you want straight people to be treated as lesser? Killed in other countries? Or maybe context would help with that type equality. Let’s make the straights experience what the lgbtqia+ people did/do and that’s equality.
Anyway, equality is great but we ain’t even fucking there yet. Give the LGBT peeps their pride and celebration in the places where they won’t be fucking killed for it. If I would be killed for having six toes in Australia and had just recently made it closer to being treated like another person in my own country I’d celebrate the shit out of my sixth toe all the god damn time. When someone comes to my six toe party/game/whatever with five toes, who cares. Live and let live. I’m celebrating with my six toed goblet and my six toed hat. When they show up and ask for a five toed goblet because it’s only equal I’d probably make fun of them for having absolutely no understanding of what’s being celebrated or why and tell them they could have one for a million dollars or whatever too. But I’m sure the straight name tag and recognition is ‘equally’ meaningful to straight people, right?
This comes off as incredibly dense. Equality in the highest form, with no negatives. Notice who’s the one heated here, and who’s the one with beliefs of human equality, bar none. I accept no blame as a supporter, and I will give no shade neither here nor there. And yeah, it is meaningful and I expect your acceptance, as I give to you and anyone else, friend.
Sorry if you think I’m heated. I’ll tone it down. I really tend to overuse expletives for emphasis. I want to be clear that I understand you. However, I think that “equality in it’s highest form” is some kind of platonic magic that doesn’t exist in the reality we live in and is completely irrelevant to any of this. Like, it’s pretty ridiculous to remove context from a situation and just blanket “equality” on something. Your version is some really thoughtless black and white stuff that could use maybe a minute of consideration. Like treating someone without legs the same as someone who can walk and forgoing ramps because that’s equality in the highest form. “With no negatives” would require the legless fella to have legs. And would that require giving them legs to achieve equality? What about the legged people who didn’t get a hugely expensive surgery? Is equality giving them cash to equal that out? I’m saying it’s actually always complicated. Equality with context (and even really really simple thought) concludes that treating everyone equally means treating some people differently. Because, y’know, you can’t ask a paraplegic to use the stairs in most cases.
But I’m mostly just responding to inform and explain in case there’s any chance of education or open mindedness and it seems like we’re not getting anywhere.
I’m in no need of informing, and your analogies fall short of making a point. I don’t mind if you want to focus on what separates us, but this has been a waste of my time, and there is no conclusion when met with ignorance.
Hey let’s drop it. I didn’t mean to touch a nerve. I’m sorry for wasting your time friend. Hope you have a nice night.
