Sergalpony 
"[@Derpy Whooves":](/1742348#comment_8146882
)
This is a good point, and thank you very much for explaining things :D I'll be sure to keep that in mind!
"
[@The Frowning Pony":](/1742348#comment_8146890
)
I know this isn't directed at me since I was so unrelated to the image, but I figured as my last post I'd add in my 2-cents on that subject. For me, it's not so much the 'shitting on nazi's' part, as it is:
A. Initiating violence against a nazi who's only crime thus far is their thoughts and speech [to my knowledge Spencer never attacked anyone for instance, and we're not alloud to punch commies for supporting a regime that was worse even than nazis, either the precedent applies to 'all' belief systems with a record of high murder counts, or none.]
B. The People, Antifa of which is a big one, who use the idea of 'punch a nazi' to label people who aren't nazis, as nazis, and then justify political violence against them 'because who would ever defend a nazi?'
. This being accepted is in itself unacceptable, because the mere word of a stranger can ruin someone's life, without any proof behind those words, only opinions or interpretations, you just get the red-scare or the witch-trials that way.
I fully agree that a legitimate nazi deserves to be shit on, just like legitimate communists, but I wholly disagree with the 'red-scare' style that allows people to justify violence by 'claiming' someone is a nazi without evidence. [I don't mean spencer, we all know XD] in much the way the red-scare was used to ruin people who had no actual connection to communism, or the same way the salem witch trials were used to ruin people who couldn't prove they weren't witches.
"
[@cheezedoodle":](/1742348#comment_8146960
)
Thank you again for, ya know, misrepresenting my arguments to mean something usefully negative to someone who disagrees with me, top notch that. Questioning how mistreated people 'really' are in america, or pointing out how there's almost no out-cry for the places they're treated far worse, is not synonymous with 'I approve of gay people being oppressed in america!', and you know it, please don't be childish about things like this, it doesn't help anyone. Despite your deliberate misrepresentation, I'm going to continue to take you seriously and actually discuss things.
Now, since you linked these, lemme give em a look, and to clarify, I actually looked stuff up while checking these in cases where I needed some numbers to make my point.
That first one doesn't sound like it has anything to do with LGBTQ outside of the presence of gay parents, that's not an example of 'gay mistreatment' because that would've implied both sons of the gay parents being denied citizenship, while only the son who's parent was not already an american citizen was initially denied, and from the sound of it they were both born abroad... yeah, they were both born in canada. This raises many questions around it, some from ignorance, because I don't know marriage law myself, like does one parent being married to a U.S. citizen share that parent's citizenship? I don't actually know that one, but if yes, then there's no reason to deny it. If so, I can 'see' why, but I honestly don't see any reason he can't be granted citizenship anyway, there are already ways to acquire citizenship without it being birth-right.
An article from the british broadcasting center [is that what BBC stands for?], so a foreign opinion that the left is always happy to say shouldn't apply, but for the sake of seriousness, I'll just say this. The reasoning was the concern for what is still known to include evidence of mental illness [not all of them obviously] being an issue with the military's 'need' for maximum safety and cohesion with soldiers. That doesn't mean they 'shouldn't', but this is obviously just another stage in cementing such precedents, this is the time where people should be showing scientific evidence that mental illness isn't so linked to transgenderism, not calling names and trying to shame people into backing down. Proving that it's not linked would shatter the veracity of that ban immediately. not technically oppression, as it's not explicitly done 'against transgenders' as it is to ensure the military charged with defending the entire nation's capabilities, and the rights of it's soldiers to be guaranteed allies they can trust, but it should still be easy to completely debunk with serious scientific studies.
On the next one, question, did that include people who experienced such things 'online'? Also, a harvard study of roughly 500 people's experiences [to say nothing of the ability of an institute to pick and choose to curb the results a certain way, I won't even 'assume' they did.] but the small number of '500' used to represent systemic nation-wide oppression of 9,000,000 people? The innacuracy of such a study is self-evident at that point, a study to prove such oppression should need at 'least' 10 percent, not roughly .005 percent [I actually did the math, maybe not perfectly XD, but would you want a small handful of people to define what the world thinks of 'you'?]. Harassment and discrimination in general exist for everyone too, it depends on the 'local' environment, unfortunate as it is, though it's far more rampant on the internet, because little people get very bold and offensive when they're certain they're immune to reprisal, but I'm going to assume they didn't include something like that in their study because those people are also impotent and unable to do harm 'nearly' 100% of the time [Swatters and Doxxers deserve to rot in prison.][Note: None of this is 'saying it doesn't exist', just that harvard's specific study there was so incredibly small that it can't accurate represent a demographic that's 10000 times as large as their test group]
The fourth one is unfortunate and should never have happened, but it took me a moment to realize why you included it. because you said 'in the americas', which includes all of north and south america, not just the U.S.A. where she was trying to get to, so that was my own foible. I can agree that this shouldn't happen, but unfortunately many countries outside of the USA have problems like this that need solving, though this also isn't a source of government persecution or anything, so unfortunately without roaming security patrols or something, abusive citizens mistreating others is next to impossible to deal with. [There's a reason people who do this kind of thing 'in' america tend to suffer horribly for such crimes when caught... ya know, unless their a disgusting corrupt politician with the right 'friends'.]
While that last one is also terrible to hear about, and needs to be solved as well, and no, this is not 'supporting the killing' or 'denying their right to safety', the actual growth in number of homicides over that period is easily explained by rising population, more people means a proportional crime-rate returns higher flat numbers. It also pales in comparison to actual over-all homicide rate, so if we can bring down the 'big' murder-fest that everyone else has to face, the measures that do so will inevitably bring down the threats against LGBT people. More safety for 'everyone', invariably includes minorities as well, and any policy that can be proven as deliberately benefiting only one group and depriving all others, has no place in the U.S.
This is a good point, and thank you very much for explaining things :D I'll be sure to keep that in mind!
"
[@The Frowning Pony
I know this isn't directed at me since I was so unrelated to the image, but I figured as my last post I'd add in my 2-cents on that subject. For me, it's not so much the 'shitting on nazi's' part, as it is:
A. Initiating violence against a nazi who's only crime thus far is their thoughts and speech [to my knowledge Spencer never attacked anyone for instance, and we're not alloud to punch commies for supporting a regime that was worse even than nazis, either the precedent applies to 'all' belief systems with a record of high murder counts, or none.]
B. The People, Antifa of which is a big one, who use the idea of 'punch a nazi' to label people who aren't nazis, as nazis, and then justify political violence against them 'because who would ever defend a nazi?'
I fully agree that a legitimate nazi deserves to be shit on, just like legitimate communists, but I wholly disagree with the 'red-scare' style that allows people to justify violence by 'claiming' someone is a nazi without evidence. [I don't mean spencer, we all know XD] in much the way the red-scare was used to ruin people who had no actual connection to communism, or the same way the salem witch trials were used to ruin people who couldn't prove they weren't witches.
"
[@cheezedoodle
Thank you again for, ya know, misrepresenting my arguments to mean something usefully negative to someone who disagrees with me, top notch that. Questioning how mistreated people 'really' are in america, or pointing out how there's almost no out-cry for the places they're treated far worse, is not synonymous with 'I approve of gay people being oppressed in america!', and you know it, please don't be childish about things like this, it doesn't help anyone. Despite your deliberate misrepresentation, I'm going to continue to take you seriously and actually discuss things.
Now, since you linked these, lemme give em a look, and to clarify, I actually looked stuff up while checking these in cases where I needed some numbers to make my point.
That first one doesn't sound like it has anything to do with LGBTQ outside of the presence of gay parents, that's not an example of 'gay mistreatment' because that would've implied both sons of the gay parents being denied citizenship, while only the son who's parent was not already an american citizen was initially denied, and from the sound of it they were both born abroad... yeah, they were both born in canada. This raises many questions around it, some from ignorance, because I don't know marriage law myself, like does one parent being married to a U.S. citizen share that parent's citizenship? I don't actually know that one, but if yes, then there's no reason to deny it. If so, I can 'see' why, but I honestly don't see any reason he can't be granted citizenship anyway, there are already ways to acquire citizenship without it being birth-right.
An article from the british broadcasting center [is that what BBC stands for?], so a foreign opinion that the left is always happy to say shouldn't apply, but for the sake of seriousness, I'll just say this. The reasoning was the concern for what is still known to include evidence of mental illness [not all of them obviously] being an issue with the military's 'need' for maximum safety and cohesion with soldiers. That doesn't mean they 'shouldn't', but this is obviously just another stage in cementing such precedents, this is the time where people should be showing scientific evidence that mental illness isn't so linked to transgenderism, not calling names and trying to shame people into backing down. Proving that it's not linked would shatter the veracity of that ban immediately. not technically oppression, as it's not explicitly done 'against transgenders' as it is to ensure the military charged with defending the entire nation's capabilities, and the rights of it's soldiers to be guaranteed allies they can trust, but it should still be easy to completely debunk with serious scientific studies.
On the next one, question, did that include people who experienced such things 'online'? Also, a harvard study of roughly 500 people's experiences [to say nothing of the ability of an institute to pick and choose to curb the results a certain way, I won't even 'assume' they did.] but the small number of '500' used to represent systemic nation-wide oppression of 9,000,000 people? The innacuracy of such a study is self-evident at that point, a study to prove such oppression should need at 'least' 10 percent, not roughly .005 percent [I actually did the math, maybe not perfectly XD, but would you want a small handful of people to define what the world thinks of 'you'?]. Harassment and discrimination in general exist for everyone too, it depends on the 'local' environment, unfortunate as it is, though it's far more rampant on the internet, because little people get very bold and offensive when they're certain they're immune to reprisal, but I'm going to assume they didn't include something like that in their study because those people are also impotent and unable to do harm 'nearly' 100% of the time [Swatters and Doxxers deserve to rot in prison.][Note: None of this is 'saying it doesn't exist', just that harvard's specific study there was so incredibly small that it can't accurate represent a demographic that's 10000 times as large as their test group]
The fourth one is unfortunate and should never have happened, but it took me a moment to realize why you included it. because you said 'in the americas', which includes all of north and south america, not just the U.S.A. where she was trying to get to, so that was my own foible. I can agree that this shouldn't happen, but unfortunately many countries outside of the USA have problems like this that need solving, though this also isn't a source of government persecution or anything, so unfortunately without roaming security patrols or something, abusive citizens mistreating others is next to impossible to deal with. [There's a reason people who do this kind of thing 'in' america tend to suffer horribly for such crimes when caught... ya know, unless their a disgusting corrupt politician with the right 'friends'.]
While that last one is also terrible to hear about, and needs to be solved as well, and no, this is not 'supporting the killing' or 'denying their right to safety', the actual growth in number of homicides over that period is easily explained by rising population, more people means a proportional crime-rate returns higher flat numbers. It also pales in comparison to actual over-all homicide rate, so if we can bring down the 'big' murder-fest that everyone else has to face, the measures that do so will inevitably bring down the threats against LGBT people. More safety for 'everyone', invariably includes minorities as well, and any policy that can be proven as deliberately benefiting only one group and depriving all others, has no place in the U.S.