Netanyahu, israel and iran

[TexanStar]

You know what life is like in Iran if you're gay, right?

complicated.

Iran is more repressive than the US on gay rights, but more progressive than the US on trans rights.

 

[Perados]

Firstly, Iran didn't "take the oil away" from the West. Iran asked to audit BP (as they existed back in the day)'s operations in Iran and BP refused so Iran kicked them out and took it over themselves. Britain then retaliated by calling for a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Iran didn't "take away" the oil, the west refused to buy it when Iran was trying to sell it to them.

and now think about the self-understanding of Britain and the US. From their point of view Iran took it away from them. They had to get punished.

So, if I say "they took it away" I don't mean it literally. It's simply a way to express how the west felt about it, in a very short way.

And don't dare to post anything star wars related to me again. Otherwise I will have to block you.
It reminds me how Lucas and Disney destroyed a wonderful part of my childhood.

Secondly, that isn't the only reason why Iran isn't liked in the west. There's these small events in history like Iranians storming the US embassy in Tehran and taking 52 Americans hostage for over a year. There've been a few movies about it, might be worth watching one.

Watched it, know it... others did similar stuff. Just think about what an Arabian did to the WTC in 2001. Didn't changed much how the US treats Saudi-Arabia. Now you could ask why and the answer would be "they never tried to take their oil "

 

[Perados]

You know what life is like in Iran if you're gay, right?

Guess everyone knows... but we compare Iran with Saudi-Arabia. (Not Iran and the west) Can you tell the difference between Iran and SA in gay questions?

 

[Chrysippus]

You know what life is like in Iran if you're gay, right?

And you know what life is like in Texas where it’s OK to murder gays for causing a ‘gay panic’, right?

 

[TexanStar]

And you know what life is like in Texas where it’s OK to murder gays for causing a ‘gay panic’, right?

It can feel better to write this off as a Texas hick thing, but the problem is that this happened in Austin. Dunno how familiar you are with Texas, but Austin is heavily liberal. in 2016, 70% of the Travis County vote went to Hillary Clinton, 30% went to Donald Trump. Compared to Multnomah County where Clinton took 76% of the vote.

So that's the thing... This gay panic defense issue is really a US issue. This one happened in Texas, but I think it could've happened almost anywhere in the US and seen a similar result.

 

[Chrysippus]

It can feel better to write this off as a Texas hick thing, but the problem is that this happened in Austin. Dunno how familiar you are with Texas, but Austin is heavily liberal. in 2016, 70% of the Travis County vote went to Hillary Clinton, 30% went to Donald Trump. Compared to Multnomah County where Clinton took 76% of the vote.

So that's the thing... This gay panic defense issue is really a US issue. This one happened in Texas, but I think it could've happened almost anywhere in the US and seen a similar result.

I knew this would draw a response from you...
1.) Austin is in Texas, right?
2.) and the gay panic defense has been banned in Illinois and California, but not in Texas, so it’s not an all-US problem.

 

[TexanStar]

I knew this would draw a response from you...
1.) Austin is in Texas, right?
2.) and the gay panic defense has been banned in Illinois and California, but not in Texas, so it’s not an all-US problem.

You have my sincerest apologies. There are a whole two out of 50 states where the gay panic defense cannot be used. Together those two states comprise 15% of the us population.

I'm sorry that 48 out of 50 states, or that 85% of the US population don't quite meet your standards of what qualifies as "almost anywhere" when I said "this one happened in Texas, but I think it could've happened almost anywhere in the US and seen a similar result."

What is the cutoff you would prefer me to use in the future? 96% of states was not enough, does that need to be 98% 99%? I'd like to keep this number in mind so I don't offend your progressive sensitivities with future inaccuracy in describing what are ongoing challenges for civil rights for the gay community across the US.

 

[Chrysippus]

You have my sincerest apologies. There are a whole two out of 50 states where the gay panic defense cannot be used. Together those two states comprise 15% of the us population.

I'm sorry that 48 out of 50 states, or that 85% of the US population don't quite meet your standards of what qualifies as "almost anywhere" when I said "this one happened in Texas, but I think it could've happened almost anywhere in the US and seen a similar result."

What is the cutoff you would prefer me to use in the future? 96% of states was not enough, does that need to be 98% 99%? I'd like to keep this number in mind so I don't offend your progressive sensitivities with future inaccuracy in describing what are ongoing challenges for civil rights for the gay community across the US.

I am sorry to inform you that the gay panic defense could conceivably happen here in Oregon (but it hasn’t).

And as for ‘There are a whole two out of 50 states where the gay panic defense cannot be used. Together those two states comprise 15% of the us population’, so fucking what?

The fact is still that the gay panic defense was recently used and can be used successfully in Texas.

 

[TexanStar]

The fact is still that the gay panic defense was recently used and can be used successfully in Texas.

Yes, it has. It's been used in a multitude of states such as, but not limited to, California, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, etc.

It is usually unsuccessful not because the states don't permit the defense, but because setting aside the legality, it's a shit defense and hard to prove it out. Usually the person claiming gay panic ends up with some testimony against them that they either engage in some gay behavior themselves, have been propositioned before without attacking someone, have other circumstances at play like being drunk, etc.

I firmly stand by my statement... this is a national issue and one that the LGBT bar has been fighting. If you want to make it out to be a problem limited to Texas, you can. You'd be stupid and wrong-headed, but you certainly can.

 

[Chrysippus]

If you want to make it out to be a problem limited to Texas

I didn’t in my OP and don’t want to, so you can put aside your ‘stupid and wrong-headed.’

 

[Klingsor]

Can we say the problem is not limited to any one area, but likely to be more prevalent in some than in others?

 

[Chrysippus]

Can we say the problem is not limited to any one area, but likely to be more prevalent in some than in others?

You can say whatever you like.

 

[Klingsor]

You can say whatever you like.

Thank you! Thank you!

 

[TexanStar]

Can we say the problem is not limited to any one area, but likely to be more prevalent in some than in others?

I don't think there's enough data available to say that (for this specific issue).

Gay panic defense is permissible in 48 states, but has been attempted in total less than 25 times nationally. Scrolling through the cases, Mississippi and California (before it was made illegal) are the only two states that I see show up more than once (and don't they make a fine pair)?

If you want to argue that some states have more or fewer civil protections for gay people, then yes, absolutely. But this specific area is one where almost the entire country is failing and it's a pass/fail scenario, no shade of grey.

 

[Perados]

It can feel better to write this off as a Texas hick thing, but the problem is that this happened in Austin. Dunno how familiar you are with Texas, but Austin is heavily liberal. in 2016, 70% of the Travis County vote went to Hillary Clinton, 30% went to Donald Trump. Compared to Multnomah County where Clinton took 76% of the vote.

So that's the

If Austin is soooo liberal to the rest of Texas, I don't want to know how it's to live as a gay in rest of Texas

You have my sincerest apologies. There are a whole two out of 50 states where the gay panic defense cannot be used. Together those two states comprise 15% of the us population.

I'm sorry that 48 out of 50 states, or that 85% of the US population don't quite meet your standards of what qualifies as "almost anywhere" when I said "this one happened in Texas, but I think it could've happened almost anywhere in the US and seen a similar result."

What is the cutoff you would prefer me to use in the future? 96% of states was not enough, does that need to be 98% 99%? I'd like to keep this number in mind so I don't offend your progressive sensitivities with future inaccuracy in describing what are ongoing challenges for civil rights for the gay community across the US.

wouldn't have expected such an answer, after your answer to my shortcut "Iran took their oil"

 

[TexanStar]

If Austin is soooo liberal to the rest of Texas, I don't want to know how it's to live as a gay in rest of Texas

Middle of the road (which doesn't translate to "good"). It's better than the Civil War south states and the rust belt, but worse than your reliably blue states.

You can get fired for being gay here, but someone who committed hate crimes against you for being gay could be charged with such.

 

[Klingsor]

Middle of the road (which doesn't translate to "good"). It's better than the Civil War south states and the rust belt, but worse than your reliably blue states.

You can get fired for being gay here, but someone who committed hate crimes against you for being gay could be charged with such.

"You can get fired for being gay" is middle of the road?

I guess I need to get out more. Or maybe not.

 

[TexanStar]

Middle of the road (which doesn't translate to "good"). It's better than the Civil War south states and the rust belt, but worse than your reliably blue states.

You can get fired for being gay here, but someone who committed hate crimes against you for being gay could be charged with such.

That's in the state. Cities vary. People do have employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation in the cities of Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, but those protections do not extend to any of their suburbs except for Plano (although Plano's still growing at a rate that suggests it doesn't want to remain a suburb for much longer).

Kind of weird that Houston doesn't have it actually (Houston is the biggest city in the state and the most diverse city in the USA).

 

[TexanStar]

"You can get fired for being gay" is middle of the road?

I guess I need to get out more. Or maybe not.

Yes, More than half of US states lack protection for LGBT employees being terminated for their sexual orientation in private industry (a number of those states offer such protections for government employees, but those don't extend to anyone working for a private company).

 

[TexanStar]

FYI and just a measure of how much this stuff changes over the course of time (just happened a few weeks ago, I hadn't even heard about it till just now when I was google researching), but..

LGBT workers are protected from workplace discrimination, Texas judge says in 'earth-shattering' new ruling

This is a court ruling and it's not yet been tested. The overall ruling was in the company's favor so it won't be getting appealed, and the ruling was made in a district court as opposed to state supreme court, but it's on the record now and I'm sure it'll come up in a future discrimination case.

Overall I wouldn't put my eggs in this basket (our state supreme court skews conservative), I'm more mentioning it from the standpoint that these are live issues actively being worked / fought right now.