Target removes some LGBT merchandise amidst national backlash, violent confrontations, rumors of Satanist connection

Unfortunate. We now all get to pay the price for the behavior of over the top elements of the community, and so-called allies.

Trans panic is the new Satanic Panic, obviously.

You know these rightwing nutjob complainers wouldn't care if a clothing company that sells "arm all babies with AR15s" or "execute all women who have abortions" t-shirts also sold at Target.

I've only met one trans person in my entire life.

I hope they don't remove the glory holes in the bathroom!

Target overshot trying to get the queer dollars.

Don't tell them about Postmates "bottom-friendly menu"

R2, you're not going to believe this but even trans-central NBC News today admitted that the Bud Light boycott is not just due to conservatives. It's only one sentence but from NBC it's an incredible statement:

'Nobody imagined it would go on this long': Bud Light sales continue to plummet over Mulvaney backlash

The controversy, now nearing its third month, has turned off a broader customer group than just those who characterize themselves as conservatives.

Good. My life is not a “brand” to be monetized for a corporation.

Plus, all that rainbow shit is tacky.

Good opportunity for K-Mart to make a comeback with some right wing gimmicks.

The Pride shit they sell on kids and baby clothing in Target is beyond cringe. They’ve got shit with Queer written all over it. They’re selling tucking swimsuits too.

Funny I was just in Target and this is right up front. I stopped to look at it, it is all god-awful and I would never wear it. A woman next to me goes "Can you believe they are pushing this gay shit?" I said 'I know my husband is so pissed off." She looked mortified and left. PS they contribute to plenty of Republicans.

R1 is an idiot.

I guess these people never heard the phrase "If you don't like it, don't buy it"

I appreciate the support but I get business, markets, customers. The lack of strategic and critical thinking in these corporations really surprises me.

The QT+ ruining everything. AGAIN.

It's right there in the headline, OP.

They're doing it because RIGHTWINGERS have THREATENED VIOLENCE - ya know, bomb threats, murder threats.

They're not pulling the products because of "claims" or "links" made by some. They're pulling them because of THREATS. They're concerned for the safety of their employees and customers and, of course, their buildings.

R11, that’s hilarious.

The worst thing gay men ever did collectively is let these fucking trannies hijack our voices. We are going back 50 years because of theses mentally ill mostly straight men.

LGBTQ: Why I Stopped Supporting "The Community" - Gay and Tired of Trans

Companies are going to use Bud Light as the excuse for retrenching on Lesbian/Gay issues.

"A grandmother looked menacing as she scootered by the "Trans women are women" t-shirt display.. So we have terminated benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners."

[quote] "A grandmother looked menacing as she scootered by the "Trans women are women" t-shirt display.. So we have terminated benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners."

Huh?

R19, how is it going to be an "excuse"? They see Bud Light losing money. These companies are also learning their customers aren't okay with them trying to sell TQ gear to babies and pre-schoolers.

Target should put up signs:

If you are so uninformed about the LGBT community, then please take your business to

K Mart

Not those "menacing" grandmas! Run!!

[quote] These companies are also learning their customers aren't okay with them trying to sell TQ gear to babies and pre-schoolers.

Apparently a large percentage of the Pride merchandise being offered at Target is aimed at children.

Who thought that was a good idea?

The vid at r1: with ‘friends’ like that, seriously who needs enemies?!

thanks for sharing at R18.

There's not a lot there to disagree with.

Thai better run. 'Cause, gurrrl, they're coming after you next!

Thank, TQs!

So glad we were able to get gay marriage passed despite you.

R2, more like Trans religion is the new Satanism.

It’s a doomsday cult.

It looks like the article linked by OP has been removed. I wonder why?

(And I wonder with plain old curiosity, not as some kind of rhetorical flourish.)

[quote]Trans religion is the new Satanism

There's a thread that was just started where people are whining that all the trolls on here have been crossed out and tagged, yet this thread and every other trans troll thread on here are overflowing with crazy comments like this. What's the deal?

Why is is that we normal people must tolerate all of the garbage from the right-wing (you know, ignoring what voters want and saying "fuck you and your vote. We're banning abortions and books and going with minority, draconian rule") yet they get to be garbage fascists and throw a hissy fit over shitty beer and clothes?

R18, here’s another gay man speaking out…Richard Pryor, Jr.

Yes, Richard Pryor’s son is out & proud.

Perfect candidate for Grand Marshal at a Gay Pride parade. Too bad that will never happen because he spoke out against the cult.

[quote] how is it going to be an "excuse"? They see Bud Light losing money. These companies are also learning their customers aren't okay with them trying to sell TQ gear to babies and pre-schoolers.

Yet these same people would be fine with Jesus shit on baby gear.

Why is trans-supporting messages so evil and harmful? Oh, because the right has targeted this group specifically to ostracize.

[quote]Apparently a large percentage of the Pride merchandise being offered at Target is aimed at children.

SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!!!

There's video of right wingers calling the pride merchandise "pedophilia." And we're giving into that hysteria?

[quote]These companies are also learning their customers aren't okay with them trying to sell TQ gear to babies and pre-schoolers.

Don't be a moron, babies and preschoolers don't purchase anything, their parents do. Parents are being marketed to. Also those "tuck friendly" swimsuits were for older teens and adults, the stuff for young kids were just "extra crotch coverage" suits, so you look like a bunch of fucking pedos for complaining that toddlers were being offered crotch-covering swimwear.

R33, are you able to stay on topic?

Or do you change the subject because you’re actually unable to defend your argument…?

R10 No they are not. This was debunked by the AP. [quote] They’re selling tucking swimsuits too.

I don't understand all the fuss. There's nothing unhealthy about highly sexualized clothes for toddlers or even babies. Everybody knows children grow into their full sexuality by the time they can crawl. A child can even be a voracious seductress by the time they enter Kindergarten.

R34, you can’t be serious. You’re actually pro-pedo?

You want parents to relax about their children being groomed into swim suits that bind their sex organs?

Good luck with that.

I want nothing to do with you. Most homosexuals are good people & don’t want to mess with kids.

"Satan respects pronouns" is hilarious. Id wear it.

[quote] Don't be a moron, babies and preschoolers don't purchase anything, their parents do. Parents are being marketed to. Also those "tuck friendly" swimsuits were for older teens and adults, the stuff for young kids were just "extra crotch coverage" suits, so you look like a bunch of fucking pedos for complaining that toddlers were being offered crotch-covering swimwear.

And parents are against it, dumbass. Their kids are coming to them telling them that they want their tits chopped off.

[quote] Why is is that we normal people must tolerate all of the garbage from the right-wing (you know, ignoring what voters want and saying "fuck you and your vote. We're banning abortions and books and going with minority, draconian rule") yet they get to be garbage fascists and throw a hissy fit over shitty beer and clothes?

Get a proofreader, hon.

[quote] Why is is that we normal people must tolerate all of the garbage from the right-wing (you know, ignoring what voters want and saying "fuck you and your vote. We're banning abortions and books and going with minority, draconian rule") yet they get to be garbage fascists and throw a hissy fit over shitty beer and clothes?

Hire a proofreader, hon.

See how this LGBT stigmatization has morphed? First it was "Trans is harming kids!!" Then its "Draq Queens are grooming children" And now, it's "LGBT is satanic"

[quote]Why is is that we normal people must tolerate all of the garbage from the right-wing yet they get to be garbage fascists and throw a hissy fit over shitty beer and clothes?

How does this make sense?

I'm not R33, but that is the very topic, dumbass. The glaring hypocrisy of the right-wing and its flying monkey, psychotic enablers like you who think the right-wing only hates trans people and only want to ban "merch" with transpeople. I have some issues with transpeople, but not enough to aid the right-wing in their demonization, because it isn't just them they're after, you tool

These same people want little kids carrying guns and pregnancies if they're raped. Way to enable them.

[quote]I want nothing to do with you. Most homosexuals are good people & don’t want to mess with kids.

That you think the right-wing thinks homosexuality is "normal"

[quote]Their kids are coming to them telling them that they want their tits chopped off.

Is this how low you have to sink, you hysterical bigot? you have to outright lie? Yes, I'm sure whatever isolated incident you read on Twitter his happening thousands and thousands and thousands of times.

R42, I don't doubt you account for most of these idiotic, bigoted responses. I'll get a proofreader after you get a fucking life.

[QUOTE] Funny I was just in Target and this is right up front.

What was upfront R11? Post link.

The right wing has changed the way it talks about gays. Last week on his show Ben Shaprio freely started as he has before that while he doesn’t understand gays he spent mind living in the world with them, unlike people trying to trans kids. You can disagree with every part of that sentence and still understand and appreciate that all things equal, the way mainstream conservatives talk shoot gays is different today than ten years ago. I’m 34 and am willing to state that to give credence to my assessment!

You're 34 and incoherent, r48. I can't understand half of that. "He spent mind living in the world with them"?

More hate speech from craven and cynical lunatics.

Shut the fuck up.

Anyway, I guess the bigger point to r48's claim is that there are a ton of anti-gay bills that have been introduced, are about to be introduced, or even passed in various red states, so no, the right has NOT changed how they think about gays. They specifically started this anti-trans nonsense to make headway into attacking the entire LGBT community, and it's worked, and no, they are not just fine with gays and only hate trans like you claim.

A good reminder that they don’t love us or anyone else…just their Board of Directors.

[quote]Trans is the new Satanic Panic, obviously.

Fixed that for you.

Four year olds supposedly declaring their “gender identity”, pushed by mental health professionals, hysterical mothers and some fathers into believing in “vagina fairies” and magical sex changes is no different than the McMartin PreSchool children coerced into claiming they attended underground Black Mass, ate mice, and were able to fly.

R49 it’s the swipe keyboard on the phone—it’s always screwing up random words. I DO try to proofread but oh well deal with it.

R51 WRONG!!!! Even if there were anti gay bills being passed (scratch the surface, and the anti gay bill quickly and often becomes anti trans in a stolen valor type situation) these bills are fundamentally less restrictive than those bills that the gop tried to P ass in my lifetime. “Don’t discuss gay in public school” is fundamentally different from “Gay marriage is illegal, gays have no legal rights, gay sex is literally illegal” which all existed while I’ve been alive, again since 1989.

[quote] Four year olds supposedly declaring their “gender identity”,

Bull shit

[quote] WRONG!!!! Even if there were anti gay bills being passed (scratch the surface, and the anti gay bill quickly and often becomes anti trans in a stolen valor type situation) these bills are fundamentally less restrictive than those bills that the gop tried to P ass in my lifetime. “Don’t discuss gay in public school” is fundamentally different from “Gay marriage is illegal, gays have no legal rights, gay sex is literally illegal” which all existed while I’ve been alive, again since 1989.

Allowing health care providers to choose whether to give you care or not is extreme.

Funny how you seem just fine with a little hatred instead of alot of hatred. We demand equality, not peanuts.

[quote] “Don’t discuss gay in public school” is fundamentally different from “Gay marriage is illegal, gays have no legal rights, gay sex is literally illegal” which all existed while I’ve been alive, again since 1989.

They are all just different versions of "Gays are lessor human beings so it's okay to hate them and beat them up."

[quote] They specifically started this anti-trans nonsense to make headway into attacking the entire LGBT community

This is true. But the community let the wolf in through the front door, and let this happen. All gays wanted with same-sex marriage were rights which don't actually hurt straights in any way. Nothing was taken from straight people. The T don't want 'rights', they demand PRIVILEGES. They want to claim as theirs things women had to fight for and build on their own, and which when they lose them actually affect their safety and ability to succeed. And trying to lessen the legal authority parents have to make decisions, medical and otherwise, for their own children was NEVER going to go over well. That overreach is costing everybody now.

[quote] But the community let the wolf in through the front door, and let this happen.

So you're blaming gays for trans wanting equality? We've been LGBT for forever.

[quote] All gays wanted with same-sex marriage were rights which don't actually hurt straights in any way. Nothing was taken from straight people.

Wow, did you miss the last 20 years when straights kept telling us that giving gays marriage rights would diminished their marriages????!!

[quote] That overreach is costing everybody now.

Demanding equality is NEVER over-reach.

Let's put blame where it's due--the right wing looking for a wedge issue to win elections.

OP is twisting the actual news.

[quote] Target pulls some LGBTQ+ merchandise from stores ahead of June Pride month after threats to workers

Threats from mouth-breathing right-wing troglodytes, not supposed national backlash.

OP is a trolling asshole.

R59, I'm placing blame for not calling out the AGPs and other assorted creeps who are now operating under the trans umbrella before they became entrenched. Those people are the problem, not old-school trans people. But even though most of them are straight, they were still allowed to claim a LGBT identity and now are fucking things up for everyone. There should have been some gatekeeping, as there once was with N*MBLA. Now it's too late, and the progress of years and years is unraveling.

[quote]Wow, did you miss the last 20 years when straights kept telling us that giving gays marriage rights would diminished their marriages????!!

Of course not. But their panic was always absurd, they lost nothing through same sex marriage. The trans stuff is not the same. As long as men with intact genitalia are being put in women's prisons and domestic violence shelters, as long as women are losing scholarships and races to men who have only self-IDed as women, something actually IS being lost. The community handed the wingnuts the perfect bat to revive their campaign against gays and lesbians after all their dire warnings about the results of same-sex marriage didn't materialize.

Listen to the detransitioners and let them lead the way out of this mess.

[quote] So you're blaming gays for trans wanting equality? We've been LGBT for forever.

No, we haven’t.

And straight men have always had “equality”. Even the ones in dresses.

R11 I love it when teeny tiny lil ole queens try to sound all tough. You forget to mention how she kicked you in the cuntbone.

That's what haopens when you ally yourself with and boost your historic (and re-curring) oppressors, Rowling-loving, quisling f*gs

How many trans people do we think there is on this platform?

I think there's only 1, possibly 2. The writing style is always the same.

So many of their comments are peppered with nasty threatening language.

"kick you in the cuntbone" "die in a grease fire"

They absolutely despise gay men and are only on datalounge in a vain attempt to control the narrative regarding the trans debate.

R63

You loathsome quisling. You know it's 1:1 the same tactic, the same smears, the same bigotry, just re-hashed and re-targeted. There's a special place in hell for you cowardous, sell-out traitors

R68, tell me you aren’t a real Datalounger without telling me you aren’t a real DataLounger.

[quote] So many of their comments are peppered with nasty threatening language.

[quote] "kick you in the cuntbone" "die in a grease fire"

Muriel needs to up the amount of time you have to lurk here before posting if you can be this ignorant of the culture here and still have enough visits to post.

R70 Piss off, hosebag.

Sorry the viagra is working any longer.

For each election, the right chooses a target to fear: gays, trans, blacks, other minorities, immigrants, Muslims, women...

Every time, these targets are apparently destroying America and harming children.

Gay have ALWAYS been linked to corrupting children, so this anti-trans movement is just rehashing that.

No amount of excuses makes the anti-trans hatred justified

We now interrupt this heated debate to listen to the dulcet tones of trans woman (so brave) Sophia Nyx, I'm sure listening to this little ditty will calm your tits.

R11...Lol! That was excellent.

[quote]WRONG!!!! Even if there were anti gay bills being passed (scratch the surface, and the anti gay bill quickly and often becomes anti trans in a stolen valor type situation) these bills are fundamentally less restrictive than those bills that the gop tried to P ass in my lifetime.

You are so full of shit. Just look at this mess of a troll post: You start out implying there have been no anti-gay bills even passed, then say if they HAVE been passed they're really about trans and not gay, and then say that sure, there are anti-gay bills, but they're not as bad as previous anti-gay bills.

All in the same sentence.

Seriously R71, I find it hard to believe that you could visit this place more than a couple of times and know that both of the phrases you quoted are foundational to the history and culture of DataLounge, one of, if not the, oldest gay sites online.

It would be like starting a thread asking who this Muriel person is that everyone is talking about.

R74 It never happened. She watched an episode of Golden Girls and how Sophie was so tough so she tried to emulate the lil Jewish hosebag. Sophie Petrilla was so tough so I can too!

Omg

Holy shit, this troll doesn’t even know the names of the Golden Girls and thinks Sophia is Jewish?

These are red line offenses, Muriel. Definitely not a real Datalounger, and I am beginning to wonder if they are even a native Earthling!

R44, if Drag Queens weren’t grooming kids, there would not be this anti-gay backlash.

Drag is for mature audiences only.

It’s creepy, wrong & inappropriate for men in heavy makeup, appropriating womanhood, to read to children in public libraries.

Clowns wear makeup to attract children.

Plenty of these storytime DQs have been busted for child porn. Some are convicted sex offenders. One is too many.

And why aren’t the DQs visiting nursing homes? Because they’re into kids, that’s why.

So much of the TQ ideology is to ignore your BS sniffer.

[quote] We've been LGBT for forever.

No, we haven’t. Maybe if you were born in the 1980s it might have seemed that way to you. I’m old enough to know when it was gays & lesbians and then LGB.

[quote] In simpler times we were all gay. But then the word "gay" started to mean "gay men" more than women, so we switched to the more inclusive "gay and lesbian." Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest), and by the early 1990s we were the lesbian, gay and bisexual, or LGB community. Sometime in the late '90s, a few gay rights groups and activists started using a new acronym, LGBT -- adding T for transgender/transsexual. And that's when today's trouble started.

R50 calls out hate speech with hate speech.

🙄

R48, whatcha talkin bout, bro?! 🤷🏽‍♂️

It might be fair, but drag queens are associated with vulgarity, crudeness, sexuality, and irreverence, which makes it reasonable for people to object to them having an audience with children.

No, r59, we are blaming Ts for increasing homophobia.

It’s a feature, not a bug.

They are N A M B L A v2

Lies, r81. Trans were involved in the very earliest protests and gay rights events. They may have been called transvestites, but they were there.

You're trying to confuse people because the first events, like the Christopher Street Liberation Rallies, would have everyone carrying "gay day" signs, even if they were lesbian or transvestite or drag queen.

Here's a 1973 Christopher Street Liberation Event video snippet with Sylvia Rivera. Yes, she was invited and she was involved. Seethe, troll cunt.

But r72 trans is not real. It’s impossible to change sex.

They are not a minority class. They’re poseurs.

Just because someone identifies as a minority doesn’t mean they are a minority.

Trans Rights are Men’s Sexual Rights.

Oh please, R85, if transsexuals or drag queens molested children with even a fraction of the frequency that priests and preachers do, it would be a capital offense for a man to put on a dress.

STAR was the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, here at the 2nd CSLD event.

R86, the context was when was the T added to LGB, not the history of some “transvestite” somewhere in time in whatever muddled point you were trying to make.

Being gay, lesbian, bisexual & straight is about being yourself.

Being trans is about desperately trying to be someone else, & failing.

It figures that the Klan Grannies of the DL blame trans people for the insane violence of MAGA chuds.

It's the logic of the wife-beater.

"Look what you made me do"

R59, I'm 42 and I can remember when it was the LGB community.

The trans 'community' (mostly straight white men, they're the ones who are most prominent) were too busy jerking off in their wives' underwear to realize that they were oppressed. That came later when they realized the LGB could be a useful host. While gay men were dying of AIDS and protesting for AIDS research, these men were attending lavish conferences like Fantasia Fair.

R86, yes "she" was invited (with other cross dressers) and was so hated that Vito Russo had to call Bette Midler and asked her to come down and sing to calm everyone down.

Transsexuals Unite marching right next to Gays Unite, late 1970s.

Don't let these troll fucks tell you that trans rights have only recently been linked to LG&B rights. It's been decades, and it's been contentious within the community, and we've had to compromise and grow and learn, and now a bunch of outsider straight rightwing assholes want to jump in and tell us as a community what to do, and to lie to us about our history.

The lazy fucking troglodyte Mediapolis owners allow this shit to be posted here, but that doesn't mean you have to believe it.

R86.

Homosexuals who could not pass as heterosexual had no choice but to pretend to be the opposite sex for their own survival.

Now that homosexuality is not considered a mental illness, & homosexual acts are not illegal, gay men are free to dress as effeminate as they want. Lesbians are free to dress as masculine as they want.

No surgery or pharmaceuticals required.

We have so many men in women’s clothes these days that I’m pretty sure they can use the men’s restrooms in public without a problem.

It makes no sense to me that men who dress like women fear male violence so much while at the same time demand women not fear male violence from men who pretend to be women.

LGBT organizations need to have a unified strategy and messaging to respond to all the wildfires raging over these issues now. I am not hearing much from them while the right is relentlessly attacking as an army

[quote]yes "she" was invited (with other cross dressers) and was so hated that Vito Russo had to call Bette Midler and asked her to come down and sing to calm everyone down.

Absolutely not what happened. Every community had grievances with each other. The lesbians complained about the cross dressers AND the gay men who were being sexist. The trans complained that the gays and lesbians were discriminating against them. They gays were complaining that the women were being nags and the trans weren't respectable enough. Every group got a chance to stand up there and give their side of the story and air their grievances.

It's all in that Vito Russo documentary you linked to, but you only linked to a tiny clip that's out of context, and also doesn't even say what you claim it does.

Keep deflecting, r88.

All you’re proving is that male pedos are everywhere.

More reason to keep all males out of women’s spaces.

R92, name calling is illiberal.

Transwomen are more likely to be violent than women. The evidence is ubiquitous. You choose not to look at it.

It’s why you don’t welcome debate. Your ideology cannot withstand scrutiny.

You know Target is going to disappear from the retail scene and everyone on the Right will claim it's because of stuff like their support for LGBTQ communities, but it isn't. It's because of the nasty trash that comes in there and disrupts and tears down signage and acts ugly. I don't want to shop somewhere where safety is an issue.

Why is Rachel Dolezal vilified but Dylan Mulvaney celebrated?

No, r96.

We need to drop the T like it’s radioactive.

Because it is.

It’s a front for AGPs & pedos.

Anyone interested in early gay history really should start by looking up Vito Russo, though. You'll find photos and videos of the events and protests he organized, and you'll see trans already there in the early days. You'll see all these gay men complaining about "man-hating dykes" ruining the movement, and complaining about "degenerate trannies ruining the movement," and rely on respectability politics to try to elevate their social status, but then happily allow the man-boy love types to join in with them. You'll see how lesbians and trans would get routinely banned from these gay pride events, then allowed back, then banned again, until the AIDS crisis changed everything and the entire group realized that we were a stronger political force when we joined together.

And then you'll start to see very clearly how the rightwingers are trying to break the LGBT coalition apart to dilute our political standing, and to make us easy targets again like we were decades ago. You'll see the same nasty comments that were made about gays being used word for word about trans. Just start looking into the early days of the post-Stonewall gay rights movement in the U.S. and you'll realize real fast exactly what is going on today.

If people who are susceptible to becoming anti-gay are analogized as hornets or sharks, then the problem can be stated as the activists are deliberately beating on the hornets nest and throwing chum in the water, to deliberately hurt everyone. Their excuse is that it’s the hornets and the sharks that are the real problem. We should only blame them and not the activists trying to hurt us by inciting the hornets and the sharks.

It’s right and proper to blame the activists for deliberately instigating issues that they absolutely know will, and they want to, cause pain and problems for gays and lesbians. Some community, eh, where part of it wants to hurt everyone?

R103 Don't you dare bring Vito into this fight.

By bringing his name into this, you're trying to appropriate one of our heros and revise history.

You gender ideology freak.

Don't even try it, r105, your friend at r96 brought him up first.

* r93 brought up Vito Russo first, not r96

Not that it matters, because r105 is just trying to start a fight and is bad at it, because all they can do is lash out with whatever pops into their head first, regardless of whether it's coherent or not. They're spewing bullshit based on how they feel, not based on facts or even on what has already been said in this thread.

R106 No dickhead.

You're the one trying to revise history and retcon one of the most influential gay men of the darkest decade into your sick trans narrative.

All your group knows how to do is appropriate our culture and history.

We're here to fight you and protect the good name of our gay leaders from the past.

[quote]They absolutely despise gay men and are only on datalounge in a vain attempt to control the narrative regarding the trans debate.

The Pro Trans trolls are mostly paid aggregators. They are not gay allies, and they are only here to prevent gay men from speaking out against the Queer and Trans insanity.

There is a line and Target was only selling this stuff, not because they support it, but figured they could make plenty of money off of it. Do they carry other Satanic designers for straight people?

Pick your fights and I don't think this is one of them.

In fairness to all sides, there is not one organization that is spending a single cent to promote anything on DL.

For fuck's sake, Muriel won't even crack open her pocketbook to reach for the change purse for this site.

Gun up, fags! 🔫 Things are only going to get worse, and you have to fight to win!

[quote]We're here to fight you and protect the good name of our gay leaders from the past.

I've posted about gay history on these threads hundreds of times, and you people didn't even know who Vito was until I brought him up. You don't know jack shit about gay history, you've told me dozens of times that photos I posted of early gay rights events were fake, quotes I posted from books were fake, organizations that had tons of documentation available to you online didn't exist, according to you. Now you're acting like you're an expert in gay history? You're not even gay.

This Internet Badass posturing of yours is embarrassing, especially considering only a couple dozen people even see the shit you write before it gets deleted.

You don't post here to achieve anything. You post here because you have an emotional disorder that makes you obsess over certain topics, and you have a constant, disabling need to repeat yourself for years on end, and there's almost nowhere else on the internet left to do it where you won't get banned, except places like this and Kiwifarms and such.

I suppose that you might honestly think you're fighting the good fight here, but I doubt you even care. This is all about you.

R112 implying gays should shoot trans? I guess Matt's here, making threats in hopes of getting the thread deleted, because the trolls aren't controlling the narrative like they want to.

[quote]name calling is illiberal.

Says you, cuntface.

R113 I've been here a few months. You're confusing me with some other poster you have some sort of beef with.

Check out my comment history

you paranoid freak.

R114, Ignordar points to an enormous amount of sock puppetry on this thread from the anti trans side. Do a little investigation and you’ll see for yourself. Most gay men are either supporting or ambivalent when it comes to trans. They tried earlier in the thread to claim that there are only one or two real trans supporters here, which is obviously projection when you look at the mail offenders in this thread and their posting history.

[quote]Check out my comment history

I'll pass. Kisses!!

What ever happened to simple rainbow flag merchandise (whatever that rainbow flag is supposed to look like these days) or "Love is Love" type shit? I hate to also be that person who's annoyed by the aggressive trans movement, but it's getting ridiculous. Target should not be the retailer that helps you tuck your junk or tape down your tits.

That stuff is considered too tame now R119.

[quote]Abprallen, a London-based company which is headed by a transgender man known as “Erik,” has reportedly been collaborating with Target for about a year...

Yeah, but this has nothing to do with any of that.

[Quote] See how this LGBT stigmatization has morphed? First it was "Trans is harming kids!!" Then its "Draq Queens are grooming children" And now, it's "LGBT is satanic" R44 did you even bother to read the article?? The. Company is satanic!!!

I’m gay. I support trans equality but not *special rights for anyone. I don’t think trans should be under the organizational umbrella of same-sex attracted persons *unless they are same-sex attracted (birth gender obviously).

While I support their equality, I do not support;

- persons in private gender spaces (locker rooms, bathrooms, etc.) unless they’ve had surgery

- competing against a gender which is not the one they were assigned at birth

- pharmaceutical/surgical alteration of persons under 18 years

Those are my personal opinions and you may disagree. I’m tired of the hysteria on the fringe of both sides.

[quote]not *special rights for anyone

This is exactly what gay-haters and gay-marriage haters said about us.

Exactly.

Congrats, girl!! You're now a fundie!

R61 the T's demands have nothing to do with equality. They want rights the way a looter wants your things. He takes from others.

r1 =

[quote]𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝘀𝗵

[quote]They should change the name of this site because that's what it's become.

[quote]Are there are gay men still posting here or is it just fraus and trans on here now?

R125 😂

R123

[quote]T's demands have nothing to do with equality.

Really? What are their demands? Do these "demands" have the force of law? What are the consequences if you don't "give in" to their "demands"?

R123, I appreciate your measured response but I really question if your moderate views are as purely logical and moderate as you think they are.

Why should locker rooms be segregated by genitals exactly? Sexual assault is already illegal so I assume this is a response to possible leering or exhibitionism. If that is the case, it’s a slippery slope. Gay men, as evidenced by the conversation on this site, and a plethora of spy videos online, are leering at straight guys in every locker room in this country. Using your logic, gay men should also be banned from straight men’s spaces as well.

Should all transgender people be banned from competing in sports as their chosen gender in all cases? If the goal is simple fairness, as you seem to suggest, then why would trans men be banned from competing against men? If they have no inherent biological physical advantage, then why ban them from competition? Does your ban extend to biological girls playing on boy’s football or baseball teams, something seem more and more these days? What about city recreation leagues, where almost all sports teams are mixed sex until the high school ages?

Does your surgical and pharmaceutical prohibition for minors extend to all procedures on minors? Are nose jobs or breast reductions still allowed for teen girls? How about surgery to correct pigeon chest in boys? The last year I can find figures for is 2018, in which there were 200,000 such procedures done in the US on children 17 and under.

I dont mind LGBT stuff being sold in stores whatever, but has anyone else noticed that stores used to sell pride stuff around late June during pride week/ weekend or even beginning of pride month to the end . Now the first sign of summer , and immediately stores now have Pride sections till end of summer

progress or profit?

Even the drug stores

Has the current global anti lgbtq sentiment made pride more polticial nowadays?

“Why should locker rooms be segregated by genitals exactly?”

Bc one set of genitals disproportionately attacks the other set of genitals.

Pride should always be apolitical.

Corporations like Pride items because they are rainbow 🌈 colored and therefore festive

There is a reason WHY Halloween is associated with 🟠 and 🟣, Christmas is 🔴 and 🟢 , Valentines is 🔴 and Easter is 👚👗🐖🌼

They are festive colors and make people want to shop

That is the only reason corporate Pride exists

Because the rainbow 🌈 is pleasant to look at and makes people cheerful inside stores and want to shop

If the colors for Pride were ⚫️🟤 corporate Pride would not exist

R133, using that logic men should not be allowed to drive Ubers, become repair men, or nurses, or any other position which puts them in a situation where they find themselves alone with a woman who they don’t know and might assault.

This afternoon woman from Long Island called radio show to complain that Walgreens has dolls on display with clothing and hats in Rainbow flag colors. She complained to manager, who referred her to 800-Walgreens. She hasn't call yet.

R136 you’re an imbecile

R138 you're stupid and wrong.

R138, if I’m so foolish then educate me instead of slinging invective. I’m willing to be corrected if you are able to articulate exactly where my extension of R133’s argument runs afoul of logic.

R140 it’s not invective. In my opinion you are an imbecile. If equating private gender spaces where persons are disrobed to an Uber driver, you suffer from something greater than simple explanation. If that’s how illogical and remedial you expect an informed discussion to be, no one should waste their time explaining it to you.

Nurses?! I have on several occasions asked for a female nurse or practitioner present with my doctor to leave the room if I need to be naked. I have no issue doing so. I have a large-ish dong and a nice body, I don’t feel comfortable with women present. I wouldn’t choose to see a female dermatologist or urologist.

[quote]I have a large-ish dong and a nice body

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Sorry.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Oh my sides!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

R141, we’ve already established that sexual assault, or unwanted physical contact of any sort, is illegal. Assuming that a criminal who wanted to assault someone would be stopped by the fact that their victim is wearing clothes in naive. An Uber driver, it could be argued, is a more dangerous situation since the driver has full control of the car, even being able to lock and keep the woman inside of the car and drive her anywhere he’d like.

We both know the above is not even germane to your argument because you yourself admit that it’s a question of comfortably, which brings me back to my original question.

Using your logic, can’t straight guys also ask that gay men be barred from male locker rooms because the gay men could ogle them in a similarly sexual way, making them feel uncomfortable?

[quote]Why should locker rooms be segregated by genitals exactly?

If you really are confused by this, I suggest you ask a woman. Do you think women are unable to determine when they feel at personal risk, e.g., when they're in a locker room versus in an Uber, when they're fully clothed and on guard in public versus when they're partially clothed and vulnerable in a closed space, or when they're with a man acting in a professional capacity at their request versus a stranger whose intentions are completely unknown?

Sexual assault is illegal but no one pretends it doesn't happen anyway and we take steps to make it more difficult when women feel the risk is greater. Stop with the specious arguments.

R144 Don't bother to argue with people that are fucking deliberately obtuse.

[quote] Stop with the specious arguments.

This whole "Trans people attacking women in the bathroom" is the mother of all specious arguments.

It is such a vanishingly rare occurrence - if it even occurs at all - that the rage to ban it seems all out of proportion.

So out of proportion, in fact, that one can only suspect that the people advocating for it don't really care about bathrooms or protecting women or anything like that. They simply hate trans people, find them gross, and want them to disappear, however that gets done.

R145, the “obtuse” argument I’m making is the exact argument used for years and years against gays and lesbians who wanted to become teachers or serve in the armed forces. If you don’t think that conservatives of today will not try and use such “specious arguments” now then you haven’t been paying attention for the last eight years.

Perhaps my relevant but blunt and humorous detail was lost because of punctuation or lack of reason for mentioning.

My point was that outwardly I have no reason to be shy about my body. None. I still do not feel comfortable w/ women around when I’m naked. I don’t love being naked in front of male doctors either, but it’s necessary.

I do not look at men in locker rooms either, even though they and I have a biological right to be there. They have a right to reasonable privacy even when changing in front of me. In ~20 years in locker rooms I have only on a handful of occasions inadvertently caught eye of a remarkable sight. I still didn’t ogle or look twice. I just thought to myself “wow” or “he’s fine” and I went about my business.

R141

{quote]blunt and humorous

it's neither, doll.

What's wrong with satanism? They wouldn't remove their items because the designer/owner of the brand is christian.

As far as the children’s Pride merchandise, kids have always been crassly used as billboards for the beliefs and opinions of their parents. That said, I’d much rather see babies with rainbows on their onesies instead of guns and hate messages.

R150 go jump in a lake of fire

Sorry R152, but you're not gonna gain much sympathy on the DL talking shit about Satan.

R136: “ using that logic”

Women: “when we are naked and are on the receiving end of your logic, we tend to get sexually assaulted and raped more than when we are not. But thank you for speaking for us, Tony Woodard.”

R152 Go lick an altar. And your priest's cock (again)

"using that logic men should not be allowed to drive Ubers, become repair men, or nurses, or any other position which puts them in a situation where they find themselves alone with a woman who they don’t know and might assault."

I remember watching my eighty-something grandmother literally shake with fear at the thought of a strange repair man coming to her home, and begging my father to be present. Women have to adjust their lives around this shit every damn day, and you want to make it even harder for them? Fuck off.

R154, I am not going to accept such hyperbole. There are no statistics to support your claim and plenty to show otherwise, that women are more often to be sexually assaulted by their partners, casual acquaintances, colleagues, and clergy and teachers. Absolute strangers are the least risk and the trans portion of that found in a locker room is vanishingly small, if it exists at all.

What we’re really talking about is the right to be comfortable and when we start accepting that standard the legal argument is opened up to a plague of other comfortability considerations such as the ones I’ve brought up above. As an example, here on DataLounge we have a term (towel dance) which describes a much bemoaned habit of younger men refusing to fully-disrobe in locker rooms. They do this because they are uncomfortable, but precious few here believe that this is a valid, rational fear and that they should just get over themselves.

The book bans another prime example. A book is not hurting anyone by sitting on a shelf, available, but because some people are uncomfortable that their child might stumble across it, it needs to removed and denied to all others who do want to read it.

R156, as evidenced by all available statistics your grandmother had an irrational fear of something very, very unlikely to happen. It was sweet of your father to indulge her, and we do that for our friends and family, but as, society opens up the door to accommodating irrational fears it must be asked where it all stops and how can that legal accommodation be used to further other, perhaps unimagined, ends.

R157 I thought I blocked you already.

You are an absolute fucking moron. You sound like a teenager grasping and groping for an effective argument and failing absolutely.

You shouldn’t try to engage any adult in meaningful conversation. Save yourself the embarrassment.

There, blocked.

"...as evidenced by all available statistics your grandmother had an irrational fear of something very, very unlikely to happen."

Very, very unlikely? 1 in 6 is "very, very unlikely"? Really?

"1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted)"

Those who deny the scope of this problem make life very difficult for women. And I just don't get why you want to do that.

“ I am not going to accept such hyperbole.”

🤡

At least R157 openly says what many TRAs try to avoid saying:

Women do not deserve any spaces of their own where they can be apart from men. Men, says R157, are no more dangerous to women in a private, enclosed space where they get disrobed -- like a bathroom or dressing room --than they would be in a supermarket aisle or at a bus stop.

When women ask to be safely segregated from men in a locker room or shower room or prison or homeless shelter, they are irrationally demanding a "right to be comfortable" that infringes on men's rights, since men really aren't any danger to women in these contexts.

Thus spake the TRA.

“I promise I won’t sexually assault you” is not an effective argument for forcing females to change in front of males, to unintentionally have to see male genitalia or expose their genitalia to males who may intentionally of unintentionally see them.

There is no argument which can justify that and no realm in the universe where that makes sense. That’s all there is to it.

It's interesting. If women say a man can't tell her to keep a baby, he says that's good.

But if women say a man can't demand to look at that same body naked in the locker room, he says that's bad.

He's an odd one, that R 157.

R161sYeah, cause women usually get naked or at least down to their underwear in supermarket aisles or at a bus stops.

Nobody had any problem with Pride until it became 100% taken over by the Trans. It's beyond time to drop the TQ.

R161 Yep, I noticed that too. Never did he say that bullshit "trans women are women" at least. He basically said, "tough shit, men could always access women's spaces so why are you worried?" At least he is honest.

And how odd, suddenly there seems to be women in prison getting pregnant by other women in prison! That's never happened before. I wonder what changed?

Oh here's a female prisoner now. He also took the women's title.

The stores are only removing SOME of the Pride items, and the article implies that it’s the clothing with occult images, which honestly has no place in a store where middle-class, suburban moms go shopping in the first place. An adult novelty store would be more appropriate for t-shirts with cheeky slogans mocking Christian piety and hypocrisy. I doubt Target is removing more wholesome Pride merchandise like “Live, Laugh, Lesbian.” Rather, it’s the new open “admission” to Satanic influences in the LGBT community that’s causing the paranoia and death threats from Christian extremists. It’s Balenciaga all over again.

Queer; Inc and their grift of trans support is setting LGB rights back 30 years.

Some moron on twitter exclaimed “I identify as LGBTQ!” Well which one is it you fucktard. You can’t be all the letters. It’s biologically impossible.

Just another brainwashed Zoomer trying to be edgy.

The surprise twist is that Christian gift stores are now selling the “Satan respects pronouns” shirts. I think you’ve found your new market, Abprallen.

R24 I think the reason why they market to children so much is because it’s a bunch of straight children who associate rainbow imagery with children.

Little kids like rainbows. You see them in kindergarten classes as decor and I always thinking of “Reading Rainbow”.

That’s why this mass consumerism is nonsense.

R165 Pride got hijacked by young girls.

And I’m not talking about lesbians, who have always been apart of Pride.

I’m talking about the young Tumblr blue haired “queer” girls. They’re the ones who wear rainbow socks and turned the little rainbow flag you waved into a full wardrobe.

None of Pride consumerism is for gay men. 80% of retail consumers are women. And gay men don’t wear that shit.

When Pride was mostly grown gay men and lesbians, there was no market for companies.

When Pride became a teen scene for girls, that’s when Target and companies opened up their own “Hot Topic” pop up shop for Pride month.

It reminds me of the South Park episode when the popular kids started dressing like vampires because of the movie Twilight and the goth kids burned down Hot Topic when they found out that’s where the kids were going lol.

R174 This is exactly what it reminds me of.

HA! R175, I remember that one and yeah, it is similar. I remember before they were goths the kids on SP were just known as the fat kid and the other ones. It's never slim danger hairs and now instead of being the fat girl they are the enby blue haired they.

Exactly. Rainbow consumerism is marketed to white suburban families with weird teenage girls and for the ones who didn’t grow out of it and moved to the city to be liberal hipsters with purple hair and 4 dogs. Honestly. That’s the market.

That’s the only reason why companies would create so much retail consumption for Pride.

And to add, look exactly what happened when a company pulled an LGBT marketing move that didn’t target teenage girls / young women.

They don’t drink Bud Light!

I work in the beauty industry. There is one brand who is releasing one special edition rainbow product.

And it’s because teenage girls don’t consume high end beauty products.

There ARE a lot of gay men who do and who are hair dressers. But guess what? They don’t give a shit about rainbow everywhere so I don’t think companies bother.

But I’m sure if you go into CVS or Target or Sephora there will be rainbow shit all over the cheap shit.

Oh I meant to say at R178 that I work in the beauty industry for a distributor.

And we do nothing for Pride. It’s not really our market and there’s no interest and like I said, the beauty industry has a huge gay male employment.

If Pride consumerism was for gay men it would have started way earlier.

But like I said - gays don’t wear rainbow socks and rainbow shirts and rainbow earrings and rainbow this and that. It’s all young girls.

People blame the trans movement. I’ve always blamed Tumblr culture girls rewriting the “queer” identity.

Gays didn’t get kicked out cause of trans, they got kicked out because of teenage girls who turned lgbt into being goth / emo.

Maybe it’s time for a new Pride flag, or better yet: none at all. It’s so immature. Rainbows and unicorns are both childish fantasy symbols, so while it’s a no-brainer that young girls are drawn to that stuff, what kills me are the gay men with arrested development who are into the Lisa Frank shit just like the little girls are. Please, just grow up.

Well, except for this guy —- I give him a pass:

[quote]None of Pride consumerism is for gay men. 80% of retail consumers are women. And gay men don’t wear that shit.

Why buy off the rack when you can sew your own regalia?

R139 of course you can ask for a female taxi driver and of course you can pick a female gynecologist, at least where I live. I didn't, so far, but I understand women who do.

Trans "lesbians" are the nuttiest & most sinister of the trans clowns, they tend to obsess over women's restrooms, changing areas, etc. Why? The same reason rapists attack women, they enjoy seeing a woman frightened & humiliated, trans "lesbians get off on seeing women & girls embarrassed & uncomfortable.

Like this fucking hulking creep R184? So ladylike

Yes, R185, & gays & lesbians are being lumped in with that thing & others like him.

target moving the merch is sending a message - engage in harassment, violence, and threats and you will get your way.

[quote]Target moving the merch is sending a message

The message and lesson is don’t do stupid things and then you won’t have to clean up afterward. Companies will pay more attention to when their employees try to go way outside the mainstream.

On what fucking planet was someone when they okayed this for a Target? What average American woman is going to buy that crap or let their kid have it? It's one thing to celebrate diversity and inclusion and all that happy horseshit, but who in the world thought Satanic messages on little kids' clothes at Target were a good idea? I could understand that the artist wants to explore themes that are verboten, sure! Put that in an art store. This just seems to be one of the most deliberately inflammatory things a company known for family shopping could do.

Yes, R189, this is a really interesting trend where companies issue a strong FUCK YOU to their established customer base.

"Buh -- but representation!" Really? Do satanists and trans folx need to be represented or they won't buy anything? Do Satanists need HAIL SATAN on their yogurt cups and breakfast cereal, or they'll fucking starve? Do trans folx need a limp-wristed, mincing trans on their brand of gasoline or they simply WON'T drive any more? What about Serbian refugees? No Serb in the electric company ads? Fine. They will live by candlelight because they boycott any product that doesn't have "representation." What about Muslims? They need a kaffiyeh-wearing spokesman to pitch their dish soap or they will eat off dirty dishes forever more and the soap company will go bankrupt?

"Oh, dish soap is for everyone," you say. "We'll just have ads showing an animated soap bottle cleaning dishes and that'll be that." Sorry, if there aren't Muslims front and center in every ad being as stereotypically Muslim as possible, the dish soap company will be boycotted as virulent Islamophobes.

Nope. It makes no sense, and as Judge Judy correctly said, "If it doesn't make sense, that's because it's not true."

It's clear this has nothing to do with "representation." I feel it's something forced and sinister that's making these companies so aggressively fly in the face of customers they spent decades cultivating. It cannot be market forces. If anything, the "market" is protesting loudly, but they double down.

The trans-hating loons from the UK posing as warriors for female chastity and modesty make me laugh.

None of them - *none of them - are women. None of them give a shit about women. None of them have lifted a finger to help or protect women - be it reproductive rights, protection from partner abuse, protection from workplace discrimination - in their whole fucking lives.

But because there's suddenly a way for them to shit on a group they despise and be seen as moral, they can't get enough.

Revolting hypocrites.

Target is a company with shareholders curating a catalog of items to yield profits. It has done so by carving out a market appreciating affordable style. At times, its marketing and merchandising teams misjudge its market. The average Target consumer is likely more educated, more liberal and less religious than those of Walmart and Dollar General.

Yet, there is likely a significant cohort of religious woman who fancies herself stylish*. The sort of woman who loves to take her kids to Chick-fil-a and does things “for the children.” At times, Target misjudges the tolerance if this group.

Remember, the hubbub over Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas? The Christian Karen is fine with some social progress provided it coexists with an acknowledgement of straight, white Christian superiority. They consider their tolerance charity. Threaten their inflated self-images and they lash out.

Retailers like Target must migrate their merchandising to a growing conservative retail consumer. The laptop class doesn’t go to malls, watch commercials, listen to radio or watch broadcast channels. They don’t waste their valuable time or attention on the general population. Thus, what’s left is not the Target customer of ten years ago. And the company must respect that change or be punished.

My mother was appalled that the merchandise was pulled and vowed never to go to Target. I had to remind her that we should be thankful that the company tried to be that progressive in the first place AND that we’ve not entered in or ordered from a Target in the past five years.

*Reminds me of a terrific scene in Somebody Somewhere where Tricia tells Charity “You think you’re Pinterest, but you’re really Hobby Lobby!”

Love the marketing experts on the DL who dismiss the violence and intimidation aimed at their own community.

Fuckos, this isn't a product placement error. This is a campaign of Violent Intimidation by Fascist Lunatics.

Hope that when the Brown Shirts come for *you that your snickering will be a shield.

[quote][R165] Pride got hijacked by young girls. And I’m not talking about lesbians, who have always been apart of Pride. I’m talking about the young Tumblr blue haired “queer” girls. They’re the ones who wear rainbow socks and turned the little rainbow flag you waved into a full wardrobe.

I was watching a BBC documentary about children in care last night and there was a 16 year old girl who had been given a flat of her own having requested to leave her abusive mother and didn't know who her father was.

This girl listed all the genders that she'd experimented with and had now settled on something which meant she is attracted to anyone. Her ambition was to be an "AFAB Drag Queen" and she went to meet one of the drag race contestants. The documentary finished with her in "drag" doing a "drag" routine.

To be a nice as possible, she was a very ordinary girl in search of an identity, and she settled on an LGBT identity despite essentially being a straight girl.

What satanic message?

R193, don’t think I am not angry. I am. You have no idea of the fantasies running though my head resulting from the tyranny of the closed-minded minority. I just have to think about the situation logically and remind myself that we live in a capitalist society and I am atypical.

Dear, the Conservative consumer is *not a growing market. Conservatives are - overwhelmingly - old. No retailer on earth - except maybe adult diaper makers - give a fuck about old customers. Why do you think they have gone so hard for paying with your phone and self-checkout, when they know both operations are baffling ordeals for customers over 60?

No, Target isn't doing this because of market forces.

They're doing it because one political faction - right-wing, conservative, trans-haters - are willing to use violence and intimidation to get their way.

Etsy, Amazon, etc have hundreds of these very provocative shirts/clothes available. No one boycotts or gives a shit. That’s because they are there if you look for them, not front and center promoted on the splash page.

Same thing with explicit gay literature. It should be published and available in bookstores, but Barnes & Noble shouldn’t put it on the shelf near the Dr Seuss books.

And if they do, they shouldn’t act all disingenuously shocked and hurt that many of their customers are upset.

“ gay literature …. should be published and available in bookstores, but Barnes & Noble shouldn’t put it on the shelf near the Dr Seuss books.”

Horton Hears A Ho!

Hey, R191, you seem to know absolutely everything about everyone in this thread. Maybe you can help me. I forgot my bank card PIN, and since you know all about who I am, where I live, and what’s in my heart, I’m sure you can tell me what it is. I promise to upvote you if you do! Thanks ever so!

R197, of course younger populations skew more liberal. My argument is that fewer liberals are participating in the public than they used to.

Consider broadcast television. In my media market, twenty years ago, there was one Spanish-speaking channel. Now, there are three—one of which used to be English speaking meaning that the broadcast TV market has moved to Spanish speakers who are more Catholic, more conservative with bigger families. And that English speakers are viewing broadcast television less often.

Consider rural and suburban areas. They used to be more liberal than they are now. The difference is that liberals have moved to college towns and cities leaving the rest of the territory to conservatives which allows the fucked up tyranny of the minority we experience in government.

Think about early voting vs day of election voting. Votes on Election Day skew conservative. Why? Liberals prefer flexibility and many have non-traditional work schedules.

Going to a store is a task that liberals with money are less likely to perform than in the past. Have Prime membership, won’t travel. When you don’t shop in person from a diversity of retailers, you leave them to cater to those who do.

From my point of view, the flight of the liberal from the standard conservative world leaves both groups with the impression that they’re normal and usual.

So, my basic assertion is that the % of the in-store retail consumer market that identifies as liberal has fallen. As a result, the conservative has more representation and power in decision-making.

Now, do I believe that conservative activists are using aggressive threats of and conducting acts of violence to achieve their ends? Yes! Am I pissed off about it? Of course. That’s why we have to participate more to reinforce the progressive actions companies take. It’s why all I buy is Bud Light right now.

And is it possible that Target is taking a disproportionate action to the actual backlash they’ve received? Yes. I’d like to see the receipts. How many threats and how many confrontations in how many stores have actually occurred? A handful of threats may be used as a fig leaf from a bad merchandising decision.

[quote]Consider rural and suburban areas. They used to be more liberal than they are now.

Orange County is solidly Democratic now. Westchester County is solidly democratic now.

All of Pritzker's votes came from Chicago and its suburbs.

The recent Supreme Court votes in Wisconsin that went liberal were powered by votes in suburban Milwaukee.

It's true all over the country.

LIberals still go to the mall, dear.

It's just that conservative trans-haters are violent Brown Shirts who use intimidation to get their way.

[quote]Nobody had any problem with Pride until it became 100% taken over by the Trans

Bless your ignorant troll heart, r165.

I dread Pride merchandise coming to the departments stores right after Easter as much as I dread Christmas decorations going up the week after Labor Day. Both are examples of crass commercialism.

R202, bless your heart, dear.

Hope you never have to experience the violence and intimidation you snicker at, dear.

Is it wrong that with all the "dears" peppered into the posts, I read r202, R205, R206 et al in Mrs Doubtfire's voice?

The only thing lower than these "women athletes" voices are their rankings against other men.

I notice R200 never said that I was wrong.

You’re wrong!

[quote]That’s why we have to participate more to reinforce the progressive actions companies take. It’s why all I buy is Bud Light right now.

🤣

[quote]That’s why we have to participate more to reinforce the progressive actions companies take. It’s why all I buy is Bud Light right now.

Nice try, Dylan.

It's so depressing that people conflate consumption with activism.

What’s depressing about the free market, R213?

There are other things in life besides the market.

[quote]What’s depressing about the free market

How about that it’s not actually “free,” but deregulated by corrupt politicians to a point that it’s controlled by a minority of ruthless oligarchs who use the public’s weakness for accumulating things and seeking self-improvement against themselves, entrapping them in mountains of consumer and college debt to the point where political “activism” means buying merchandise emblazoned with snarky slogans, since they can’t take time off from their multiple part-time jobs to commit themselves to any kind of serious, in-depth activism.

It seems to me that the performative Left and the neo-fascist Right are in a strange partnership to end democracy in America. The pseudo-radicals will dutifully choose to support some ultra-fringe “cause,” and then the dictatorship-wanters will hit the soft ball right out of them stadium.

Weird.

The saddest thing about this is, all this rage and animosity? It’s usually over nothing. Of course there ARE some substantive issues (abortion for instance), but so much of it is utterly preposterous. Man in a dress wants to swim against lesbians? You can’t say “merry Christmas?” Do us a favor.

Meanwhile the ultra-rich pupper masters who control the Republican Rage Machine continue to tilt the country’s resources into their own pockets, and American workers edge closer and closer to serfdom every year.

^^^ “the stadium”

I anticipate a mass exodus of Target employees very soon. The store apparently attracts crazies, and the employees are not paid nearly enough to put up with it.

Most aptly named department store ever.

[quote]It seems to me that the performative Left and the neo-fascist Right are in a strange partnership to end democracy in America

Lazy bullshit, sweetie.

The "excesses" of the left don't involve body counts.

I was in a coma for the entire summer of 2020.

My local breakfast place has a pride/ rrans flag flying high . This place been here for over 10 years, first time I've seen them fly a pride flag. Strange for them to do this in this culture of aggressively growing anti lqbtq sentiment

[quote] This place been here for over 10 years, first time I've seen them fly a pride flag.

It’s good for them to fly the flag, to show that it’s not the flag that’s a problem.

Tony Woodard is an imbecile.