Remember these same assholes that started this shit in the 90’s about the “Gay Agenda” converting all the children? According to that very same fear mongering, we’re all supposed to be gay by now, cuz that’s how that works…
From a purely numbers standpoint, aren’t they kind of fight?
Not many gay people were “out” in the 90s. Tons of gay people out today.
So from a recordable numbers standpoint, the number of known gay people HAS gone up drastically since then.
I think the bigger question to that fear mongering would be:
“Yeah? And?”
They’re not right because they numbers didn’t go up from conversion. They went up because people could admit who they are without fear of violence. The true number didn’t change, we just became capable of getting a more accurate count.
Right, I think this is the point that the above comment is making as well. That the numbers of publicly/out gay people went up because of a more accurate count thanks to a less hostile sociopolitical climate.
I think the point that’s being confused in that comment is that the fear mongering was obviously bullshit, and modern bigots pointing at any increase in LGBTQ+ identification nowadays may continue to use those statistics as justification for anti-LGBTQ+ platforms. Instead of engaging that argument that the hate mongers have always known is in bad faith, it’s much more to the point nowadays to make them explain what they think is wrong with increased LQBTQ+ identification, or as the original comment put it, “Yeah, and?”
My god, the downvotes. Had the same thought. No one was out in the 80s and 90s, I was there. I can see idiots thinking people were converted, hence the rise in numbers.
I think the vast majority of people are saying, “Yeah? And?” People generally don’t give a shit any longer. Notice the conservatives aren’t banging the gay-hate drum and have pivoted to trans people?
…you’re either an idiot, or trolling. Either way, you deserve the downvotes.
How am I an idiot for saying that census data shows more people admitting to being gay, and it not being a problem?
What numbers database are you referencing? Is there a GayTaBank somewhere that I need to know about?
I said it multiple times. The census. They know which areas have whom living where. They track all that. And they track when people move in or out, but not context as to why. So from their perspective there’s this sudden burst over 20 years of gay people popping up, not realizing they didn’t just pop up, or suddenly turn gay. They’ve always been there, just not recorded as such. So now they have to find ways to explain that. This coming from the same people who explain what happens on this planet as being done by an invisable man in the sky, who controls everything, has all knowledge of all things at all times, but somehow just can’t balance a budget He needs money. Always needs money. 10% of your income has to go to the sky man to pay for clouds or something. It’s never explained why these tax exempt churches need so much money.
…and these are the people explaining these shifts in numbers to roughly half the country. Now despite the fact that I would NOT say that half the country is homophobic, their leaders sure are! So even if they personally have nothing against gay people, their politicians used scare tactics for years trying to condition their base to be homophobic. The problem is, they aren’'t. At least not overwhelming majorities. So the gay people started coming out. But that goes against the leaders talking points. They couldn’t have been gay the whole time, because that would mean they were wrong. If they’re wrong, then they have no political power. And so now they have to explain the census data.
There’s tons of gay people, coast to coast, and there’s no appocolypse. There’s no great doom. Nothing happened. And that threatens their position.
If you think Trump’s Agenda 47 is scary, take a look at Trump’s Rule 34.
I know what this is but I’m still kind of curious to look. But I’ll never unsee goatse or tub girl so I’ll refrain. There is only so much eyebleach.
Don’t worry, when people start catching up to this one, they will downplay it and start pushing Order 66.
I want off Mr Bone’s Wild Ride!
On schools:
Safe, Secure, and Drug-Free, by “immediate expulsion for any student who harms a teacher or another student.” This includes sending the “out-of-control troublemakers OUT of the classroom and INTO reform schools and corrections facilities,”
Yikes. Start rounding em up and locking them away, probably as free labor, while they’re young.
The plans include constructing “freedom cities” on empty federal land, investing in flying carmanufacturing, introducing baby bonuses to encourage a baby boom, implementing protectionisttrade policies, and over forty others. Seventeen of the policies that Trump says he will implement if elected would require congressional approval. Some of his plans are legally controversial, such as ending birthright citizenship, and may require amending the Constitution.
I’m not even shocked anymore. Flying cars?
I used to chuckle about people pushing flying cars.
Aircraft typically use their main engines to push themselves around on the ground. It’s ridiculously inefficient. If you add an otherwise more efficient drivetrain that powers the wheels, that’s added weight, added complexity, and these hybrid trains usually suck at both jobs anyhow.
Further, flying will always be more fuel inefficient because in addition to moving, you’re spending some energy on staying in the air.
The best approach, if your rich enough to afford entertaining this notion, is just to have 2 vehicles, one a car designed to do car-things and the other an aircraft (probably a far 103 compliant ultralight.)
And if you are rich enough, please please get any of the large number of quad-rotor designs that are coming out- and right me in the will. (For some reason they forgot that bird strikes shatter rotors and the disc planes are literally at neck height. Just saying. Cf this one)(also, just for the record my 150 rc helis have enough energy to decapitate you in the rotors if you disrespect it. These, when they shatter, are basically thrown straight out and are flying daggers.)
They don’t mean flying cars that can drive arming, they really mean safer helicopter/air taxis (so quad+ copters). A bunch of tech billionaires are likely behind that inclusion, because they want to be the next air Uber, and it might actually be easier to automate than cars on the road.
I’d still a fucking terrible, noisy, dangerous, and inefficient way to do it though. Mass transit to airports, or high speed rail between more cities, is a much better investment, but can’t be as easily exploited by the tech bros.
they really mean safer helicopter/air taxis (so quad+ copters). A bunch of tech billionaires are likely behind that inclusion, because they want to be the next air Uber, and it might actually be easier to automate than cars on the road.
no. it won’t be safer.
not once you have to start dealing with air congestion. access to landing locations, Routing. seeing obstructions and maintaining safe flying patterns. basically all the shit you see cars doing now? like running kids over, hitting boulders? when you’re flying… everything happens faster. when you’re flying between tall buildings a hundred feet from the ground; you have half a second to regain control of that aircraft before you smash into a building. There is a reason that helicopter flights over most metropolises are extremely restricted. and AI piloting is going to be just as geographically dumb as self driving cars are- and for aircraft that could be a death sentence for hundreds of people if, for example, they wander into tower-controlled space, or congested airspace on approach to an airport.
by the way “flying car” almost always has meant something that can do both. probably the least ridiculous was the aero car form the 50’s. or from the 40’s there’s the ConVair model 118 ConVairCar which was a massive flop because it’s roof mounted engine drove the wheels on the ground.
it’s only a recent trend where …I like to call them idiots… like Musk…have begun referring to Personal Air Vehicles as ‘flying cars’, and that’s probably to evoke the idea that they could be super common. (nope. they’ll never replace normal cars. Tons of gas is ‘wasted’ in traffic each year, sure. But aircraft will always be less effecient than a car. which is less efficient than a railroad.) which is kinda the same idea of calling them ‘flying cars’ back then… too… listen to to the Airphibian advertisment. This one was somewhat more reasonable… the idea being you convert into a car by removing the propeller hub and tail/wing section after flying into hangarage.
Also, most of the newer things are more or less based off of Moller’s Skycar 400. advances in motor/jet engine technolgy has made it somewhat more reasonable… though, my personal favorite is the Hiller V1 pawnee- which technically it was a ground effect system, but it had the distinct advantage of being intuitive to operate on a level none of the others were. if you can balance on two feet you could safely operate it.
an honorable mention is the Avrocar, which was meant as a close-support vehicle for the army. if you look up the skirts of a hovercraft, you’ll see an avrocar. (it’s problem was that it was horribly unstable, especially outside of ground effect. Slap on a skirt, though, and it operates beautifully.)
Oh. an then there’s the Malloy hoverbikes. all I’m gonna say on that one is that New Zealand engineers are an entirely unique breed.
