Add North Face To The Growing List of Companies I Will Choose To Boycott

[DinkinFlicka]

Well, not really. What if the only grocery store in town decides it won't sell to blacks? Should that be legal? Buyers can decide where they shop but when you enter into commercial activities as the seller it's a whole different set of rules. And it should be that way.

Nope. If the business decision to consciously shut out an entire demographic is so abhorrent, then the free market should punish it on its own.

It shouldn't be regulated on a cultural level.

 

[NashVol11]

Well, yeah, you have. The post you replied to pointed out a schism between LGB and TQ. You seized on 'many' to make a point no one argued "not a majority or anywhere near it". Many means a lot. You don't know whether it's a majority or anywhere near it, or 10% or 80%, nor did I try to establish it. You weren't satisfied for the sake of argument with 'some' either, insisting I'm changing the subject which never was the subject.

I linked you to an Andrew Sullivan article - who has been called by SOME not just one of the most consequential writers of his era on LGBTQ rights/movement - but one of the most inluential, period. You try to paint him as some conservative writing for a conservative publication until I correct you. Sullivan painstakingly details the basis of the schism in The Queers Versus The Homosexuals but you want to witch over 'many' still, in order to avoid questioons and taking some positions on the TQ targeting of children. You could learn more from that single article regarding the schism that you can in days of rreading, most points I encapsulated in post 83. Stop being weak and cloistered.

Within LGB, no one is more opposed to the association with TQ than lesbian groups, whom have no attraction to men, are against being termed transphobic because they abstain from relations with men in makeup. Here's an article you can read on that: Divorcing the TQ from LGB | The Spectator Australia which details the concerns and how government funding for these groups and courts are used to impose a gender orthodoxy upon the LGB community, often with the advocacy of other LGBTQ groups. You tried to smear such groups who oppose the TQ inclusion as "hate groups banned from Twitter" so you'll likely applaud European nations whose authoritarian 'hate speech' laws are not only used against religious people, but LGB people who 'misgender', that is, they call chicks with dks 'men'.and Norwegian Feminist Facing Up To Three Years In Prison Over Tweets - Reduxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another lesbian group's - Get the L out - co-founder says they should leave the abusive alliance altogether:
When a few of my lesbian friends and I decided to march uninvited in front of the Pride march in London last year to promote lesbian visibility within an increasingly misogynistic and anti-lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender (GBT) movement, we had no idea this would cause such a huge backlash from the GBT community itself.

From being called “transphobic bigots”, “hateful” and “Nazis” who should be “dragged out by our saggy tits”, to having our personal details published on social media and receiving rape and death threats, the supposedly progressive mainstream seemed to have slightly overreacted to the fact that a small group of lesbians were simply marching at Pride in London.

Our crime? We simply dared to reclaim the right to define what a lesbian is.
The definition is – and should remain – “a woman – in the biological sense of the word – exclusively emotionally and sexually attracted to women”.
As lesbians we retain the right to say what we find sexually attractive, irrespective of gender identity, thank you very much.
The fact that such a statement is now labelled hateful says much about the misogyny of those who condemned us.

Major gay, bisexual and trans organisations such as Stonewall and Pride in London should hang their heads in shame for ignoring our rights.
They do not represent us. OPINION: Lesbians need to get the L out of the LGBT+ community
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I know you wanted National Enquirer, but this will have to do and I can do it all day. And this is just the militant authoritarianism waging inside the alliance, which should start turn on the light for MANY of you who think this is just about people who want to live their lives, etc...it isnt'; it's about waging that same fight across society and children are monstrously being used as the spearpoint primarily via the education system.

Now, do you think children as young as 2-3 are able to express queer gender disassociative from their biological sex, or if it is thought they do, that from that age should be encouraged to live in that gender, and provided 'gender-affirming care'? Easy ***** question; be bold.

It’s not a “schism” any more than the 40 people wanting Texas to secede was a “secession plot.” Like I said, in a country with 20 million LGBTQ+ people and a world with hundreds of millions more, even calling that amount “a lot” is disingenuous at best.

2-3 year olds probably can’t, but your entire message is based on taking the most extreme examples you can find and melting down over them, which in your own words is something dumb people do and do constantly.

 

[allvol123]

Well, not really. What if the only grocery store in town decides it won't sell to blacks? Should that be legal? Buyers can decide where they shop but when you enter into commercial activities as the seller it's a whole different set of rules. And it should be that way.

Yes. That should be completely legal to do. Exclude from selling to anyone they choose.

 

[85SugarVol]

Nope. If the business decision to consciously shut out an entire demographic is so abhorrent, then the free market should punish it on its own.

It shouldn't be regulated on a cultural level.

If I want to open a bar in Boston, and then refuse service to redheads?

That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and the market would indeed punish me. But I should be able to make that error without interference.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

If I want to open a bar in Boston, and then refuse service to redheads?

That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and the market would indeed punish me. But I should be able to make that error without interference.

There would certainly be no wicked pisser to have there.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

If I want to open a bar in Boston, and then refuse service to redheads?

That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, and the market would indeed punish me. But I should be able to make that error without interference.

You wouldn't serve this lady a drink?

 

[85SugarVol]

You wouldn't serve this lady a drink?

Nope, not in my bar.

But I might take her out for a nice steak dinner. Get a look at those ankles and tell me you wouldn’t.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Adopt the Michael Jordan philosophy. Stay out of it when asked why he doesn’t endorse democrat candidates. “Republicans buy sneakers, too”

Exactly

 

[NCFisher]

It’s not a “schism” any more than the 40 people wanting Texas to secede was a “secession plot.” Like I said, in a country with 20 million LGBTQ+ people and a world with hundreds of millions more, even calling that amount “a lot” is disingenuous at best.

2-3 year olds probably can’t, but your entire message is based on taking the most extreme examples you can find and melting down over them, which in your own words is something dumb people do and do constantly.

Still fresh out of National Enquirer; these will have to do:
Here's another 'extreme' schism in the community: IDAHOBIT 2018: Why we need to take biphobia seriously because bisexuals just sorta' half-way-fit into the same sex basis of gay culture.

Another from June 2021: "A year ago, in her first interview after taking over as Stonewall’s chief executive, Nancy Kelley told the Observer that following criticism of her predecessor the organisation would no longer seek to persuade its critics to accept its views on gender but would focus on “changes that make trans lives easier”.
Fast forward 12 months and Kelley and Stonewall are at the centre of a storm. Last Saturday, Matthew Parris, one of Stonewall’s 14 founders, wrote in the Times that the charity had been “cornered into an extremist stance” on the subject of trans rights. He argued that Stonewall should stay out of the issue, sticking to LGB rights without the T, which stands for trans." Stonewall is at centre of a toxic debate on trans rights and gender identity

And it's not just a division on the LGB side but also people within the TQ community that the two have little in common and a split likely is best. Why it's time to take the T out of LGBT Glover acknowledges the pairing has been one of sympathy and convenience, extending the organization of the LGB commnity to the TQ, but
"You see, admirable as the fight for gay rights is, it’s not necessarily a transgender person’s turf. In fact, it’s been estimated that the number of trans people who are gay is only about the same as in the wider population.
The simple point that everyone seems to be missing here is that being transgender and being gay are two entirely different things and they should never be confused. Some say gender is between your ears and sex is between your legs. That makes it easier for ‘Muggles’ to understand, but the message is still not getting through - no matter how much trans activists try to hammer the point home.
To some degree, this could be down to the way trans people have been portrayed in the media for decades (think Jerry Springer) or it could even be partly because transgender people themselves have been happy to be part of the gay or LGBT community since Stonewall back in the sixties. But that might not be the case any longer.
Disassociating ourselves after all of these years is going to be very hard, but there’s certainly a lot of traction in the idea. The rate at which the public takes on board new concepts is such that I think we’ll need many campaigns like this – not to mention a lot of nagging - before the non-trans collective mindset begins to listen. But reactions like Ellen’s tell us everything we need to know: LGBs and Ts are getting a little too close for comfort. It might be time to cut the cord."
--Katie Glover is a transgender woman and editor of the transgender and drag publication Frock Magazine

Sounding like MANY or A LOT, huh? That you find such schism between same-sexuality and dysphoric gender concerned people outlandish, is blinkered, as if among all peoples and groups in societies, this one is above such human frailty and self interest. I'm observing news re: the LGBTQ--- community, and presenting their own words. The only "melting down" here is your wild hyperbole of "000000000000.1%" and "extreme examples" claims. I get it; you spake from ignorance, doubled down, and damn...it's a bit humbling, isn't it?

 

[NCFisher]

1 Bud Light isn't quantifiable either but.......
Bud Light gets stock downgrade just weeks after Dylan Mulvaney fallout

but....that simply can't be happening.
Must be a mirage.

 

[NashVol11]

Still fresh out of National Enquirer; these will have to do:
Here's another 'extreme' schism in the community: IDAHOBIT 2018: Why we need to take biphobia seriously because bisexuals just sorta' half-way-fit into the same sex basis of gay culture.

Another from June 2021: "A year ago, in her first interview after taking over as Stonewall’s chief executive, Nancy Kelley told the Observer that following criticism of her predecessor the organisation would no longer seek to persuade its critics to accept its views on gender but would focus on “changes that make trans lives easier”.
Fast forward 12 months and Kelley and Stonewall are at the centre of a storm. Last Saturday, Matthew Parris, one of Stonewall’s 14 founders, wrote in the Times that the charity had been “cornered into an extremist stance” on the subject of trans rights. He argued that Stonewall should stay out of the issue, sticking to LGB rights without the T, which stands for trans." Stonewall is at centre of a toxic debate on trans rights and gender identity

And it's not just a division on the LGB side but also people within the TQ community that the two have little in common and a split likely is best. Why it's time to take the T out of LGBT Glover acknowledges the pairing has been one of sympathy and convenience, extending the organization of the LGB commnity to the TQ, but
"You see, admirable as the fight for gay rights is, it’s not necessarily a transgender person’s turf. In fact, it’s been estimated that the number of trans people who are gay is only about the same as in the wider population.
The simple point that everyone seems to be missing here is that being transgender and being gay are two entirely different things and they should never be confused. Some say gender is between your ears and sex is between your legs. That makes it easier for ‘Muggles’ to understand, but the message is still not getting through - no matter how much trans activists try to hammer the point home.
To some degree, this could be down to the way trans people have been portrayed in the media for decades (think Jerry Springer) or it could even be partly because transgender people themselves have been happy to be part of the gay or LGBT community since Stonewall back in the sixties. But that might not be the case any longer.
Disassociating ourselves after all of these years is going to be very hard, but there’s certainly a lot of traction in the idea. The rate at which the public takes on board new concepts is such that I think we’ll need many campaigns like this – not to mention a lot of nagging - before the non-trans collective mindset begins to listen. But reactions like Ellen’s tell us everything we need to know: LGBs and Ts are getting a little too close for comfort. It might be time to cut the cord."
--Katie Glover is a transgender woman and editor of the transgender and drag publication Frock Magazine

Sounding like MANY or A LOT, huh? That you find such schism between same-sexuality and dysphoric gender concerned people outlandish, is blinkered, as if among all peoples and groups in societies, this one is above such human frailty and self interest. I'm observing news re: the LGBTQ--- community, and presenting their own words. The only "melting down" here is your wild hyperbole of "000000000000.1%" and "extreme examples" claims. I get it; you spake from ignorance, doubled down, and damn...it's a bit humbling, isn't it?

Lmao I could just paste my previous post again given that you threw out more anecdotes, responded to none of it and continued to show that you have no idea what sample size is. Yes, I am humbled that you typed so many words to say nothing lol

 

[NCFisher]

Lmao I could just paste my previous post again given that you threw out more anecdotes, responded to none of it and continued to show that you have no idea what sample size is. Yes, I am humbled that you typed so many words to say nothing lol

When you could have said "Fish, you're right".

Sample size is large alphabet groups publicly commenting on schism in the ranks, and the possibility of square pegs and round holes going their own way.
And doing it.

 

[NashVol11]

Another from June 2021: "A year ago, in her first interview after taking over as Stonewall’s chief executive, Nancy Kelley told the Observer that following criticism of her predecessor the organisation would no longer seek to persuade its critics to accept its views on gender but would focus on “changes that make trans lives easier”.
Fast forward 12 months and Kelley and Stonewall are at the centre of a storm. Last Saturday, Matthew Parris, one of Stonewall’s 14 founders, wrote in the Times that the charity had been “cornered into an extremist stance” on the subject of trans rights. He argued that Stonewall should stay out of the issue, sticking to LGB rights without the T, which stands for trans." Stonewall is at centre of a toxic debate on trans rights and gender identity/

“One person wrote an article”

And it's not just a division on the LGB side but also people within the TQ community that the two have little in common and a split likely is best. Why it's time to take the T out of LGBT Glover acknowledges the pairing has been one of sympathy and convenience, extending the organization of the LGB commnity to the TQ, but
…
--Katie Glover is a transgender woman and editor of the transgender and drag publication Frock Magazine

“One person wrote an article”

Sounding like MANY or A LOT, huh?

Someone teach this man 10th grade AP Statistics lol

I get it; you spake from ignorance, doubled down, and damn...it's a bit humbling, isn't it?

 

[NCFisher]

“One person wrote an article”


“One person wrote an article”


Someone teach this man 10th grade AP Statistics lol

You keep appealing to people I don't think want to jump in the dinghy with you.

Say, of the "many Republicans talking about the insurrection act" you stated, how many were "many"? Or the "plenty of Repubs who yell and tell Spanish speakers to go home and do a million divisive things", is it "anywhere near a majority"? Did you poll them; what is your samplng methodology? Sounds disingenuous to me.

I use stats when available, and use them in VN all time. In the absence of statistics, you don't sit on your ass peering skyward for answers, you analyze what you have. I don't know how many people have forsaken AB or Target, but I see their reactions and know their pressure point by what they do or don't do.

When lesbian and LGB groups are founded, at times by people breaking away from large LGBTQ orgs to create their own, and tell us why LGBTQ doesn't represent them, we don't have to guess why. When the largest TQ charity in the UK says we're no longer compelling our ideas of gender but just advocate for changes to make TQ lives easier, they're getting hit in the pocketbook. When prominent authors, and trailblazers of the early movement say it's a bad marriage, they might be better tuned in. When even TQ orgs have either separated or founded outside the rainbow umbrella, they do so for a reason.

Your unawareness doesn't make them .0000000001%, but I'm sure they all appreciate your minimizing them as 'extreme examples', as if they don't know what's good for them.

 

[n_huffhines]

Remember when idiots used to argue with me that the left had cancel culture cornered? Good times

 

[n_huffhines]

In 10 years from now the same people who defend this and believe its ok will be perfectly fine with pedophilia

You guys took the race card and multiplied it x1000 and won't stfu about it, despite no basis.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You conservatives are really all up in your feels with your cancel culture.

Hypocrisy at its finest

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Remember when idiots used to argue with me that the left had cancel culture cornered? Good times

Lol. It’s hilarious that you still try and pretend to be anything but liberal. Just come out already. What’s there to be ashamed of?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You guys took the race card and multiplied it x1000 and won't stfu about it, despite no basis.

Conservatives aren’t the ones calling everything racist. Stop making stuff up.

 

[n_huffhines]

Conservatives aren’t the ones calling everything racist. Stop making stuff up.

Lol. You missed the boat on that one.

 

[n_huffhines]

Lol. It’s hilarious that you still try and pretend to be anything but liberal. Just come out already. What’s there to be ashamed of?

The left and the right are the ones getting butthurt far too often, who then resort to cancelation. I'm the one who gets to watch and make fun of all the b**ches and hypocrites who then scramble and deflect with stupid BS like this because they know I'm right.

 

[EasternVol]

Nope. If the business decision to consciously shut out an entire demographic is so abhorrent, then the free market should punish it on its own.

It shouldn't be regulated on a cultural level.

How about doing business with those you'd rather not, but on condition they use a separate entrance and are served separately?

 

[WBO]

I'm guessing that a lot of the people saying they should be able to do business only with whomever they choose would sing a different tune if they had to relocate to say, Rockland County, New York, where they would not be able to get work without being Jewish, or the Hasidic communities in NYC, or certain Mormon communities in southern Utah.

It's all great when you're in the majority.

But there is that little regulation of interstate commerce provision in the Constitution.

 

[hog88]

I'm guessing that a lot of the people saying they should be able to do business only with whomever they choose would sing a different tune if they had to relocate to say, Rockland County, New York, where they would not be able to get work without being Jewish, or the Hasidic communities in NYC, or certain Mormon communities in southern Utah.

It's all great when you're in the majority.

But there is that little regulation of interstate commerce provision in the Constitution.

why would anyone relocate to those areas knowing they can’t find work?

 

[WBO]

why would anyone relocate to those areas knowing they can’t find work?

Things happen, you end up in places you never expected.