Russia Proposes ‘Extremist’ Label for LGBT, Feminist, Child-Free Movements

[Fallen Prophet]

I'm not a prude and I don't have sexual hangups so it's not inconsistent.

Yet - correct me if I'm wrong - you claim to "not appreciate this disposable culture of instant gratification".

How can you make this claim while supporting the practice of masturbation - which is the poster child "instant gratification" of a "disposable culture"?

You claim to hate a culture that you at the same time seem to revel in - it's totally inconsistent.

Humans traditionally don't live in arrangements that end with it being husband and wife and no one else.

The human race does not share any single tradition. Traditions are formed by culture and every culture is different.

In a culture based on freedom - anyone's living arrangements are decided by themselves - not you.

You are free to believe that the practice is "sick" just like I believe that masturbation is unhealthy - but neither of us can prove anything.

It's really not. You just have a bizarrely low threshold for extreme.

An "extreme" is the point furthest from the center - the current average population growth for every household in the U.S. is 1.7 (down from 2.5).

That means that zero to infinite children are the extremes. And there is nothing wrong with either - if you are prepared for the consequences.

It's very simple.

It's called having face to face conversations with people rather than making assumptions about people on the internet.

Are you claiming that you could read my mind if we were face-to-face?

Even if we were face-to-face - I would claim that your desire to never have children was weird to me and I would encourage you to give the matter more thought.

I did that with my friends who shared a similar opinion.

It's really not.

It is - by definition.

I live in a county that has potable water stations and a thriving home water filtration business because the tap water widely isn't safe to drink.

Great. As long as you set your priorities straight - water filters over iPhones - you will have all the drinking water you want.

I don't.

Of course you do - else why did you interpret my claim that your "no children" policy was extreme as an attack upon you?

There is nothing wrong with being on the extreme end of an issue. The word "extreme" does not have any negative connotation.

Which is why we have terms like "radical" and "violent extremists" to separate these crazy fanatics from others that may agree with them - but aren't crazy.

For example - I have an extreme view on abortion - that it is murder - but I'm not about to bomb any abortion clinic - those would be done by "radicals" or "violent extremists".

Don't let the media do your thinking for you.

However it's a fact my mom is abusive and that's nothing to be appreciated.

Obviously you shouldn't appreciate the abuse - but no person or relationship is one-dimensional.

My mother grew up in a very abusive household - and she is one of the sweetest women on Earth.

She ended up taking care of her mother - the prime source of her abuse - when dementia set in up until she died.

You should read her memoir about it. It's called "Paper Dolls". You can find it on Amazon.

You need to quit looking at things through assumptions.

I think your behavior has given me enough - but I admit I don't care too much about it anymore.

God bless.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree that we should be selecting only from among the best to emigrate. Those who are most likely to assimilate.

But it is much easier, convenient and cheaper to just grow our own.

Why do I feel like you're talking about offspring as if they were a bunch of tomatoes?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet - correct me if I'm wrong - you claim to "not appreciate this disposable culture of instant gratification".

How can you make this claim while supporting the practice of masturbation - which is the poster child "instant gratification" of a "disposable culture"?

It's because I don't hate sex or demonize it or have any hangups.

The human race does not share any single tradition. Traditions are formed by culture and every culture is different.

There hasn't been a universal arrangement, no, but the norm is having close family, including first cousins, nearby and possibly in the same home. Living alone isn't something we've done before.

You are free to believe that the practice is "sick" just like I believe that masturbation is unhealthy - but neither of us can prove anything.

I can, amd have been, using science. You haven't. You have beliefs. I have evidence and studies.

You claim to hate a culture that you at the same time seem to revel in - it's totally inconsistent.

Only because you're trying to make it seem that way.

An "extreme" is the point furthest from the center - the current average population growth for every household in the U.S. is 1.7 (down from 2.5).

That means that zero to infinite children are the extremes. And there is nothing wrong with either - if you are prepared for the consequences.

It's very simple.

It's not extreme. It's not extremist. It's a life choice that effects no one else but me.

Even if we were face-to-face - I would claim that your desire to never have children was weird to me and I would encourage you to give the matter more thought.

And if you didn't drop it I'd call you a wanker for intruding into my personal life and not being able to respect my decision that has no impact on your life.

Great. As long as you set your priorities straight - water filters over iPhones - you will have all the drinking water you want.

The point remains even in America people don't have access to clean drinking water or nutritious foods. It's far worse on a global scale.

Of course you do - else why did you interpret my claim that your "no children" policy was extreme as an attack upon you?

Probably because you keep calling me extreme for not having any kids.

I think your behavior has given me enough - but I admit I don't care too much about it anymore.

You cared enough to keep replying.
That's not an assumption, that's fact.

Obviously you shouldn't appreciate the abuse - but no person or relationship is one-dimensional.

My mother grew up in a very abusive household - and she is one of the sweetest women on Earth.

She ended up taking care of her mother - the prime source of her abuse - when dementia set in up until she died.

You should read her memoir about it. It's called "Paper Dolls". You can find it on Amazon.

And I probably won't be helping mine if she gets to that point. She can replace me (her own words). Same with my dad. He was never there for me before.
I'd rather invest my love and care in those who aren't hurting or abusing me.

 

[Kooky]

Be specific. Which claims do you not like.

By the way, you do not appear to understand how Social Security works. It is a tax and a very regressive one. I would think that you would be in favor of scrapping the system and coming up with one based on a progressive tax. The Social Security Tax is one that only the poorest of workers get out of through the EIC (Earned Income Credit) and it is one that the richest pay the lowest percentage of their wages into since it tops out. I forgot how much the current cap is, but at one point in one's earnings one does not pay any more into Social Security. Okay, it is currently at $142,800 dollars. Anything over that one does not pay Social Security on but one still does pay for Medicare. That is quite the opposite of an income tax. It is more similar to an old fashioned poll tax in that way.

So what is social security now, a fraudulent investment scheme or an unfair poll tax?
Please be consistent with your arguments and terminology in the future, because right now your points seem to be all over the place and I find it difficult to glean any consistent line of argumentation from them.

What little I could understand is that you are talking exclusively about how the US - a country widely known for its dysfunctional welfare system - handles social security, but extrapolate this to all forms of welfare and social security systems everywhere, assuming that they're all fraudulent investment schemes and poll taxes both.

I still haven't understood where the profit-oriented investment is supposed to come in that would qualify it for a ponzi scheme, but at this point I can only surmise that you are talking in metaphors and figures of speech, and that the consistent point around which your vaguely-related invectives are circling is that you don't like social security and want it gone.

Is that an accurate assessment of your point here?

If so, how would you imagine a suitable replacement model for social welfare and social security?

 

[Kooky]

How can you make this claim while supporting the practice of masturbation - which is the poster child "instant gratification" of a "disposable culture"?

That's not really "instant", unless you're really good at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what is social security now, a fraudulent investment scheme or an unfair poll tax?
Please be consistent with your arguments and terminology in the future, because right now your points seem to be all over the place and I find it difficult to glean any consistent line of argumentation from them.

What little I could understand is that you are talking exclusively about how the US - a country widely known for its dysfunctional welfare system - handles social security, but extrapolate this to all forms of welfare and social security systems everywhere, assuming that they're all fraudulent investment schemes and poll taxes both.

I still haven't understood where the profit-oriented investment is supposed to come in that would qualify it for a ponzi scheme, but at this point I can only surmise that you are talking in metaphors and figures of speech, and that the consistent point around which your vaguely-related invectives are circling is that you don't like social security and want it gone.

Is that an accurate assessment of your point here?

If so, how would you imagine a suitable replacement model for social welfare and social security?

I never said "unfair investment". When you use strawman arguments you are admitting that you cannot defeat the argument as given. Nor is pointing out that it is essentially a Ponzi scheme saying that it is fraudulent. You are always assuming the worst.

Would you like to try again and argue against what I wrote and not what you wish that I wrote?

 

[Kooky]

When you use strawman arguments you are admitting that you cannot defeat the argument as given.

I honestly still haven't understood what your argument is supposed to be beyond not liking social security for some reason.
Do you think there are better models out there or are you opposed to the idea in principle?

Nor is pointing out that it is essentially a Ponzi scheme saying that it is fraudulent.

Yes it is. A ponzi scheme is a form of fraud. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I honestly still haven't understood what your argument is supposed to be beyond not liking social security for some reason.
Do you think there are better models out there or are you opposed to the idea in principle?


Yes it is. A ponzi scheme is a form of fraud. Look it up if you don't believe me.

If you do not understand then do not jump to conclusions. It is odd that you have not been able to support any of your clams.

And I am fairly sure that there are better models out there. I am beginning to doubt that you understand Social Security. It is a tax that is paid for by both the employee and the business. Now if you own a business you know that that extra money that it has to pay is part of the employees wages, even if it is not listed as such. That means that an employee that is nominally earning $10.00 an hour costs the business at least $10.62 an hour. There are of course other taxes. The employee is in effect paying 12% in taxes since. It only feels like 6.2% since he does not see that other 6.2%. So it is a partially open and partially hidden tax on the employee. If he is earning poverty level wages he will get his 6.2% back, But that is not much help. I posted the figure yesterday, let's call it a $140,000 dollars. After an employee makes that amount neither he nor the business contribute any more money into the Social Security System for him or her. A person earning a million a year pays no more Social Security Tax than an upper middle class worker making $140,000 a year. That seems to be a massive flaw to me. And it is also a flat rate tax. There is a beak for the poor, but there is none for the middle class. I would think that a tax similar to an income tax would be fairer. You probably agree with this.

As to it being a Ponzi scheme it is. The earliest recipients did not pay anything into the tax. They were paid by the new workers coming in. And that is always the way that it has been. Increasing costs are paid for by increasing the number at the base. That simply will not go on forever. It is a poorly designed tax that is unfair in its application and is eventually doomed to fail without a major overhaul.

It is needed. Especially for poorer people that did not earn enough to form a retirement plan. I am not against a system that helps pay the elderly, but I think that our current system is terribly flawed. It is an extremely regressive tax. Even more regressive than sales tax since sales tax does not have a cap on it for the upper class. The Social Security tax does.

I think that you just do not like it when I point out that it is a Ponzi scheme. Look at the definition that you posted. It relies totally on the constant inflow of new money. Now traditional Ponzi schemes promise so much that they are bound to fail much more quickly. Usually in a matter of months. but is how long it takes for an idea to fail an excuse?

And obviously we cannot scrap the current system until after a new one is in place and operating. Or the one we have will have to keep the same name and bureaucracy but totally change in ho w the money is acquired.

 

[danieldemol]

No - I was not talking about Russia's ruling party - just the general "you".

The OP made it seem like your opinion was that if someone - Russian ruling class or individual - disagreed with "radical feminism" then they hated women.

Ok, so you latched onto one point and did not consider it in light of the whole post which included labelling Organizations supporting victims of domestic violence as foreign agents.

And I don't believe that that is true. Anyone can be anti-feminist and still be pro-women. Feminists don't speak for all women - just their agenda.

If I begin an OP on Feminism would you be comfortable with me tagging you in it? I feel that there is a lot to explore and potentially unpack here, and that a new OP would do it more justice.

And without knowing more about these "organizations" and what "support" they are giving to victims of domestic violence I cannot weigh in.

For example - I like the idea of providing knowledge about sexual health - but I still don't support Planned Parenthood.

I doubt that planned parenthood has anything to do with supporting victims of domestic violence, but perhaps if there is someone who speaks Russian they could contact those organisations for comment.

I also don't know what this Russian party thinks about "foreign agents".

There is a bit of a Wikipedia article on it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_foreign_agent_law#:~:text=Individuals (Russian citizens, foreign citizens,agent" for their political activity.&text=Individuals declared "foreign agent" are,right to hold public office.

Yes - to you - but the actual definition of "extreme" means "furthest from the center of a given point".

This is how Oxford languages defines "extremist" which is what they were called;
'extremist
/ɪkˈstriːmɪst,ɛkˈstriːmɪst/
Learn to pronounce

noun
DEROGATORY

1. a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.
   "political extremists"'

I would say that it is a reckless choice of words to use if you are merely trying to describe harmless fringe views given the connotations of the word.

For example - I hold the view that Adam and Eve were real people that actually existed as recorded in Genesis - today that would be considered an "extreme" belief to hold.

So would you feel comfortable with the government of the US designating your church an extremist organisation and declaring its members foreign agents?

I agree that we should be selecting only from among the best to emigrate. Those who are most likely to assimilate.

But it is much easier, convenient and cheaper to just grow our own.

No need to fund massive bureaucracies to run their often biased and corrupt selective processes.

How would you assess who was most likely to assimilate without a bureaucracy in place? It sounds as though you want to have your cake and eat it there.

You really don't see any benefit to the citizenry of one's nation making more citizens? Are you serious?

I see the chief benefit as being convenience factor, I wouldn't have to learn another language or culture, but you said there was a bunch of other stuff, I'm saying what other stuff - be specific.

In my opinion.

 

[Kooky]

You really don't see any benefit to the citizenry of one's nation making more citizens? Are you serious?

You can make as many citizens as you like by the stroke of a pen. Nothing is stopping Putin's regime from taking in the many thousands of Afghan men and women fleeing from Taliban oppression, for example.

 

[Kooky]

If you do not understand then do not jump to conclusions. It is odd that you have not been able to support any of your clams.

I have backed up my claim that ponzi schemes are a form of fraud with sources, that you chose not to read them is on you and not me. I made no other claims in this thread concerning social security.

Please keep in mind that when you started ranting about social security, you did not specify where you are from and what model you were talking about. There are different models of financing welfare, health insurance etc. that do not all line up exactly the same, so I could not have known which of these you were talking about, as I am sadly not a mind reader yet.

I think that you just do not like it when I point out that it is a Ponzi scheme. Look at the definition that you posted. It relies totally on the constant inflow of new money. Now traditional Ponzi schemes promise so much that they are bound to fail much more quickly. Usually in a matter of months. but is how long it takes for an idea to fail an excuse?

No, I simply think you are factually wrong when you do that, and it really hurts the validity of your argument when you throw around terms that have a very specific definition and apply them as vague metaphors signifying dislike.

Also, if you're going to flip your lid over me assuming something about your position, then how about not doing the exact same thing? I feel that this sends the message that you're entitled to superior treatment than others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have backed up my claim that ponzi schemes are a form of fraud with sources, that you chose not to read them is on you and not me. I made no other claims in this thread concerning social security.

Yes, you did, But that one source supported my claims. The difference is only a matter of degreee.

Please keep in mind that when you started ranting about social security, you did not specify where you are from and what model you were talking about. There are different models of financing welfare, health insurance etc. that do not all line up exactly the same, so I could not have known which of these you were talking about, as I am sadly not a mind reader yet.

Where did I rant? You were the one that lacked understanding of the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme that needed more explanation and you still do not seem to understand that.

No, I simply think you are factually wrong when you do that, and it really hurts the validity of your argument when you throw around terms that have a very specific definition and apply them as vague metaphors signifying dislike.

The problem is you only think that my argument is invalid.

Also, if you're going to flip your lid over me assuming something about your position, then how about not doing the exact same thing? I feel that this sends the message that you're entitled to superior treatment than others.

Please, you have a tendency to misrepresent the arguments of others. I have seen that too many times. And no, I only demand an honest debate. No more no less. I need to be honest myself. I strive to follow my own rules.

 

[Kooky]

Please, you have a tendency to misrepresent the arguments of others. I have seen that too many times. And no, I only demand an honest debate. No more no less. I need to be honest myself. I strive to follow my own rules.

By calling me someone who misrepresents the arguments of others without backing up that claim with evidence, and dismissing my argument because you think the statement "a ponzi scheme is a form of fraud" does not support my claim calling something a "ponzi scheme" means calling something fraud. Yes, I can see the full gamut of your honesty on display.

Please, do go on. You're an honest guy who thrives to support his argument with facts, so go on and put your money where your mouth is. Show me in what capacity social security is a fraudulent investment scheme.

Make sure to back up your claims with proper sources, though.
We wouldn't want me to misrepresent your argument by debunking your claims with evidence again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By calling me someone who misrepresents the arguments of others without backing up that claim with evidence, and dismissing my argument because you think the statement "a ponzi scheme is a form of fraud" does not support my claim calling something a "ponzi scheme" means calling something fraud. Yes, I can see the full gamut of your honesty on display.

Please, do go on. You're an honest guy who thrives to support his argument with facts, so go on and put your money where your mouth is. Show me in what capacity social security is a fraudulent investment scheme.

Make sure to back up your claims with proper sources, though.
We wouldn't want me to misrepresent your argument by debunking your claims with evidence again.

And refusing to understand a simple concept is a form of dishonesty too. This really should not be that hard to understand. The point is that as set up the Social Security System is guaranteed to fail.. The date can be moved down the road a bit but like any other Ponzi scheme it will fail.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It's because I don't hate sex or demonize it or have any hangups.

That literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You approve of masturbation - which is "instant gratification" - yet you demonize your entire culture and society because they seek "instant gratification" and you use that as an excuse for its destruction.

I don't hate sex or demonize it or have any hang ups - but I know there are better - more fulfilling - ways to go about it - which masturbation is not one of those ways.

I also don't hate food or demonize it of have any hang ups - but I know there is better - more nutritious - foods out there - which fast food is not one of those.

You seem to have a habit of assuming the worst about me and yourself.

There hasn't been a universal arrangement, no, but the norm is having close family, including first cousins, nearby and possibly in the same home. Living alone isn't something we've done before.

You claim that there is no "universal arrangement" - yet then you talk about "norms" and things "we've" (Mankind) have always done.

No. Just no. In a free country people can live any way they want. You can't assume anyone's "norm".

I can, amd have been, using science. You haven't. You have beliefs. I have evidence and studies.

No - you have been using the opinions of "experts" - which didn't touch the topic of "sin" at all.

I know for a fact if you took two people and forced one to have only masturbation and the other a meaningful sexual relationship throughout their lives - one would be happier than the other.

Which do you think it would be?

Only because you're trying to make it seem that way.

No - it is inconsistent.

It's not extreme. It's not extremist. It's a life choice that effects no one else but me.

Yes - and my life choice to consider abortion murder also affects no one else but me - but it is still an extreme stance - isn't it?

I don't know why you believe the word "extreme" must include threats of violence of something.

There is nothing wrong with holding an extreme view on an issue.

And if you didn't drop it I'd call you a wanker for intruding into my personal life and not being able to respect my decision that has no impact on your life.

Yet - you were the one who responded to my post and questioned me and challenged my views. Not I you.

You are the one who is unwilling to drop it.

So - that's makes you the "wanker" then? Because you don't respect my opinion that not wanting children at all would may be viewed as extreme by your government.

Did you spend a summer in the U.K. or something and are now trying to appropriate their culture?

I knew a girl in high school who did that. She came back with the accent and everything. Super weird and annoying.

The point remains even in America people don't have access to clean drinking water or nutritious foods. It's far worse on a global scale.

What? You just told me that you had access to clean drinking water. Your water filter makes it clean and drinkable.

So - instead of complaining - try to get some of those filters to other countries - so they can have clean and drinkable water too.

This is why we need to preserve our nation and culture - so we can continue to lift the world out of poverty.

Probably because you keep calling me extreme for not having any kids.

There is nothing wrong with having an extreme stance on an issue.

I consider you never wanting to have children to be an extreme stance.

You cared enough to keep replying.
That's not an assumption, that's fact.

Oh yes - and we all know that oodles of caring are required to do that. Amirite?

And I probably won't be helping mine if she gets to that point. She can replace me (her own words). Same with my dad. He was never there for me before.

More proof of your ingratitude.

I'd rather invest my love and care in those who aren't hurting or abusing me.

And by this you mean yourself - right?

Even though you are fine with abusing yourself sexually.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

worst about me and yourself.

You have repeatedly admonished masturbation. That is a sexual hang up. I don't think anyone mistakes for sex with a partner. But it's still a form of sex.

I don't know why you believe the word "extreme" must include threats of violence of something.

Because that's generally when that definition starts to apply.

There is nothing wrong with holding an extreme view on an issue.

Yes, extremism is wrong because it's rooted in dogma.

Yes - and my life choice to consider abortion murder also affects no one else but me - but it is still an extreme stance - isn't it?

Nope.

Yet - you were the one who responded to my post and questioned me and challenged my views. Not I you.

You are the one who is unwilling to drop it.

It is unusual to be called extreme to be called extreme for not wanting kids.

So - that's makes you the "wanker" then? Because you don't respect my opinion that not wanting children at all would may be viewed as extreme by your government.

No, it just means I have a better grasp of what extremists ideology actually means.
And no, I don't respect people in real life who would bug me about it. This is a discussion forum. That does make things different.

I knew a girl in high school who did that. She came back with the accent and everything. Super weird and annoying.

People tend to do that when they live somewhere. It's weird and annoying to think a normal part of being human is weird and being human.

Did you spend a summer in the U.K. or something and are now trying to appropriate their culture?

"Appropriate their culture?"
This might be fun for me.

This is why we need to preserve our nation and culture - so we can continue to lift the world out of poverty.

It's not just poverty here. It's largely farm run off that has made the water toxic, and it's supporting water-demading crops in a land that has been over farmed and parched and under severe draught.

More proof of your ingratitude.

Since when are people supposed to be grateful for abuse?

And by this you mean yourself - right?

No, I mean people like my brother or best friend, those I would do just about anything for.
That doesn't include those who have hurt me.

Even though you are fine with abusing yourself sexually.

More sexual hangups on your part.
I don't sexually abuse myself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have repeatedly admonished masturbation. That is a sexual hang up. I don't think anyone mistakes for sex with a partner. But it's still a form of sex.

Because that's generally when that definition starts to apply.

Yes, extremism is wrong because it's rooted in dogma.

Nope.

It is unusual to be called extreme to be called extreme for not wanting kids.

No, it just means I have a better grasp of what extremists ideology actually means.
And no, I don't respect people in real life who would bug me about it. This is a discussion forum. That does make things different.

People tend to do that when they live somewhere. It's weird and annoying to think a normal part of being human is weird and being human.

"Appropriate their culture?"
This might be fun for me.

It's not just poverty here. It's largely farm run off that has made the water toxic, and it's supporting water-demading crops in a land that has been over farmed and parched and under severe draught.

Since when are people supposed to be grateful for abuse?

No, I mean people like my brother or best friend, those I would do just about anything for.
That doesn't include those who have hurt me.

More sexual hangups on your part.
I don't sexually abuse myself.

Actually if anyone practices sexual abuse it would be @Falllen Prophet. And not just through masturbation. He (or she) sounds like he is in a cult. They test that sex is evil. That is sexual abuse right there. Teaching people that sex is evil forces people to get married to young when they do not know what they are doing or what their tastes are. This is thought to be behind the high divorce rate those religions have. Far higher rates that atheists have, who tend to marry out of love in a mature relationship. One of the reasons that this is done is that it guarantees new members. The inexperienced parents tend to get pregnant more often than those that know about birth control and how to use it. Unfortunately the just pass on their evil teachings to the next generation. It is a cycle of abuse.

 

[Twilight Hue]

'Russia’s LGBT, radical feminist and child-free groups should be recognized as “extremist,” the chairman of an influential government commission said Wednesday.

“LGBT ideology, radical feminism and child-free movements should be recognized as extremism — an extremist ideology,” the state-run TASS news agency cited Andrei Tsyganov, chairman of a commission for the protection of children at the Roskomnadzor communications regulator, as saying Wednesday.

The proposed ban would help protect Russian children and adolescents from the influence of destructive content on social networks and the internet, Tsyganov said.

The call came on the same day Russia’s Justice Ministry slapped the Ivanovo Center for Gender Studies, a research and education non-profit, with the “foreign agent” label...

...Organizations supporting victims of domestic violence have also been labeled “foreign agents.”'

Source: Russia Proposes ‘Extremist’ Label for LGBT, Feminist, Child-Free Movements - The Moscow Times

It looks as though Russia's ruling United Russia party hates women, LGBT folk, polyamourous folk, and people who do not wish to have children, is there anyone i missed to add to the list?

In my opinion.

Probably saw all the problems that came of this stuff and wanted to head it off at the pass.

I agree, as mentioned already , it seems they want to preserve traditional values and maintain a sense of decorum respective of natural male and female identity that runs with the majority of the population.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I never ceases to amuse me how vigorously the alleged defenders of "freedom" in the West will cheer the suppression of speech and ways of life they don't like.

Maybe they want to advocate the majority rather than the maximize the minority.

Maybe not the best way since it dosent help the minority very much but I see why they are doing it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I never ceases to amuse me how vigorously the alleged defenders of "freedom" in the West will cheer the suppression of speech and ways of life they don't like.

That really hasn't changed. Just the faces did. Suppression just takes different routes depending on the present 'crisis'.