Scumbag Scott straightsplains Pulse massacre

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:24 am

Gov. Rick Scott Honored Pulse But Never Mentioned LGBT People

Florida Gov. Rick Scott invoked the Pulse massacre in his annual State of the State address Tuesday but never used the terms “LGBT,” “LGBTQ” or “Latinx” to describe victims of the mass shooting, the deadliest in modern U.S. history. Equality Florida quickly called out the oversight.

“While we are glad the governor spotlighted the Pulse tragedy, we are deeply disappointed that when talking about the worst anti-LGBTQ attack in our nation’s history, our governor failed to acknowledge the LGBTQ community in any way,” said Equality Florida public policy director Hannah Willard in a statement. “Governor Scott spoke about the horror our state experienced in the wake of the attack, the heroism of Orlando’s first responders, and the pain of families who lost loved ones. What we didn't hear was any mention of the LGBTQ community targeted in this murderous rampage, which occurred on Latin night.”

Scott recalled the days in the aftermath of the Pulse shooting, which he said would “always be with me.” But he focused concern on the threat of terrorism, labeling shooter Omar Mateen, who was killed by law enforcement at the scene, a “terrorist inspired by ISIS.” He also proposed budgeting $5.8 billion for counterterrorism efforts, citing the attack. Scott never referenced the attack as a hate crime or an assault on the LGBT or Latinx community.

Crackpot · Post by **Crackpot** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:51 am

He's taking cues from trump.

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:53 am

"straightsplain" suggests that this idiocy is a characteristic of straight people. Perhaps you could assemble a different neologism?

yrs,
rubato

RayThom · Post by **RayThom** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:55 am

Maybe the Gov wanted to be all inclusive.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:49 am

rubato wrote:"straightsplain" suggests that this idiocy is a characteristic of straight people. Perhaps you could assemble a different neologism?

Straightsplaining is a misguided/distorted attempt by a straight person to describe gay experience, in the same way that mansplaining is a misguided/distorted attempt by a man to describe women's experience. Neither term suggests that it is characteristic of the entire group.

Bicycle Bill · Post by **Bicycle Bill** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:56 am

"Latinx"?
Yet another made-up word that means little or nothing, and ends up only confusing and clouding the main issue.

-"BB"-

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:09 am

Latinx

1. Gender non-conforming people of Latin American descent.

2. LGBT/Queer people that identify with their adopted gender as opposed to their biological sex, and with Latin culture.

3. The community of trans and gender-neutral people in the Americas that identify with their latino* heritage.

You could have looked it up for yourself if you didn't have such a compulsive need to put down anything having to do with LGBT people at every opportunity.

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:23 am

Scooter wrote:
rubato wrote:"straightsplain" suggests that this idiocy is a characteristic of straight people. Perhaps you could assemble a different neologism?
Straightsplaining is a misguided/distorted attempt by a straight person to describe gay experience, in the same way that mansplaining is a misguided/distorted attempt by a man to describe women's experience. Neither term suggests that it is characteristic of the entire group.

So "fagsplaining" and "dykesplaining" are inoffensive as well? As long as I claim it does not apply to the entire group.

You need a new neologism. those are broken.

yrs,
rubato

Bicycle Bill · Post by **Bicycle Bill** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:46 am

Scooter wrote:You could have looked it up for yourself if you didn't have such a compulsive need to put down anything having to do with LGBT people at every opportunity.

FYI, I did look it up. That doesn't change the fact that it's as much a made-up word as "womyn" or "herstory" or "straightsplain".

Why do we need customized words for LGBTQIAXYZ people in the first place? I thought the idea was to be inclusive and equal. If they want to be different and special, well, we already had words for that.

-"BB"-

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:13 am

rubato wrote:So "fagsplaining" and "dykesplaining" are inoffensive as well? As long as I claim it does not apply to the entire group.

Are you now claiming that your objection is because you see "straight" as offensive a term as "fag" or "dyke"? Because that is not at all what you said earlier.

You know what, don't bother, I don't have the time or the patience for whatever verbal pretzels you feel the need to twist yourself into to get out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Same goes for you Bill. Two peas in a pod.

Crackpot · Post by **Crackpot** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:26 am

the "splain" suffix is problematic in and of itself as it attacks the argument on the prefix rather than the merits of the argument and vice versa paints a whole class of people according to that (usually inferior) argument.

It is a tool to stifle debate not enhance it.

In this particular case it is also problematic in that Rick Scott didn't "splain" anything he totally ignored it.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:48 am

It's not about who is presenting the argument, but rather how it is being framed. When it dismisses or distorts or attempts to erase the effect on or experience of LGBT people, or to pretend that it is no different than the effect on or experience of straight people, then yes, that is straightsplaining. Like when Dave used to claim that LGBT people had the same marriage rights as straight people because they were equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex. that was an attempt to deny the reality of same-sex relationships and pretend that LGBT people could magically turn off their same-sex attraction and engage in relationships with the opposite sex.

In this case, Scott, like many other politicians/religious leaders/media types, is intentionally obscuring the fact that LGBT people were the targets of this massacre, in order to impose his own narrative on what happened.

It's patronizing and no, it's not welcome.

Crackpot · Post by **Crackpot** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:14 am

So all (or even most) straight people think that way?

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:30 am

Yeah, that is exactly what I have been saying.

Once again, it's not because straight people are saying it. It's because they are imposing a straight paradigm on LGBT experience and pretending that what results has validity.

I don't know how many different ways it needs to be phrased before you get it; perhaps you should think about why that is.,

Crackpot · Post by **Crackpot** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:53 am

what you are missing is not that what is being done is wrong but describing that problem as a "straight paradigm" tars a whole class of people as being proponents of said issue. It is qualitivly the same as saying gays are effeminate and limp wristed.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:10 pm

No, it is not the same thing at all, but clearly you're not interested in understanding why so I won't bother anymore.

Bored now.

dales · Post by **dales** » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:46 pm

Plan B Forum