The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This guy is like the Bill Clinton of the New York Democratic Party, a cancer which must be removed.

#BelieveAllWomenWhoDontAccusePowerfulDemocrats

Meanwhile, everybody in this thread - Democrats included - is believing the woman who's accusing a powerful Democrat.

I swear, you're so disconnected from reality that it would honestly be funny if it weren't just so sad.

So where are the Democrats calling for him to resign? It's just sad how you resort to personal attacks.

Got to wonder how someone who can read that thread and come with the takeaway that no Democrats are calling on Cuomo to resign is literate enough to even post here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Torture vs. a concert by one of the greatest musical artists of his genre and generation?

Gee, tough question.

Now if it was an emo band, on the other hand...

There is no such option on this poll. There is an option though for an "artist" from a "genre" that is absolute f[inks]ing trash and has produced about as much content as artistic merit as Donald Trump's pre-Presidential career.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Torture vs. a concert by one of the greatest musical artists of his genre and generation?

Gee, tough question.

Now if it was an emo band, on the other hand...

There is no such option on this poll. There is an option though for an "artist" from a "genre" that is absolute f[inks]ing trash and has produced about as much content as artistic merit as Donald Trump's pre-Presidential career.

Something something directly into the thread

So you really believe that there exists not a single person on Earth who doesn't like rap or country music without some underlying racist or classist reason?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NewYorkExpress is underrated as far as all-around strange posters go

No one, because he'll dissolve Congress, sack his Vice President and rule alone as a dime store Adolf Hitler (genocide against minority groups included for a small fee.)

Lee Harvey Oswald, with the full knowledge and support of Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson. (LBJ really wanted to be a historically great President, and wasn't above using a martyred JFK to get there.)

YE (I can't in good conscience vote against a moderator).

18.

However, we need a maximum voting age (largely because disenfranchising old people can only benefit Democrats).

I'll go as far as to say that if Cuomo is the Democratic nominee in 2022, this race is Safe R.

This is precisely why the First Amendment needs to go.

Harris (or anyone to the right of The Squad) is going to be railroaded into selecting AOC/Pressley/Tliab if she gets the nomination to be VP.

The only good solution would be wiping Moscow off the map.

if your standards for "horrible human being" are "cheated on your wife" than about 85% of the male population are horrible human beings.

And I don't agree with Senator Sanders. We need to ban gun manufacturing here, and sanction countries who do manufacture guns.

My all time favorite prediction of his was in 2014 when he predicted that Mary Landrieu would lose the Louisiana Senate runoff, but also predicted that she would lose every parish except Orleans Parish...and yet he also predicted she'd win it by enough and come close in the rest that she'd only lose it by 51-49.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate] was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?  There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

I don't see anything inaccurate in that post.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ.

Based.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Emo musicians don’t do anything relevant in their spare times.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

As usual, you have difficulty with the concept that this isn't all about you.

Yes but if you haven't noticed I'm an emo "fundamentalist" of sorts so I don't even let misuse of the term go by.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

does anyone here think that certain sects of christianity might have to be outlawed for america to survive? Basically AOG, Pentecostals, nondenom, SSPX/Latin catholicism might all need to be banned. The sad thing is that there are a lot of conservative christians who are otherwise nice people. But like where do we draw the line. I kind of think Tushnet is right.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sucks that T-Mac is going to run away with this nomination because JCF seems like one of the best gubernatorial candidates anywhere. She could've been a real model for black women to win statewide in 2022 (Abrams, Beasley, etc.) but old white men just can't give up their power.

Imagine opposing BIG F[INKS]ING TMAC because WHITE MEN BAD.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sucks that T-Mac is going to run away with this nomination because JCF seems like one of the best gubernatorial candidates anywhere. She could've been a real model for black women to win statewide in 2022 (Abrams, Beasley, etc.) but old white men just can't give up their power.

Imagine opposing BIG F[INKS]ING TMAC because WHITE MEN BAD.

I supprted TMac, but you’re getting it wrong here, increased minority representation in elected office should be a goal for the Democratic Party. Comments like these honestly make me question your loyalty to your self proclaimed “all liberal, all the time” ideology. You sound no different than a Republican here, that’s the simple truth.

Getting good people in office should be the goal of the Democratic Party and BIG TMAC is definitely such. JCF actually seems good too but she never really had a chance against BIG TMAC to begin with and would've been better off running for a different office first.

Also I've never voted for a Republican in my life.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LA county swung right by 5 points likely due to their large Asian and Latinx population shifting right. White voters in California shifted more left from 2016 and it balanced out almost evenly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LA county swung right by 5 points likely due to their large Asian and Latinx population shifting right. White voters in California shifted more left from 2016 and it balanced out almost evenly.

> Latinx

I'm always a bit bemused by the way that a huge majority of even left wing posters on here are so freaked out by that term.

I'm torn between thinking this is more a sheer obstinate refusal to even try and understand the sorts of issues that are  significant outside of the English speaking world (which works the other way round too - see the "how would Belgium vote if it was a US state" type threads, where people try to calque US issues onto a context where they aren't especially relevant); or that it is simply down to the US being much more conservative on issues related to gender and LGBT equality. Nevertheless, it's remarkably different to how I see the issue being discussed by left wingers in French or German.

This isn't really true though. The US got same-sex marriage before a ton of European countries including yours that doesn't even have it yet (though that'll almost certainly change in the fall.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lots of states DID pass same-sex marriage democratically though, like mine did after voting down a state constitution ban on it the same election it was targeted as a "swing state." And the Supreme Court's decision wasn't particularly controversial in 2015, the issue didn't become a new abortion one people would still be fighting to overturn decades later. As for anti-discrimination laws many US states have had those for decades and does nationally now thanks to Bostock v. Clayton County and the lack of hate speech laws is mostly attributable to the broadness of the First Amendment.

The main point though is back when that stuff was being passed and fought for virtually no one was saying "Latinx", I had never heard the term when I was working to defeat the same-sex marriage ban in 2012 so I don't think there's a direct correlation between "not saying Latinx" and being reactionary on LGBT issues. Similarly Roy Cooper has to my knowledge never said it either and he was elected North Carolina Governor promising to repeal the "bathroom bill" his predecessor passed, I doubt most North Carolina Democrats use it. Bernie Sanders doesn't and he's always been at the forefront of LGBT rights ever since he's been in Congress. I remember even Georgette Gómez, the openly lesbian Latina Justice Democrats-backed candidate for a California House seat did not use the term but did talk about "the Latino community" on her website. Very progressive Rep. Ruben Gallego has asked people to not use it, etc. These aren't conservatives or people with reactionary politics on LGBT issues.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No one is making that claim. The point is that this specific word is a very clunky attempt to de-gender the word “Latino” in English that doesn’t really make any sense in Spanish or Portuguese, and as a consequence is rarely used outside of academic/professional or activist spheres in the US. There’s a reason many in Latin America prefer the neutral “Latine” instead (in part because it’s a word that you can actually pronounce out loud).

That raises a whole host of issues besides gender (“linguistic colonialism” is a phrase I’ve seen thrown around). There's something very uncomfortable about using an English pronunciation, adopted in the US and largely used by Anglos, to refer to a US minority group that the minority group does not actually use to describe themselves (something like ~3% of US Hispanics identify with the term). On this forum, in a political context, I think it’s gotten particular attention as an easy example of the disconnect between the largely-Anglo intelligentsia that steer the ideological and cultural direction of American liberalism and the voters they rely on to hold political power.

OK, but that's fundamentally not the original point that I was making. The point was that "Latinx" is a term used to turn a generic masculin into a gender neutral term. It was not specifically about that one word, but about the fact that this is a very mainstream concern across the world. Your criticism of the term is one that seems totally reasonable and legitimate (personally I'm minded to think that anglicising the pronunciation of a loan word is completely natural and acceptable, but I come from a linguistic community that very much isn't in the dominant position that English is, so...).

That said, most criticism of the term that I see on here is along the lines that "no the word is Latino, therefore we must use Latino". As in, it's not a criticism relating to the power dynamics between linguistic communities, but a rejection of the idea of no longer using a generic masculin, or even a refusal to accept that this is actually a debate that exists in Spanish and other languages that have grammatical gender and generic masculins.

I think a big part of the backlash (at least for me) is that it's part of this whole "we must place a random 'x' in any word to make it more woke and inclusive" without really addressing how it does that" see ridiculous terms like "womxn" and "folx" or even "y'xll."

If it was more of a "there should be more gender neutral terms" thing and the activists listened to the actual Spanish speaking community and instead used ones that follow Spanish grammar and are pronouncable like "Latine" or simply dropping the last letter entirely and just using "Latin" (which for the record has actually been pretty common and incontrovertible for decades, "Latin music" is still the most commonly used term to describe that radio format for instance), there'd be a lot less of this backlash. But for a certain crowd that's not a good option because it's not as obviously performative so they try to keep shoehorning in this clunky and awkward term to boost their woke credibility, (see uses of "Latinx man" or "Latinx woman" which makes zero grammatical sense whatsoever or even serves the supposed purpose the word is for.)

And as noted above English has had a few cases of switching to gender neutral terms too often with little controversy like how "firefighter" instead of "fireman" is kind of universal, a female writers used to referred to as an "authoress" instead of just "author", but that term went obsolete before almost all posters here lifetimes, etc. This did provoke the occasional "political correctness gone mad" type freakout from reactionary sources like Rush Limbaugh but most people didn't care including most rank and file Republican voters. Now compare that to how any use of "Latinx" or other supposedly "inclusive" terms like the above on Twitter or in a press release causes a sh!tshow. I remember when Amnesty International put out a press release about "an epidemic of violence against womxn in South Africa" and the response and threats to cut donations was so bad they actually took it down and reuploaded it with "women" used instead and scrubbed all use of "womxn" on their website. The people who attack this stuff in such replies are usually more like Resistance-type libs than right-wingers too from my observation, something that wouldn't happen to an article using "Congressperson."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway...click for context:

There's no way it would be 9-0, but I could see 5-4.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Court should have gone a step further and declared the entire existence of either amateur or professional sports (take your pick as to which one) unconstitutional.

Wut?

Personally, if I were on the court, I would have written a dissent arguing that the concept of amateur sports violates the thirteenth amendment. It's basically slavery in another form.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LA county swung right by 5 points likely due to their large Asian and Latinx population shifting right. White voters in California shifted more left from 2016 and it balanced out almost evenly.

> Latinx

I'm always a bit bemused by the way that a huge majority of even left wing posters on here are so freaked out by that term.

I'm torn between thinking this is more a sheer obstinate refusal to even try and understand the sorts of issues that are  significant outside of the English speaking world (which works the other way round too - see the "how would Belgium vote if it was a US state" type threads, where people try to calque US issues onto a context where they aren't especially relevant); or that it is simply down to the US being much more conservative on issues related to gender and LGBT equality. Nevertheless, it's remarkably different to how I see the issue being discussed by left wingers in French or German.

This isn't really true though. The US got same-sex marriage before a ton of European countries including yours that doesn't even have it yet (though that'll almost certainly change in the fall.)

Polls much higher support here than in the USA (~80% in favour here, which is about normal for W Europe), whereas there was a thread on here celebrating 70% support in the USA just a couple of weeks ago. Or, more to the point, it will be legal here by the end of the year, the reason is an extremely slow political process, and at least we'll have introduced it democratically. There are also some concrete areas where we are even ahead - eg anti discrimination and hate speech laws or conversion therapy being illegal; and of course, no bizarre hate campaigns against transpeople's right to use the toilet or access medical treatment.

It's widely popular and accepted because a fortunately undemocratic Court ruling saying the Constitution required legalization of gay marriage thus made gay marriage popular and acceptable as the de facto status quo. Other country still requiring unpopular legislation to legalize gay marriage haven't gone through that transition yet. This country was obviously nowhere near that level of support for gay marriage until the oberfell decision made it a fait accompli

The Civil Rights Act did the same thing for desegregation, BTW. Amazing how laws can change perceptions

The implication is that same-sex marriage was universally unpopular before the court ruling, which is incorrect, quite a few states had already passed same-sex marriage via the democratic process prior to that or voted down bans on it (like the one I worked against!) and it was supported by almost every notable Democratic politician at that point. Also abortion is still a contentious and controversial issue almost 50 years after its relevant court ruling, so this isn't some sort of magic pill.

Above that though: if this is a reflection of the US being that much more conservative on such issues, then why isn't "Latinx" so widespread and universal in other Anglophone countries? You could point out they don't have as high Latino populations so it's less of a thing to come up, which is true, but it's blatantly incorrect and erasure of quite a few people to say they don't exist at all. The notion that a country like Australia wouldn't have as much if not significantly more backlash against "Latinx" if it was more of a thing there that described a much higher portion of their population is simply laughable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wasn't aware the French even had gender neutral language.  What singular definite article do you use in that case?

There are actually a variety of ways that it is done, with varying levels of uptake and controversy. The most widespread and uncontroversial is simply to use both maculin and feminine form at the same time. As in say "the (male) teacher and the (female) teacher or something like that"; more controversial is basically always using the plural and combining it with "point médian" so that you wind up writing something like les enseignant-e-s; thirdly is using a neologism like "iel" insted of il/elle - but that is something very much restricted to woke online spaces.

And this only applies to gendered roles of  course - no-one is worried about the fact that a roof is male gendered or whatever.

Than this is not the same thing and is obviously not just about making language more gender neutral:

https://twitter.com/SunriseElPaso/status/1408551232579555336?s=19

"Bienvenido" simply means "welcome" it's not a noun or something that refers to someone with gender. You said above no one would create sh!t like this in French.

Also that doesn't explain people saying "Latinx man" or "Latinx woman" which obviously don't need to be gender-neutral.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Context.

However, Hitler genuinely cared about his nation and the well-being of its people, so that's something they don't have in common.

That's an objective fact.

Only if you only consider white (not Jew or Roma) non disabled Christians of the correct political persuasion to be people, and even then, he was willing to sacrifice them by the truckload to achieve his goals globally.

It isn't contradictory to say that Hitler loved and cared about Germany but also that he horribly abused and murdered millions of its citizens in cold blood.

No Hitler did not love and care about Germany. He loved and cared about some Germans, not the country as a whole.

Also it's incredibly dubious to even say that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LA county swung right by 5 points likely due to their large Asian and Latinx population shifting right. White voters in California shifted more left from 2016 and it balanced out almost evenly.

> Latinx

I'm always a bit bemused by the way that a huge majority of even left wing posters on here are so freaked out by that term.

I'm torn between thinking this is more a sheer obstinate refusal to even try and understand the sorts of issues that are  significant outside of the English speaking world (which works the other way round too - see the "how would Belgium vote if it was a US state" type threads, where people try to calque US issues onto a context where they aren't especially relevant); or that it is simply down to the US being much more conservative on issues related to gender and LGBT equality. Nevertheless, it's remarkably different to how I see the issue being discussed by left wingers in French or German.

This isn't really true though. The US got same-sex marriage before a ton of European countries including yours that doesn't even have it yet (though that'll almost certainly change in the fall.)

Polls much higher support here than in the USA (~80% in favour here, which is about normal for W Europe), whereas there was a thread on here celebrating 70% support in the USA just a couple of weeks ago. Or, more to the point, it will be legal here by the end of the year, the reason is an extremely slow political process, and at least we'll have introduced it democratically. There are also some concrete areas where we are even ahead - eg anti discrimination and hate speech laws or conversion therapy being illegal; and of course, no bizarre hate campaigns against transpeople's right to use the toilet or access medical treatment.

It's widely popular and accepted because a fortunately undemocratic Court ruling saying the Constitution required legalization of gay marriage thus made gay marriage popular and acceptable as the de facto status quo. Other country still requiring unpopular legislation to legalize gay marriage haven't gone through that transition yet. This country was obviously nowhere near that level of support for gay marriage until the oberfell decision made it a fait accompli

The Civil Rights Act did the same thing for desegregation, BTW. Amazing how laws can change perceptions

The implication is that same-sex marriage was universally unpopular before the court ruling, which is incorrect, quite a few states had already passed same-sex marriage via the democratic process prior to that or voted down bans on it (like the one I worked against!) and it was supported by almost every notable Democratic politician at that point. Also abortion is still a contentious and controversial issue almost 50 years after its relevant court ruling, so this isn't some sort of magic pill.

Above that though: if this is a reflection of the US being that much more conservative on such issues, then why isn't "Latinx" so widespread and universal in other Anglophone countries? You could point out they don't have as high Latino populations so it's less of a thing to come up, which is true, but it's blatantly incorrect and erasure of quite a few people to say they don't exist at all. The notion that a country like Australia wouldn't have as much if not significantly more backlash against "Latinx" if it was more of a thing there that described a much higher portion of their population is simply laughable.

With respect, you've completely misread what I wrote. First off though, you are incorrect. Gay marriage was by no means popular when the Supreme Court mandated it. It had been enacted in an orgy of states oh, and several those were due to judicial decisions based on state constitutions rather than popular legislative or referendum measures. I'm not going to bother, but I think you would see that as a Time gay marriage support was at best split, and probably not even that Nationwide.

Secondly, and more importantly, you're missing the fundamental Point. Both support and acceptance for a social issue grows once it has the backing of the law and becomes the status quo. Obviously the oberfell decision isn't about to affect the minds of people like fuzzy, or folks like you and me who supported gay marriage well before that. But the vast majority of people who would have walked into a voting booth on a referendum against gay marriage 10 years ago and voted no would never support even a symbolic referendum to repeal it.

My point is the Law changes the status quo and gives its blessing of normality upon once controversial Notions, especially those resisted by conservatives incidentally. Marijuana legalization is another example long with gay marriage and segregation.

And I never mentioned the word latinx, dude

By about 2013ish gay marriage had majority support nationwide and plenty of states had implemented it via referendums or legislatively. Mine was one.

Also your point at the end falls apart looking at issues like abortion, affirmative action, lots of gun-related politics, etc. that are still controversial today. Abortion is still a hot button divisive issue almost 50 years after the court ruling legalizing it.