We will never “gain acceptance” by dressing and acting the way conservatives want us to.
Remember, these people are absolutely willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime. Our existence, to them, is a sick deviant perverted sex act. Two men holding hands in public is “grooming children”.
When you draw these lines between the “acceptable queers” and everyone else, all you’re doing is putting yourself inside of a shrinking circle. That circle will eventually shrink to the point where even you, the acceptable queer, no longer fit inside it, because our entire existence is fundamentally unacceptable to them. And when that happens, there will be no one else left to stand in solidarity with you.
I never drew that line, you did for your strawman argument. Typical lib response tbh. I never said there are “acceptable queers” and “not acceptable queers”. I said we need to have standards for what is considered acceptable in the context of public parades.
Conservatives are willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime, mostly b/c of the lies and misconceptions they get told/reinforced by conservative politicians and pastors about LGBT+, would you agree?
And what do you think those politicians and pastors use as “evidence” that we are all sexual deviants? If you think images and photos of sexual behavior at Pride parades is not one of them, you’re mistaken. It’s a public display, and it’s easy for them to say “why aren’t these people classified as sex offenders for doing such heinous acts in public?”
I stated a simple fact: pride parades currently hurt our image. People in this thread can’t seem to accept that.
You’re talking about people who claim to genuinely believe that schools are putting out litterboxes for children who identify as cats. Conservatives don’t need evidence, and never have. Genuinely, when have you ever seen a conservative make an evidence based argument against allowing our existence?
Evidence doesn’t factor into their worldview. If it did, they wouldn’t be conservatives. They will appeal to it when convenient, and ignore it or invent it the rest of the time. We can be as refined and polite as we like, or as depraved and deviant as we like, and it will not matter one iota to how they view us. They will still work diligently towards our extermination either way, and they will make up as many lies about us as they have to along the way.
You can try your best to be “one of the good ones”, but all that means is you get to be last one in the gas hut, after there are no more bodies left for you to shovel into the incinerator.
Lmao you just did it again 🤣 you built up another strawman so you could knock it down 🤣
The reason being: No, I’m not talking about that small minority of conservatives at all.
YOU are the one being judgmental here, not them.
Did you know in fact most conservatives aren’t crazy diabolical evil people? That’s a perception leftists tend to have b/c they don’t have any real conservative friends, they just get angry about stuff they see on the media and attribute it to all conservatives, saying “how could they support this kind of rhetoric? everyone who watches or supports this news source must be evil too!”
Turns out when you actually try and talk to them, they’re people too.
Only when you dehumanize your perceived enemies, do they actually become the inhumane enemies you wished never to create.
Clearly, I just imagined that conservative politicians all across the world have been eagerly trying to legislate away our right to exist. Thank God for that. I guess it was all just a terrible dream. It must have been all those “good”, “decent”, “kind hearted” conservatives who stood up to stop them, rather than just spouting some bullshit about being “Socially liberal, economically conservative”, or claiming that they “support gay and trans rights but just think all this woke nonsense has gone too far”, and then voting for those same people anyway.
I don’t think you’re imagining things, I think you’re misinterpreting conservative’s tendency to have selfish priorities as evil, because they don’t consider you. When it’s purely them acting in their own self-interest; a difference in ideology. (Which you have judged and labeled, based on the actions of a few extremists.)
Have you ever heard of this book called the Bible? I know it’s taboo to bring up anywhere in LGBT+ communities, and rightly so! It’s mostly full of shit.
But for all the shitty, inconsistent takes Christianity has to offer, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” was one of the better ones… and most leftists can’t even begin to imagine how.
And let me clarify: I’m not saying leftists should be tolerant of intolerant people’s actions.
I’m saying they should consider being tolerant of letting them into the room for discussion… b/c avoiding that is what blocks any meaningful progress from ever being made. Whereas if they would just do that, they might start to see a lot more positive outcomes, for both sides, a lot more quickly.
A smart enough radical leftist can destroy any conservative argument against LGBTQ+, would you agree?
And it’d be beneficial to the community at large if more bigots learned, by being loved and accepted while being told they’re wrong, to be more loving and accepting.
To me the unwillingness to have any discussions appears to be a reflection of the lack of confidence and conviction leftists actually have in their viewpoints - e.g. they preach “love and acceptance” while inciting more division and intolerance.
I’d be happy to be proved wrong on that, so that history stops repeating itself. Casting aside bigots just confirms their beliefs and strengthens their conviction that “they were right about X all along”. Hence the vicious cycle I’m referring to.
Every other Christian looks like a fucking pre-nascent embryo of a person compared to this badass. I’d say he should’ve been declared a Saint by the church, but fuck them and their titles, he’s better than that.
At the end of the day, if you want to make progress, you have to start with what we have in common. And what do leftists have in common with right wingers? They both suck at cooperation.
To quote the 2018 research paper cited there:
Liberals show slightly more concern for their partners’ outcomes compared to conservatives (study 1), and in study 2 this relation is supported by a meta-analysis (r = .15). However, in study 1, political ideology did not relate to cooperation in general. Both Republicans and Democrats extend more cooperation to their in-group relative to the out-group, and this is explained by expectations of cooperation from in-group versus out-group members.
You’ve soared off on such a wildly different tangent here that it’s scarcely possible to even try responding to any of this. It has almost no bearing on what was being discussed.
No one here told you that we cannot ever engage with conservatives. For someone who likes to immediately throw the word “strawman” at people, you are incredibly energetic about building them.
But you will not ever successfully engage with them if your starting point is to agree to be the kind of person they want you to be. Because the moment you do that, they will move the goalposts. Why wouldn’t they? They’re already getting exactly what they want. They have no reason to engage with you.
Our existence is not negotiable. You’re more than welcome to sit and break bread with people who hate you. That’s a good and noble endeavour, and it can indeed be very successful. But the moment you decide that the behaviour of the entire LGBTQ community has to be policed in such a way as to cater to the comfort of people who hate us, you have sided with our oppressors. You are more than welcome to dress and act a certain way if it gets you in their door. That’s fine. But you don’t get to go around telling everyone else that they’re wrong for existing freely in a way that makes conservatives uncomfortable. Because they will keep on moving that line of discomfort until there is no more space for us to exist at all.
I’ll admit I’m prone to strawman arguments like most everyone, but when I do, they are often born of others’ false equivalencies based on incorrect assumptions about what I said.
What I’m suggesting is not to break bread with oppressors to find out how we can make the LGBT community more palatable to them. I clearly didn’t get my point across if that’s what you thought.
Do you think Daryl Davis approached KKK members asking them how he could make African Americans more palatable to them?
Of course not. It’s not about changing us or any of our behavior, private or public. It’s about the fact that Pride should be a place to welcome people who are ready to be lovingly proven wrong, and finding a way to approach them where they feel comfortable sitting with us for a civil dialog, so that WE can change THEM.
I mean, if the LGBT community was really passionate about changing minds, you’d think they would once think about whose minds they’re trying to change!
Silent bullies turn into aggressive bullies when they feel attacked.
But they turn into allies when you approach them with humility and acceptance, while telling them they’re wrong. And I know I sound radical, but thrusting a bunch of leather strap ons in their faces and yelling “don’t like it? get fucked!” isn’t exactly my idea of a humble dialog! Is it for you?
Otherwise they will never listen. That’s all I’m arguing for here. Not for others to conform to my thinking. Not for anyone to accept my terms for what is acceptable queer behavior outside of Pride.
Outside of Pride, idgaf what any queers do and I don’t want to police them. I’m asking them to take a second to practice what they preach: consider the benefits of the larger group instead of being selfish at Pride.
We will never “gain acceptance” by dressing and acting the way conservatives want us to.
Remember, these people are absolutely willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime. Our existence, to them, is a sick deviant perverted sex act. Two men holding hands in public is “grooming children”.
When you draw these lines between the “acceptable queers” and everyone else, all you’re doing is putting yourself inside of a shrinking circle. That circle will eventually shrink to the point where even you, the acceptable queer, no longer fit inside it, because our entire existence is fundamentally unacceptable to them. And when that happens, there will be no one else left to stand in solidarity with you.
I never drew that line, you did for your strawman argument. Typical lib response tbh. I never said there are “acceptable queers” and “not acceptable queers”. I said we need to have standards for what is considered acceptable in the context of public parades.
Conservatives are willing to define “being trans near children” as a sex crime, mostly b/c of the lies and misconceptions they get told/reinforced by conservative politicians and pastors about LGBT+, would you agree?
And what do you think those politicians and pastors use as “evidence” that we are all sexual deviants? If you think images and photos of sexual behavior at Pride parades is not one of them, you’re mistaken. It’s a public display, and it’s easy for them to say “why aren’t these people classified as sex offenders for doing such heinous acts in public?”
I stated a simple fact: pride parades currently hurt our image. People in this thread can’t seem to accept that.
You’re talking about people who claim to genuinely believe that schools are putting out litterboxes for children who identify as cats. Conservatives don’t need evidence, and never have. Genuinely, when have you ever seen a conservative make an evidence based argument against allowing our existence?
Evidence doesn’t factor into their worldview. If it did, they wouldn’t be conservatives. They will appeal to it when convenient, and ignore it or invent it the rest of the time. We can be as refined and polite as we like, or as depraved and deviant as we like, and it will not matter one iota to how they view us. They will still work diligently towards our extermination either way, and they will make up as many lies about us as they have to along the way.
You can try your best to be “one of the good ones”, but all that means is you get to be last one in the gas hut, after there are no more bodies left for you to shovel into the incinerator.
deleted by creator
Lmao you just did it again 🤣 you built up another strawman so you could knock it down 🤣
The reason being: No, I’m not talking about that small minority of conservatives at all.
YOU are the one being judgmental here, not them.
Did you know in fact most conservatives aren’t crazy diabolical evil people? That’s a perception leftists tend to have b/c they don’t have any real conservative friends, they just get angry about stuff they see on the media and attribute it to all conservatives, saying “how could they support this kind of rhetoric? everyone who watches or supports this news source must be evil too!”
Turns out when you actually try and talk to them, they’re people too.
Only when you dehumanize your perceived enemies, do they actually become the inhumane enemies you wished never to create.
Clearly, I just imagined that conservative politicians all across the world have been eagerly trying to legislate away our right to exist. Thank God for that. I guess it was all just a terrible dream. It must have been all those “good”, “decent”, “kind hearted” conservatives who stood up to stop them, rather than just spouting some bullshit about being “Socially liberal, economically conservative”, or claiming that they “support gay and trans rights but just think all this woke nonsense has gone too far”, and then voting for those same people anyway.
I don’t think you’re imagining things, I think you’re misinterpreting conservative’s tendency to have selfish priorities as evil, because they don’t consider you. When it’s purely them acting in their own self-interest; a difference in ideology. (Which you have judged and labeled, based on the actions of a few extremists.)
Have you ever heard of this book called the Bible? I know it’s taboo to bring up anywhere in LGBT+ communities, and rightly so! It’s mostly full of shit.
But for all the shitty, inconsistent takes Christianity has to offer, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” was one of the better ones… and most leftists can’t even begin to imagine how.
And let me clarify: I’m not saying leftists should be tolerant of intolerant people’s actions.
I’m saying they should consider being tolerant of letting them into the room for discussion… b/c avoiding that is what blocks any meaningful progress from ever being made. Whereas if they would just do that, they might start to see a lot more positive outcomes, for both sides, a lot more quickly.
A smart enough radical leftist can destroy any conservative argument against LGBTQ+, would you agree?
And it’d be beneficial to the community at large if more bigots learned, by being loved and accepted while being told they’re wrong, to be more loving and accepting.
To me the unwillingness to have any discussions appears to be a reflection of the lack of confidence and conviction leftists actually have in their viewpoints - e.g. they preach “love and acceptance” while inciting more division and intolerance.
I’d be happy to be proved wrong on that, so that history stops repeating itself. Casting aside bigots just confirms their beliefs and strengthens their conviction that “they were right about X all along”. Hence the vicious cycle I’m referring to.
And if you want an example of someone who actually succeeded at what I’m talking about… look no further than Daryl “Motherfuckin’ G” Davis, the man who convinced 200 KKK members to leave.
Every other Christian looks like a fucking pre-nascent embryo of a person compared to this badass. I’d say he should’ve been declared a Saint by the church, but fuck them and their titles, he’s better than that.
At the end of the day, if you want to make progress, you have to start with what we have in common. And what do leftists have in common with right wingers? They both suck at cooperation.
To quote the 2018 research paper cited there:
You’ve soared off on such a wildly different tangent here that it’s scarcely possible to even try responding to any of this. It has almost no bearing on what was being discussed.
No one here told you that we cannot ever engage with conservatives. For someone who likes to immediately throw the word “strawman” at people, you are incredibly energetic about building them.
But you will not ever successfully engage with them if your starting point is to agree to be the kind of person they want you to be. Because the moment you do that, they will move the goalposts. Why wouldn’t they? They’re already getting exactly what they want. They have no reason to engage with you.
Our existence is not negotiable. You’re more than welcome to sit and break bread with people who hate you. That’s a good and noble endeavour, and it can indeed be very successful. But the moment you decide that the behaviour of the entire LGBTQ community has to be policed in such a way as to cater to the comfort of people who hate us, you have sided with our oppressors. You are more than welcome to dress and act a certain way if it gets you in their door. That’s fine. But you don’t get to go around telling everyone else that they’re wrong for existing freely in a way that makes conservatives uncomfortable. Because they will keep on moving that line of discomfort until there is no more space for us to exist at all.
I’ll admit I’m prone to strawman arguments like most everyone, but when I do, they are often born of others’ false equivalencies based on incorrect assumptions about what I said.
What I’m suggesting is not to break bread with oppressors to find out how we can make the LGBT community more palatable to them. I clearly didn’t get my point across if that’s what you thought.
Do you think Daryl Davis approached KKK members asking them how he could make African Americans more palatable to them?
Of course not. It’s not about changing us or any of our behavior, private or public. It’s about the fact that Pride should be a place to welcome people who are ready to be lovingly proven wrong, and finding a way to approach them where they feel comfortable sitting with us for a civil dialog, so that WE can change THEM.
I mean, if the LGBT community was really passionate about changing minds, you’d think they would once think about whose minds they’re trying to change!
Silent bullies turn into aggressive bullies when they feel attacked.
But they turn into allies when you approach them with humility and acceptance, while telling them they’re wrong. And I know I sound radical, but thrusting a bunch of leather strap ons in their faces and yelling “don’t like it? get fucked!” isn’t exactly my idea of a humble dialog! Is it for you?
Otherwise they will never listen. That’s all I’m arguing for here. Not for others to conform to my thinking. Not for anyone to accept my terms for what is acceptable queer behavior outside of Pride.
Outside of Pride, idgaf what any queers do and I don’t want to police them. I’m asking them to take a second to practice what they preach: consider the benefits of the larger group instead of being selfish at Pride.