You're viewing a single thread.
As a bi person who does support trans people, I dislike pride parades b/c they make us all look bad. Now what?
Don't go to them. Seems simple.
Yep. Just send your kids instead
Edit: Let me make this make sense for the people who are so eager to downvote one of their own. Let's say you attend an endangered whale conservation group, but data shows the group's actions (due to a few careless individuals) have actually led to more whale deaths than it has prevented. Then your response to someone critiquing you is "then don't join the group"? You see how that is unproductive, if not morally reprehensible?
This condescending attitude is the same type of exclusionary BS that got us into needing pride parades in the first place, you know.
"Don't think like me? You're not welcome here. We cannot accommodate a diversity of perspectives. It's our way or the highway."
And liberals wonder why right wingers accuse them of being fascists.
I don't like parades...
Well, then don't go to them.
Fascist!
Ummm...
In seriousness, I don't think that the person you were replying to was saying "You're excluded." They were trying to say "Okay, you don't like them and think they shouldn't happen. In that case, don't go to them and don't support them." You're not obligated to like the same things that the rest of the LGBT community likes. That seems pretty reasonable and the opposite of fascism.
In fact, I'd say you are perfectly within your rights to vocally express your distaste for Pride parades. It's reasonable to find them distasteful while still supporting the LGBT community. You could also voice what you dislike about them and what you'd like to see change so that they better support what you'd like them to achieve for the community. I don't think that you'd be within your rights to actually stop the parades from happening, just like I don't think others would be within their rights to force you to attend.
Edit: Clearly none of you have ever heard of Horseshoe theory. Try reading a little before spouting harmful opinions on the Internet.
Did I say it was fascist to say "Don't go"? No I said implying that it's fine to exclude everyone who thinks differently, is an example of why right wingers accuse left leaning folks (who tend not to be fascists), of being fascists.
The point being that disengaging from potentially productive dialog with potential allies for arbitrary reasons, while not fascism, tends to lead to the perception of strict, unwavering, inerrant ideology, which looks very similar on the surface.
If there are 5 gays, 1 bi, and 1 trans person on an island of straight people, I believe they should all try to see past each other's differences in order to unite for their common advancement, rather than saying "oh you don't like how we do it? then don't go"
Not everyone in any community is going to agree on the correct methods of achieving common goals. You're free to try to change how the community's approach. You're free to try to build your own approach. You're also free to decide whether you want to participate or not.
I don't see how any of that excludes anyone, disengages from productive dialogue, or leads to right-wingers thinking that left-wingers are fascists.
You are talking about disengaging from dialogue, but I don't see you actually engaging in it yourself. You stated "I dislike Pride parades", then said it is exclusionary to suggest that you maybe could just choose not to attend. What I didn't see you say until well after my original comment is what you would like to see changed about the parades or engaging with others about how that might be achieved.
What you said isn't exclusionary. What the commenter I replied to said, is.
And I already replied to other comments in this thread well before yours, stating what I'd like to see done. Please see those replies below since I don't feel the need to repeat myself.
What? You said you don't like pride parades and the response was "don't go then". Not everything is for everyone.
Do you want everyone who enjoys pride parades to change them to specifically cater to you?
Lol no. I think that agreeing on higher standards for what kind of clothing and actions are not acceptable in public parades, would go a long way toward actually helping the LGBT+ community gain acceptance rather than hurting our image.
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.
And, yet, a lot of us don't give a shit if parades hurt our image with the cishets. Pride is for us. We could all show up wearing Mennonite clothing...overalls for mascs and androgynes and ankle length denim skirts for femmes...no flags, no banners, no music, no dancing, no PDA, no hand holding, nothing...just a bunch of queers in modest clothing going for a walk on a Saturday afternoon, and there would still be a large contingent of conservative cishets who would take offense just because we dare to exist outside.
The whole lot of them can get fucked.
If you don't give a shit what cishets think, then IMO you need to exit the fantasy world you live in and wake up to the real world where trans people are still getting fucking murdered...
This is what pisses me off about so many members of this community, you like to pretend we've already won and that cishets aren't currently threatening to take over this country and reverse the policies we worked so hard to pass for the last 50 years!
Come back when you're ready to have a productive conversation about the advancement of our collective rights, and not your selfish desire to feel good in public no matter what others say.
You're not listening. No one cares about your opinion. We're gonna do us, you go and do you, and the bigots will hate all of us just as they have for centuries.
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.
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:
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.
Wait are you trying to exclude people who don't dress the same as you want them to?
Nope the exact opposite lol I'm excluding myself until that minority sees that it's not helping them gain acceptance.
Inclusivity without something being excluded usually makes for a powder keg of likely confrontation. As it was pointed out to me recently, being tolerant of the intolerant, should not be a thing, regardless of how tolerant your society (or group, or tribe, or culture, or.... You get the point) is trying to be.
The fact is: pride is inclusive to the point of people being inclusive of it. There's a lot of people at pride events: straights (allies), gay, bi, trans, queer.... The whole rainbow is represented. With only one huge requirement: that you are inclusive enough to tolerate their views... If you are intolerant of any of them, then pride isn't the place for you.
It's the exact reason the protestors who think that the LGBTQ+ community are a bunch of sinners who will burn in hell, are turned away. The only real requirement at pride is that you tolerate other viewpoints, sexualities, sexual orientations, etc. If you're intolerant of any of it, either keep it to yourself, or stay home. That's as simple as it gets.
... At least, that's the idea anyways. There's room for debate on this point, on a case by case basis apparently; for reasons I won't get into. Some pride organizers have seen fit to exclude groups of people based on who they are, not what they believe or tolerate. This is a whole discussion unto itself and not central to the point. It's supposed to be an event where you can be who you are, free from judgement and persecution from others. If you are someone who wants to impose that judgement or persecution, then you're not welcome.
I understand these concepts, I'm not even LGBTQ+, I'm an ally, a supporter, and I have no animosity towards any people for their sexual... anything. I've been to pride events, and supported LGBTQ+ rights and the communities right to exist in all forms. I will vote with my ballot and wallet to support LGBTQ+ rights and the community on all fronts. At every pride event I've been to, there's always been a protest, predictably. There's almost always, also been a counter protest. My favorite was at a local regional pride event in a nearby town. It wasn't a large event, but the protestors were there. There were also counter protestors holding large, almost billboard sized black sheets to isolate them and their messages of hate. They were unwelcome, but since they were on public land expressing their opinion, a conditionally protected activity, they were allowed to be there, while by the same rights, the counter protestors were allowed to be there, blocking them and their signage containing hate, from being seen. It was glorious.
The only thing that a tolerant community/society should make an exception for is intolerance. Period.
So if pride isn't for you because you will not tolerate any of the communities represented, then I would advise you to stay home.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'll fight anyone who tries to take that away from you, but I'll also fight to maintain inclusivity in an inclusive community against the intolerant. You should too, but far be it for me to tell you what to think.
You don't see the glaring contradiction in what you just said?
How can the point of Pride be to "tolerate everyone with no exceptions," while at the same time "never tolerate the intolerant"? You can't have both!
The reason being: what criteria can you possibly use to decide who is "intolerant"?
Let me give you an example with the answers I assume you'd give... Have you ever heard the Chinese parable of "Good Luck, Bad Luck, Who Knows" before? This example is similar...
- Q: Is a gay man allowed at Pride? A: in general, yes
- Q: What if you learn they don't like furries? A: then no, they can't.
- Q: What if they want to be accepting of furries but they don't know how? A: then sure, yes, let's discuss.
- Q: What if they killed a furry once? A: then no, absolutely not!
- Q: What if they went to prison for 20 years for their crime, realized what they did was wrong, and decided to make a concerted effort every day to be more positive & inclusive, which is why they now attend Pride every year and donate to LGBT+ organizations in honor of the person they killed? A: well then yes, clearly they're an ally. they can come!
- Q: Okay, what if they don't like leather strap ons? A: ah, then no...
You see how this could keep going forever?
You're either inclusive or you're not. End of story.
I am aware of this paradox. It is well known and well documented.
The fact is, the paradox must exist.
Being tolerant of intolerance in an of itself will destroy tolerance. This was described quite well in my opinion, with this relatively terse and straightforward illustration:
Intolerance is literally the only thing that the tolerant should be intolerant of.
That's exactly what's being described, and exactly what has happened and exactly the point of all of this discussion. You are free to believe what you want, both of tolerance and intolerance, both of me and the community, and of society. Nobody can, and nobody should ever try to take that from you. You can think and believe what you want. You're entitled to your opinion. You're free to say and do what you like as an extension of your constitutionally protected rights. The thing that right does not grant you, is that anyone needs to listen or respect your opinions, just as you are not obligated to listen or respect anyone else's thoughts or opinions.
What this also doesn't grant you is freedom from the consequences of expressing those thoughts, whether that's in the form of downvotes, being excluded from social gatherings like pride, or being incarcerated for threatening others. Not that I'm saying you've done any of that, nor that you're guilty of any crimes at all, I'm merely pointing out the facts. I have no need to judge you, nor do I have any need to know or change your opinion of me.
It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? Freedom? It's a paradox unto itself as well. We live in a world full of paradoxes; not to mention logical fallacies. There's a lot to be said on this topic, and it's incredibly deep, and there's no easy answer no matter where you start and no matter how long you examine the issues. I've made my decisions, and you must make yours.
All I want to say at this point, is I wish you all the best. Have a wonderful day.
I reject this theory outright. Intolerance exists everywhere, even among the "tolerant" - in other words, you dig deep enough and you'll always find something the "tolerant" group doesn't like about other groups.
For example - and I'm not necessarily saying this is bad! - many so-called "tolerant" leftists won't tolerate certain jokes, certain protected speech and certain people (e.g. cops, billionaires, evangelicals, men with "traditional" views on women, etc), sometimes even going so far as to "cancel" them.
That silencing, whether you believe it is deserved/justified or not, is what right wingers view as intolerance of their ideology, and it's what is partially responsible for driving further division and polarization between our groups.
Yet I am the only leftist I know who is willing to admit that leftists exhibit characteristics of intolerance.
The only thing that really matters is cooperation. Because we are tribal creatures, we only look to our "in-group" for cooperation. When one tribe grows larger than another, their version of tolerance (i.e. the things they're willing to tolerate) becomes the dominant view.
The Holocaust was an example of the most extreme polarization ever observed in human history. There were many factors that led to this, and claiming that those who "tolerated" Nazis were responsible for the rise of "intolerance" implies they had the power to stop them. When for all practical purposes, once the critical mass of the "in group" (Nazis) had already been reached, their level of intolerance for other groups was so extreme that cooperation between groups/tribes became impossible.
I'm of the opinion that intolerance is a symptom of the disease of misunderstanding.
The more we understand each other, the more intolerance can dissipate. And this view is not a fantasy. It is supported by centuries of research into human behavior.
In short, one thing we know with absolute confidence is that as humans we fear what we do not understand. For that reason, I urge those who can't see a path toward forgiving their enemies to take the most radical action imaginable: to try.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :) I hope you have a good day too.
Gonna continue this from the other guy before me;
Tolerance is not a paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Those who break the contract of tolerance with intolerance no longer deserve it, and should be excluded from the protections given to those who do follow it.
You sound like a demagogue. There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
Watch this and tell me it's impossible to tolerate "intolerant" people.
You're just hurting yourself by not putting effort into discussions that would win you more allies.
Watch this and tell me it's impossible to tolerate "intolerant" people.
I appreciate the share, but the last thing I want is youtube to start adding political content to my feed after i've spent all this time curating its algorithm into something that is mine.
There is no nuance or critical thinking in your take whatsoever.
There is a lot of nuance in my statement. But you are right, I didn't give any examples. So let's pull one of yours from earlier;
How can the point of Pride be to "tolerate everyone with no exceptions," while at the same time "never tolerate the intolerant"? You can't have both!
- Q: Is a gay man allowed at Pride? A: in general, yes
- Q: What if you learn they don't like furries? A: then no, they can't.
- Q: What if they want to be accepting of furries but they don't know how? A: then sure, yes, let's discuss.
- Q: What if they killed a furry once? A: then no, absolutely not!
- Q: What if they went to prison for 20 years for their crime, realized what they did was wrong, and decided to make a concerted effort every day to be more positive & inclusive, which is why they now attend Pride every year and donate to LGBT+ organizations in honor of the person they killed? A: well then yes, clearly they're an ally. they can come!
- Q: Okay, what if they don't like leather strap ons? A: ah, then no...
This sounds like the reading of a contract with a list of arbitrary rules. Every social convention i've seen has also been incredibly arbitrary.
Breaking a social contract doesn't require permanent and total retribution; it usually has a lot of if this then that conventions built right into it. Someone making an off color joke requires a 'hey bro, thats not cool' compared to a neo nazi advocating for the camps to come back at a local government office.
My point is that once the social contract is broken, you aren't breaking it when you call someone else out for doing so.
As a straight guy, I like going with my gf because the atmosphere and party is great. Also, just to show support
good for you! in my experience the vibes highly depend on the city
That makes sense
It's called "pride". If you're not proud of it then I guess just don't show up.
I am proud, and I'd like to join a movement that actually accomplishes meaningful change for the acceptance of LGBT+ people, which I believe pride parades currently do not.
I'll join the pride parade the day the goal becomes to convince others that we're just like them, with jobs, families and bills to pay. Not sex-crazed maniacs, which is the stereotype perpetuated by a small minority amplified on right wing media.
Then don't go?
noted
I know, it was a month ago, but....
There are extroverts and introverts. Some people are almost totally naked or dressed very special, dancing around, trying to get the attention....
And there is the huge majority that goes there just to support the community, maybe with a flag, maybe without...
Guess, who is in the newspapers the next day? The quiet, shy guy from nextdoor or the extrovert I described above?
I am from Germany and here, the mix between those 2 types of people is good IMO..
I have the same opinion. Pride parades often hurt the public image of the LGBT community. At least ban the leather fetish shit.
Someone else once said that they love humans, just ban all jews.
Leather is only a fetish because some people decided that it is. There is nothing inherently wrong with leather.
Ban leather fetish? You are the definition of ignorance. That is what is hurting the public image. Do you also go to a rave and tell them to dress differently? All that neon clothing is hurting your eyes? Or to any demo with people dressing as unicorns?
You underestimate the public. Who cares about leather? We care about people being ignorant dicks, about people who are obnoxious and about people who are trying to harm others. Not leather.
There is no difference between a business suit, a nipple piercing, a mini-skirt or a gag-ball. The person wearing those are what counts.
People trying to ban others, that's just sad. As long as decency laws are obeyed, who are you to judge? Fetish only exists because of ignorance. Otherwise, they would be hobbies.
Lmao can you even hear yourself speak?
Try walking up to a conservative asking for their acceptance while wearing a nipple piercing, a leather strap-on and a gag ball, and see how they respond...
Of course "hear myself speak". Do you? Thinking in black and white, downgrading people for having values that they grew up with, coining them conservatives, without even knowing what that term means.
When I was a kid, a banker wasn't even allowed to turn up their sleeves in summer. Tattoos, piercings and colored hair was an instant dismissal. The same conservatives are in power still, and all that has changed. I've seen bankers with face-tatoos, braided hair in multiple colors and piercings, being openly gay. Acceptance is already here.
But pride parades are not about acceptance. They are some sort of "in your face, we are here, deal with it" gig. Like street gangs wearing colors. Not hiding. Those things only work when nobody suffers because of them.
That's how acceptance works. You don't walk up and ask for it. Acceptance happens by saturation and demonstrating that things are fine.
The problem is, street gangs cause crime and lately, pride people are just obnoxious. It's not the leather, it's the people wearing it, and how they behave. Demanding acceptance, even trying to force it. Calling others names and blaming them for all their troubles.
You don't ask for it. You don't force it. You INTEGRATE. Bit by bit. 40 years ago gay people were in hiding, pretending to be straight. Not getting jobs. Risking being beat up or being lynched.
Now, you have Trans school plays and teachers that are openly gay. The last two generations are imprinted by the fast pace of the internet. That is a new thing, people do not change that fast. But is that respected at all? No.
Internet and mobile phones weren't a thing until I was twenty-five. Things changed over decades, not years back then. What you call conservatives are simply people not catching up that fast. You've never seen a real conservative. And by the way you are talking, you must be believing that the world has always been like it is now. But it changed in the last 25 years like it didn't do since the industrial revolution 250 years ago. You seem to have no idea how far acceptance has come and how ridiculous the term conservative is. Show me a single thing from 25 years ago that's still the same.
I did walk up to plenty of so-called conservatives, and I always got their attention, and often their approval. Not always. It is about the way one does it. Being condescending, demanding, negative and juvenile won't help. Playing a role or fighting other people's fights also doesn't help. Fight for yourself and help others do the same. Individual by individual, that is how things work.
You seem to be under the impression I think pride parades are a bad thing in general b/c I said I dislike how they are now.
Did the strategy you mentioned work well for its historical moment? FUCKING YES. Absolutely. You're right that we made tons of progress that was previously unprecedented.
But guess what? We're in a completely different historical moment today... and now we are regressing.
I argue that Conservatives today are more polarized and therefore more dangerous than the ones you knew 25 years ago.
And do you know how I know we're regressing? This year, the ACLU reports 479 anti-LGBT bills currently being considered to be passed as laws in the U.S. in 2024.
That's why I'm making such a big deal... because you old sweeties who did a lot of hard work for all of us young queers are going to have to adapt to the new situation! Because the strategy that worked for the previous 25 years is NO 👏 LONGER 👏 SERVING 👏 US... And we must grow out of it, or risk facing the worst retaliation ever known to LGBT+ in the history of the US.
I'm telling you all your hard work is about to be undone, and you can't stop judging, condescending, and blindly telling me I'm wrong about what's clearly staring us all in the face...
So respectfully... grow up a little, please! We have work to do...
idk why you're getting downvoted tbh https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014
Oh man, that's not the gotcha you think it is, The Onion is a satire site, they're actually parodying opinions like yours, did you even read this so called proof? You certainly didn't check the authenticity of the website in question.
Not even that far down was an obvious give away: "The parade, organized by the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA)"
Onion article or not it's a 2001 post, which says a lot in it's own right.
You're right, we should all stop watching George Carlin b/c he's been dead since 2008. Nothing he says could be relevant anymore, right?
How was the gay rights movement back then? If memory serves correctly, not great!!
And how is the LGBT+ movement doing today?
Hmm, let's see... the ACLU reports 479 anti-LGBT bills currently being considered to be passed as laws in the U.S. in 2024.
Maybe, just maybe, it's time to wake the fuck up and realize the current strategy is NOT 👏 FUCKING 👏 WORKING 👏
Wake up and smell the flowers, because they're still growing on the fresh graves of my murdered trans friends.
And your opinion is that the best option is to turn tail and sit pretty for the cishets?
Don't tell me to wake the fuck up and diminish me, soapboxing about your murdered trans friends. I am trans, I'm close to people who have had to flee their states, fallen victim to (tw: a lot)>!employment discrimination, loss of medical care, reversion of changed ID gender markers, assault, rape, homelessness due to familial rejection.!<
So while I'm glad you can feel good about yourself wanting to sanitize pride parades and events. I assure you that is not the issue. It's satanic panic all over again, we're lucky it's not the AIDS crisis on top of it. Instead it's a bunch of puppets who lap up their anti trans propaganda. Go listen to some conservative "talking points" and you'll quickly realize there is no rationalizing with these people. There is no room for civil discussion.
Don't tell me to wake the fuck up, and to "smell the flowers" until you've written hundreds of letters to your state house of representatives. Only to be met with a paltry two responses, with only one being a truly heartfelt response.
There's one important thing to never forget: Armed queers bash back. Don't ever forget it. Stay safe out there.
I actually agree with you, pride parades are not the issue. Just one of many.
The real issue is leftists can't cooperate with each other these days. We are too busy dividing each other into smaller and smaller "in-groups" and "out-groups" using arbitrary criteria no one can agree on, while conservatives are as loyal and united as ever.
We are all about to be f*cking steamrolled, especially if a certain orange man wins the next election.
That's why I'm urging you to wake up. Not to try to be condescending. But because we have a lot of fucking work to do, and everyone in this thread seems convinced that things are just fine and dandy how they are!
Lmao you think I don't know the Onion is satire? c'mon... you think I was born yesterday?
Satire is just as effective, if not more effective, at conveying points as anything else. Hence why comedians alive today are the only living philosophers.
When did I classify this as "proof"? I'm waiting...
You might be born yesterday if you think satire directly saying your own talking points is effective at proving those points. I feel like you just googled "pride sets back gay movement" and either went with the first link, or after finding out that there is seemingly no evidence or any form of actual research to back up your claim, you went with a satire website.
If someone replies to someone saying "idk why people are disagreeing with you" and then provides a link to a website, that strongly suggests to me that they're giving proof as to why the people who are disagreeing are wrong.
Hahaha you're doing the strawman fallacy, my friend.
You've built up a straw man in your head so you can knock it down.
Every one of your assumptions is incorrect.
This is one of my favorite Onion articles of all time, and I refer to it frequently when I'm on this topic.
How bout you take a break from judging and hating on internet strangers for no reason?
Nothing I said is using a different argument to the one we started with, we've only been talking about using a satire website to prove a point, I'm not seeing where this strawman is.
Judging sure, hating not so much, but even if I was, maybe you should take your own advice and stop judging and hating on not only pretty much everyone you've replied to here, but basically everyone who goes to and supports pride.
Anyway, this isn't going to go anywhere, assuming what you've said about your life in other posts is true then I'm sorry you've had to experience that and even though I disagree, I can see why you'd form the opinion you have, I hope things are either better or will get better for you soon.
Ok, since you were nice to me in the last part, I'm going to try and be patient with you.
Let me try and summarize how this conversation went so far:
- me: I dislike how pride parades are now
- anon: I agree
- me: idk why you're getting downvoted [insert obviously satirical article here, by THE most popular satirical news site in the US]
- you: ha! did you even read this so called proof? you certainly didn't check the authenticity of the website.
- me: I never said it was proof. you think I was born yesterday?
- you: yeah sounds like you were b/c I'm pretty sure you literally searched this up just now.
- me: except I didn't, I've known about it for years. stop being judgmental and hateful.
- you: okay, but you need to stop being judgmental and hateful too!
Now it's my chance to reply. And I could say: show me one place in this entire thread where I've been judgmental or hateful of anyone here.
Have I been patronizing/condescending in some of my replies? Regrettably, yes, out of frustration at not getting my point across. But I never judged and I never hated on any of these passionate queers who are downvoting me to oblivion.
I'm trying to help you see that you were judging based on unwarranted assumptions, and now reacting defensively when I called you out for it.
So thank you for admitting you were judging. But please don't accuse me of doing things I didn't do.
Edit: And I was wrong about the Strawman in your case, I apologize. I've seen so many comments use it in this thread it all started to blur after a while. Your logical fallacies were Ad Hominem and False Comparison.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain it and apologising for being wrong, I'll also apologise for making assumptions that were wrong and for being unpleasant towards you.
I'll explain my position, I made the assumption because whenever someone posts an onion article to back up their point/give proof of something (I still feel like that's how your message came off, but since you're being reasonable now I don't really have any reason to doubt your claim) it's in full seriousness and not realising it's a satire site, and due to how you were replying to everyone else I didn't really see the need to be pleasant about it as you weren't exactly being pleasant to everyone else. Unfortunately on the internet, I've found when someone is acting like you were they're generally unpleasant people who are just trying to stir things up and/or troll, but I figured if what you revealed in some other replies were true (it's not exactly uncommon for trolls to lie) I could understand your position. I didn't come here to argue your point, just to poke fun at you for linking an onion article, hence why I was dropping it after a few messages.
I didn't feel like I was being defensive, I felt like your message was somewhat hypocritical as I felt like I wasn't treating you much differently than you were treating everyone else, but I might be wrong about that, I'm not the best at reading these things from messages especially to/from strangers.
Like I said before, I disagree with your point about pride, but I didn't come here to argue that and I don't feel like we're likely to change each others mind, but I'm up for a bit of a friendly/cordial discussion about it if you want, but I'll probably only reply once or twice a day, just saying that as to set an expectation as I'm not on here often and obviously totally fine if you don't want to.
Sorry for the huge message and likely terrible grammar, I'm glad we could be more reasonable towards each other, I feel like that's rare on the internet these days.
That's kind of you to offer. Could you please let me know what you think of this?
Thank you for being willing to discuss it!
Edit: I previously wrote a longer part of this asking if you had advice for how to better approach this topic with the community but I already know the answer. I need to be more patient with folks and respond to their talking points directly instead of getting frustrated with them that they're not understanding mine, even if they seem really off topic...
It's actually surprising how much easier it is to talk to some conservatives than some leftists. Conservatives will just tell you what they think, and leftists will go on a thousand tangents before getting to the point 😅 I guess I'm learning here what it's like talking to me, because I see everyone else making the same mistakes. Defaulting to extremes and accusing me of things I never said, without giving me the benefit of the doubt. Then again, that's sort of how people on the Internet are in general... wdyt?