Pride discourse.

[Sadib]

The bathroom bill is about a made up problem and only serves to feed into transphobia. How frequent do trans women rape little girls in bathrooms? Now compare that to shootings. It's not a coincidence that the party for the bathroom bills does not care when little girls get shot up at school.

 

[Durrendal]

The bathroom bill is about a made up problem and only serves to feed into transphobia. How frequent do trans women rape little girls in bathrooms? Now compare that to shootings. It's not a coincidence that the party for the bathroom bills does not care when little girls get shot up at school.

I'm anti-gun so you won't find me disagreeing about guns.

And if I'm not wrong, not many places in USA have bathrooms yet where trans people can have access to kids? It's still mostly workplaces and stuff right?

 

[Sadib]

I'm anti-gun so you won't find me disagreeing about guns.

And if I'm not wrong, not many places in USA have bathrooms yet where trans people can have access to kids? It's still mostly workplaces and stuff right?

Do you think kids don't use public restrooms? Either that or you think trans people aren't allowed to use public restrooms that align with their gender. They can, because the bathroom bill isn't a law.

I can't believe you'd say something so absurd. Do you also think gay men shouldn't be allowed to use public restrooms because they might rape little boys? It's literally the same concept.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

You'll start doubting whether the sun rises in the east if people in those forums you mentioned kept saying it. You're on full tribalism mode. You can't even accept there are Pedos in LGBTQ ranks and your only replies are weird deflections. You don't even understand what sacrifice means in this instance. Or what tribalism means.

You don't need to doubt my good will. Because...what will I have a good will for exactly? I'm not here exactly to get my mind changed about giving leather daddies easy access to kids. This isn't a debate. People who want easy access to kids aren't going to admit to it. People who think it's okay for kids to hang around parades with dildos and vaginas sticking out of the attendees are not going to change their minds.

In fact, I agree with OP. Kids shouldn't be in pride parades. Kids shouldn't be in any parades that they don't understand yet.

And you're deliberately being obtuse, or maybe it's a playbook, I don't know. I never said queers=Pedos. I said people wanting kids in a an hypersexual parade= Pedos. Just like people taking kids to strip clubs.

Anyway, you're not here to debate either. So I think that'll suffice.

Every post in this thread from you has been in relation to queer people and pedos.

And I recognize the PragerU "debate" technique when I see it. Annoy, delay, look for a gotcha and run to KiwiFarms or another LolCow suckling facility to gush out slop for people to drink.

Come off it.

It's not that they don't exist. It's that you're softly over-inflating the acceptance and number of pedos in the queer community, especially at pride, are weirdly focused on those trying to rebrand themselves as MAPs, are basing this word-for-word on known serial bigots, liars and obfuscationists, all to raise alarm klaxons while looking for a gotcha to run to the even more twisted modern version of tabloids.

 

[bobjr]

We probably should move away from the pedophile discussion, because you will have secret pedophiles in any group of people because it’s unrelated to LGBT and it’s not something people really announce about themselves.

Also there’s the bad history of conflating the two which is part of the reason LGBT are treated bad to this day.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

I don't really get what the issue is with kids at pride. If molesters are there at pride they're not going to make a move while there are dozens of witnesses around, that's not how any of this works. Child molestation happens when a kid is alone with a perp, like at school, at sports club, at church, or at home by relatives or people camming with them in their own room. As far as protecting kids from perps goes, pride is among the least dangerous spots for them to be simply because there are so many people around.

 

[Zora]

why did my gayass wonder in this thread. Anyway....
-----------------
Let me start of by saying I'm like 99% sure the "kink at Pride" discourse (as in, what the OP is responding to) is brought up in bad faith; tl;dr, kink very much has a place at Pride. LGBTQIA+ folks, but especially young LGBTQIA+ folks, are honestly very vulnerable to misinformation in this day and age. We learn about ourselves by networking with other LGBTQIA+ folks, but as those networks move digitally, there's little stopping bad faith actors from inserting themselves. Propaganda campaigns like Operation Pridefall (cw: NSFW/kink, but also, this is probably *the* image that spurred this discussion) *will* happen; that stuff doesn't happen at Pride (Folsom Street Fair maybe? l thought Folsom is strictly 18+? idk). Btw, bad faith actors causing intra-communal conflict was something I saw secondhand as far back as Tumblr (think classics like "is 'queer' a slur?'"); it ain't new.

And there's so many complications to above: the pandemic made all of us more online this past year; youth cannot access bar/clubs that form most of the LGBTQIA+ venues; LGBTQIA+ folks often lack a parent or relatiive to form an inter-generational link and an entire generation of elders who could communicate history are gone because of AIDS crisis; schools don't teach LGBTQIA+ history, let alone have an open dialogue about sex/sexuality. I do feel social media-driven attempts at causing intra-communal conflict will become a more pressing issue we'd need to address as a community, but the solutions to that are more than my gay little peanut brain can handle.
----------------
With all that said, I don't feel like discussing much about "kink at pride" per se at face value, because as said, I'm 90% sure it's done in bad faith, but I will anyway because gayass can't shutup. Adult sexuality is everywhere; like, I doubt what you find at Pride is any different from what you'd see walking down Fremont St in Las Vegas or even typical beer commercials (besides the obvious difference that one is gay). Stonewall started because police officers cited public indecency laws; literally "kink at a bar" was the crime law enforcement used is *still* used to persecute LGBTQIA+ folks (read; also, this is a reason to get cops out of Pride). Additionally, sexual communities, e.g. BDSM, leather, and furry scenes, are very important for a lot of LGBTQIA+ folks to figure themselves out; unless your sexuality is a very specific flavor of cishet, you'd need to see very non-mainstream sexual interests for stuff to click. At the grassroots level, sexual communities and venues like bars/clubs (many of which may lean into a specific fetish) is where most LGBTQIA+ folks network; those kinks are often a very important part of your sexuality, just easier to compartmentalize in non-sexual settings. But in a place like Pride that's meant to be showing who are, shamelessly, why compartmentalize at all? Especially when, historically, all what compartmentalization has done is just hurt the LGBTQIA+ community.
------------------
anyway, Nintendo's E3 conference is about to start, so I'll stop there.

Edit: just some basic proofreading changes

 

[Baba Yaga]

I accept the point about this discourse being an OP as likely, but even if that's true, the OP just exposed a division that already existed and needs to be addressed. When popular leftist online personalities like Vaush are siding with the right on this subject, we have a problem.

 

[Sadib]

I accept the point about this discourse being an OP as likely, but even if that's true, the OP just exposed a division that already existed and needs to be addressed. When popular leftist online personalities like Vaush are siding with the right on this subject, we have a problem.

What did Vaush say about this? Do you have a video?

 

[Vernikova]

So, a little while back twitter made me pretty upset,

Twitter is literally the worst social media platform. All other platforms have more use. I'm not sure why anyone uses it.

When popular leftist online personalities

Online personalities are dependent on their base. If someone's primary source of income (or if it is a major source of income) is based on them giving their opinion, then I would take their stances with a grain of salt. People are less brave when their finances could be at risk.

In any case:

The discussion being had was whether or not expressions of adult sexuality and kink were appropriate during pride fest. There was this weird alliance between people on the right and younger leftist types who were all agreeing that these kinds of expressions were not okay, and that they were damaging to children, and that pride fest needs to be dialed down a notch to make it more kid friendly.

I see three separate claims:

1. These expressions of adult sexuality and kinks are not okay.
2. These aforementioned expressions damage children.
3. Pride festivals need to be dialed down a notch to be kid-friendly events.

I can see statements 1 and 2 being linked (1 supporting 2), but the third statement can stand without the other two. In fact, statement 1 can stand without statement 2, but statement 2 depends on statement 1.

I guess I should make my position clear (since this isn't my thread): I'm not a homosexual, and I don't really care what happens at these festivals. I think that kids can handle more than what the average adults believe they can handle, and that the widespread access to the internet has only made hiding these "dangerous" topics all the more difficult to hide and ignore. I would tend to agree that some guy in a leather suit isn't the most damaging thing in the world for a child to see. But if I'm going to play the devil's advocate for the sake of fun discussion:

With that said, when it comes to moral claims such as "these festivals need to be more kid-friendly," I don't think "I haven't been damaged by these similar things when I was a child" is a strong rebuttal if you believe, for example, the argument against censoring unsavory television characters or television episodes of "I watched these and didn't turn out sexist or racist" isn't a strong rebuttal. Neither is "Germans have naked people on magazines" for similar reasons. Not to say that you, Baba Yaga, believe any of those claims, but I think those claims are an average left-leaning liberal's position on those topics.

I think someone can say "I acknowledge that this may not be harmful to children, but I don't think they should be exposed to them" in a consistent manner. Even if Christianity is decreasing in membership over the past few decades, the reality is is that Christian morality still informs the West's understanding of morality, and it may even be argued that current western morality is simply secularized Christian morality. Christianity has been used to support "love," but it's always been conservative about "sex." An expression of love is not the same as an expression of one's kink. Just because people are okay with allowing two men to kiss on television doesn't mean that they want two men wear leather body suits on television. Even heterosexual kinks are reserved for older audiences.

Whenever you see a sexual expression receive praise, I often see it earning praise because it's seen through some type of lens such as female empowerment. But I think many people would still give a kid **** for singing along to "WAP." I also think that maybe people are forgetting how impressionable children are when they see things, and how much access they have to everything whether through a phone or a friend. Back in my undergrad days, I did do research on children and imitation of violence, but I wonder how much that translates when it comes to imitation of expressions of sex, which kids are currently engaging in. In my family, we recently learned about one of our 13-year-olds sending nude photos to some boy. She didn't learn that from nowhere.

It's important to balance what we expose to children and appropriate displays of sexual expression. No one wants to see a guy rocking a banana hammock, and no one wants to see a guy in his sexual puppy costume. To say that pride festivals didn't start as family-friendly events is just another way of saying "it's always been this way, so it's okay," which, I assume, isn't going to be the strongest argument against a liberal who disagrees. What was the case doesn't necessarily dictate what should be the case going forward.

 

[Sadib]

I think the point of gay pride parades is love. I don't think it should be more sexual than anything shown in popular media about straight couples.

 

[bobjr]

Also gay couples to this day still have less they can do on TV and in media compared to straight couples, and they've had to really fight in writer rooms to do it. So any form of protest will involve pushing back against that.

Christianity that cares enough about LGBT people who have criticism against it tends to have a bad habit of "Love the sinner hate the sin", so at best it'll accept them as people, but not them as LGBT people who deserve equal rights.

If the argument becomes "Tone it down because people who disagree with LGBT rights don't like something LGBT people do", I'd argue it's not worth toning down.

 

[Baba Yaga]

With that said, when it comes to moral claims such as "these festivals need to be more kid-friendly," I don't think "I haven't been damaged by these similar things when I was a child" is a strong rebuttal if you believe, for example, the argument against censoring unsavory television characters or television episodes of "I watched these and didn't turn out sexist or racist" isn't a strong rebuttal. Neither is "Germans have naked people on magazines" for similar reasons. Not to say that you, Baba Yaga, believe any of those claims, but I think those claims are an average left-leaning liberal's position on those topics.

You're reducing the point I am making to a merely anecdotal claim, but the fact of the matter is adult sexuality is already pervasive in American culture and children are familiarized with it, it's merely heterosexual and not homosexual. That exposure to sexuality is more pronounced in other countries similar to us. There is no epidemic of children being traumatized, or needing to go to therapy, or having otherwise long lasting issues because of that exposure. Ultimately the burden of proof is on people making the affirmative claim which no one has offered any. The discussion should end there, truthfully.

But in regards to the 13 year old sending nude photos, that doesn't have anything to do with being exposed to sexuality too prematurely. Teenagers are sexual beings and it's natural for them to experiment with other people their own age, look at pornography, masturbate, etc. Obviously, there needs to be a conversation with her about how unsafe it is to send nude photos at her age, and her phone should be more closely monitored, but that's a separate issue divorced from the topic. It's not something I would characterize as being very abnormal, though.

I'm also not making an argument from tradition. I am saying there's no reason to change a tradition if it isn't harming anyone, and that the people in this context who are arguing for pride to change, while entitled to that view, have no moral or rational argument to suggest the other side acquiesce to them.

Lastly, I don't really appreciate playing the devils advocate in a discussion that involves the humanity of other people.

 

[bobjr]

"think of the children!" has been a rallying cry for decades and decades to express fears about what's seen as a deviant behavior, when it's usually a currently minority or oppressed group expressing themselves.

A good example is the 1920's and women not covering their legs, it got the exact same reaction as this

 

[Sadib]

When I went to Pride in 2015, I didn't see anything inappropriate. I'm not sure what people are arguing about.

 

[Redstar45]

Twitter is literally the worst social media platform. All other platforms have more use. I'm not sure why anyone uses it.

Well, try Facebook is one of world's worst Social Media as well.

 

[Sadib]

Well, try Facebook is one of world's worst Social Media as well.

I don't know why you're using multiple colors for text. I'm on the forum's "Happy Style," so half your post was invisible.

 

[Redstar45]

I don't know why you're using multiple colors for text. I'm on the forum's "Happy Style," so half your post was invisible.

Feel easy for me to bold the latter to make point that social media is tactile trash can that should be throw out
And Sorry I'm was used the default setting ....i forgot about happy style was one of the alt form for the site.

 

[Sadib]

Feel easy for me to bold the latter to make point that social media is tactile trash can that should be throw out
And Sorry I'm was used the default setting ....i forgot about happy style was one of the alt form for the site.

The default style is horrible when quoting messages. Dark green on gray is unreadable.

 

[Redstar45]

The default style is horrible when quoting messages. Dark green on gray is unreadable.

Well dunno but happy style is feel too kiddish for little old me Here