Pride discourse.

[Vernikova]

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.

What I'm saying is a very true statement: you can't extrapolate your experience to a wider group, nor can you compare cultures that may seem similar in some respects but are actually much different in terms of others. Even in Germany, there are legal measures that have been taken in recent years to curb down on once-widespread nude culture.

And I believe that your obfuscating the issue. Your initial post has the following example: "but a lot of people were freaking out over this photo of a little girl standing next to some dudes in puppy play gear," which is something that seen as degenerate (if we're be honest with how people view it) even among heterosexuals in relation to other heterosexuals. From what I gathered, your issue is in relation to the acceptance of kinks for public display, which is not equivalent to adult sexuality as a whole on public display. It's a subset of adult sexuality, but it's not the same as the whole set. Simply because some aspects of adult sexuality are widespread doesn't mean that all should be or that people want particular acts to be widespread.

Furthermore, (accepting the premise) that there's no wave of children seeing a therapist is a strong argument only if one depends on the argument that it damages children. However, it's not a strong rebuttal against someone who merely claims, on some other grounds, that they don't want their child exposed to some kinks.

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.

It was used as an example to elaborate on the point of how freer sexual expression that may be accepted in the broader culture may still not be something that is desirable for exposure to children. There are certain things that adults don't want children to be aware of or promoted at certain points in their lives, including what many people believe to be degenerate behavior.

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.

It may not be harming them psychologically (an argument that I'm just taking for granted), but this where I think your argument falters:

1. It relies on the premise that if does no harm then it's okay, but it only defines harm as "to no one."
2. It relies on the assumption that everyone is working within the same moral framework (consequentialism) or the same moral axioms as you do.

You ignore other types of harm such as, for instance, to society as a whole. If society largely doesn't want those values to be shared, then it is a duty of that society to check that type of behavior since society as a whole determines what it moral for society as a whole. You may argue against it, but it doesn't mean that it will be accepted by society. If a society does not want a certain behavior to be promoted, then it only makes sense to check that behavior. You may argue something about homosexual expressions once being repressed by society, but I think there distinguishing factor between homosexual attraction and sexual kinks.

Even if the premise (psychologically harming children) is false, it doesn't mean that the conclusion must be wrong (we don't want this around our children or in public sight). It just means that their argument is unsound.

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

I understand your point of view, but I think, for myself, it's good to argue from the other positions at times and to challenge people, regardless of my own view on the matter.

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

Facebook, while bad, has more utility than Twitter, which is a cesspool.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

What I'm saying is a very true statement: you can't extrapolate your experience to a wider group, nor can you compare cultures that may seem similar in some respects but are actually much different in terms of others. Even in Germany, there are legal measures that have been taken in recent years to curb down on once-widespread nude culture.

And I believe that your obfuscating the issue. Your initial post has the following example: "but a lot of people were freaking out over this photo of a little girl standing next to some dudes in puppy play gear," which is something that seen as degenerate (if we're be honest with how people view it) even among heterosexuals in relation to other heterosexuals. From what I gathered, your issue is in relation to the acceptance of kinks for public display, which is not equivalent to adult sexuality as a whole on public display. It's a subset of adult sexuality, but it's not the same as the whole set. Simply because some aspects of adult sexuality are widespread doesn't mean that all should be or that people want particular acts to be widespread.

Furthermore, (accepting the premise) that there's no wave of children seeing a therapist is a strong argument only if one depends on the argument that it damages children. However, it's not a strong rebuttal against someone who merely claims, on some other grounds, that they don't want their child exposed to some kinks.



It was used as an example to elaborate on the point of how freer sexual expression that may be accepted in the broader culture may still not be something that is desirable for exposure to children. There are certain things that adults don't want children to be aware of or promoted at certain points in their lives, including what many people believe to be degenerate behavior.



It may not be harming them psychologically (an argument that I'm just taking for granted), but this where I think your argument falters:

1. It relies on the premise that if does no harm then it's okay, but it only defines harm as "to no one."
2. It relies on the assumption that everyone is working within the same moral framework (consequentialism) or the same moral axioms as you do.

You ignore other types of harm such as, for instance, to society as a whole. If society largely doesn't want those values to be shared, then it is a duty of that society to check that type of behavior since society as a whole determines what it moral for society as a whole. You may argue against it, but it doesn't mean that it will be accepted by society. If a society does not want a certain behavior to be promoted, then it only makes sense to check that behavior. You may argue something about homosexual expressions once being repressed by society, but I think there distinguishing factor between homosexual attraction and sexual kinks.

Even if the premise (psychologically harming children) is false, it doesn't mean that the conclusion must be wrong (we don't want this around our children or in public sight). It just means that their argument is unsound.


I understand your point of view, but I think, for myself, it's good to argue from the other positions at times and to challenge people, regardless of my own view on the matter.


Facebook, while bad, has more utility than Twitter, which is a cesspool.

The both sidesing is incredible.

"We must consider and accommodate hate because *assumed* majority and/or plurality"

The majority and/or plurality of people can and often are wrong about things:Otheriwise we'd have (more) outright slavery, lynching, and literal witch-burning in the US. Just because the majority and/or plurality of people want something doesn't mean it should be done for that reason alone.

Keep jumping through hoops to "be fair" to gateway Handmaid's Tale puritanism, though.

 

[Vernikova]

The both sidesing is incredible.

"We must consider and accommodate hate because *assumed* majority and/or plurality"

The majority and/or plurality of people can and often are wrong about things:Otheriwise we'd have (more) outright slavery, lynching, and literal witch-burning in the US. Just because the majority and/or plurality of people want something doesn't mean it should be done for that reason alone.

Keep jumping through hoops to "be fair" to gateway Handmaid's Tale puritanism, though.

The reasoning is that most don't want to see that behavior promoted in larger society. Most people also don't see the ability to express sexual kinks in public as equivalent to allowing slavery or banning homosexuality, so if your argument is going to hinge on "well, most people thought slavery was okay" then isn't going to cut it and is probably why it hasn't cut it even in American leftist circles if the posts here are to go by,

 

[bobjr]

Interracial relationships weren’t majority accepted until the 90’s, so it is a lot of “well why is it wrong, and if the answer is some vague potential without proof then is it really wrong?”

Plus this isn’t just randomly doing kinks in public, because at that point even basic PDA among straight couples can often been seen as too much, it’s a specific event where people who attend know it will be there and accept that.

 

[Vernikova]

Interracial relationships weren’t majority accepted until the 90’s, so it is a lot of “well why is it wrong, and if the answer is some vague potential without proof then is it really wrong?”

Vague notions can be used to persuade on what is moral and what isn't since there are some opinions that things are moral or immoral based on vague or intuitive feelings. Of course there are holes in this idea of relative morality such as what constitutes "society" or how minority opinions can form, but I think that there is a widespread notion of this moral relativism in some parts of the American liberal and left areas.

Furthermore, if we're to argue this subject from a moral objectivist position (that one moral framework is objectively better than the other), then this argument is moot in so far as people may not even be arguing from the same framework in the first place. And if people aren't even coming from the same place or agree on which framework is the best, then of course there may be no agreement on some issue such as this and the majority itself will probably come out on top through sheer numbers.

Plus this isn’t just randomly doing kinks in public, because at that point even basic PDA among straight couples can often been seen as too much, it’s a specific event where people who attend know it will be there and accept that.

I'm just going by the example given the OP. Other things such as personal displays of affection aren't a part of my argument though they can fit in under similar reasoning. In this case, though, they're not included since people at these pride festivals are, for the most part, I assume, okay with them.

 

[bobjr]

I mean the base goal of the people arguing against Pride is less rights for LGBT people at best, starting with chipping away things a little at a time since it has a greater effect. It’s always been a numbers game, but you get that way by pushing it as an equal rights and free expression thing, as the easiest hole for Anti-LGBT people to fall into is they don’t actually want equal rights, they want an underclass at best.

Part of why LGBT rights got more support and continues to grow in support is because LGBT culture and people get to be more visible, and get to participate in the conversion themselves, not just have rumors told about them by people who want to stop things from improving for them

 

[Durrendal]

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.

Lmao lol. Are you seriously like this? You really think people around the globe are into some conspiracy so they have to go to forums and get indoctrinated because similar concerns can't arise naturally?

Yeah, why are you projecting what you do me, honestly? Instead, ask yourself why does someone who doesn't even know the websites you're mentioning has the exact same concerns and points? Is it possible that that multiple unconnected groups are having these thoughts spontaneously?

Nahhh can't be. People worried about people wearing dildos and leather eagerly wanting children in rallies want access to children must be all indoctrinated by super secret societies.

The reason I'm talking about kids and Pedos is because I'm worried about kids and Pedos. I'm not talking about LGBTQ terrorists making a gay beam™ and gayfying everyone because I'm not worried about it. And I'm talking about pride because the thread is about it. And there's no straight pride with leather daddies and dildo welding furries. There's only one sort of procession with these things and people wanting kids in it: LGBTQ Pride rallies.

If there was a straight pride with these things, kids and Pedos would be an argument in there too. Because it's a short jump from having kids next so someone swinging dildos to someone swinging dildos in the kid.

No one is infringing on your right to bear dildos in public. Arguing for having kids in it is the issue. Don't put forward arguments for why kids should be in dildo swinging leather daddy rallies, and people won't have natural concerns about pedophilia.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

Vague notions can be used to persuade on what is moral and what isn't since there are some opinions that things are moral or immoral based on vague or intuitive feelings. Of course there are holes in this idea of relative morality such as what constitutes "society" or how minority opinions can form, but I think that there is a widespread notion of this moral relativism in some parts of the American liberal and left areas.

Furthermore, if we're to argue this subject from a moral objectivist position (that one moral framework is objectively better than the other), then this argument is moot in so far as people may not even be arguing from the same framework in the first place. And if people aren't even coming from the same place or agree on which framework is the best, then of course there may be no agreement on some issue such as this and the majority itself will probably come out on top through sheer numbers.

All the more reason to not be offended by pride the way I see it. Pride is about freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of forming your own identity, and everything that comes with that. Kinks, orientation, identity. This is a large portion of what freedom of speech is about. You don't have to like their attire, you don't have to like their orientations, but censoring them because of that, regardless of how many others don't like it either, while it is simply not harming anyone, is impeding on the freedom of others. Isn't that very freedom of expression and individuality a large portion of US culture?

No one is infringing on your right to bear dildos in public. Arguing for having kids in it is the issue. Don't put forward arguments for why kids should be in dildo swinging leather daddy rallies, and people won't have natural concerns about pedophilia.

Nobody says they have to be there. Try reading into subjects next time instead of making ridiculous strawman arguments that you further add with some bigoted exaggerations. And maybe try actually educating kids (and probably yourself too) because they can and probably will find more explicit imagery on Instagram or Twitter, instead of just staying terrified of the big scary dildos that some folks would suddenly put in the kids in broad daylight with tons of witnesses around. The simple fact of the matter is, it's your own fears that's bothering you, and that's your issue to deal with.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

The reasoning is that most don't want to see that behavior promoted in larger society. Most people also don't see the ability to express sexual kinks in public as equivalent to allowing slavery or banning homosexuality, so if your argument is going to hinge on "well, most people thought slavery was okay" then isn't going to cut it and is probably why it hasn't cut it even in American leftist circles if the posts here are to go by,

Where are you pulling your numbers from?

And you outright said

"If society largely doesn't want those values to be shared, then it is a duty of that society to check that type of behavior since society as a whole determines what it moral for society as a whole. You may argue against it, but it doesn't mean that it will be accepted by society. If a society does not want a certain behavior to be promoted, then it only makes sense to check that behavior."

This kind of statement gives majority blind rule.

Hence the comparison.

Furthermore you're both-sidesing to try and respect those who want the "others" dead or out of sight, pride or no pride.

You're taking the name of this subsection too literally if you're devil's advocating for the sake of trying to have a literal debate team debate. Or you actually believe this, and are just there to preserve your own sliver of power and avoid accountability for your bloc.

And there's this little gem:

"the majority itself will probably come out on top through sheer numbers."

Pick one:Is the majority always right or inescapably inevitable?

And I'm getting "I don't want people to feel bad" vibes off of you...

But in the context of sex, sexuality, individuality and other rights issues, that tends to spawn a fatalistic need for a false sense of decorum, decency and deference to avoid talking about things...

Are you from the SOUTH of Canada? Because this screams Southeastern US "public civility, politeness & respectability is better than honesty and doing what's right", and "following procedures over morality or else people will feel bad about what they do and have done"-esque mentality.

Lmao lol. Are you seriously like this? You really think people around the globe are into some conspiracy so they have to go to forums and get indoctrinated because similar concerns can't arise naturally?

Yeah, why are you projecting what you do me, honestly? Instead, ask yourself why does someone who doesn't even know the websites you're mentioning has the exact same concerns and points? Is it possible that that multiple unconnected groups are having these thoughts spontaneously?

Nahhh can't be. People worried about people wearing dildos and leather eagerly wanting children in rallies want access to children must be all indoctrinated by super secret societies.

The reason I'm talking about kids and Pedos is because I'm worried about kids and Pedos. I'm not talking about LGBTQ terrorists making a gay beam™ and gayfying everyone because I'm not worried about it. And I'm talking about pride because the thread is about it. And there's no straight pride with leather daddies and dildo welding furries. There's only one sort of procession with these things and people wanting kids in it: LGBTQ Pride rallies.

If there was a straight pride with these things, kids and Pedos would be an argument in there too.

No one is infringing on your right to bear dildos in public. Arguing for having kids in it is the issue. Don't put forward arguments for why kids should be in dildo swinging leather daddy rallies, and people won't have natural concerns about pedophilia.

No, I know how trolls work, It ain't a "conspiracy". It's people who get together and milk lulz for sadism. It's a mentality

Your concern is of an alarmist variety. You have not provided even meaningless polls or any kind of data. You keep referencing leather daddies, dildos and kids like this is common and actually wanted within pride.

Imma be frank with you. Were you violated at a pride rally by a leather daddy with a dildo?

Because you seem to only be concerned with them, and not other pedos.

And this:

"Because it's a short jump from having kids next so someone swinging dildos to someone swinging dildos in the kid."

You're implying that gay men are regularly tempted by children and want to be pedos, for show or otherwise.

That is an inherently bigoted position, and furthers the point that all you have to offer is "gay leather daddies swinging dildos have an uncertain chance to be pedos and want to be, so cancel all kink in public so that the kids are "safe" and the parents still don't have to watch their kids at pride"

 

[Durrendal]

All the more reason to not be offended by pride the way I see it. Pride is about freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of forming your own identity, and everything that comes with that. Kinks, orientation, identity. This is a large portion of what freedom of speech is about. You don't have to like their attire, you don't have to like their orientations, but censoring them because of that, regardless of how many others don't like it either, while it is simply not harming anyone, is impeding on the freedom of others. Isn't that very freedom of expression and individuality a large portion of US culture?

Nobody says they have to be there. Try reading into subjects next time instead of making ridiculous strawman arguments that you further add with some bigoted exaggerations. And maybe try actually educating kids (and probably yourself too) because they can and probably will find more explicit imagery on Instagram or Twitter, instead of just staying terrified of the big scary dildos that some folks would suddenly put in the kids in broad daylight with tons of witnesses around. The simple fact of the matter is, it's your own fears that's bothering you, and that's your issue to deal with.

Adults arguing for inclusion of kids in these situations are hankering for easy access to kids. Whether it be a strip club or pride parade.

Risqué images on social media being accessible to kids is a dereliction of duty by adults. Much more stringent social media control is needed, and I agree. But that cannot be justification for another of the same thing.

You're trying to say that I should educate myself that kids in dildo swinging rallies is fine. Not gonna happen. And yes, these are my fears. Personal fears. Personal fears for my future kids that will be bombarded by people wanting access to them by such means.

 

[Durrendal]

Where are you pulling your numbers from?

And you outright said

"If society largely doesn't want those values to be shared, then it is a duty of that society to check that type of behavior since society as a whole determines what it moral for society as a whole. You may argue against it, but it doesn't mean that it will be accepted by society. If a society does not want a certain behavior to be promoted, then it only makes sense to check that behavior."

This kind of statement gives majority blind rule.

Hence the comparison.

Furthermore you're both-sidesing to try and respect those who want the "others" dead or out of sight, pride or no pride.

You're taking the name of this subsection too literally if you're devil's advocating for the sake of trying to have a literal debate team debate. Or you actually believe this, and are just there to preserve your own sliver of power and avoid accountability for your bloc.

And there's this little gem:

"the majority itself will probably come out on top through sheer numbers."

Pick one:Is the majority always right or inescapably inevitable?

And I'm getting "I don't want people to feel bad" vibes off of you...

But in the context of sex, sexuality, individuality and other rights issues, that tends to spawn a fatalistic need for a false sense of decorum, decency and deference to avoid talking about things...

Are you from the SOUTH of Canada? Because this screams Southeastern US "public civility, politeness & respectability is better than honesty and doing what's right", and "following procedures over morality or else people will feel bad about what they do and have done"-esque mentality.



No, I know how trolls work, It ain't a "conspiracy". It's people who get together and milk lulz for sadism. It's a mentality

Your concern is of an alarmist variety. You have not provided even meaningless polls or any kind of data. You keep referencing leather daddies, dildos and kids like this is common and actually wanted within pride.

Imma be frank with you. Were you violated at a pride rally by a leather daddy with a dildo?

Because you seem to only be concerned with them, and not other pedos.

And this:

"Because it's a short jump from having kids next so someone swinging dildos to someone swinging dildos in the kid."

You're implying that gay men are regularly tempted by children and want to be pedos, for show or otherwise.

That is an inherently bigoted position, and furthers the point that all you have to offer is "gay leather daddies swinging dildos have an uncertain chance to be pedos and want to be, so cancel all kink in public so that the kids are "safe" and the parents still don't have to watch their kids at pride"

I'll be frank, I think your pedantry is a cover for your arguments wanting kids beside dildo swinging leather daddies. Because not realising leather daddy is a pithy aphorism and placeholder is not normal. I saw that being used in this thread and I took it
because it encapsulates what I said.

Yes, I think Pedos wanting east access to kids will join a parade where members are arguing for inclusion of kids. So yes, there is a larger chance of a dildo swinging leather daddy pedo in a rally of dildo swinging leather daddies where people are arguing for easier access to kids.

And make no mistake, I'm not offering you anything else because all you've said is: "haha you're from <that website I don't like> so must be wrong.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

You're trying to say that I should educate myself that kids in dildo swinging rallies is fine. Not gonna happen. And yes, these are my fears. Personal fears. Personal fears for my future kids that will be bombarded by people wanting access to them by such means.

Adults are EVERYWHERE in this world. Yes you should educate yourself because you're talking nonsense. Folks that want to molest kids are not going to do it in public with tons of witnesses around, that's just not how any of this works. If you're seriously so scared of your kids being molested by strangers, don't get kids or get over your fears. Get therapy, get help conquering those fears and learn how truly unfounded they are. Or lock your kids in your basement without contact with adults for the rest of their childhood, because pride is among the least likely places anywhere they'll get molested by strangers because it's literally in public with tons of witnesses. Seriously, you're making a fuss over a bit of leather and some toys, grow up.

 

[Vernikova]

I mean the base goal of the people arguing against Pride is less rights for LGBT people at best, starting with chipping away things a little at a time since it has a greater effect. It’s always been a numbers game, but you get that way by pushing it as an equal rights and free expression thing, as the easiest hole for Anti-LGBT people to fall into is they don’t actually want equal rights, they want an underclass at best.

Part of why LGBT rights got more support and continues to grow in support is because LGBT culture and people get to be more visible, and get to participate in the conversion themselves, not just have rumors told about them by people who want to stop things from improving for them

Perhaps this is a key driving point for some of the more conservative commenters, but we have to take into account the pushback that is apparently coming from the left as well.

All the more reason to not be offended by pride the way I see it. Pride is about freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of forming your own identity, and everything that comes with that. Kinks, orientation, identity. This is a large portion of what freedom of speech is about. You don't have to like their attire, you don't have to like their orientations, but censoring them because of that, regardless of how many others don't like it either, while it is simply not harming anyone, is impeding on the freedom of others. Isn't that very freedom of expression and individuality a large portion of US culture?

Well, freedom of speech is only protection from government regulation and has nothing to do with private individuals, and even in regards to the government it is not absolute. Various states have laws on the books for various forms of obscenity for example. While individuality is a big selling point for American culture, you must still be confirm to some type of system.

Whether it's conservative or liberal ideology, an individual may freely express themselves only within the confines of what their group allows them to, or else they will receive pushback, which is what we see here.

Where are you pulling your numbers from?

For which one? For either claim, it's obvious that most people don't want to see it. If very liberal commentators are pushing back against it, then it's self-evident that conservative America will also not want to see it. You can see this reflected in popular American culture, which is why you have people here still saying homosexuals still aren't given much freedom in public media.

And you outright said

"If society largely doesn't want those values to be shared, then it is a duty of that society to check that type of behavior since society as a whole determines what it moral for society as a whole. You may argue against it, but it doesn't mean that it will be accepted by society. If a society does not want a certain behavior to be promoted, then it only makes sense to check that behavior."

This kind of statement gives majority blind rule.

Hence the comparison.

I didn't say otherwise. More accurately, the statement is an observation of why morality is presently that way that it is under a moral relativist framework. It is a descriptive observation.

And there's this little gem:

"the majority itself will probably come out on top through sheer numbers."

Pick one:Is the majority always right or inescapably inevitable?

In one post I'm speaking from a moral relativist framework, and in the other I'm giving the point of view from a descriptive moral objectivist. I made it very clear in the post that you're quoting: "Furthermore, if we're to argue this subject from a moral objectivist position ..."

But in the context of sex, sexuality, individuality and other rights issues, that tends to spawn a fatalistic need for a false sense of decorum, decency and deference to avoid talking about things...

I'm not sure what exactly this is referring to.

Furthermore you're both-sidesing to try and respect those who want the "others" dead or out of sight, pride or no pride.

You're taking the name of this subsection too literally if you're devil's advocating for the sake of trying to have a literal debate team debate. Or you actually believe this, and are just there to preserve your own sliver of power and avoid accountability for your bloc.

...

And I'm getting "I don't want people to feel bad" vibes off of you...

...

Are you from the SOUTH of Canada? Because this screams Southeastern US "public civility, politeness & respectability is better than honesty and doing what's right", and "following procedures over morality or else people will feel bad about what they do and have done"-esque mentality.

My location is New York City. I was born, raised, and have always lived in New York City, but I take trips to Montreal to visit my in-laws. I went to school for K-12 here and received my B.A. and my post-grad degrees in New York City. My husband is from Montreal, so that's why you may have assumed that I was implying that I am Canadian.

If me being respectful to others here rubs off as "I don't want people to feel bad" then it is what it is. And I won't address the other things because they're leaning towards you're just making assumptions about me at this point.

 

[bobjr]

The problem comes with treating things as a left/right straight line where it’s more self-label than anything else, since people more often than not tend to fit all over the place with their views, which often contradict each other.

If someone says they’re conservative but openly celebrates pride seeing nothing wrong with it, are they really conservative, and if someone says they’re a leftist but is worried about pedophiles getting kids at LGBT rallies, are they really leftist?

You kind of have to take what they say in a direct situation, and match it with their actions in that moment.

Granted with LGBT rights I never got what the moderate stance is with it, considering you’re either for them or not.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Furthermore, (accepting the premise) that there's no wave of children seeing a therapist is a strong argument only if one depends on the argument that it damages children. However, it's not a strong rebuttal against someone who merely claims, on some other grounds, that they don't want their child exposed to some kinks

Okay, but unless you can make the argument that its damaging then you don't have the right to make that demand. Like, some people might have issues on other completely irrelevant, nonsensical grounds? And? ****'em, who cares. Unless you can show its damaging, no one is obligated to cater to you and children aren't your property where you can control every single aspect of what they're exposed to. Or don't bring them to pride, better yet

Honestly, **** off Vernikova. You're arguing in really bad faith. First, you reduced my claim as being anecdotal, it wasn't, the anecdote was merely an example explaining the pervasiveness of adult sexuality. Then you're trying to split hairs and argue about why kink is a very different subset of adult sexuality (okay and?) which somehow requires more shielding from kids because its different. You wrote a wall of text that doesn't amount to more than "Yeah, but some people don't like that" Like yeah no **** that's been established from the OP. Were discussing about whether these people have a valid argument or why their sensibilities should be catered to, for christ's sake.

I'm not responding any further to your posts.

 

[Sceptile Leaf Blade]

Well, freedom of speech is only protection from government regulation and has nothing to do with private individuals, and even in regards to the government it is not absolute. Various states have laws on the books for various forms of obscenity for example. While individuality is a big selling point for American culture, you must still be confirm to some type of system.

Whether it's conservative or liberal ideology, an individual may freely express themselves only within the confines of what their group allows them to, or else they will receive pushback, which is what we see here.

That's taking stuff way out of context. There are probably also rules about public noise limits, yet big festivals, monster truck events, and concerts are also existing. Complaining about obscenity at an event that is largely about sexual freedom is at least to me, akin to complaining about noise at monster truck events or metal concerts, and folks take kids to those all the time.

 

[Vernikova]

The problem comes with treating things as a left/right straight line where it’s more self-label than anything else, since people more often than not tend to fit all over the place with their views, which often contradict each other.

If someone says they’re conservative but openly celebrates pride seeing nothing wrong with it, are they really conservative, and if someone says they’re a leftist but is worried about pedophiles getting kids at LGBT rallies, are they really leftist?

You kind of have to take what they say in a direct situation, and match it with their actions in that moment.

Granted with LGBT rights I never got what the moderate stance is with it, considering you’re either for them or not.

It's certainly more a 2D plane or a 3D space than a linear scale for sure. I'm sure there are LGB people that are against TQIA+ but have largely liberal views otherwise. You can't call that person conservative overall. Maybe conservative in some aspects, but, as you said, more seem to have beliefs that cross across lines.

Were discussing about whether these people have a valid argument or why their sensibilities should be catered to, for christ's sake.

I've already addressed this. You're simply imposing your own moral framework over others and are unable to convince that yours is superior. You don't see the opposing view because you've already convinced yourself that you're correct and the others cannot be, so no other argument will actually convince you. You're claim rests on "it doesn't hurt anyone," but when you're faced with an argument that it doesn't need to harm anyone, you can't defend and resorted back to "it doesn't harm anyone." You've one argument, and the second that someone uses another argument, then you just try to redirect it back your your initial argument.

There was never any possibility of convincing you or getting you to see the other side.

I'm not responding any further to your posts.

You can't hide from those who disagree with you.

That's taking stuff way out of context. There are probably also rules about public noise limits, yet big festivals, monster truck events, and concerts are also existing. Complaining about obscenity at an event that is largely about sexual freedom is at least to me, akin to complaining about noise at monster truck events or metal concerts, and folks take kids to those all the time.

The point of obscenity laws was directly there to address your freedom of speech claim to show that it is not absolute even from the government, which is why it's in the paragraph addressing freedom of speech.

The other paragraph addresses your claim about freedom of expression in a social context.

 

[Zora]

And because I forgot to mention it elsewhere, the whole "girl looking at two men in leather suits" is not something that occurs at Pride. Your expectation for Pride should be closer to, say, this Drag Queen float at SF Pride. (and, honestly, your real expectation for Pride should be corporations that so shamelessly infiltrated the space it's just a real-life ad feed parade with intermittent gay, le sigh).
------
Anyway, I seriously hate cishet folks inserting themselves into these discussion because y'all do not process just how sexualized your world is. So let's talk about some specifics, and my advice to you Vernikova: this ain't your discussion. I'm only responding to set the record straight (err, gay?), not because I'm interested in your opinions; let plainy say that I'm not.

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.

This is terrible framing.

• First, consider examples like this ted talk (link), which is a deep dive into modern advert sex appeal. Pray tell, what is the practical difference between this Calvin Klein ad and a grown man in a leather strip? Why is the latter a "kink" but the former not?
• Second, I'd advise against using TV and movies as examples. I like to remind people this was a movie in the 1920s; it's gayer than modern Disney. The Hay's Code's chilling effects on sex/sexuality in TV/movies are still 100% with us today, and sex/sexuality (especially real-life interactions) elsewhere has evolved differently.
• Thirdly, sex and love are intertangled in so many stories; I do not need to point further than a Bond film. The reason why gay love often stops at a kiss in movies/TV is entirely related to the Hay's Code I just mentioned, not because of a magical dividing line between sex and love that only exists in Disney movies and when Evangelicals need to pretend that they're not a POS (but, evangelicalism, and how it protects sexual abusers, is another discussion).

My point: you're ignoring is the sheer amount of sexualization already inherent to our wold. So much of queer culture is a response to that mainstream sexuality. Yes, you won't see leather daddies in TV, but you're see bikinis, "bond" sex scenes, etc.

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.

Yes, minors are massively ill-informed about sex. That's due to a lack of comprehensive sex education and open dialogue in a world where people are bombarded with cishet sexual images daily but rarely acknowledged because sex is seen as "taboo" but we all "want it." The solution to poor sex education isn't to obfuscate sexual imagery, but more on that below.

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.

This sentiment--that we should filter sexual imagery for children lest it affects them in real-life--is literally violent video game debate all over again, except applied to sex; this line of thought is toxic because no one with power evaluates what sexual content is harmful or not, they just jettison all of it--see Apple, eBay, Tumblr, etc. The correct approach to evaluating harm of sexual content is always start with real people, real harms, and work backwards from there. Kilbourne's talk, which I linked to earlier, is able to identify real effects such as violence against women or women's mental health issues (esp around body issues) that she connected to the advertisements she discussed. Interact with real queer folks, you know exposure to kinks often does? Most of the time, nothing, but the second most common scenario is such exposure helps them realize who they are and let them lead healthier more fulfilling lives--literally the opposite of harmful.

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.

Pride didn't start as a family-friendly event. And, again, I need to ask how is anything at Pride worse than what kids see in Calvin Klein ad or what people see on Fremont Street in Las Vegas or a bikini on a beach et cetera?

The reasoning is that most don't want to see that behavior promoted in larger society. Most people also don't see the ability to express sexual kinks in public as equivalent....banning homosexuality,

This is BS. Hungary just did a Russia and passed a sweeping anti-LGBTQ bill this morning. The law was passed as a "protecting the children" (emphasis added):

BUDAPEST — Lawmakers in Hungary passed legislation Tuesday that prohibits sharing with minors any content that portrays being gay or transgender, something supporters said would help fight pedophilia but which human rights groups denounced as anti-LGBT discrimination.

I posted this thread here yesterday, but it deserves repeating again, for a more American context:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1397127991478603778

I'm telling you, there is a very real pipeline of "this is too sexy/kinky-->what if the kid's see this (nevermind they see same/worst elsewhere)-->ban from kids-->ban from everywhere incase there are kids."

I'm just going by the example given the OP. Other things such as personal displays of affection aren't a part of my argument though they can fit in under similar reasoning. In this case, though, they're not included since people at these pride festivals are, for the most part, I assume, okay with them.

PDA is part of your argument, you just don't realize it. People will draw the line of "too kinky/too sexual" differently, but far too many people absolutely include gay PDA as "too much," and that can harm real LGBTQIA+ people.

Perhaps this is a key driving point for some of the more conservative commenters, but we have to take into account the pushback that is apparently coming from the left as well.

If very liberal commentators are pushing back against it, then it's self-evident that conservative America will also not want to see it.

my god, you're really onto this liberals thing. I'm telling you this right now: most people on the left are not equipped for holistic discussion on LGBTQIA+ issues, which admittedly, is better than the right where no one is. Liberals truly think "obergefell means the gays won!" while 2021 has a record amount of anti-trans laws in both US and UK and Hungary just did a Russia. The Biden DOJ is perfectly content with discrimination against LGBTQIA+ folks in school.

Various states have laws on the books for various forms of obscenity for example.

"Let's use the laws that started the Stonewall riots" isn't the woke take you think it is.

If me being respectful to others here rubs off as "I don't want people to feel bad" then it is what it is. And I won't address the other things because they're leaning towards you're just making assumptions about me at this point.

"Respectful" isn't the word I'd use. A lot of people are having cleanup and respond the BS you're spewing. Honestly, your post just has big Karen energy ngl; you think you have something insightful to say, but you don't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Baba Yaga]

You're claim rests on "it doesn't hurt anyone," but when you're faced with an argument that it doesn't need to harm anyone, you can't defend and resorted back to "it doesn't harm anyone." You've one argument, and the second that someone uses another argument, then you just try to redirect it back your your initial argument.

For a debate bro **** lord you really don't seem to understand how burden of proof works. You didn't provide anything of substance to argue that there are other reasons that should be considered. You simply said "Yeah, but people could have other reasons." Okay, what are they? Why are they relevant? And why should they be considered? And then you went on some spiel about how society deems what's moral, in which case, we'd still be living under segregation and worse if you're operating under that framework.

Yeah dude, I do have one argument: it's the only one necessary and is the principle for which all liberal, tolerant societies must be predicated on.

Don't use big words and fancy philosophy 101 terms like "descriptive claims" if you're this much of an amateurish joke in an actual discussion.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

It's certainly more a 2D plane or a 3D space than a linear scale for sure. I'm sure there are LGB people that are against TQIA+ but have largely liberal views otherwise. You can't call that person conservative overall. Maybe conservative in some aspects, but, as you said, more seem to have beliefs that cross across lines.


I've already addressed this. You're simply imposing your own moral framework over others and are unable to convince that yours is superior. You don't see the opposing view because you've already convinced yourself that you're correct and the others cannot be, so no other argument will actually convince you. You're claim rests on "it doesn't hurt anyone," but when you're faced with an argument that it doesn't need to harm anyone, you can't defend and resorted back to "it doesn't harm anyone." You've one argument, and the second that someone uses another argument, then you just try to redirect it back your your initial argument.

There was never any possibility of convincing you or getting you to see the other side.


You can't hide from those who disagree with you.


The point of obscenity laws was directly there to address your freedom of speech claim to show that it is not absolute even from the government, which is why it's in the paragraph addressing freedom of speech.

The other paragraph addresses your claim about freedom of expression in a social context.

If there was never a possibility of convincing them or anyone else, then why do it?

For shits and giggles?

Because you're taking area of the site this too literally?

Because you're desperate to justify "the otherers" because you feel that they should be even listened to?

Because you want kink gone?

Because majorities are verbatim right all the time?

Because you're desperate to prove you're not THAT kind of New Yorker?

And best of all...

""No impose morality"

This is just "no makey me like the gays" in a different coat of paint.