I chose pedophilia because in today's society it's deemed abhorrent, no different than what many believed (ridiculously) back in the day abhorrent with homosexuality. Man, i get the sensitivity but the whole point was finding something that most of society today would deem abhorrent.
Your example doesn't work because homosexuality = pedophilia isn't an idea that has been mainly relegated to the history books. It is still actively being promoted today in religious and conservative circles. The idea that drag queens are grooming children is just another example that is being used today.
Your example doesn't work because homosexuality = pedophilia isn't an idea that has been mainly relegated to the history books. It is still actively being promoted today in religious and conservative circles. The idea that drag queens are grooming children is just another example that is being used today.
Your example doesn't work because homosexuality = pedophilia isn't an idea that has been mainly relegated to the history books. It is still actively being promoted today in religious and conservative circles. The idea that drag queens are grooming children is just another example that is being used today.
I understand that. I have clarified my reason for using it in my argument, acknowledging that wasn't my intent after being told repeatedly what my intent actually was. I wasn't trying to link it as equivalents, I understand why people jumped to that conclusion. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe me, but wanted to make sure to clarify from my viewpoint.
You say my views run counter, but from my position my views are just more nuanced than yours.
What you call nuance manifests itself as naivety and double-speak. Your views aren't nuanced, and saying they are nuanced does not address the fact that you consistently land on defending the people who set out to hurt or diminish the people (usually, your children) you use as shields from criticism of your own viewpoints. If you truly believe your views are nuanced and what you mean is that people don't understand your views because you are not able to communicate them correctly, that is not everyone else's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
I very much believe that the internet has put nuance on life support. When there is a rage mob ready to strip a young man of his dreams (or worse) for something he did as a child and there is a voice advocating penance, internet culture treats that as opposition. Or if a voice is not in lockstep with popular opinion, they are cast into the pile of deplorables. The internet is in a hurry to have a problem and mobs are easily formed, they also change direction on a dime and frequently eat their own. None of this, in my view, is good or should be encouraged. I am clearly in the minority here, if this thread is any sample.
Then you're not actually ever analyzing an issue, you're just responding to the reaction regardless of what the issue is. "The internet" hasn't done anything to Reimer, and in the terms you're using, you are using CP as a proxy for "the internet" as a whole, which renders you unable to have honest, nuanced conversations about issues with real people. If you view everyone as a rage mob every time, you do yourself no favors and add nothing for anyone else.
You think people on a Calgary message board (a rage mob, as you call it) criticizing a hockey player for harmful religious beliefs is a bigger issue than the actual beliefs that player holds, even when those beliefs are also consistently held by people with significantly more power than a message board holds. Doesn't that seem strange to you?
Give me an honest answer without dodging the question and waxing poetic about "the internet" or whatever, stay on topic. Which do you think is a greater threat to a trans child: beliefs that the way they are is an inherently wrong choice they've made, or beliefs that ideas (religious or otherwise) should be available for criticism? If you could choose between giving someone power who thought one of the two things, who would you give it to?
Pretending we're doing anything here but criticizing a belief that does harm to people is being dishonest. You can't talk about how nuanced you are or respectful or whatever if you can't even manage to be honest in what the starting point of the conversation is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
You're allowed to criticize him all you want. And I'm allowed to criticize the rage culture that is wholly unhelpful to the "inclusive" mission.
Of course you are. Have you considered that you might not really know or be able to show what "rage culture" is? Because you seem to be lumping a pretty large pool of opinions and viewpoints into it, and your criticism has extended far beyond those who have shown any signs of "rage."
I also don't know why you need to go back to the idea of inclusivity being unlimited as someone who is apparently close to people who are going to struggle with the negative impacts of a culture that is not fully inclusive of who they are. Being inclusive of views or beliefs that are, by nature, not inclusive, is not inclusive. That's a good example of nuance and why it's hard to buy you having "nuanced" beliefs when you can't or don't want to recognize the nuance that inclusivity requires.
Which do you think is less helpful to the "inclusive mission": the idea that someone's biology is inherently wrong, a sinful choice, or makes them lesser... or the idea that those beliefs should be met with strong criticism? I doubt you'll answer this question straight either, but food for thought then I guess.
It's quite ironic that you look back at every positive change and attribute it to only progressives pushing for that change. Look at the very civil rights movement which was voted by a larger majority of conservatives. You do know that the term "progressive" has been interchanged between political parties over the course of history.
I am not talking political parties, I am talking ideology. A progressive is a person who believes you can advance and change society as new ideas and scientific become available. A conservative prefers to maintain status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by etdpratt
There is also an argument that progressive movements have deteriorated areas of society. Not all the "progressive movements" have led to healthier society. Moving away from traditional values of having children within confines of marriage, has led to increasing levels of single-parent homes. Look at every statistic in terms of crime, depression, etc... among those that come from single-family homes compared to two-parent homes.
The break down of the nuclear family is not a progressive movement. It is the result of a multitude of factors but we can discuss it. What do you think has a bigger impact on the breakdown of the nuclear family. Is it the progressive agenda of access to birth control and choice or the conservative agenda of tough on crime and reduction in social safety nets and welfare. Poverty has a much higher correlation to negative outcomes than sticking to 'traditional values". Here is the kicker, what do progressives want? More social programs to support the impoverished and who mainly campaigns against those, conservatives.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
I'm sure somebody has posted this already but I'm doing it again anyways.
Love this, and somehow I always forget about pigskin!
Anyone who uses Leviticus to form their view of homosexuals and homosexuality is at best a total idiot, and at worst an amoral ####bag who deserves the 7th circle of Dante's Hell.
The Following User Says Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
Hate to say this but why do LGBQT+ and whatever letters you attached to these have more special rights than anyone else why why anyone who are not part of these letters need to support these groups of people who are living a lifestyle that is not really the norm? Social and news media pretty much made these lifestyle the norm and if you're not politically correct or found out to quietly not support but found out you're not supporting that ideology, then, you'll be chastised and shamed. WTF's gone wrong with this world and why does the LGBQT+ need to have special rights? I understand that they can be and are probably mistreated in the past but so are other minority groups. I see an issue if someone is being discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, or the color of their skin but LGBQT+ is more of a sexual lifestyle. Currently, it's social media pressure to do a role reversal and to get mass shaming on people who don't agree. It's really a shame that people require social media to shame one another. What letters are we gonna add to it next - P? Anyone's social lifestyle should be a private matter. I don't really care if you're a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or whatever sexual fantasies you have, this is a lifestyle you're comfortable with and it should be between you and the other person. No one else needs to know. And of course, children shouldn't be exposed to any sexual ideologies until they're mature enough to handle this.
Hate to say this but why do LGBQT+ and whatever letters you attached to these have more special rights than anyone else why why anyone who are not part of these letters need to support these groups of people who are living a lifestyle that is not really the norm? Social and news media pretty much made these lifestyle the norm and if you're not politically correct or found out to quietly not support but found out you're not supporting that ideology, then, you'll be chastised and shamed. WTF's gone wrong with this world and why does the LGBQT+ need to have special rights? I understand that they can be and are probably mistreated in the past but so are other minority groups. I see an issue if someone is being discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, or the color of their skin but LGBQT+ is more of a sexual lifestyle. Currently, it's social media pressure to do a role reversal and to get mass shaming on people who don't agree. It's really a shame that people require social media to shame one another. What letters are we gonna add to it next - P? Anyone's social lifestyle should be a private matter. I don't really care if you're a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or whatever sexual fantasies you have, this is a lifestyle you're comfortable with and it should be between you and the other person. No one else needs to know. And of course, children shouldn't be exposed to any sexual ideologies until they're mature enough to handle this.
It’s not an ideology, it’s not a lifestyle, and nobody is asking for special rights, just to be treated like everyone else and have the same opportunities and experiences as everyone else.
Hope that helps.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
What you call nuance manifests itself as naivety and double-speak.
Nuance is the antithesis of naivety. If only the world were so unsubtle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Your views aren't nuanced, and saying they are nuanced does not address the fact that you consistently land on defending the people who set out to hurt or diminish the people (usually, your children) you use as shields from criticism of your own viewpoints.
I have never used my children in this way. You are clearly too lost here to see a father attempting to relate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
If you truly believe your views are nuanced and what you mean is that people don't understand your views because you are not able to communicate them correctly, that is not everyone else's fault.
Disagree. If you leave no room for subtlety, it is your fault when you can't see any shade other than black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Then you're not actually ever analyzing an issue, you're just responding to the reaction regardless of what the issue is. "The internet" hasn't done anything to Reimer, and in the terms you're using, you are using CP as a proxy for "the internet" as a whole, which renders you unable to have honest, nuanced conversations about issues with real people. If you view everyone as a rage mob every time, you do yourself no favors and add nothing for anyone else.
You're saying there are no honest, nuanced and real people on CP? That's pretty insulting. Couldn't disagree more. I don't count you among them, but I think that has been made clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
You think people on a Calgary message board (a rage mob, as you call it) criticizing a hockey player for harmful religious beliefs is a bigger issue than the actual beliefs that player holds, even when those beliefs are also consistently held by people with significantly more power than a message board holds. Doesn't that seem strange to you?
I've seen some pretty powerful people toppled for their unpopular views. I know we want to pretend the power dynamic is clearly defined, but I am not so sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Give me an honest answer without dodging the question and waxing poetic about "the internet" or whatever, stay on topic. Which do you think is a greater threat to a trans child: beliefs that the way they are is an inherently wrong choice they've made, or beliefs that ideas (religious or otherwise) should be available for criticism? If you could choose between giving someone power who thought one of the two things, who would you give it to?
I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice, so any belief to the contrary is quaint. But you want me to choose and I am telling you these are not mutually exclusive positions. And if it hasn't been made clear, I am not comfortable with giving anyone such powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Pretending we're doing anything here but criticizing a belief that does harm to people is being dishonest. You can't talk about how nuanced you are or respectful or whatever if you can't even manage to be honest in what the starting point of the conversation is.
Countless beliefs can potentially do harm. We can't banish them all. Our starting point is the entirety of human condition. You only seem to know how to apply broad brushes when what we really need is a thicker more robust canvas. A middling goaltender refusing to wear a jersey shouldn't be a crisis of culture resulting in deep wounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I also don't know why you need to go back to the idea of inclusivity being unlimited as someone who is apparently close to people who are going to struggle with the negative impacts of a culture that is not fully inclusive of who they are. Being inclusive of views or beliefs that are, by nature, not inclusive, is not inclusive. That's a good example of nuance and why it's hard to buy you having "nuanced" beliefs when you can't or don't want to recognize the nuance that inclusivity requires.
Ok, so what we really mean is we're only inclusive of those who agree with us. Sounds pretty exclusive to me. And we only seem to be concerned with negative impacts to some groups and not so much others. But that is because the groups we don't care about are not inclusive enough for our liking. Seems pretty circular. Am I being too subtle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Which do you think is less helpful to the "inclusive mission": the idea that someone's biology is inherently wrong, a sinful choice, or makes them lesser... or the idea that those beliefs should be met with strong criticism? I doubt you'll answer this question straight either, but food for thought then I guess.
I've already established that I think criticism is fine, even strong criticism. You've somehow conflated that with what I don't think to be helpful to the mission. Par for the course, I guess. But whether it is helpful or not, it should be allowed. Bad ideas should be allowed because that is how good ideas are tested. You want me to choose, black or white. And I'm trying to show you the spectrum of light. But this may not be straightforward enough for you.
The Following User Says Thank You to cannon7 For This Useful Post:
Hate to say this but why do LGBQT+ and whatever letters you attached to these have more special rights than anyone else why why anyone who are not part of these letters need to support these groups of people who are living a lifestyle that is not really the norm? Social and news media pretty much made these lifestyle the norm and if you're not politically correct or found out to quietly not support but found out you're not supporting that ideology, then, you'll be chastised and shamed. WTF's gone wrong with this world and why does the LGBQT+ need to have special rights? I understand that they can be and are probably mistreated in the past but so are other minority groups. I see an issue if someone is being discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, or the color of their skin but LGBQT+ is more of a sexual lifestyle. Currently, it's social media pressure to do a role reversal and to get mass shaming on people who don't agree. It's really a shame that people require social media to shame one another. What letters are we gonna add to it next - P? Anyone's social lifestyle should be a private matter. I don't really care if you're a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or whatever sexual fantasies you have, this is a lifestyle you're comfortable with and it should be between you and the other person. No one else needs to know. And of course, children shouldn't be exposed to any sexual ideologies until they're mature enough to handle this.
I'm going to assume you haven't read every post in this thread, so I'm going to cover some territory that already been discussed to answer your question.
It's not about 'special rights' of a marginalized group over the majority. If anyone feels threated by the making of space (as a result of decades of activism by the marginalized) because it's challenge to the status quo in which they benefit from, then equality never actually existed. Not to mention about a lifetime ago it was illegal to be gay. You even say that Queer folks who identify as Queer aren't 'normal' which therefore sets them apart and leads to further marginalization. Being Queer isn't a lifestyle. Like Race it's something you're born with and in some cases, it takes years to work out for yourself as a result of all the oppression around you.
I encourage you to go a few pages back as myself and other posters have unpacked some of the harmful assumptions in your post.
And furthermore Sex is a part of human life. Say thing it's something that's dirty or should be shunned also does incredible harm. No matter orientation someone has. Purity Culture hurts everyone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Hate to say this but why do LGBQT+ and whatever letters you attached to these have more special rights than anyone else why why anyone who are not part of these letters need to support these groups of people who are living a lifestyle that is not really the norm? Social and news media pretty much made these lifestyle the norm and if you're not politically correct or found out to quietly not support but found out you're not supporting that ideology, then, you'll be chastised and shamed. WTF's gone wrong with this world and why does the LGBQT+ need to have special rights? I understand that they can be and are probably mistreated in the past but so are other minority groups. I see an issue if someone is being discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, or the color of their skin but LGBQT+ is more of a sexual lifestyle. Currently, it's social media pressure to do a role reversal and to get mass shaming on people who don't agree. It's really a shame that people require social media to shame one another. What letters are we gonna add to it next - P? Anyone's social lifestyle should be a private matter. I don't really care if you're a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or whatever sexual fantasies you have, this is a lifestyle you're comfortable with and it should be between you and the other person. No one else needs to know. And of course, children shouldn't be exposed to any sexual ideologies until they're mature enough to handle this.
This is an important post because I think it embodies a large portion of people who don't wish any negativity on the LGBTQ+ or other marginalized communities, but who see inclusion events as providing some sort of special right for certain groups. Or maybe they don't see why these events are important and what message boycotting them sends.
The way it was explained to me, which really made sense, is that we don't see our own privilege, and that isn't because we are bad people, it's because frequently our privilege comes from the absence of barriers faced by others...if you don't experience a barrier how do you know it exists?
This could be as simple as going out and not being stared at. If you're thinking this way, the other 40 home games (and most societal interactions) are really the "inclusion event" for CIS white people.
Having one night dedicated to LGBTQ+ or other communities to let them know they are welcome to come as they are is not special treatment. It's what white CIS people like myself experience every day.
Last edited by Infinit47; 03-20-2023 at 03:59 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Infinit47 For This Useful Post:
This is an important post because I think it embodies a large portion of people who don't wish any negativity on the LGBTQ+ or other marginalized communities, but who see inclusion events as providing some sort of special right for certain groups.
I agree with 99% of your post but the “granting special rights” argument has been used for as long as I can remember as a way to deny equal rights. It may be an argument made out of ignorance rather than outright malice but it is still extremely harmful and negative towards queer people.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ben voyonsdonc For This Useful Post:
I agree with 99% of your post but the “granting special rights” argument has been used for as long as I can remember as a way to deny equal rights. It may be an argument made out of ignorance rather than outright malice but it is still extremely harmful and negative towards queer people.
Good point. Ignorance or malice, the end result is still the same and is very damaging. I'm likely trying to be an optimist and hope it's ignorance, as that has a better chance of changing compared to malice.
...
And furthermore Sex is a part of human life. Say thing it's something that's dirty or should be shunned also does incredible harm. No matter orientation someone has. Purity Culture hurts everyone.
Yeah, but I never once mentioned anything about sexual orientation of anyone. All the letters themselves refer to a sexual lifestyle and should be private between the people in association. Just like if I have sex with whoever, it's a private matter - no one needs to know. I can brag about having sex or whatever. I'm sure some of my friends would love to know but not everyone would enjoy that conversation.
Having the sexual orientation of Q can be a mental thing or it can be hormonal but at the same time, it should be a private matter. However, this LGBQT+ thing seems like it's taken precedence and overshadowing other social issues such as race, ethnicity, gender rights, etc. It seems that the LGBQT+ are demanding equal rights (and more) when they are just as equal as anyone else in the westernized world. Yeah, it's crap when religious right wingers put special laws to force these groups of people into the closet or if a bunch of idiots go out on a rampage to bash someone that's not part of the "norm". However, we all can hide behind social media and cry fowl with a voice. But, is right to shame those not in support even if they keep to themselves, even if the person(s) decide for themselves that they're not going to affiliate with certain groups? For example, when pink is not my color but an organization forces me to wear a shirt that is pink and I don't feel good about it - doesn't that violate my rights to not wear pink? We can all jump onto the social media bandwagon just to have a voice, but then at the end of the day behind the scenes, we can all just relax and be ourselves again.
The Following User Says Thank You to CSharp For This Useful Post:
Being Queer or Gay or a Lesbian or a Bi or Pan or anything relating to the so called alphabet mafia so so much than who you want to ####. I’m so glad we have so many experts in queer culture here who aren’t (assumed) queer
Also you’re not living in the real world. People want very very real harm to trans folks (nothing to do with who you ####) just for being themselves
Also you did mention orientation by the “sexual lifestyles”
Comment
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
