• StaySquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    3 days ago

    Should I provide youtube videos of what LGBTQ+ says about children? Or will I risk getting my comment deleted and banned for using their own words to prove a point?

    Asking for Lemmy.

    • Wandering_Uncertainty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You think that the statement “what LGBTQ+ says about x” is a comment that is possible to make sense?

      “LGBTQ+” is not an organization. It’s not a religion or a creed. It doesn’t “say” anything - and, in fact, isn’t even an “it” in the context you’re using!

      It’s a term for a group of people that have nothing to do with each other, other than some shared traits. In your comment, replace “LGBTQ+” with another word for a group of unrelated humans. “Blondes,” maybe, or “women,” “men,” “dark skinned folk,” “humans,” etc. You can’t put something like “Americans” or “Christians” in that sentence, because those are too specific.

      Can you see the problem now?

      Is it fair to post a video of some random dude saying something stupid, and then say, “I have proof that men believe X”?

      No, because “men” don’t share a creed.

      LGBTQ folk also don’t share a creed. We’re just people.

      And I absolutely believe you’d hear some folks joking around about “coming for their children.” A friend of mine jokes about the gay agenda all the time. Her gay agenda is “going to the grocery store to get milk.” But someone could get a clip of her saying that she’s got a gay agenda, easily.

      And thing is, even if that video happened to be about some folks who weren’t joking - it doesn’t mean anything! Just because someone found some random assholes at pride doesn’t mean that everyone who’s LGBTQ+ has an agenda.

      I’m probably wasting my time, I know, but I figured I’d put it out there just in case you are honestly misunderstanding the situation. Here’s hoping.

      • TheBraveSirRobbin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m probably wasting my time

        I’m going to go ahead and say yeah. I don’t think there’s any getting through to that dunce

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        And I absolutely believe you’d hear some folks joking around about “coming for their children.”

        I strongly suspect if he ever responded with a source it would involve a carefully trimmed clip from that SF gay men’s chorus piece that caused a stir a while back, found a link for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArOQF4kadHA

        An entire piece built around the lines “we’ll convert your children” and “we’re coming for your children” that’s pretty prone to having unfortunate clips cut from it to scare right wingers.

        “LGBTQ+” is not an organization. It’s not a religion or a creed. It doesn’t “say” anything - and, in fact, isn’t even an “it” in the context you’re using!

        It’s a term for a group of people that have nothing to do with each other, other than some shared traits. In your comment, replace “LGBTQ+” with another word for a group of unrelated humans. “Blondes,” maybe, or “women,” “men,” “dark skinned folk,” “humans,” etc. You can’t put something like “Americans” or “Christians” in that sentence, because those are too specific.

        Can you see the problem now?

        Except in that case you can’t exclude anyone from “the LGBTQ+ community” provided they are not straight or not cis. See people talking about Milo Yian-etc back in 2014-2020, or people’s reaction to radqueer shit.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        And remember, it only takes one passing “gay agenda” joke to paint every noncis/nothet person on the planet as a p@do, but somebody CAN’T be a Nazi unless they handwrite mein kampf in triplicate with an addendum about how handsome Hitler is then get it notarized in Germany.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        3 days ago

        To be clear, it is not a person claiming that this is the agenda. Rather it is members of the LGBTQ+ community, in their own words, making the statement. One video is a song by a group of gay men, the other is a chant by a group of men and women. Directly from their mouths, no way to take it out of context.

        These were two videos shown in multiple Mosques around the SE Michigan region, this is how I learned about it.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      Other then LGBTQ+ not being a monolith? You can find any crazy opinion online. Difference is, one group is large enough to push to have the ten commandants hung in public school classrooms and the other is a fringe of a minority.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      what LGBTQ+ says about children

      Is this where you link to a string of grainy deep fried anonymous Twitter/Reddit ForwardsFromGrandma posts about a D-List celebrity from the 1970s singing “I’m going to fuck the straight out of you” in a thrash metal music video?

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        3 days ago

        No… lmao wat. One was a group of men singing about grooming our children. The other is during a pride parade, where the group walking through I believe is a park is chanting about how they’re coming for our children.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s suitably vague, poorly sourced, and sinister sounding to make me clutch my pearls in panic.

          Have you considered submitting your lived experience to the Daily Wire or perhaps your local conservative state legislator?

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            So will the mod allow me to post the videos or will I be called a nazi-fascist-cis-white-male-racist-bigot and have my comment deleted and banned?

            Lemme know <3

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          LGBT+ people are people. That means they run the full gamut that you see in people who aren’t LGBT+. The difference is in sexuality and/or gender. Gay people like men, bi people like both, lesbians like women, trans people have a gender and biological sex that don’t line up. Other than that, they value and dislike similar things to everyone else.

          They feel similarly about children as anyone else. That’s not to say that every one of them feels the exact same way about it, but that a similar portion of them are protective, nurturing, neutral, avoidant, or predatory towards children as is the general public.

          They also use humour to ridicule the absurd, which would apply to the idea that LGBT+ people have a collective agenda when it comes to kids (or anything that isn’t reducing dangers to and increasing acceptance of people who are like them or otherwise marginalized for their sexuality or gender, though even that doesn’t apply universally).

          You’re getting a negative response to your comments because the conclusion you draw from them doesn’t make logical sense. The most that they could show is that the group of individuals shown in the video has intents like that. My first guess, based on your description, is that they are trolling people who believe in the gay agenda. Second guess would be it’s actually people who hate gays pretending to be them to say this and get more people to hate them. Third guess would be that some LGBT+ pedophiles were emboldened by their own mistaken ideas of what pride is and thought they could be open about something that should get some eyes on them.

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            3 days ago

            I don’t think it would be very advisable to troll people about something like coming after children, converting children, your children don’t belong to you, etc… couple that with the school libraries having homosexual erotica literature for children, not even high school aged children, teachers in classrooms teaching kids things that have absolutely nothing to do with actual education, and weirdly enough, hiring drag queens into classrooms to… educate them? Drag queens performing for children?

            If this is supposed to be satire or trolling, this is provocation for literal violence. That’s a very stupid move to play, imo.

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              IMO you should post the videos. The context might make which case it is clearer, or at least rule out or confirm the “they are making fun of people who believe this” possibility.

              The whole thing is just too absurd to do anything other than not take it seriously. Like I’m skeptical of pretty much everything you said there other than the drag queen part (though are schools hiring them or are some volunteering to do a reading thing for kids?).

              Do you have any examples of that homosexual erotica in school libraries? That statement about teachers teaching kids things that have nothing to do with actual education is very broad and vague, but some examples would also be helpful, along with being more specific since that statement would include random trivia a teacher might mention for fun and parts of the curriculum that have debatable usefulness (like cursive writing), which I don’t think you’re talking about.

              And drag queens are just men in dresses or other women’s clothing. The purpose of their reading thing is for them to provide a good service for children to specifically show that they aren’t evil delinquents who will predate children at any opportunity.

              I wish it was that easy to protect children from predators, just picking some bad groups of others and putting a fence between them and our children. But just like a man wearing a dress or being interested in other males doesn’t imply they will be interested in children, a man not wearing a dress or being interested in other males doesn’t imply that they aren’t interested in children.

              The reality is that we need to pay attention and communicate with our kids, and most importantly educate them about sexual stuff so that they can know to tell us if something does happen to them. Don’t you see that keeping them ignorant about all this stuff means that it leaves room for a groomer or molester to “educate” them? That treating homosexuality the same as actual sexual crimes when it’s not a choice could mean some gay people will decide it’s no big deal to predate children since they are already “doing evil” just by being gay?

                • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  That first one is trolling. And you might be right about it not being smart to goad on those who fear them as an existential threat, but sometimes people just get to the point where they don’t care about the consequences and just want to give some of the negative feelings they’ve felt back to some of those who gave them to them.

                  For the second one, did you listen to the song after the “we’re going to convert your kids” bit? Because they aren’t talking about converting anyone gay but converting them to not be hateful about shit that isn’t worth being hateful about.

                  On that note, I don’t understand how any straight person can even believe that converting people gay is a thing. There’s nothing anyone could say or do that would make men sexually interesting to me. There is no temptation I have to fight, even though I think it’s ok to be gay and that it would double my pool of potential sexual partners.

                  For the third one, I do struggle with listening to choirs, but the parts that I did catch sounded more like “your children aren’t your property whose thoughts and feelings you should control if they don’t line up with yours” than a “those aren’t your kids, they are ours”. The “through you, not from you” bit did sound more religious (personally, I’d go for more of a “from you but once separated, they are separate”). But I only listened to half of it and was distracted by the comments for part of that so maybe someone else can comment more on that last one.

                  I hope you aren’t banned for any of this conversation. For what it’s worth, you do seem more genuine about this than most who come to places that are as hostile to your beliefs as this place is. And I don’t think just censoring the other side does anything but polarize anyone’s positions.

                • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  When you talk to people, or watch movies, do you have a difficult time understanding what they’re talking about ?

            • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              When I was in high school we had this whole chant about babies and trash compactors and other edgy shit we thought was the funniest thing. Crazily enough… none of us ever harmed a kid and if anyone would have actually put a baby in harms way where we could see we would have been traumatized.

              Ease off the pearls there. A lot of Queer folks make fun of the rhetoric that Conservatives sling around about being bogeymen after kids , particularly during Pride. A rowdy bunch of party people probably high as kites being dumb and edgy isn’t news in most places. Treating the matter as though every single one of us has to be paragons of proper behaviour without exception every moment isn’t exactly a bar any group of people is going to meet. Moreover why should everyone have to be subject to group punishment for an individual’s transgression? If a boss punished everyone at your workplace because one person came in late how would you react?

              A lot of the sentiments inside the community are that it doesn’t matter how often we treat everything seriously, speak eloquently or point to actual studies and literature about how we’re just people who are underserved by beaurcratic structures, children are not harmed by association and we are not monsters… All it takes is a couple of people being silly once and suddenly every nasty bigoted fear is confirmed beyond shadow of a doubt… So why bother? It’s an impossible standard.