Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?
- Thread starter whitecoast
- Start date
PerfectCircle
Jedi Master
Re: Hmm. Intersting article we have here, I'm gonna rip through it a bit.
Really strange..
If one cannot see that the LGBT thing is lobbied and used as a tool, then he is unable to see most of the other things/tricks, imo.
Really strange..
If one cannot see that the LGBT thing is lobbied and used as a tool, then he is unable to see most of the other things/tricks, imo.
Re: Hmm. Intersting article we have here, I'm gonna rip through it a bit.
So, Sott has an educated opinion on the subject of this article,Perri comes along with his/her argument criticizing said article, doesn't hang around to discuss his/argument and leaves. Therefore, one can only conclude that Perri's argument will not hold up under scrutiny.
Come on back Perri, let's get a reasoned debate going on this subject. In all probability, you're depriving yourself of a learning opportunity.
Unless you're worried about sacrificing some sacred cows.
So, Sott has an educated opinion on the subject of this article,Perri comes along with his/her argument criticizing said article, doesn't hang around to discuss his/argument and leaves. Therefore, one can only conclude that Perri's argument will not hold up under scrutiny.
Come on back Perri, let's get a reasoned debate going on this subject. In all probability, you're depriving yourself of a learning opportunity.
Unless you're worried about sacrificing some sacred cows.
Re: Hmm. Intersting article we have here, I'm gonna rip through it a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZ3MAH0RGU
Jesus, what got into him? So emotional. Just goes to show ya, that social engineering is working just fine on the ignorant.
I'll see myself out, it seems I've stumbled into the
ps. Delete my account or not, I don't know what is protocol for this site so the admins can do as they see fit. Good luck with your endeavors everyone, I have talked to some pretty incredible and kind hearted people on this site and am very glad I had the opportunity to meet them. This just isn't for me, it seems like more propaganda for the fire. Almost feels too close to neo-liberalism if i'm being honest, and honestly i'm more into a anarcho communist type setup so this isn't my scene. peace out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZ3MAH0RGU
Jesus, what got into him? So emotional. Just goes to show ya, that social engineering is working just fine on the ignorant.
I don't think this rant is about the accuracy of the article, otherwise, he would stick around and explain the inaccuracies. Instead, he rants about the flaws he sees in it and then storms off, saying he'll never come back. His actions don't really reflect his talk.
I don't think all his arguments are sound, but maybe he has some good points? I would have liked to discuss it. But I am beginning to see a pattern of "gay rights" defenders getting over-emotional and either not understanding the argument or preventing any discussion in the first place.
I don't think all his arguments are sound, but maybe he has some good points? I would have liked to discuss it. But I am beginning to see a pattern of "gay rights" defenders getting over-emotional and either not understanding the argument or preventing any discussion in the first place.
Phill4
The Living Force
For now i'd only comment on a basic point,
I think of feminism in a male as natural copying of female behavior because of affinity, and flaboyanism as an artificial set of personality traits and instruction from society.
The whole pride thing is part of this artificial indoctrination.
It certainly bothered him, probably at a personal level, and he seems firmly set in his beliefs and comments that he left.
It goes to point out how we must watch this identification we feel towards artifical ideas from society, programs and all sorts of indoctrination is so inportant..
I think of feminism in a male as natural copying of female behavior because of affinity, and flaboyanism as an artificial set of personality traits and instruction from society.
The whole pride thing is part of this artificial indoctrination.
It certainly bothered him, probably at a personal level, and he seems firmly set in his beliefs and comments that he left.
It goes to point out how we must watch this identification we feel towards artifical ideas from society, programs and all sorts of indoctrination is so inportant..
Hi Perri,
Sorry to hear that you feel that way. If you brought those points up earlier we could have discussed it. But it seems that you have made up your mind?
There are toxic elements within the LGBT movement. Just like there toxic elements within many movements.
Be it in religion, science etc
Speaking out against those corrupt elements within doesn't mean that we are anti religion, anti science etc.
It's the same with the LGBT movement.
The toxic element here includes that it's far more than just merely promoting tolerance, the agenda seeks to advance a political agenda. Promoting that gender and sexuality are 'fluid' concepts, making heterosexuality abnormal and paving the way to make Pedophilia acceptable.
Besides,
I am a millennium. Should I be offended everytime whenever someone rightfully so speaks negative about my generation?
If you take these things personal you are missing the true message. Maybe that is what happened?
- Take care.
Sorry to hear that you feel that way. If you brought those points up earlier we could have discussed it. But it seems that you have made up your mind?
There are toxic elements within the LGBT movement. Just like there toxic elements within many movements.
Be it in religion, science etc
Speaking out against those corrupt elements within doesn't mean that we are anti religion, anti science etc.
It's the same with the LGBT movement.
The toxic element here includes that it's far more than just merely promoting tolerance, the agenda seeks to advance a political agenda. Promoting that gender and sexuality are 'fluid' concepts, making heterosexuality abnormal and paving the way to make Pedophilia acceptable.
Besides,
I am a millennium. Should I be offended everytime whenever someone rightfully so speaks negative about my generation?
If you take these things personal you are missing the true message. Maybe that is what happened?
- Take care.
Pierre's article has surely triggered some strong reactions on many readers. IMO speaks about the importance of this topic and how strong emotional programming it has especially on so called millenials. I recommend reading the editor's note at the beginning of the article, because that's really the gist of the whole content.
Also one very important aspect of the whole LGBT movement is that it has become just another variation of the old divide and conquer tactics, meant to drive people on both sides to react emotionally against those who're not in their team. Meanwhile for example truly radical groups are being supported in Syria, who have zero tolerance for any minorities but this is left totally unnoticed. This is how modern "humanitarian" movements work; they take simplistic stand on issues they advocate, but fail to address any important reasons behind them, for example Western war on terror that gave birth to refugee crisis. And so they're being manipulated to support certain agenda by their own simple desire to feel good about themselves, LGBT movement is no exception.
It shouldn't be too complicated: no one is saying that there's something wrong being homosexual or that they should be oppressed. In ideal world everyone's sexual orientation would be private thing that would concern no one. And there's nothing wrong disagreeing with articles, but it would show some integrity if one would discuss it like adult, instead of throwing accusations and then instantly fleeing from the scene...
Also one very important aspect of the whole LGBT movement is that it has become just another variation of the old divide and conquer tactics, meant to drive people on both sides to react emotionally against those who're not in their team. Meanwhile for example truly radical groups are being supported in Syria, who have zero tolerance for any minorities but this is left totally unnoticed. This is how modern "humanitarian" movements work; they take simplistic stand on issues they advocate, but fail to address any important reasons behind them, for example Western war on terror that gave birth to refugee crisis. And so they're being manipulated to support certain agenda by their own simple desire to feel good about themselves, LGBT movement is no exception.
It shouldn't be too complicated: no one is saying that there's something wrong being homosexual or that they should be oppressed. In ideal world everyone's sexual orientation would be private thing that would concern no one. And there's nothing wrong disagreeing with articles, but it would show some integrity if one would discuss it like adult, instead of throwing accusations and then instantly fleeing from the scene...
Perri475 said:
I just wanted to respond to this specific point, because it seems to me that as a society we're pretty clueless about these things sometimes.
Pride is, "a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of one's close associates, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired."
And of course, everyone is no doubt familiar with the phrase, "pride goes before the fall". Pride can be a "sin".
Well, is it wrong to derive satisfaction from one's own achievements? Not really. On the other hand, it's very, very easy to get carried away into, "I'm so wonderful, it's all about me", which is a pandemic in the modern world. Selfies, for example.
So, if you want to talk about gay rights, that's on target. Equality for gays? No problem. But gay pride? That leads to some of the more outrageous examples we see today: parades of people in gimp suits and dog collars being so "proud" of themselves that they march around in cities and even simulate sex acts in public. How is that related to equality? Were I to do the same thing, I'd probably be arrested for indecent behavior. That's not equality.
And I can tell you that my grandparents and their friends NEVER saw anything like what we are seeing today. That doesn't mean it never happened behind closed doors, but clearly Conchita Wurst was not on TV 50 years ago. So, to say "it's all because of the internet" is at best rather naive. It's a common argument about everything from climate change to political nonsense. In the end, it's just an excuse to not think about what is going on because, "Oh, well, it was always there, so I don't have to worry about... Yeah, that's it..." I'm sorry, but no. You are free to ignore whatever you want, but you cannot require that the rest of us do the same just to make you feel better.
Yes, homosexuals have been treated badly for a long time, but that is NOT the way to go about being treated more fairly. It's exactly the kind of corruption introduced into such movements by pathological individuals to destroy the movement itself, as Pierre indicated in his article.
Today, this has been extended to, "Everything's okay!" You're a man who wants to be a woman pop star? Go for it! It's awesome! No one is asking the question, "WHY is this happening?" and instead we're just supposed to blindly accept it all as okay, or risk being labeled as "not progressive enough" in our thinking.
Personally, I was less concerned about the specific details and "proof" offered in the article, and more concerned with the various questions it raises. Even if the article contained 700 foot notes to thousands of pages of studies, it still wouldn't make a difference in terms of those who simply don't want to see what's going on.
It seems to me that there are many more questions we should all be asking ourselves about how best to move forward on this and many other current societal issues, but instead we tend to just go with the flow and get overly emotional when we see anyone not doing the same thing.
That doesn't really help anyone.
Scottie said:
Indeed, when you examine the dictionary definition, the emphasis is on "achievements", as in things people DO or accomplish. Being gay takes no actual effort on the part of the person involved, gay people just 'are' or 'become' that way. No work has been done nor has anything been achieved. And according to some proponents, homosexuals are born that way, so then gay pride no different than white or black pride. On that logic, it simply becomes a random roll of the genetic dice. Might as well have a pride parade for people with opposable thumbs! ;)
Scottie said:
Classified as one of the 7 deadly sins in fact, pride being the chief among them.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
Scottie said:
Yep, it's normal to feel some satisfaction after working hard to create something of quality, but experiencing this feeling internally and broadcasting it to the world are 2 different things. Even if one considers the second part of the definition above which includes "qualities that are widely admired", I don't think being gay can be included there because for a vast majority of people it is still considered somewhat abnormal. Contrary to what popular culture and mainstream media are pushing us to believe.
Timótheos said:
And furthermore, there is also a push to "not judge" and even to never say that anything is "normal" or "abnormal" because it's a horrible judgment of some kind.
Well, hold the phone! Some surveys indicate that 3.5% of the US population is LGBT. Even if that number is more like 10%, then by simple math, 90% are not. Which means it is not "normal" to be LGBT. If homosexuality were the norm, the human race would cease to exist because no one would be making babies. Kind of a minor detail for some people, which is actually kind of scary.
Now, if someone says that LGBT individuals are abnormal Satanic abominations who are doomed to hell, that's an entirely different context of "not normal", and I can't agree with that.
Point is, this topic is SO emotionally charged that we tend not to even consider how other people are using words, or what they are actually saying, in favor of flying off the handle and making assumptions that do nothing to help anyone. At the same time, we're supposed to accept and use new gender pronouns?
How about we learn to effectively communicate - in an emotionally-controlled manner - using the language we already have? If we could do that, I would argue that the gender pronoun thing would never have happened in the first place... assuming of course that no pathological elements were in place trying to screw everything up and get us to hate each other.
What Scottie said :)
One small thing about the stats from the Christian source, Perri475 - I didn't check them, but did you? It seems you are killing the messenger here, as if nothing could ever be right if it comes from conservative Christians. Yes, they have an agenda, but that doesn't make everything they say false. Heck, even the Huffington Post tells the truth sometimes :P
There's another larger issue with all this IMO, and that is the general belief that in the past, everything was totally gruesome and only now, in our enlightened liberal New World, things are finally great. It's the old theory that mankind somehow progressed over the years, even though a massive amount of facts points to the opposite. Epidemy of cancer and other diseases? Nah, it's just that our great medicine can diagnose it now! Yeah... War? That belongs to the past, it's something we have overcome!
Okay, here is a politically incorrect question and some thoughts. I'm not sure how to answer it, but the fact that we can't even ask such a thing in this climate of political correctness is insane:
Is it really true that until recently, gays were imprisoned and killed left and right? For every gay in prison, how many gays were there who lived a decent life? Granted, they couldn't organize gay parades and marry their partners. But how many managed to get by just fine? You know, being a bit careful as a minority and not making a fuzz about your sexual preferences is not exactly gruesome. Maybe there were many communities in the past with known gays who were accepted? Yes, people probably whispered behind their backs, they always do, still today. In fact, maybe people make even more fun of gays today than in the past, because they are associated with gay pride and oversexualization...
I know very religious milieus where there are gays, especially in the clergy, and everyone knows it. If religious people are so intolerant - why do they still respect those, even as their leaders? Like in the Catholic church? Granted, those homosexuals are often silent about it and don't make a fuzz. Dare I ask: so what? (*duck*)
I'm not sure about all this either, and I'm certainly not advocating the persecution of homosexuals in any way. It's just that this narrative that back then, it was the dark past where homosexuals were publically hanged, and now we live in the enlightened age of equality, strikes me as a bit simplistic. And I think it's important to have an open discussion about such issues, in order to get to the bottom of it, without being slammed as homophobic or cruel or whatever. This really seems to be a hot button topic for many people, which doesn't make it easier.
One small thing about the stats from the Christian source, Perri475 - I didn't check them, but did you? It seems you are killing the messenger here, as if nothing could ever be right if it comes from conservative Christians. Yes, they have an agenda, but that doesn't make everything they say false. Heck, even the Huffington Post tells the truth sometimes :P
There's another larger issue with all this IMO, and that is the general belief that in the past, everything was totally gruesome and only now, in our enlightened liberal New World, things are finally great. It's the old theory that mankind somehow progressed over the years, even though a massive amount of facts points to the opposite. Epidemy of cancer and other diseases? Nah, it's just that our great medicine can diagnose it now! Yeah... War? That belongs to the past, it's something we have overcome!
Okay, here is a politically incorrect question and some thoughts. I'm not sure how to answer it, but the fact that we can't even ask such a thing in this climate of political correctness is insane:
Is it really true that until recently, gays were imprisoned and killed left and right? For every gay in prison, how many gays were there who lived a decent life? Granted, they couldn't organize gay parades and marry their partners. But how many managed to get by just fine? You know, being a bit careful as a minority and not making a fuzz about your sexual preferences is not exactly gruesome. Maybe there were many communities in the past with known gays who were accepted? Yes, people probably whispered behind their backs, they always do, still today. In fact, maybe people make even more fun of gays today than in the past, because they are associated with gay pride and oversexualization...
I know very religious milieus where there are gays, especially in the clergy, and everyone knows it. If religious people are so intolerant - why do they still respect those, even as their leaders? Like in the Catholic church? Granted, those homosexuals are often silent about it and don't make a fuzz. Dare I ask: so what? (*duck*)
I'm not sure about all this either, and I'm certainly not advocating the persecution of homosexuals in any way. It's just that this narrative that back then, it was the dark past where homosexuals were publically hanged, and now we live in the enlightened age of equality, strikes me as a bit simplistic. And I think it's important to have an open discussion about such issues, in order to get to the bottom of it, without being slammed as homophobic or cruel or whatever. This really seems to be a hot button topic for many people, which doesn't make it easier.
The thing is, the gay movement is different from the people who are within it. While the "movement" gives LGBT individuals a place to "come out" and talk about it, that is not its primary purpose. Its design function appears to be to showcase exhibitionism, generating a sort of shock value and then attracting scorn. If you do not subscribe to the "movement" you are a traitor, tacitly supporting the persecution of homosexuality. The movement as it exists today is a metaphorical demon, trying to taint LGBT individuals with a pathological ideology by offering a few carrots attached to a rather large stick. The Cassiopaeans addressed the point here.
The original poster's inability to separate actual human beings from the political construct is a symptom of ponerization, I think.session100328 said:
Hi Perri45, I took a lot of issue with this article as well when it first came out. There was a big thread on it with some back-and-forth and I feel like some of my concerns were addressed in it. For some reason I'm having trouble finding it now though. :/
[quote author=Timotheos]Indeed, when you examine the dictionary definition, the emphasis is on "achievements", as in things people DO or accomplish. Being gay takes no actual effort on the part of the person involved, gay people just 'are' or 'become' that way. No work has been done nor has anything been achieved. And according to some proponents, homosexuals are born that way, so then gay pride no different than white or black pride. On that logic, it simply becomes a random roll of the genetic dice. Might as well have a pride parade for people with opposable thumbs!
[/quote]
I don't think saying it takes no courage to be gay is particularly fair Timotheos. People assume they're straight until they learn otherwise, and to acknowledge their gayness to themselves and to share that with others are both actions. To say these actions take no effort or courage is a broad generalization. Even though it takes less courage to come out to others (or even themselves) today than thirty or sixty years ago, you can't judge someone for choosing to pretend to be straight since you don't know what they've gone through.
As for the comments about Pride as a central theme. You have to look at it from the perspective of a gay person in a highly oppressive culture. You're told that homosexuality is unnatural, that it's a sin, that you'll burn in Hell for that. Imagine feeling like you live a condemned existence. Out of fear and shame you may just marry a straight person to try and annul and repress this part of your emotional life. You get used to telling lies to almost everyone you meet, out of a matter of personal safety. Imagine only being in bars or clubs at night, like you're something embarrassing that needs to be hidden from everyone else. Imagine these areas as predatory grounds for people who assault gays recreationally, and of course police look the other way. Imagine being told what you are is inherently antisocial and self-destructive, and having this implied in EVERY casual public or private conversation that touches on the gay subject.
Telling someone to have pride in spite of all this is a highly subversive and liberating act. Having this pride in spite of all the near-universal condemnation is the gateway to then demanding that others (and society at large) respect you, your humanity, your needs, and your human rights. If people don't respect and love themselves, they're not going to fight to demand society do so as well.
You may argue that things are different now, but that repressive mindset is a part of the cultural milieu (and casually using words like "abnormal," with all its moralistic connotations, to describe gays ISN'T helping!) That stuff doesn't just go away. Even in the US some kids are still getting kicked out of their parents' homes for being gay, or are forbidden from sharing such with their parents. You could argue there's a lot more resources available to those kids, but there's still a lot of heavy collective trauma there.
That's the origin of Pride as a central theme. I do agree that it as a concept has been ponerised a bit, to the point of even lauding ostentatious displays and other questionable behavior.
[quote author=Timotheos]Indeed, when you examine the dictionary definition, the emphasis is on "achievements", as in things people DO or accomplish. Being gay takes no actual effort on the part of the person involved, gay people just 'are' or 'become' that way. No work has been done nor has anything been achieved. And according to some proponents, homosexuals are born that way, so then gay pride no different than white or black pride. On that logic, it simply becomes a random roll of the genetic dice. Might as well have a pride parade for people with opposable thumbs!
I don't think saying it takes no courage to be gay is particularly fair Timotheos. People assume they're straight until they learn otherwise, and to acknowledge their gayness to themselves and to share that with others are both actions. To say these actions take no effort or courage is a broad generalization. Even though it takes less courage to come out to others (or even themselves) today than thirty or sixty years ago, you can't judge someone for choosing to pretend to be straight since you don't know what they've gone through.
As for the comments about Pride as a central theme. You have to look at it from the perspective of a gay person in a highly oppressive culture. You're told that homosexuality is unnatural, that it's a sin, that you'll burn in Hell for that. Imagine feeling like you live a condemned existence. Out of fear and shame you may just marry a straight person to try and annul and repress this part of your emotional life. You get used to telling lies to almost everyone you meet, out of a matter of personal safety. Imagine only being in bars or clubs at night, like you're something embarrassing that needs to be hidden from everyone else. Imagine these areas as predatory grounds for people who assault gays recreationally, and of course police look the other way. Imagine being told what you are is inherently antisocial and self-destructive, and having this implied in EVERY casual public or private conversation that touches on the gay subject.
Telling someone to have pride in spite of all this is a highly subversive and liberating act. Having this pride in spite of all the near-universal condemnation is the gateway to then demanding that others (and society at large) respect you, your humanity, your needs, and your human rights. If people don't respect and love themselves, they're not going to fight to demand society do so as well.
You may argue that things are different now, but that repressive mindset is a part of the cultural milieu (and casually using words like "abnormal," with all its moralistic connotations, to describe gays ISN'T helping!) That stuff doesn't just go away. Even in the US some kids are still getting kicked out of their parents' homes for being gay, or are forbidden from sharing such with their parents. You could argue there's a lot more resources available to those kids, but there's still a lot of heavy collective trauma there.
That's the origin of Pride as a central theme. I do agree that it as a concept has been ponerised a bit, to the point of even lauding ostentatious displays and other questionable behavior.
