This.
Well surely, accusing me of having "my head in the sand" and throwing out a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, are surefire ways to win me over to your side. /s
Dr. Claus
made just above, and I'm sorry to say this, but... I also don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder. I don't walk around looking to be offended. I have other shit to worry about. Things to enjoy, things to think about, family and friends to be with. And before you say "you don't understand the pain and suffering of American slavery and racism," I come from a country that had arguably some of the most brutal slavery in the Americas. The sugar cane plantations were a major source of income and if that was threatened, overseers would go to town on the slaves. Really really horrible, dark, and evil stuff, some of the lowest points of how human civilization, as far as treatment of fellow human beings goes. And there's a good chance I'm a direct descendant of those slaves. The United States is, in fact, not the center of the universe, and truly horrible things happened historically all over the world, and actually continue to happen in plenty of places these days outside of the United States.
Preach. The ideological purveyors want them lumped together, that way one can be labeled things to stifle pushback and criticisms.
DT, know that this is only meant to be a constructive, productive, civilized debate and there are no hard feelings at all.
Class Act. Thank you Sir!DT, know that this is only meant to be a constructive, productive, civilized debate and there are no hard feelings at all.
You can bring it up any time you want. If I said something that made you feel like you can't talk about it again, my sincere apologies. So what we should do is agree to disagree peacefully, but neither of us should feel like we can't bring up X or Y topic around each other.
You're a cool cat. Peace and love, brother
I'll admit, not always. I'm human so I have plenty of weak moments, too. But that usually happens when someone is a jerk to me. (I should still be better about controlling my responses even in cases where people are jerks.)
I'll admit, not always. I'm human so I have plenty of weak moments, too. But that usually happens when someone is a jerk to me. (I should still be better about controlling my responses even in cases where people are jerks.)
But you weren't a jerk; in fact in my entire posting time here I've never seen you be a jerk to anybody. Not only that, but even through our many disagreements (LOL), I actually like you as a poster. So there's that
This would be a reasonable point, except...
) consenting adults can do whatever they want in their own privacy. But there certainly ARE lines to be drawn around the propriety of shoving down topics of sexuality to very young children. They are simply not ready for it.
This would be a reasonable point, except...
The progression in the past was not centered around educating children. It was centered around educating adults, since they were the ones passing on their racist, ignorant, hateful views to children. Despite what modern "anti-racism" pseudo-science quack doctors want to tell the world, children do NOT see race -- at least not in the same way adults do. Children may observe superficial, physical/skin-level differences and be curious about them in an innocent child-like way. But if a white 5-year-old boy sees a black 5-year-old girl at the playground, the white child won't give a shit, he just wants to PLAY with the other child.
Anecdotally: I saw something like this on my way to work a couple of months ago. I was driving, and waiting at a traffic light, and there was a line/group of very young schoolchildren being chaperoned in what I assume was some local school field trip. Each "row" had two kids, and in each row the two kids held hands with each other, which is standard school trip stuff. But the configuration was awesome -- there were white kids holding hands with black kids holding hands with Latino kids holding hands with Asian kids, etc. In one row I noticed a white girl not only holding the hand of a black boy, but they seemed to be having a VERY animated, fun conversation. They were both really engaged, and laughing, and having a good time. And I thought, well shit, this is the beauty of the innocence of children -- without the corruption of adults, children will get along just fine.
Right, back to the main point: the unquestionably, unequivocally, historically important Civil Rights stuff was targeted at ADULTS, who were the ones making the policies and socially structuring themselves in unsavory ways along racial lines. And when the adults were taught that we should all get along, then they stopped passing ignorant, racist, hateful views to their children.
Fast forward to 2022. There are a few points with the current approach that have nothing to do with homophobia/transphobia/etc:
This post is already long enough so I'll end there for now.
- Many normal Americans have pretty accepting/tolerant views of regular LGBT folks. I'm not sure that claims of homophobia or transphobia can really be substantiated.
- Again, because children see other children as just that -- other children -- there is no need to indoctrinate "acceptance" of things into them. Children by default, because of their innocence, are very tolerant and accepting.
- Keep in mind, I'm not any sort of Puritan or moralist, and two (or more?
- For the millionth time, the pushback against the LGBT stuff is not against the 99% of LGBT folks that just want to live in peace. It's against the 1% of activists, opportunists, grifters, perverts, cancel culture enthusiasts, etc. They have legitimately ruined some of the social progress that regular LGBT folks had made in the past 20 years.
- It's perfectly fine to answer a child's questions if they are exposed to LGBT activities in their everyday normal lives and are curious. But that should be done by the parents/guardians of the child, who have the best interests of the child at heart. Not shoved down by the state, by entertainment, etc.
They are unhappy because the changes are happening:
This would be a reasonable point, except...
The progression in the past was not centered around educating children. It was centered around educating adults, since they were the ones passing on their racist, ignorant, hateful views to children. Despite what modern "anti-racism" pseudo-science quack doctors want to tell the world, children do NOT see race -- at least not in the same way adults do. Children may observe superficial, physical/skin-level differences and be curious about them in an innocent child-like way. But if a white 5-year-old boy sees a black 5-year-old girl at the playground, the white child won't give a shit, he just wants to PLAY with the other child.
Anecdotally: I saw something like this on my way to work a couple of months ago. I was driving, and waiting at a traffic light, and there was a line/group of very young schoolchildren being chaperoned in what I assume was some local school field trip. Each "row" had two kids, and in each row the two kids held hands with each other, which is standard school trip stuff. But the configuration was awesome -- there were white kids holding hands with black kids holding hands with Latino kids holding hands with Asian kids, etc. In one row I noticed a white girl not only holding the hand of a black boy, but they seemed to be having a VERY animated, fun conversation. They were both really engaged, and laughing, and having a good time. And I thought, well shit, this is the beauty of the innocence of children -- without the corruption of adults, children will get along just fine.
Right, back to the main point: the unquestionably, unequivocally, historically important Civil Rights stuff was targeted at ADULTS, who were the ones making the policies and socially structuring themselves in unsavory ways along racial lines. And when the adults were taught that we should all get along, then they stopped passing ignorant, racist, hateful views to their children.
Fast forward to 2022. There are a few points with the current approach that have nothing to do with homophobia/transphobia/etc:
This post is already long enough so I'll end there for now.
- Many normal Americans have pretty accepting/tolerant views of regular LGBT folks. I'm not sure that claims of homophobia or transphobia can really be substantiated.
- Again, because children see other children as just that -- other children -- there is no need to indoctrinate "acceptance" of things into them. Children by default, because of their innocence, are very tolerant and accepting.
- Keep in mind, I'm not any sort of Puritan or moralist, and two (or more?
- For the millionth time, the pushback against the LGBT stuff is not against the 99% of LGBT folks that just want to live in peace. It's against the 1% of activists, opportunists, grifters, perverts, cancel culture enthusiasts, etc. They have legitimately ruined some of the social progress that regular LGBT folks had made in the past 20 years.
- It's perfectly fine to answer a child's questions if they are exposed to LGBT activities in their everyday normal lives and are curious. But that should be done by the parents/guardians of the child, who have the best interests of the child at heart. Not shoved down by the state, by entertainment, etc.
Isnt that enough?
The heterosexual, interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura was organic.
You seem to be the Disney super-fan here and seem to know all the insider details, so why don't you tell me?
Because some Disney execs had philosophical/moral reservations about it? Didn't feel it was necessary to advance the plot? All of the above?
Not correct, since I'm only going by the information available. And, since we're not getting the side of the people that motioned to initially remove the kiss, it would be speculation on my part.
By exporting culture (in the form of entertainment, business, fashion, music, etc) Westerners are engaging in explicit business (pretty much by the definition of the word) in other countries.
I don't know what any of this means.
nush
's post above.
By exporting culture (in the form of entertainment, business, fashion, music, etc) Westerners are engaging in explicit business (pretty much by the definition of the word) in other countries.
They will complain nonstop about non-issues in the West, yet when they have to change their content for overseas markets -- contributing to the very oppression that they claim exists in the West, yet actually exists in other countries -- they don't say anything. In some cases where they do slip, they even issue cringey apologies (exhibit A: John Cena's apology in Mandarin).
It wreaks of hypocrisy and to these entertainers/"activists," all that matters is the bottom line in terms of dollars.
I don't know what any of this means.
And I agree with
Of course you don't, that's the point. None of you care. It's all about complaining about non -issues in the West, but ignoring actual issues in the rest of the world.
You're ultimately proving my point. If they're a show-business, not "show-friends," why are they being "show-friends" to a very vocal (and admittedly very obnoxious) minority of activists, at the risk of alienating a larger part of their audience? Doesn't seem like a sound business strategy.
Gay people yes, especially the ones who ACTUALLY went through some shit. The rest of the letters that hitched onto the train to pretend as if they've been their all along do not have the respect of the community they claim to be a part of.
.
Collectivism 101
No lol.
I just hold a cup on the floorboard between my feet and snake myself into it to pee, guess not every guy can reach though....
I just hold a cup on the floorboard between my feet and snake myself into it to pee, guess not every guy can reach though....
I just assume any cup of soda/beer in the back of a delivery truck is actually a toilet, those guys really using a depends?