Support NeoGAF

[Papa]

If feel this way, your support may not be attainable, and that is ok. We'll be fine. Our ultimate goal is acceptance and support. I wish the best for you.

If I feel that the elements pushing modern gender theory in classrooms; pushing for acceptance of drag and trans children; and trying to enforce speech codes should be distanced from the core ideas of equality that you wish to espouse, you don’t want my support? Well, good luck with that.

 

[F0rneus]

My next beer goes to this historic ruling. Fuck my liver lol.

 

[Papa]

That can be said of any movement, and using that as an excuse to handwave real problems present in the LGBT community is cowardice at best.



Ugh, this is so reactionary and ridiculous. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN". Not every facet of culture is meant for children, though somehow it's okay to sexualize little children in beauty pageants and treat their platonic relationships like heterosexual romantic ones. And as someone who is bisexual I knew since I was very young what I was all on my own, without being told. They reason we introduce children to gay characters in media is the same reason why we introduce them to handicapped individuals, so they understand how they should treat people who seem different than themselves.

It can be said of any movement that they’re pushing modern gender theory in classrooms; pushing for acceptance of drag and trans children; and trying to enforce speech codes? If you say so.

 

[Vlaphor]

If I feel that the elements pushing modern gender theory in classrooms; pushing for acceptance of drag and trans children; and trying to enforce speech codes should be distanced from the core ideas of equality that you wish to espouse, you don’t want my support? Well, good luck with that.

Thank you.

 

[kegkilla]

.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

IMO idgaf either way if gays can or can't marry.

What I don't like is that you can no longer view gay marriage as anything but an amazing step forward for society.

Tolerance of the 'intolerant' is now unacceptable. Go figure.

 

[kegkilla]

.

 

[Vlaphor]

IMO idgaf either way if gays can or can't marry.

What I don't like is that you can no longer view gay marriage as anything but an amazing step forward for society.

Tolerance of the 'intolerant' is now unacceptable. Go figure.

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The basic idea is that if we are tolerant of those who wish to oppose us, then they will eventually overtake us.

 

[CeroFrio996]

It can be said of any movement that they’re pushing modern gender theory in classrooms; pushing for acceptance of drag and trans children; and trying to enforce speech codes? If you say so.

yes, because those exact qualities are exactly what I meant... I totally didn't mean that any large movement has unsavory elements... though if we can idenetify through scienctific means that someone is trans from an early age why wouldn't you want to work help them transition? I don't think we're really there yet though.

Uhh, it's well established that weed is a gateway drug. There's even research to support it. Not a good start for you bud.

Yes, because I really trust the drugabuse.gov website, it's totally unbiased... It's really not well established at all largely because actual research on schedule 1 narcotics is very difficult. It's also possible that the move to harder substances it due to what illegal pot is cut with. The idea that pot alone leads to worse drugs is nonsense, why wouldn't alcohol work the same way? It's far more chemically addictive.

https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/is-marijuana-safe-web#

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...a-may-be-less-harmful-alcohol-tobacco-n312876

https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to-teen-brains/Content?oid=20884581

https://www.worldcat.org/title/cannabis-a-history/oclc/54543463

What doomsday crap are you referring to? It's only been 4 years first of all, we've had a pretty intense culture shift over that last 4 years.

Literally doomsday crap. Like thunderbolts, fire and brimstone. I'd assume an omniscient God would be fairly quick to act is he was so offended by gay marriage

What "discriminatory practices" are applied to non-married people?

Are you joking? There are tons of different financial and practical applications to being legally married...

This is just fucking stupid, there's plenty of objections from any of those perspectives. I'm not wasting time with this.

And yet you list none of them. In a STRICTLY legal sense what reason is there for same sex marriage to be illegal? Also I'm not talking about biblical morals, I'm talking about secular morals. Like... human rights. How does my marriage with another man impede on your human rights?

Fucking disgusting, these people are monsters. And where the fuck did I say it was okay to sexualize children? Get the fuck out of here. Children should be able to retain the innocence of their youth.

THINK OF THE CHIlDREN!!! I don't see your moral indignation of these other things. I'm personally not OK with people taking your children to these things... but they also aren't my fucking children.

 

[Papa]

yes, because those exact qualities are exactly what I meant... I totally didn't mean that any large movement has unsavory elements... though if we can idenetify through scienctific means that someone is trans from an early age why wouldn't you want to work help them transition? I don't think we're really there yet though.

Right, but my point is that any political movement should seek to distance the unsavory elements if they want to gain public acceptance. If you don't want public acceptance, what's the point?

If we can get to a point where the conditions for gender dysphoria can be identified in childhood, or even in utero, I'd be in favour of corrective actions before adulthood. But as you rightly point out, we aren't there yet, so let's not put the cart before the horse.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The basic idea is that if we are tolerant of those who wish to oppose us, then they will eventually overtake us.

Interesting, thanks for the link.

For me it isn't that extreme, it's just if you wind back 10 years you could have your views on gays.

Nowadays, if you say you don't support gay marriage you are bombarded with hateful slurs. Ironically, gays and those who supported gay marriage decades ago were bombarded with hateful slurs.

 

[CeroFrio996]

Right, but my point is that any political movement should seek to distance the unsavory elements if they want to gain public acceptance. If you don't want public acceptance, what's the point?

If we can get to a point where the conditions for gender dysphoria can be identified in childhood, or even in utero, I'd be in favour of corrective actions before adulthood. But as you rightly point out, we aren't there yet, so let's not put the cart before the horse.

Cool, so we'll just throw the baby out with the bathwater on LGBTQ+ issues because you or I don't agree with every part of their platform.

On the second point I believe to a fairly large degree that parents should just be left the fuck alone to parent their children unless physical harm is involved. Unless you can demonstarte to me that a significant portion of children are being physically harmed through parents pushing an "LGBTQ+ agenda" I'd rather get the government out of my household. I'll be a father for the first time in Novemeber, I've already got enough to worry about without Uncle Sam backseat parenting.

Nowadays, if you say you don't support gay marriage you are bombarded with hateful slurs. Ironically, gays and those who supported gay marriage decades ago were bombarded with hateful slurs.

I'd say rational debate is the best course in any situation, but at the end of the day being angry at people for their bigoted or archaic views isn't on the same level as the bigotry itself.

 

[Vlaphor]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

For me it isn't that extreme, it's just if you wind back 10 years you could have your views on gays.

Nowadays, if you say you don't support gay marriage you are bombarded with hateful slurs. Ironically, gays and those who supported gay marriage decades ago were bombarded with hateful slurs.

10 years ago, LGBT marriage wasn't legal. Now it is. The public seems to be onboard with LGBT rights, so I think we're heading in the right direction.

 

[kegkilla]

yes, because those exact qualities are exactly what I meant... I totally didn't mean that any large movement has unsavory elements... though if we can idenetify through scienctific means that someone is trans from an early age why wouldn't you want to work help them transition? I don't think we're really there yet though.



Yes, because I really trust the .gov website... It's really not well established at all largely because actual research on schedule 1 narcotics is very difficult. It's also possible that the move to harder substances it due to what illegal pot is cut with. The idea that pot alone leads to worse drugs is nonsense, why wouldn't alcohol work the same way? It's far more chemically addictive.

https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/is-marijuana-safe-web#

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...a-may-be-less-harmful-alcohol-tobacco-n312876

https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to-teen-brains/Content?oid=20884581

https://www.worldcat.org/title/cannabis-a-history/oclc/54543463



Literally doomsday crap. Like thunderbolts, fire and brimstone. I'd assume an omniscient God would be fairly quick to act is he was so offended by gay marriage



Are you joking? There are tons of different financial and practical applications to being legally married...



And yet you list none of them. In a STRICTLY legal sense what reason is there for same sex marriage to be illegal? Also I'm not talking about biblical morals, I'm talking about secular morals. Like... human rights. How does my marriage with another man impede on your human rights?



THINK OF THE CHIlDREN!!! I don't see your moral indignation of these other things. I'm personally not OK with people taking your children to these things... but they also aren't my fucking children.

The ".gov" references research that was conducted at Columbia University you fucking halfwit. Holy shit. Did you even look at the links you posted? Not one of them even touches on whether marijuana is a gateway drug, although I'm not sure you understand what "gateway drug" actually implies. Jesus christ you're a mess. I'm out on this, I don't waste my time on people with room temperature IQs.

 

[Papa]

Cool, so we'll just throw the baby out with the bathwater on LGBTQ+ issues because you or I don't agree with every part of their platform.

On the second point I believe to a fairly large degree that parents should just be left the fuck alone to parent their children unless physical harm is involved. Unless you can demonstarte to me that a significant portion of children are being physically harmed through parents pushing an "LGBTQ+ agenda" I'd rather get the government out of my household. I'll be a father for the first time in Novemeber, I've already got enough to worry about without Uncle Sam backseat parenting.



I'd say rational debate is the best course in any situation, but at the end of the day being angry at people for their bigoted or archaic views isn't on the same level as the bigotry itself.

1. I don't believe in the Q+.

2. I don't believe that the average gay man or lesbian has anything in common with the average trans person, so I don't support LGBT as a political coalition now that gay marriage has been achieved.

3. If the bathwater is tainted, then yeah. Minimising the exposure of children to radical sexual ideologies that encourage them to mutilate their bodies is far more meaingful than whatever the current iteration of the movement may stand for.

 

[CeroFrio996]

1. I don't believe in the Q+.

What you "believe" is really insubstantial. Ignoring people's lived experiences because it doesn't line up with your personal life isn't proof of much.

2. I don't believe that the average gay man or lesbian has anything in common with the average trans person, so I don't support LGBT as a political coalition now that gay marriage has been achieved.

We're related because we fight for people who are similarly mistreated by the uneducated populace. Trans women, especially trans black women, have a murder rate disproportionate to their population.

3. If the bathwater is tainted, then yeah. Minimising the exposure of children to radical sexual ideologies that encourage them to mutilate their bodies is far more meaingful than whatever the current iteration of the movement may stand for.

Please direct me to the peer reviewed study that shows a connection between gender theory being taught to children and an increase in the trans population.

 

[Papa]

What you "believe" is really insubstantial. Ignoring people's lived experiences because it doesn't line up with your personal life isn't proof of much.



We're related because we fight for people who are similarly mistreated by the uneducated populace. Trans women, especially trans black women, have a murder rate disproportionate to their population.



Please direct me to the peer reviewed study that shows a connection between gender theory being taught to children and an increase in the trans population.

Fuck your subjective lived experience.

You people hold up peer reviewed science like a Christian holds up the Bible or a Muslim holds up the Quran. It's such an easy dismissal of anything that doesn't conform to your view. Do you understand how research funding works? That not everything that is true is supported by a peer reviewed study? That such a study, if it were somehow miraculously funded, would be a large undertaking that would require years to complete, and that the ideological trans obsession is a very recent social phenomenon?

 

[CeroFrio996]

Fuck your subjective lived experience.

You people hold up peer reviewed science like a Christian holds up the Bible or a Muslim holds up the Quran. It's such an easy dismissal of anything that doesn't conform to your view. Do you understand how research funding works? That not everything that is true is supported by a peer reviewed study? That such a study, if it were somehow miraculously funded, would be a large undertaking that would require years to complete, and that the ideological trans obsession is a very recent social phenomenon?

That "subjective" experience is a large party of what makes up the human condition. Why do you reject it so readily when it clearly informs your own life just as much? The only difference is the number of reference points to squarely place you into the "normal" category.

If the truth is that trans is fake (or Q+) then why wouldn't some wealthy conservative donor fund the research for an objective study? I'd wait for the results. Dive deep, do scans, DNA testing, interviews, long form observations, the works! I want to know as much about the condition as possible, and surely conservative truth seekers do as well.

No need to be hostile.

 

[CeroFrio996]

Not one of them even touches on whether marijuana is a gateway drug

One of the various studies I posted had data that shows most people who try pot don't even continue smoking pot, as well as the rate of "hard substance" use being lower among people who tried pot. The gateway to opiates is opiates, not pot.

I also included some info on the addictive qualities of pot... which is to say it isn't very chemically addictive. People who have an addictive personality are likely to become addicted by virtue of their brain chemistry.

Most of it was just a general refutation of the .gov link though.

 

[Papa]

That "subjective" experience is a large party of what makes up the human condition. Why do you reject it so readily when it clearly informs your own life just as much? The only difference is the number of reference points to squarely place you into the "normal" category.

If the truth is that trans is fake (or Q+) then why wouldn't some wealthy conservative donor fund the research for an objective study? I'd wait for the results. Dive deep, do scans, DNA testing, interviews, long form observations, the works! I want to know as much about the condition as possible, and surely conservative truth seekers do as well.

No need to be hostile.

I reject subjective "lived experience" arguments with hostility when the same people making them attempt to wave the authority of peer reviewed science in my face. Pick a lane -- you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I never suggested that I don't believe that the transgender condition (gender dysphoria) is real; that's your own interpretation of my words that reveals your own ideological biases. Suggesting that a conservative donor should fund research for a study to disprove the transgender condition shows you know nothing about the scientific method. You don't start at your conclusion then work backwards to prove it, and you don't assert that "x is true" then tell others to do their own studies to disprove it. For the sake of the argument, if gender dysphoria were not real, how would a DNA test prove it? This is a perverted form of Pascal's wager for the intersectional pseudo-religion. Don't wave science in my face while breaking all the rules of science yourself.

 

[CeroFrio996]

I reject subjective "lived experience" arguments with hostility when the same people making them attempt to wave the authority of peer reviewed science in my face. Pick a lane -- you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I never suggested that I don't believe that the transgender condition (gender dysphoria) is real; that's your own interpretation of my words that reveals your own ideological biases. Suggesting that a conservative donor should fund research for a study to disprove the transgender condition shows you know nothing about the scientific method. You don't start at your conclusion then work backwards to prove it, and you don't assert that "x is true" then tell others to do their own studies to disprove it. For the sake of the argument, if gender dysphoria were not real, how would a DNA test prove it? This is a perverted form of Pascal's wager for the intersectional pseudo-religion. Don't wave science in my face while breaking all the rules of science yourself.

First, I was asking you to provide a study showing a connection between the teaching of gender studies to children and an increase in trans. That shouldn't to a difficult thing to study from a neutral position, and you can't just claim that's what is happening without evidence now can you?

Either way that doesn't really have anything to do with lived experience. That's pure data.

And lived experience is hardly unscientific. Studying the way people decode the world gives us a lot of insight into the brain and how it functions.

I wasn't being insincere about that study either though. I'd genuinely like to see very extensive research on transgender, queer, and other aspects of human sexuality from an unbiased perspective. That may be a fantasy, but I'd still find it very interesting if it ever came to pass. I consider myself open to changing my mind if convincing evidence is brought to my attention.