I honestly don't know what you're arguing here.
I'm not arguing, I just stated what I'm seeing.
respectfully, whether or not you think jokes are allowed is at the bottom of my list of concerns, and I don't think you would find much agreement.
An LGBT joke, depending on the joke, can be distasteful. I made a gay joke earlier in the thread about someone throwing shade around about Pride outfits. It wasn't in poor taste, and it's fine.
What's also fine is referencing a person's typo. It was mildly funny, and nobody got hurt. If someone did get hurt because I acknowledged a typo, that person needs to grow thicker skin. It wasn't an insult.
I'm just saying that jokes can make someone look like they aren't serious, which makes it hard to look at what they have to say and take it seriously (as in, not see it as a complete joke).
You should plan ahead next time. Life is full of minor inconveniences, and the gays are not responsible for your problems.
If you read back my post then I clearly stated that I planned many hours ahead.
It's impossible for you to call for the operation of homophobic minds when they're complaining about an LGBT event, regardless of the specific aspects they're complaining about. True homophobes are never going to be happy with Pride, obviously, so they're also irrelevant to the conversation.
My entire family is racist, and most of them are also LGBT-phobe. I did learn over the many years to recognize when they are hating LGBT or hating generally the people themselves. Also, we have such language constructs which makes it even easier to tell the difference.
The LGBT community isn't the bully; it's society's systemic issues that have necessitated Pride in the first place. If you don't want Pride to be a thing, then as a member of society, it's partly your responsibility to end the need for Pride.
(see my edit)
But yes, I give you the point on this one.
I doubt Pride is the only event that causes the same kinds of inconveniences. If it is, then you don't have much to complain about if the only substantive traffic problem happens once a year for you.
...you know what? Fair enough. Let's just hope that (as mentioned above) the marching day doesn't fall on an exam date when you require everything to work, otherwise you have thrown out years of your life for nothing.
Disruption for attention is often the point of a protest.
I think there can be attention without distruption. I have seen people getting attention without disruption, and it worked out quite well for them. They didn't try to shove down anything on you if you *politely* told them that you sadly can't help them with that.
Contrasting outwardly gay people with "normal people" is an example of why Pride is necessary.
I think the opposite should happen. I think LGBT people should be integrated into the society (as in, accepted, treated as a normal human being) instead of being contrasted and be the center of attention.
I think this is the main problem with the LGBT movement for the people neutral (as in, not ally, nor enemy) to the LGBT community.
Also, don't come with "sending them back to the closet". Read again. Those minority who want to be the center of attention can do so at their own discretion. I'm pretty sure most LGBT people only want a better life, and want to be treated as a normal human being, and not always being in the center of attention.
Why do you think big well-known celebrities have so many haters? Because they are the center of attention.
Again, I repeat: I know some LGBT people also want to be the center of attention. That's fine. But it's only a minority. Most of them only want to get rid of the bullying because of who they are, and want to be accepted as-is, and couldn't care about the slightest of being in the center of attention.
I don't see the problem with there being some racy attire, and it also doesn't address the topic of whether or not Pride should exist.
I'm trying to stay as side-neutral as possible to prevent any bias from leaking into my well though-out ... text (opinion is usually biased, and I don't want too much of that). I don't see how that's race-y, but I didn't wanted to do that.
It really doesn't address if pride should exist or not. I'm just saying that there are more effective ways of dealing with this problem, which cause less distraction, and in turn less angry people, and thus more people who are going to be likely to support this change.
Historically, people were told that gay people lived sad and lonely lives without fulfillment. One of the purposes of Pride was to correct this false narrative. That's part of the reason why Pride is fun and lively. I'm also not particularly interested in talking about why Pride should be fun, because that's pointless. Something is allowed to be fun for the sake of being fun. If you're going to tell me why it should not be fun, I'm listening.
I thought that "gay" meant happy and silly and fun. Besides, I'm pretty sure they could've just escaped somewhere and had some fun time together every day or week or however often they were able to meet. But I digress.
Also yes, I worded my response a bit badly; English is not my main language. I meant that in my opinion fun should come second or third, not first. If you want fun, you could just go onto a regular (gender-neutral - nobody cares what you are because you are accepted regardless - ) parade.
Also sure, nobody said they can't have fun and be proud, but everything has its limits. Again, minority, but sadly it's always the minority which has the loudest bark/noise/voice/<insert any sound-related term>.
If you don't want to be called out on suggesting that gay people should at least somewhat go back into the closet, don't do it.
I didn't do it, hence I pointed out that you should not do it, because I knew that you were going to point it out.
I'm not saying this is something that cannot and never happens, but children generally aren't anymore afraid of Pride than any other parade-like event. This is a false narrative.
I'll give this a pass. Let's assume this is true, and I'll keep it in mind after you pointer out that it's only a minority who are the "weird" ones.
In what world does that address my point?
Exhibitionists are expressing their identity in a way which is not really great, especially for children. They shouldn't "go as big as they want". That's what I meant. (and because my wording is bad, I'm clarifying that with this I'm no way saying that LGBT are exhibitionists. Thanks)
In my opinion inflating a balloon too much bursts it, and it hurts. This also somewhat applies here. Trying to "show off" (bad wording, you should get what I mean) too much will eventually backlash.
Don't confuse isolated prejudice with systemic oppression.
Yeah, I did mix it up.
But men are systematically oppressed in some ways: they are not allowed to take a woman's job, not allowed to wear long skirts, and are expected to be muscly hulks who can bear any pain which hits them.
Which in my opinion is bullshit. This may be related to the LGBT, but you don't have to be gay or trans or anything to have these affect you.
There is a difference between "men aren't systemically oppressed" and "straight cis white males are worthless." Don't put words in my mouth. I'm get bored when other people argue against strawmen.
I didn't put enough line breaks to separate that from the thing above it. I didn't say the two are related, I just stated that this thread feels like anyone non-LGBT's opinions are invalid because they aren't pro-LGBT.
This is only an opinion though, this is how I see it, so take it as that.
- I never said straight white men don't have a right to live.
- I'm not sure why straight white men would have "any say in the LGBT rights movement." If you mean to suggest that I'm arguing they can't have an opinion on the LGBT rights movement, I never said that. Don't confuse my correcting of misinformation or calling out homophobia as a suggestion that people don't have a right to an opinion.
1) I didn't say that either. Probably bad wording.
2) because "straight cis" people are which cause this problem in the first place? It's not possible to solve this problem without both sides coming to an equilibrium, an "agreement" which is very good to both sides. I don't know how to word this, so you have to unpack the previous sentence to understand what I meant.
(
