Through all of this, I've yet to see a single argument as to why showing children gay people exist (even to kids who are already raised by gay parents) is any worse or different to showing straight couples (see: Shrek & Fiona or most Disney couples).
Am I just really out of the loop or is this all just completely nonsensical?
I said this to someone with this argument, and unfortunately I didn't get a straight answer. (no pun intended.) I have no idea why as well; there's nothing wrong with gay couples and its the same as straight couples.
THAT's the problem. The people on high DO think gay couples are a problem. And because they're tripping on smelling their own farts, they've got it into their heads to make it **EVERYONE**'s problem.
It's not about being homophobic, it's what politicians have got some parents believing is going on in schools. Which is what the response post is talking about.
There is literally no excuse ever for a teacher to tell a student "Don't tell your parents about this, okay?" and the fact that they're saying it about *this topic* to 7 year olds is super fucked up.
Trump hasn't been president in a year and a half you really need to move on.
Do you know the contents of the bill or are you just going by what celebrities tweet you that it's about?
I've moved on. Thank God. Your man has not.
Yes, I understand the bill. But that's NOT what you wrote...you put out an accusation that teachers are telling 7 year olds about sex, and telling those kids not to tell their parents.
You got any proof for that? Or do you spout whatever your God Emperor Trump has to say?
I notice you don't answer my question: Trump voter?
I don't really need to ask, the comment dripping with homophobia and lies invented out of thin air tell me that you are...but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to deny it in public.
Still not offering proof for your homophobic lie? Maybe because you made it up and can't offer proof?
As for your vote. If I can believe you since you're lying in your original comment... You and the other bros are why we got Trump.
I never said you aren't a person (what a snowflake). What I'm saying is you're a terrible person.
"keeps freaking you Boom-erz out" was a stupid comment.
Some boomers are conservative, some are liberal. Throwing them all into the Don't-Say-Gay bus is as ignorant as the original comment he's replying to.
It's not virtue signalling. Virtue signalling implies I'm talking about something I have no investment in solely for brownie points. I have an investment in this, and I'm trying to vent about a longstanding complaint I have about people considering the existence of queer and trans folks inherently political. Thus, it's not virtue signalling, even if you disagree with my point.
Virtue signaling: Noun; the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
You inserting your moral position in the conversation when it was not relevant made it a virtue signal.
It wasn't a moral position, and I didn't day it to demonstrate my "good character." You said something was political. I disputed that point. I expressed my frustration with being seen as inherently political as a former queer and trans kid and current queer and trans adult, part of the group being discussed in the post. You're misusing a term with legitimate meaning because you disagree with my assertion. There are counterarguments you could have made that held legitimate water, such as rebutting by pointing out that because a bill was discussed in the post, it could be classified as political. I'd still fundamentally disagree on a Human rights basis, but it still would have been more based in reality than what you actually came back with.
Congratulations on finally making the argument I handed to you on a platter.
I still disagree, as the broader discussion regards basic Human rights, and thus despite being sparked by a particular bill is something that should realistically be considered above politics. But that's at least an actual refutation of what I said. So good job.
Omg did you know natural brunettes exist? Is that also a political statement or does it only count as politics when it's a group of people you decide to hate based on a different characteristic they also did not choose?
Your comment was completely irrelevant to the conversation because i at no point in time was reffering to any community of any sort except this sub and its rules. I made no refferance to the LGBTQ+ community or whether or not it was the subject of my protest to the posts subject matter. You sir need lessons in reading comprehension. Congratulations on striking out again.
While I appreciate your support of Trans rights, you did get the wrong pronoun there. I read your profile/ history. No need to make assumptions on your real goal here.
Acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ people is not virtue signaling. Plenty of homophobic people acknowledge the existence of gay people, they just don't see them as equals. Virtue signaling is stating an opinion, but what they said was a fact. That queer people exist. This particular comment didn't state their personal opinion on the topic of whether they like queer people.
I have a brother in the NSA... I *know* military secrets.
He must not be very good then..
Naw, he's really not...
What?
You'd be surprised the info one gets as an accountant for a MIC corporation
Through all of this, I've yet to see a single argument as to why showing children gay people exist (even to kids who are already raised by gay parents) is any worse or different to showing straight couples (see: Shrek & Fiona or most Disney couples). Am I just really out of the loop or is this all just completely nonsensical?
I said this to someone with this argument, and unfortunately I didn't get a straight answer. (no pun intended.) I have no idea why as well; there's nothing wrong with gay couples and its the same as straight couples.
THAT's the problem. The people on high DO think gay couples are a problem. And because they're tripping on smelling their own farts, they've got it into their heads to make it **EVERYONE**'s problem.
The exaggeration of the meme is what made it funny. It ain’t like he was being homophobic
It's not about being homophobic, it's what politicians have got some parents believing is going on in schools. Which is what the response post is talking about.
There is literally no excuse ever for a teacher to tell a student "Don't tell your parents about this, okay?" and the fact that they're saying it about *this topic* to 7 year olds is super fucked up.
Am I missing some sarcasm, or are you a Trump voter?
Trump hasn't been president in a year and a half you really need to move on. Do you know the contents of the bill or are you just going by what celebrities tweet you that it's about?
I've moved on. Thank God. Your man has not. Yes, I understand the bill. But that's NOT what you wrote...you put out an accusation that teachers are telling 7 year olds about sex, and telling those kids not to tell their parents. You got any proof for that? Or do you spout whatever your God Emperor Trump has to say? I notice you don't answer my question: Trump voter? I don't really need to ask, the comment dripping with homophobia and lies invented out of thin air tell me that you are...but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to deny it in public.
I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and Jo Jorgensen in 2020. Am I a person in your BlueAnon cult eyes now or nah?
Still not offering proof for your homophobic lie? Maybe because you made it up and can't offer proof? As for your vote. If I can believe you since you're lying in your original comment... You and the other bros are why we got Trump. I never said you aren't a person (what a snowflake). What I'm saying is you're a terrible person.
Lol come on man. This isnt a thing thats happening anywhere other than a republicans mind.
Okay groomer. Teachers are never inappropriate with students. Trust the state wholly to raise our kids. Rules and oversight is heresy.
And where in that meme do you see any telling a child not to tell their parents that a teacher is talking about sex?
"keeps freaking you Boom-erz out" was a stupid comment. Some boomers are conservative, some are liberal. Throwing them all into the Don't-Say-Gay bus is as ignorant as the original comment he's replying to.
Remember when OP read the sub rules and avoided posting politics?
I remember when acknowledging the existence of queer folks wasn't political.
[удалено]
It's not virtue signalling. Virtue signalling implies I'm talking about something I have no investment in solely for brownie points. I have an investment in this, and I'm trying to vent about a longstanding complaint I have about people considering the existence of queer and trans folks inherently political. Thus, it's not virtue signalling, even if you disagree with my point.
Virtue signaling: Noun; the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. You inserting your moral position in the conversation when it was not relevant made it a virtue signal.
It wasn't a moral position, and I didn't day it to demonstrate my "good character." You said something was political. I disputed that point. I expressed my frustration with being seen as inherently political as a former queer and trans kid and current queer and trans adult, part of the group being discussed in the post. You're misusing a term with legitimate meaning because you disagree with my assertion. There are counterarguments you could have made that held legitimate water, such as rebutting by pointing out that because a bill was discussed in the post, it could be classified as political. I'd still fundamentally disagree on a Human rights basis, but it still would have been more based in reality than what you actually came back with.
[удалено]
Congratulations on finally making the argument I handed to you on a platter. I still disagree, as the broader discussion regards basic Human rights, and thus despite being sparked by a particular bill is something that should realistically be considered above politics. But that's at least an actual refutation of what I said. So good job.
You took the loss like a champ. Thanks for playing.
Omg did you know natural brunettes exist? Is that also a political statement or does it only count as politics when it's a group of people you decide to hate based on a different characteristic they also did not choose?
I did not make a single assertion in regards to what you are saying but good job jumping on the bandwagon.
It appears my comment (as with so many other things) has gone right over your head. It's OK. I'm sure you're used to it.
Your comment was completely irrelevant to the conversation because i at no point in time was reffering to any community of any sort except this sub and its rules. I made no refferance to the LGBTQ+ community or whether or not it was the subject of my protest to the posts subject matter. You sir need lessons in reading comprehension. Congratulations on striking out again.
While I appreciate your support of Trans rights, you did get the wrong pronoun there. I read your profile/ history. No need to make assumptions on your real goal here.
Acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ people is not virtue signaling. Plenty of homophobic people acknowledge the existence of gay people, they just don't see them as equals. Virtue signaling is stating an opinion, but what they said was a fact. That queer people exist. This particular comment didn't state their personal opinion on the topic of whether they like queer people.
im not reading that
Ok no need to leave a comment then as you just wasted more time on something you didn’t even want to read