/townhall/ - Townhall

If they're promoting the Izzy / Starscout ship for LGBTQ month then all I can say

Yes please.

I find it a better message than the typical.
'Be yourself' covers a range without having to be specific, or declare pride in something as simple and meaningless as one's sexuality.

>>12110
Thank you for sharing your unique sparkle in the opinion that sexuality is meaningless.

>>12109
I don't suppose I can comment on that possibility.

Oh my gosh

Imagine if they just go for a real Make your mark shipping episode. Not silently implied or hinted, bbut like real canon shipping of the 2 major same-sex leads of the franchise.

I mean, it doesn't have to be sexy stuff, but like genuine romantic tension and development.

>>12108

I think that is a good idea.

...that image, though - the cuteness might be pushing into the creepy territory just a bit - remember MLP G2.5?

>>12110

I agree. For people who may not care about sexuality or gender at all but have a hard time being accepted for other reasons, it can be mentally taxxing. For example, atheists and people with mental health problems struggle to be themselves in this society, too. ...and many others. Maybe we should all try and be our real selves this month?

>>12112
I've been thinking about the LGBT+ thing a lot.  Many people are pretty upset about the LGBT+ agenda.  I understand the LGBT+ agenda is not something many people want to see or to have their children exposed to.  Many feel it's being pushed far too hard.

Perhaps we can think of LGBT+ needing consent or needing a content warning.  Without such consent or a warning, only normal heterosexual relationships involving cis-gender people/ponies can be shown.

I think if we create our own content, we can put those kinds of warnings in place and get consent, so it would be OK to have LGBT+ themes.

>>12113
>but have a hard time being accepted for other reasons

I understand many differences are not preferred by mainstream society -- or a mainstream society.

>Maybe we should all try and be our real selves this month?

I gather society has a thing called White Christian Nationalism.  I don't know if there actually is a mainstream society.  But the idea is some kinds of experiences and people are welcome and some are not.  I think a good strategy is to keep things that might be unwelcome to White Christian Nationalists confidential until you are in a safe space, if possible.

But then you will be accused of needing a safe space and gatekeeping that space against folks with alternate opinions to share.  I don't know.

>>12113
I'm not meaning just things outside of sexuality, that way. Even sexuality itself, I think, ought be included there.
Plenty of folk find taking pride in some simple preference in partner weird, after all. And that's among those who have those preferences, mind you.

Either way, though, I think "be our real selves" is a solid message.
Covers a range, and I think is a far better goal.

>>12115

Yeah. It seems like there is less of a mainstream society nowadays nowadays - more like just multiple streams.

I think some kinds of experiences and expressions have always not been welcome in society, and it is only recently that large groups of people have decided that they should be welcome, and some people don't like it.

I think it usually starts with someone realizing they're not like others for whatever reason. Then, they either hide to avoid expected backlash, or they come out and tell others.

Due to the culture, when a person comes out as different in some big way, they are faced with negative societal karma, expressed through their parents, siblings, friends, etc.

As this can be a lot to deal with on one's own, the result of coming out can end up ruining a person's mental health and/or life. So, the options are frequently to come out and risk serious consequences or keep it secret, conform, and risk possibly less serious consequences over the the long-term (but possibly not).

This is why, I think, that the LGBTQ+ community and safe spaces in general (for whatever reason you're different) exist.

Some members of the community then feel attacked for trying to help people in need and decide to relatiate through egregious displays that they know will get the other "side" angry. It does get the other side angrier, and so official safe spaces are defined. People who are anti-LGBTQ+ then see their kids looking to the LGBTQ+ community and safe spaces for support, and blame the LGBTQ+ community for "brainwashing" their kids. And it escalates from there, with the anti-LGBTQ+ community, for example, then feeling like they have proof of brainwashing and that the other side has a malicious agenda of some sort. It has now escalated to the point of laws being made to restrict peoples' rights. So, now the LGBTQ+ community feels like it has proof of the other side's intolerance and lack of interest in the well being of kids that fall outside the gender norm, etc. In reality, however, as is often if not always the case, it was all just a communication problem, and both sides actually just wanted what was best for the kids.

It's just exhausting to watch the same patterns play out across society again and again, only in different contexts.

Therefore, to answer your question on how I think to best let everypony be true to themselves, I would say that we could all start by learning how to control our anger and listen to each other instead of immediately jumping to conclusions about things :)

>>12116

Good points.

>>12117
Suppose a question is how much society is built to punish gender or sexual difference...on purpose.  That is the root of the process.  If that's a feature, no a bug -- for many people -- it's not communication, but values.  I do agree nobody is trying to hurt...the valuable kids, in their mind.  But opinions vary, and from variable opinions you get variable conclusions about what is harmful.

But maybe I should try to understand your paragraphs better.  Whose anger is at fault?  Is it those who, for example, celebrate pride in a way they know will cause others to get upset?

>>12118

I think that's where the negative societal karma comes in. It's something we haven't dealt with as a society, especially in the West... the karma of conquering stuff in the name of God or some other holy reason. I think it is communication, fundamentally... values are formed by communication in the broadest sense, I think. ...so, it is about communication but we haven't communicated properly for so long that a lot of it over a long period is required (in my opinion)...

I think that everyone is dealing with the same basic causes and conditions. So, it's hard to say who is at fault - only what needs to be done, perhaps.

>>12119
What is your meaning of "societal karma"?  When I see Karma, it's usually in the context of "instant Karma" where a rude person is punished by an independent event.  The actual Karma is a religious idea I probably don't fully understand.

Which parties need to communicate and what do they need to tell each other?

>>12120

My thoughts are that I think my meaning is that when you do something, it has effects. It's not what you do that matters, necessarily, but your reason for doing it. If you do something in the name of God (or some other moral cause) (not for God, which I think is a subtle difference), then that will have consequences down the line related to the fact that you did it in the name of God. If you do something out love, there wil be consequences tied to that related to the fact that you did the thing out of love. If you do something out of anger, fear, or delusion - whatever your underlying motive - that will have a specific set of consequences down the line associated with that. You might not be able to guess how they will arise, specifically, but... just that what happens in the future, etc. will be a result of your (and others') underlying motives.

By societal karma, I mean what happens when a lot of poeple have similar underlying motives for doing something and how it affects the society as a whole, such as what laws are made, social norms, etc.

I think everyone could stop fighting so much and listen to each other, but it can be quite hard, and some people might not be ready, so we should just do what we can (and take care of ourselves), I suppose.

>>12121
I think I see.  When I think of a particular act, say banning drag shows viewable by children, you could say the motivation was protecting children, obeying God's will, hate or fear for LGBT+ associated things, or some combination or difference motivations for different people.  So things in societal Karma seem pretty fuzzy in practice.

>everyone could stop fighting so much and listen to each other

I can't tell others what to do, but I think I agree with that general sentiment.  Although in my view there are windows when others are actually ready to listen, and it's important to be sensitive to those opportunities.  (However, that also means accepting marginalization when those windows are rare.  And it's quite possible in some cases windows are made rare on purpose.)