File: 1688195047447.jpg (690.06 KB, 1859x1948, 1859:1948, FrogandToad1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Do you feel safe here?
File: 1688221906575.jpg (310.11 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I feel like I'm probably safe as long as nobody notices me too much. Like, I'd like to create some uncertainty that I am LGBT to be on the safe side.
Like, is this thread only for LGBT people? Maybe I didn't read that very closely.>>12189>I don't have particular worry about people reaching through the screen and strangling me, no.
Granted, the anonymous nature of this board helps, in that it puts barriers on any negative opinions becoming kinetic, and even if my identity were better known kinetic responses to text online will be rare. And I think this place is safer than most, but you are not asking a relative question, but an absolute question.
Just trying to clarify so I understood the prompt as much as I could.
I don't know if I truly count myself amongst the LGBT group, but I guess I sorta lean that way, and well, I am dating two sexes at the moment so I guess I'm at least on the Bi spectrum.
But to answer the OP, yea I do feel pretty safe here. I think the core principles of this site and the communication between all the staff allows them to run a pretty efficient system of checks and balances and keeping any forms of harassment or hate speech under control. There's a lot less lovely places I could be, that's for sure.
I wouldn't go posting my address online for general safety purposes, but I deeply trust almost everyone who uses this site and board, and would like to visit most of them some day.
File: 1688299941320.png (221.02 KB, 570x420, 19:14, 3147553.png) ImgOps Google
Yes, I think I agree to a point. In public spaces, LGBT+ people need to be prepared to accommodate negative opinions of various kinds. They also need to be aware of a lack of consent to be exposed to or conform to practices associated with the LGBT+ agenda, for example, due to a person's religious association. LGBT+ people should not get upset in public if there is a preference for exclusion.
However I sometimes feel spaces might be created where it can be known people in those spaces consent to being exposed to LGBT+ people and ideas, and can follow practices the LGBT+ agenda might consider respectful of LGBT+ people. Of course, not a public space and I will grant not *this* space, but I guess I disagree a bit, in that I think these spaces might exist somewhere.
File: 1688398683257.jpg (346.88 KB, 1396x1242, 698:621, Screenshot_20210206-001319….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I don't know if I feel unsafe on either /townhall/ or the rest of the site as much as I feel like a significant portion of people on /townhall/ are not going to discuss anything in good faith when it comes to LGBT issues.
Or really, most issues.
>>12206>What kind of negative opinions should LGBT people expect to see in public spaces?
LGBT+ people are corroding traditional values/woke/delusional/in need of serious help/unholy degenerates.
LGBT+ identities are sexually explicit and not appropriate.
LGBT+ people are grooming children or pedophiles; pedophiles should be killed, groomers stopped at any cost.
Transgender people should not be accepted in feminism.
LGBT+ people are forcing their will on others and society, or they are victims of larger powers forcing themselves on society.
Transgender women are very ugly, undateable, and catfishing [but poorly].
The suicide rate of LGBT+ people ought to be higher.
Transgenderism is child abuse or mutilation.
And so on.>What are some LGBT practices that religious people might not consent to?
Use of preferred pronouns. Acceptance of non-traditional marriages or relationships. Pride celebrations. Discussion of LGBT+ issues in what some might say is a respectful way. Being around LGBT+ people or allowing them into religious institutions, especially in a way that is "out."
[It's always good to maintain situational awareness.]>Why shouldn't LGBT people be upset for that exclusion?
People must accept that not all places are going to be safe and appropriate. Being as respectful and tolerant as possible will give LGBT+ people the best chance of gaining social acceptance. We are asking a lot of society, and must be willing to set a good example.
I mean, people like that will be around. But i disagree that people will just have to deal with it and move on.> Being as respectful and tolerant as possible will give LGBT+ people the best chance of gaining social acceptance.
In the point above, I feel like being respectful and tolerant towards LGBT people will be the best road.
You can't win over everyone, but there should be a maximal effort to outcast those negative opinions to the fringes of our society.
That's fine. I don't think I'm going to try to make anyone an outcast, but it would be nice if there were fewer negative opinions.
It does appear that these opinions are largely shared by a minority of people. I guess I shouldn't try to play sociologist or psychologist and guess the reasoning or causes, and the frequency of negative opinions seems to have gone up in the past year or two, but is on a decline at the scale of decades. And most people who are not this opinionated minority or not LGBT+ or associated themselves don't spend a lot of time thinking about LGBT+ issues.
Do you expect LGBT people to accommodate those kinds of opinions in public? These are horrific things to be said.
I guess I'm also surprised you understand the kind of opinions being directed towards the LGBT community and also will not give them the space here to express their ideas.
>>12206>What are some LGBT practices that religious people might not consent to?
I would take whatever answer you're given to this question with a massive
grain of salt because religious people are hardly unified on opinions about LGBTQ people.
Answers like this ... >>12208>Use of preferred pronouns. Acceptance of non-traditional marriages or relationships. Pride celebrations. Discussion of LGBT+ issues in what some might say is a respectful way. Being around LGBT+ people or allowing them into religious institutions, especially in a way that is "out."
... especially should be taken with that massive grain of salt. It presumes to speak for all religious people. In a way that comes off similarly to how conservative Christians, especially fundamentalist and other non-mainline protestant denominations, have a long history of playing No True Scotsman with the definition of Christian, especially when it comes to progressive Christians.
>>12211>Do you expect LGBT people to accommodate those kinds of opinions in public?
Suppose my opinions goes something like, the less LGBT+ people are shocked by various opinions, the better they can remain polite and collected. The more LGBT+ show tolerance and kindness, the harder it will be for opponents to make them out to be a threat to safety, freedom, or free speech.
I don't really know what I mean by accommodate. I think maybe it's better to say people should make their own decisions about what they find safe and appropriate.
File: 1688440668907.png (270.65 KB, 475x481, 475:481, Screenshot from 2023-07-03….png) ImgOps Google
>>12212>have a long history of playing No True Scotsman with the definition of Christian
Yes. While I don't want to generalize, I would say it's quite common for individuals with a Christian identity to form a restrictive definition of Christianity [eg. image]. The progressive version would say something like "God is Love" with some implication of acceptance of LGBT+ people. I've yet to see a Christian person say either perspective aligns equally well with the Christian faith, as I suppose you'd have to maintain Gay Marriage is both sinful and a divine sacrament, but I would not say it's impossible. Being on the outside and having a neutral stance, I can say Christianity is the sum of everything those with a Christian identity do or say as part of what they consider their faith or religion.
There is a thing called "open and affirming" churches, which would be the opposite of closed and repudiating churches, of which the person who made the example remark might belong.>Christianity is the sum of everything those with a Christian identity do or say as part of what they consider their faith or religion.
I think this is objectively true, but how is it to be applied, practically-speaking?
>>12217>I think this is objectively true, but how is it to be applied, practically-speaking?
I've been talking a lot to ChatGPT about these questions. I'll try not to give a ChatGPT answer.
One perspective is that those with negative opinions are part-time and low-information. They are not in a position to win in the long run, and eventually the shock value and anger will run its course. I think there's confidence in that.
But mostly, I don't know. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing sometimes. Anger has seldom ended well for me, and negative LGBT opinions still have a capacity to create anger in me. But maybe others are better at making anger productive of prosocial change. My anger is seldom well understood by others.
File: 1690684764534.png (658.27 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google
>>12260>get observations on it
While not an observation, my analysis is that those things that could be established as inherently human behaviors or viewpoints are so commonly held as to be politically inert. Anyone using these kinds of arguments to forward the opinions of one group of humans over those of an opposing group is almost certainly engaging in a naturalist fallacy of some sort.
I'm not quite sure if that's the response you were looking for, though.
I suppose most people tend to believe in the naturalistic fallacy throughout most of their life. This is why people will end friendships over a former friend eating a given type of food that's seen as extremely "gross", say, because "that's not natural". And why people fight over what seasons of the year are their favorite. And other such arguments, even to the point of physical blows. Because this or that isn't "natural" to enjoy.
Which is not to say that humanity in general is evil, or that you and I are being controversial, or anything like that. Not at all. It's just that human reasoning sadly often fails. People are flawed. As are we, as people. That's life.
File: 1690720185764.png (14.03 KB, 838x908, 419:454, full.png) ImgOps Google
It's a pretty common type of argument when talking about LGBT+ people. But it should probably be seldom taken as a proper argument and rather a way of expressing disgust or disapproval, so perhaps I shouldn't use the word fallacy as a way of being mean, that's just the word association I had.
Is the "naturalistic fallacy" really a fallacy per se?
Wide swaths of millions will argue as a matter of their ironclad religious belief that God has deliberately designed in general human instinct the desire to hate certain types of people, types of animals, types of places, and so on.
Who are we to say that their faith is wrong? Who are we to say that God didn't actually do this? Can be truly know either way whether or not that happened?
It can be also argued that logic has no application to God inherently. If God decides to make a square with less than four sides, that's that. God says what God says. God orders what God orders. We just obey. We don't think. We are subjects of God. Not equals. He is to us as we are to ants, say. I suppose.
>>12288>Who are we to say that their faith is wrong?
"We" perhaps can not, at least we can not inhibit religious freedom or disrespect religion. "I" can say it is wrong, although I try to keep my religious faith confidential.
But probably you speak to the point of trying to respect differences. So to some, LGBT+ people are not considered natural.
If the majority of a faith holds that the sun revolves around the Earth or any other assertion of fact, is it not possible that this majority opinion view of reality should win over no matter what the facts according to others say?
What is the point of believing in a truth if God says that it's incorrect? He is God. You are not.
>>12352>What is the point of believing in a truth if God says that it's incorrect? He is God. You are not.
If God is defined as saying only what is true, a saying can be proven to come unaltered from God, [the method of understanding or interpreting what God says can be known], and the reality of that God is established, there is no point in contradicting.
I feel like I'm loosing the train of thought a bit, though. If we are talking about Christians, there are a wide range of perceptions about what God says to be true and/or how to interpret God's words.
Are you...trying to convert me to a particular version of Christian faith?
I'm just thinking out loud about the nature of consensus reality. If a majority of a population is solidly Christian and believes with pure sincerity that the minorities among them are inferiors who don't deserve human rights at all, or maybe they merit even worse treatment, one wonders what exactly can be said from the outside about disapproving of that situation. It's somewhat like saying that you wish a water park existed in the Sahara Desert somewhere. Maybe, but it's not there. And it likely will never be.
If Christians inherently outnumber the LGBT, assuming that we're talking here about the supposed correct type of Christians as popularly perceived who oppose LGBT people in therms of their very existence onward, then what is there really to say about clamping down on the majority for the sake of the minority? Oppressing that minority? Why not let them have their religious needs met? Why not let them do what their God demands them to do? They've God on their side. And numbers. And utilitarian logic.
Is the despair and depression of the vast populace really worth causing just for the happiness of a tiny few?
I know we have to respect state power, not resist the state, respect religious freedom, and not denigrate religious people because of their religion. And generally be nice and respectful to other people.
If all that is satisfied, you can say any negative thing you like.>Is the despair and depression of the vast populace really worth causing just for the happiness of a tiny few?
Oh, maybe I see better. If we take the utilitarian approach and maximize sum happiness, if enough people are made slightly happier, any degree of suffering may be justifiable for a sufficiently small minority.
Frankly, as I think this is pretty clearly not a desirable outcome it is a good reason to reject that form of utilitarian thinking.
>>12358>Frankly, as I think this is pretty clearly not a desirable outcome it is a good reason to reject that form of utilitarian thinking.
Maybe. Maybe not. I really don't know.
The question of "evil" is complicated by having clear-cut cases in which the benefit of one individual and/or group must inherently come at the expense of another individual and/or group.
I can't blame somebody that much for saying "It's either them or us", even if I personally disagree with that ethical standard in the strongest possible terms.
Compared to other online spaces? Not really. A lot of the discourse around lgbt issues and people here is beyond ignorant or hateful to the point of most discussions being totally unsalvageable, particularly in /townhall/. That said, I am not exactly surprised or shocked by this. It is just the general state of image and text boards in general right now, but I am disappointed given the unusually high concentration of lgbt mlp fans overall.
Hope that answers your question.
>>12288>Who are we to say that their faith is wrong? Who are we to say that God didn't actually do this? Can be truly know either way whether or not that happened?
And who are they to assert that it is right? Who are they to say that God actually did this? Can they truly know either way whether or not that happened?>>12355
You seem to suggesting that having the power to oppress gives someone the right to do so, and this logic has been used for millennia to justify history's greatest atrocities. It is a cycle we have to break, no one's delusion gives them a divine right to conquer, that's absurd and this kind of bucket crab logic is exactly how human suffering in general is perpetuated. LGBT won't just disappear as a phenomenon even if you were to eradicate every last queer person. It is an emergent and natural element of human nature to be the way we are, as it is impossible for anything to act outside of its nature, by definition. All that would be accomplished is to push queer people back into the shadows, but they never disappear. You are pinning the blissful ignorance of many on the suffering of a few, when all bear equal responsibility to the burden of knowledge, and thus all have an obligation to shed our ignorance out of consideration for our fellow man. To frame this in a religious context for you, by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, we cannot go back into the garden of eden and certainly won't be able to recreate an eden for ourselves through ignorance.>>12358>I know we have to respect state power, not resist the state
Whoa whoa whoa. Who told you that lie? The state? The only reason many marginalized groups have any rights at all is specifically because they resisted the state, the only reason the United States itself exists at all is because the founders chose to resist their state. Freedom and equity are hard fought and won through resistance to state power. The state, though it may assert itself as an arbiter of truth and morality, simply does so through force, and does not any foundation in some absolute morality, as there is none.>and not denigrate religious people because of their religion. And generally be nice and respectful to other people.
And in sharing a state with them, they bear the same responsibility to be nice and respectful to people outside their religion as well, but all too often I see religious people trying to assert their personal belief as justification to not be held to the same standards as the rest of society.
File: 1704830153617.gif (543.75 KB, 380x380, 1:1, db3g9hd-add1ae11-b3e5-411d….gif) ImgOps Google
I don't have much history posting here but nothing on the internet really offends me or makes me feel unsafe.
File: 1705258426950.jpg (206.66 KB, 2048x1830, 1024:915, DoChwu9XgAE0KYK.jpg_large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
As someone who is LGBT1234, I've never got why so many people are so sensitive to the opinions of others.
I get that there are bad people in the world, but if a ponyboard and a thread about the subject makes you feel uncomfortable then you're probably sheltered and need to learn to face your fears.
That's what I've done and I've never had an issue IRL with it; especially online. You just have to put your foot down with people and set boundaries if even needed. People are surprisingly understanding and will either respect you or back off.>>12208>pedophiles should be killed, groomers stopped at any cost>Transgenderism is child abuse or mutilation.
I don't disagree with these at all. As much as I support the idea of people existing, leave children out of it.
There's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that gay people, bisexual people, and/or transgender people are more likely to molest children than otherwise, though.
I'd say as somebody dealing with abuse related trauma myself that the denialism and disinformation about reality as to who can or can't be an abuser actually makes children hurt worse.
If a straight woman beats up a child, molests them, screams at them to kill themselves, and so on, society shouldn't give them a lighter punishment or no punishment at all just because "well, she's neither gay nor trans, so she doesn't fit what we expect."
I'd even go so far as to say that I think hatred of LGBT people is something that heterosexual pedophiles want because it lets straight men and straight women hurt kids way more easily because then the regular public cares less about their victims (since the argument that primarily or only LGBT people are perpetrators of abuse means that if I ask for help after a straight person hurt me I must be lying). The fact that straight adult women who molest kids in America, in particular, get almost no criticism socially is from an ethical perspective an abomination. Morality matters.
I recommend the related 'South Park' episodes on this, honestly.
File: 1705331161918.jpg (195.91 KB, 842x1087, 842:1087, 960.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Oh boy, you're not gonna like what I have to say. Warning: I'm about to disagree with you.
I never mentioned anything about gay people being more likely to commit crimes against children, but if you really want to bring that up; per capita homosexuals and transgendered people absolutely have a higher risk of being pedophiles and domestic abusers. The last part is especially true with lesbians.
When you compare the total population of straight Cis people to child predators in that demographic the percentage is much lower in cis straights and horrifically higher for anyone else who falls out of the mold. And that is embarrassing.
It also doesn't help that some sexual predators pretend to be trans to attempt to sexually assault others. Which has happened. A lot.
I'm all for supporting rights as it does affect myself as well, but I will never deny fact; and the fact is that my own community has a problem with that.
And before you try to pull the wool over my eyes and say that numbers are sexist or homophobic or racist, I do understand that numbers do not define individuals..
However, they indicate a very serious problem. Or are you going to argue that we should just sweep that shit under the rug?>If a straight woman beats up a child, molests them, screams at them to kill themselves, and so on, society shouldn't give them a lighter punishment or no punishment at all just because "well, she's neither gay nor trans, so she doesn't fit what we expect."
In the eyes of the law (in America) straight cis women have abused/neglected children before. There are prisons that are filled with women serving life time sentences for 'accidentally' murdering their own kids. And they usually get made examples out of when they do get caught. The problem is reporting, and that's a global issue across all demographics save for straight males. If a domestic call gets made 9/10 the cops are going to initially jump on a man over a female, but I digress..
One more thing>The fact that straight adult women who molest kids in America, in particular, get almost no criticism socially is from an ethical perspective an abomination. Morality matters.
Yeah that's been changing lately.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xiKxoNm0FN8
This is beyond annoying because morality gets to be irreverent at a certain point because facts are facts and numbers are numbers. It doesn't matter if your personal opinion conflicts with reality. Reality is realty.
LGBT people aren't more likely to abuse or otherwise mistreat children. This is a false statement of fact. It's like claiming that the Moon landings were fake, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that climate change isn't real, that Jeffrey Epstein is still alive, and the like. There are numerous citations to support this.
See, for one, this: https://web.archive.org/web/20170802023216/http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
This is particularly horrible to me personally since as the abused child of an abused single mother it's because of people like you that we don't get care, empathy, sympathy, or support directed our way.
In terms of culture, you've got it backwards. Straight men, especially conservatives, cover for straight women. And straight women cover for straight women. If a religious leader, a politician, a businessman, or whomever else hurts you, then you're going to be viewed as a lying harpy out to slander and libel good people. My God, look at how straight America for the most part looked at Donald Trump bragging about groping women without their consent in public and went "Nice!".
File: 1705387482780.jpg (195.91 KB, 842x1087, 842:1087, 960.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I can pull up FBI statics and crime facts. I mean it's like I said. It is a fact per capita that the LGBT+ community has a much higher number compared to their total population.
We're just going to be at odds end. Because I know I am right. And you know you are right.
Sorry we can't see each other's point. I also don't care that much to be honest.
Try rereading my previous post. I said number don't define individuals, but they ARE and indication of a huge problem. Also if you think cis people just stick their necks out solely on the premise someone is cis, then you are not living in the same reality as me.
File: 1705387591544.jpg (1.01 MB, 2458x3072, 1229:1536, qxg7v3sdotta1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12795>>My God, look at how straight America for the most part looked at Donald Trump bragging about groping women without their consent in public and went "Nice!".
I've said dirtier shit in a locker room before. I've heard dirtier shit said before. I've heard women, trans women, and others say much much worse.
It wasn't a big deal.
It's not a fact. Scientific institutions have looked into this over and over again. LGBT people simply aren't more likely to abuse children. To proclaim otherwise is to engage in literally word-for-word the same kind of libelous propaganda used by the Nazis to put people into ovens. It's not just wrong. It's actively proclaiming a falsehood that's used to support a political faction as part of a worldwide movement that has for decades killed gigantic swaths of LGBT people.
And if you genuinely think that conservative Republican straight people don't overlook how their political leaders as well as other, regular types in their tribe will engage in truly gross sexual behavior, then you're really not living on the normal Earth with the rest of us. Seriously, how many Republican politicians do you want me to name here? I can make an extremely long list.
File: 1705425428903.jpg (52.88 KB, 640x640, 1:1, sad-bowsette-v0-48usvclpsl….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Fbi stats are public information. My computer is in the shop. I have pictures and shit on it. I'm on my phone and don't feel like digging around the internet with a mobile. I'll be floating around in the future though, so I'll deliver then.
The same statistics that appear as damning also cover violence against people who are LGBT+ and have brought attention to the issue. That's how we have that statistic that someone who I'd trans is like 200% more likely to be assaulted in their life vs a cis gendered person; and interestingly enough, if you are black and trans the number skyrockets to like 800% more likely.
It's indictive of a problem and one that the LGBT community needs to address instead of hiding away from. All that does is protect sex offenders and predators. >>12802
Again, you're not going to agree with me and I'm not going too agree with you. I know my facts; I've seen the numbers, read many different stories on cases that were sent to trail, and -- well this last bit might offend you, but from my personal experience, other LGBT folk tend to be promiscuous and try to fight the meaning of morality almost as if to spite society. All that does is make someone a terrible person.
One more thing:>nazis
The holocaust was almost 100 years ago. 78 to be exact if I remember correctly. Quit trying to guilt/shame people into agreeing with you.
I do not give a fuck about the holocaust. Just like I don't care that Vlad the Impaler killed more than 20,000 turks by impalement; or how Ghengis Khan killed so many human beings that it actually lowered the global temperature.
I've always hated the whole "This is literally how Hitler thought!"
Hitler also supported animal rights and lead a campaign against smoking cigarettes. That doesn't make those wrong either.
File: 1705690210467.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I think some of the responses in this thread since my first response back in July proves my point. Ponyville is not always a place I trust because of many attitudes expressed in this very thread.
It's really fucking frustrating seeing bad faith bigoted arguments originating in right-wing echo chambers regurgitated here uncritically over and over again.
Also, relatedly, as a transgender woman who was a transgender child once it really disillusions me when people in this community keep asserting this politically convenient distraction narrative that my mere existence is grooming children. Something which is obviously a distraction from all other right-wing policy failures and pretty transparent demagoguery engineered as part of a desperate grasp for old wealthy elites to retain political power, something you would hope people in America could have learned was part of how fascists came to power all over the world throughout history.
My existence as a transgender child was not something influenced by knowing any other transgender people, I didn't even know other people existed who felt the way I did till I was a teenager and I was immediately deeply closeted and in denial about that for nearly two decades afterwards because I was well aware of transphobia and all the violence surrounding. I know it's anecdotal, but the experience of being trans is entirely within private subjective experiences of the self that are not physically possible to share and compare with others cause telepathy doesn't exist. My transition is for my sake alone, to finally feel comfortable in my own body, not motivated by any sexual kink or "gender ideology". If you're so solopsistic that you can only understand people like me in terms of porn or hentai categories, that's your problem, not mine. But if you can only conceive of me in those terms and use that as reason to claim my mere existence is "grooming" or "catfishing", then fuck you, it's transparently clear that you're grasping at straws to give yourself moral permission to act on what is essentially just knee-jerk disgust at my strangeness, desperately grasping for excuses to supress my inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness over some "harm" my mere existence somehow causes to kids. I don't make anyone transgender by being transgender.
People who ignore or "dont care" about the past are doomed to repeat it. It shouldn't matter how long ago it happened, you should still have a problem with it and engage with the mindsets of the people behind it and whatnot.
Yes that means you should care about what Vlad the Impaler did, at least insofar as the reasons behind it and understanding why it was bad. Understanding that sort of thing ensures that it can be prevented. Granted, very few seem interested in preventing more genocides from happening, but its the principle that matters. Remembering and caring about events thag happened in the past is important and not only that but morally obligatory. For someone who seems to care about morality a lot, you seem to be lacking it quite a lot.
File: 1705764847566.jpg (1.01 MB, 2458x3072, 1229:1536, qxg7v3sdotta1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
What are you talking about? Nobody is saying that your mere existence is causing child grooming. However to deny that it happens in unusually large numbers among LGBT community is a fact, and to deny that is just sticking your head in the sand. I'm glad your transition worked out for you, but the fact is that it doesn't for a lot of other children for a lot of other reasons, and it is a problem.
If you're just going to call everyone who disagrees with you and points out actual problems in the LGBT community an altright wingnut, then I hate to say it but you're apart of the problem.
Make peace with that.>>12812>People who ignore or "dont care" about the past are doomed to repeat it. It shouldn't matter how long ago it happened, you should still have a problem with it and engage with the mindsets of the people behind it and whatnot.
You're adding the clause of care to that little phrase. Those who are ignorant
of the past are doomed to repeat it; as in, if your population of people don't read about history, it might happen again.>Yes that means you should care about what Vlad the Impaler did, at least insofar as the reasons behind it and understanding why it was bad.
What Vlad did was considered cruel but necessary because the Turks were going to fuck everyone up and more than likely force everyone to Islam. Let that sink in.>Understanding that sort of thing ensures that it can be prevented. Granted, very few seem interested in preventing more genocides from happening, but its the principle that matters. Remembering and caring about events thag happened in the past is important and not only that but morally obligatory. For someone who seems to care about morality a lot, you seem to be lacking it quite a lot.
Genocide happens to this day
. I don't care about that either because it's not my problem. That doesn't mean I don't have a sense of morality. It means that this event has little to no significance on my life. If I really think about it, I might feel bad for a moment, but you aren't going to see me flying to some third world country with good intentions only to get kidnapped by some desperate and violent cartel member or insurgent. And before anyone goes accusing me of being ignorant of other nations and cultures: yes I have visited a lot of countries before.
I'm going to take a guess and say that you don't actually care about what Vlad or Khan did all those years ago and are simply using that as a means of moral high ground. You don't think about it. It doesn't keep you up at night. You never knew any of those people who died.>>12813
Nobody denied anything about the nazis. I'm very loudly and very clearly getting my point across that I don't give a fuck about them or Jewish people. I never have and never will. It was almost 100 years ago, and 99% of the global population that was affected by it are already dead. If that bothers you, then go kick rocks.
You aren't going to derail my original point and try to guilt me into agreeing with you.
I just find it really funny that you talk about morality and yet you lack it so completely. Do you even realize how hypocritical you are?
Also I added the "care" part because thats actually entirely the point of it. Its NOT ignorance that does it, at least not alone. Caring is an integral aspect. If you know about it but don't care, then you're just as doomed to repeating it as if you were fully unaware.
File: 1705875002741.jpg (222.66 KB, 1600x1600, 1:1, Isabelle.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Caring isn't required to understand the past. I don't need to cry about some fucking jews that got gassed almost 100 years ago because people like you think I should be shamed/guilted into feeling bad for something I didn't do.
Especially when it's thrown into a context that had nothing to do with the original subject.
People like you are counter productive to any sort of sympathy for those historical events. >If you know about it but don't care, then you're just as doomed to repeating it as if you were fully unaware.
Completely false. I don't need to hate nazis or love jews or anything to know what happened and how to avoid it
File: 1705888132978.png (551.63 KB, 1377x2365, 1377:2365, 1705773313768.png) ImgOps Google
Hmm, i thought the point was about learning and caring about the universal lessons about human experience. Just like people still read Sun Tzu's *The Art Of War*, not because they are particularly interested in ancient Chinese history, but because a lot of what you learn is still relevant in the modern world.
I kind of wonder what take he has on it, as Jordan Peterson is known for taking a pretty harsh stance against LGBTQ and an assortment of mental disorders.
At any rate, whether one cries themselves to sleep at night over the holocaust or not, the main take away is that it is bad to peg outlandish lables on a group of people. Because it is those labels that gets them ousted, persecuted and even killed.
Accusing LGBTQ people of grooming / molesting kids is what drives policies to ban support groups (see Russia) and can lead to legislature not only denying transpeople the means to transition, but also can lead LGBTQ people to be detained for being who they are.
This can be a slippery slope, but e see this stuff happening in politics right now and we can see through Nazi gerany where this sort of stuff brought us.
Now of course facts are facts and they can't just be denied because you disagree with it. But I also have my doubts that those facts are indicative enough to push the anti-LGBTQ narrative.
There is simply no scientifically established logic flow from being LGBTQ and being a paedophile.
File: 1705995700429.png (574.25 KB, 499x647, 499:647, beach smile.png) ImgOps Google
I think we're using the same word in two different ways. >not because they are particularly interested in ancient Chinese history, but because a lot of what you learn is still relevant in the modern world.
Exactly. I don't need to sit here and cry about what happened in the past. I understand it, and use the past to see patterns. A lot of people get emotional over things that have had no real impact over their lives and it is ridiculous. I don't feel guilty about it. I don't feel obligated to force feelings of compassion for a group of people I've never even met in person, and who never actually met a real Nazi from that time period. (Which were completely different from Neo Nazis of today despite popular belief that they are one in the same.) >Accusing LGBTQ people of grooming / molesting kids is what drives policies to ban support groups
Using facts to push and press a ban is an unfortunate outcome that happens when a community of people have a problem. It's like how black people have a sharp incline in violent crime in America and others use it to paint a narrative that fits their own agendas.
At the end of the day whether or not someone spins it for their own goals, there is actually a problem that needs to be addressed.
File: 1705997420653.jpg (87.57 KB, 896x892, 224:223, circle.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>Because it is those labels that gets them ousted, persecuted and even killed.
I know it happens, especially outside of America, (and inside America, let's not get it twisted) but interestingly enough I've never encountered someone threatening me with violence just because I like to fool around with both men and women.
Then again, most people mistake me for being completely straight.
Northern Texas recently had a hostage crisis in which a psychopath fed by political extremism on behalf of militants in a foreign country held a bunch of innocents at gunpoint inside a local synagogue very close to where I live, with the police in very, very circumstances managing to take out the mass shooter type before he succeeded in harming anybody.
And, of course, the political reaction of about half of Texans reflects that of half of Americans in that it's either "I don't care about Jews being killed or threatened with a gun in their faces because I'm myself not Jewish" or "I don't mind Jews being killed or threatened like that because they probably deserved it".
Granted, the other half of Texans and more broadly Americans are moral idealist types of either moderate, moderate-left, or moderate-right beliefs who want to "love thy neighbors". I know that. You know that. We all know that.
There are too many people out there like the posters in this very thread. Though. America is a "shithole country". In the truest sense of the words. It's a nation where you can't even go to a religious institution without being afraid for your physical safety. That should change. It's amazing to me that something horrible can happen right where I live just a moment ago, in the grand scheme of things, and I'm not allowed in American society to be upset over it (at least, well, according to half of us).
Hell, I'm expecting the very responses to this post here to either a)deny that the Colleyville hostage crisis happened, b)say that it wasn't that bad for some reason, or c)say that the victims deserved it somehow. Go ahead. Type those responses.
File: 1707235488915.jpg (110.98 KB, 1080x1592, 135:199, bitch the fuck.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12851>It's a nation where you can't even go to a religious institution without being afraid for your physical safety.
What kind of churches/temples/ect have you been going to?
America is a violent country, but compared to a majority of the rest of the world it is one of the only places where the LGBT community is allowed to parade down the street and homophobia is looked down upon by a lot of heterosexual people. It's also one of the few countries in the world where religious law isn't held on a federal or state level (separation of church and state), religious freedom is protected under the constitution.
If we're talking about Jewish people, America is absolutely a safer country for someone who is say; a shade of Christian or an atheist, than they would be in a shithole country like Israel. Because those Jews don't fuck around and will absolutely persecute you for that sort of thing. That's why they are taking land from Palestinians and offering Americans to occupy the land. We're literally watching Israel practicing imperialism.
Psychopaths have existed since the dawn of time. They will continue to exist. The only reason people are acting shocked is because we have the technology and eyes to record things on a level we never had access to before.
Do you have any mental connection to reality whatsoever? Like even in the slightest?
You literally think that Israeli Jews are stealing Palestian territories to give the lands to Americans? Americans in America? How could that even work even if it was supposedly true?
Did Putin's Russia invade Ukraine to give Ukrainian territory to the French? Did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan to give Afghan territory to Japan? Did Napoleon spread across 1800s Europe in order to benefit the Chinese?
I'm seeing three news stories about militant subgroups of right-wing conservative Americans going into Palestine to commit acts of violence against innocents of various races, religions, nationalities, and so on due to their reactionary political beliefs.
Which is horrible, of course, but you're making an incredible buttload of assumptions in order to move this from:
A)Certain factions of far-right extremist American political activists want to commit violence in a foreign nation (against a large variety of victims).
B)All far-right extremist Americans are trying to colonize Palestine, specifically.
C)All Americans who're of the right-leaning side of the political spectrum are just inherently terrible people who want to do evil acts, including colonizing Palestine on behalf of America.
Before going to:
D)Even the majority of Americans who're apolitical (or who have some interest in politics that's either centrist, libertarian, socialistic, communistic, or anything else that's not right-wing conservative) are at moral fault for what the minority does.
And finally ending up with:
E)Americans are an evil group of monsters who want to take over Palestine.
To be blunt, you're almost exactly the same as somebody who sees a rapist criminal who happens to have dark skin attacking a random woman and then claims that this proves "all black people have crime in their DNA".
Alternatively, you're like somebody who's mad at Adolf Hitler who's seen his distinctive mustache and then has decided that all men with mustaches ought to be gotten rid of.
It's particularly maddening to see this thinking on /townhall/ of Ponyville of all places since most of us are not ourselves right-wing, regardless of where we happen to live, and those of us living in America are mostly not right-wing.
I'd also like to point out the fact that geographic and political community known as "Palestine" that has been named as such going back hundreds upon hundreds of years to areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire, by the Roman Empire, by disorganized tribes of farmers, and so on has always, always been a multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic, and otherwise highly diverse place in which people who look and sound nothing alike have, at least sometimes, gotten along as neighbors peacefully.
So, the popular idea that these lands must only be owned and occupied by an incredibly specific regional subset of brown-skinned peoples who're practicing a very narrow subset of Islam and advocating for a very narrow subset of economic and financial organization through nationalist militarism (i.e. these lands "must belong to the real Palestinians only" and not the "other Palestinians" or anybody who's not Palestinian in the first place) is rather bonkers to me.
Granted, it's equally bonkers to mirror this and state that only an extremely small minority of certain types of Jews can live in this land either, but two wrongs are two wrongs and not a right.
If a clique of people named Bob living on some random island decide to form a political party based on the oppression of everybody not named Bob, then they ought to be mocked for being insane. If a group of Steves does the same, then mock them just as much. Same for a group of Johns. Or a group of Mikes. Or Wills. And so on.