all 36 comments

[–]StillLessons 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For me, the problem is that the various identity groups overshot the mark. Rather than wanting their perspective to be accepted, they went far beyond that. They now actively promote these behaviors. That's where the line got left behind for me. I am very sympathetic to whoever the person is in front of me, whether traditional or otherwise, if they are open to me. The problem is that the concept of promotion of their ideology has led to a competitive mindset. In order for them to win, traditionalists must lose. Too often (though certainly not in all cases; there are many many reasonable people from all groups), the goal now is to "tear down the heteronormative, patriarchal blah, blah, blah..."

How do you know the traditional structures are a better "base case"? You look at the incidence of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, self-harming behavior, etc within the different groups. It's not even close. There are clear statistical differences in each group, and the children who come from traditional backgrounds and maintain the traditional culture are healthier mentally, across the board.

The proponents of LGBTPLKLJERLJWERFLKSDJF tell us that the reason for these differences is the fault of the traditionalists attacking them and them feeling unsafe. I don't see the evidence for that claim. From the numbers I've seen, the more open the society is toward alternatives, the more strongly the traditional cultural norms for the sexes manifest.

There are a lot of extremely insecure people, and they are blaming their insecurity on the culture around them. My instinct is that their problems probably relate to particular issues within their birth families. While their family may have fit within the traditional norm and had some serious breakdown, the gender fanatics have gone too far and generalized their own personal situation, saying in effect "all mainstream cultural people are evil because my [father, mother, uncle, grandmother, or whoever] was abusive."

It's sad, because I don't think they're any happier for it. Quite the opposite.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think individuals who have traditional mindsets are bad in any way imo. The only individuals I see as bad are extremists that ruin stuff for a lot of people, and will punish others for even having different opinions. Which is concerning to me.

[–]Rah 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

It starts with being a problem that you dont care that others are self-mutilating themselves spiritually, mentally and even physically. You are not a traditionalist if you "dont give a shit" if others are doing it; you are a libertarian, and would be labelled a crazed leftist two hundred years ago.

Unless you actually do the minimal effort to preserve truth and say that the spoon is actually a spoon, not a metal object, so you might save face, you cannot carry your cross, and for that reason, not preserving any tradition.

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You make perhaps the most critically important point: The spoon needs to remain a spoon.

I'm on board with adult freely-chosen LGB. Who a person is attracted to is entirely subjective and who am I to judge? The world of sexual attraction is a minefield for all of us.

Transexual is where things become more difficult. Here I am still willing to live and let live as long as I don't have to declare an objective reality which is clearly false, and as long as children are not indoctrinated. The words "woman" and "man" represent easily, intuitively, clearly defined and clearly witnessed biological reality. Are there rare exceptions, yes. But they are a tiny number in the population.

These biological realities do not entirely define how people think. This is obvious, because transexuals are convinced they belong not to their biological sex. But the opposite is also absolutely true: how people think can not and does not define biological reality. To argue that it does, as the gender fanatics do, is to discard the concept of objectively viewing our world in any way at all. In other words, if we are allowed to rewrite biological reality on our whim, then why stop at sex? Why not say "I'm a tree!"? I love trees. I think in the way that I am convinced trees think. I'm a tree!

We need to accept that objective truths exist in order to survive. Otherwise, the disconnect between what we want and what is true will kill us. Nature is indifferent to us. Step too far out of line, and nature finds a new species to take our place.

Long story short: women are women, men are men, trans-women are trans-women and trans-men are trans-men. Trans-women are not women, and trans-men are not men. To say otherwise is to disrespect the biological realities of sex, which have evolved over millions of years and are far wiser than we in our individual thoughts can ever be.

Lastly, indoctrinating young children in transgender ideology is evil. I grew up in an environment where I didn't even begin to consider sexual questions at all until ~10 years old. It was never forced on me, so my guess is that my "sexual awakening" was related (naturally) to adolescence. The idea of having adults - homosexual, heterosexual, trans, whatever - interacting with children in an explicitly sexual environment (Trans Story Hours are basically a strip club environment for children) is absolute moral degeneracy and destruction.

There are limits, and there must be. I find what is happening to those poor kids tragic.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who a person is attracted to is entirely subjective and who am I to judge?

God judges you. If you allow those who actively deny and mock God in your face, then are you a traditionalist? I do care about people having issues knowing who they are and being stuck thinking that pederasty is a valid identity. If it is so, why doesn't it bear fruit? I try to love people who do have these issues as God would, by not accepting that their choice of life cannot produce anything meaningful. Obviously, I do not mock and yell at gay people at the streets, but when confronted, I openly state their choices are sin and they are going to Hell.

The Overton Window is pushed so far left that people now are ready to accept anything, BUT, hormonal blockers and surgery for physionomical change. I remember twenty years ago when no one was against gay people, BUT allowing them to marry would corrupt marriage. The only position to take is to deny everything; I don't want men nor women to deny their chance to bear fruit, even if they think that at the moment its a valid choice. Would you want people to maim their left arm because they feel like its possessed? It's the same dillemma.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mmm. Interesting. You point out - accurately - that in fact I am not a "traditionalist" at all. My views have strayed from the mainline Christian theology upon which the western world was founded. I respect Christianity tremendously, and I deeply appreciate its role as the backbone upon which the majority of what we consider "western values" rests, but sadly, I find the entirety of the Bible as written unconvincing. Too much focus on setting one group against another (initially the Jews as the Chosen People, and then those who accept Jesus as the Christ as superior to those who don't). Whenever I read a document that limits "good" to one set of beliefs over another, the thought always comes to my mind, "But God created the other group too."

So as long as their behavior doesn't fly in the face of reality or create overt harm, I believe any group can live among us, getting along. Homosexuality, when practiced among adults as a personal preference and neither encouraged nor discouraged, seems to cause little harm in society. In this sense, the Hell you describe I don't believe in any more than I believe the superiority of the "anti-Heterornormative etc." that has set themselves up in opposition.

I have trouble with trans for the reasons I have already stated. First, it does fly in the face of evident reality - i.e. men are men, women are women, men are not women, and women are not men. Surgical and chemical faking it is a piss-poor alternative. And second, given the differences in mental health outcomes I refer to in my original comment at the top of this thread, transgender confusion does create overt harm. Confusing people by setting their perception of themselves and their world in opposition to objectively observed sex is inherently weaker than maintaining a simple self-consistent pairing of the two.

You're right. I'm not a traditionalist. But I am in favor of keeping things simple. I do believe in God, though not the Bible. I believe the world as created (which so far as I can see has always included homosexuality) is the work of God and is in fact God itself. God created all this, and it is beautiful when we accept God's creation in its entirety, rather than separating parts of it that we like from parts we don't. Transexuals are not accepting this creation. They believe that men and women as created are optional, and particularly importantly, they believe that sometimes they were created wrong, needing to change this to "correct" things. This is a tragic degradation of the wonderful gift we are given of physical vessels in which to witness and interact with God's creation.

Thanks for clarifying.

[–]PencilPusher55[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It doesn't hurt me. I cannot get upset over some dude in drag if it doesn't change my life. The issue is that now it does. It IS pushed everywhere, they ARE protected, and they DO hold power over normal people.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The issue is exactly that it does not upset you, and you should be doing what you can, in your small capacity, to stop it. You cannot do that in state-level or city-level, but maybe in your neighbourhood or family. Baby steps.

[–]PencilPusher55[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you stop it?

[–]Trajan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Educate people you know. Not blurting out the full story, as that comes across as being crazy. Little pieces of information can begin to poke holes in the narrative. I’ve had similar conversations around identity politics and Trump conspiracies.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Talk to your close family about it. Be present in local elections, communities and forums. Do not let it fester in the local level and it won't stay fixed in bigger instances.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And before you kneejerk it, im not saying that you should take efforts and sacrifice yourself for those people (though you should, by at least telling them the truth), but it should bother you that by allowing these people to degrade your society uncontested, you are devolving the world slowly, making it worse for your children and grandchildren. Your thoughts are exactly what the people in 1960's had in mind; welcome to 60 years later. Two generations in and now we are close to state enforced homossexuality.

[–]Seahorse 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh man lol you couldn't be further off the mark.

I guess traditionalists aren't privy to such infighting but you can't actually be homosexual in today's LGBT environment.

Homosexual women and men are told they are bigoted if they express disinterest in transwomen or transmen (trans women are male of course and trans man are female, so I'm sure you can see the problem). They lose their jobs, they are threatened with violence and called slurs etc.

Most gay people do not associate with the modern LGBT movement, I certainly don't.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Guess the Overton window doesn't care about who pushes it so hard in the other direction, after all.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thank you. Don't fall for the bait that children are expensive. Have as many as you can and educate them, be present. This already changes the world in a small way.

    [–]Tom9152 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    "People who appreciate traditionalism in society, how do we know we're not the actually the bad ones?"

    Traditional families/cultures produce healthier/stronger children and societies

    Degenerates and mass immigration produce weak children and societies

    [–]Pis-dur 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Source:

    [–]Tom9152 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Any history book

    [–]Pis-dur 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    So you don't have a source.

    [–]Tom9152 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Sense you didn't post an anti-history source, then you're arguing a topic you've never researched.

    Do you often start an argument on a topic you know nothing about?

    [–]Pis-dur 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    You still haven't provided any source for your claims.

    [–]Tom9152 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    So you want a total stranger, on the internet, to spoon feed you 'facts' instead of doing your own research.

    There's a word for people like you, but I'm not that rude. Read ANY history book.

    [–]Pis-dur 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    When someone has some claims and is unable to show proof for his words, these words are unreliable.

    [–]Tom9152 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Read a book BEFORE starting an argument.

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I think culturally there are a couple of different ways to express equality in western society. In France when they had the revolution they tried to express social equality by everyone eating the same bread, wearing the same clothes etc. You still see this in their culture. In England equality is expressed via personal freedom which then becomes personal eccentricity. This is where you get the culture of people shoving their identity in your face, dressing crazy, tattoos all over, actively looking to be as different to the norm as possible. So I guess if you prefer the former culture you have to move to a place which has it and away from the latter. I don't think you can or should really try to change the one you are living in (not least because I think the personal freedom one has many advantages even if it's annoying).

    [–]moody_ape 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    if you think your ideal world is the only way of being 'normal', i'd say you are close to being a bigot. i don't see a problem with some of the traditional values as long as they are not the rule (as in the law) and people who ""deviate"" should not get punished for being/doing different. that said, if ""deviant"" becomes the new 'normal' and traditional values become the new deviant, then we'll just have a different problem and not a solution for the 'traditional' problems. i don't think people should embrace everything and everyone. but everyone deserves respect, even people we don't agree with.

    [–]PencilPusher55[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't dislike these people at all. The ability to coexist is there. It's that they don't seem to want that. As the other user replied, we cannot both be right, they want to make it so that one of us is wrong.

    [–]Intuit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Go back to making people bear the costs of their decisions and much of this will be fixed. When the ecosystem of rights and responsibility isn't warped by coercion, degenerate things have a lot harder time flourishing.

    [–]AcceleratedWallops 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Where is it "being constantly shoved in your face"? Maybe you're just being sensitive?

    [–]PencilPusher55[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Nope. It's everywhere. Pushed in schools, pushed on social media, commercials, streaming platforms, politically, it never ends. Like I said - if I were allowed to say I disliked it, fine. We can both coexist, but we can't. If I were to be asked "Do you support the trans-movement or gay marriage?" and I said no. My career would be over. They are textbook bullies. To me, shutting someone down who disagrees with you is what makes you sensitive.

    I saw that people had a straight pride march, ridiculous but it proved a point - They were mercilessly attacked by leftists. Gay pride marches? No one cares. No one bothers them.

    [–]Pis-dur 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Think about it that you are talking about minorities, especially when it comes to LGBT people. Minorities are smaller, thus it's harder for them do defend. That's why some bigger entinty, like govt comes in and protects this minority.
    You say you don't support gay marriage. May I ask why? Why is it different than non-gay marriage? People just want to love their loved ones. Your career would be over because you are sorting people for those better and those worse. I don't want to remind you about the most famous movement that was segregating others.
    I was on (we don't call it Pride March here) Equality March in Białystok last year. Straight people (I should say animals, but I don't want to harm animals saying that) were throwing stones, petards, tomatoes, bottle etc. at us. We were mercilessily attacked by conservative people. I am saiyng that to ask you about not generalizing, not every gay/straight march is the same.
    edit:
    typos

    [–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It's definitely not "everywhere". You're just sensitive to it, because people formerly were forced to hide and now they aren't.

    Also lol @ "my career would be over" -- the fuck you think used to happen to gay people all the damn time?

    And if you don't support gay marriage-- ie if you want to dictate what people do in their bedrooms--then sorry, you are the bully. Just leave people the fuck alone, it's not your business or the government's.

    [–]PencilPusher55[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You must've not read my post. I never said I wanted to dictate what they do in their own bedrooms. I didn't say that at all. I said it is being pushed, no we are NOT sensitive, this is the case, and it, much like many other things are leading to the degradation of society. Just my opinion.

    [–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Ok but it's not at all being pushed. It's just no longer being hidden. If you feel it's being pushed, that would imply you want it to be hidden again, ie you're sensitive.

    And if you think what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is "leading to the degradation of society", well....maybe you should think about this some more.

    [–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    A gay person attacks a straight man? Who gives a shit.

    yup. they are swinging the pendulum to the other side.. to continue the shit show.

    right with wanting a society to be... well, normal?

    because it makes sense.

    not encourage sexual deviants or constant homosexuality, to not implore children to take hormone therapy or teach LGBT classes at school.

    because they have higher suicide rate. they are mental basket cases. the degree of calm folks has proves their point, or disproves it.

    They ALL fall into this groupthink.

    if you don't create your own personal religion, that which you believe because you feel it to be true.

    seems humans can be mentally convinced of anything, so if you don't use God as a metric.. you are fucked in a world of nothing is good or evil.

    I have seen what is good is beautiful, what is bad is ugly.. and the degree of beauty or pain/suffering inflicted by me determines my actions.

    i feel it, i know it. i don't care if folks be gay, but I do care that folks that appear to be mentally upset run around and spread their variant of discomfort as good... attacking those most susceptible to manipulation (the young).. and appear to be abusing them (strip shows by children for adults.. )

    but in the end, we are all divine beings of light, older than time itself.. so there are no victims ultimately, but i think it can be said that if one thing leads to a shorter life span..

    i would not encourage it.

    [–]blowininthewind 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    i'm pretty sure if you read paul graham's articles on censorship (hacker & painter, wiki page for 'graham's hierarchy of censorship', etc) it'd be more clear.

    i think there's always been a brain-washing element of it. for example alan turing saved millions of lives by breaking the enigma and thereby ended wwii years earlier, but was chemically castrated for being gay, which led to his tragic suicide. had he pursue his interest later in life, 'computational biology', we will probably have more ethnic AI and gain priceless insights in the field. so...that's kinda brain-washing, washing away very useful human brains. paul graham is one of those few souls seeing through these everlasting brain-washing schemes so clearly. (i once thought aaron schwartz and noam chomsky did..but i'm sure they have unique pieces to this puzzle.)

    so...if you're gay and witnessed all these, you know fag drags (that is one word, nsfl), along with tchaikovski and numerous other talented gay people suffer just for being gay, what would you do? i for one thing would get political. what's that song? 'we can break their haughty power gain our freedom when we learn, that the union makes us strong!' right. all lesbians and gays who used to feel nothing toward each other are brought together by...you guessed it, suffering, oppression ,etc. interestingly, christiantiy started in a simiar way. it did it with a cross, that is.

    but what's the best way to break a haughty power? right, by another haughty power. don't talk to me about ghandi, look at chairman mao. that's how yout roll, that's how you do things. and by the way, when you're up against ussr, you need a moral highground. so you widen the sufferage and write the powell memorendum. you know, smart moves.

    so here we are today. i for one thing is a much bigger fan for all kinds of love beyond the nuclear family than a nuclear war.

    edit: today pope francis must feel the same partly due to the guilt he felt to his argentenian christian brothers who were murdered in the seventies, trauma in that kinda atmosphere does make people liberal. old age makes people brave indeed.