Indoctrination / Doublethink"Pride event in PA featured a stripper pole where they taught kids how to pole dance" - Libs of TikTok video

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

Video posted by Libs of TikTok twitter handle: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1555236987308625920?cxt=HHwWgMCioZnzp5UrAAAA

Any reason to doubt this...? / is there any reasonable explanation for this video that I'm missing??

Some of the comments blamed LGB people, e.g.:

At what point do progressives stop calling the, “slippery slope,” a fallacy and just embrace their perversion?

(Maybe "child safeguarding" would be the most appropriate flair for this...)

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JulienMayfair 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are always the types of people who want to push every edge or boundary there is, just for the sake of being "edgy," and they always need to be kept under control.

The problem with them is that we seem to have forgotten over the past 10 years that it's important for LGB people to avoid even appearing to come after kids. I used to be a teacher. I understand the dynamics. Not only is it important for nothing inappropriate to be going on, but you have to avoid even the appearance of something inappropriate going on.

But the TQ+ mob doesn't get this, and they are hell-bent on marketing TQ+ ideas to kids -- at the expense of normal LGB people who support normal boundaries between what is appropriate for adults and what is appropriate for kids.

Activists love to shit on "respectability politics," but being respectable and behaving in a respectable way is actually pretty effective. Look at what the Civil Rights Movement did with Rosa Parks. The myth was that she just got tired of going to the back o the bus one day, but we now know the reality was that the whole thing was planned and that Rosa Parks was picked for that role because she had a blameless reputation and no skeletons in her closet. She had a spotless background in every way, and thus, no one could undermine her as a sympathetic figure. And it worked.

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

Honestly, I don't even wholly blame the TQ weirdos, it's just the "MAPs" or whatever the pedos are calling themselves these days that got folded into the umbrella of diversity and inclusivity. That's sorta what happens when you try to cater to all "marginalized" groups, you get the good AND the bad. However the closing off of communication within this little group, as in if you question even one thing you're immediately a bigot and a transphobe and a Nazi and all that word-salad bullshit, is what's hurting everyone the most.

Letting them, and by 'them' I mean the dons tinfoil hat globalist agitators make words akin to violence is what lead us down this road. I mean if you remove or muddy the purpose and intent of words, what is language? And how can you communicate with whatever remains after you butcher said language?

It's hard not to be a doomer, I know it's not a healthy mindset, but I just honestly think this whole world is so fucked.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Activists love to shit on "respectability politics," but being respectable and behaving in a respectable way is actually pretty effective. Look at what the Civil Rights Movement did with Rosa Parks. The myth was that she just got tired of going to the back o the bus one day, but we now know the reality was that the whole thing was planned and that Rosa Parks was picked for that role because she had a blameless reputation and no skeletons in her closet. She had a spotless background in every way, and thus, no one could undermine her as a sympathetic figure. And it worked.

I think this is the extent of modern kwir thinking when it comes to how to acquire rights. Not only are stories like the "first bricker" a misrepresentation of history to buff up the trans role in the Stonewall riots. But it also portrays spontaneous violent resistance as the only real method of getting what you want, when it's simply just the most visible and dramatic product of a long-term series of subsurface plans, actions and developments that went mostly unnoticed. It's like a person suddenly making a seemingly snap decision to do something completely life-changing without much conscious debate at all, when subconsciously, their mind has already been silently mulling over all the pros and cons of their present choice from all angles for years.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But it also portrays spontaneous violent resistance as the only real method of getting what you want, when it's simply just the most visible and dramatic product of a long-term series of subsurface plans, actions and developments that went mostly unnoticed. It's like a person suddenly making a seemingly snap decision to do something completely life-changing without much conscious debate at all, when subconsciously, their mind has already been silently mulling over all the pros and cons of their present choice from all angles for years.

The main problem with the Stonewall worship pushed by the TQ+ is that it completely misrepresent the reality behind the achievement of gay rights.

It was only in the 2000s, decades after the riots, when gay and lesbian acceptance started to truly go up. It was not because of "queer politics", but assimilationist activism and the idea that gay people were just a part of the general population.

[–]chazzstrong 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Yeah, the 'slippery slope' comment has gotten insane traction. Everything is being laid at the feet of same-sex attracted folks, because too many of us are letting the trans-lobby and their grooming kink attach it to LGB. And honestly, are they wrong? We're a sub of like 2k people, and there's small groups like LGBAlliance popping up here and there, but our numbers are DWARFED by trans lobby "allies". If you were a normie online, would you believe that the child grooming and gender theory bullshit is apart from LGB or together?

Another one I see being posted around again is this image which, to be fair, is kinda funny in a black-pilled kind of way. I mean a lot of those are dangerously close to happening, if they haven't already, and their biggest proponents are all the same TQ+ group that now represents us same-sex attracted folk on the world stage.

I don't buy into any of this shit, obviously, but it's not hard to see why so many zealots who were against gay marriage all those years ago would.

[–]Wanderingthehalls 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think the thing is, that the "slippery slope" is real, it's just that who's "slope" it is, is misconstrued. It's not LGB people who have any slippery slope, at least not the majority of us. It's a particular type of activist who has us on a slope. Those who want to disrupt society and challenge normativity, they jumped on LGB rights and once that was won, needed new causes to keep disrupting norms.

I've been involved in campaigning. I campaigned for same sex marriage in my country and once that was won, en masse we moved on to abortion rights, as we had none. Once that was won, there was a massive sense of, "now what?" For a lot of us, repealing the ban on abortion rights had literally been part of our identity for decades. It was really tough for that to suddenly be over.

Personally, I decided to get a hobby! But most of my friends went HARD into trans rights (even though we have self-id), attending drag queen kid shows, lots have transed themselves or their kids, etc. They are on a slippery slope. Bit by bit, some seem to be coming off it, and when I get any hint of that, I have careful discussions to try and speed up that exit. But so, so many of them need to be patriarchy smashing activists that they just don't seem to understand what they are actually advocating for anymore.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the thing is, that the "slippery slope" is real, it's just that who's "slope" it is, is misconstrued. It's not LGB people who have any slippery slope, at least not the majority of us. It's a particular type of activist who has us on a slope. Those who want to disrupt society and challenge normativity, they jumped on LGB rights and once that was won, needed new causes to keep disrupting norms.

Completely agree. Honestly, I am starting to wonder if the whole "LGB spaces being colonized by a subset of bored straight people" phenomenon was actually going on for decades before this, and just took off (or became more obvious) with the advent of the internet.

I've been involved in campaigning. I campaigned for same sex marriage in my country and once that was won, en masse we moved on to abortion rights, as we had none. Once that was won, there was a massive sense of, "now what?" For a lot of us, repealing the ban on abortion rights had literally been part of our identity for decades. It was really tough for that to suddenly be over.

That's a great point. I've wondered that sometimes myself, about LGBDropTheT-- once trans ideology becomes unpopular in the mainstream, what'll be the focus of LGB communities and how much time will I spend in them? I think I'll still be quite interested in our issues generally, and maybe shift my attention to rights in other countries, but I would probably devote more time to hobbies as well, honestly.

But so, so many of them need to be patriarchy smashing activists that they just don't seem to understand what they are actually advocating for anymore.

Man, that's sad. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, I guess.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Honestly, I am starting to wonder if the whole "LGB spaces being colonized by a subset of bored straight people" phenomenon was actually going on for decades before this, and just took off (or became more obvious) with the advent of the internet.

In times past, the hippies were the ones who tried to colonize LGB spaces for their own ends.

The hippie movement was a anti-politics colective though, so most of them weren't exacly inclined to hijack LGB activism, but they still pushed for boundary breaking bs on their day while larping as LGB.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

LGB has its own legitimate problems. I realize my voice might be relatively unpopular here, but the recent self-righteous doubling down on defense of unhealthy behaviors in the wake of MPX is going to nail the coffin shut. We sexual minorities can exist only if allowed by the sexual majority, and thus optics are of paramount importance. It is not a good look to cry about muh sexual freedom when the rest of society is already suspicious of our (collective) sexual promiscuity and interprets our response to a disease outbreak as casual. You can see this happening on the general Saidit subs: a non-negligible fraction of general Saidit members have already written off gay men in our entirety.

While TQ+ doesn't help us, we are adding our own serious shortcomings to the negative perceptions, and I'm starting to think that our general unwillingness to call TQ+ out is part of a larger picture of self-absorption and failure to understand long-term consequences.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I realize my voice might be relatively unpopular here

I don't think so! I appreciate when you share your thoughts, anyway :)

MPX

Sorry, what does this stand for? To your broader point, though:

but the recent self-righteous doubling down on defense of unhealthy behaviors in the wake of MPX is going to nail the coffin shut.

Who's doing the self-righteous doubling down, though...? Are the people claiming to speak for LGB, actually LGB? Because I can say for the L, at least: social media "lesbian" opinions and famous "lesbian" influencers/celebrity voices are heavily dominated by... men. By autogynephilic men, to be precise. Of the small handful of out lesbian women there are do seem to be speaking up, I don't think a majority are actually being so irresponsible as this; in the UK, Allison Bailey, Joanna Cherry, Sonia Appleby, etc. are speaking up about it. Even among women, a number of the people claiming to be "lesbian" are actually bisexual or straight. I suspect that a similar pattern is happening with the B and G...

Perhaps I'm forgetting some people, feel free to correct me if I'm leaving anyone out.

You can see this happening on the general Saidit subs: a non-negligible fraction of general Saidit members have already written off gay men in our entirety.

I don't think people on Saidit are representative of the general population, though.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

MPX = monkeypox. While it's true that some organizations that speak about gay men's health are starting to recommend decreasing ones sexual partners (at least temporarily), you still have a lot of media messaging that bemoans the "threat to intimacy". I'm sorry, but for me random sex =/= intimacy. If you want to experience "intimacy" court someone for a few weeks before jumping into the sack. I know I don't have to tell lesbians this: you galz are generally better about maintaining relationship.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ahhh, gotcha. Yeah, I saw the post about this the other day. I haven't been following the monkeypox issue closely at all, maybe I'll look into that. If LGB people are reacting that way to it, though, then that is really disconcerting.

The topic actually came up when I saw a couple of friends the other day-- both straight guys, AFAIK. One of them suggested that he was worried about monkeypox becoming widespread, and suggested that young children were especially at risk. The other looked incredulous. I made a jokey comment about toddlers having gay sex and the second guy laughed. We talked about it a bit more and clarified to the first guy that sexual transmission is more of a risk factor. It struck me that the guy who already knew about it was so hesitant to speak up about it, though. Maybe he thought I was going to get all offended or something... (edit: they both know I'm lesbian)

I'm sorry, but for me random sex =/= intimacy. If you want to experience "intimacy" court someone for a few weeks before jumping into the sack.

Lol that's a good point. I think maybe people forget this because "intimacy" is sometimes used as a euphemism for sex.

I know I don't have to tell lesbians this: you galz are generally better about maintaining relationship.

Hahaha, you're probably right, although unfortunately I think there is a subset of us who are terrible about not leaving unhealthy long-term relationships... strengths and weaknesses, lol.

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

I think maybe people forget this because "intimacy" is sometimes used as a euphemism for sex.

Isn't this a clever bit of propaganda? Maybe not so clever. The author of the piece can't directly say "sex" because he knows he'll lose all the sympathy points. So he hides it behind "intimacy", which might provoke compassion: those poor gay men, unable to find true love because of the illnesses that keep happening to them, for some reason nobody knows why.

I've been in a state this last week because on the one hand I really resent the people who are committed to hating gays, all of us, but on the other hand it's hard to argue why they shouldn't hate at least gay men.

Anyhowz, thanks for your vote of confidence in my cranky comments :-)

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

Children are more at risk of serious illness (even death) with monkeypox than adults are. It's certainly spreading mostly through sexual contact but it can be spread through any close physical contact. And children are not only regularly hugged and cuddled but younger ones need to be carried, dressed, bathed, etc. So parents or other family members with monkeypox could spread it to a child by normal physical contact. A number of children have been infected in regions with larger outbreaks and a number of them have ended up quite seriously ill. If MPX spreads into a broader base of the general population then a lot of children do become very much at risk.

Tbh, this is not an LGB issue, it is an issue for gay and bisexual men. (Obviously not all of them.) At present, lesbians and bisexual women who are with women, are one of the least at risk sectors of society.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I realize my voice might be relatively unpopular here,

Not with me! I may be on the left while you're more right-ish, but I look forward to hearing from you, whether or not I agree. Your thoughts are usually interesting, and your writing is always a pleasure to read. (Plus we both share a certain fondness for another reptilian gentleman...)

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is not a good look to cry about muh sexual freedom when the rest of society is already suspicious of our (collective) sexual promiscuity and interprets our response to a disease outbreak as casual.

Most of the ones doing this are tabloid publications people mostly don't care about. Hell, even the media association between gay men and the pox is still a relatively limited thing.

It's not nearly on the level of the AIDS crisis and I doubt it's going to arrive on that point anytime soon.

You can see this happening on the general Saidit subs: a non-negligible fraction of general Saidit members have already written off gay men in our entirety.

Not surprising, as most people here tend to be more far-right, a common thing on most "alternative" platforms.

There are people on this site whose sole purpose in life is to stir shit on subs, including here before we went private. They're not representative of general people's opinion in the slightest.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

because too many of us are letting the trans-lobby and their grooming kink attach it to LGB. And honestly, are they wrong? We're a sub of like 2k people, and there's small groups like LGBAlliance popping up here and there, but our numbers are DWARFED by trans lobby "allies".

This sub was way bigger before we were forced to move to Saidit, though. It was at like 19k members or something. SuperStraight was like 20k+ or something before they got banned, and that was in a matter of a week or so. That's with the entirety of social media bashing our ideas, too.

I do hear you, pro-trans LGB voices definitely dominate mainstream news more than drop-the-T LGB voices do. But are there really fewer people in our camp? There are no numbers on that, AFAIK, so I think it's premature to conclude that.

Honestly, I would love to get some sort of survey data on how many people a) describe themselves as bisexual/homosexual, AND b) actually understand what those words mean. Hell, maybe I could try to make something and post it on Reddit... that would be a useful resource...

Another one I see being posted around again is this JPG image which, to be fair, is kinda funny in a black-pilled kind of way.

Okay, a third world war, plagues, and terrorists are not the fault of LGB people. The "schools will begin teaching kids to have gay sex" one unfortunately is happening in some places-- and it shouldn't. But again, is that the fault of actual LGB people, or the bored straight people / postmodernist p*dophilia enthusiasts who like to LARP as us?

[–]chazzstrong 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know it's all skewed optics, but at some point we need to stop trying to 'be nice'. I'm not a Christian, I was never one to turn the other cheek, I am perfectly happy to get down in the muck right alongside them. My position is odd as, for the first time in my life, my political or societal discussions frequently pair me alongside Conservatives and Republicans, and from that point of view I hear FAR more homophobic shit, and it's just disconcerting that I hear this 'slippery slope' argument so often and apart from a few small Twitter accounts I have nothing to repudiate their accusations. Part of that is any voices that rise up, like the Gays Against Grooming Twitter account, go against the establishment and are summarily silenced, but most people are just too damned passive. They are so afraid of being called some horrific 'phobic' name.

"Well, of course I think everyone should be accepted for who and what they are. That's the civilized thing to do."
"So you're fine with sex offenders having access to your children away from you? Excellent!"
"Wait, what?"

Okay, a third world war, plagues, and terrorists are not the fault of LGB people.

Oh I know, but it IS kinda hilarious that most of those are happening at this moment, and being applauded along by the same people who voted for gay marriage. I'm not about to just up and say 'they are right, I will no longer be attracted to men' or anything, but it's easy to see many avenues they can take from these outrageous outcomes that bring them all to the same group and conclusion. It's easy to see, for me at least, why they lay all of this at the feet of the LGB community.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh I know, but it IS kinda hilarious that most of those are happening at this moment, and being applauded along by the same people who voted for gay marriage.

Still a very dumb meme.

Armed conflicts in developing contries have been a thing way before gay marriage passed, as were infectious diseases and terrorism.

The fact that the same party who voted gay marriage is cheering said conflicts is no surprise either, as the US is a two party system, so that's to be expected.

Let's also remember that neoconservatives were also very happy to cheer on pointless conflicts on their time as well.

[–]Bright_paintingLoad, lesbian biologist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We're a sub of like 2k people, and there's small groups like LGBAlliance popping up here and there

From what I remember, we were atleast 10 k while we were on Reddit. More people supports us then we think.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

20k back on Reddit. And a hell lot more active than much larger subs like r/ainbow.