Journal A rant because I'm angry af at people

[PandorasBox101]

Okay, so listen. This world has changed. Opinions are offensive unless they are somehow politically correct, that's just how it is. Nobody can hurt anyone else's feelings just because they think differently. Well now, I'm pissed off because I just learned something last night, and people are going to hear this.

My mom told me that people are now accusing the original Mary Poppins of blackface because of the chimney sweep scene. Here's what I think about this; the people who claim this need to get a life. They are chimney sweeps. The whole reason their faces are black is because they are covered in soot from cleaning the chimneys. Seriously, is there someone who just sits around all day searching for things that they find "offensive" even though they are far from it just so they can complain? Are there people who need to complain about everything? I'm honestly really pissed about this. For god's sake, do people have any common sense any more? You can't blame them for blackface when there's a perfectly good and EXPLAINED reason for them to have black (in this case, soot) on their face. Cleaning chimneys is not racist, nor should it ever be considered that. Sure, racism was still around back in the day, however it was much less of a problem. It was much more prominent in the 50s, a time in which this movie was not around. Not only that, but chimney sweeps faces get dirty because they are cleaning the chimney. You can not go claiming that everything you see that looks even a little racist is racist when it's clearly not.

Also--while we're here--people who claim that Baby, It's Cold Outside is rapey. I have one thing to say to you. You need to get over yourselves. It is not rapey, it never has been rapey. In fact, in the original version, if someone was going to call it rapey, it was actually more like that towards the dude in the song because there were actually a few more verses. But let me ask you this; if it was rapey, then why did the woman say, and I quote;
"This evening has been (been hoping that you'd drop in)
So very nice (i'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)"
Not only is the woman saying that the evening was nice, but the man said he was hoping she'd drop in, meaning that these two clearly know each other and have a relationship. Later in the song;
"But maybe just a half a drink more (put some records on while I pour)"
She's actually considering staying with her boyfriend by her own accords. Remember, she's obviously at this guy's house, meaning she knows where he lives, so it's not like she's at some random bar with a guy she doesn't know.
"Your welcome has been(how lucky that you dropped in)
So nice and warm (look out the window at this storm)"
Once again, she's telling him that his welcome was nice, and he's telling her not to go out because it's storming. What do you think--he's trying to get some, or he's trying to keep her inside from the blizzard? If she's in his house, we can assume there is windows. If there are windows, then she can obviously see he is not lying about the storm otherwise she would know he was making excuses and leave. He's also telling her it was lucky she dropped in. Once again, she came to his house of her own accord.
"I simply must go (but baby, it's cold outside)
The answer is no (but baby, it's cold outside)"
Just for clarification, I'm going to debunk this scene that sounds "rapey". First of all, the whole reason she's saying no is because she wants to get home to her parents. It's a storm, it's likely they're worried about her getting home safely; driving on icy roads is a hazard.
But here's the thing; it's not like she's wanting him to stop, she just needs to get home before her parents and siblings get suspicious of her relationship. She obviously hasn't told them about her relationship yet. Not only that, but she keeps backtracking from her refusals and saying "Maybe just a half a drink more", or "Maybe just a cigarette more". She obviously wants to stay, she just doesn't want her parents to worry at all. She's not refusing his advances because she doesn't want them, that's just a stupid claim to make, especially since at the end, she agrees Of her own accord to stay. If you actually listened to the parts of the song besides the ones that sound even remotely "rapey", then you're just looking for something to be offended about.

 

[PandorasBox101]

I want to quickly apologize for how angry I sound at this. I woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning due to a personal event that happened yesterday that left my entire family sort of ruffled. I don't mean to come off so aggressive, but in all seriousness I do not agree with a lot of what has been said about things like this.

 

[rae2nerdy]

So there are two different things going on here that sort of feed into each other. First a good way to start out looking at this is not that things are "PC" it is that we live in an era where people are more socially conscious. It used to be that you could live in your own little world and only worry about things that directly affected you/your family or that big events you saw in the news(paper).

Now we live in a time when the internet is amplifying the voices of the marginalized and the oppressed in such a way that we as a society are becoming aware of issues that individuals might not be aware of.

To start with let's take Blackface. As a child (and I'm on the older end of the demographics on this site myself) I never heard of Black Face. I never learned about it in school and until this past Halloween I had no idea it even existed. Now that being said I read up on it and it is indeed a horrifically offensive part of our history and something that is deeply dehumanizing to black people.

But here's the thing, you are correct Black Face is not the same as someone covered in soot. It actually means someone who is impersonating a black person by darkening their skin (sometimes with white make up around their face and eyes). But again the problem is that not everyone knows what Black Face actually is. And the downside of people learning so many new things in such a short frame of time is that not everyone is going to take the time to do the necessary research to understand what it is they are actually upset about. So that's how you get the idea that "We should be mad at white people in black make up" when the issue is really "We should be mad at people who treat African Americans like a costume and something to be mocked." Which is obviously very different.


There is a similar issue at play with Baby It's Cold Outside. The problem here is one of consent and the way that society as a whole polices women and their bodies. This by it's nature feeds into rape culture and the idea that if women don't act in a very specific way than they're "asking for it".

Now the downside to this is that unlike in Mary Poppins we're working against the medium here. As music by it's nature is open to interpretation and how Susie interprets the lyrics isn't necessarily going to be the same as how Jan and Bob interpret the lyrics. That doesn't really make Susie wrong it just means she sees/hears things from a different perspective.

Personally I see the song itself as a product of it's time and an over-played jingle. I don't get offended by it any more than I do by listening to Frosty the Snowman ad nauseum for months at a time. The lyrics to me always reflected the silly games women were expected to play because society overly policed their actions and told them that how they were perceived was a direct reflection on their entire family. Therefore the (unmarried?) woman in the song is making all these excuses and protests because she wants (presumably the audience?) to know she ain't no loose hussy to get all chummy with a (married? unmarried?) man who isn't her relation.

It's stupid but I wouldn't personally consider it "rapey" just a reflection on the double standards society put women under for years. Now that said I don't like dissect the entire song line by line because I hate listening to it regardless of the lyrics and just change the station.

 

[Idea]

Now we live in a time when the internet is amplifying the voices of the marginalized and the oppressed in such a way that we as a society are becoming aware of issues that individuals might not be aware of.

To start with let's take Blackface. As a child (and I'm on the older end of the demographics on this site myself) I never heard of Black Face. I never learned about it in school and until this past Halloween I had no idea it even existed. Now that being said I read up on it and it is indeed a horrifically offensive part of our history and something that is deeply dehumanizing to black people.

But here's the thing, you are correct Black Face is not the same as someone covered in soot. It actually means someone who is impersonating a black person by darkening their skin (sometimes with white make up around their face and eyes). But again the problem is that not everyone knows what Black Face actually is. And the downside of people learning so many new things in such a short frame of time is that not everyone is going to take the time to do the necessary research to understand what it is they are actually upset about. So that's how you get the idea that "We should be mad at white people in black make up" when the issue is really "We should be mad at people who treat African Americans like a costume and something to be mocked." Which is obviously very different.


There is a similar issue at play with Baby It's Cold Outside. The problem here is one of consent and the way that society as a whole polices women and their bodies. This by it's nature feeds into rape culture and the idea that if women don't act in a very specific way than they're "asking for it".

Now the downside to this is that unlike in Mary Poppins we're working against the medium here. As music by it's nature is open to interpretation and how Susie interprets the lyrics isn't necessarily going to be the same as how Jan and Bob interpret the lyrics. That doesn't really make Susie wrong it just means she sees/hears things from a different perspective.

Personally I see the song itself as a product of it's time and an over-played jingle. I don't get offended by it any more than I do by listening to Frosty the Snowman ad nauseum for months at a time. The lyrics to me always reflected the silly games women were expected to play because society overly policed their actions and told them that how they were perceived was a direct reflection on their entire family. Therefore the (unmarried?) woman in the song is making all these excuses and protests because she wants (presumably the audience?) to know she ain't no loose hussy to get all chummy with a (married? unmarried?) man who isn't her relation.

It's stupid but I wouldn't personally consider it "rapey" just a reflection on the double standards society put women under for years. Now that said I don't like dissect the entire song line by line because I hate listening to it regardless of the lyrics and just change the station.

If I may object-

Let's say there is a stop sign, but I can't read it. Now a person who reads the stop sign will alter their behavior because of it- they may stop or not turn in that direction for instance. I, on the other hand, not knowing the meaning may continuining driving towards it.

Blackface was a terribly dehumanizing thing. However, not knowing of black face isn't an issue, because if you don't know what it means you are not being influenced by it. Much like the stop sign, if people don't know what it means it will not alter their views or behavior, because they don't associate a black painted face with a monkey and those things blackface used to be attached to.

As for the interpretation of the song, it is correct that people can make their own interpretations of it. However, it would be absurd to say then, that just because someone interpreted it as offensive or playing on stereotypes that the song is deserving of any ill fame or worse, which is what claims like these tend to do: take people and their work, both guilty and innocent and irrespective of degree and RUIN THEM. It's ok to have your own views on a song, difamating the song and potentially the artist on the other hand is not.

The thing about examples like the ones PandorasBox101 pointed out, is that they are not part of a problem, but responsability for a problem is shoved onto them. There is real rape out there, real racism out there, and so on, yet entirely opposite to what you say people remain in their own little bubbles, not because they ignore issues anymore, but because they make up issues where they don't exist and divert attention and resources from the actual problems out there. And often, without so much as the burden of proof.

 

[UnusualYak]

My mom told me that people are now accusing the original Mary Poppins of blackface because of the chimney sweep scene.

Actually, it was one single guy. It's hardly worth making a fuss about.

Also, suprise suprise, there were more to his argument than you make it seem. Essentially, the argument is based on the fact that the original novels the movie is based on links the black coloured face of chimney sweeps to racial caricature. Wheter you agree with that argument or not, at least it's more complex than "chimney sweeps have soot in their face that means it's racist".

But let me ask you this; if it was rapey, then why did the woman say, and I quote;
"This evening has been (been hoping that you'd drop in)
So very nice (i'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)"

Because you can spend an evening with someone and enjoy doing so without wanting to have sex?

Like, I agree that the song isn't "rapey" but your arguments as for why are a bit weird.

She's actually considering staying with her boyfriend by her own accords.

Yes, but keep in mind that up to this point the guy have been trying to convince her to stay despite her original refusal. See, the argument against this song isn't that it's about "a guy forcing his girlfriend to stay the night against her wishes". It's that the song is about "a guy who keeps pestering his girlfriend to stay the night despite her flat out saying that she doesn't want to until he pressure her to the point that she gives in."

Again, I do not agree with said argument but it's better than you give it credit for.

 

[PandorasBox101]

Actually, it was one single guy. It's hardly worth making a fuss about.

Also, suprise suprise, there were more to his argument than you make it seem. Essentially, the argument is based on the fact that the original novels the movie is based on links the black coloured face of chimney sweeps to racial caricature. Wheter you agree with that argument or not, at least it's more complex than "chimney sweeps have soot in their face that means it's racist".


Because you can spend an evening with someone and enjoy doing so without wanting to have sex?

Like, I agree that the song isn't "rapey" but your arguments as for why are a bit weird.

Yes, but keep in mind that up to this point the guy have been trying to convince her to stay despite her original refusal. See, the argument against this song isn't that it's about "a guy forcing his girlfriend to stay the night against her wishes". It's that the song is about "a guy who keeps pestering his girlfriend to stay the night despite her flat out saying that she doesn't want to until he pressure her to the point that she gives in."

Again, I do not agree with said argument but it's better than you give it credit for.

Yeah, I apologize. I'm quite embarrassed for writing this, but it was in the hear of the moment and I needed to get stuff off my chest. I don't mean to come off so angry, it just happens sometimes. I know at this point deleting it doesn't make it any better, but just know I am sorry. I just don't know what to do with myself anymore.

And I'm aware two lovers can spend a night together without having intercourse, but what I'm trying to say is it's rather...out of nowhere to claim it's rapey. It's been around for so long, and yes maybe there are a few problems with it, but it's a song of its time. Back then it wasn't really thought of as anything bad. Now it's like this big deal, but there isn't a point to it.

So there are two different things going on here that sort of feed into each other. First a good way to start out looking at this is not that things are "PC" it is that we live in an era where people are more socially conscious. It used to be that you could live in your own little world and only worry about things that directly affected you/your family or that big events you saw in the news(paper).

Now we live in a time when the internet is amplifying the voices of the marginalized and the oppressed in such a way that we as a society are becoming aware of issues that individuals might not be aware of.

To start with let's take Blackface. As a child (and I'm on the older end of the demographics on this site myself) I never heard of Black Face. I never learned about it in school and until this past Halloween I had no idea it even existed. Now that being said I read up on it and it is indeed a horrifically offensive part of our history and something that is deeply dehumanizing to black people.

But here's the thing, you are correct Black Face is not the same as someone covered in soot. It actually means someone who is impersonating a black person by darkening their skin (sometimes with white make up around their face and eyes). But again the problem is that not everyone knows what Black Face actually is. And the downside of people learning so many new things in such a short frame of time is that not everyone is going to take the time to do the necessary research to understand what it is they are actually upset about. So that's how you get the idea that "We should be mad at white people in black make up" when the issue is really "We should be mad at people who treat African Americans like a costume and something to be mocked." Which is obviously very different.


There is a similar issue at play with Baby It's Cold Outside. The problem here is one of consent and the way that society as a whole polices women and their bodies. This by it's nature feeds into rape culture and the idea that if women don't act in a very specific way than they're "asking for it".

Now the downside to this is that unlike in Mary Poppins we're working against the medium here. As music by it's nature is open to interpretation and how Susie interprets the lyrics isn't necessarily going to be the same as how Jan and Bob interpret the lyrics. That doesn't really make Susie wrong it just means she sees/hears things from a different perspective.

Personally I see the song itself as a product of it's time and an over-played jingle. I don't get offended by it any more than I do by listening to Frosty the Snowman ad nauseum for months at a time. The lyrics to me always reflected the silly games women were expected to play because society overly policed their actions and told them that how they were perceived was a direct reflection on their entire family. Therefore the (unmarried?) woman in the song is making all these excuses and protests because she wants (presumably the audience?) to know she ain't no loose hussy to get all chummy with a (married? unmarried?) man who isn't her relation.

It's stupid but I wouldn't personally consider it "rapey" just a reflection on the double standards society put women under for years. Now that said I don't like dissect the entire song line by line because I hate listening to it regardless of the lyrics and just change the station.

I thank you for this comment. I'm deeply sorry for posting this, I'm just upset right now and a bunch of stupid things are spewing up in my mind. I don't mean to post this kind of stuff, it's just hard to vent irl when nobody will listen. And yeah, that's true about the song, but it's still sad that people are turning into something it's not.

If I may object-

Let's say there is a stop sign, but I can't read it. Now a person who reads the stop sign will alter their behavior because of it- they may stop or not turn in that direction for instance. I, on the other hand, not knowing the meaning may continuining driving towards it.

Blackface was a terribly dehumanizing thing. However, not knowing of black face isn't an issue, because if you don't know what it means you are not being influenced by it. Much like the stop sign, if people don't know what it means it will not alter their views or behavior, because they don't associate a black painted face with a monkey and those things blackface used to be attached to.

As for the interpretation of the song, it is correct that people can make their own interpretations of it. However, it would be absurd to say then, that just because someone interpreted it as offensive or playing on stereotypes that the song is deserving of any ill fame or worse, which is what claims like these tend to do: take people and their work, both guilty and innocent and irrespective of degree and RUIN THEM. It's ok to have your own views on a song, difamating the song and potentially the artist on the other hand is not.

The thing about examples like the ones PandorasBox101 pointed out, is that they are not part of a problem, but responsability for a problem is shoved onto them. There is real rape out there, real racism out there, and so on, yet entirely opposite to what you say people remain in their own little bubbles, not because they ignore issues anymore, but because they make up issues where they don't exist and divert attention and resources from the actual problems out there. And often, without so much as the burden of proof.

You're correct. Like I've said, I truly am embarrassed for posting this. I really truly am, and I wish I hadn't in the first place. I regretted it as soon as it was out there, but since there is no delete function I didn't know what to do. I'm embarrassed about notifying a moderator for help. My face must have looked sun burnt when I logged on to see this, I was and am really embarrassed. I'm sorry.

 

[Idea]

You're correct. Like I've said, I truly am embarrassed for posting this. I really truly am, and I wish I hadn't in the first place. I regretted it as soon as it was out there, but since there is no delete function I didn't know what to do. I'm embarrassed about notifying a moderator for help. My face must have looked sun burnt when I logged on to see this, I was and am really embarrassed. I'm sorry.

Not sure why you're apologizing to me...since I didn't so much as disagree with you..

 

[PandorasBox101]

Not sure why you're apologizing to me...since I didn't so much as disagree with you..

I know... I just realized the comment wasn't exactly aimed towards me. I'm just upset with myself for not being smart enough to not post this thing, and so I'm apologizing to everyone for even starting this.

I know... I just realized the comment wasn't exactly aimed towards me. I'm just upset with myself for not being smart enough to not post this thing, and so I'm apologizing to everyone for even starting this.

Thing is, I knew what was going to happen, but at that moment I didn't care.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I thank you for this comment. I'm deeply sorry for posting this, I'm just upset right now and a bunch of stupid things are spewing up in my mind. I don't mean to post this kind of stuff, it's just hard to vent irl when nobody will listen. And yeah, that's true about the song, but it's still sad that people are turning into something it's not.

Not at all I didn’t mean to make you feel attacked. I actually agree with both your points, I just didn’t get to complete my thought cuz I was called away by work.

So I think part of the problem is as I said people are learning a lot of new terms and ways of thinking and are coming away with an incomplete understanding. That’s the best possible view of it.

Sadly what you (and Idea ) are getting at is essentially trolling. I’m my experience these are people who either Want an excuse to put people down and act superior.

OR they are trying to discredit a legitimate complaint by screaming and shouting about a minor infraction. Because they can point to the little things and say “well they’re just out to complain to complain, it doesn’t mean anything.”

I think for me I tend to just read up quietly on different topics and try to get a few different viewpoints. And the choose for myself whether I agree or disagree.

Hopefully that doesn’t come across as too harsh. I am honestly not trying to be mean.

 

[PandorasBox101]

Not at all I didn’t mean to make you feel attacked. I actually agree with both your points, I just didn’t get to complete my thought cuz I was called away by work.

So I think part of the problem is as I said people are learning a lot of new terms and ways of thinking and are coming away with an incomplete understanding. That’s the best possible view of it.

Sadly what you (and Idea ) are getting at is essentially trolling. I’m my experience these are people who either Want an excuse to put people down and act superior.

OR they are trying to discredit a legitimate complaint by screaming and shouting about a minor infraction. Because they can point to the little things and say “well they’re just out to complain to complain, it doesn’t mean anything.”

I think for me I tend to just read up quietly on different topics and try to get a few different viewpoints. And the choose for myself whether I agree or disagree.

Hopefully that doesn’t come across as too harsh. I am honestly not trying to be mean.

No, I know you're not, it's okay. I'm just so embarrassed for posting this in such an angry manner. I don't mean to come off as angry, I'm just kind of disappointed in the fact that people are reading into things too deeply. I'm honestly not trying to troll, and I don't think I'm in any way superior, I'm just saying these are problems that probably shouldn't even exist. Humans as a whole have gotten to the point where even to smallest thing is taken as offensive and too literal, and it's just getting out of hand. I'm just saying, maybe we should all lighten up and try to focus on more important problems, as an example, homeless/starving children. If we're so caught up in things like this, then we've lost our humanity.

I shouldn't even be caught up in stuff like this, it's why I'm embarrassed for posting this.
I've had some time to think and I've calmed down.

I just would like to say thank you for responding to me, and I didn't think you were at all mean. You were just stating your opinion, and that's perfectly fine!

 

[Lenny2000]

Okay, so listen. This world has changed. Opinions are offensive unless they are somehow politically correct, that's just how it is. Nobody can hurt anyone else's feelings just because they think differently. Well now, I'm pissed off because I just learned something last night, and people are going to hear this.

My mom told me that people are now accusing the original Mary Poppins of blackface because of the chimney sweep scene. Here's what I think about this; the people who claim this need to get a life. They are chimney sweeps. The whole reason their faces are black is because they are covered in soot from cleaning the chimneys. Seriously, is there someone who just sits around all day searching for things that they find "offensive" even though they are far from it just so they can complain? Are there people who need to complain about everything? I'm honestly really pissed about this. For god's sake, do people have any common sense any more? You can't blame them for blackface when there's a perfectly good and EXPLAINED reason for them to have black (in this case, soot) on their face. Cleaning chimneys is not racist, nor should it ever be considered that. Sure, racism was still around back in the day, however it was much less of a problem. It was much more prominent in the 50s, a time in which this movie was not around. Not only that, but chimney sweeps faces get dirty because they are cleaning the chimney. You can not go claiming that everything you see that looks even a little racist is racist when it's clearly not.

Also--while we're here--people who claim that Baby, It's Cold Outside is rapey. I have one thing to say to you. You need to get over yourselves. It is not rapey, it never has been rapey. In fact, in the original version, if someone was going to call it rapey, it was actually more like that towards the dude in the song because there were actually a few more verses. But let me ask you this; if it was rapey, then why did the woman say, and I quote;
"This evening has been (been hoping that you'd drop in)
So very nice (i'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)"
Not only is the woman saying that the evening was nice, but the man said he was hoping she'd drop in, meaning that these two clearly know each other and have a relationship. Later in the song;
"But maybe just a half a drink more (put some records on while I pour)"
She's actually considering staying with her boyfriend by her own accords. Remember, she's obviously at this guy's house, meaning she knows where he lives, so it's not like she's at some random bar with a guy she doesn't know.
"Your welcome has been(how lucky that you dropped in)
So nice and warm (look out the window at this storm)"
Once again, she's telling him that his welcome was nice, and he's telling her not to go out because it's storming. What do you think--he's trying to get some, or he's trying to keep her inside from the blizzard? If she's in his house, we can assume there is windows. If there are windows, then she can obviously see he is not lying about the storm otherwise she would know he was making excuses and leave. He's also telling her it was lucky she dropped in. Once again, she came to his house of her own accord.
"I simply must go (but baby, it's cold outside)
The answer is no (but baby, it's cold outside)"
Just for clarification, I'm going to debunk this scene that sounds "rapey". First of all, the whole reason she's saying no is because she wants to get home to her parents. It's a storm, it's likely they're worried about her getting home safely; driving on icy roads is a hazard.
But here's the thing; it's not like she's wanting him to stop, she just needs to get home before her parents and siblings get suspicious of her relationship. She obviously hasn't told them about her relationship yet. Not only that, but she keeps backtracking from her refusals and saying "Maybe just a half a drink more", or "Maybe just a cigarette more". She obviously wants to stay, she just doesn't want her parents to worry at all. She's not refusing his advances because she doesn't want them, that's just a stupid claim to make, especially since at the end, she agrees Of her own accord to stay. If you actually listened to the parts of the song besides the ones that sound even remotely "rapey", then you're just looking for something to be offended about.

Lmao that rant is 10/10 seems like someone got awoken about the political correctness in our society but the question is how are we going to contradict it? You have no reason to be ashamed for your own opinion.

(Also in reality nobody today is being marginalized or oppressed except those that believe that they are oppressed and the social groups listed at the bottom. The only times that we do not experience oppression are the modern days where most people are treated like humans ( with exceptions for incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophiles, sorry fellas you'll be accepted into society soon enough ..))

 

[Axel The Englishman]

I live in England. I can relate.

 

[PandorasBox101]

Lmao that rant is 10/10 seems like someone got awoken about the political correctness in our society but the question is how are we going to contradict it? You have no reason to be ashamed for your own opinion.

(Also in reality nobody today is being marginalized or oppressed except those that believe that they are oppressed and the social groups listed at the bottom. The only times that we do not experience oppression are the modern days where most people are treated like humans ( with exceptions for incest, polygamy, beastiality, and pedophiles, sorry fellas you'll be accepted into society soon enough ..))

Oh god, pedos already tried. I hope people were smart enough not to actually accept them, I know the majority was very good about this and said no, that I'm proud of. But dear god, they don't need to be accepted.

 

[Lenny2000]

Oh god, pedos already tried. I hope people were smart enough not to actually accept them, I know the majority was very good about this and said no, that I'm proud of. But dear god, they don't need to be accepted.

I totally respect your opinion and it was funny too that they tried but it's so hard to believe that we are to accept people that mutilate their own genitalia and call it brave but shame those that have a romance for their brother or sister. That's how im viewing it in basics and that's what's confusing me XD

 

[Idea]

Oh god, pedos already tried. I hope people were smart enough not to actually accept them, I know the majority was very good about this and said no, that I'm proud of. But dear god, they don't need to be accepted.

To be fair though, pedophiles are still people, and if they don't act upon their urges, then they should be treated like anyone else. Not every pedophile is a child molester, in fact I'd say most aren't.

 

[PandorasBox101]

To be fair though, pedophiles are still people, and if they don't act upon their urges, then they should be treated like anyone else. Not every pedophile is a child molester, in fact I'd say most aren't.

That is true, and you are right. However, there is such a thing as going to far and if pedophiles were accepted as part of the LGBTQ then it would be fair to say that at some point in the future legal child/adult marriages would be allowed. Like I said, I'm all for acceptance as long as it doesn't go too far in this particular context.

 

[Idea]

However, there is such a thing as going to far and if pedophiles were accepted as part of the LGBTQ then it would be fair to say that at some point in the future legal child/adult marriages would be allowed. Like I said, I'm all for acceptance as long as it doesn't go too far in this particular context.

Sure. Truth be told, it's a little baffling to me that I even have to say "if X people didn't do anything wrong, they shouldn't be treated as if it did", but the number of youtube videos and especially comment sections where people go "all pedophiles should be executed in the eletric chair" (most common method) is frankly sickening.

 

[Lenny2000]

That is true, and you are right. However, there is such a thing as going to far and if pedophiles were accepted as part of the LGBTQ then it would be fair to say that at some point in the future legal child/adult marriages would be allowed. Like I said, I'm all for acceptance as long as it doesn't go too far in this particular context.

The community is going to die anyways due to the destruction of their own gene pool so I think we should just let them have their fun and wait for them to die off on their own

For pedophiles I don't really think they should marry because like I don't think the children know what they are committing too. An example would be to dangle car keys infront of a kids face and say you can have it if I take your virginity and they would be like gimme da car XD

 

[Idea]

For pedophiles I don't really think they should marry because like I don't think the children know what they are committing too. An example would be to dangle car keys infront of a kids face and say you can have it if I take your virginity and they would be like gimme da car XD

The kind of deranged people who would due anything half resembling that are the same people who would molest children anyway.

 

[rae2nerdy]

That is true, and you are right. However, there is such a thing as going to far and if pedophiles were accepted as part of the LGBTQ then it would be fair to say that at some point in the future legal child/adult marriages would be allowed. Like I said, I'm all for acceptance as long as it doesn't go too far in this particular context.

Okay so you do know that pedophiles have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community right? Like there is no connection between those two things at all. That's like saying "Well we accept that a man and a woman can get married, but let's not get carried away and say we accept the marriage of a man and a small child." Like no one would ever say that because obviously two adults marrying one another has nothing to do with a man abusing a child. The same thing with the LGBTQA community, just because you like/identify as specific gender (or no gender) that doesn't mean that you have anything to do with adults who abuse children.

 

[PandorasBox101]

Okay so you do know that pedophiles have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community right? Like there is no connection between those two things at all. That's like saying "Well we accept that a man and a woman can get married, but let's not get carried away and say we accept the marriage of a man and a small child." Like no one would ever say that because obviously two adults marrying one another has nothing to do with a man abusing a child. The same thing with the LGBTQA community, just because you like/identify as specific gender (or no gender) that doesn't mean that you have anything to do with adults who abuse children.

No, I know that. I said that I'm proud of the LGBTQ for not accepting them as part of the group! What I was saying is if they were accepted by them (although everyone said no) then in the future it would likely end up that protests might lead to legal marriages. Maybe not, but that's how it goes. People standing up can change the world for the better, and it has. I mean, we only have an LGBTQ because of that. But sometimes, people can go too far, like here where the pedophiles even tried to get into it. BUt the people in the LGBTQ said no because people knew that there were dangers to doing this. I'm not suggesting that people would allow them at all, I'm not saying they have anything to do with the LGBTQ. All I know is that they did try to gain acceptance into the group and they failed.
What I'm talking about is a big "what if". What if it had been accepted? Where would it lead? That's all I'm asking.

 

[rae2nerdy]

No, I know that. I said that I'm proud of the LGBTQ for not accepting them as part of the group!

There was never any suggestion they would. Like pedophiles once again have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community. That's like saying "Well I'm proud of them not accepting dogs into their group!" Why would they? Dogs have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community.

 

[Idea]

There was never any suggestion they would. Like pedophiles once again have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community. That's like saying "Well I'm proud of them not accepting dogs into their group!" Why would they? Dogs have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community.

I think the idea might have arised from a combination of two things:
1. That the suggestion was, in fact made.

2.The rapid expansion of the LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQA community over the last decade or so, as well as their degree of activity in assimilating more and more groups under the banner.

 

[PandorasBox101]

There was never any suggestion they would. Like pedophiles once again have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community. That's like saying "Well I'm proud of them not accepting dogs into their group!" Why would they? Dogs have nothing to do with the LGBTQA community.

Exactly. But that's not what I'm trying to say.

 

[Lenny2000]

I think the idea might have arised from a combination of two things:
1. That the suggestion was, in fact made.

2.The rapid expansion of the LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQA community over the last decade or so, as well as their degree of activity in assimilating more and more groups under the banner.

I agree because the community integrated so many groups it's like now LGBTTQQAIIP nowadays