Wear Our LGBT Symbols Publicly Or Leave The Country!

a reply to: Bloodworth

Ran into that exact scenario yesterday when I went to the cafe for coffee.

They were really pushing for an irrational reaction.

I just left and walked home.

Not worth my time.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Exactly, these days, it's hard to find groups that really have a feeling of community. When you find that, you stick with it.

It used to be that you had that in neighborhoods, at your church (or faith group), and in your family (even to extended). It feels like things being done are purposefully eroding that sense of community.

Sure, we have online groups to talk with, but how community are those groups? How many of those people will really turn around and be there for you to help support you if you need it?

There is a song I've been listening to hard lately that has the following line:

It's amazing what the hard times can reveal (oh oh oh)
Like who shows up, who walks away, and who's for real (oh oh oh)

Community was meant to be the ones who showed and who were for real, and even if they weren't particularly close it was because everyone had that trust and knew that if you pitched in for someone, they'd do the same for you in turn. We don't have that anymore very much. But building that community and trust like you describe also teaches people how to work and live together in spite of differences and without those difference being front and center. Why? Because those differences are what divide us. They don't unite us.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Darn that suck, I live in the south in GA we do not have that crap been pushed around here at all, we actually respect everybody and viser versa.

Lord have mercy I do not like GA, but darn i am glad I am living in my littler town free from the trans movement mob weirdos for now.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I read the same thing that you read, and came to none of the conclusions you came to.

I don't see why. The words are clearly in English. The sentence structure isn't questionable. Walshe's statements weren't cryptic, profound, no double entendre. They were straight to the point; "I would never let a man who is not a blood relative babysit my kids.", "...please note that almost none of them, if they are parents, have ever or would ever hire a man to come watch their kids", ...The point is that when it comes to hiring someone who is basically a stranger to watch your kids, almost every parent will always choose women."

Again, you are free to disagree with Walsh. But, to say he doesn't mean what he twittered out is just disingenuous deflection of an uncomfortable assertion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

That's exactly what he said.

Except, you then quote what he said, which is NOT that 'all men are pedos'.

So, your gaslighting is a typically (for you) pathetic failure.

We shouldn't be surprised when men sexually abuse children?

Male COUPLES. Meaning... GAY men.

Apparently YOU are the one who thinks that ALL men are gay.

There is no other way to "read" these comments except to assume Matt Walsh believes all men are would be pedos, given the opportunity.

Only if you yourself believe it.

Meanwhile, sane, rational people read his comments exactly as they were meant...

Most normal men don't want to be babysitters, while women have that motherly instinct, and yes, are more likely to be trustworthy.

That said, there are far too many stories of close family members abusing child relatives in their care, so I don't trust ANYONE with my kids, which is why I have cameras everywhere.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Except, you then quote what he said, which is NOT that 'all men are pedos'.

Sorry, but pedophilia was the subject and the topic at hand. He was commenting on the news of the gay couple indicted for sexual abuse of their adopted children and tweeted this:
"It's not surprising. Horrific, infuriating, gut-wrenchingly disgusting and evil. But not surprising.

He went off on a tangent about how men have never been trusted around kids anyway.

Male COUPLES. Meaning... GAY men.

Now you're adding what you WISH he said, but he didn't say only "gay men" can't be trusted.

Meanwhile, sane, rational people read his comments exactly as they were meant...

"I would never let a man who is not a blood relative babysit my kids. "
"none of them, if they are parents, have ever or would ever hire a man to come watch their kids while they go out for a date night."
"The point is that when it comes to hiring someone who is basically a stranger to watch your kids, almost every parent will always choose women."

Nope. Nothing about only "gay men or couples". You're adding words and meaning to his tweets to make you feel better. I don't know why you can't just disagree with him.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Bloodworth

Ran into that exact scenario yesterday when I went to the cafe for coffee.

They were really pushing for an irrational reaction.

I just left and walked home.

Not worth my time.

Now that you say that, someone told me a story yesterday about going to a phone repair store.
Nasty person at the counter and when they asked to speak to a manager...10x worse.
Better to leave.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I read the same thing that you read, and came to none of the conclusions you came to.

I don't see why. The words are clearly in English. The sentence structure isn't questionable. Walshe's statements weren't cryptic, profound, no double entendre. They were straight to the point; "I would never let a man who is not a blood relative babysit my kids.", "...please note that almost none of them, if they are parents, have ever or would ever hire a man to come watch their kids", ...The point is that when it comes to hiring someone who is basically a stranger to watch your kids, almost every parent will always choose women."

Again, you are free to disagree with Walsh. But, to say he doesn't mean what he twittered out is just disingenuous deflection of an uncomfortable assertion.

Unfortunately, I don't think you understood anything that I posted.

Blue will be blue, even if I see it as green, and no matter how much I try to explain it, when you feel what you see is the only thing that it can be, it will never be anything else for you.

Viewing it from your perspective my perspective comes across as "disingenuous deflection of an uncomfortable assertion."

This only makes you right in what you believe, but you are also wrong.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Unfortunately, I don't think you understood anything that I posted.

LOL

Why are you surprised? We can't even agree on what words arranged in sentences mean, let alone distinguish the subtle difference between teal and turquoise.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Unfortunately, I don't think you understood anything that I posted.

LOL

Why are you surprised? We can't even agree on what words arranged in sentences mean, let alone distinguish the subtle difference between teal and turquoise.

I give you that.

But to be honest, I was not surprised. I would have been surprised, if I had been able to get you to see from another perspective.

Once we get used to an idea and we believe it to be true, for most people, it usually takes something nearly catastrophic before they can even entertain the thought of a different perspective.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I would have been surprised, if I had been able to get you to see from another perspective.

But, you didn't present one. You just accused me of cognitive dissonance.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because what taanstafl says is true - Like it or not, the sexes are typically different. Women tend to want to be motherly, so they are more likely to be nurturing and parental and want to work with kids, small children which is why most of our elementary and younger school teachers and similar are women; they're the ones most likely apply for the jobs. You don't see nearly as many men getting into that role until the kids start getting older - 4th, 5th grade and up. That's because you are less the nurturer and more the teacher. Men are more interested in that.

Watch men coach, especially for little kids, and you'll see why. They just have different approaches. Dads are so important for this reason; they are heavily invested in their own offspring and bridge that gap between nurturing female and male role for their children. Much less invested men are not the same.

Finding a nurturing, truly nurturing male is unusual. They exist, but are rare. It's more likely that they have other interests in children or the young, and natural behavior of animals makes this clear.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I would have been surprised, if I had been able to get you to see from another perspective.

But, you didn't present one. You just accused me of cognitive dissonance.

First I dispute that I accused "you" of cognitive dissonance.

I do see how you could have come to that conclusion, when I look at it from a perspective that perhaps could be similar to yours.

The sentence, "You are so bad." Will take on a different meaning to each person that reads it, depending on the circumstances, each frame of mind, and what one wants to believe.

Context is often reframed to fit the perspective, once one has dug in their heels. Black and white can become a thousand shades of gray.

My OP was never constructed to attack you. I just saw it as a good example to demonstrate that real communication is extremely difficult on the internet.

How even civil discourse can be nonproductive, when words are viewed but never really understood.

I don't think the internet will ever be the appropriate tool for true and effective communication. Some things just have to be done face to face.

In the meantime, we have the sites and the forums to allow us to shout in the dark.

How about this, we don't infringe on their rights, and they don't infringe on ours.
Our rights, not to violate our own Christian based conscious.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Nope. Nothing about only "gay men or couples". You're adding words and meaning to his tweets to make you feel better. I don't know why you can't just disagree with him.

Gaslight much?

You said he said that all men are gay. I called you on it.

Now you are twisting every word you can find to try to avoid simply admitting you were wrong and t hat he did not say that.

Saying that no men should be trusted' is not saying 'all men are gay', it is simply stating a fact that any man who would works as a babysitter for children t hey do not know and are not related to are suspect. Any sane, rational non TDS suffering person understands this for what it means. It is self-evident.

What is also self-evident is you are incapable of rational thought.

Enjoy your life of self-delusion and (eventual) misery.

a reply to: marg6043

I'm in a midsize town in Arkansas and have learned to avoid certain areas where "certain people" tend to congregate.

The cafe in question was a layover because they closed down my bookstore cafe where I usually went.

I walked to that infamous Corporate Chain three miles down the road because my cousin sent me a gift card for Christmas.

I won't be going back.

They talk about inclusivity and tolerance in their promotionals but the local installation is like a clubhouse.

Went to the McDonalds across the street this morning and it was much more diverse and wonderfully HUMAN.

And saved a few bucks in the process, which is always nice.



a reply to: Bloodworth


Yeah. The cafe was cool enough until the Karens started swarming the location, apparently Friday is "their day".

I wish I had known beforehand so I could have avoided the gathering entirely.

I really hate learning things the hard way.

But, I know now that it's not a place I want to give my loyalty, money or time to.

I'd rather stay at home and just make my own, at least I'll get it right and won't get ripped off.

a reply to: ketsuko

Like it or not, the sexes are typically different. Women tend to want to be motherly.

So, you agree with Matt Walsh. You wouldn't hire a man to watch you boys. You only want a "motherly" female.

Watch men coach, especially for little kids, and you'll see why.

So all men are alike? They're all gruff. How about those girl's gymnastic coaches? /sarc

Finding a nurturing, truly nurturing male is unusual.

Obviously, that's your criteria. But some parents might enjoy a strong, enthusiast male sitter who can engage with kids in science and games, as well as putting a pizza in the oven.

At any rate, Matt Walsh was addressing a situation of pedophilia, not how men aren't nurturing.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

And...you still present no alternative perspective on the actual words Matt Walsh tweeted out. Like I said, you're welcome to disagree with him.

originally posted by: storyshooter
when the gay marriage debate was happening in this country I thought they should have the right to marry and argued as much with people, that's not something I'd do today. They value the rights of others so little that I no longer have any regard for their rights.

If divorce were criminalized, marriage rights would evaporate.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Bloodworth

Ran into that exact scenario yesterday when I went to the cafe for coffee.

They were really pushing for an irrational reaction.

I just left and walked home.

Not worth my time.

It's truly astonishing how simple and effective that strategy is.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You said he said that all men are gay. I called you on it.

No. I said "Conservative Matt Walsh seems to think that all men are pedos, given the opportunity."