6 ms·

Many, many religions find pro-LGBT to be morally wrong. Even evolutionary, everything that doesnt create more kids is useless. But we, as a western society us

Many, many religions find pro-LGBT to be morally wrong. Even evolutionary, everything that doesnt create more kids is useless. But we, as a western society usually stand by the rights to let adults do whatever they want (consentually), and don't care about it, if it doesnt affect us directly. And what does 'morally' even mean? We, as a western society, support kids seeing and sucking on boobs, until they're 1yo or 2 (or whatever), then for the next 10-12 years we hide (images of, and real) boobs from them, as if they were radioactive, and they don't know why, then they (approximately half of them) want to look at (real and images of) boobs, but we find that "wrong", a few years later we legally let them pay to see boobs (or find them online for free), and somewhere in the meantime, start bothering then, when are they going to find someone with boobs. Meanwhile mens boobs are ok. In some other cultures, women of all ages don't even cover their boobs in public. So basically something, that is a normal everyday thing in some cultures, for people of all ages, becomes morally wrong in our culture, and we censor it online, we also lock up people if those boobs are owned by a person younger than some arbitrary age, and even have wikipedia pages about that ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... ). So basically, for some other culture, what we do is morally wrong, but we, as a majority, get to ignore their morality and impose our own (even if it's stupid). TLDR: we (as a group) support social networks deleting photos of female nipples, because showing and seeing those is morally wrong in our culture, even though it's an issue that affects a lot more people than LGBT stuff.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Many, many religions find pro-LGBT to be morally wrong So? They are as free to express and act on their opinion of private actors expressing pro-LGBT messages as people who believe otherwise are to express the opposite. > Even evolutionary, everything that doesnt create more kids is useless. Obviously false or such traits would be quickly weeded of it wherever they arise, and they are not.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  >So? They are as free to express and act on their opinion of private actors expressing pro-LGBT messages as people who believe otherwise are to express the opposite. The last time someone didn't want to bake a cake, they had to fight their way to supreme court... so yeah, expressing your beliefs is not an easy task to do. The problem with beliefs is, that they're arbitrary, and a tiny variable can make a good thing a bad thing. Rape in a movie? Bad thing. Crime, thriller, etc. Rape jokes, bad. But wait, if you just change the gender of the rape victim to a male, you've got a hollywood "satirical erotic romantic comedy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_Days_and_40_Nights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_Days_and_40_Nights ). So, rape jokes are bad, and deleted ( https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15641998 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15641998 -here facebook even stood with free speech, but bent down soon after), but if the victim is a man, you can shoot a comedy and make $95M. And it's far from being the only movie with such cntent ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nheskbsU5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nheskbsU5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw ). Why is one (morally) ok, and the other isn't? Who decides that? If we censor one, shouldnt we also censor the other? Or if we let one online, why not let the other? Is it just a personal choice of a trigger happy moderator? Or is there a written, official moderation rule, where content with rape is ok, if the victim is a man?
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    You seem to have a bone to pick, and are injecting tangential arguments into the conversation. But as a matter of fact, it wasn't about bakers not baking a cake for gay people, or whether you should be allowed to make rape jokes - all topics that maybe have a bit more nuance to them, and can be discussed elsewhere. The question was "would it be wrong for Facebook to ban LGBT content"? I contend that it would be wrong, i.e. immoral. If you disagree with that, we can try to have an argument about that. If you agree or don't care, I don't see the point in this mental exercise. It is of zero interest in any discussion ever that there are hypothetical people who disagree with opinion X, because I'm not arguing with hypothetical people. I'm having an argument with specific individuals with specific beliefs.
    - jedimind 6y ago
Tainnor 6y ago
this is textbook whataboutism. also, I support less repression on sexual expression (btw something that often correlates with support for LGBT issues) and (as a European), I find American prudishness to be often quite puzzling, but this > TLDR: we (as a group) support social networks deleting photos of female nipples, because showing and seeing those is morally wrong in our culture, even though it's an issue that affects a lot more people than LGBT stuff. is ridiculous. Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  > Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights. Why? Isn't seeing boobs a lot more natural than anything lgbt? I mean, pretty much a 100% of people have boobs, 50% of those have the ones we're not allowed to see, and if you count all the lgbt people, you get what.. 10% of the population? 20%? Definitely less than the number of people with boobs. Yes, i know it's a stupid example, and there are historic reasons for promoting lgbt rights... but we're currently in a state, where one person (or a relatively small group of people) with their own set of beliefs, can decide that an 8-9yo drag queen is ok (Lactatia), a 6 year old can be a star of really creepy beauty pageants (honey boo boo), but one visible, female nipple is bad (sometimes even very bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... ) Who decides what is ok and what is not? Laws surely don't. Yes, facebook is a private company, but it should be treated as having a monopoly position, especially after buying instagram and whatsapp. Having a company with so much power (having so many eyes watching them, that they can manipulate) is not a good thing, especially if they can arbitrary censor stuff they arbitrarily don't like.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    > Why? Seriously? LGBT people are being bullied and beaten not only in Russia but also in Poland, which from here is about an hour away. In Iran and other countries they are hanged. In Chechnya, they're being deported and murdered. But even in the West, suicide rates for LGBT people are much higher, AIDS continues to be an issue (even though significant progress has been made), there are still crazy people who think that teaching LGBT issues in school - which would be enormously helpful for teenagers in accepting themselves - is some sort of propaganda, and to this day, some families still don't accept if their kid is gay (or trans). Oh and also, just a short while ago, in a city not that far from where I live, there was a murder attempt on a homosexual couple and one of the guys actually died. These are real issues with real impact for the people that are affected. It's easy to think that homophobia is gone in the West, because of the public opinion, but secretly and deep down some people (even if they are fewer) are either latently or sometimes deeply homophobic.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Many, many religions find pro-LGBT to be morally wrong So? They are as free to express and act on their opinion of private actors expressing pro-LGBT messages as people who believe otherwise are to express the opposite. > Even evolutionary, everything that doesnt create more kids is useless. Obviously false or such traits would be quickly weeded of it wherever they arise, and they are not.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
>So? They are as free to express and act on their opinion of private actors expressing pro-LGBT messages as people who believe otherwise are to express the opposite. The last time someone didn't want to bake a cake, they had to fight their way to supreme court... so yeah, expressing your beliefs is not an easy task to do. The problem with beliefs is, that they're arbitrary, and a tiny variable can make a good thing a bad thing. Rape in a movie? Bad thing. Crime, thriller, etc. Rape jokes, bad. But wait, if you just change the gender of the rape victim to a male, you've got a hollywood "satirical erotic romantic comedy" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_Days_and_40_Nights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_Days_and_40_Nights ). So, rape jokes are bad, and deleted ( https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15641998 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-15641998 -here facebook even stood with free speech, but bent down soon after), but if the victim is a man, you can shoot a comedy and make $95M. And it's far from being the only movie with such cntent ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nheskbsU5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nheskbsU5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw ). Why is one (morally) ok, and the other isn't? Who decides that? If we censor one, shouldnt we also censor the other? Or if we let one online, why not let the other? Is it just a personal choice of a trigger happy moderator? Or is there a written, official moderation rule, where content with rape is ok, if the victim is a man?
- Tainnor 6y ago
  You seem to have a bone to pick, and are injecting tangential arguments into the conversation. But as a matter of fact, it wasn't about bakers not baking a cake for gay people, or whether you should be allowed to make rape jokes - all topics that maybe have a bit more nuance to them, and can be discussed elsewhere. The question was "would it be wrong for Facebook to ban LGBT content"? I contend that it would be wrong, i.e. immoral. If you disagree with that, we can try to have an argument about that. If you agree or don't care, I don't see the point in this mental exercise. It is of zero interest in any discussion ever that there are hypothetical people who disagree with opinion X, because I'm not arguing with hypothetical people. I'm having an argument with specific individuals with specific beliefs.
  - jedimind 6y ago

Tainnor 6y ago

this is textbook whataboutism. also, I support less repression on sexual expression (btw something that often correlates with support for LGBT issues) and (as a European), I find American prudishness to be often quite puzzling, but this > TLDR: we (as a group) support social networks deleting photos of female nipples, because showing and seeing those is morally wrong in our culture, even though it's an issue that affects a lot more people than LGBT stuff. is ridiculous. Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights. Why? Isn't seeing boobs a lot more natural than anything lgbt? I mean, pretty much a 100% of people have boobs, 50% of those have the ones we're not allowed to see, and if you count all the lgbt people, you get what.. 10% of the population? 20%? Definitely less than the number of people with boobs. Yes, i know it's a stupid example, and there are historic reasons for promoting lgbt rights... but we're currently in a state, where one person (or a relatively small group of people) with their own set of beliefs, can decide that an 8-9yo drag queen is ok (Lactatia), a 6 year old can be a star of really creepy beauty pageants (honey boo boo), but one visible, female nipple is bad (sometimes even very bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... ) Who decides what is ok and what is not? Laws surely don't. Yes, facebook is a private company, but it should be treated as having a monopoly position, especially after buying instagram and whatsapp. Having a company with so much power (having so many eyes watching them, that they can manipulate) is not a good thing, especially if they can arbitrary censor stuff they arbitrarily don't like.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  > Why? Seriously? LGBT people are being bullied and beaten not only in Russia but also in Poland, which from here is about an hour away. In Iran and other countries they are hanged. In Chechnya, they're being deported and murdered. But even in the West, suicide rates for LGBT people are much higher, AIDS continues to be an issue (even though significant progress has been made), there are still crazy people who think that teaching LGBT issues in school - which would be enormously helpful for teenagers in accepting themselves - is some sort of propaganda, and to this day, some families still don't accept if their kid is gay (or trans). Oh and also, just a short while ago, in a city not that far from where I live, there was a murder attempt on a homosexual couple and one of the guys actually died. These are real issues with real impact for the people that are affected. It's easy to think that homophobia is gone in the West, because of the public opinion, but secretly and deep down some people (even if they are fewer) are either latently or sometimes deeply homophobic.