3 ms·

> mandatory acknowledgments Who mandates that? > shielded from a lot of criticism By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine

> mandatory acknowledgments Who mandates that? > shielded from a lot of criticism By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. They seem free enough to criticize to me? > while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified Each side mocks the other; so it seems to be a moot point to me. > Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month > Or housewives' month > But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? > one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner. The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? > So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. I would disagree. My experience has been that “politics-free” spaces in fact allow the dominant politics to be expressed, while silencing other groups. > And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension. You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. It uses the gravitas of a “right” to make a point but then immediately admits that the point was false all along. So let’s drop the nonsense about “special rights” - this is about acknowledgement, or “tokenism”.

rayiner 4y ago
> The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? There isn’t one. There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. > The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety?
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety? My statement was referring to the immediate parent, which bemoaned the lack of “Fathers appreciation month” and “housewives appreciation.” How does the lack of an “abstinence celebration month” support the idea I was responding to - the idea that the media has decided that “fathers” and “housewives” are unimportant? > There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. We certainly agree on that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
UkrainianJew 4y ago
>By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. That's a very specific thing. Children of certain ages would go great lengths to feel different from the previous generation, "cool", "hip". Decades of various subcultures from Punks to Emos is pretty solid evidence. Grooming is trying to use the need to feel different in order to convince them to do sex-related things before they have a solid intrinsic feeling for it. The motivation for groomers could be finding these children sexually attractive, trolling (deliberately convincing someone to do irreversible changes that will cause them long-term suffering), or compensating for the groomer's own childhood trauma by forcing others to relive it (the worst bullies are former bully victims). I think, this is a legitimate problem and it's important to distinguish it from initiatives that actually help children (e.g. preventing bullying based on looks). >They seem free enough to criticize to me? No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo. But there are plenty of examples where rather mild criticism is immediately branded homophobic/transphobic and actions are taken to prevent other people from considering this point of view. >The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. I would be interested to hear some examples. >You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. Respectfully disagree. People do have an intrinsic need for some amount of other's attention, and can feel it very well. Many social rituals are built around it: networking (periodically paying attention to each other), arts (having others pay attention to what you create), the concept of celebrities. The HR departments have figured out long ago that some amount of coworkers' attention can substitute a raise (in terms of lowering the % of resignations). Like the whole "employee of the month" posters. I call it non-monetary because it doesn't cost the employer nearly as much as a sizable pay raise. But it's something people subconsciously feel and track very well. You take a small amount of everyone's attention and you direct it towards a specific group or individual. People belonging to that group feel slightly rewarded, people outside it feel slightly demotivated. Like if your boss congratulated your coworker with their birthday, but didn't congratulate you.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo It isn’t a taboo; it’s fallacious. That’s the reason mainstream media doesn’t cover it: there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights. I appreciate your lengthy discussion of what grooming is, and how you think it’s a real problem. However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” That isn’t what you meant, is it? > Respectfully disagree. Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. I said it’s rhetorical nonsense to elevate “non-monetary tokenism” to a “right,” and I don’t see where you’ve engaged with that idea.

rayiner 4y ago

> The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? There isn’t one. There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. > The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety?

drewbug01 4y ago
> That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety? My statement was referring to the immediate parent, which bemoaned the lack of “Fathers appreciation month” and “housewives appreciation.” How does the lack of an “abstinence celebration month” support the idea I was responding to - the idea that the media has decided that “fathers” and “housewives” are unimportant? > There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. We certainly agree on that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

UkrainianJew 4y ago

>By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. That's a very specific thing. Children of certain ages would go great lengths to feel different from the previous generation, "cool", "hip". Decades of various subcultures from Punks to Emos is pretty solid evidence. Grooming is trying to use the need to feel different in order to convince them to do sex-related things before they have a solid intrinsic feeling for it. The motivation for groomers could be finding these children sexually attractive, trolling (deliberately convincing someone to do irreversible changes that will cause them long-term suffering), or compensating for the groomer's own childhood trauma by forcing others to relive it (the worst bullies are former bully victims). I think, this is a legitimate problem and it's important to distinguish it from initiatives that actually help children (e.g. preventing bullying based on looks). >They seem free enough to criticize to me? No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo. But there are plenty of examples where rather mild criticism is immediately branded homophobic/transphobic and actions are taken to prevent other people from considering this point of view. >The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. I would be interested to hear some examples. >You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. Respectfully disagree. People do have an intrinsic need for some amount of other's attention, and can feel it very well. Many social rituals are built around it: networking (periodically paying attention to each other), arts (having others pay attention to what you create), the concept of celebrities. The HR departments have figured out long ago that some amount of coworkers' attention can substitute a raise (in terms of lowering the % of resignations). Like the whole "employee of the month" posters. I call it non-monetary because it doesn't cost the employer nearly as much as a sizable pay raise. But it's something people subconsciously feel and track very well. You take a small amount of everyone's attention and you direct it towards a specific group or individual. People belonging to that group feel slightly rewarded, people outside it feel slightly demotivated. Like if your boss congratulated your coworker with their birthday, but didn't congratulate you.

drewbug01 4y ago
> No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo It isn’t a taboo; it’s fallacious. That’s the reason mainstream media doesn’t cover it: there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights. I appreciate your lengthy discussion of what grooming is, and how you think it’s a real problem. However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” That isn’t what you meant, is it? > Respectfully disagree. Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. I said it’s rhetorical nonsense to elevate “non-monetary tokenism” to a “right,” and I don’t see where you’ve engaged with that idea.