Subtext is important, and you're falling into the brainwashing trap that led us here to this point, (hence why other users downvoted you).
The reality is that there is ZERO reason homosexuals should be singing about TEACHING kids anything, because the entire point of why they are defined as homosexuals deals with the fact that men have sex with men and women have sex with women.
WHY should they be teaching kids about anything to do with their lifestyle, even if it's "not to hate"? WHY should kids even know about the lifestyle of same-sex intercourse? WHY?!
That's the fundamental problem anyone with common sense has. But before you can arrive at that point you have to stop looking at everything from the lens of Left-wing acceptance, and first ask the very basic question of WHY homosexuality and teaching kids about accepting their lifestyle is something that should even be promoted?
I don't buy it anymore. This is not exactly equivalent, but similar to the motte-and-bailey shit they are pulling when advocating for other extreme positions. Maybe someone smarter than me knows a word for it.
Every small tongue-in-cheek joke on the right is a dog whistle for people who in reality want to implement the fourth reich. On the other side it was of course irony, sarcasm, obvious humor, when the backlash becomes to great.
"Don't you get a joke? It is really about teaching love and tolerance. How can you be against teaching kids about love and tolerance (and Grindr)?" These people are not stupid. This is a calculated provocation, and they know it.
Good to see that they are still unable not to gloat, though.
I've been considering this a lot recently: hate is now a forbidden emotion. This is the groundwork of emotional manipulation (perhaps even abuse). The implication is that experiencing this emotion is a sin and must be avoided at all costs. The why is in the face of their words, believing that hatred is the devil of emotion - as if no wrong action may be performed in absence of hatred.
I don't know the big brain term for this, though.
If I ever bothered to talk to such people, I might try explaining the value of hatred to them, just to see how they react. Having their premise rejected is not what they're expecting - they're expecting you to argue on their grounds by associating a particular emotion with an unrelated idea. It's almost as if they need you to do this to upkeep their own dogma.
The implication is that experiencing this emotion is a sin and must be avoided at all costs.
Interesting observation. But do you maybe mean anger instead of hate? Hate is a very crude emotion. Maybe appropriate if someone smugly insinuates grooming children. But hate is not very useful, since it is usually self-destructive. You know, like "don't care what happens as long as I take the other bastard with me." Anger as a creative masculine emotion is definetly forbidden now. I wonder if there is some form of psychological damage, if one is conditioned to always suppress or deny anger.
And there is a lot more emotional(?) manipulation going on. Opponents of mainstream ideas are either fearful in an irrational way (transphobia, homophobia, islamophobia,...), or they are dangerous because they cannot control their hate. It cannot be doubt, dislike, scepticism, antipathy, distrust, aversion, disgust,... something that a more or less rational thought process has lead you to. It must either be fear or hate. Same linguistic impoverishment, but the other way around, for love. There is only one kind of love. Everything that feels good is love. Lust is love. Fucking children is "teaching them how to love." And since we are against 'love', it must be that we are mad with hate.
But hate is not very useful, since it is usually self-destructive.
I think every negative emotion has a potential benefit. At the least, noticing a hatred response to some stimuli can provide you with knowledge of your own beliefs. Of course, if you act on this feeling, you're likely to suffer because you likely live in a civil society. Civility gives a lot of great stuff, but it is not kind to primitive impulses. If you live like an ape in the woods, then relying on emotion and instinct probably becomes more useful.
One of the last useful things I ever saw on /pol/ was "hatred is the immune system of the soul". I agree with it, after translating it to "hatred shows you when and where your deepest most foundational principles have been violated". Despite our civil advances, I don't believe most of our populace could be considered philosophical enough to not have need of this data.
I wonder if there is some form of psychological damage, if one is conditioned to always suppress or deny anger.
I'm broken enough to confirm this. Do not develop a habit of bottling up your anger. That will fucking break you and you won't see it coming. You'll think you're doing just fine until it's too late. It either seeps out in small bits every day, or it explodes all at once.
You can ignore hatred because it's just a view of your personal boundaries. Worst that should happen is you stop noticing when your boundaries change. Anger comes more from injustice, so failing to handle it gradually teaches you that you cannot expect justice from your world - people can be very dangerous when they expect everything to go wrong. I'm no emotion expert though, so I can't say much about the areas where hatred and anger overlap.
I agree with everything else you said. Wasn't sure if I should touch on any of it since I assume most people here are familiar with the villainy that can be found so easily now. I suppose I should respect the success of emotions as an attack vector, but I do despise it - I just hope our society develops some cultural antibody to it in the future.
Am I the only one here who was NOT offended by the song?
They sang roughly :
“we’re coming for your children…. to teach them not to hate”
completely smug and based on the false premise that queer agenda is not rooted in hate.
But - they did NOT say they would convert anybody to being gay or have any kind of sexual relationships
Subtext is important, and you're falling into the brainwashing trap that led us here to this point, (hence why other users downvoted you).
The reality is that there is ZERO reason homosexuals should be singing about TEACHING kids anything, because the entire point of why they are defined as homosexuals deals with the fact that men have sex with men and women have sex with women.
WHY should they be teaching kids about anything to do with their lifestyle, even if it's "not to hate"? WHY should kids even know about the lifestyle of same-sex intercourse? WHY?!
That's the fundamental problem anyone with common sense has. But before you can arrive at that point you have to stop looking at everything from the lens of Left-wing acceptance, and first ask the very basic question of WHY homosexuality and teaching kids about accepting their lifestyle is something that should even be promoted?
I don't buy it anymore. This is not exactly equivalent, but similar to the motte-and-bailey shit they are pulling when advocating for other extreme positions. Maybe someone smarter than me knows a word for it.
Every small tongue-in-cheek joke on the right is a dog whistle for people who in reality want to implement the fourth reich. On the other side it was of course irony, sarcasm, obvious humor, when the backlash becomes to great.
"Don't you get a joke? It is really about teaching love and tolerance. How can you be against teaching kids about love and tolerance (and Grindr)?" These people are not stupid. This is a calculated provocation, and they know it.
Good to see that they are still unable not to gloat, though.
I've been considering this a lot recently: hate is now a forbidden emotion. This is the groundwork of emotional manipulation (perhaps even abuse). The implication is that experiencing this emotion is a sin and must be avoided at all costs. The why is in the face of their words, believing that hatred is the devil of emotion - as if no wrong action may be performed in absence of hatred.
I don't know the big brain term for this, though.
If I ever bothered to talk to such people, I might try explaining the value of hatred to them, just to see how they react. Having their premise rejected is not what they're expecting - they're expecting you to argue on their grounds by associating a particular emotion with an unrelated idea. It's almost as if they need you to do this to upkeep their own dogma.
From the left's paradigm, you're totally aloud to hate people with the wrong opinions, who vote the wrong way, or have the wrong sex or skin color.
Though, to be fair to your premise, they don't qualify any of that as hate.
Your hate is evil and wrong, our hate is the normal actions of righteous people
Interesting observation. But do you maybe mean anger instead of hate? Hate is a very crude emotion. Maybe appropriate if someone smugly insinuates grooming children. But hate is not very useful, since it is usually self-destructive. You know, like "don't care what happens as long as I take the other bastard with me." Anger as a creative masculine emotion is definetly forbidden now. I wonder if there is some form of psychological damage, if one is conditioned to always suppress or deny anger.
And there is a lot more emotional(?) manipulation going on. Opponents of mainstream ideas are either fearful in an irrational way (transphobia, homophobia, islamophobia,...), or they are dangerous because they cannot control their hate. It cannot be doubt, dislike, scepticism, antipathy, distrust, aversion, disgust,... something that a more or less rational thought process has lead you to. It must either be fear or hate. Same linguistic impoverishment, but the other way around, for love. There is only one kind of love. Everything that feels good is love. Lust is love. Fucking children is "teaching them how to love." And since we are against 'love', it must be that we are mad with hate.
I think every negative emotion has a potential benefit. At the least, noticing a hatred response to some stimuli can provide you with knowledge of your own beliefs. Of course, if you act on this feeling, you're likely to suffer because you likely live in a civil society. Civility gives a lot of great stuff, but it is not kind to primitive impulses. If you live like an ape in the woods, then relying on emotion and instinct probably becomes more useful.
One of the last useful things I ever saw on /pol/ was "hatred is the immune system of the soul". I agree with it, after translating it to "hatred shows you when and where your deepest most foundational principles have been violated". Despite our civil advances, I don't believe most of our populace could be considered philosophical enough to not have need of this data.
I'm broken enough to confirm this. Do not develop a habit of bottling up your anger. That will fucking break you and you won't see it coming. You'll think you're doing just fine until it's too late. It either seeps out in small bits every day, or it explodes all at once.
You can ignore hatred because it's just a view of your personal boundaries. Worst that should happen is you stop noticing when your boundaries change. Anger comes more from injustice, so failing to handle it gradually teaches you that you cannot expect justice from your world - people can be very dangerous when they expect everything to go wrong. I'm no emotion expert though, so I can't say much about the areas where hatred and anger overlap.
I agree with everything else you said. Wasn't sure if I should touch on any of it since I assume most people here are familiar with the villainy that can be found so easily now. I suppose I should respect the success of emotions as an attack vector, but I do despise it - I just hope our society develops some cultural antibody to it in the future.