Proud to be prideful

As a straight man I find the entire pride concept annoying. It is like any religion, an outer shell of tools who act to disguise inner rings of users, controllers, and predators. It should be dismantled and its symbols all destroyed. Especially the pride flag. Which is just brightly colored bait for children. The baby blue and baby pink stuff is overt trauma reenactment. Lastly it's on the 6th month, flag has 6 colors, it's missing indigo (ROYGB I V) ie the throat chakra which is your discernment, your voice, your will. The stuff about "take that religion we're taking Noah's rainbow away" and "we're vibrant, flamboyant, and full spectrum, vanguards of a new age! Doing away with boring and represssed monochromatic grayscale cisgendered and heteronormative values" is just window dressing and toys for the adolescents and adults, it's the sales pitch. The core is the bait, which is meant to draw in young children and supplant their unconscious associations of primordial symbols like the rainbow, so they'll subconsciously accept anythign associated culturally with the rainbow as good and no one will be able to convince them otherwise. Not deeply. Hence, it's a militant religion created by angry overgrown children and predators who want more playthings and access, I mean playmates, I mean to be rainbow warriors and fight for truth, justice, equality, just like my cartoons and what I see on all the candy and cereal boxes which are also predator bait aimed at children. I generally ignored the pride stuff back in the day and thought sure, let them do whatever and I guess I can't use a rainbow anymore without people assuming I'm putting the signal out there for other men. And perhaps there will be consequences! It quickly became clear that yes, when people no longer have any pressures they quickly become narcissistic and psychopathic, as was already known through history. But now it's even more clear. It's just a way for the predator-parasite class to be able to turn people into whatever they want, push them down the preestablished pipelines, extract power, leverage, tons of money, and program them like footsoldiers, then ultimately plop them out into the web of some dead end degenerate subculture where their threads can be plucked away at for the rest fo the lifespan. Pride was a necessary lead in to soften things up for transhumanism. It's about full spectrum dominance. Once anything is tolerable you can make people into whatever you want. They'll think they "chose" it. They'll look into the mirror and think "this is me, the only me I know, this is who I am". And they'll do what they're told, they'll carry out their programming, and no one will be able to say anything about it. Nothing is normal, everything is normal. Anything you want to do must be good, otherwise, why would you think you want it? I'm sorry, I said that wrong, it's very invalidating. Here let me correct myself. If it was wrong, why would want it? If it was bad, why would you feel it? If it wasn't real, why would there be a feeling? There is think what you're feeling, that's bad! Don't do that. You don't think you want, you want. You don't think you feel, you feel! You don't think you know, you jsut 100% totally know, otherwise, why would it be in your head? Don't invalidate your thoughts! You got this! You know! You know who you really are, stop fighting it. You're in denial. You're not who I say you are because you're in denial, you're repressed. It is time. You msut go on a "journey" to "cast off" your "false self" to "discover" your "true self" and "regain" the ability to have and "express" you "true self" in a "genuine" and "spontaneous" way. So basically, short version is, here's whatcha do. K? Listen up, listen good. Real simple stuff. You take children,a nd using what you know about early childhood psychological and neurological development, you just act to disrupt it. ie, you maim them. And you keep maiming them. Some are more resistant, or their parents and family is in the way, or whatever. So you need more control over their environment. So you get that to. Then you soften and maim all of them. Make it normal to be sick and dysfunctional, and train them all that the thing that gives you health is the whitecoat. So they go to the whitecoat, doctor doctor it doesn't feel right. I know just the thing. And he gives you your self back. He gives you the ability to be your true self again. Then the bad self goes away. But see, it's not perfect. There are problems. And the maiming continues. So eventually, as societies are remade with a new normal that involves everyone having physical and mental problems, some of the core facilities like socializing, sense of self, sense of place, and sexual activity just aren't working out. And people notice this. So you tell them, the reason you feel bad and don't fit in and things don't work right is because you're not who you thought you were. You need to find your true self. And here's all the labels you can pick from. *drops a box in front of you* Look through these and discover the one that describes the real you. So when they start getting ideas, hm you know that sounds like something I did in childhood, hm you know I always thought people were like this but I'm actually more like this, hm some people are just born that way, hm maybe my brain doesn't match my body, hm I guess the only path forward is through, to acceptance. And so then you watch what pipeline the lemming is going towards and you push it along. Into the pipeline. Into its contrived "journey" of "self" "discovery". And at the other end, the initiation death and rebirth ritual is complete. New self, new identity, new "I am", and new people reinforcing that identity. Now the bad feel goes away.... kind of, but it still isn't quite right, is it? It's unfillable void inside. So you try to fill it. And then you go and work for the system. And the system watches you and it teaches you what you really need to know, it's very important. Then you go to work, to improve and maintain the world. You help maim the next generation. And the biological and psychological degeneration continues, the spectrum of "choices" expands, and the methods of covertly manufacturing consent and forcing those choices becomes ever more specific and nuanced. There. That's the writhing heap of malformed flesh you have to stand on and be "proud" of. There's going to be a P tacked on the end of that acronym, guaranteed. It's inevitable. Love is love. 5 - 13 year olds know everything including how they need to have their bodies mutilated. Once you're at that point there is no barrier to sexual consent. I can hear it now "you're just projecting Christian ideals of purity and innocence on them, you're the one abusing children! You're a big meanie, you make them go to bed and brush their teeth and won't let them do whatever they want!! Hear that your parents are BIG MEAN, they're evil! I'm like your aprents if they were cool! Our rainbow gang is cool!" It's just a matter of the right stimulus pattern to force it into normality, and then everyone pretends its normal and turns a blind eye like the mud rolling hogs and mindless grazing cattle they are. Then even they're erased, and there is no one left except the predator parasite class and their playthings. So yeah. In summary, study child abuse, transgenerational trauma, trauma based mind control programming, torture, double binds, cult programming and initation systems, gang initiation systems, alienation, blah blah blah, and there you have it. LGBT. Coalition of the fringes is the correct term because that's exactly what it is. Damaged and malformed people who were failed and abandoned by degenerate societies. These are abused children following predators who are tapping their parental introjects and then going after other kids while fighting with symbolic representations of things that harmed them in childhood. You're dealing with insanity. For every "rational" LGBT there is at least one that is not, they want power, they will get it. Just the way it works.

Did you actually write this yourself?

>>72021 Why do you ask, Lain?

>>72022 Different lain. It reads like a soykaf blogrant. Actually, it reads worse than that. It reads like the mind-vomit of an indoctrinated flesh-bot regurgitating the same tired political tropes and paranoid propaganda of less-than-democratic individuals who don't have a lot worthwhile going on in their lives. It reads like the insecurity and contempt of an adult-child whose cast then entire sense of self around perpetual temper-tantrums and opposition to meaningless soykaf that doesn't affect them. It reads like the mind-virus of a less-than-well-adjusted twit trying to start soykaf on a board that doesn't care for their bullshit. It reads like every alt-right poster on the planet, like a clone imitating a clone imitating a clone imitating a clone imitating a clone of a thoughtleader, the same crap that's been holding humanity back for centuries. I don't know if this belongs on /hum/, but it definitely belongs on rebbit or 4shit. If you wrote all that soykaf yourself then its a tragedy, honestly.

>>72023 >Endless stream of characterizations wrapped in a narrative Sounds like garden variety LGBTQ+ deflection. Lack of insight is one of your distinguishing features. You don't know or care why you do what you do, you simply react to triggers, your self reporting is superficial at best and utterly dishonest and worthless on average. So it's no surprise you've... oh look, including nothing of substance. Melted homo-brain.

I'm all for criticisms of LGBT culture, which I oppose, but this post just seems vaguely off to me. It doesn't look like AI but something's fishy about it.

moral panics are lame and this one is just as bad motherfuckers want to inspect little kids private parts to confirm their gender and you're worried about LGBT groomers https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2022/06/house-bill-that-would-force-childrens-private-parts-to-be-inspected-for-school-sports-is-perverse.html real pathetic soykaf

>>72019 Not going to read that. I can understand wanting to suck sausages or to drink the juice. I find it disgusting, but okay, we have worse people on the chans. I am one of them and my fetishes will disgust you, so it's fair. Now, how can you come with the idea of designing a flag for it? How do you even think of it? And then you placard it on the facade of your home, on the shop you own, and then you even get the idea of asking the city to put those flags in the street. How? Calling it your identity? Of all the things that define you, drinking urine and taking fists in the ack alley is what define you? How is that even possible? And on top of that you decide to name it pride? Of all the things you did in your life, of all the hardship overcome, of all the lifegoals achieved you are proud of THAT? How? Why? I can not imagine doing the same for my deviances, even now that you proposed the idea. I can not imagine footf@gs or the BDSM freaks or anyone else doing it. How, and then, there is the kids. Asking to leave their sexuality away from kids is apparently the same as wanting to kill them or something. How can anyone tolerate that?

>>72026 >motherfuckers want to inspect little kids private parts to confirm their gender and you're worried about LGBT groomers Do you know we do that at birth? It's part of the initial health checkup. Then your sex is on a paper and we don't need to look at anything else.

I think this thread's just gonna be a retarded flame war since, not only is the OP a massive wall of text most people just aren't gonna read, and there's already a same user itt who's more or less completely determined to drag it down because it's heresy to the new global church of political correctness. Besides, There's a thread talking about the science of gayness already. So even if it weren't soykaf from it's inception it would just be redundant. Besides, after >>72028's post there's really nothing more to say. Imagine not only being proud of your sexual deviancy, but proud enough of it to try and bludgeon society into accepting you instead of being a normal human being and keeping that soykaf to yourself like millions of other perverts throughout human history. Oh, and can't forget wanting to indoctrinate kids, either. There is ZERO justification for teaching a ten year old about sex, period.

>>72023 Lainon, please critique the post instead of just coming up with accusations of it "being bad". We get it, you think it's "bad" and "wrong." Now explain why it is wrong. >>72025 Break it down and try to understand what about it is off or fishy. From my perspective, it's the rough draft of rhetoric that is attempting to finding symbolism and that might be offputting to people who haven't attempted to write critical analysis of something or don't understand symbolism. The difference between "weird political boomer-tier ranting" and "critique/analysis of something I agree/disagree with" is usually just how it is presented. The OP made the mistake of presenting notes rather than a properly formed post, but they are making some attempt at it and I have to give them some kudos for that. They reveal their hand a bit in the analysis (There is nothing wrong with the honesty, but the idea for an analysis like this isn't to say "this is what I think" but rather "this is what you should consider.")

>>72032 Your being a bit charitable, but you have a point. I'd say OP's paranoia about LGBT is somewhat understandable. Do the authorities encourage and use the LGBT movement as a soft power tool? Yes. Is it a means of social control? Yes. Is it a form of repressive tolerance, a form of astroturfed pseudo-rebellion that is encouraged because it isn't threatening to society? Yes. This doesn't mean anyone should direct excessive amounts of hostility and paranoia to people who identify as gay. The elitism of their movement, the deliberate attempts at edgyness which alienate people and their relationship with the government and big corporations is generally what causes all this negativity. I mean, homosexual authors like Foucault were the first to predict this would happen way back in the 80s, and he wasn't wrong. He points out, that sexual repression was a convenient myth. The Victorians didn't repress sexuality, they invented the concept, they created the idea of sexual orientation which we would later turn into a political identity. Do authority figures attempt to impose a sexual orientation/identity on people to make them conform to a specific model? Yes. Albeit, for the last century it was generally heterosexual and only recently is homosexuality, lesbianism imposed on people if they are non-conformists. As Foucault points out, the pressure to discover yourself and cast off your false self is a strategy of power. We're manipulated by this language of confession and therapy into doxxing ourselves so we can be better surveilled, observed, catalogued and analyzed. We're tricked into thinking this is good. Basically, OP is coming from somewhere but veers off into paranoid rambling and unnecessary hostility. Maybe he's just having a bad day? But funnily enough, some of the stuff he spouts isn't wrong and it overlaps with what some gay writers like Foucault were saying ages ago.

>>72028 >How do you even think of it? And then you placard it on the facade of your home, on the shop you own, and then you even get the idea of asking the city to put those flags in the street. >How? Before I saw pride flags anywhere I was seeing large 'take back vermont' banners on and in front of peoples houses whining about the beginnings of civic recognition/treatment of homosexual relationships in the US. Not at all subtle, really very huge signs, left up for years. Maybe that's where they got the idea? People signalling, gays not welcome, stay in the closet, maybe you're not safe here. So obviously then there is a reason to express the opposite. Because if you don't, things aren't quite clear, people might get the wrong idea, or suspect it. LGBT people have had to be paranoid for years, that's worth fixing.

>>72034 >Maybe that's where they got the idea? People reacting to gay symbols being placed everywhere really can't be how they got the idea for the fay symbol in the first place.

>>72033 >Do the authorities encourage and use the LGBT movement as a soft power tool? Yes. Is it a means of social control? Yes. Is it a form of repressive tolerance, a form of astroturfed pseudo-rebellion that is encouraged because it isn't threatening to society? Yes. Uncle Ted, stop posting. You are dead now, you can't be on the internet. How do you even like being in there? >his doesn't mean anyone should direct excessive amounts of hostility and paranoia to people who identify as gay Explain how wanting the kids to grow away from your sexuality is an excessive amount of hostility, or even hostility at all.

>There's going to be a P tacked on the end of that acronym, guaranteed. It's inevitable. People have been saying this for +50 years, it's not going to happen. It's literally cold war-era moral panic soykaf. There's not a single serious LGBTQ group advocating for the rights of p℮dos, and most pro-p℮dophile groups are either defunct or straight up strawmen. On the other hand, p℮dophiles historically have tried to infiltrate LGBTQ spaces in search for acceptance but they've been rejected every time.

>>72037 >People have been saying this for +50 years, On what basis do you assert that 1970 is 2023.

>>72035 This was years before that was a thing, that's not what it was a reaction to.

>>72033 >Your being a bit charitable I try to argue in good faith as much as possible, if nothing else I can grow from the discussion by talking about it (even if not on the immediate subject matter) and a lot of the time, I feel like it's easier to extend what the indivdual is attempting to communicate and we can build from there. >Maybe he's just having a bad day? I'm wondering if this could be the case. You make a good point, especially in pointing out the individual's hostility. At the same time, a lot of people do struggle with discussing things as we approach the foundations of any given worldview, especially ones we feel strongly about. It's much easier to assert "X BAD / Y GOOD", and thanks to the internet, it's much easier to just get positive reinforcement behind it. Either way, it would be nice to see people take a step back and reconsider. They don't need to change their minds, that's up to them, but to really think about what they believe. >>72036 The idea's they are expressing aren't exclusive to, and did not begin with, Kaczynski. Although, I do appreciate that it's where your head went lol. >hostility I think what they meant is your word choice. Look at this: >K? Listen up, listen good. These are generally accepted as somewhat aggressive over text. Sure, context is important and it's easy for people to just deny it and call it "projection" but this line is generally aggressive. So, let's go with something a little more clear cut >That's the writhing heap of malformed flesh you have to stand on and be "proud" of. It's good rhetoric, but hear me out: It isn't "change your mind / way of thinking" rhetoric, it's "I already buy into this" rhetoric. You'll fire up the troops, but you aren't changing any hearts or minds.

>>72038 Can you actually show me any serious LGBTQ group that is advocating in favor of relations between adults and children today? Mind you, one that actually has some legitimacy and isn't a bait or a boogeyman campaign made by people like you.

>>72042 >any serious LGBTQ group Totally irrelevant.

>>72043 Why would it be? They're the ones that have pushed the envelope historically. Could it be that you can't find one?

>>72031 10 year old's dont need to be taught about sex, they learn that soykaf on their own. I was tapping my cousin's ass at age 7; I think she was molested or some soykaf, since she knew what she was doing, and she was def taking advantage of me, but I liked it. She used to get kicked out of school for acting like a slut, she had to move schools because she made out with a girl that didn't want it. I wonder if she'd get kicked out for doing that if it happened today instead of 20 years ago.. prob not lolz

>>72023 >>72019 >>72032 lain wanted me to be charitable and explain my position instead of just writing prose, so I will. The post here comes from a recent political zeitgeist within the rightwing in america (and some other countries like russia) to equivocate homosexuality with pedophilia, with the apparent intention to induce a moral panic. While it's true that there are pedophiles in that demographic, it's also true that there's pedophiles in every imaginable demographic. No research indicates a correlational (let alone a causational) link between pedophilia and homosexuality, instead the 'evidence' for this link comes from rhetorical fallacies in common use within the right wing to promote this dubious connection. This is often used in conjunction with the 'slippery slope' argument that validating homosexuality will inevitably lead to validating pedophilia, and therefore that curtailing human rights to homosexuals will prevent pedophiles from getting to your kids. This is, just like any moral panic, a way to manipulate people into supporting authoritarian rules and measures to "save kids". This is also coming from the same political current that is trying to put kids in factories and banning books, all for "the children". It all comes off as very disingenuous and manipulative to me. I see the original post as yet another manifestation of the same trite rhetoric. I see OP as having been made a puppet in this "culture war" race to the bottom, that they have lost their individuality. They have become another predictable cog in the same rhetorical machine. I find that very sad. I don't believe that this kind of rhetoric belongs on /hum/

>>72044 > Could it be that you can't find one? Things like this are why you're always behind the curve. I call it "bouncing". While I'm reading your replies I can feel you bouncing around inside yourself. Up down up down, weave weave, up down. The final part I quote was the bounce up and forward? Which is where the ritual concludes and is supposed to wrap it all together, a charaxcterization, wrapped in a narrative, and delivered through a loaded question to set the stage for the gotcha moment. You can almost hear the studio laugh track. The simple answer is that people exist within a broader ecology. Once you create a road, anyone can use it. Pretty straightforward. Once a tool has served its purpose it gets let go or discarded. They cleared the way and built the road, they're not needed. And they aren't the ones who push anything anyway, they're just loud and kind of dumb. The real movers who write the scripts are behind the scenes.

>>72031 >a same user itt who's more or less completely determined to drag it down because it's heresy to the new global church of political correctness OP, could it be that more than one person disagrees with you? Wouldn't that make more sense that fantasizing a single dissident "deviant"? Your posts read very aggressive, are you sure you didn't start dragging down your own thread to begin with?

>>72050 I'm OP, that wasn't me. You have this creep slimy vibe and you sage. Not hard.

>>72051 3 other people saged as well, are they me too? Please elaborate if you're going to be rude.

>>72022 Because it reads like pasta

>>72046 >I don't believe that this kind of rhetoric belongs on /hum/ are you trolling or tripping

>>72028 >Asking to leave their sexuality away from kids is apparently the same as wanting to kill them or something. Lots of people realize they're gay from a very young age, for instance they might want to play house with kids of the same gender. Nothing sexual about that. I think many people just don't want other gay kids to grow up repressed about it like they did. Of course in this world where gays have basically won all their struggles it has been taken too far. Also, in general, kids should be taught about sex. The thing is that most kids are extremely sheltered by their parents now and most parents are AWFUL at sex education. It's a real calamity that sex education happens in schools but the alternative is a bunch of stupid teenagers that don't know how baby is formed or how to have sex without getting diseases or pregnancy or an anal prolapse. Also, for a lot of people homosexuality isn't a fetish. If that's all it was then nobody would mind if gay weddings were illegal because you don't need to be married to somebody to fuarrrk them on the regular.

>>72062 >for instance they might want to play house with kids of the same gender. Nothing sexual about that. indeed, nothing sexual about that. idk why you would accuse a boy of glittering just because he plays with other boys. >the alternative is a bunch of stupid teenagers that don't know how baby is formed or how to have sex without getting diseases or pregnancy or an anal prolapse. I think you're giving kids too little credit. The smarter ones and older ones will know truthes about these things and most likely the knowledge will disseminate downward even if its totally verbotten to mention by adults. Weren't you ever a kid? >If that's all it was then nobody would mind if gay weddings were illegal even most of the gays Ive met don't really give a soykaf about gay marriage one way or the other, but at this point they've won it and probably don't want to give it up, mostly because of the implication of loosing ground more than that any given peice of ground is important.

>>72046 I genuinely appreciate your elaboration, lainon. I have questions, but they'd easily be used (or even just taken) as rhetoric, so I'll not ask those. But I do have a question about "moral panic". It may still be looked at as a rhetoric if it isn't understood that I'm moreso seeking to understand than corrupt, but what exactly is the difference between a "moral panic" and a genuine threat to the "values, interests, or well-being of a community"? The reason I ask is because I've seen people been dismissive of things in the past and simply accuse it of being a "moral panic" and that is the end of it. Before you answer, know that I recognize your mention of these "dubious connections" and the "slippery slope" argument, but I'm wondering if there's anything past that or if it's simply the inability to support a given argument using what data is at one's disposal. It might seem stupid to ask if that's the only reason, but if it's simply a matter of not supporting the argument, all it would take is someone to pour over material and try to come up with something to either support or dismiss the correlation. To be entirely fair, we don't allow this type of research in academia so there wouldn't be a paper on it (if it were true) because it would break the "socially responsible" rule, but the data is there in the same way that crime data existed to push the "13/50" (african-american population compared to their contribution to violent crime) meme was created. I haven't spent much of any time thinking about whether or not there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, but it would be interesting for someone to do so just to help end the debate using just appeals to emotion. I'm curious about the next step of the discussion if this were done... Then again, it did appear to just stay still in other areas where this was done. >>72051 I was using sage, but I felt like it was more of a meta conversation than actually contributing. Now this one is probably contributing, so I'll remove the sage.

>>72028 >liking the same sex is a fetish I think you misunderstand romantic relationships to be primarily about sex or something. Your sexual preferences might play a part in what gonads your life partner(s) have, but being gay isn't about the sex anymore than a hetero relationship, and maybe even less so because there's no social pressure to breed. >think of the children! Cishet relationships are modeled for children all the time. Every disney princess movie ends with the princess falling in love with the handsome guy, and every sequel film starts with their 7 perfect children running around the house. It's a little weird to set this standard that kids can only have role models that are cis and straight. Exposing them to queer sexuality has little to nothing to do with it, aside from allowing them to figure out on their own that it exists.

>>72067 >Cishet relationships are modeled for children all the time. children should be given models of good behavior to follow, and role models to emulate. Gays are not this.

>>72068 The only reason to worry about a gay person's effectiveness as a role model is if you give a soykaf about birth rates, which tells me you're either a glowie, a member of some sort of fertility cult.