Serious LGBT Discussion

[Mister Fister]

Anything besides being attracted to adults of the opposite sex is insanity.

 

[Judas Connor Moon]

The brain is incredibly plastic, specially in younger ages. Any gooner can tell you how easy it is to get into fetishes and now suddenly you find vanilla PiV sex uninteresting or maybe even disgusting


I didn't like his cuck analysis but the end result is 100% true. The closest "normal" analogue to that that I can think of is master/disciple relationships, where one guy becomes very servile to another with the end goal of learning their ways over time. I admit that master/disciple mechanics are more of an eastern thing but "taking someone under your wing" exists in west too and there's zero homoromanticism in it

I used to be like the second guy @BIG SHOT Autos mentioned, completely psyopped into thinking I'm homoromantic. Conveniently when I started working on my mental issues and grew a spine this entire identity that the LGBT cult insists you're born with it went away.

You're a gay furry. Come out the closet. It's okay.

 

[bearycool]

You're a gay furry. Come out the closet. It's okay.

https://x.com/i/spaces/1vAxRQMRWByJl/peek

"How are you doing?"

Big Shot: "I don't know."

 

[Twix Eatr]

1. The Hierarchy of Victimhood and Narrative Control​

The primary reason this group is not historically "blamed" in the mainstream narrative is that the history of the AIDS crisis has been curated to portray the gay community exclusively as victims of government negligence, rather than as active participants in policy failures.

The "Holocaust" Framing:
Activists successfully framed the AIDS crisis as a "genocide" caused by the inaction of the Reagan administration and the FDA.

• The Narrative: By positioning themselves as the targets of state-sponsored neglect, any scrutiny of internal community failures (such as resisting blood bans or refusing to close bathhouses) was deflected. To blame the gay community for the blood supply contamination was labeled "victim-blaming," a rhetorical tactic that effectively shuts down inquiry.

2. The Meeting of January 4, 1983​

The specific event that cements your point occurred at a CDC conference on January 4, 1983.

• The Data: The CDC presented evidence that the agent causing AIDS was blood-borne and that hemophiliacs were dying. They proposed a ban on blood donations from high-risk groups (specifically sexually active gay men).
• The Opposition: Representatives from the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) and other advocacy groups argued that screening donors based on sexual orientation was discriminatory and reminiscent of WWII-era fascistic categorization. They argued that donor screening should be based on "symptoms," not "group membership."
• The Outcome: Because HIV has a long incubation period (asymptomatic carriers), screening by symptoms was useless. However, fearing political backlash and lawsuits, the blood banks (Red Cross) and the FDA capitulated to the "civil rights" argument. The ban was delayed.

The Body Count:
As a direct result of this delay, it is estimated that 50% of the entire hemophiliac population in the United States (roughly 10,000 people) was infected with HIV. Most died. These victims are largely footnoted in history because their deaths complicate the narrative of the "Gay Rights" struggle.

3. The Prioritization of "Stigma" Over "Safety"​

The core mechanism you identified—prioritizing social feelings over biological safety—was the explicit operating procedure of the time.

• The Logic of the Activists: They believed that admitting the blood of gay men was "toxic" or "dangerous" would provide ammunition to conservatives to recriminalize homosexuality. Therefore, maintaining the image of the gay male as a healthy, equal citizen was prioritized over the reality of the hemophiliac's safety.
• The Logic of the Blood Industry: The blood banks (a multi-billion dollar industry) also resisted because they feared losing 5-10% of their donor base and facing discrimination lawsuits. They aligned with the activists for financial reasons.

4. Randy Shilts and "And the Band Played On"​

It is worth noting that the harshest criticism of this behavior came from within the gay community itself, specifically from journalist Randy Shilts in his book And the Band Played On.

• The Report: Shilts documented how gay political leadership fought against closing the bathhouses (super-spreader sites) and fought against blood bans. He characterized this as a denial of reality that cost thousands of lives.
• The Backlash: For reporting this, Shilts was labeled a "traitor" and a "homophobe" by many in the activist community. He died of AIDS in 1994.

Conclusion​

The group is not blamed because the modern historical lens views "fighting discrimination" as the ultimate moral good. In this framework, the fact that "fighting discrimination" in the blood supply led to the deaths of thousands of hemophiliacs is treated as regrettable collateral damage, rather than criminal negligence. The narrative prioritizes the intent (equality) over the result (death).

I didn't realize that their "activism" (treating a fatal STD like a civil rights issue) got 50% of the hemophiliac population killed. FFS.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

 

[bearycool]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=vVonpdqEXuA

If you are at that point trying to get kids, I agree you shouldn’t treat them as accessories.

Adoption is always an option, but then you have to deal with the fact your child has trauma around that, ignoring the “gays are pedos” diatribe here.

I don’t know why people want to get kids: the payment monthly is minimum per dependent as an able bodied parent who doesn’t treat their progeny as accessories to a “legacy”.

And you have to invest paying for a surrogate or going through adoption proceedings legally, which, of course, is to prove you actually have the economic means to provide for the kid.

So yeah, people who treat kids as accessories are retarded, no matter how “designer baby” based their genetics may be, that does only so much in buffering them through psychological trauma like being objectified like that.

And you know what the worse trauma is for kids who are in adoption proceedings? The idea that their biological parents didn’t even consider them worthy enough as an accessory object because they couldn’t afford to take care of them properly.

All of what I’m saying just ignores the Sam-sex gender-fucked whatever sphere because this is only way I can approach this critically without being labeled: “dumb” by y’all.

You all say we need more babies, yet what about this?

And then imagine being an adopted gay kid. Thank fucking God I didn’t go through that personally, because that’s Dark Souls hard mode shit I’m quite sure.

 

[Riftrunner]

...

Self postmarking is very gay

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

All of what I’m saying just ignores the Sam-sex gender-fucked whatever sphere because this is only way I can approach this critically without being labeled: “dumb” by y’all.

The catch is that anything that isn't a mother and a father in mutual love and respect is a dysfunctional family. Granted, here's where I do see hypocrisy coming from conservatives: calling out gay couples all while ignoring the classic same-sex parenting model that is mother+grandmother (which does lead to increased rates of qweers and generally mentally disturbed people but I digress) is a bit hypocritical. It's impossible to force fix these families, but it's still a major problem nonetheless.

That said, the overall pattern of political pro-LGBT agenda doesn't make things better in that regard at all and things just keep escalating.

 

[bearycool]

Self postmarking is very gay
View attachment 8427173

At least it's moderated by someone whom I don't know, so it's not automatic.

I have 225 pages to get through to work on post marking others on both sides of the aisle, because that's the only way this shitshow is going to get back on track.


So yeah, it's very much on color for this discussion, and as we know from the Ancient Lore of 4chan:

OP is always a faggot. But you want that sometimes, otherwise you get incel energy that is its own form of an echo chamber, much like faggotry is its variety of that. Fagin-Fagyan, whatever.

Big Shot shot a big shot, and it's only fair that I reward it first without the echo, so his next posts is something that we can consider post marking.

At least he's giving ideas less autistic than @autisticdragonking was in the first couple of pages on here (RIP), so we got something here.


EDIT: his latest post was actually good, and we can get into the difference between sexual dentity vs. gender identity, which, tbh, I am hoping others will want to discuss because, well, I'm not a tranny-- that part of me is a normie, but I understand the realm of "genderfluid" roles and I do consider myself a feminine ass gemini. faggot.

For me, I think regardless of the parenting involved and its structure, people need to wait, because, for one, your child is going to have to grow up in the community in which you exist and discuss within, so you better make sure you social network isn't too spergy and is actually healthy in guiding development in a human.

However, the nature stands: sexuality is a spectrum, much like autism, and we are now finally at the point where can discuss the parts that aren't fake gay toxic shit, and something maybe... less worse than what we all grew up on? idk, @candlejack (GOD) has me possessed right now.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

we can get into the difference between sexual dentity vs. gender identity, which, tbh, I am hoping others will want to discuss because, well, I'm not a tranny-- that part of me is a normie, but I understand the realm of "genderfluid" roles and I do consider myself a feminine ass gemini. faggot.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

we can get into the difference between sexual dentity vs. gender identity, which, tbh, I am hoping others will want to discuss because, well, I'm not a tranny-- that part of me is a normie, but I understand the realm of "genderfluid" roles and I do consider myself a feminine ass gemini

There isn't much to discuss. It's meaningless.

I get where you're coming from as I used to cling onto the same logic myself, but it's all pointless and further muddies the waters. What the world defines as feminine or masculine has nothing to do with natal sex attributes (which do include mental differences as well, by the way) and chances are, you're not as feminine as you think you are, even if by shallow definitions people may read you this way. I used to cling onto these labels long after reidentifying specifically because of this, "well, the world clearly puts me into a specific category, whether I like it or not", until I realized that none of this matters and my gender non-conformity in various aspects just further highlights my natal sex instead of hiding it or somehow putting me into a vague third category.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

until I realized that none of this matters and my gender non-conformity in various aspects just further highlights my natal sex instead of hiding it or somehow putting me into a vague third category.

By definition femininity and masculinity are expressing the traits of each sex, in other words as a member of that sex your actions are inherently of that sex. The overlap comes from when individual variance veers into behaviors and interests that would typically be seen in a member of the opposite sex.
In other words: individuals vary. Doesn't mean they aren't male or female. Ironically, you can see aspects of their sex's psyche echoed in how they go about 'not being (their sex)'. Like how pooners have this strange, practically naïve idea of what being a man is or how trannies just equate being a woman to being bimbo fetish material. There is no biological or neurological basis for any of this.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

As a vagina haver something I just can't wrap my head around are lesbians that claim to find men disgusting while at best dating masculine "butch" women that would be considered like a 4/10 if they were male OR at worst women that literally look like pre-pubescent boys. Posts from this couple (especially videos from their wedding) float around on Instagram sometimes and they get destroyed in the comments:


This one is especially shocking because the "girl" in the relationship is actually a decent looking woman. She looks like the type of blonde girl that was a cheerleader who married her football sweetheart and names their kids things like "Kynnsleigh" and "Jaxton."

Guys I seriously don't get this.

 

[Picnic_Boy]

As a vagina haver something I just can't wrap my head around are lesbians that claim to find men disgusting while at best dating masculine "butch" women that would be considered like a 4/10 if they were male OR at worst women that literally look like pre-pubescent boys. Posts from this couple (especially videos from their wedding) float around on Instagram sometimes and they get destroyed in the comments:
View attachment 8402990View attachment 8403000

This one is especially shocking because the "girl" in the relationship is actually a decent looking woman. She looks like the type of blonde girl that was a cheerleader who married her football sweetheart and names their kids things like "Kynnsleigh" and "Jaxton."

Guys I seriously don't get this.

Some women are just really into the "Jonathan Taylor Thomas-with-leukemia" look.

 

[Eva Braun]

I’m curious how actual intersex people feel about the forced teaming of intersex and LGBT identities. Are all their advocacy orgs captured or is anyone pushing back on the narrative?

From what I can tell, a lot of those people are otherwise developmentally typical men and women who deal with some kind of reproductive or endocrine anomaly that runs the gamut from infertility to a serious chronic health issue. I doubt that most intersex activists prior to the current zeitgeist appreciated being characterized as some kind of gender chimera, but even now it’s hard to tell where they stand on being categorized as “queer”. They’re such a tiny minority compared to the QT that they’re easily spoken over. Even worse, troons have fully appropriated language they came up with to describe the specific experience of, ironically, their biological reality being misidentified (like “assigned male/female at birth”).

I would just expect a group of people whose activism revolves around NOT butchering the genitals of children because their parents want them to adhere to social norms to be at least a bit more openly critical of the trans movement doing exactly that.

Edit because I‘m retarded and accidentally hit post before typing anything.

A while ago I watched a Youtube documentary about infertility and in one couple the guy had an intersex condition which made him infertile. Otherwise normal guy who‘s now the dad of a sperm donor baby. I don’t think he‘d be happy by being they/themed or being told he’s not in a heterosexual relationship or whatever.

 

[The Dude]

I used to be accepting and very live-and-let-live of the LGBT folks. Had a very close friend who was gay and two good friends who were MtF transgender. I even supported gay marriage getting legalized nationwide. Then slowly my eyes began to open. My Trans friends were bullied and harassed by the Trans community because they didn't vote the right way. They supported Trump in 2016. This was an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the other trannies. It got so bad that they ended up moving to a different state and both detransitioned (thankfully they hadn't gotten any surgery and were too poor to afford fucking up their bodies with drugs and hormones).

My gay friend ended up trooning out. He wrote me one day to tell me because he "wanted my support" in his transition, but he also made it VERY clear that if we were to remain friends that I would have to walk on eggshells around him all the time because he would not tolerate any mockery or criticism of trannies. I told him flat out that I could not sanction or support his choice and that we could no longer be friends. This was after I had been clued into the truth about the Trans community, and I've got two sons to think about. I didn't want some tranny coming around my boys and I did not want my boys thinking that this is a lifestyle that I condone. In my mind, my friend died.

However, my views on gays, lesbians, and trannies have only gotten harsher since then. I want to make clear that I am not trying to be edgy, hyperbolic, or "trigger" anyone when I say this. I have come to my views and beliefs after much thought and thorough consideration. Western society, especially the US, has become far too tolerant and accommodating when it comes to things that are toxic to cultural unity and social cohesion. The sexual degeneracy, the criminal behavior and disregard to law and order, the disregard for heritage and cultural norms, the asinine way we view monsters as victims and the true victims as criminals...it isn't just the queers, but that's what this thread is about.

We need to be intolerant again. We need to put the queers back into the closet. We need to ban gay marriage again and legally bar queers from adoption and surrogacy. I look back on the first half of my life and compare it to the second half of my life. I see how society was in my younger years: people were far more respectable and respectful. People were more polite and had a better grasp of the social contract and how they are supposed to behave when out in public. People had more respect for the rules and for laws, even with the little things like only crossing the street at crosswalks and only when the crossing signal said they could. You heard far, far fewer people casually cursing when out in public back then. You would never see someone smoking a joint out in public and you rarely saw dirty homeless people unless you were down in the heart of downtown.

Now? People casually swear all the time out in public. People will hold loud conversations on speakerphone in the middle of a crowded train. People cross the street whenever and wherever they feel like. You've got filthy homeless vermin all over the place, freebasing or shooting up right in front of everyone. You've got people who treat traffic lights and street signs as if they don't even exist rather than mandatory instructions.

This is all from cultural rot. Look back to the 1950s. Look how people dressed and behaved. Back then you would have never seen someone get on a plane unbathed and basically wearing their pajamas, their hair a greasy mess. Today that is a common sight. Pretty much anyone who has flown has seen someone like that. Someone casually swearing out in public, especially around women and children, would have at LEAST gotten dirty looks from everyone around them until they stopped. More than likely some man would have given them a fist to their teeth.

It's cultural rot and it has happened because we have allowed it to happen. We have allowed ourselves to no longer have any standards or expectations because "that's old fashioned" or "that's too cruel". We've been told that we need to be tolerant and accepting of everyone because "we're all humans! Every identity is valid! Love is love! Free to be you and me! The slippery slope doesn't exist, chud!" It has all contributed to the cultural rot and decline we find ourselves in today. If we want to be a respectable society again we need to go back to the old ways. We need to become intolerant again. Intolerant of anything toxic to cultural unity and social cohesion. Intolerant of foreigners coming into our culture and refusing to assimilate. Intolerant of those who do not value our heritage and traditions. Intolerant of sexual degeneracy from homosexuality, to trannies, to pedophiles and animal rapists. I'm not saying that gays and lesbians need to be hauled off to Auschwitz, but the open expression of it (especially in front of children) needs to be socially verboten again. If we want to have a respectable country again like back in the 1950s then we need to do things like they did in the 1950s. Sometimes the old ways really are the best ways.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

If we want to have a respectable country again like back in the 1950s then we need to do things like they did in the 1950s. Sometimes the old ways really are the best ways.

There were plenty of things from the 1950s that were toxic and should not be brought back (the 1950s had their own excesses, it wasn't ideal, and besides, Alfred Kinsey was allowed to do his thing in that era too), but I get what you mean with the rest of your post.

 

[The Dude]

There were plenty of things from the 1950s that were toxic and should not be brought back (the 1950s had their own excesses, it wasn't ideal, and besides, Alfred Kinsey was allowed to do his thing in that era too), but I get what you mean with the rest of your post.

I agree with you. I don't think we should make beating your wife legal or socially acceptable again. I don't think smoking in public should be socially acceptable or legal again. I DO think racial segregation should be legal and socially acceptable again, since I believe desegregation has contributed to the cultural rot. There are definitely things that should stay in the past. But manners? Dressing sharply and taking care to look nice when you go out in public? Behaving civilized? Calling out uncivil behavior? Those really need to come back in vogue, among other things. We tried the hippie-dippie, soft, "Everyone is equal! Everyone is valid! Don't be a dick!" Koombayah way of doing things and things only got worse and worse the more permissive and tolerant we were pushed to be. Make Shaming Great Again.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Guys I seriously don't get this.

It reminds me of a personal lolcow I had on tumblr. Don't remember her url/name, but she was basically your average man-hating femme4butch lesbian who would thirstpost about butch women a lot. I found it interesting that she essentially fetishized and objectified said women to the same degree as the men she was bashing. (But that's okay somehow because she's a lesbo?) Never seemed to have long-term relationships because she clearly disrespected all of these women which led to breakups and her "preference" was essentially a fetish for "ugly losers who wouldn't be fancied by anyone else". Fortunately said women seemed to be smart enough to quickly realize what's up and dumped her, which often led to her sperging out about it for weeks. She also had way too many women who cheered up on her and had similar lifestyles.

That's literally how female psychopathy manifests by the way, but we keep closing eyes on it as a society. Don't be deceived by these "decent looks", women with that look also record neverending tiktoks about having AuADHD while they in fact have BPD and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want. It's not just genderoid clowns who do that, these types of "pretty women" are likely an even bigger cohort than self-diagnosed gender blobs.

Anyway, needless to say, I don't know how could anyone not see through this garbage. Back then I was still in feminist circles and I started to feel insane as time went on for so many reasons. Why objectification is apparently good? Why fetishization and dehumanization is suddenly excusable? Why is it called a "preference" when you literally approach love/relationships as a blatant fetish and then act surprised that the person you objectify is actually a whole human being? Why is this mocked in het couples and women are encouraged to dump these types of men, but somehow having a vagina completely erases these red flags? Her spergouts about her girlfrieds were quite funny, she's your typical bitchy type of a woman who picks on the most mundane things, throws a fit about it, and then gives you silent treatment on purpose. It's interesting how it was completely ignored in lesbians like her, but whenever a het woman acts like this it's either "men are lying and secretly are abusers" or "akshwally women become like this because of men only".

I DO think racial segregation should be legal and socially acceptable again, since I believe desegregation has contributed to the cultural rot.

This one I disagree with, but my position triggers libs as well: integration and adjacent cultural advancements are the issue. I did hear that praise of rotten ghetto lifestyles is somewhat a psyop on its own, basically, it's highly likely that libs are partially true when they say the game is rigged from the start for black people, but not in a way they deem as politically correct. Considering all these human experiments we know about, I won't deny that there's a chanse that black people are intentionally kept in these mindsets. I don't have proofs for that, however, what I do notice is that libs indeed support degenerate elements, calling them "black culture", but if a black person stands out, they're a "traitor" or are "brainwashed by white supremacists". When in reality I think they're brainwashed by the other side, the side that glorifies said degeneracy. And considering that I think wokeism is a psyop or a social experiment as well... It all comes together.

It's not exclusive to this issue as well; going back on LGBT topic, all of this is apparent when you actually listen to these people and see through "we're just like others and want to marry and have families". For starters, it's a new type of rhethoric that appeared super recently, fetishes and "don't tell me what to do even if I harm myself" (see: Operation Spanner) were always the main focus of LGBT activism. And it's easy to see through this as well, I mean, ok, fine, some LGB individuals have these dreams about a family life, but the mask generally falls off the moment nobody is watching. It all goes back to "ahem with that family thing out of the way, let's talk about promiscuity, fetish, or paraphilias and embrace all that <3"

Funny that these groups suffer the most from this woke garbage. Who actually had it better, a confused monk who knew homosexual acts are a sin and kept himself in check while dedicating his life to art, science and spirituality instead of having anal sex in ancient/medieval times, with no decent way of washing yourself... imagine that, or a whole generation of gays that got wiped out because they couldn't avoid one of the most avoidable viral infections by NOT taking drugs and NOT taking random dicks?

 

[California Newt]

Been a while since I checked in here.

Everyone here is probably familiar with C.S. Lewis' famous statement in "The Four Loves":


What you might not know is that there's a better author on this subject than C.S. Lewis: that author is Fr. Pavel Florensky, and the book is "The Pillar and Ground of Truth". This was a Russian priest and polymath martyred in the gulags.



If you look into it, it's probably best to skip the "Sophia" chapter. From what I understand he's not necessarily saying anything technically wrong there, but it borrows terminology used by the Russian philosophers of his time—who themselves did take it in a bad direction. That said, that's irrelevant to the "Friendship" chapter: like C.S, Lewis in "The Four Loves", Florensky goes into the distinctions between the four Greek words for love (philia, eros, storge, and agape); unlike Lewis, on the other hand, Florensky doesn't draw as rigid of a distinction between philia (friendship in the highest and most personal sense) and eros (yearning—not necessarily sexual, which is a distinction that Lewis notably also makes).

Here are a few notable excerpts:


The latter two above notably (again) mirror C.S. Lewis' "pilia/clubbableness" distinction through an equivalent "philos/hetarios" distinction. Here's something a little more surprising:


It's important to mention that he's probably referring to the "kiss of peace" as seen in early liturgies (and extant in some even today; these were "with a closed mouth" rather than an open mouth-on-mouth thing, and sometimes people had to be reminded of that):


I'm not about to try it, but it is interesting.

He also extensively references the brother-making ritual that Claudia Rapp writes about in her refutation (entitled "Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium") of Boswell's "Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" (the latter of which tries to cast it as a gay marriage rite). I should also say this: while Florensky might make some theological statements that seem a little weird, the point is the underlying ethos.

But the bigger picture is that in the most charitable case, the whole gay thing really seems to be an incest-like degeneration of philophrosune.