'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

What "group?"  Seriously.  I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

The group of people here that believe what you say and find you a credible poster. 

Such a group would also believe my retraction and statement that I "stand corrected."

Nevertheless, since you think an apology to such bystanders is appropriate, I apologize.

Now, let's please get back to the topic.  I've asked several times now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, since you think an apology to such bystanders is appropriate, I apologize.

Thank you. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow:

Here are the lyrics:

 

• "YOU THINK THAT WE'LL CORRUPT YOUR KIDS ... JUST THIS ONCE, YOU'RE CORRECT."
• "WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, HAPPENS BIT BY BIT, QUIETLY AND SUBTLELY, AND YOU WILL BARELY NOTICE IT."
• "JUST LIKE YOU WORRIED, THEY'LL CHANGE THEIR GROUP OF FRIENDS, YOU WON'T APPROVE OF WHERE THEY GO AT NIGHT."
• "WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN ... THERE'S REALLY NO ESCAPING IT."
• "WE'RE COMING FOR THEM, WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN, WE'RE COMING FOR THEM, WE'RE COMING FOR THEM, WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN, FOR YOUR CHILDREN."
• "THE GAY AGENDA IS COMING HOME, THE GAY AGENDA IS HERE!"

Yeesh.  I'm trying to understand what these guys hope to accomplish with this stuff.

As Harold Finch put it: "It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."

Or, to be more precise, out to get our children.

I'd like some input.  This does not seem to be a one-off.  Not an isolated thing.  It looks like it is a calculated, planned thing.  The lyrics were written.  Music was orchestrated.  Performers, dozens and dozens of them, made the video.  It was all posted on YouTube.  And it was apparently posted by the San Francisco Gay Mens Chorus, the same group that performed with the Tabernacle Choir in 2018.

Also, I just noticed this in the vid's description:

What on earth is going on here?

As Richard Nixon observed: "It's not the act that kills you. It's the cover-up; it's the lie."

Thanks,

-Smac

"Steal the children you cannot make."

Evolution ?

A very bad public relations move, raising negative images in those whom they are allegedly teaching kindness?

Let's just say it doesn't help their cause, and is highly damaging.

A boneheaded  move illustrating total frustration, and ironically total intolerance on their part 

And no one in the group saw the reaction coming?

Passive agression? Duh

Not so passive, more of an anthem.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was not.  Subversion of parenting is not a political point.

It is when it is made up for political purposes. You are still pretending you do not understand what the song was trying to do.

“Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.” - C.S. Lewis

[smac97]

Now back to the topic:

I googled this story and found a few articles published today and yesterday, including this one that calls back to a 2018 article:

Quote

In 2018, the Boston Review outlined a list of demands from Boston’s Gay Men’s Liberation group, one of the most significant Gay Liberation groups formed after the 1969 Stonewall riots.

In 1972 the group drove to Miami to hand out a ten-point list of demands at the Democratic National Convention.

Some of those demands included abolishing the police and preventing discrimination based on sexual identity. Demand number six, however, is likely to strike even many of today’s liberals as bizarre:

“Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over ‘their’ children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four-hour child care centers should be established where faggots and lesbians can share the responsibility of child-rearing.”

From the linked article:

Quote

If many of Gay Men’s Liberation’s demands remain controversial forty-five years later, most are also still legible in today’s political discourse: the group sought to end U.S. imperialism, prevent discrimination based on sexual identity, and abolish the police. These all remain live demands of many radicals on the left. Demand six, however, is likely to strike even many of today’s activists as irresponsible, bizarre, and dangerous:

Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over ‘their’ children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four hour child care centers should be established where faggots and lesbians can share the responsibility of child rearing.

Collective child rearing? Legally emancipated children? Queers helping to raise other people’s children and, by extension, serving as role models and moral exemplars? Isn’t this exactly what conservatives fear when they warn of the red flag of liberal “social engineering,” a queer version of Soviet indoctrination daycares?

The "concerns" are not arising in a vacuum.  Again, we are supposed to read these things and not take them seriously?

This article has compiled some reactions from gay people:

• "Can you confirm or deny that these are indeed lyrics from a song sung by your group? I’m a gay man who finds this extremely disturbing. How dare ANYONE OR GROUP sing a song about “going after someone’s children”? If true, this is disgusting & reprehensible!!"
• "Most gay people just want to get on with life, these guys are freaks."
• "as a gay man I only ask this of you, can you please leave the children alone?"
• "Disgusting.  I’m gay and I’m appalled."
• "I have just seen a video of your chorus saying “they want our children” wtf you doing tarring all gay men as pedophiles. Stop this nonsense now. We gay men do not want to be harassed because you lot like and support kiddy fiddlers."

The article goes on to quote some parents.  I will not cite them, as I think many are inappropriate themselves.

Oi.  I found the video very problematic, and now I am finding many of the responses to it also problematic.  Some are even-handed ("I only ask this of you, can you please leave the children alone?"), some are more caustic ("this is disgusting & reprehensible!"), and some even veer into threats and hateful remarks.  These are not appropriate.  But then, engaging in behavior that is calculated and designed to provoke such anger and vitriol is also not appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

It was not.  Subversion of parenting is not a political point.

It is when it is made up for political purposes.

I did not make anything up.  And I did not have "political purposes."

Please stop personalizing this thread.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are still pretending you do not understand what the song was trying to do.

I'm not pretending at anything.

• I said: "I think it is a provocateur schtick."
• Here: "I think they are attempting to provoke fear.  Anger.  Resentment.  That much seems pretty obvious."
• Here (responding to "Look at the whole song. It is a mockery. A deliberate and obvious mockery. Of people like you.") : "I get that."

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.” - C.S. Lewis

Again, please stop personalizing this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Wasn't the church's 2015 policy an attempt by them to say "we are not coming for your children.  We respect the parent/child bond too much to ask them to choose between their parents and church teachings?

 

Hardly.  It was a move due to the legalization of SSM and the church did not want its active members to become to comfy with that idea and be excepting of it.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So . . . please address the topic and stop personalizing this thread.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

 I am not sure you are innocent of personalizing things.  And seeing your post as an attempt to paint a "the gays are going to persecute us" is on topic because that is what you are doing.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Teancum

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hardly.  It was a move due to the legalization of SSM and the church did not want its active members to become to comfy with that idea and be excepting of it.

How do you square that idea with the fact that the church has also always refused to baptize the children of polygamists until they were 18?  Was the church also trying to keep it's members from becoming too comfy with polygamy?

That idea seems too tortured to be reasonable to me.  More a product of bias than evidence.

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did not make anything up.  And I did not have "political purposes."

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please stop personalizing this thread.

It is impossible not to when your interpretation of something is so far off the beaten path that it is impossible to engage on the topic as we are not in the same reality.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not pretending at anything.

• I said: "I think it is a provocateur schtick."
• Here: "I think they are attempting to provoke fear.  Anger.  Resentment.  That much seems pretty obvious."
• Here (responding to "Look at the whole song. It is a mockery. A deliberate and obvious mockery. Of people like you.") : "I get that."

No, you don't agree. You are falling right into the trap they set for you. Congratulations.

This is why you are losing the cultural war by the way.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, please stop personalizing this thread.

It is amazing that you are regularly having to tell people not to personalize threads you start.

I see three possibilities. A lot of people are out to get you specifically since this comes up primarily in threads you start and it is somehow targeted at you. You are not communicating what you think you are communicating. The final option is that you are doing it intentionally and being disingenuous about it probably because of some psychological self-righteous rush you get from defending yourself. I waver between the latter two possibilities myself.

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do you square that idea with the fact that the church has also always refused to baptize the children of polygamists until they were 18?  Was the church also trying to keep it's members from becoming too comfy with polygamy?

That idea seems too tortured to be reasonable to me.  More a product of bias than evidence.

The  same issue for polygamy.  It has to be branded as a very bad thing.  If your reason for the policy was accurate why the rapid flip flop?  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Steal the children you cannot make."

Evolution ?

A very bad public relations move, raising negative images in those whom they are allegedly teaching kindness?

Let's just say it doesn't help their cause, and is highly damaging.

A boneheaded  move illustrating total frustration, and ironically total intolerance on their part 

And no one in the group saw the reaction coming?

Passive agression? Duh

Not so passive, more of an anthem.

For the intended audience it worked very well if my perusal of social media and articles on the subject are any indication. The reaction was what they wanted and the majority is having a good laugh at the fools who took the bait and look like bumbling doofuses who don't understand anything. Trap sprung. A lot of "and they fall for it every time" along with the occasional uncharitable bit about how 'at least most of them will be dead soon'.

[MustardSeed]

I find myself skipping through a lot of the commentary of these types of posts because the back-and-forth is not particularly stimulating. I’m admitting this front because My comment may be redundant.

When sarcasm is used, I like to identify where is the small element of truth represented here? I don’t agree with sarcasm is an effective way of communicating. In fact, in this situation it is an obvious pot stirrer. When used as evidence by someone who has a history of intolerance, I question the motive and the source.  
When I eliminate the source and just look at the product itself I think to myself, this was intended to be funny in a very edgy way and likely is going to create upset. If the creator is honest I believe they would admit to as much. What does this accomplish?

I think there’s absolutely pressure out there in the world to create normalcy around homosexuality by facilitating more self-awareness around young people who are gay but who Have not or cannot come to terms with that reality. In the process inevitably there are going to be children who wonder about their sexual preferences and get it wrong. That is the reality of choice and free will. Homosexuality is not contagious in and of itself, I doubt anyone disagrees.  To suggest that kids aren’t influenced by the familiarity of homosexuality and transgenderism is IMO errant.  No references available.  That said I also abhor the disdain I am exposed to quite often for gays.  I find it putrid. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is impossible not to when your interpretation of something is so far off the beaten path that it is impossible to engage on the topic as we are not in the same reality.

It's quite possible.  Address the topic, not me.

And there are plenty of other people who are interpreting the song/video in the same way I am, many of whom are gay.

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is amazing that you are regularly having to tell people not to personalize threads you start.

Yes, the hecklers and bullies do seem to have the knives out for me, as you are so persistent in demonstrating.

Please address the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The  same issue for polygamy.  It has to be branded as a very bad thing.  If your reason for the policy was accurate why the rapid flip flop?  

I think there were two reasons.   1) so many people were adamant about interpreting it with the worst of intentions and therefore it was doing more harm than good and 2) the church recognized those who take part in SSM and polygamy have different relationships with the church and so there was no reason to treat them both the same. 

While polygamists had a bit of a reputation for using deception to try and get their families in the church to take part in the ordinances they believe to be saving in nature, SSM parents have no such history.  If they give the go a head for a child to be baptized, they are more than likely sincere and have already waived the pros and cons of it.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For the intended audience it worked very well if my perusal of social media and articles on the subject are any indication. The reaction was what they wanted and the majority is having a good laugh at the fools who took the bait and look like bumbling doofuses who don't understand anything. Trap sprung. A lot of "and they fall for it every time" along with the occasional uncharitable bit about how 'at least most of them will be dead soon'.

That has been their response to all the gay people who have hated it?  

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's quite possible.  Address the topic, not me.

And there are plenty of other people who are interpreting the song/video in the same way I am, many of whom are gay.

Yes, the hecklers and bullies do seem to have the knives out for me, as you are so persistent in demonstrating.

Please address the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do they pick you though?

Edit: Fine, I will address the topic too.

-Start-

The OP is a complete misread of the song and is a variation of a take found all over on far-right “news” sites that exist to promote anger and hate. The song was an obvious parody and Boomers are largely unable to understand how and why it works as a parody and are further culturally marginalized as a result. Their echo chamber allows them to feel a little bit alive as they seethe over this reality.

-End-

Edited July 8, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That has been their response to all the gay people who have hated it?  

It is a very small minority.

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why do they pick you though?

Edit: Fine, I will address the topic too.

-Start-

The OP is a complete misread of the song and is a variation of a take found all over on far-right “news” sites that exist to promote anger and hate. The song was an obvious parody and Boomers are largely unable to understand how and why it works as a parody and are further culturally marginalized as a result. Their echo chamber allows them to feel a little bit alive as they seethe over this reality.

-End-

You've gone from insulting Smac to insulting Boomers. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The OP is a complete misread of the song and is a variation of a take found all over on far-right “news” sites that exist to promote anger and hate.

How do you account for these "reads" of the song, all by gay people?

• "Can you confirm or deny that these are indeed lyrics from a song sung by your group? I’m a gay man who finds this extremely disturbing. How dare ANYONE OR GROUP sing a song about 'going after someone’s children'? If true, this is disgusting & reprehensible!!"
• "Most gay people just want to get on with life, these guys are freaks."
• "as a gay man I only ask this of you, can you please leave the children alone?"
• "Disgusting.  I’m gay and I’m appalled."
• "I have just seen a video of your chorus saying “they want our children” wtf you doing tarring all gay men as pedophiles. Stop this nonsense now. We gay men do not want to be harassed because you lot like and support kiddy fiddlers."

Also, why should I or anyone else privilege your say-so in how to "read" the song/video?

Quote

The song was an obvious parody and Boomers are largely unable to understand how and why it works as a parody and are further culturally marginalized as a result. Their echo chamber allows them to feel a little bit alive as they seethe over this reality.

I think plenty of people, including myself, get that it was intended as a provocation.  A joke.  A parody.  That's not really the point.  Again, as a fellow on Twitter put it: "I get that this is a joke, but it’s like frat houses I’ve seen with signs for freshers arriving on campus 'Fathers, kiss your virgin daughters goodbye'. It’s a joke, but it’s in terrible taste and does not win them any fans or sympathy."  Yep.

And another (apparently from a gay person) : "I hate when these creeps entitle things 'A message from the gay community'. No. Most of us are sane, and want nothing to do with this woketard madness. FFS stay away from people's kids. It's not clever or funny. It pisses everyone off."  Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a very small minority.

A minority that exists though. 

It sounds like you believe there is no reasonable reason for a person to dislike it, instead implying that everyone who does so is obviously biased.  (Unless I've misunderstood you, which could be the case).

Given that, how do you reconcile gay people who believe it was disrespectful and ill conceived with your idea of the kind of people who aren't reacting well to it?

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you account for these "reads" of the song, all by gay people?

• "Can you confirm or deny that these are indeed lyrics from a song sung by your group? I’m a gay man who finds this extremely disturbing. How dare ANYONE OR GROUP sing a song about 'going after someone’s children'? If true, this is disgusting & reprehensible!!"
• "Most gay people just want to get on with life, these guys are freaks."
• "as a gay man I only ask this of you, can you please leave the children alone?"
• "Disgusting.  I’m gay and I’m appalled."
• "I have just seen a video of your chorus saying “they want our children” wtf you doing tarring all gay men as pedophiles. Stop this nonsense now. We gay men do not want to be harassed because you lot like and support kiddy fiddlers."

Also, why should I or anyone else privilege your say-so in how to "read" the song/video?

I think plenty of people, including myself, get that it was intended as a provocation.  A joke.  A parody.  That's not really the point.  Again, as a fellow on Twitter put it: "I get that this is a joke, but it’s like frat houses I’ve seen with signs for freshers arriving on campus 'Fathers, kiss your virgin daughters goodbye'. It’s a joke, but it’s in terrible taste and does not win them any fans or sympathy."  Yep.

And another (apparently from a gay person) : "I hate when these creeps entitle things 'A message from the gay community'. No. Most of us are sane, and want nothing to do with this woketard madness. FFS stay away from people's kids. It's not clever or funny. It pisses everyone off."  Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Gay people can be stupid too and not get it. Stupidity exists in every demographic. Some are misogynists. Some are Log Cabin Republicans. There are outliers in every demographic. We tend to ignore the words of those on the fringes of the church saying the church is bad. Why don’t we privilege their words as they are part of the group? It has little to do with being a part of the group. Most of those who ‘got it’ probably identify as heterosexual. It is ironic that this is coming from you when you often insist that your point of view be heard and loudly try to shut down (aka cancel) those who are more impacted by something. The women of this board have observed and pointed this out many times. Now you want to start privileging views because the person describes themself as ‘gay’? PICK A LANE!

Others have endured a lot of persecution and are justifiably worried this might bring more. I think the latter are wrong but I understand why they have that concern.

Why should we privilege your view that was cribbed from some right-wing outrage site? You certainly went to great lengths to outline it. Why? I guess if two people disagree there is no way to find truth at all?

HEY EVERYONE! Turns out we need to shut down human discourse. It is all pointless.

Tone it down.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A minority that exists though. 

It sounds like you believe there is no reasonable reason for a person to dislike it, instead implying that everyone who does so is obviously biased.  (Unless I've misunderstood you, which could be the case).

Given that, how do you reconcile gay people who believe it was disrespectful and ill conceived with your idea of the kind of people who aren't reacting well to it?

No, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike it. Some find it tasteless. Some might call it hackneyed. Some might think it was done entirely for shock value and dislike it for that reason. Some might fear it may provoke persecution (like some of the quotes from smac). I just do not buy it is a majority view and I think very few of their reasons for disliking it would parallel with those of whatever right-wing site smac pulled this from.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

For the intended audience it worked very well if my perusal of social media and articles on the subject are any indication. The reaction was what they wanted and the majority is having a good laugh at the fools who took the bait and look like bumbling doofuses who don't understand anything. Trap sprung. A lot of "and they fall for it every time" along with the occasional uncharitable bit about how 'at least most of them will be dead soon'.

Well thanks for the compliment 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike it. Some find it tasteless. Some might call it hackneyed. Some might think it was done entirely for shock value and dislike it for that reason. Some might fear it may provoke persecution (like some of the quotes from smac).

Yep.

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I just do not buy it is a majority view and I think very few of their reasons for disliking it would parallel with those of whatever right-wing site smac pulled this from.

It was originally posted on YouTube.  And its provenance is not in dispute.

Thanks,

-Smac