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

[Peacefully]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have a discussion.  Hear differing perspectives.  It's right there in the OP: 

And here:

Stuff like that.

As I noted earlier:

Thanks,

-Smac

It doesn’t scare me so let’s discuss it. They are taking at least two tropes, comparing homosexuality to pedophelia, and the right-wing fear of the “gay agenda” and turning it into satire. Satire is an “in your face” way to get a point across especially by groups who have been oppressed. The message of this particular satire is quite positive, imo.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Peacefully

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why bother trying to convert anyone to one's point of view?  It's so much easier (not to mention more satisfying) to dismiss an interlocutor as a bigot, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. 

 

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Bigots do exist and they should be dismissed so it is not always a cop out. Conversion is also impossible if there is no shared reality.

However, the word is used to shut down dialogue and conversation far, far more often than it is applied aptly.  If everyone (or everyone who disagrees with me or with you) is a bigot, then no one is.  Bandied about too freely, such loaded terms tend to lose their potency.  Hearing or seeing them too frequently, someone who, otherwise, might be persuaded to a user's point of view tends to dismiss the user as someone who simply is crying wolf. 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

However, the word is used to shut down dialogue and conversation far, far more often than it is applied aptly.  If everyone (or everyone who disagrees with me or with you) is a bigot, then no one is.  Bandied about too freely, such loaded terms tend to lose their potency.  Hearing or seeing them too frequently, someone who, otherwise, might be persuaded to a user's point of view tends to dismiss the user as someone who simply is crying wolf. 

Largely true but I doubt there is much dialogue to be had in any case. When a shared basis of reality is no longer shared there is little dialogue to be had. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And again with accusations.  Imputations.  Mindreading.

No wonder we can't get along.  

And it's too bad some have given up on persuasion, and are instead resorting to divisiveness, taunts, provocations, and so on.

I didn't suggest I was talking about you.  I do find it funny that you thought you fit that description

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet they are singing about subverting parents, about coming after our children.

Parents have about 18 years to instill whatever values or beliefs they have.  After that, it is up to the child to decide whether to follow those beliefs because they believe them or to turn away from those beliefs.  Many in the Church are turning away from the beliefs about LGBT taught by their parents because they don't believe those teachings are right.  It is not how they view those that are gay.  And now you blame a satire song by a gay mens chorus as the reason? 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Live and let live, my foot.

No one is forcing you to listen to their song.  No one is forcing you to believe their words. And certainly no one is forcing you to start a thread about it.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I didn't bring that up.

Second, I don't know why they would be invested in convincing me about the propriety of their decisions.

Third, we are way past the whole live and let live thing, aren't we?  Your question suggests that folks like you cannot abide diversity of viewpoints and opinions.  We're in a zero sum game.

Fourth, reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Oh my bad.  I thought you were looking for a discussion instead of just a diatribe.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Their choices" being . . . taunting others?  Accusing them of bigotry and hate?  Of teaching their children to hate?  Of threatening to subvert their role as parents?  Of "coming for {their} children?"

Live and let live, my foot.  It's your way or the highway.  Capitulate to your viewpoint or be branded a bigot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Often that is exactly what parents teach their children.  Are you familiar with the song from South Pacific, You Got To Be Carefully Taught.

Cable - You've got to be taught
To hate
And fear
You've got to be taught
From year
To year
Its got to
Be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to
Be carefully
Taught
You've got to be taught
To be
Afraid
Of people
Who's eyes are oddly made
And people who's skin is a different shade
You've got to
Be carefuly
Taught
You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are six
Or seven
Or eight
To hate all the people
Your relatives hate
You've got to
Be carefully taught
You've got to
Be carefully taught
Emile De Beque -
This is just the kind of ugliness I was running away from
It has followed my all this way
All these years
And now it has found me

 

 Just because parents teach their children something doesn't mean it is the right message. This song was written in 1949.  Do you think everything a parent teaches a child should be strictly followed thoroughout the rest of that child's life?  Obviously, the gay men's chorus doesn't agree with some of your beliefs.  Are they not allowed to express their differences?

 

 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just because parents teach their children something doesn't mean it is the right message

The best way to teach the right message is by example.  Teach tolerance by showing tolerance and understanding.  Teach love by showing love, especially to those not easy to love.  Teach acceptance by accepting (not everything or everyone automatically; but if you want to be accepted by others, truly accepted as one of their group and not just tolerated or patronized as someone who should be pitied and protected, you need to accept those you want to be accepted by).  Putting words to your actions may be helpful getting the message out there faster, but words without actions teach hypocrisy and distrust.

Parody, satire, gloating, mocking, dark humor, etc. are not teaching, IMO but preaching.   It may be persuasive through social pressure of shaming, not wanting to be one of those mocked.  
 

Satire targeting others as opposed to self is not showing tolerance or love.
 

As long as no one claims they are taking the higher ground or trying to persuade the targets of the satire to change their hearts rather than shaming or mocking them, so be it. Their choice.  But acting (not saying anyone here is doing this) like this kind of stuff doesn’t deepen the divide is either being blind or willfully ignorant IMO.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I appreciate you giving more background.  While I had that general idea it opened up to me how deep the wounds are.

My question now is, "what do we do with this?" It seems everything that happens lately just increases the divide.  Each side has a huge lack of trust in the other side.  How do we build enough trust in 100s of millions of people so that we don't just completely rip apart?

I don't know that we can solve the worlds problems, but I do think we could improve dialogue in this forum.  These kinds of threads are designed to be incinerate and divisive.  A big first step would be to not start threads designed to disparage a certain group or belief..  I mean what is the point of this thread?  How does it apply to Church beliefs?  Have you seen many sincere inquiries trying to understand a different point of view? By their very nature, they are more soap box diatribes each side pointing fingers at the other.  And yes, they do open up deep wounds.  

I feel like often posts are made to score points rather than bring understanding.  I question the whole thumbs up grading idea.  And I hate the new thumbs down option.  That just makes things more vicious.  I personally refuse to use it.  

Jsut my thoughts.  I would love to hear what others have to say.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

The best way to teach the right message is by example.  Teach tolerance by showing tolerance and understanding.  Teach love by showing love, especially to those not easy to love.  Teach acceptance by accepting (not everything or everyone automatically; but if you want to be accepted by others, truly accepted as one of their group and not just tolerated or patronized as someone who should be pitied and protected, you need to accept those you want to be accepted by).  Putting words to your actions may be helpful getting the message out there faster, but words without actions teach hypocrisy and distrust.

Parody, satire, gloating, mocking, dark humor, etc. are not teaching, IMO but preaching.   It may be persuasive through social pressure of shaming, not wanting to be one of those mocked.  
 

Satire targeting others as opposed to self is not showing tolerance or love.
 

As long as no one claims they are taking the higher ground or trying to persuade the targets of the satire to change their hearts rather than shaming or mocking them, so be it. Their choice.  But acting (not saying anyone here is doing this) like this kind of stuff doesn’t deepen the divide is either being blind or willfully ignorant IMO.

I agree that the song is divisive in nature.  I also think reposting something that is divisive only deepens that divide.  I don't think this has been a very productive thread.  I also don't think it was ever intended to be productive.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know that we can solve the worlds problems, but I do think we could improve dialogue in this forum.  These kinds of threads are designed to be incinerate and divisive.  A big first step would be to not start threads designed to disparage a certain group or belief..  I mean what is the point of this thread?  How does it apply to Church beliefs?  Have you seen many sincere inquiries trying to understand a different point of view? By their very nature, they are more soap box diatribes each side pointing fingers at the other.  And yes, they do open up deep wounds.  

I feel like often posts are made to score points rather than bring understanding.  I question the whole thumbs up grading idea.  And I hate the new thumbs down option.  That just makes things more vicious.  I personally refuse to use it.  

Jsut my thoughts.  I would love to hear what others have to say.

Agreed, for some posters these diatribe threads are just their way of harping on their favorite pet topics. They are basically an excuse to post the latest outrage porn they found.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know that we can solve the worlds problems, but I do think we could improve dialogue in this forum.  These kinds of threads are designed to be incinerate and divisive.  A big first step would be to not start threads designed to disparage a certain group or belief..  I mean what is the point of this thread?  How does it apply to Church beliefs?  Have you seen many sincere inquiries trying to understand a different point of view? By their very nature, they are more soap box diatribes each side pointing fingers at the other.  And yes, they do open up deep wounds.  

I feel like often posts are made to score points rather than bring understanding.  I question the whole thumbs up grading idea.  And I hate the new thumbs down option.  That just makes things more vicious.  I personally refuse to use it.  

Jsut my thoughts.  I would love to hear what others have to say.

As long as the thumbs down does not cause comments to be deleted, I'd say that at least it kind of puts people on record for their views.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Satire that explicitly mocks someone certainly isn't going to change that person (or group of people). But it can make broader social change, especially with those who are on the dividing line. Someone mentioned previously in the thread that this controversy could further cement younger Americans into the pro-LGBT camp, not because of the song itself, but because of the reaction against. That is effecting social change.

But yes, satire often involves just entertaining the tribe. However, I will say that the ability to laugh at yourself and your beliefs when they are presented satirically can be a good thing. It would be great to see a left satirical comedy group and right satirical comedy group perform together and laugh with each other.

If you were to rank the various vehicles for social change in order of impact/effectiveness, what would that look like (where would satire show up in the ranking)?

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Largely true but I doubt there is much dialogue to be had in any case. When a shared basis of reality is no longer shared there is little dialogue to be had. 

I suppose no one can stop you from questioning the sanity of your interlocutors if that's what you wish to do.  I will leave you to it.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is besides the point. If you believe "right" and "wrong", are real, objective things, then it is theoretically possible for a parent to raise their kids the wrong way. 

So which right is stronger? The right of a parent to raise their kids any darn way they want to, or the right of children to be raised the right way?

I think this is where the laws of the land (in a democratic republic, anyway) generally reflect the best assessment of the people and is under constant evaluation.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I totally understand that this parody is pretty aggressive and addresses head on the kind of rhetoric that gay men have been accused of for decades by a mirror right back on that issue.  And I can see how some people view this as anti-parental and disrespects the parent/child bond.  So what would possess this gay men's chorus to go there?

In 2019 the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus, in response to a wave of discriminatory anti-LGBTQ laws in Southern states and the divisive 2016 election, the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus embarks on a tour of the American Deep South.  They made a documentary of that tour.  You can get more information on their website.  I watched that documentary when it first came out.  For some, returning to the South where they grew up was deeply troubling and even frightening.  They had to directly face their worst fears and hurt of being kicked out of their churches.  Most of their families threw them out on the street and some have never seen them again.  A few of the singers saw their parents for the first time in decades while on this tour.  Some parents still refused to meet with them.  It is an emotional and in many ways upsetting film.  Maybe more for me because it brought up deep wounds that my own Mormon father and siblings not having anything to do with me for 13 years after I came out.  While I have tried very hard to get past that kind of experience, I am the first to admit, I am not really over it.  I still get high anxiety when I see my father even at 99 years old and suffering from dementia.  I know he doesn't really know who I am, but it is still difficult to spend time with him.  I don't talk about this with other family members.  On the surface, they think it is all in the past.  It is not.   This is the background of the group performing that song. 

While you might have nothing but love and a strong connection with your parents, many of these men do not.  They may not  have the same respect for parent/child relationship that you might have. At that point in their lives where they needed their parents the most, they were thrown out in the street to fend for themselves.  Most of them in the choir that came from the south made their way to San Francisco and found a choir that could become the family that they no longer had.  Can you see that perhaps they aren't even thinking the same way you are about this?  When you listen to the lyrics with this point of view, the song sounds a lot different.  It is a defiant message to parents and how they treat their children.

Hope that sheds some light on this issue.

 

It is satire, not parody, and the choir went there as a political strategy. The choir members, as you pointed out, often have more personal, individualized motivations.

My wife and I are both converts to the Church (me as a teen and had to wait until I was of legal age to attend and get baptized, she as a young adult). Some of the treatment was quite severe and oppressive, so we can both easily lay out a similar narrative as the men you describe from the documentary.

You ask: “Can you see that perhaps they aren't even thinking the same way you are about this?” My answer is “Absolutely – the gospel message has reconciled our relationships so that we haven’t the need to lash out.”

[bsjkki]

Statement by the choir.

 

[Bob Crockett]

Yahoo News posts a story saying what bsjkki is saying, that the chorus meant to post a satirical post but has now withdrawn it due to the negative play it has received.  

Interesting that bskjkki's post says that the chorus wants to "control the narrative" but I can't see how any reasonable thinking person would find it possible to "control the narrative" when posting a satirical post.  Do they really think they can control what conservative groups would say about them?  Seems absurd really.

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Statement by the choir.

 

Good find!

[pogi]

 

Quote

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
HAPPENS BIT BY BIT,
QUIETLY AND SUBTLELY
AND YOU WILL BARELY NOTICE IT,

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR.

YOU'RE CHILDREN WILL CARE ABOUT
FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE FOR OTHERS
YOUR CHILDREN WILL WORK TO CONVERT
ALL THEIR SISTERS AND BROTHERS
THEN, SOON, WE'RE ALMOST CERTAIN,
YOU'RE KIDS WILL START CONVERTIN' YOU!

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN,
AND MAKE AN ALLY OF YOU YET!
WE'LL MAKE AN ALLY OF YOU YET!
WE'LL MAKE AN ALLY OF YOU YET!

Honestly, these lyrics could be taken straight out of the play book from the Mormon agenda.

Quote

1. I don’t want to wait until I’m grown.

I want to share the gospel while I’m young,

For I have a testimony of my own.

2. I want to tell my friends about our church

And the happiness it brings to me.

I’ll tell them how the gospel was restored,

Tell them how the Book of Mormon came to be.

This line is somehow missing from the primary song:  "but so as to not subvert their parents wishes, I will ask their parents permission before I start teaching them about the restored gospel and the Book of Mormon in my young missionary/conversion efforts."

We teach our youth to influence, to teach, to be missionaries, even if their parents are anti Mormon.  We teach them to plant the seeds.  To be patient.  To have faith...

Sure, we require parental permission for baptism, but the process of actually converting children happens well before baptism, well before missionaries get in the home - and we encourage it and even have songs about it.

More here:

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/youth/learn/ss/building-up-the-church/share?lang=eng

We are not quite so blatant about it, and would never do a tongue in cheek satire about it, but we are very subtle in how we go about converting children despite their parents wishes.  We used to be much more direct with baseball baptism programs, etc.  We call it planting seeds.  We call them faith promoting stories when we hear stories of a youth inviting their friends to activities, teaching and influencing their friends who eventually want to join the church.  Slowly but surely, over time these children have influence and convert their parents.  We have heard the story dozens of times.  That is a Mormon hail Mary from our play book.  Sure, ideally we focus on families.  But we will take them however we can.  We are not discriminatory on where we plant the seeds.  There is no age limit or concern or restriction if their parents are anti-mormon. 

From my perspective, teaching what you believe to be correct and good and true principles is fair game.  

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by pogi

[smac97]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't know that we can solve the worlds problems, but I do think we could improve dialogue in this forum.  

And your proposal to "improve dialogue" is to . . . shut it down?

11 hours ago, california boy said:

These kinds of threads are designed to be incinerate and divisive.  A big first step would be to not start threads designed to disparage a certain group or belief. 

It seems that for some, when a Latter-day Saint screws up, that's the story.  When someone else screws up, the Latter-day Saint response is the story.

So let's just not talk about it.  Oh, and throw in accusations of bigotry for good measure.  

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I mean what is the point of this thread?  

Asked and answered.  A few times now.

Here it is again (from the OP) :

Quote

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.

And here:

Quote

I think there are a lot of people like me.  People who are trying to suss out a path that involves continuing religious devotion alongside greater empathy, understanding and respect for our gay brothers and sisters.  But then stuff like this song comes along, which at once A) accuses anyone who doesn't think exactly like them of hatefulness and bigotry, and B) tauntingly states that they are "coming for {our} children."

Holy cow.  Who was the intended audience for this song?  Who are they trying to persuade?  And persuade them to what idea(s)?  Don't they see that they are playing with fire?  Don't they see that the provocateur schtick may get a few belly laughs from folks who already agree with them, but will likely offend and alienate people who have been seeking to find empathy and mutual respect?  How on earth can these guys expect to receive respect by insulting people like me, accuse us of terrible things, and then tauntingly sing about "coming for {our} children"?  Don't they see that they are are provoking fear, suspicious and anger with stuff like this?  And that responding with sentiments like "You're just a bigot if you dislike the song" only alienates even further?

Stuff like that.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

How does it apply to Church beliefs?  

Again, asked and answered:

Quote

Quote

What did the OP have to do with the church?

The members of the Church are not cloistered.  We do not live in isolated communes.  We and our children are affected by the larger world around us.

This board currently has threads about the Daybell/Vallow story, "society's demand that women allow biological males in our spaces," the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the decline is BSA membership, COVID, "happiness and grief," "Constantine and the NT canon,"  the "Ark of the Covenant," "sexual harassment and tax problems for {John} Dehlin" and many, many other topics that only marginally / tangentially "have to do with the church."  Yet I don't see you going into those, insulting and attacking the participants, demanding that they establish a significant and emphatic topic-church nexus, and so on, etc.  

So your selective and arbitrary objection doesn't hold much water with me.  If you don't like the topic, don't participate.

So your compatriots can sing about "coming for {my} children," but me wanting to talk about that is out-of-bounds?  How do you figure?

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Have you seen many sincere inquiries trying to understand a different point of view?

Why yes!  I've posted and reposted my inquiries.  Here they are again:

Quote

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.

...

I think there are a lot of people like me.  People who are trying to suss out a path that involves continuing religious devotion alongside greater empathy, understanding and respect for our gay brothers and sisters.  But then stuff like this song comes along, which at once A) accuses anyone who doesn't think exactly like them of hatefulness and bigotry, and B) tauntingly states that they are "coming for {our} children."

Holy cow.  Who was the intended audience for this song?  Who are they trying to persuade?  And persuade them to what idea(s)?  Don't they see that they are playing with fire?  Don't they see that the provocateur schtick may get a few belly laughs from folks who already agree with them, but will likely offend and alienate people who have been seeking to find empathy and mutual respect?  How on earth can these guys expect to receive respect by insulting people like me, accuse us of terrible things, and then tauntingly sing about "coming for {our} children"?  Don't they see that they are are provoking fear, suspicious and anger with stuff like this?  And that responding with sentiments like "You're just a bigot if you dislike the song" only alienates even further?

Cue the No True Scotsman fallacy.  "Ah, but I asked about 'sincere inquiries.'  And I can read your mind and publicly tell you what your motives are, so..."

Nobody has answered these questions, BTW.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

By their very nature, they are more soap box diatribes each side pointing fingers at the other.  And yes, they do open up deep wounds.

Ah.  So adult men gloating about subverting parents and "coming for {their} children" is hunky dory, but expressing concern about that "open{s} up deep wounds."

Again, when a Latter-day Saint screws up, that's the story.  When someone else screws up, the Latter-day Saint response is the story.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I feel like often posts are made to score points rather than bring understanding.  
...
I would love to hear what others have to say.

Well, you could foster "understanding" by ditching the accusations and personalizations and answer the substantive questions I have presented several times:

1. Who was the intended audience for this song? Who{m} are they trying to persuade?
2. And persuade them to what idea(s)?  
3. Don't they see that they are playing with fire?  Don't they see that the provocateur schtick may get a few belly laughs from folks who already agree with them, but will likely offend and alienate people who have been seeking to find empathy and mutual respect?
4. How on earth can these guys expect to receive respect by insulting people like me, accuse us of terrible things, and then tauntingly sing about "coming for {our} children"?
5. Don't they see that they are are provoking fear, suspicious and anger with stuff like this?
6. And that responding with sentiments like "You're just a bigot if you dislike the song" only alienates even further?

As I have said several times, I'd like some input.  These are not rhetorical questions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Peacefully said:

It doesn’t scare me so let’s discuss it. 

I'm not scared, either.

15 hours ago, Peacefully said:

They are taking at least two tropes, comparing homosexuality to pedophelia, 

Replete with double entendre.

What are your thoughts about the creators of the song, Sohne and Rosser, having done this sort of thing before?  Did they not learn anything from that experience?

Quote

The Afghan LGBTQ community in particular has expressed discontent with the orientalist nature of the story and many have said the show harmed sexual assault survivors.

 

Dr Qais Munhazim, a queer Afghan scholar and Assistant Professor at Thomas Jefferson University said: "The musical is not only an orientalist depiction of Afghans as a whole, but it is also painfully damaging to the queer and trans Afghans. The musical wrongfully associates paedophilia with queerness.

(Emphasis added.)

And here:

Quote

Madina Wardak, an Afghan clinical social worker based in the US, said she watched 40 minutes of the musical and had to turn it off.

"I felt uncomfortable, misunderstood, frantic and anxious all at the same time," she said. "I cringed every time the actors tried to be believable and every time the audience had a laugh at the expense of real Afghan pain."

(Emphasis added.)

"Right wingers" didn't commission a musical that played on this trope (associating "paedophilia with queerness").  Sohne and Rosser did that on their own.  And now, with this song/video, they have done it again.  

Some of this may come down to timing.  As I understand, the song is actually a few years old, and has been performed many times by the SFGMC.  

15 hours ago, Peacefully said:

and the right-wing fear of the “gay agenda” and turning it into satire.

Right.  Satire.  We get it.

The thing is, Sohne and Rosser have done this sort of thing before.  They wrote an entire musical that was construed by those depicted in it as "romanticising child sexual abuse and child rape."  They apologized, shut down the production, took the vids off YouTube and streaming services, and condemned the "trope" (associating "paedophilia with queerness") that they previously used in their musical to give the audience "a laugh."

Something similar happened here, I think.  The SFGMC wanted to give their audience "a laugh" by taunting parents, threatening to subvert them and come after their children (using a pretty emphatic double entendre).

Sohne and Rosser took down their musical.  They didn't accuse the criticisms of having hateful motives.  They apologized and condemned the trope they had played on for laughs.

In contrast, the SFGMC is doubling down re: the song/video in the OP.  Accusing those who are criticizing their sone of having hateful motives.  And no apology or retraction of the trope they played on for laughs.

Also, I dispute that the concerns and criticisms are "right-wing" in nature.  I think there are plenty of people across the political spectrum who disliked the song/video.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2021 by smac97

[Daniel2]

SF Gay Men's Chorus receives death threats after InfoWars article

by John Ferrannini

Assistant Editor

Thursday Jul 8, 2021

The offices of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus, housed at its National LGBTQ Arts Center in San Francisco, closed out of an "abundance of caution" following harsh criticism of its video by InfoWars, a right-wing site run by Alex Jones. Photo: Jeff Zaruba  

The office of the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus is closed "out of an abundance of caution" after members started receiving a barrage of negative messages, including death threats, in response to a mischaracterization of a song the group posted to YouTube, its executive director said Thursday.

Chris Verdugo, a gay man who is the executive director of the chorus, told the Bay Area Reporter July 8 that the website InfoWars — run by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones — called the song "A Message from the Gay Community" "pedophilic" in an online article July 7. That apparently unleashed the vitriol. 

"The threat that stuck in my head," Verdugo said of the harassing messages he fielded, "was, 'We're gonna put lead in your head.' That was quite frightening."

The chorus posted its video to YouTube last week.

Verdugo said that the song includes the words "we're coming for your children" to evoke long-standing fears that gay men will convert children to homosexuality, for the purpose of exposing those fears. The real conversion gay men are interested in, Verdugo said, is teaching others to be "tolerant and fair."

That message was lost on, or deliberately misrepresented by, InfoWars, Verdugo said.

"The song is tongue-in-cheek, satirical, and I'd say nuanced except it's not even that," Verdugo said. "Since Anita Bryant, there's been people who think there is a gay agenda; that pedophiles will convert children to become homosexuals. That's not true, but we do have a gay agenda — teaching children to be tolerant and fair.

"Yeah, we're going to convert them to be tolerant, kind, justice-seeking people," Verdugo said.

Anita Bryant, of course, is the anti-gay activist who in the 1970s ran the Save Our Children campaign to overturn equal protection laws nationwide. Bryant served as brand ambassador for the Florida Citrus Commission from 1969 to 1980. In 1977, during her successful campaign to repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County, Florida, the gay community retaliated by organizing a boycott of orange juice. 

Bryant once stated "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children."

Verdugo said that members of the chorus and administration have been inundated with phone calls and messages, which "span the gamut from just people being hateful, which we're accustomed to, to people saying we should be killed, and more references to Hitler and the Nazis than I have ever seen in my life."

 

Verdugo said that the office, housed in the chorus' National LGBTQ Center for the Arts, will be closed until further notice. An investigator from the San Francisco Police Department is working on the case, he added, and the chorus has been in touch with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's San Francisco field office.

The field office acknowledged that the incident was reported to it. 

"I can confirm that this incident was reported to law enforcement, including the FBI," the FBI San Francisco media team stated in an email. "We will be unable to comment further."

The SFPD has been unable to confirm or deny that investigations into the death threats are taking place as of press time. 

As the B.A.R. previously reported, GLAAD found that LGBTQs face more online hate and harassment than any minority group. Some of this is fueled by false equivalencies between homosexuality and pedophilia, as GLAAD found in a March study.

As the B.A.R. reported last year, gay state Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) was the subject of death threats for introducing a bill that InfoWars falsely stated would "decriminalize adult men having sex with boys." 

Wiener's bill, which is now law, did not change criminal statutes. It allowed judges the option to not include on the state's sex offender registry those over the age of 18 who have been convicted of oral or **** intercourse with someone between the ages of 14 and 17, provided that the individual so convicted is within 10 years of age of their consensual sexual partner.

This year, Wiener is aiming to secure $1.7 million in the state's budget for the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus's National LGBTQ Center for the Arts on Valencia Street. The funds would be used for a new air circulation and filtration system; Governor Gavin Newsom still needs to sign off on the final budget.

 

 

 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Just because parents teach their children something doesn't mean it is the right message.

How very creepy. Would you be on board with strangers getting to decide "the right message" for your children, and that they can and ought to subvert your parental role?

I think . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

And another article following up on the incident:

SF Gay Men’s Chorus Video Unleashes Torrent of Right-Wing Threats, Vitriol

8 July 2021

 

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus released a magnificently funny video last week, but a barrage of threats and doxxing has forced them to change their key.

We’d like to show you an extremely amusing, uplifting, and clever video recently posted by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus. But we’re not sure if we can. It may or may not still appear below, as the Youtube version has been set to private. And amidst a 36-hour onslaught of threats, doxxing, and online right-wing mob harassment, the chorus is removing unauthorized versions of the video as quickly as they can. We’re not even sure if the version below is authorized, but… this a very funny satirical video that deserves to be watched umpteen times.

 

The ditty is called “A Message From the Gay Community,” and it’s a clever victory anthem about the gradual normalization of gay culture among the youth of America (“even grandma likes Rupaul / And the world's getting kinder / Gen Z's gayer than Grindr”). The wingnut furor has focused entirely on two lyrics — “We'll convert your children” and “We're coming for your children” — which the QAnon set assumes is an open declaration of sexually exploitating minors. But a full listen to the track (lyrics here) makes it clear to any reasonable listener that the choir is talking about winning hearts and minds by being funnier, more likable, and better dressed (“Your children will care about / Fairness and justice for others / Your children will work to convert / All their sisters and brothers”).

Yet in the mind of a frothing Trumper, the word “convert” can only mean “have sex with” if spoken by a gay man. And because we live in the QAnon era, the chorus' leadership tells SFist they've gotten death threats in the last 36 hours.

"We have received emails, phone messages, threats across all of our social media platforms — not just the chorus, but the staff, as well as the soloists who were featured in the song," SF Gay Men's Chorus executive director Chris Verdugo told SFist Thursday. "The [Youtube] comment that continues to stick out in my head is the one that said 'We're going to put lead in your head.'"

"Someone on Twitter took a screenshot of the singing members of the chorus and created a speadsheet and was starting to identify them," he added. "Some of our members' jobs were contacted saying, 'Do you know you have a pedophile working for you?' or things of that nature. Singers on their social media have been getting threats. It's been a harrowing 36 hours."

"The leadership team met yesterday evening and we decided to close the office and out of an abundance of caution, send eveyone home," Verdugo said.

Bottom-feeding websites you’re better off not clicking on are having a field day with this; Pajamas Media fumed that “the people who want to convert your children to their lifestyle and way of thinking don’t even bother to hide it anymore.” Breitbart notes in their complaint that “In June, the choir similarly went viral for creepy political propaganda — a brief clip barking commands to receive a coronavirus vaccine, simply titled ‘Vaccinate!’” (That song is set to the tune of Three Dog Night’s “Celebrate,” and would only be “creepy political propaganda” to someone who’s amped up on too much hydroxychloroquine.)

The chorus posted a statement early Thursday. “The far-right conservative media found our ‘Message…’ video and have taken it as their cause,” the statement says. “This has all happened in the last 24 hours and it continues to pick up steam. They have taken the lyrics out of context to support a narrative that suits their intolerant and hateful needs. It is obvious the tongue-in-cheek humor is lost on many. As a result, we have seen the user comments on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram become increasingly alarming. Emails to individuals and the chorus office are vitriolic — including threats of harm.”

“We feel the first action we must take to keep everyone involved with the chorus and the making of this video safe is to turn the video to private. We are communicating with law-enforcement both locally and nationally,” the statement continues. What they do not acknowledge is the troubling nature of some of this harassment.

SFist will not link the post, but some joker has more than a thousand quote-tweets claiming that many members of the chorus are registered sex offenders. We won't name these individuals' names, as these choralists are surely living through hell right now. But we checked the Megan’s Law database, and each of these were mere “similar name” deals citing offenders who are registered hundreds of miles away from San Francisco, and the offender’s photos do not even remotely match the appearance of the choir member. 

The trolls harassing the chorus members are the same trolls who’ve never said a word about Matt Gaetz’ trafficking of a minor issues, nor former Republican House speaker Denny Hastert’s serial molestation charges, nor the widespread abuses of the Boy Scouts of America or the Catholic Church. But this 42-year-old, first openly gay chorus in the U.S. has faced violent threats before, and homophobic bullying has never changed their tenor.

"For us, it's not only about the artistic product that we put out, but also about our being activists," Verdugo told SFist. "Social justice is a mantle we take up, and we take it up loudly. We won't back down."

Edited July 9, 2021 by Daniel2

[Vanguard]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Honestly, these lyrics could be taken straight out of the play book from the Mormon agenda.

This line is somehow missing from the primary song:  "but so as to not subvert their parents wishes, I will ask their parents permission before I start teaching them about the restored gospel and the Book of Mormon in my young missionary/conversion efforts."

We teach our youth to influence, to teach, to be missionaries, even if their parents are anti Mormon.  We teach them to plant the seeds.  To be patient.  To have faith...

Sure, we require parental permission for baptism, but the process of actually converting children happens well before baptism, well before missionaries get in the home - and we encourage it and even have songs about it.

More here:

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/youth/learn/ss/building-up-the-church/share?lang=eng

We are not quite so blatant about it, and would never do a tongue in cheek satire about it, but we are very subtle in how we go about converting children despite their parents wishes.  We used to be much more direct with baseball baptism programs, etc.  We call it planting seeds.  We call them faith promoting stories when we hear stories of a youth inviting their friends to activities, teaching and influencing their friends who eventually want to join the church.  Slowly but surely, over time these children have influence and convert their parents.  We have heard the story dozens of times.  That is a Mormon hail Mary from our play book.  Sure, ideally we focus on families.  But we will take them however we can.  We are not discriminatory on where we plant the seeds.  There is no age limit or concern or restriction if their parents are anti-mormon. 

From my perspective, teaching what you believe to be correct and good and true principles is fair game.  

 

I think a MASSIVE difference is that we are teaching our youth - contemporaries of said potential converts - to share the gospel. We are not pushing adult males out into the streets in search of youth to convert. There is a big power differential with adults seeking youth that is not present with similarly-aged children. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd like some input.  

My input: 

- Over the years, I've had a good Facebook arguing buddy.  He's married to a trans man and quite active (online, at least) in the trans and alphabet movement.  I remember a few years back, Hasbro's girl's cartoon show My Little Pony had an episode containing two lesbian characters.  We watched the episode together, and I symbolically handed him the Scepter of Cultural Majority.  I asked him, if he had any hard feelings about the decades I held it, to please show himself the better person and do better.  Over the last 18 months, I've watched him slide into an almost-revolutionary - defending and supporting the cancel culture, gleeful at the civil unrest and fires and riots, advocating that people drop efforts for systemic change and just rise up and break crap and remake things "the right way".   I see this video in a similar light, folks with a few years of cultural majority acceptance happily crowing out their newfound top-of-the-hill-ness with open rudeness.  They figure they've won, and anyone who doesn't feel the same is some form of backwards demon who deserves to be brushed aside into the ashbin of history.  

- I suppose more than anything else, I'm worried that the video will push some of our least-stable people over the line, and someone will get hurt because of it.  I don't want anyone to get hurt because of this video, I don't know anyone seeking to harm anyone because of it.  But I won't be surprised if I read some tragic headline in the next little while.

- My own personal reaction to the video:

Once I got that figured out, I went and reviewed Paul's discourse on charity.  With my grounding back under me, I was able to think rationally about the video.  I'm mainly left with the thought "what on earth reaction did they think they would get?".  I hope the whole community will take a few breaths before anyone produces the next similar thing.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

Honestly, these lyrics could be taken straight out of the play book from the Mormon agenda.

This line is somehow missing from the primary song:  "but so as to not subvert their parents wishes, I will ask their parents permission before I start teaching them about the restored gospel and the Book of Mormon in my young missionary/conversion efforts."

We teach our youth to influence, to teach, to be missionaries, even if their parents are anti Mormon.  We teach them to plant the seeds.  To be patient.  To have faith...

Sure, we require parental permission for baptism, but the process of actually converting children happens well before baptism, well before missionaries get in the home - and we encourage it and even have songs about it.

More here:

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/youth/learn/ss/building-up-the-church/share?lang=eng

We are not quite so blatant about it, and would never do a tongue in cheek satire about it, but we are very subtle in how we go about converting children despite their parents wishes.  We used to be much more direct with baseball baptism programs, etc.  We call it planting seeds.  We call them faith promoting stories when we hear stories of a youth inviting their friends to activities, teaching and influencing their friends who eventually want to join the church.  Slowly but surely, over time these children have influence and convert their parents.  We have heard the story dozens of times.  That is a Mormon hail Mary from our play book.  Sure, ideally we focus on families.  But we will take them however we can.  We are not discriminatory on where we plant the seeds.  There is no age limit or concern or restriction if their parents are anti-mormon. 

From my perspective, teaching what you believe to be correct and good and true principles is fair game.  

 

This is true. And it is very commonplace for church leaders to invite children to church, including the children of people who have left.