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

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My comments are based on long term observation of his posting.

Further commentary about me, rather than about the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Further commentary about me, rather than about the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

So?  The song was a parody and not what you painted it out to be. I am not surprised at the gay community making things like this and putting them out there considering how they have been marginalized and mistreated.  The LDS church and its members are quite culpable in this as well.  You know, Prop 8 and all that. And let's not forget the 2015 LDS policy (alleged revelation both implementing and changing it cough, cough) for children and gay parent.  So pardon me if I find your drummed up concerns over the song rather hollow.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I've noticed how, at least twice, smac posts something that is happening, and some folks climb over their own grandmothers to hurl negativity and insults until the thread gets shut down. 

Here's a recent example.

It's almost, like, well, there's your answer, @smac97

Edited July 8, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From this article:

From the BBC:

In the BBC article above the 2017 Sohne/Rosser musical is described as "romanticizing child sexual abuse and child rape," and Dr. Munhazim states that it "wrongfully associates paedophilia with queerness."  I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.  All the more problematic, then, that Sohne/Rosser appeared to do that in 2017 (inadvertently, according to them), but then in 2021 they wrote a song intended to be sung by dozens of gay men with lyrics of "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."

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting, they retracted the content, and actually issued an apology (which goes beyond what you’ve done here) and yet here you are still bringing this up years later. I wonder why that is…

[Vanguard]

31 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hey everyone!

Y'all are discussing a video from the San Francisco Gay Mens Chorus, yes?

I wonder - do you believe there will be any further joint ventures between the SFGMC and the  Tabernacle Choir At Temple Square?

 

Thank you for that. I absolutely hope more collaboration continues. Watching the video at the end where the choir sings 'God Be With You Till We Meet Again' to the SF Gay Men's Choir conductor is heart-warming and chock full of good will. God bless both choirs. : )

[CV75]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Ok. You may be right.  I don’t like the tactic much either because it seems to promote an anti-parental stance that I don’t agree with. 

But as far as the actual song goes, can you point to lyrics describing what they want to convert children to that you believe are problematic?

Given the “anti-parental” context throughout, I think the lyrics convey the intent to bypass the home and get the child audience into the crosshairs for social engineering to a greater extent than what one might expect from say, a PSA. This crosses a line far beyond the realm of civil rights advocacy and into interfering with family relationships, religious morality and the array of other life skills and values as practiced in the home.

One might ask, what would be problematic with the text of the Gaddianton epistle in 3 Nephi 3: 2 - 11 if it had been written in a more jovial tone.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And let's not forget the 2015 LDS policy (alleged revelation both implementing and changing it cough, cough) for children and gay parent.  So pardon me if I find your drummed up concerns over the song rather hollow.

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?

 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Further commentary about me, rather than about the topic.

So? 

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

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So pardon me if I find your drummed up concerns over the song rather hollow.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Interesting, they retracted the content,

And then in 2021 wrote a song intended to be performed by dozens of men with lyrics of "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."

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and actually issued an apology

Do you think I should apologize to Earl?  Serious question.

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

(which goes beyond what you’ve done here)

Are you suggesting that I apologize to you?

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and yet here you are still bringing this up years later. I wonder why that is…

Because it may speak to a pattern of behavior.  Because the innuendo and double entendre in the 2021 lyrics are less likely to be imagined given their track record.

Again, I agree with Dr. Munhazim.  Pedophilia should not be equated with homosexuality.  But Sohne/Rosser seemed to be doing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I've noticed how, at least twice, smac posts something that is happening, and some folks climb over their own grandmothers to hurl negativity and insults until the thread gets shut down. 

Here's a recent example.

It's almost, like, well, there's your answer, @smac97

Yeah, SeekingUnderstanding sure seems to be working overtime to get this thread shut down.  California Boy, too.

Personalize the thread enough, politicize it enough, hurl enough insults, and voila!  The thread is shut down.  

I'd like them to stop personalizing things and address the topic rather than me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

Just now, smac97 said:

Yeah, SeekingUnderstanding sure seems to be working overtime to get this thread shut down.  California Boy, too.

Personalize the thread enough, politicize it enough, hurl enough insults, and voila!  The thread is shut down.  

I'd like them to stop personalizing things and address the topic rather than me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Putting them on ignore will probably be the easiest way to stop the focus on yourself.  These kinds of things thrive on the momentum of the back-and-forth posting.  It's like ping pong.  Remove one side and the ball tends to stop fairly quickly.

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Thank you for that. I absolutely hope more collaboration continues. Watching the video at the end where the choir sings 'God Be With You Till We Meet Again' to the SF Gay Men's Choir conductor is heart-warming and chock full of good will. God bless both choirs. : )

Same here.  I actually had that collaboration in mind when I started this thread.  That the same chorus who performed with the Tab Choir could now go out of their way to provoke and offend, to brag about subverting parents, to taunt and gloat.  It's quite disappointing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Putting them on ignore will probably be the easiest way to stop the focus on yourself. 

Yeah, but then the bullies go unanswered.  CB regularly tries to shame me into silence (though the ironically-named SeekingUnderstanding is apparently trying to overtake him in that effort).  I will not submit.

I am asking folks to get back to the topic.  That should work also.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

These kinds of things thrive on the momentum of the back-and-forth posting.  It's like ping pong.  Remove one side and the ball tends to stop fairly quickly.

I reserve the right to rebut their characterizations of me, my motives, my opinions, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2021 by smac97

[Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  I actually had that collaboration in mind when I started this thread.  That the same chorus who performed with the Tab Choir could now go out of their way to provoke and offend, to brag about subverting parents, to taunt and gloat.  It's quite disappointing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Though I wasn't offended, I'm glad they took it down. It seems it was quite offensive to many from both orientations. I'll give them a 'mulligan' on this one. ; )

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, but then the bullies go unanswered.  CB regularly tries to shame me into silence (though the ironically-named SeekingUnderstanding is apparently trying to overtake him).  I will not submit.

I am asking folks to get back to the topic.  That should work also.

I reserve the right to rebut their characterizations of me, my motives, my opinions, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pragmatically, the continual "stop making it about me and get back on topic" doesn't seem to getting the results you are after.  And refusing to engage someone because the discussion isn't productive isn't giving in to "bullies" or being silenced.

Sometimes it's just the best option for keeping a discussion productive.  You can definitely do whatever you want and 'reserve the right to respond'.  But every time you do it to puts the focus and topic back on you (and makes it more likely the topic will be locked too, as you said).

But it was just an idea to help keep the thread open.  I'm sure you'll do what you believe to be best.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Though I wasn't offended, I'm glad they took it down. It seems it was quite offensive to many from both orientations. I'll give them a 'mulligan' on this one. ; )

Yes, I'm glad they took it down.  I give them some credit for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, SeekingUnderstanding sure seems to be working overtime to get this thread shut down.  California Boy, too.

Personalize the thread enough, politicize it enough, hurl enough insults, and voila!  The thread is shut down.  

I'd like them to stop personalizing things and address the topic rather than me.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was an overtly political thread from the start. What did the OP have to do with the church? You knew what you were doing. Stop playing dumb.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Pragmatically, the continual "stop making it about me and get back on topic" doesn't seem to getting the results you are after. 

Abandoning the field, leaving CB, Nehor and the ironically-named Seeking Understanding free to continue to say whatever they like about me, often in threads I start, will also not get me "the results {i} am after."  Nor will letting their behavior go unchecked (which will likely culminate in the thread/discussion getting shut down).

I've allowed them to repeatedly personalize this thread.  They've had their say, vented their spleens.  Now I'm coaxing the discussion back to the topic.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And refusing to engage someone because the discussion isn't productive isn't giving in to "bullies" or being silenced.

I am refusing in my own way.  For example, I am not cooperating with the ironically-named SeekingUnderstanding's and MeadowChik's efforts to grill me about where I found the video, apparently because they like speculating about my motives (as opposed to, well, just asking me).

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes it's just the best option for keeping a discussion productive.  You can definitely do whatever you want and 'reserve the right to respond'.  But every time you do it to puts the focus and topic back on you (and makes it more likely the topic will be locked too, as you said).

Yes, you may be right.  But perhaps not.

CaliforniaBoy, Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding (oh, the irony of that handle) seem to be big on the Heckler's Veto:

Quote

In the United States, a heckler's veto is a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced.

In the legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs when the speaker's right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration.

The term heckler's veto was coined by University of Chicago professor of law Harry Kalven. Colloquially, the concept is invoked in situations where hecklers or demonstrators silence a speaker without intervention of the law.

That's what I think CB and SU are doing.  They are trying to bully/shame me into silence.  They are attempting to stifle discussion.  

I will not submit.

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But it was just an idea to help keep the thread open.  I'm sure you'll do what you believe to be best.

I appreciate your input and value your counsel.  Truly.  You and Calm often provide sound advice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think I should apologize to Earl?  Serious question.

Are you suggesting that I apologize to you?

If I had just tried and succeeded in convincing people that someone was a child molester, and then it turned out the accusation was false? So false it literally took 20 seconds to debunk? Yeah I’d apologize to that group. You didn’t convince me, because I figured it was more of your propaganda so no need to apologize to me. 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because it may speak to a pattern of behavior. 

So it’s okay to bring up retracted material when it speaks to a pattern of behavior. Glad we are in agreement on that. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Abandoning the field, leaving CB, Nehor and the ironically-named Seeking Understanding free to continue to say whatever they like about me, often in threads I start, will also not get me "the results {i} am after."  Nor will letting their behavior go unchecked (which will likely culminate in the thread/discussion getting shut down).

I've allowed them to repeatedly personalize this thread.  They've had their say, vented their spleens.  Now I'm coaxing the discussion back to the topic.

I am refusing in my own way.  For example, I am not cooperating with the ironically-named SeekingUnderstanding's and MeadowChik's efforts to grill me about where I found the video, apparently because they like speculating about my motives (as opposed to, well, just asking me).

Yes, you may be right.  But perhaps not.

CaliforniaBoy, Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding (oh, the irony of that handle) seem to be big on the Heckler's Veto:

That's what I think CB and SU are doing.  They are trying to bully/shame me into silence.  They are attempting to stifle discussion.  

I will not submit.

I appreciate your input and value your counsel.  Truly.  You and Calm often provide sound advice.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems like my post has only made the personalization of the thread worse.  I apologize for adding to the derail.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was an overtly political thread from the start.

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

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You knew what you were doing.

Yes.  I was presenting a controversial topic.  One that is being discussed in many other venues, by many other people of varying sociopolitical stripes and beliefs.  

I'll not be shouted down by bullies.  I will not submit to your Heckler's Veto.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you think I should apologize to Earl?  Serious question.

Are you suggesting that I apologize to you?

If I had just tried and succeeded in convincing people that someone was a child molester, and then it turned out the accusation was false? So false it literally took 20 seconds to debunk? Yeah I’d apologize to that group.

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

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You didn’t convince me, because I figured it was more of your propaganda so no need to apologize to me.

Then quit carping about it and get back to the topic or out of the thread.  Please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's what I think CB and SU are doing.  They are trying to bully/shame me into silence.

You accuse people falsely of child abuse, and yet you are the victim. Must be nice where you live. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

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. 

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You accuse people falsely of child abuse,

I do not.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and yet you are the victim. Must be nice where you live. 

Please address the topic.  I've asked a few times now.

Thanks,

-Smac