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

[Chaos]

Those who are personalizing the thread will be thread banned. Back to the topic please. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I get it. You don’t understand what the song was about or what it was communicating. Just don’t try to draw conclusions about what was being communicated if you don’t understand it. The statements you are handwringing about are part of a deliberate and OBVIOUS parody. They are pretending to be the “gay agenda” you live in perpetual fear with their verbiage mimicking the paranoid ravings of those who would make them the source of all evil. While doing that they subvert the whole thing by changing the objective from the one you are paranoid about to the one they actually seek which is relatively benign.

It is also worth noting that by acting outraged in ignorance you are furthering their goals. The younger generation that is not poisoned gets the message and has a good laugh at the caricature. Meanwhile the outraged nuts further alienate the next generation by behaving like the caricature and looking like humor-blind idiots while they do it.

So, this outrage is hurrying social change you ostensibly do not want. Either that or you are one of our plants in the establishment in which case I commend your commitment to the resistance comrade! ALL HAIL THE REVOLUTION!!!!

Important Note: If you feel the urge to lambast me as a communist or crazy revolutionary for what I just wrote I will give you a little hint:

A parody would portray Boomers singing about their fears. A parody of that would be Boomers singing about their fears using gay slang. This is more of a satire, which is a device for ridicule and shaming the target to improve – but clearly this was not designed with that in mind, only to divide even more. Look at how many of the kind people are calling the ridiculed “fools” and other epithets.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

I think presenting false information even unintentionally deserves an apology.  One thing the world does not need is more bad info out there.  I think we should be remorseful when we add to that amount and show through a sincere apology that we recognize the potential harm of our actions.

As for apologizing to the libeled gentleman himself…maybe through FB messaging if he has a profile?  Hard to tell if someone would welcome that or feel vulnerable by being reminded false rumors and accusations were out there and he was talking to someone who had accepted them for a time.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours 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?

 

If you view the clip, it’s easy to see that calling this a “joint venture” overstates by quite a bit what it actually was. 
 

I’ve been present with the choir on two extended tours, and I know that its typical and traditional practice is to invite a surprise “guest conductor” to lead the choir and orchestra in the last song of the concert. This typically is some person who is prominent and well-respected in the particular venue where the choir is performing at the time. Often as not, it is a person who is not even musically trained; it’s an honorary invitation, as it were. For example, when the choir performed in New York City, the “guest conductor” was U. S. Sen. Chuck Schumer. 
 

On this occasion in San Francisco, the “guest conductor” was the director of the Gay Men’s Chorus. His participation was limited to that last song of the concert, and it was just he who appeared on stage, not his chorus. 
 

Calling it a “joint venture” gives the impression that the choir and chorus performed together for all or much of the concert. That didn’t happen, from what I can tell. 
 

I’m not trying to disparage or discount what did happen, or say it wasn’t momentous; it was in some respects. I’m just saying let’s not overstate it beyond what it actually was. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think presenting false information even unintentionally deserves an apology.  One thing the world does not need is more bad info out there.  I think we should be remorseful when we add to that amount and show through a sincere apology that we recognize the potential harm of our actions.

As for apologizing to the libeled gentleman himself…maybe through FB messaging if he has a profile?  Hard to tell if someone would welcome that or feel vulnerable by being reminded false rumors and accusations were out there and he was talking to someone who had accepted them for a time.

To borrow a concept from "Inheritance" by Dani Shapiro, and to paraphrase much les eloquently, it is better to be open and honest and face the associated complexities and discomfort of bringing people together under difficult circumstances than to assume to "protect" them by letting sleeping dogs lie, and not ever uniting on an edifying level.

[JAHS]

Some news reports about this showing up now:
 
'We're Coming for Your Children': SF Gay Men's Chorus Threatens to 'Corrupt Your Kids' in Revolting Video

San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus sings 'we're coming for your children', removes it amid backlash

“We’ll Convert Your Children”: Satirical Song by Gay Men’s Chorus Awakens Conservative Rage Machine

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To borrow a concept from "Inheritance" by Dani Shapiro, and to paraphrase much les eloquently, it is better to be open and honest and face the associated complexities and discomfort of bringing people together under difficult circumstances than to assume to "protect" them by letting sleeping dogs lie, and not ever uniting on an edifying level.

I don’t agree with that attitude in every instance (or even, necessarily, in most instances). 
 

If (hypothetically speaking) I were a social outcast in my childhood or youth, was snubbed, shunned, even bullied, having a perpetrator at some late date in adulthood dredge up those painful memories and reopen old wounds just so he could apologize and assuage his own guilty conscience when I’ve tried to put the past behind me and move on would scarcely be pleasant for me and would not help me in my life’s journey. It would hardly do any more than confirm (if there were ever any doubt) that I was not accepted in my peer group during a sensitive and formative time in my life. Who needs that? 
 

To be clear, I’m not speaking autobiographically here. The above hypothetical is based on the experience of someone I know recounted to me much later in life. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Some news reports about this showing up now:
 
'We're Coming for Your Children': SF Gay Men's Chorus Threatens to 'Corrupt Your Kids' in Revolting Video

San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus sings 'we're coming for your children', removes it amid backlash

“We’ll Convert Your Children”: Satirical Song by Gay Men’s Chorus Awakens Conservative Rage Machine

I like this bit:

“In response, professional mouth-frothers simply pretended it was a threat instead of a joke. The magazine The American Conservative wrote that, “the gays are targeting our kids… the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus said the quiet part out loud.” The same article suggested it wouldn’t be wrong to “pass a law keeping LGBT media from targeting kids.” The Post Millennial accused the Choir of “outlining how they’ll ‘convert your children,'” and described singing — yes, singing – as “chant[ing] in a frenzy,” the better to liken queer people to a cult.”

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What video website, and how did you come across it? It's not like we just walk by websites on the way to the forum.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Actually, we do.  All the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac is quite right here. It is not just possible but routine that in the course of looking up something on social media, we run across something else more-or-less unrelated to our initial search but that catches our interest. Social media platforms such as YouTube are designed for that to happen. What do you think the term “click bait” originated from? 
 

This is a fact that seems so axiomatic to me that I marvel that it should even be in dispute. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Smac is quite right here. It is not just possible but routine that in the course of looking up something on social media, we run across something else more-or-less unrelated to our initial search but that catches our interest. Social media platforms such as YouTube are designed for that to happen. What do you think the term “click bait” originated from? 
 

This is a fact that seems so axiomatic to me that I marvel that it should even be in dispute. 

Yeah, but it is based on previous views. I get recommendations for things I watch and things I have previously watched. If someone has a gay chorus pop up that suggests something about what they were viewing.

I remember a few years back I posted a short movie clip as part of a joke post and got called out for the ‘pornographic and inappropriate’ videos another poster was recommended after viewing it. Didn’t have the heart to tell them….but someone else did.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was originally posted on YouTube. I just doubt that you found it there. I would bet a substantial amount of money you were referred to the video by a “news” site. I could be wrong but I like my odds.

Must be awesome to be endowed with such clairvoyance. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t agree with that attitude in every instance (or even, necessarily, in most instances). 
 

If (hypothetically speaking) I were a social outcast in my childhood or youth, was snubbed, shunned, even bullied, having a perpetrator at some late date in adulthood dredge up those painful memories and reopen old wounds just so he could apologize and assuage his own guilty conscience when I’ve tried to put the past behind me and move on would scarcely be pleasant for me and would not help me in my life’s journey. It would hardly do any more than confirm (if there were ever any doubt) that I was not accepted in my peer group during a sensitive and formative time in my life. Who needs that? 
 

To be clear, I’m not speaking autobiographically here. The above hypothetical is based on the experience of someone I know recounted to me much later in life. 

Good point. But also hypothetically (and anecdotally as is yours), the victim's personal redemption in Christ may be prerequisite to his forgiving the perpetrator (usually the reverse is emphasized, for good reason; we are redeemed once we forgive). Also. what might not happen in this life may well be arranged to occur in the next, with equally liberating results.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but it is based on previous views. I get recommendations for things I watch and things I have previously watched. If someone has a gay chorus pop up that suggests something about what they were viewing.

I remember a few years back I posted a short movie clip as part of a joke post and got called out for the ‘pornographic and inappropriate’ videos another poster was recommended after viewing it. Didn’t have the heart to tell them….but someone else did.

It may or may not be based on previous views. You have no way of knowing in this instance. 
 

And if it was, what of it? For a person whose interests are as varied and wide ranging as Smac’s apparently are, there’s no telling what might pop up on his  “suggested” feed. To use that as a basis to read something into his character, as you seem to be doing here, strikes me as beyond the pale of fairness. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good point. But also hypothetically (and anecdotally as is yours), the victim's personal redemption in Christ may be prerequisite to his forgiving the perpetrator (usually the reverse is emphasized, for good reason; we are redeemed once we forgive). Also. what might not happen in this life may well be arranged to occur in the next, with equally liberating results.

Be that as it may, it should be the injured person’s choice and determination whether his/her ability to forgive is dependent on whether the perpetrator comes seeking absolution, as it were. Where such a move might have the effect, purposeful or not, of inflicting further pain on the previously injured party, the best course just might be to “let sleeping dogs lie,” as you put it. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And if was, what of it? For a person whose interests are as varied and wide ranging as Smac’s apparently are, there’s no telling what might pop up on his  “suggested” feed.

Actually, I don't have a "feed."  I don't get my news of social media.  I'm not even sure how a "feed" works.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 8, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Must be awesome to be endowed with such clairvoyance. 

It is. I try not to abuse my powers…..much.

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It may or may not be based on previous views. You have no way of knowing in this instance. 
 

And if was, what of it? For a person whose interests are as varied and wide ranging as Smac’s apparently are, there’s no telling what might pop up on his  “suggested” feed. To use that as a basis to read something into his character, as you seem to be doing here, strikes me as beyond the pale of fairness. 

Why are you making it about smac? I already said I don’t believe he found it from a YouTube recommendation. See above. I was on an irrelevant tangent because I wanted to share that anecdote.  Admittedly though I suppose it could be read as me providing supporting evidence for my belief that it wasn’t found by YouTube search by suggesting the absurdity of it being recommended to him. So, logically, if (as you theorize) suggesting it was recommended suggests a character flaw then logically it follows that my not believing it is a compliment.

An unintentional one but a compliment nonetheless. I need to go take a shower.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is. I try not to abuse my powers…..much.

Why are you making it about smac? I already said I don’t believe he found it from a YouTube recommendation. See above. I was on an irrelevant tangent because I wanted to share that anecdote.  Admittedly though I suppose it could be read as me providing supporting evidence for my belief that it wasn’t found by YouTube search by suggesting the absurdity of it being recommended to him. So, logically, if (as you theorize) suggesting it was recommended suggests a character flaw then logically it follows that my not believing it is a compliment.

An unintentional one but a compliment nonetheless. I need to go take a shower.

Whatever your convoluted reasoning, Smac has now confirmed your guess is wrong. I’m inclined t believe him. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was originally posted on YouTube. I just doubt that you found it there. I would bet a substantial amount of money you were referred to the video by a “news” site. I could be wrong but I like my odds.

I said I found it on another website.  And no, I was not referred to the video by by a "'news' site" or feed.  

Again, the video was originally posted on YouTube, and its provenance is not in dispute.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever your convoluted reasoning, Smac has now confirmed your guess is wrong. I’m inclined t believe him. 

I said he found on a far-right “news” website. He says he found it on a website but not on a “news’ site” which I am sure what that means. I am inclined to believe him too and still suspect my guess is correct.

Edited July 8, 2021 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't have a "feed."  I don't get my news of social media.  I'm not even sure how a "feed" works.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe you. 
 

But here’s one way it works. I view a lot of stuff on YouTube. As a result, I have notifications pop up on my iPhone of things I might be interested in. It’s the way of Google. 
 

For example, I had one just now for one commentator’s take on the gay men chorus antics, though I’m guessing this one came because I’m subscribed to his channel, and this segment by coincidence just happened to be on the topic at hand. It’s not like it isn’t pretty pervasive just now. 
 

Added later:  I agree with what Michael Knowles says here about there being a lot of truth in this “joke.” Which is why it strikes me as divisive taunting. And which is probably why it got the backlash it did, resulting in it being taken down. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I said he found on a far-right “news” website. He says he found it on a website but not on a “news’ site” which I am sure what that means. I am inclined to believe him too and still suspect my guess is correct.

I saw it on Twitter. I’m conservative and follow conservative news. There is nothing wrong with those of us that read all news sources and not just those approved by Nehor. I don’t understand the issue. 🤷‍♀️
 

I found the satire in bad taste. I had just read a Boston Review article also discussing the evils of the heterosexual nuclear family. I find parents have a right to be concerned about tactics that purposely subvert parenting. 
 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by bsjkki

[MiserereNobis]

I teach a fairly robust unit on satire in my AP English Language (rhetoric) class. One part the students enjoy is when we look at satire that was taken literally by the people whom the satire was targeting. A classic example is when The Onion named Kim Jung-Un the "sexiest man alive" for 2012. The official paper of the Communist Party of China didn't realize it was satire and so quoted it alongside many pictures of the dictator. See here: "China paper carries Onion Kim Jong-un 'heart-throb' spoof"

When the targeted audience of the satire misses that it is satire, it simply reinforces the purpose behind the satire in the first place. In the Kim Jung-Un example, the satire was pointing out how communist propaganda portrays him as a perfect man and leader. Obviously he would be the sexiest man alive! Since the paper in China fell for it, it further reveals their ridiculous propaganda.

In this case, the choir was creating satire around the fear that the gays are coming for our children. People who missed the satire and took it literally then expressed outrage, believing that the choir said "the quiet part out loud." This reaction simply further reveals the beliefs and attitudes that the satire was mocking.

The right does this to the left, too, in the instances of trolling and/or "owning the libs" (though for whatever reason, the right has a harder time coming with satire that matches the quality of the left's).

Some have said that this particular satire went too far. Good satire always rides the edge of controversy and often crosses it, especially when dealing with contemporary issues. Swift seems tame to us today, but I guarantee that the British landlords in Ireland were not pleased with his modest proposal, because it called them out in a graphic way.

One example of satire I use in my class is this one: "Nation's Educators Alarmed By Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes"

Does it push the boundary of acceptable and appropriate? Absolutely, and on a very serious topic, too. Is it just humor? Absolutely not. It very effectively satirizes how the education system is not helping prevent suicide and actually outlines some positive steps that could be taken.

I'll close with this definition of satire from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. I think he makes some good points about America's difficulty with satire, and in a wonderfully satirical way, too.

Quote

SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a sour-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

  Hail Satire! be thy praises ever sung
  In the dead language of a mummy's tongue,
  For thou thyself art dead, and damned as well—
  Thy spirit (usefully employed) in Hell.
  Had it been such as consecrates the Bible
  Thou hadst not perished by the law of libel.

 

 

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, it should be the injured person’s choice and determination whether his/her ability to forgive is dependent on whether the perpetrator comes seeking absolution, as it were. Where such a move might have the effect, purposeful or not, of inflicting further pain on the previously injured party, the best course just might be to “let sleeping dogs lie,” as you put it. 

I was not suggesting that "the injured person’s choice and determination whether his/her ability to forgive is dependent on whether the perpetrator comes seeking absolution," only that at any point along the plan of salvation timeline forgiveness is mediated by Christ. And, it is better to seek forgiveness sooner than later. A repentant perpetrator can be guided by the Holy Spirit to seek it, how to go about it, and when. This is the rule of thumb if not the doctrine, and not to seek absolution in a self-serving way at others' expense. This is the context of the concept form the "Inheritance" book I was referring to: do it right, not wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I teach a fairly robust unit on satire in my AP English Language (rhetoric) class. One part the students enjoy is when we look at satire that was taken literally by the people whom the satire was targeting. A classic example is when The Onion named Kim Jung-Un the "sexiest man alive" for 2012. The official paper of the Communist Party of China didn't realize it was satire and so quoted it alongside many pictures of the dictator. See here: "China paper carries Onion Kim Jong-un 'heart-throb' spoof"

When the targeted audience of the satire misses that it is satire, it simply reinforces the purpose behind the satire in the first place. In the Kim Jung-Un example, the satire was pointing out how communist propaganda portrays him as a perfect man and leader. Obviously he would be the sexiest man alive! Since the paper in China fell for it, it further reveals their ridiculous propaganda.

In this case, the choir was creating satire around the fear that the gays are coming for our children. People who missed the satire and took it literally then expressed outrage, believing that the choir said "the quiet part out loud." This reaction simply further reveals the beliefs and attitudes that the satire was mocking.

The right does this to the left, too, in the instances of trolling and/or "owning the libs" (though for whatever reason, the right has a harder time coming with satire that matches the quality of the left's).

Some have said that this particular satire went too far. Good satire always rides the edge of controversy and often crosses it, especially when dealing with contemporary issues. Swift seems tame to us today, but I guarantee that the British landlords in Ireland were not pleased with his modest proposal, because it called them out in a graphic way.

One example of satire I use in my class is this one: "Nation's Educators Alarmed By Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes"

Does it push the boundary of acceptable and appropriate? Absolutely, and on a very serious topic, too. Is it just humor? Absolutely not. It very effectively satirizes how the education system is not helping prevent suicide and actually outlines some positive steps that could be taken.

I'll close with this definition of satire from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. I think he makes some good points about America's difficulty with satire, and in a wonderfully satirical way, too.

 

I don’t disagree with you about satire. Throughout my life I’ve been an aficionado of satire. Even in my youth, I was a rather devoted reader of Mad Magazine, and it taught me to recognize and appreciate satire. 
 

But I wonder what you think of Michael Knowles’s point in the video I linked to about truth being present even in a joke, and of my point about it thus coming across as malicious taunting. 
 

I have no problem recognizing the chorus video as satire. It still strikes me as mean-spirited. Can you see how I might hold that view?