I’m plasmaball…the teller of things
I did enjoy how you skipped over the main topic part of my post and focused on the thing that you could turn into being a victim…
4 Likes
“Pride” parades typically are developed by those who have been marginalized in our society and unrecognized as true equal citizens. Not whiney snowflakes in the majority making some kind down-punching point. This is typical of conservatives though, misunderstanding any tone or context and just taking a big ■■■■ in the middle of the street for everyone to see.
I don’t need to feel ‘proud’ of being straight. I’m completely fine with it, it’s who I am. I’m not marginalized for it. People of my orientation run the world with an iron fist. I’d have to be a huge ■■■■■■■ baby to have my feelings hurt because gay people have a larger need to assert themselves publicly.
3 Likes
Yeah, right. Figures of speech don’t exist, and it is illogical to see them in someone’s speech and as adding nuance to their comments. You got me there. I’m so dumb!
There are plenty of gay people who realise they don’t want to be gay and come out of gaydom to be hetero. Aren’t they coming out of a gay closet too. Or maybe it just called “getting well”.
1 Like
Uh huh
If you say so. You might know best.
2 Likes
Yes its called being bisexual its completely acceptable.
Gay pride didn’t start as a celebration of homosexuality,
Gay pride started as protest of criminality of homosexuality.
to compare the stuggle of homosexual citizen and those of heterosexual citizen is night and day.
heterosexual have never been arrested for their sexuality
heterosexual have never been attacked by police for their sexuality
heterosexual have never been abandon by their family because of their sexuality
heterosexual have never been murdered because of their sexuality.
2 Likes
Has anyone been abandon by their family to live on the street for admitting their heterosexual?
People often forget that “Pride” parades didn’t start as parades they started as protest marches.
2 Likes
Which figure of speech was he using, and when given a chance to clarify its usage, why did he abstain from providing clarification and doubled down on the killing verbiage instead?
““The only way to change it would be to kill the problem out. I know it’s bad to say but without killing them out there’s no way to fix it.””
Have you ever heard of hyperbole. He is clearly saying that his rational mind disagrees with the feeling he has expressed. Clearly, he recoils from the notion of killing them out. He’s using hyperbole to communicate his feelings, not his intentions. No conservative in this thread has agreed with “killing them out”. Not even the mayor himself agrees with “killing them out”. What i am opposing is the leftist tactic of taking the statements of opponents out of context to demonise them and remove them from positions so that leftists can take their place.
" Hyperbole is a literary technique in which a certain piece of information, feeling, or other statement is exaggerated intentionally for a certain effect. In most cases, the literal interpretation of a hyperbole could not actually be true, but the exaggeration serves to emphasize a certain point. The statement “I have a million things that I have to do today,” for example, is a hyperbole — it means that the speaker has many things to do, but it is unlikely that anyone actually needs to do a million tasks in one day. Hyperbole can also be used in literature sarcastically or for the sake of humor, though it is most commonly used for emphasis.
In prose, hyperbole is generally used for the purpose of emphasis or for humor. A writer who wants to make a particular point may make that point by overstating or exaggerating it. Hyperbole can be used in descriptions to emphasize some particularly prominent feature of a character, for instance. It can also be used to describe an action that is remarkable in some way. In these and other similar cases, hyperbole is used to place emphasis on a particular action, feeling, or feature and is not meant to be taken literally."
So now “the solution is to kill all LGBTQs” is a “figure of speech”?
So he said the only way to solve homosexuality is to murder them, but didn’t really mean it. I mean its okay statement he feel bad for it.
He was unwise to use that wording to express his feelings in a political environment where so many people are pseudo-SJWs waiting to pounce and use context-free statements to demonise their opponents. He’s also been following bad legal and PR advice IMO in dealing with the backlash.
So now we have to understand the “killing all LGBTQs” statement in its proper context?
The words themselves aren’t bad…it’s just the existence of “pseudo-social justice warriors waiting to pounce on context-free words” that makes saying “the only solution is to kill all LGBTQs” a bad thing to say?
It’s a “figure of speech” which, when understood in its proper context, was meant to stimulate intense intellectual discussion over “less bad” ways to deal with the “problem”.
Have I got this right so far? Is this what you want to go with?
You just left out how why the mayor doubled down on the whole killing part of what he said. His explanation was that during a civil war, there is going to casualties on both sides.
That is what makes your rationalizations so humorous. The mayor himself went on to clarify himself by saying he means people on both sides are going to die, not just the homosexuals and transgendered people.
You still haven’t addressed that.
The mayor himself admits that the words are bad. But the intention behind using the words was not the literal meaning of the words. To indict someone as intending the literal meaning of a statement when they were expressing a feeling via a figure of speech, is not reasonable.
If I said “I could break your damned neck!” I am not saying I have any intention to actually break your neck. It’s hyperbole to express my feelings. Leftists in particular, but other -ists as well, find it difficult to distinguish between their feelings and rational thoughts, so I understand how they could get the wrong end of the stick here. But that doesn’t make their outrage justified.
In the main, people make emotionally based decisions and take positions based on how they feel, and then rationalise to justify what they are saying. I think the mayor made an emotionally charged statement and when put on the spot assembled what he thought was the best rationalisation.
He may have meant what he is giving as his explanation. But he did not say who would start the civil war. If the left carries on with their documented violence against conservatives and continue to rip up the constitution, their actions may eventually require a military response to keep the constitution intact as the supreme authority in the land. In that case, as the mayor said, the problem might be killed off, if most of the homosexual lobby side against the constitutionalists and take up arms against them.
But I don’t see the mayor, even in that case, as suggesting taking the initiative to begin a civil war.
I like how you flirt with all these ideas but wont actually just come out and say it because society wont let you yet.
Trump has allowed you to come out of the closest so to speak with your opinions on things. The internet has helped as welll because you are kinda anonymous.
But seriously…you are a lone man on this hill here and nobody is buying the sauce you are trying to sell about what this mayor stated.
Not even trump would stand next to you on this hill…
1 Like
