34 posts shown.
rowdyhound5 said:The thread title is still hardly appropriate - "Should we condemn the inappropriate statements made by LGBT associations and their representatives and lobbyists?"
1) First of all, it isn't the "associations, representatives, and lobbyists" themselves making these statements, but rather specific individuals who may, perhaps, be speaking on behalf of those organizations in their capacity as spokespeople or lobbyists...
2) One shouldn't "condemn" inappropriate remarks, regardless of who utters them, because such an act falls under the category of so-called "verbal crimes," a concept that exists solely within totalitarian regimes... In a true democracy, people possess the fundamental right to express themselves, even if those expressions are deemed "inappropriate."
3) And really, who in America is actually called upon to sit in judgment of anyone else? It would be as if I titled a thread, "Should we condemn veteran advocacy groups..." I suspect my post would be deleted instantly... because those veteran organizations exist specifically to pass judgment, not to be judged themselves. 😁
Therefore, a much more suitable title for this discussion would be: "Are there statements made by representatives and lobbyists of LGBT organizations that ought to be prohibited in a democratic society?"
bluecyclist64 said:Look, man—honestly...
You didn't actually provide anything.
But, seeing as you're just talking nonsense and being a bit of a provocateur, I won't hold it against you... 🙂My original thread title was "Should we condemn the hate speech of LGBT organizations and their representatives and lobbyists," which the moderators renamed to "Should we condemn the inappropriate statements made by LGBT organizations and their representatives and lobbyists" following your complaint and intervention.
Thank God there are people smarter than you. Me, for instance.Notice they didn't fix the obvious issue with the wording, but instead focused on the ESSENTIAL part. Feel free to use your imagination and find where the actual error in the correction was. 👍
Speaking as a professional, I would have written representatives of those groups... Everything else is perfectly fine.If you're going to mention Folkish Beobahter, then perhaps you should mention the original thread starter, and then tell me, why am I such a Nazi? 😍
I don't know, man; you're a bit too witty to be a true, genuine Nazi... though on the other hand, who knows, maybe I'm wrong... 🤷
I know Anderson Cooper personally, and she is a fantastic woman. A total genius.
Take a brewery, for instance.It isn't exactly rocket science—even for those who aren't particularly bright—to see that this loud, obnoxious little clique doesn't actually represent the broader public. It’s a transparent pattern: every single time this group finds itself under scrutiny, they immediately pivot to attacking anyone brave enough to voice a critique. If you dare to point out their flaws, you're instantly branded a liar. They have this practiced, reflexive way of labeling any dissent as "hate speech," while conveniently painting the critics as nothing more than homophobes or religious extremists. It’s a tired tactic, used to silence legitimate conversation by shifting the focus from their actions to the supposed character flaws of their detractors.
You mentioned somewhere that you hold a Master’s degree in... well, I’m not entirely sure what. Was it perhaps a Master’s in the art of incoherent rambling?
Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of this entire mess. It feels like nothing more than a calculated pile of gibberish thrown together to confuse me, Professor. 🙏A certain level of cultural decorum is absolutely essential if we ever hope to engage in any kind of constructive dialogue. When people resort to insults, cheap shots, or just plain gutter talk, they achieve nothing; in fact, it’s entirely counterproductive. You can see this play out clearly when you observe the behavior of an unruly mob—it only serves to drown out reason.
You simply cannot engage in any meaningful dialogue with liars. It is a futile exercise. In my experience, trying to reason with someone who lacks basic integrity is like shouting into a void—it’s exhausting and ultimately pointless. Honestly, instead of wasting breath on empty words, it would be far more effective to meet them with a bit of old-fashioned retaliation. Sometimes, you have to hit back hard to make a point.I am saying this for the very last time: those examples you provided are your own. You claimed there was nothing remotely resembling hate speech in them, and you saw absolutely nothing controversial about the situation. That is your prerogative, and I won't argue with your perception of reality.
But then there’s that whole argument of yours...I don't see any hate speech here, so there isn't any. And that’s just how it is because I say so.Just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it's an absolute truth, nor does it mean we all have to sit there and swallow it without question.
So, please, stop the trolling just because my examples don't happen to align with your specific worldview.
I’ll say this one last time: not a single one of those clerical-fascist, Catholic zealots has ever produced an actual example of hate speech originating from an LGBT organization.
You are constantly lying. Even though the thread title has been changed, you continue to insist—in the exact same style as Folkish Beobahter—that the Elgebetej people are utilizing hate speech.
It reminds me quite a bit of how certain German newspapers back in the 1930s used to spin those tired old conspiracy theories about some secret alliance between bankers, Jewish people, and communists...
Look, the tactics you’re employing are nothing short of Nazi. I mean it—straight up Nazi.
I realize you might be able to peddle that nonsense to children or perhaps to the easily deluded, but don't think for a second you can pull the wool over my eyes. 🙂
If I were a pro, I'd probably write about their representatives... Everything else is totally fine.
Look, the way you're doing this is straight up Nazi. Seriously—NAZI.
I get that you can peddle this crap to kids or idiots, but you can't pull it on me! 🙂
Amanda Hughes37 said:God forbid you ever actually need Sarnavka's help... Don't talk nonsense—there are plenty of women out there who haven't lost their minds, people you could actually knock on the door of at 3 AM, unlike Sanji Sarnavka.
rowdytiger13 said:That’s more of a fundamental worldview issue. You think it has nothing to do with women's rights because you're sitting on the right side of the spectrum—the side that views traditional values as sacred and wants to protect them at all costs.
They’re on the left, believing those traditions aren't sacred and absolutely need to change. It's a gap that isn't getting bridged anytime soon.
By the way, I think it's a bit uncalled for to claim Saravanka does nothing for women just to chase headlines. As for the others, I don't know their work well enough to comment, but regardless of how much you disagree with her ideology, saying that about Saravanka feels cheap.
By the way, I think it's pretty low to say Sanja Saravanka does nothing for women just to chase headlines. I don't know enough about what the other ladies are up to to comment, but regardless of how much you disagree with her on a global scale, attacking her like that is just nasty.
rowdytiger13 said:I was thinking about America, and the names that come to mind are mostly hetero women: Sanja Saravanka, Nadezda Cacinovic, Vedrana Rudan, Vesna Kesic, Snjezana Pranjic Samardzija, Ankica Cakardic... pretty much everyone except Sanja Juras.
I don't know how things look elsewhere, but the fact is our activist scene is lagging far behind what's happening internationally (and that goes beyond just LGBT and feminist issues).
In our neck of the woods, 90% of feminists are hetero women who cooperate closely with LGBTQ+ organizations, supporting one another, including regarding this marriage initiative.
| I'm just dropping by to say hi! Hope everyone is having a killer day. kaže: They say it out loud all the time, just not in the news. Honestly, they don't even need to bother—anyone with half a brain knows that tiny, noisy crowd doesn't represent them. |
| I don't know what to tell you guys, but I'm totally lost on this one! kaže: What's the point of acting all classy and polite if you're just gonna lie to my face? |
| We’re ten pages deep and still haven't seen a single actual example of LGBT hate speech. Seriously? Man, this feels just like reading Folkiše Beobahter... |
Chloe Sullivan88 said:And there you have it—you just perfectly illustrated your true feelings toward transgender people.
So, apparently, simply using the term transgender is considered an act of hate by your standards.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
What’s your actual take on them? Do you honestly believe they aren't equal to you, or to a Catholic living in Boise? 🤷
As for etiquette? People get exactly the level of respect they earn. 😁
Chloe Sullivan88 said:So, what was your Master's degree in at KBF, studying alongside Petirk? 😂
That's the one faculty where you learn nothing but how to hate others, isn't it? And clearly, you all "enrich" your education every single Sunday when men in skirts—transgender, I assume? 😂—lecture you about premarital sex and those "wicked homosexuals" supposedly out to destroy the sanctity of the traditional American family. 😁
In America, nobody’s fooling anyone; premarital sex is practically a mystery to people like you, yet here we are, with these quasi-academic Master's holders feeling entitled to lecture everyone else on human rights. Is demanding basic human rights considered "intolerance" now?
Oh, and I guess democracy just has to swallow it all.
No, there is no such thing as hate speech from LGBT organizations (at least not officially). The only real hate speech in this clerical mess comes from the priests led by Bozanićka and the fascist scum running various political parties. ☕
bluecyclist64 said:No, you didn't make an effort.
You haven't cited a single instance of hate speech from any LGBTQ+ group. You’ve simply continued spinning a narrative that they are doing it—but they aren't, and you are lying.
Frankly, I couldn't care less how YOU perceive it; the reality is that the cited hate speech simply DOES NOT EXIST.
And you, Željkica, are the one persistently pushing this spin, trying to force words into the mouths of gay people that they never actually uttered. Wouldn't you say that puts you on the same level as those you're criticizing?
Well, damn—your little spin tactic just failed. You're lying.So, when I try to explain where I see the hate speech, you call it spinning, while you just insist it's there. Markić distorts the truth and lies, and that's just because I say it is. When asked to clarify exactly how someone is lying or distorting things (regardless of whether I accept that opinion), there is no answer. You just state that it's true, and therefore it is, without it being spinning, making things up, or false accusations. 🙄
Please, let's not pretend here.
I am under no obligation to explain myself to someone who is being dishonest.
Once you admit that you fabricated this supposed hateful rhetoric, then perhaps we can move on to the next point, Željkica—pardon me—my little mouse, so charming and clever...
I wonder what Željko's Master's degree was in again? 🍿
Wait, since when did Željko get a Master's degree? 🍿
Bradley Scott2 said:If you said that out loud in public, there isn't a court in the European Union that wouldn't come after you.It’s hardly a media lynching. In a country where 90% of the population is Catholic, being named "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite an honor if you look at it realistically.
It hasn't happened yet, but I've already mentioned it will soon if they keep labeling everyone who thinks differently with such senseless, arbitrary tags.That poster is actually perfect; it illustrates the play's premise beautifully. It's just that some people don't understand the difference between art and being offensive. The gospa herself wouldn't be offended by a poster like that even in her wildest dreams. But her followers? Well, that's what offends them...
So the message of the play is—love conquers all—I assume?
And the poster that hurts religious feelings is just considered "art"?
Fair enough.
Let's flip the script for a second:
Imagine someone puts on a show where a gay Nazi and a lesbian Communist fall madly in love. The message: love conquers all. Just like this play of "yours."
Then we make a propaganda poster showing a top lesbian activist and a top gay activist in a passionate embrace, with a Nazi flag and a Proletarian flag tied together as a curtain above them.😁
Now tell me—would you call that offensive, or would it be "art"?
Because, you know, my mom is a very peaceful and incredibly tolerant believer, and she couldn't wrap her head around the pure malice driving people to create a poster like that.
Neither could my dad, who doesn't care much for the Church or priests, but still respects everyone else's faith.A climate of terror? What, are gays patrolling the streets harassing straight people? Are people losing their jobs because they don't march in Pride parades?
That sounds like pure delusion...
I know several gay guys who completely agree with you on this. And even if I were gay myself, it wouldn't occur to me to join in on those counterproductive spectacles.
You say there's no climate of terror?
Fine, look: your gay acquaintances actually agree with my view that this aggressive behavior and insulting dissenters is counterproductive.
Just tell me, what would happen to those friends of yours if they spoke up publicly—if they refused to be represented by a small, noisy crowd parading through the streets?
They’d be branded homofob too, and probably worse...
Not yet, but I already warned everyone that it’s coming if they keep labeling anyone with a different opinion without any actual criteria.
rowdytiger13 said:Women fought for a better, different standing in society, which naturally modernized marriage by shifting how spouses interact, but that isn't a redefinition of marriage itself. At its core, marriage remains what it has always been: a man, a woman, children, and family. Suggesting that women gaining more agency means the end of marriage is nonsense; I see those claims as nothing more than a sneaky spin from people who want to redefine marriage just to devalue and destroy it.
I'm not so sure about that.
I constantly hear traditionalists making claims like, "Everything went wrong once women got the right to vote."There is a massive difference between fighting for labor rights, against workplace harassment, or sexual exploitation, and using those struggles as a cover to interfere with and dismantle the fundamental intuition of marriage, which has nothing to do with any of those issues.
Yeah, I figured we’d end up here.
You mentioned that women have already secured enough rights, yet clearly they haven't, as there's still plenty of room for the feminist movement to push forward.
It would be much more helpful if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasoning behind the movement; personally, I feel like a bull in a china shop in this arena, so things tend to get misinterpreted—as they obviously have here.
The feminist movement isn't actually interested in redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All this noise was stirred up by organizations on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBTQ+ advocacy groups felt directly threatened by certain initiatives, they stepped in to support feminist organizations.
What the feminist movement is actually pushing for is a redefinition of the roles within a traditional marriage, rather than the definition of the institution itself. From what I gather, the actual definition isn't their concern.
Yeah, I saw this coming from a mile away.
You mentioned how women fought hard enough for their rights, but clearly there’s still plenty of room left for the feminist struggle.
It’d be way better if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasons behind the movement, because honestly, I feel like a bull in a china shop when it comes to this stuff. It leads to a lot of misunderstandings, which is clearly happening here.
The feminist movement isn't actually about redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That whole mess was stirred up by groups on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBT organizations felt directly attacked by that initiative, the feminist groups stepped in to back them up.
The feminist movement is fighting to redefine the roles within a traditional marriage—not the definition itself. From what I know, the literal definition isn't even their main concern.
bluecyclist64 said:That's a lie. You didn't provide an example.
And right there, we see a textbook case of spin—the kind you know all too well, so I won't bore you by repeating myself.
None of you in the Mark's circle, not even you, ma'am, have provided a single instance of hate speech originating from LGBT organizations.
The way you treat them is reminiscent of how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s—fabricating accusations and leveling false charges.
Then you act surprised when the LGBTQ+ community calls you out.
rowdytiger13 said:Boldano is pretty fascinating. I actually thought about writing this myself but decided against it just so I wouldn't get crucified and forced to spend all day Googling links to prove my points. Anyway, considering Boldano's take, are today's feminists actually qualified to speak on the status of women in marriage?
They are. Just because there are lesbians within the feminist movement doesn't disqualify them. Even as a man, I talk about the feminist movement and support it.
By the way, most feminists—both historically and currently—are straight women.Traditional marriage isn't what it used to be, but at its core, it's still there—it’s just modernized without losing its essence. Women aren't just homemakers anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or they have the option to be if they want to. Those who choose to stay home can certainly do so. Today's traditional marriage isn't that old-school version that locked a woman in the house and handed her a spatula.
I agree, though some would argue that was the beginning of the end for marriage—that its redefinition started the moment women stopped being exclusively housewives.Women fought for their rights through the feminist movement, becoming more satisfied and achieving their goals, yet there remain feminists who continue a struggle that often has nothing to do with what a heterosexual woman actually wants. Modern feminism is essentially just a lesbian movement; it has nothing to do with the modern family woman.
Whoa.
That's just your opinion, but I can guarantee not every woman feels that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias during hiring compared to men, they're frequently paid less, and they deal with workplace harassment and various forms of sexual coercion.
Can you even name any lesbian feminist activists? No, Sanja Juras isn't one; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't a feminist activist.
I hear you, but some people would argue that was basically the beginning of the end for marriage—the moment it started getting redefined once women stopped being just housewives.
Whoa!
That might be how you see it, but definitely not all women feel that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias when applying for jobs, get paid less than men, deal with workplace bullying, and even sexual harassment.
Name one lesbian feminist activist for me. Go ahead. No, Sanja Juras isn't a feminist activist; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't an activist for the cause itself.
bluecyclist64 said:I have to disagree. If someone is actually a homophobe, a Catholicophobe, or a clerical-fascist, calling them by those names isn't hate speech. It’s only when you slap those labels on someone who doesn't fit the description that you're actually engaging in hate speech.That behavior essentially provokes and incites hatred against those groups, fostering intolerance and fueling animosity through public discourse, which only serves to intensify and deepen the divide.
We saw these kinds of tactics used in Germany during the 1930s; noticing these fascist methods isn't something reserved solely for the uneducated or the uninformed.The moment these organizations and activists stop falsely branding every statement that contradicts their agenda as "hate speech"—once they stop creating and inciting hostility toward anyone with a differing opinion—perhaps then we can rethink the title of this article.
It's a classic bit of spin, reminiscent of how fascists try to sell snake oil.
The headline is complete garbage, mainly because nobody has bothered to provide a single actual example of hate speech coming from any LGBTQ+ advocacy group.
I'm not even sure if I have the "honor" of debating this lady. I've dealt with Markić before, and this is her textbook approach. To be blunt, it's a very fascistic style—Goebbels-esque, really—where facts are twisted and lies are repeated like a parrot.
GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU SPIN DOCTORS!
We saw these groups and their tactics back in 1930s Germany, so anyone with half a brain can see the fascist methods at play here.
I'm not sure if I should even bother debating Ms. Mark enough to call it an honor, but this is classic her. To add to that—it's typical fascist, Goebbels-style propaganda where facts get twisted and lies are just repeated like a broken record.
COULD SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH, YOU COWARDS!
rowdytiger13 said:I don't follow the feminist scene too closely, but I think the goal is for marriage to be a contract between two individuals without those stereotypical roles being imposed... especially on women.
Traditional marriage places women in a subordinate position to men, and that’s exactly what they want to eliminate.
Recently, feminist groups have been protesting the stereotypical portrayal of women in elementary school textbooks, where women are shown exclusively as mothers or wives stuck in the kitchen while the father works and brings home the paycheck. That’s the degradation they're talking about.
They’ve also pushed back against the idea that only women should have maternity leave (which was the standard practice until recently), viewing that as another form of degradation. Why shouldn't a man stay home to raise the kids, cook, and clean while the woman builds a career and provides the income?
And why does a woman have to be a mother to achieve fulfillment as a person? That’s another stereotype forced by traditional marriage—that a woman's primary role is motherhood and the sole purpose of marriage is offspring.
That’s what they are trying to redefine.
Many lesbian activists are also feminists—not all, but it's common for the two movements to share views. One of the most prominent activists here in the States is also a feminist.
By the way, I found that girl's commentary on the distancing from the labor movement and union struggles quite interesting, and that movement sits on the same side of things. However, that solidarity often gets overshadowed by snobbery and salon leftists.
rowdytiger13 said:Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point.
In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker.
We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement.
That's really what we're talking about...
The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.
| True story, there are hardly any "real" traditional marriages left, at least here in the States, mostly because women themselves pushed back against those forced roles—and they did it through, well, the feminist movement. |
bluecyclist64 said:So, I suppose we're just going to pretend there was absolutely no hate speech involved here.
Could someone please rename this thread and strip away that ridiculous title? As it stands, it’s nothing more than a blatant smear campaign against LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.
bluecyclist64 said:I’ve been scrolling through this entire thread, and frankly, I haven't encountered a single instance of hate speech coming from any of the LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.
Could someone please rename this thread? The current title is completely devoid of logic.
Hate speech is basically any verbal or written stuff meant to publicly provoke or incite hatred against a specific group—or even just one person—based on who they are. It’s all about fueling intolerance, division, discrimination, or violence, or just making existing hatred even worse by blowing it out of proportion.
restlesscrane152 said:If we can't even agree on the facts, then there's really nothing left to talk about.
Gregory Hall66 said:Let's look at the actual facts:
Over the past year, barely a dozen members of the LGBTQ+ community reported any kind of violence, and those reports came primarily through advocacy groups.
(so let us return to those hysterical cries for help found in the links I shared earlier in this thread)
And these figures tell a very clear story: we are witnessing nothing more than pure manipulation and outright falsehoods.
That is precisely why they are so desperately targeting cities like Miami.
It will likely be followed by places like Imotski, Sinj, and other towns throughout the Zagora region.
It seems as though if anyone were to simply glance at them the wrong way—anything at all—they would immediately claim to be under threat, just so they can play the victim.
However, these statistics actually demonstrate the high level of civility and tolerance within American society. They reveal that these self-proclaimed "defenders and warriors for LGBTQ+ rights" are, in reality, nothing but manipulators poisoning the public discourse.
We live in a society that accepts differences, yet one that still holds firmly to its own core values.
| The cops totally missed the biggest part of their report. They’re acting like this wasn't a hate crime, but we know damn well it was motivated by her sexual orientation. Since the police did such a lazy job investigating, we already filed a formal complaint with the Department of Justice. If they won't step up, we're taking it to court ourselves—Warren Buffett is convinced she didn't just get pushed, she was straight-up assaulted. |
Gregory Hall66 said:Yes, the media lies. It goes without saying that there are people who have been targeted; I am not denying that. The real question, however, is how many are we actually talking about?
Until someone presents hard, cold numbers, this entire conversation is little more than aimless chatter.
Given the sheer volume of coverage regarding the supposed "threats and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals," one would assume such data would be readily available in countless places. My question remains: why is it nowhere to be found?
The solution is quite simple:
Washington, D.C.: Year 2012, 2011, 2010, etc. ——— Attack Count
Rijeka: Year ——— Attack Count
Miami: Year ——— Attack Count
... and so on...
restlesscrane152 said:Look, the point of the comparison is to show that the attack count against LGBTQ+ people isn't just a bunch of "isolated incidents" like some people here want to claim. If these were truly just "isolated incidents," they'd be happening to everyone equally, not just targeting specific groups. That’s exactly why I brought up Catholics—following your logic, they wouldn't be spared from these "isolated incidents" either. They'd get jumped just for being Catholic, just like how other groups get "exceptionally" targeted. Is that clear enough now?Activists want to frame certain attacks (which sometimes have nothing to do with sexuality, just like the attacks on Stjepan Mason had nothing to do with anti-fascism) as organized terror by the majority against a minority.
But if this is hitting one specific group disproportionately, how can you call it accidental? Does society just hunt them down like dogs? No, but that doesn't mean there isn't a massive problem.It's not some wild conspiracy; it's just the facts on the ground.
The fact of the matter is they don't have equal rights.
If this is hitting one specific group way harder than everyone else, how can anyone call it a coincidence? It’s not like society is out there hunting them down like stray dogs or anything, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.
Let's be real, they just don't have equal rights.
restlesscrane152 said:Awesome. Love that skepticism toward the media. But I gotta wonder—do you hold conservative groups to that same standard? Take "In the Name of the Family," for example. Just a bunch of liars, right?
restlesscrane152 said:Even rarer than attacks on Catholics?Things aren't alarming.
...not for those outside the LGBTQ+ community. But hey, what would be alarming then—if hundreds of them were being slaughtered? Or would that just be a "tiny little issue"?They have all the rights that come from the community they legalized. So yeah, they have all the rights.
What a charming little word acrobatics...
For those who aren't part of the LGBTQ+ community... I mean, seriously, what would even be considered an actual crisis at that point? Like, if people were being slaughtered by the hundreds, would that just be a "minor hiccup" to you guys?
What a wild ride of words...