Search results

  • Users: Grank
  • Order by date
  1. Grank


    Alright, well then based on this post, it looks to me that you hold very strong opinions that border into hateful, and that honestly makes me question if you are fit to raise children.
    Sorry but I'm not going to entertain this narrative. I've said what needed to be said. Heterosexual marriage is vital for the continuation of our species. It has to do with duty. If you marry just for pleasure or "love" (lust) it will fall apart once that love disappears, as it often does, because humans are naturally selfish creatures. Homosexual relationship is an entirely different thing. It's just for personal pleasure. It has no other function, nor is it necessary. You can love without sex or marriage, the same way you can love your parents, siblings or children. There's no reason you have to extend that to sex and marriage other than for your own personal selfish pleasure. It's detrimental to society when a contract as important as marriage is cheapened into a simple status update for pleasure. Divorce rate will increase and children will have their family life screwed up.

    It is most definitely for you to figure out.
    Why and how should I fight my own biological reaction? There's no merit for me to do so. This is akin to saying that I should just destroy my ear drums because a small group of people in my neighborhood likes blasting music.

    And the analogy between someone dressing up in a way that feels gender appropriate to them and someone walking around naked is, again, nonsensical.
    Is it? It's pretty close in my opinion. Many people are naturally disgusted by cross-dressing. It's similar to seeing people naked in public. You didn't address this at all. You just addressed them as nonsensical because you don't have it, if you're even honest about that. And think about what "educating children about gay people" will consist of. What if your kid gags when he sees a grown man cross-dressing? You're going to tell him he's wrong and he shouldn't react like that? Kids aren't sheep. You can't just tell them "It's their preference" and stop there. Kids are curious and won't be satisfied by dismissive answers. Why should I teach kids about things so closely related to sexual orientation? Especially when people can just be civil and dress normally. Not all clothes are gendered. How many women do you see wear pants instead of skirts? There are so many ways around it. It's not all dress and skirts. If you can't even be bothered to do that much, why should other people work so hard for you? Why is it so hard to keep your sexual fetish in your own house? Really. Answer that last one.

    And if you concede that it's only that loud minority you're against, why do you wish the restrictions be applied broadly, to the entire LGBT community?
    What restrictions? All I'm trying to say all this time is that LGBT people should just live their lives normally instead of making their sexual orientation their whole identity. As you said yourself, LGBT parades are counter-productive to their cause. The same with them pushing LGBT ideas in social media. I know they can live a normal live, and many are living a normal live right now. I'm addressing the LGBT movement, which is filled by obnoxious people, LBGT and not.

    then that's my problem
    That's very shallow, frankly speaking. It's not just your problem. The country or community will (have to) do something about you, because it's inhumane to just leave a neighbor rotting away like that. Even if do die and rot alone in your house, there will be people who have to deal with your corpse and other things. There's a term for this in Japanese by the way (kodokushi = lonely death). That's not all tho. You may be able to stomach that lonely life because you know it's your own fault, sure, but spreading this lifestyle to others who may not even think about this, is irresponsible.

    That is, that they should not be disqualified as candidates simply because of their orientation.
    Why not? I've said before that it's extremely unnatural and suspicious. There are so many concerns about this that can't be answered with a definite yes/no.

    You don't have to attend pride parades, hang out at gay bars, or go to drag shows if you don't want to
    Yet we're being shown LGBT content all the time in media, people get shat on when expressing dislike to said content, and parades take public space which affect uninterested people too. And how else would you normalize it unless you show it in some form? You're telling me that people should just keep their dislike to themselves? Sure. Why can't these LGBT people do the same then?

    What I suggested is peaceful enough. Normalization from simply living together. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't disturb anyone. When you want to do your sex things, do it in your own house, where the chance that someone uncomfortable with it will see you doing it, is 0%. Straight people are already doing this. Again, you don't see people protesting that they can't dress in BDSM/furry gears in public. They know those are for the bedroom.

    There is often no rhyme or reason to it, and it can be pointlessly cruel. [...] Bullies are not rational enforcers of societal norms. They're kids with their own problems.
    Yes, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't minimize the chance that kids get bullied. If a gay couple adopts a kid, and the kid innocently accepts only to later find themselves get bullied for it, the damage is already done. You can't really police other people's kids. You can't solve bullying entirely to prevent this from happening. It's best to try minimize it. Some of the other things you said are avoidable too, frankly enough. Take marriage seriously, don't have sex simply for pleasure and accidentally create children, etc. These are not just irrational religious teachings. They have functions.

    It is much more nuanced than that and the jury is still out on the nature vs nurture aspect of it.
    Yes. It's more nuanced than that, which is my point. You said it's a stereotype, but it's not true. There's biology that plays into it, but it's not entirely biology either. There's also education. These are very complicated, and that's why many people have doubts that having two men/two women to take care of children is a good idea.
  2. Grank


    I think a better question than "how many LGBT people do you know" is "how many people in general do you know" or "how often do you go outside" if this is honestly what you think.
    The society I live in is different from the west. People here seriously don't talk about sex when socializing. We talk about girlfriends and wives, but not in the context of sex. It's almost always in the context of family or SFW lover activities like going on a trip. While we do make sex jokes, it's not the vulgar kind. Just silly innuendos.

    When guys talk about their girlfriends or vice versa, people in media (fiction and non-fiction) are portrayed in heterosexual relationships, etc. it's all taken for granted and left out of your mental calculus for determining how prevalent it is.
    Most people are programmed to be heterosexual. Therefore there's no need to promote it. Thinking about heterosexual activities won't disturb most people because they develop a liking to it once they're in puberty. Homosexuality is not programmed in most people. People naturally aren't comfortable with the idea. If you want to normalize it, you will have to push people to get through their biological discomfort. The question is, what about people who don't want to? If it's disturbing to them, chance is they won't want to watch enough homosexual activity to get used to it. Forcing it will cause conflict. It's not even necessary. You can befriend someone just fine without liking/caring about their sexual orientation/fetish/hentai tags. It's not exclusive to homosexuality either. People generally keep their fetish to themselves. They don't force others to accept it. That's just weird. Yet you don't see people complaining about how they feel so oppressed that they can't talk about their sexual preferences.

    That's why every post you write reads like moving the goalposts, because arguments from rational positions have already been refuted by data.
    Those weren't actual questions. I was just putting them out there to make you understand why people have doubts. Still, you didn't answer my questions about the bullying and the kid's psychology. Not that I blame you, because the answers are very complicated. Child growth as a whole is very complex. There are so many factors that research on a particular topic is not the end of it. For example, formula milk. While it may be physically healthy, it's not necessarily so for the psychology of the child. Breastfeeding helps build a bond between mother and child, which will be important a long way down the road. These kinds of things are difficult to research properly. There are too many variables, and growth takes a very long time. Also, the women thing is not just stereotype. There's biology into it. Even animals have it. Yet these are rarely discussed when the LGBT movement is concerned. The conversation usually only goes accept/not -> hurrah/boo.
  3. Grank


    Many times, children are created accidentally and their parents decide after the fact that they don't want them
    This kind of thing is heavily looked down upon in Islam, and I know was too in Christianity, so yeah I agree it's a big problem. I'm not gonna preach that people should be religious tho. I've caused enough ****storm as it is.

    The problem with what you are saying--and how you are saying it--is that none of these limits and thresholds are imposed on heterosexual people, and the only reason that is the case is because they are heterosexual.
    Because everyone knows heterosexuals (in general) are capable of continuing the species. There's no reason to question them by their sexuality alone. There are, however, questionings on other factors like their financial capability, their mentality, etc. Not only does social norm does this test for them, natural selection also does. A woman won't marry a man who can't provide, and a man won't marry a deranged woman.

    Right now it's the LGBT people who are getting the test, because they want gay marriage and other stuff, and people doubt it because they have not known if it's a good idea. This doubt is not entirely based on bigotry. We simply haven't known it yet, and it's normal to doubt that because it's so odd from natural perspective. First of all, it's not their baby. How will the baby get milk? Full formula? Is that even healthy? How about the psychological needs? Women are known to be more nurturing than men. Can two men do it? How about the kid's feeling? What if they want a mom? What if they get bullied for it? It's not the kid's fault. Alright then, should we test this? Well a human life is too important for experiment isn't it? This is not just a few months of medical experiments in a hospital. This is the entire lifetime of a human being. You can see how difficult this issue is, and why it's normal for people to have doubts.

    Sitting back and waiting for some mindful & conscientious politician to come along and acknowledge that you're tolerably mundane isn't a viable path to progress.
    I never mentioned politicians or authority when making my suggestions. I said people around you. We didn't need the government to tell us Christians are cool. We learned that by ourselves. We didn't need an imam or a priest or the president to promote "don't be mean to Christians". This happened successfully because Christians were patient. Again, there are so many places and times in history where different social groups blended naturally. It's viable. It's just that these days people want everything fast. They don't have the patience.

    It's not that they're promoting it, exactly, but when they've been repressed for so long it's a natural reaction, I guess.
    But they are. Justification doesn't erase reality. And you said it yourself. It's pride, and what they're promoting is not "LGBT people are normal". It's "We're so damn weird and we're proud of it, screw you." It's not doing them any favor indeed. Again, I know it's the minority, but it's that loud minority that I'm against. Not the people who are not doing that.

    I don't think that's a great argument in a world with 8 billion people.
    Those 8 billion people won't take care of YOU when you're too old to work and feed yourself. They have their own family to feed. That's why it's still an issue, and why some countries are freaking out about demographic collapse and birth rate. It's undeniable fact that people grow old and frail. You will need someone to take care of you when that time comes. That's the functional aspect of a family. You invest so much resources into raising someone that will care about you enough to wipe your bum the same way you wiped theirs when they're just helpless babies.

    Retirement house workers won't love you the same way. They're just paid to do it, and they have other things to take care of too. And again, they have to be young. Someone else's child. And who's paying them to take care of you? You? Okay. Then what about people who don't have the money? And how many people want to be care takers for the elderly as a profession? You're holding society back if you don't do your part and make your own care taker.

    As for adoption, this is something which needs to be decided on a case by case basis
    Correct. It should be case by case basis. Is the LGBT movement pushing for this tho? Nope. They think in "us". The whole group. I bet you they won't accept case by case evaluation as they think it's discriminatory to only allow a portion of their "us".

    I can't help but wonder how many people in the LGBT community you know. Your posts read like you're very, very removed from what they are really like.
    Personally? Two normal ones. I just see and debate with random ones on the Internet every once in a while. During the whole discussion I'm including all those people who put flags and pronouns on their social media profiles. There's so many of them. I'm also including non-LGBT people who are aggressively supporting that movement. I'd say that's decent sample size.

    I can see how it could make some people feel uncomfortable, but honestly that's something for them to figure out. That person is not harming anyone.
    Really? It's for us to figure out? What constitutes as "harm" here? Even before I knew anything about LGBT people to have any prejudice against them, men dressing like women drew a very natural gag reaction from me. Of course now I can tolerate it to some degree, but there's natural aspect to this. Where should we draw the line? You wouldn't want to see people naked on the streets now would you? You might be fine with it, but how about others? Well, normalize it then I guess? Make people used to it. How about kids then? Should we show drag queens and naked adults to kids? Or should we "educate" kids that these are gay people etc? They dress like women because they prefer having sex with men. What's sex? Well, you see, Jimmy, sex is- [snip]. You see where I'm going with this?

    A more general and safe analogy would be noise disturbance. Loud music doesn't harm you. It can annoy the crap out of you, but is it really harming? It's hard to say, isn't it? If you've gone deaf or insane from sleep deprivation, yes it's harm, but it's already too late to address that issue by that point. People have difference tolerance, and people blast music in different ways. There are several types of sound and factor that damp them. So it's best to be respectful to people around you and don't play music too loud. You might say "So you're telling LGBT people to hide their true self?" Yes but not exactly. Just keep your sex stuff in the bedroom. Is that really an issue? It shouldn't be, right? I mean, everyone else here is keeping their sex stuff to themselves. I don't know your sexual fetish and you don't know mine.
  4. Grank


    This reads like you think homosexuality & transexuality are recent developments in human society, or that once a subculture has passed the post they're free from persecution in perpetuity.
    It may read like that, but that wasn't my suggestion. I know homosexuality has existed since ancient times. I also think that it's genetic, at least partly. It's not an absolute no-no tho. A homosexual can adopt children and pass down their lifework, provided that they have the ability to do so. Meaning they can finance it, and have the ability to parent their adopted children. It doesn't pass down their genetics, but it's still an okay in my eyes.

    That's why I put emphasis on living normally (work, etc) instead of promoting your homosexuality or gender dysphoria. Because they're not something to be promoted. The queerness, not the people, mind you. Because being a homosexual is detrimental to reproduction, and gender dysphoria is a condition that makes you suffer great stress. You need to promote an attitude that's against persecution, not the queerness. This is why I think the LGBT movement is wrong. It's focusing on the wrong thing.

    At the end of the day, people should strive to live their lives in such a way that they can support other lives. Because the reason we're all here is because someone supported ours. We had to be taken care of when we were helpless babies. This is very important.

    Living life normally is difficult when you are legally prohibited from participating in parts of normal life, like marriage and adoption.
    Yes, because marriage and adoption are so important that a government needs to be very careful about it. This is yet another one of the things I called "what's truly important." People should work on figuring out whether LGBT people are truly capable of holding a family together and take care of children properly. You wouldn't want orphans to be adopted by people who can't take care of them. Before you jump on my neck, I'll mention once again that I think they can do it, as long as they're not obsessed with their gender identity or LGBT ideology. It's just hard to convince people of this when the LGBT movement is acting the way it is now. Yeah sure it might be a minority, but it's a really loud one, and this loudness contributes to a bad image.

    Yes, there are also straight people who are absolute imbeciles and will drop a baby for TikTok fame, but it's not within the scope of this discussion.
  5. Grank


    What kind of academic research? I am actually curious 🧐
    A research on recommendation systems. Something like the algorithm on YouTube. I'm trying to help solve several problems this field is currently facing. Well, solve is a big word. This specific field has been plagued with the same problems since its birth. We're just trying to mitigate them.

    until they start understanding them and forging relationships with them.
    And you won't reach an understanding if you dismiss people who disagree with you as uneducated bigots, and by acting in an unpleasant manner. That's my whole point.

    I guess the question is what is your definition of being normal.
    That's rather difficult to describe briefly. What is considered normal varies depending on place and time, but there are certain universal norms that form naturally and stand the test of time, and you can use those as a standard to define what is universally normal. That's why I think it's important to let things play out naturally. Things that are legitimately good will pass the test of time, while those that aren't will not. If a certain lifestyle allows you to live long enough to produce an offspring, then you've passed nature's most basic test. Your lifestyle is worth passing down to the next generation. At the very least it works. And I'm not mentioning reproduction to jab at LGBT people. I mentioned it simply because it's literally what keeps our species going. I know many people in the modern world don't want to reproduce, but I think that's an absolutely wrong way to live. If everyone follows that lifestyle, humanity is literally doomed.
  6. Grank


    Alright. Fair enough. I've never paid attention to Jewish history, so I didn't know the scale of persecution was that big.

    So why have they been (and honestly still are, antisemitism just got more sneaky) hated?
    You tell me. I've never lived amongst them. I've only met Jews online and they're not religious or care about their Jewish heritage. I just assume they're like other people.

    Also you talk about doing research, what do you mean by that?
    Academic research. Completely unrelated to this.
  7. Grank


    What? Are you saying the Jews weren't normal people who lived weirdly for the past thousands of years?
  8. Grank

    Please support the Console version!

    wagging your fat joystick in everyone's face
    Oh my.
  9. Grank


    If you want feel free to send any "proof" to my private messages, I would be happy to show you that they are not as much proof as you think they are. Again, as long as you are open to that, otherwise it's kind of a waste of everyone's time.
    I appreciate the gesture. I might follow up on that in the near future. Currently swamped with research and work at the moment. Probably around the weekends. I should set the following first by the way:

    That doesn't equate to an evil LGBT movement bent on world domination. That is not a thing. It is however how antisemitism paints Jews, so make of that what you will (should they also have tried to be "normal" people?).
    I never said or suggested the LGBT movement is bent on world domination. I just said they're aggressively spreading their lifestyle, which people here disagree with. I think it's important for me to clarify that what I think as "bad" will be different from your perspective. For example, we think drinking alcohol is bad, but it's normal in the west, but it's not like we think it's bad purely from a religious perspective. We have legitimate reasons to think so. I will write details on this once we get to PM, giving you a perspective that's common in where I live, and probably even extends to the rest of Asia to some degree.

    Also Jews are normal people. They've lived normally for thousands of years. I've never heard Jews throwing aggressive protests in an attempt to be accepted by society. Not like I've lived alongside Jews tho. I just assume Jews are the same as the religion groups I do have experience with.
  10. Grank


    This often does lead to internal turmoil which can often seem apocalyptic at times, but it also creates the fastest economic growth in human history. The average wage in China is higher than anything I could hope for in London, the cost of living is far lower, and extreme poverty has been almost completely eradicated.
    This is only "true" for the big cities. People in rural areas are still in extreme poverty. Or people who come from rural areas to work in the big cities. Besides, there's a lot going on with it that I can't really put together because I just woke up. Lowered standard for what is considered poverty, IP thefts, cheap labor, etc. To be completely honest I'm not an economist so I can't talk about these with confidence, but the point here is that the Chinese people are on such economic pressure that some of their youths have completely given up on the future. I don't think good economic numbers justify having such social condition.

    That is actually what most Islamic feminists start from, and it's not got them a lot of progress.
    Right. You're talking about middle eastern countries when saying this, right? To be completely honest with you, I don't like the middle east. I think that whole area is a mess and their nonsense bleeds into Indonesia. One of our biggest issues, Islamist extremists, come from there. You won't see me defending whatever is going on in the middle east. Their issue is deeply rooted in their application of Islam in general. You refer to this as Islamic fundamentalists I believe. They really need to get that solved before we can talk about other issues like feminism, and forcing a western feminist movement into them is not going to work.

    This comes across as you saying that trans people are not normal and not okay human beings.
    Only if you see it with a pre-existing prejudice. Your ideological alignment led you to make that jump because I was on the opposing side. What I meant is that they obviously are normal people, and thus completely capable to do what I was suggesting. That's what I meant by it not being that hard. Again, it's such an obvious fact that I didn't feel the need to specify it. I know they're capable of living normally, and some of them already are.

    By the way, men and women who are comfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth can and are hated and discriminated against.
    Yeah obviously. I don't even know why you even bothered pointing this out.

    The only reason why it might be a bit easier for them than it is for trans people is that their differences are more difficult to see if they are trying to hide them.
    No, quite the opposite. Gender dysphoria is such a rare condition that the majority of people don't know about it. Meanwhile being male or female is such an obvious, seen-everywhere differences. People learned to accept the difference because it's such a core part of human society. Men live among women throughout the entire human history everywhere. Even cavemen could differentiate between men and women.

    This to me is like saying to a man that they should try wearing a skirt or a bra sometimes because their not doing so is making other people uncomfortable.
    No. I can't even figure out how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. I made such clear and simple statements that should just be taken as they are.

    If you are referring to the elements that were removed by Monty in your previous comments, those are not a thing. That just does not happen.
    I don't understand the refusal on this either. You can even see it everywhere on Twitter. How is it not a thing? Why are you so sure that nowhere in the world, nowhere on the world wide web, that people did those? Well thanks to the mods I can't post proofs of what I meant or even mention them, but go look at what materials they're putting in western education nowadays.

    Where? How? You are saying (or at least come across as saying) that people should hide who they are to be accepted by other groups that hate them.
    No. I never even said the word "hide" or "shut up". I don't know how to make it even clearer. The acceptance happens in so many parts of the world, about so many minority groups, at various periods of time. I'll explain one example in length, as clearly as possible.

    Back then in say, Indonesia, people heavily discriminated against different religious groups. For example as a Muslim I grew up with people around me whispering that Christians are bad and stuff. It's literally an "eww Christians" kind of sentiment. However, throughout the years, we have lived next to Christians. Keep in mind that they never preached about anything. Never talked about discrimination or prejudice. They're just there, being our neighbors, and we regularly talked to them. We then learned that hey, turns out Christians aren't bad people. They're just normal people. They don't corrupt our children like we feared. They're just like us. Some are good some are bad. Okay then. No more discriminating against Christians.

    That, is common. Swap Christians to Buddhists, black people, Chinese, atheists, whatever. It happens to them too. The reason you don't see this in media is because it's such a peaceful and natural process that's not worth writing about. It just happens. If I swap that with trans people, it would work out the same too. The thing is, when it comes to LGBT, it's not done like that. People come in waving flags and calling others bigots. Why? Because people are impatient these days. They want fast results. They don't want to let it marinate for years like in the example I gave. They want people to accept LGBT now, and it's such a profitable thing to write about. Outrage and drama are interesting. Even in our times of peace we watch conflicts (usually fantasy) to keep ourselves entertained.

    There is actual, proper research and effective treatments. The treatment is gender affirming care.
    The "gender affirming care" I'm thinking of doesn't seem effective, that's the thing. Continues with below:

    I am also unclear on what you mean when you talk about "what's truly important". What is truly important in life? Gender dysphoria is associated to depression and high suicide rates if it is not treated appropriately.
    That depression and high suicide rate is among what I meant by "what's truly important". I mean, it's still pretty high now isn't it? Even with people who take the surgery. That's why I said the treatment doesn't seem effective, so there must be other factors. I've done this kind of debates a lot, and oftentimes I found that people get really upset when I refer to gender dysphoria as a disease or mental help problem. That's why I used the word "condition" in this thread. It's essentially a mental help problem, but keep in mind that it's okay to be sick. You don't have to be perfect, as nobody is, and having certain sickness doesn't justify discrimination against you.

    Discussions usually stop here thanks to the outrage, but if I were allowed to go even further, I'd bring up how trans identity doesn't only root from gender dysphoria or genetics. For example, if parents abuse their son because they wanted a daughter, that son can wound up as a transgender later in life. There have been cases of this. It's clearly not okay (abuse to this degree), but many people would wrongly diagnose this condition as gender dysphoria.

    I don't see this aggressiveness. Again, what are you talking about specifically?
    There's nothing more I can say than look it up. There's so much outrage around this movement and for some reason you and the others haven't seen it. I'm already limited in my speech here, and that itself is a form of aggression, minor as it may be.

    I would however like to point out that German society did not change as much as you think, because Hitler had a lot of support from Germans. They kind of liked what he was doing, just like Italians liked what Mussolini did. Both rode to power on sentiments that were already there. And I really did not leave the holocaust period out, I am just saying that it failed to generate the change that they were looking for.
    I think this boils down to what each of us meant by "changing". Standard of measurement kind of thing. I'd say millions of Jews getting killed is a social change, but you seem to only refer to more long-lasting and drastic changes as a real change.

    "Us vs them" is exactly the problem, so I am glad we agree on that at least. Again, I don't see where you see the ideological part in LGBT people wanting to live their life in peace.
    Yeah. On the second part of that, it's not against "LGBT people wanting to live peacefully." As I've pointed out, they should just live peacefully. The LGBT movement is not really pushing for that, even though it might be unintentional.

    I definitely agree with you that we should all talk more to people from other countries. It's part of why I like this forum. But once more, I don't understand what you are talking about here:
    [we really don't like what we see going on in the US around this subject]
    DestructoRama is, I am quite sure, fully immersed in an alternative reality echo chamber where she gets constantly told that LGBT people are deep frying children in pizza or some other nonsense.
    I wasn't exclusively referring to what DestructoRama mentioned, but she did have a point. She was just too aggressive and rude about it (proving my point once more about aggressiveness). Then again I'm not allowed to talk about the details.
  11. Grank

    What are you playing right now?

    I revisited Exanima because this popped out of nowhere.

    They added a new arena mode where you play as a gladiator manager. It's really fun once you know how to move around. When I last played that game the arena was only an arcade style of matches.
  12. Grank


    Alright. Thanks to Orion's gross misinterpretation of my arguments, I will make my stance very clear by presenting them in easy-to-read bullet points:
    • Trans people are obviously humans. They just have gender dysphoria. It's such an obvious fact that I didn't feel the need to mention that, but here we are.
    • Trans people are just like other people. They don't need to, and shouldn't, make their gender dysphoria their entire identity.
    • Trans people should, and already are, just live their lives instead of focusing on their gender dysphoria.
    • This method has already been proven effective to make various minority groups (homosexuals, muslims, black people) accepted by groups that originally refused them.
    • Gender dysphoria is a real condition that makes trans people suffer, and they need actual, proper research and effective treatments to cope with that condition.
    • The LGBT movement is not the same as LGBT people.
    • The LGBT movement is chalking the suffering from gender dysphoria to mistreatment from transphobic people, putting attention away from what's truly important.
    • The aggressiveness with which the LGBT movement is "promoting" LGBT lifestyles actually makes people hate trans people.

    I will also bold some words to make sure the mods don't misinterpret my arguments again.

    What is your stance on equal representation of the sexes in areas like politics, religion, finance, and in management positions in society in general, like universities etc.? Are those not valid goals? Along with equal pay for equal work, not being forced to wear specific (religious) clothing and such.
    I think that idea is rather outdated and obsolete. As five bucks has pointed out, that goal is pretty much already accomplished in the western world. Right now people should be evaluating the current progress and deal with whatever is still lacking in society. Remaining to insist on equal representation will take your attention away from focusing on the real issues. As it turns out, people aren't absolutely equal, and they don't have to be. It's okay to be different. Women and men have some differences, but that's not a problem. It's only a problem when someone decides to act badly upon differences. These are very case-by-case and thus need proper work to solve, instead of just shoving it up as misogyny etc. There are other factors that need to be looked at, like economic pressure and general lack of moral. That's why I think the feminism movement is outdated and obsolete, at least in the western world.

    I had held back on answering this out of courtesy towards you being muted, but given that that's a thing you seem to enjoy I am going to go ahead and answer now: concentration camps were an atrocity and did unspeakable damage, but also utterly failed at changing society, at least in the way that they intended.
    Thank you for the courtesy. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't take offense to this as I really couldn't find a better way to put it, but the holocaust did change the German society during the period it was happening. The thing is, WW2 was an even bigger event that, with force, changed that society yet again. You're conveniently leaving out that period during the holocaust to fit your argument, but I know that's not because your intention is bad or anything like that. I will address the reason why along with the following:

    And I don't doubt that there are people who "disagree with the LGBT movement" as you put it (disagree on what? On the right of LGBT people to have a free life? Cause that sure sounds like homophobia/transphobia to me)
    @Adorno @Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James
    Keep in mind that the LGBT movement is not the same as the LGBT people, and neither is feminism the same as women, or the CCP = the Chinese people. Criticizing the movement or ideology doesn't mean you hate the people. That is the trap of obsessing over an ideology. It makes you biased and jump to conclusions when someone disagree with your ideology. It's a dangerous thing. No movement/idea is perfect, and you're bound to find flaws in it, and people who disagree with it. If you're obsessed with your ideology, your line of thinking is no longer on how to improve life. It's about us vs them, causing outrage and hatred that prevent real discussions and advancement in humanity.

    Continuing that, people disagreeing with the LGBT movement. Remember, the movement. The act of promoting the LGBT lifestyles, not the people. I can't go into details because it will get me muted again, but you can see the outrage around this movement, from both sides. People don't like that. DestructoRama brought up a good point about nations. In Indonesia at the very least, we really don't like what we see going on in the US around this subject. We don't want those problems to spread here. We already have other problems to deal with like the economy. Again, no offense intended, but I suggest you to talk more with people from other countries openly and respectfully to hear why they disagree with this movement, because I can't speak my mind freely here.

    The Chinese aren't stupid, of course they knew there would be demographic issues down the line. They did it to solve a demographic crisis in the present. They weren't the first country in east asia to implement family limits either, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was the first, and a handful of other countries followed suit. It's silly to act as if nobody in the gigantic CPC bureaucracy ever noticed that imposing child limits would cause fewer children.
    The Chinese people aren't stupid, yes, but that decision was. Reproduction is such a vital thing in a society, and they were in too much hurry and rush to solve their past population issue, which was also caused by another stupid decision by the way. The rest of the people, including the lower ranking members of the CCP, couldn't resist the atrocities because it's a brutal regime, not because they're stupid. The CCP is very reactionary in making policies, and their various failures are good examples of my point about why you shouldn't rush certain things.

    It's the same with the lgbt movement. The reason you have American-style lgbt organizations in basically every country on earth is because they work. "Native" feminist and civil rights movements are slow to act because they work within the culture they came from. There has been an islamic feminist movement for about 200 years that has achieved very little.
    I wouldn't say they work. More like they're very persistent. The reason those native movements fail is because they're doing it wrong. They're trying to push a different idea but limit themselves with the existing tradition, instead of trying to understand the tradition and use it in the direction that they want. In Islam for example, you can push for feminism by saying that Islam actually tells men to treat women kindly and respectfully. Many Muslims don't actually know Islam enough to understand these. Religion can be interpreted for good and bad. Teach them the good. If you want an ancient example of this, is how religious myths blended with local myths to ease assimilation. Different religion was a much more radical and sudden change, but people made it work. Granted sometimes it's by war, but the lone priests and monks travelling around did it without fighting.

    In case I get muted again or even banned, I'll end this post by saying that I stand corrected. None of the insults and censors thrown at me has convinced me that my ideas are wrong. This treatment only proved my points.
  13. Grank

    Wars are too short

    Yes, a war will start if you raid a village.
    Good to hear then. It was too easy to run around the border making corpses and just run into a friendly fief to hide from a massive army when one actually came.

    Uh Oh I see a broken Pitchfork, Grank in detention with the delinquents? Time for some backreading!
    It wasn't about Bannerlord.
  14. Grank


    Because you ended your rant with "just live your life in a way that doesn't challenge my view of what is normal and acceptable behavior." That's not even a half-step away from "the help should be seen, but not heard."
    I didn't say this though. You made that jump by yourself. In fact, if you had even the slightest faith that I'm not an inhumane monster, you'd realize that what I meant by "real proper work" includes actually researching this issue and thinking up real solutions to it, instead of just going with outrage culture like people are currently doing. Trans people are suffering, but "transphobic people" aren't the only reason why. The world is, lazily and conveniently, ignoring those other reasons.

    Nobody asked you to prove that you live a normal, fulfilling life before you could weigh in on the conversation.
    The question wasn't whether you could weigh in on the conversation or not. MadVader asked me how I think trans people could be accepted. I answered with the simple fact that if you want to be accepted, just show that you're an okay human being and your lifestyle is not dangerous to society. The reason people don't accept these things is that because they think they're dangerous. It's not pure stupidity either. There are legitimate, logical reasons behind it, but they're never heard. Because it's common these days to chalk disagreement as transphobic, stupid, and outdated. It's happening in this very thread with MadVader assigning labels and Antoine censoring me for "transphobia." I wasn't even saying those activities I mentioned are the majority. The discussion didn't even get to go that far. The mere mention of them was enough to censor me. It's as if they don't actually happen anywhere in the world whatsoever. Yeah right. It'd be like me going nuts over someone mentioning Islamic terrorism and insisting it's just Islamophobic crap.

    And it's not like "show that you're an okay human being" is that hard. I've given an example with the homosexuals. We know they don't pose a danger to society (like people feared) because they've shown it. It's the same with other things. People avoid you because you're a muslim? Show them that you're just another human. Someone who can have fun, chill, and take a ****ing joke. Then those people won't discriminate against you anymore. In Indonesia we're used to this. We're a very diverse people. I have friends who are Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindu, atheists, bisexuals, warlocks (uncles), shamans (those few branches of family), and even the Chinese. They're just okay. I actually know my **** when I talk about diversity.

    If you want to double down here, that's on you. Not a great hill to die on, I would think.
    I don't mind dying here. It's good practice, standing my ground with this much censor on my bum.
  15. Grank

    Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Video Review by IGN

    GoT is on another world
    Wow. GOT is an isekai all along.
  16. Grank

    Please support the Console version!

    Thanks mate 😊 it's better than carrying on without nothing to offer. I'm really hopeful for the future of the game and everything it has to offer!
    Exactly. It's better than just making wild claims based on nothing.
  17. Grank


    this would be more convincing if you didn't immediately follow it up with a bunch of transphobic stereotypes and absurd generalisations.

    i've gone ahead and removed them from your post for you. do not post them again.
    Why is it so hard to talk with you people? It's like walking through a land mine. Thank God I didn't bring up statistics.

  18. Grank

    This game sucks

    Honor in WB:
    "Honor affects your interactions with other lords and causes certain events. A high honor can increase the likelihood of a mercenary accepting an offer, or of you being elected as marshall. In Warband some lords will like you for having positive or negative honor; every 3 points in honor will increase or reduce your relation score by 1 (although the latter has small effect due to negative relationship repairing over time). Low honor can result in a bounty being placed on your head or a war being declared on your faction."
    Yeah my bad. I wrote that wrong. I mean to say dishonor didn't make you powerful. It only made people dislike you, and thus make you lose power. My point being that in Warband, if you want to be powerful, you pretty much have to be honorable. You can't play a powerful military tyrant, but you can do it in Bannerlord.

    Nope, it is not just that. It also relies the output of the game according to your input which is your actions.
    Yes, but it's not like Bannerlord is completely lacking this. Again, I agree that Bannerlord is shallow, but it's not as bad as people are putting it out to be.

    Please explain how does this making more sense than WB? Or tell me how can I roleplay this? How can I imagine a situation that I can earn such a political power?
    I like to think that it's akin to you asking these clans for help, and they're just sending someone to represent them in your army as a gesture of friendship. Of course, as you have pointed out, it's rather silly at times that you can order powerful clan leaders just like that. In my opinion it should be that you're calling upon a clan, and they decide who to send according to your relation with them and influence spent. If you're a nobody they will just send a second son or a young lord, for example. If you're a good friend with them, the clan leader himself might show up to help you. I imagine it would be cool to be surprised that a clan leader decides to answer your call himself.
  19. Grank


    As someone both affected and extremely disillusioned by post-commie Eastern European movements I find last couple of thread pages quite confusing. I just want to oppose Grank's 'take it slow, yo' attitude, even if I can't dress it up in actual arguments.
    It's normal that you're confused. It means you understand that the world is complex, and what I've said in the past couple pages has some sense in them. Remember, what I'm preaching for is balance, not some kind of slow-ism vs fast-ism. Not everything needs to be done slowly. The communism issue is one example. However, we were talking about feminism and LGBT, which are, these days, being pushed too rapidly and aggressively. This current speed and the nature of the issues make them the type that needs to be done slowly and carefully. We're in no real rush like a war or mass starvation. Feminism and LGBT are both issues that affect family lives and our reproduction as a species. You need to actually test and observe how your plans work out before you push it into the mass. A clear example of family-structure-altering policy going wrong has already happened in China. The one-child policy resulted in a demographic crisis that's going to make life very difficult in a few years. Notice how long it took them to notice the destructive impact that this policy brings.

    What would you, as an alleged follower of Confucius (and also Lao Tse, Sun Tzu and Keanu Reeves), define as "real, proper work" when it comes to acceptance of transsexuals?
    For starter, you can try to actually listen and understand people who disagree with you instead of just dismissing them with a label or straight up sewing their handsome kissable lips. It's not as easy as is sounds, as both you and Antoine have demonstrated. It requires patience and an open mind. Had you actually been reading, you might have found merit in what I've said. You might have understood how Indonesians think, and how to better push for LGBT-acceptance in Indonesia and other Asian countries. The more proper form of this, is research. Do proper, actual research. Take the time and effort. Don't just lazily throw any opposition to the bigotry basket.

    When it comes to acceptance, patience is most important. People will not accept you if you're aggressive and obnoxious. For example, I know gay people are just normal people. They can talk normally, work normally, joke normally. Therefore I have no reason to crap on them. Can trans people be normal and cool? Show it then. Just be normal.
    [transphobic crap removed]
    Simply show that trans people can live a normal, healthy and fulfilling life to ripe old age, just like other people. This is not easy, mind you. It takes years and a lot of patience.
  20. Grank

    This game sucks

    You clearly do not understand and no, it is not wrong/biased.
    I disagree with you, so you think I don't understand? If I understand then I will automatically agree with you. Is that what you're saying? That's ridiculous isn't it? I will say it again. I understand what you and others mean. I disagree with it because I think it's wrong and biased to blatantly ignore the good and only focusing on the bad.

    But sitting there and acting like because you don't care that others are "immature" or whatever other insult you might have for caring, is ridiculous.
    What's so bad about being immature? People make mistakes from time to time. Does it insult you so much when someone points out you're being immature? You can't accept the idea that you might be wrong? I mean, you and many people here seem to think that making mistakes is a big no-no. Being incompetent warrants a lashing. What's what I meant by toxic. It's a very toxic way of living.

    Saying "the game is not great, BUUUUT" followed by whatever excuses you have, is exactly excusing them away.
    I did that to emphasize that I'm not taking sides in this nonsense. If I only say bad stuff about the game you will think I'm on your side, and if I only say good things you will think I'm a TW simp. Simple fact is, I'm not. I bring both good and bad to the table. Thing is, merely bringing the good immediately means simping it in people's eyes. I mean, didn't you say it's impossible to know someone's intention the other day? Yet you assumed I'm playing semantic and taking TW's side? Come on...

    So because you feel like they are being "unfair", you think it makes sense to treat people like that? Okay...
    Funny isn't it? How it's basically the same as what people are doing here. Because they feel the game is bad, they think it makes sense to act like that?

    nor does only pointing out the bad make it "unfair".
    It literally is, buddy. One of the biggest arguments here is that "I paid so much money and the game is not worth that much". If you only point out the bad while pushing that argument, it becomes unfair. If you want to be fair when assessing the worth of something, you need to mention both good and bad. Otherwise of course the verdict is going to be "not worth it". You're just adding minus without the plus. The reason why people aren't doing that is because if they actually include the good, they will find that Bannerlord is not that bad of a product. Their argument is proven wrong. It's not unplayable garbage. It's just a video game that's not as good as its hype.
Top Bottom