Let me start off with apologies to Fred and Darth. Fred, I didn’t see any deletions until all of them were deleted and Darth, I get why you deleted my post, but I didn’t mean to push any envelopes. I was talking about Rawr’s attitude towards the “rainbow bullies” and his blind devotion to the LGBTQ+ political agenda. That leads me to my question/post/request for consideration.
As a little thought experiment, ask yourselves this. Had I simple replaced the name Zulocks with John Wayne Gacy would any of you moderated my comments? Rawr studiously avoided condemning, or even criticizing the Zulocks, but would he have had difficulty condemning Gacy? I think we can all agree that child rape and trafficking is a grievous crime, but surely serial murder and torture is bad enough that the moral vileness of the crimes is equivalent. The connotative difference here is that even acknowledging that gay people can be pedophiles, or, worse, that gay predators can use the LGBT movement as cover for their activities, has become taboo in certain circles. It should not be.
I was not accusing Rawr of supporting pedophilia (you can see I never said that in the quotes below) and I don’t believe I actually violated any for the ToS. I am accusing Rawr of such blind allegiance to a political agenda that he ignores, and attempts to censor, any factual information that undermines that agenda. When I teased him over equating homosexuality with transgenderism (as he did in his initial comment), he responded that “It’s all the same bigoted bullshit. LGBT+ is unified. Attack one, you attack all.” I wanted to point out that in supporting that poisonous idea he becomes a part of the censorious “rainbow bullies” the woman in the OP is mocking. So I chose a particularly odious pair, whose story threatens that political narrative, and implicitly dared him to condemn them. Unsurprisingly, he did not. What I’m doing is no different than accusing a committed liberal of being a Hamas apologist over October 7 or accusing a committed conservative of glossing over the January 6 riot. I’m saying he, like the other “rainbow bullies” would rather censor inconvenient facts through bullying rather than address them head on. That’s not the same as accusing him of supporting pedophilia.
I understand that gay men want to combat the narrative that they are particularly likely to molest male children. There are a lot of great gay guys out there who want to adopt children and that’s a stumbling stone in their way. However, the reality is that there are gay men who molest boys, just as there are priests who molest children, and straight men who molest little girls. If we turn a blind eye to those facts in the service of a political agenda, no matter how worthwhile it otherwise may be, then we end up hurting people. The Zulocks are a textbook example of a gay couple who used the LGBT movement, and its language of freedom and equality, as cover for their nefarious activities. That’s why they’re directly relevant to this discussion. The “rainbow bullies” use the righteous battle for gay rights and freedom as cover for their totalitarian agenda. Normal people like Rawr give them cover by turning a blind eye to their behavior and publicly stating he’s on their side (even if only implicitly). I’d say the fact Rawr refused to say anything about the Zulocks after his statement of solidarity with all LGBT+ people, implictly regardless of their behavior, demonstrates my comments were relevant and revelatory.
So, I’d like you to restore my comments, but – honestly – that’s not the most important thing by far. I’ve noticed a trend in moderation on this site to treat acknowledging that there are gay pedophiles with equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Similarly, pointing out that a CM refuses to condemn pedophiles is not the same thing as accusing him of defending pedophilia. My main request is for you guys to consider that distinction in your moderation. While I’m a free speech absolutist, I do understand why you delete comments equating homosexuality with pedophilia – because it’s a pernicious lie. However, in my experience, that’s usually the justification for deleting comments simply acknowledging that there are homosexual pedophiles, just like there are straight pedophiles. You should be able to use the words pedeophile and homosexual in the same sentence without it being an automatic deletion. After all, you guys certainly have no problem letting accusations of Catholic priests and pedophilia, and Catholic acceptance of it, fly. That’s exactly the position in which I put Rawr. How is it any different?
Anyway, here are the comments in chronological order, along with a link to the discussion. Do as you will. I’m not here for an argument, but I hope to provoke consideration of a different opinion.
“‘I’m sure the Zulocks will be glad to hear you’ve got their backs!
https://nypost.com/2023/01/…”
“But you definitely stand with the Zulocks. I rather doubt the gay community is united in that, but apparently you’re of a different opinion.”
“No, Rawr, you’re the despicable one because you turn a blind eye to evil when it threatens your political agenda. You would rather silence the truth than expose any underlying problems with your selfish goal of making homosexuals an elite, protected class with the right to persecute Christians and other conservatives who express common sense concerns over the extreme parts of that agenda endangering children and free thought.
That’s not only despicable, it’s pathetic.”
This lass is going viral for her epic response to the “rainbow bullies” 😂