Hasbro Adds Pride Merchandise Featuring Transformers and More - Proceeds Benefit LGBTQ+ Youth

Gotta get em while they're young and impressional.

The perverts are at it again.... preying on the children. There's nothing to be be proud of in violating the laws of God and taking a chance on eternal damnation.

Please leave your bigotry out. Transformers as a brand has been supporting human rights for a long time now.
And if you don't understand Optimus, what are you doing here: Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
Also, these products are merchandised for adults.
Love both of the Optimus t-shirts.

muddyjoe wrote:The perverts are at it again.... preying on the children. There's nothing to be be proud of in violating the laws of God and taking a chance on eternal damnation.

Seriously? Transformers is about accepting people and you say that here? As a trans person, I am deeply offended.

Fantastic stuff. Who doesn't like seeing a nice rainbow?

AlexisSkrull wrote:

muddyjoe wrote:The perverts are at it again.... preying on the children. There's nothing to be be proud of in violating the laws of God and taking a chance on eternal damnation.

Seriously? Transformers is about accepting people and you say that here? As a trans person, I am deeply offended.

No. It's about two warring factions of giant alien robots who turn into truxx, munkees, punch buggies, and assorted war machines. That's it and after almost 40 years, that's what the MAJORITY truly cares about.

Anyone wanting socio-political alphabet stew drama can transition their channels to Lifetime, Oxygen, MTV, or whatever station is desperately trying to boost their CEI score.

Keep it out of kids' shows and toys which is Hasbro's core demographic.

Paflopi01 wrote:Please leave your bigotry out. Transformers as a brand has been supporting human rights for a long time now.
And if you don't understand Optimus, what are you doing here: Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

This is where I have a serious problem with all of this. If someone dares to speak against these types of campaigns, even if respectful, they are labeled a "bigot". Children don't have the life experience or maturity for a lot of things. People can't drink, smoke, drive, join the military, or even open a bank account until they reach a certain age. The reason for all of that is the same. Experience and maturity to make the right decisions. Yet here we are as a society encouraging them to think they are another gender than what biology has determined they are. Adults can be whoever they want to be, that is their choice as someone who has matured to adulthood. A child is not mature enough to make these decisions. I'm all for treating all people the same. I don't support hate speech, I don't support wrecking of Target or Bud Light displays in protest. But I also don't support manipulating the minds of the most impressionable people on the planet to make them believe they are something they probably aren't. I certainly don't support them getting drug or surgical treatment to affirm what they were manipulated to be. Gender dysmorphia is a mental health issue and should be studied and treated as such, with a lot counseling and in some cases medication. We don't affirm suicidal people by telling them to just go jump off a bridge. So why are we affirming people that think they are a member of the opposite sex with medical science and transforming them? If all of this were so natural, then why doesn't the ability to change gender naturally occur? I couldn't have been done 100 years ago. It's only now with the medical science it can be done. Yet, it still can't provide reproductive organs or change chromosomes. It's all fake and covered up. It's putting on a mask to hide from reality. It addressing insanity with more insanity. But when we point these things out, we are written off as bigots. We aren't bigots, we're thinking with a clear and rational mind. We are tired of being told we have to accept it. We sure as hell are tired of our children being manipulated.

*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

AlexisSkrull wrote:

muddyjoe wrote:The perverts are at it again.... preying on the children. There's nothing to be be proud of in violating the laws of God and taking a chance on eternal damnation.

Seriously? Transformers is about accepting people and you say that here?

No, no it isn't.

As a trans person, I am deeply offended.

Oh no! Someone on the internet said something you didn't like? Say it isn't so! Grow up and get over it. It has 0 bearing on your life.

As for anyone who doesn't like this move by Hasbro, relax. It's a business, and they try to make money any way they can, utilizing what's in the headlines. It's just smart marketing.

The best way to oppose it is to just spend your money elsewhere. Bitching about it on a 2nd rate website for geeks will have no effects whatsoever.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

If it's just about promoting different lifestyles then promote them all, including heterosexuals. I'll tell you why. Because it's not about Pride it's about bloated companies trying to remain commercially viable by boosting their CEI scores and targeting to children. And for the record, Gays Against Groomers, who OBVIOUSLY don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" aren't all for this.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

As a trans person, I am deeply offended.

Oh no! Someone on the internet said something you didn't like? Say it isn't so! Grow up and get over it. It has 0 bearing on your life.

Their being offended also has 0 bearing on your life. So "grow up and get over it."

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior".

A lesbian wants to have sex with a woman. Can you really not discern the difference between a woman and a girl? An animal? A corpse? Is the line between woman and corpse really blurry enough for you to see that as a slippery slope?

If it's just about promoting different lifestyles then promote them all, including heterosexuals.

They said it's about promoting acceptance of different lifestyles; do you feel you're no longer accepted somewhere because of your heterosexuality?

Dr. Caelus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

As a trans person, I am deeply offended.

Oh no! Someone on the internet said something you didn't like? Say it isn't so! Grow up and get over it. It has 0 bearing on your life.

Their being offended also has 0 bearing on your life. So "grow up and get over it."

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

I'm strictly talking "man with woman" here. Nothing more, nothing less. Those groups you speak of aren't even included in the LGBTQIA+, so why bring them up?

firefox91 wrote:This is where I have a serious problem with all of this. If someone dares to speak against these types of campaigns, even if respectful, they are labeled a "bigot".

Because the majority of people who speak out against these things do so because of their bigotry. They make no secret of their hatred and disapproval of lifestyles different to theirs.

Children don't have the life experience or maturity for a lot of things.
People can't drink, smoke, drive, join the military, or even open a bank account until they reach a certain age. The reason for all of that is the same. Experience and maturity to make the right decisions. Yet here we are as a society encouraging them to think they are another gender than what biology has determined they are.

Parenting. It all comes down to parenting. They're not being encouraged to be another gender, they're being encouraged to be accepting of those that are different to them.

Adults can be whoever they want to be, that is their choice as someone who has matured to adulthood. A child is not mature enough to make these decisions. I'm all for treating all people the same. I don't support hate speech, I don't support wrecking of Target or Bud Light displays in protest. But I also don't support manipulating the minds of the most impressionable people on the planet to make them believe they are something they probably aren't. I certainly don't support them getting drug or surgical treatment to affirm what they were manipulated to be.

P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G

Gender dysmorphia is a mental health issue and should be studied and treated as such, with a lot counseling and in some cases medication. We don't affirm suicidal people by telling them to just go jump off a bridge. So why are we affirming people that think they are a member of the opposite sex with medical science and transforming them? If all of this were so natural, then why doesn't the ability to change gender naturally occur? I couldn't have been done 100 years ago. It's only now with the medical science it can be done.

Interesting point ... but ... trans people have actually been around for centuries. History has proven this and it's occurred in many societies over centuries. Like you said, science is now at the point where people can fully transition.

Yet, it still can't provide reproductive organs or change chromosomes. It's all fake and covered up.

See, I'm going to read into this a little bit here, it almost feels like you're saying "a person isn't a specific gender unless they can have children". So if a woman can't have children (like my partner) does that mean she's not a woman?

It's putting on a mask to hide from reality. It addressing insanity with more insanity.

No ... just no.

But when we point these things out, we are written off as bigots. We aren't bigots, we're thinking with a clear and rational mind.

Clear mind? No ... if you were thinking clearly you'd see more than just "it's a mental disorder" Do your research.

We are tired of being told we have to accept it. We sure as hell are tired of our children being manipulated.

Then be a fucking parent and guide your child instead of leaving it to media.

NeonPrime wrote:So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

If it's just about promoting different lifestyles then promote them all, including heterosexuals. I'll tell you why. Because it's not about Pride it's about bloated companies trying to remain commercially viable by boosting their CEI scores and targeting to children. And for the record, Gays Against Groomers, who OBVIOUSLY don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" aren't all for this.

You hear how stupid you sound yeah?

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

I'm strictly talking "man with woman" here. Nothing more, nothing less. Those groups you speak of aren't even included in the LGBTQIA+, so why bring them up?

Because you said it's all about promoting people who don't adhere to "heterosexual norms" and who are treated as inferior. All of those groups fall under that banner. It IS LGBTQIA+ and NOT LGBTQIA period, as in full stop. The '+" literally means WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO INCLUDE IN THE FUTURE. Given a little time, those groups will be added. I can promise you that and they WILL market it to children.

Again, the Gays Against Groomers organization DO NOT SUPPORT this woke ideology.

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

I'm strictly talking "man with woman" here. Nothing more, nothing less. Those groups you speak of aren't even included in the LGBTQIA+, so why bring them up?

Because you said it's all about promoting people who don't adhere to "heterosexual norms" and who are treated as inferior. All of those groups fall under that banner. It IS LGBTQIA+ and NOT LGBTQIA period, as in full stop. The '+" literally means WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO INCLUDE IN THE FUTURE. Given a little time, those groups will be added. I can promise you that and they WILL market it to children.

I wouldn't think so. We got laws against them for good reason. And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

I'm strictly talking "man with woman" here. Nothing more, nothing less. Those groups you speak of aren't even included in the LGBTQIA+, so why bring them up?

Because you said it's all about promoting people who don't adhere to "heterosexual norms" and who are treated as inferior. All of those groups fall under that banner. It IS LGBTQIA+ and NOT LGBTQIA period, as in full stop. The '+" literally means WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO INCLUDE IN THE FUTURE. Given a little time, those groups will be added. I can promise you that and they WILL market it to children.

That's not what the "+" means.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote: And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

The "+" means "positive".

Dr. Caelus wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote: And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

The "+" means "positive".

Ahhhhh, gotcha. A little piece of ignorance has been replaced with a little bit of knowing...

Ah, the good ole "but u a bigot" deflection for anyone who is slightly against this stuff... in a world of sticks and stones not breaking bones that is still about the weakest word anyone could use to defend their stance.

The point alot of the people are above making on the "bigot" side is pretty clear, I see from the other side wether you call it woke/democrat/lgbqtiazy+ that you just "love who you love" with "Love" all to often representing a sexual relationship and not just love like a parent should have for a child or like someone's love for their favorite song. When I hear the "love who you love" thing I'm all to often reminded that yes, there are people out there who want to love little kids/animals/men/women even if the love isn't returned. Does this "love who you love" extend to that? Should I keep trying to get into Taylor Swift's house because I want to "love" her?

When you call the other side a bigot its like saying "you haven't tried it yet though, don't knock it if you haven't tried it." To many of these people its almost the same as saying "You havent tried murder, or bank robbery, or any other (insert horrible crime) so don't knock it"

As someone once quoted the Simpson's on this, they said "I haven't tried dying yet either but I'm pretty sure it sucks"

LOL this is gonna be better than the ROTF backlash with Skids and Mudflap.

Continue arguments!

zko wrote:Ah, the good ole "but u a bigot" deflection for anyone who is slightly against this stuff... in a world of sticks and stones not breaking bones that is still about the weakest word anyone could use to defend their stance.

Interesting you say this when only one person has actually called others a bigot...

Burn wrote:

firefox91 wrote:This is where I have a serious problem with all of this. If someone dares to speak against these types of campaigns, even if respectful, they are labeled a "bigot".

Because the majority of people who speak out against these things do so because of their bigotry. They make no secret of their hatred and disapproval of lifestyles different to theirs.

Children don't have the life experience or maturity for a lot of things.
People can't drink, smoke, drive, join the military, or even open a bank account until they reach a certain age. The reason for all of that is the same. Experience and maturity to make the right decisions. Yet here we are as a society encouraging them to think they are another gender than what biology has determined they are.

Parenting. It all comes down to parenting. They're not being encouraged to be another gender, they're being encouraged to be accepting of those that are different to them.

Adults can be whoever they want to be, that is their choice as someone who has matured to adulthood. A child is not mature enough to make these decisions. I'm all for treating all people the same. I don't support hate speech, I don't support wrecking of Target or Bud Light displays in protest. But I also don't support manipulating the minds of the most impressionable people on the planet to make them believe they are something they probably aren't. I certainly don't support them getting drug or surgical treatment to affirm what they were manipulated to be.

P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G

Gender dysmorphia is a mental health issue and should be studied and treated as such, with a lot counseling and in some cases medication. We don't affirm suicidal people by telling them to just go jump off a bridge. So why are we affirming people that think they are a member of the opposite sex with medical science and transforming them? If all of this were so natural, then why doesn't the ability to change gender naturally occur? I couldn't have been done 100 years ago. It's only now with the medical science it can be done.

Interesting point ... but ... trans people have actually been around for centuries. History has proven this and it's occurred in many societies over centuries. Like you said, science is now at the point where people can fully transition.

Yet, it still can't provide reproductive organs or change chromosomes. It's all fake and covered up.

See, I'm going to read into this a little bit here, it almost feels like you're saying "a person isn't a specific gender unless they can have children". So if a woman can't have children (like my partner) does that mean she's not a woman?

It's putting on a mask to hide from reality. It addressing insanity with more insanity.

No ... just no.

But when we point these things out, we are written off as bigots. We aren't bigots, we're thinking with a clear and rational mind.

Clear mind? No ... if you were thinking clearly you'd see more than just "it's a mental disorder" Do your research.

We are tired of being told we have to accept it. We sure as hell are tired of our children being manipulated.

Then be a **** parent and guide your child instead of leaving it to media.

NeonPrime wrote:So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior". Rise of the Beasts would be a great opportunity to show support for the "animal lovers" out there.

If it's just about promoting different lifestyles then promote them all, including heterosexuals. I'll tell you why. Because it's not about Pride it's about bloated companies trying to remain commercially viable by boosting their CEI scores and targeting to children. And for the record, Gays Against Groomers, who OBVIOUSLY don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" aren't all for this.

You hear how stupid you sound yeah?

No, I don't hear how stupid we sound. All I see are well-articulated points from those opposed to promoting woke LGBTQ&%$#@?!=+++ agendas to CHILDREN.

What I find stupid is that those who DO PROMOTE marketing sexuality to children simply quote the well-articulated points and reply with "You Biggot, you stoopid, you no parent good, and me OFFENDED!" That's just lazy.

muddyjoe wrote:The perverts are at it again.... preying on the children. There's nothing to be be proud of in violating the laws of God and taking a chance on eternal damnation.

Sir this is a toy forum, not your weekly revival get-together.

OooOooooooo scary rainbows gonna turn the kids gay!! As if that’s how it works. There’s not a single, utter thing wrong with these (honestly cool as hell) shirts. The only thing there is is misplaced religious handwringing.

Y’all really think Optimus Prime would be anti-gay? Something something Freedom is the right of all sentient beings?

Dr. Caelus wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

So what about minor-attracted people, bestiality, or necrophiliacs? They don't adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and are treated as "inferior".

A lesbian wants to have sex with a woman. Can you really not discern the difference between a woman and a girl? An animal? A corpse? Is the line between woman and corpse really blurry enough for you to see that as a slippery slope?

If it's just about promoting different lifestyles then promote them all, including heterosexuals.

They said it's about promoting acceptance of different lifestyles; do you feel you're no longer accepted somewhere because of your heterosexuality?[/qu

Are you assuming my sexuality and lifestyle? Biggot. I'm simply saying don't push it on children.

No, but I think he'd consider pushing it on children and those who disagree "Peace through tyrany" lol

NeonPrime wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:]They said it's about promoting acceptance of different lifestyles; do you feel you're no longer accepted somewhere because of your heterosexuality?

Are you assuming my sexuality and lifestyle?

Yes, I am.

NeonPrime wrote:No, but I think he'd consider pushing it on children and those who disagree "Peace through tyrany" lol

It's a t-shirt. If Megatron had attempted to win over Cybertron through t-shirts, I'm pretty sure we'd agree the guy shooting at him was the tyrant.

I feel the need to say something witty yet relevant...

"Wars are started by the people who have a problem with others who may actually be completely harmless"

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote: And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

The "+" means "positive".

Ahhhhh, gotcha. A little piece of ignorance has been replaced with a little bit of knowing...

Maybe if you're talking about batteries. In this case + is for all other groups yet to come forward and be included and assigned an ANACHROYM, not a synonym. See the letters are anachronyms NOT synonyms. Your ignorance has now been replaced with knowing.

I also don't see anyone addressing Gays Against Groomers. This a community of LGTBQ members who OPPOSE marketing any sexual lifestyles to children. Are they homophobes, bigots, bad parents?!

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote: And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

The "+" means "positive".

Ahhhhh, gotcha. A little piece of ignorance has been replaced with a little bit of knowing...

Maybe if you're talking about batteries. In this case + is for all other groups yet to come forward and be included and assigned an ANACHROYM, not a synonym. See the letters are anachronyms NOT synonyms. Your ignorance has now been replaced with knowing.

"+" = HIV Positive.

For antigays this is like putting a bunch of drug references and maybe a DBZ Master Roshi style playboy mag in a few episodes of Rescue Bots lol.

Anyway, if the left wants to be more inclusive they should put a H for "Hetero" or S for "Straight" in there acronym stuff so its not such an exclusive club, that would really get em started!

"Yes, as a Hetero I feel left out!/Where is my celebration month?"

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote: And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

The "+" means "positive".

Ahhhhh, gotcha. A little piece of ignorance has been replaced with a little bit of knowing...

Maybe if you're talking about batteries. In this case + is for all other groups yet to come forward and be included and assigned an ANACHROYM, not a synonym. See the letters are anachronyms NOT synonyms. Your ignorance has now been replaced with knowing.

You mean "Acronym" And there are synonyms in there, tho not one-for-one.

Anyhow, LGBTQIA+ (Can anyone name them all?) is simply an aspect of a personal life style, nothing more, nothing less. Yet too many people correlate that to certain (unrelated) behaviors to the point of prejudice. And it's that prejudice, among other things, we keep on fighting.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:*points above to a few posts* And that's why we keep getting merch like this

Seriously though, Pride Month is all about promoting acceptance of people who do not adhere to the "heterosexual norm" and as such are treated as "inferior" while they are not. Nothing more, nothing less. And I'm all for that!

You ARE inferior... Soundwave is supererior.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:I feel the need to say something witty yet relevant...

"Wars are started by the people who have a problem with others who may actually be completely harmless"

This isn't wit it's narcissistic banter. Americans started the war of independence with Brittain over freedom and I HIGHLY DOUBT anyone would consider either side "harmless".

zko wrote:For antigays this is like putting a bunch of drug references and maybe a DBZ Master Roshi style playboy mag in a few episodes of Rescue Bots lol.

Anyway, if the left wants to be more inclusive they should put a H for "Hetero" or S for "Straight" in there acronym stuff so its not such an exclusive club, that would really get em started!

"Yes, as a Hetero I feel left out!/Where is my celebration month?"

This has never been about anti-gay. It's always been about anti-grooming. You know, sexualizing children. No one gives two shits and a shamrock shake what adults do behind closed doors. It's when you start pushing it on children that it becomes a problem.

NeonPrime wrote:No, I don't hear how stupid we sound. All I see are well-articulated points from those opposed to promoting woke LGBTQ&%$#@?!=+++ agendas to CHILDREN.

It's a t-shirt and tote bag, or one character in one cartoon, you, and all those who are speaking out like you, make it out to be constantly in your face. It's bordering on hysteria the way some people are going off their tits over it.

What I find stupid is that those who DO PROMOTE marketing sexuality to children simply quote the well-articulated points and reply with "You Biggot, you stoopid, you no parent good, and me OFFENDED!" That's just lazy.

Beauty pageants for children exist, and have done so for a very long time, they clearly sexualize the participants. No one bats an eyelid at that.

There's been a number of fashion lines that have put out clothing ranges for young children that clearly sexualize children. No one once bats an eyelid at that.

There has been a plethora of media that has placed teenagers in hetero-sexual situations. But no one bats an eyelid at that.

Children have been getting exposed to sexuality long before LGBTQI became mainstream media's latest fixation.

But no one, batted an eyelid at that.

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:

Jelze Bunnycat wrote: And the + is simply for whatever synonyms they come up with from what I've seen.

The "+" means "positive".

Ahhhhh, gotcha. A little piece of ignorance has been replaced with a little bit of knowing...

Maybe if you're talking about batteries. In this case + is for all other groups yet to come forward and be included and assigned an ANACHROYM, not a synonym. See the letters are anachronyms NOT synonyms. Your ignorance has now been replaced with knowing.

You mean "Acronym" And there are synonyms in there, tho not one-for-one.

Anyhow, LGBTQIA+ (Can anyone name them all?) is simply an aspect of a personal life style, nothing more, nothing less. Yet too many people correlate that to certain (unrelated) behaviors to the point of prejudice. And it's that prejudice, among other things, we keep on fighting.

Oh bless your heart, y'all sippin your coffee cause ya quick done looked it up, realized you were wrong about the sinonyms (there's another lil bone fer ya to spellcheck and sip yer coffeee over) BUT caught a spelling error. So now how about y'all look up Gays Against Grooming on the facebook or google and tell me how they're bigots and prejudiced. Because they don't support sexualizing kids? Because that's the oppositions main point.

You keep on fighting? Didn't you say wars are started over people who are harmless? If you're pro grooming kids then wouldn't make those anti grooming kids harmless? Wow, what a biggoted lil bully YOU are.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is like the opposition? Because at the end of the day pro grooming companies like Target are losing BILLIONS because the "bigots" have had enough. IF....and that's A BIG IF... your team is as big as you and the MSM think you are( here's a hint: you're not) then you should be able to financially save them. And thus prove your superiority over those pesky transphobic anti gays. ... ...

Transformers stand for all! Say it with me!

NeonPrime wrote: BUT caught a spelling error.

To be fair, you misspelled the word "acronym" twice while complaining about what letters you think go into a particular acronym, and you did it in all caps.

So it's pretty funny.

Burn wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:No, I don't hear how stupid we sound. All I see are well-articulated points from those opposed to promoting woke LGBTQ&%$#@?!=+++ agendas to CHILDREN.

It's a t-shirt and tote bag, or one character in one cartoon, you, and all those who are speaking out like you, make it out to be constantly in your face. It's bordering on hysteria the way some people are going off their tits over it.

What I find stupid is that those who DO PROMOTE marketing sexuality to children simply quote the well-articulated points and reply with "You Biggot, you stoopid, you no parent good, and me OFFENDED!" That's just lazy.

Beauty pageants for children exist, and have done so for a very long time, they clearly sexualize the participants. No one bats an eyelid at that.

There's been a number of fashion lines that have put out clothing ranges for young children that clearly sexualize children. No one once bats an eyelid at that.

There has been a plethora of media that has placed teenagers in hetero-sexual situations. But no one bats an eyelid at that.

Children have been getting exposed to sexuality long before LGBTQI became mainstream media's latest fixation.

But no one batted an eyelid at that.

That's not true. People absolutely batted more than an eye at beauty pageants sexualizing children. It first came to light back in the 90s over the sus death of JonBenét Ramsey. I would say the biggest call to arms was in 2020 when Netflix dropped the movie Cuties.

As for heterosexually explicit outrage go back to 1995 when the movie Kids was released. The backlash was immediate and fierce. Even Natalie Portman's Leon: The Professional drew backlash. Not to mention Disney and Nickelodeon's programming. Dan Schneider and Jennette McCurdy anyone. Oh, and there was also the whole Woody Allen/Soon Yi scandal and Roman Polanski's 13-year-old rape controversy. And not unlike today, EVERYONE....and I do mean EVERYONE who called it out was labeled a Bible thumper, prude, tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, and in modern times a MAGA retard by mainstream media liberals.

Hell, there were federal communication guidelines that PROHIBITED corporations from marketing to kids. That's why Saturday morning cartoons in the 70s featured PSAs and educational bumpers such as School House Rock in between programs.

It wasn't until the early 80s when legislation was passed that deregulated content created for children allowing for the three-prong attack (cartoons, comics, and toys) immediately embraced by companies like Hasbro to market directly and push agendas geared towards children directly. Parent AND child advocacy groups (Mr. Rogers/Captain Kangaroo among others)lobbied hard to protect children from such heinous brainwashing. Sex and violence and all of its forms.

For you to say that no one batted an eye until the gays got involved is irresponsible and unadulterated bullshit.

You are either misinformed (so go look it up) or egocentrically stupid. I don't know you from Adam OR Eve Or Whatever so I'll reserve the right to judge for now.

NeonPrime wrote:For you to say that no one batted an eye until the gays got involved is irresponsible and unadulterated bullshit.

I raised a point, you countered with a couple of examples.

And what came of all that then? It still goes on. The outrage died down.

You call what I said irresponsible and unadulterated bullshit? I have been cordial and respectful in my interactions with you. You however have been nothing but hostile and dismissive in your replies to not only myself, but others.

Thus proving to me, trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is pointless and you won't be respecting to the opinions of others that differ to yours.

Burn wrote:

NeonPrime wrote:For you to say that no one batted an eye until the gays got involved is irresponsible and unadulterated bullshit.

I raised a point, you countered with a couple of examples.

And what came of all that then? It still goes on. The outrage died down.

You call what I said irresponsible and unadulterated bullshit? I have been cordial and respectful in my interactions with you. You however have been nothing but hostile and dismissive in your replies to not only myself, but others.

Thus proving to me, trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is pointless and you won't be respecting to the opinions of others that differ to yours.

The outrage hasn't died down. In fact, I'd say it's only begun again with more intensity. That's why Target has lost 13 BILLION dollars in what, a week and a half.

Yes, I did and it is. I and others conflicting with your view provided facts and truth. All you can do to counter this is by the classic narcissistic and shallow trick of gaslighting. You and the others have not been cordial and respectful to me or any of those who disagree and intelligently and articulately state our point of view. You've been smug and arrogant, quoting our critically thought-out points and then replying with mere "bigots" quips. I don't recall anyone calling you that. Your side has revealed itself as little more than real-life coffee-sipping emoticons. To quote the great Harland Ellison " You don't have the right to an opinion, You have the right to your informed opinion." For the record, I did NOT agree with all of Mr. Ellison's informed opinions but damn it, I sure as hell respected them.

All you and those on the left seem to be able to do is play the victim.

That said I will promise you this...if you can provide and articulate and informed opinion I still might not agree with you BUT I sure as hell will respect you for it.

Til all are one

Dr. Caelus wrote:If Megatron had attempted to win over Cybertron through t-shirts, I'm pretty sure we'd agree the guy shooting at him was the tyrant.

Your analogy may have merit, though I don't think the LGBT community itself wants to take over the world.
Considering Megatron's intentions and endgame, the guy shooting at him would have been the good guy.
Do you consider Optimus Prime to be a tyrant?

Dr. Caelus wrote:

NeonPrime wrote: BUT caught a spelling error.

To be fair, you misspelled the word "acronym" twice while complaining about what letters you think go into a particular acronym, and you did it in all caps.

So it's pretty funny.[/quote

Did I?

Anacronym is an acronym the original meaning of which is not known to most speakers.

Think about it within the context of this thread.

Last time I checked laughter was still the best medicine as well as a way of making a point

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:If Megatron had attempted to win over Cybertron through t-shirts, I'm pretty sure we'd agree the guy shooting at him was the tyrant.

Your analogy may have merit, though I don't think the LGBT community itself wants to take over the world.
Considering Megatron's intentions and endgame, the guy shooting at him would have been the good guy.
Do you consider Optimus Prime to be a tyrant?

It was marketing to and potentially grooming kids that caused the outrage.
The Gays Against Groomers group opposes this stuff and they can't be bigots or homophobes.

Megatron as well as all Decepticons thought they were the good guys. They were "working class" bots who wanted freedom from the bureaucrats. And there were reluctant Autobots who questioned Prime's motives.

NeonPrime wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Dr. Caelus wrote:If Megatron had attempted to win over Cybertron through t-shirts, I'm pretty sure we'd agree the guy shooting at him was the tyrant.

Your analogy may have merit, though I don't think the LGBT community itself wants to take over the world.
Considering Megatron's intentions and endgame, the guy shooting at him would have been the good guy.
Do you consider Optimus Prime to be a tyrant?

It was marketing to and potentially grooming kids that caused the outrage.
The Gays Against Groomers group opposes this stuff and they can't be bigots or homophobes.

Yes, they can. I'm not saying they are, but that's like saying blacks can't be racist.

Megatron as well as all Decepticons thought they were the good guys. They were "working class" bots who wanted freedom from the bureaucrats. And there were reluctant Autobots who questioned Prime's motives.

Disagree. There were at least some that had less noble motives. Megatron might not have started as 1 of them, but he very quickly took a liking to them. Hence how he ended up their leader. If he had come to the NAILs and the Autobots with t-shirts bearing the Decepticon emblem and claiming to be for peace and freedom, if they were smart (which a lot were) they would have asked what his further ambitions and goals were.

Burn wrote:Parenting. It all comes down to parenting. They're not being encouraged to be another gender, they're being encouraged to be accepting of those that are different to them.

Do you seriously think there aren't parents out there that are encouraging their children to be trans, non-binary, or whatever else? Have you seen the parents at youth sports that emotionally tear down their child because they didn't play to their expectations? Have you seen the parents that force their children in to dancing or acting to try to make them in to a star? Why do these parents do these things? Because the parents want to be special. Because they weren't, they are forcing it on their children. So now we have T+ where they can just groom their own children to be special, something different than the normies. But hey, don't listen to me. Go look at the "reality star" that has 4 queer kids. If that's all natural, that lady should be playing lotto with winning those odds.

Lets talk about "sexualization of minors".

When I was very, very small, I proposed marriage to our pastor's daughter during our Sunday school class. I promised she would have apple pies and a mustang convertible (someday). She declined my proposal and I accepted that. No one ever really questioned, though, where a small boy had learned the concept of courtship (however clumsy or transactionary it might have been).

When I was a little older, I was drafted to serve as a ringbearer in my uncle's wedding. They dressed me in a little tux, just like the men in the wedding party, and people raved over how 'handsome' I was. I don't really recall anyone pointing out that a wedding is a tradition celebrating a sexual union between two people, and that I'd been costumed up for the ceremony to look like a miniature copy of the groom.

My favorite movies in elementary school were Robin Hood and Three Musketeers. I remember reading the slow-pitch junior novelizations of them. I loved the romance as well as the action, and dreamed of being the debonaire swashbuckler sweeping damsels off their feet. I even dressed up as D'artagnan for Halloween in fifth grade, hoping the person I had a crush on would be impressed. They were not, but I also don't remember anyone objected to a minor admiring a romantic hero.

Morgana Macawber, Tenel Ka, and Blackarachnia. Enough said, I think.

When I got older, I read Shadows of the Empire, Courtship of Princess Leia, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Glory Road. Very little objection to the content in those books.

And throughout there were Valentine's Day parties, dances, etc., where everyone was supposed to be preoccupied with who liked who and who was going where with whom.

And the transition to actual dating was sort of especially memorable for me because the day in seventh grade that I got an official girlfriend was the day all of those totally innocent and 'unsexualized' minors stopped calling me a 'fag' (or other permutations thereof). Of course, no one had ever been overly bothered that the other kids knew that word or wondered where they had heard it.

This is to say nothing of the incessant reminders that I was a boy and the extensive instruction from society in general on what expectations that entailed at that time and what it would entail in the future.

So, between the deep-baked traditions of Christian America, the movies based on centuries old romance stories, the cartoons with their comical will-they-or-won't-theys, the geeky scifi novels, the school dances, and the stupid candy hearts no one should ever actually eat, I feel like I was pretty thoroughly 'sexualized' by my 18th birthday.

But somehow, that sort of indoctrination, that pervasive, nonstop, in-your-face reinforcement of 'this is what we do' never really raises any concerns, except among - maybe - those parents who are trying to raise their chidren with no knowledge of sex beyond, 'The wife submits to her husband.'

Instead, people lose their minds over a grown man wearing a rainbow shirt or a cartoon character not identifying with either of the two most popular genders, because they believe that simple awareness of the lack of universal condemnation of same sex marriage, trans* people, or nonbinary individuals will suddenly 'sexualize' their children.

Also, people all shook because a pair of lesbians made a (profitable) group propagating hateful rhetoric targeting gay men and transwomen need to brush up on their history.

For God's sakes, the group's acronym is "GAG". Do you really not get it?

Dr. Caelus wrote:Lets talk about "sexualization of minors".

When I was very, very small, I proposed marriage to our pastor's daughter during our Sunday school class. I promised she would have apple pies and a mustang convertible (someday). She declined my proposal and I accepted that. No one ever really questioned, though, where a small boy had learned the concept of courtship (however clumsy or transactionary it might have been).

When I was a little older, I was drafted to serve as a ringbearer in my uncle's wedding. They dressed me in a little tux, just like the men in the wedding party, and people raved over how 'handsome' I was. I don't really recall anyone pointing out that a wedding is a tradition celebrating a sexual union between two people, and that I'd been costumed up for the ceremony to look like a miniature copy of the groom.

My favorite movies in elementary school were Robin Hood and Three Musketeers. I remember reading the slow-pitch junior novelizations of them. I loved the romance as well as the action, and dreamed of being the debonaire swashbuckler sweeping damsels off their feet. I even dressed up as D'artagnan for Halloween in fifth grade, hoping the person I had a crush on would be impressed. They were not, but I also don't remember anyone objected to a minor admiring a romantic hero.

Morgana Macawber, Tenel Ka, and Blackarachnia. Enough said, I think.

When I got older, I read Shadows of the Empire, Courtship of Princess Leia, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Glory Road. Very little objection to the content in those books.

And throughout there were Valentine's Day parties, dances, etc., where everyone was supposed to be preoccupied with who liked who and who was going where with whom.

And the transition to actual dating was sort of especially memorable for me because the day in seventh grade that I got an official girlfriend was the day all of those totally innocent and 'unsexualized' minors stopped calling me a 'fag' (or other permutations thereof). Of course, no one had ever been overly bothered that the other kids knew that word or wondered where they had heard it.

This is to say nothing of the incessant reminders that I was a boy and the extensive instruction from society in general on what expectations that entailed at that time and what it would entail in the future.

So, between the deep-baked traditions of Christian America, the movies based on centuries old romance stories, the cartoons with their comical will-they-or-won't-theys, the geeky scifi novels, the school dances, and the stupid candy hearts no one should ever actually eat, I feel like I was pretty thoroughly 'sexualized' by my 18th birthday.

But somehow, that sort of indoctrination, that pervasive, nonstop, in-your-face reinforcement of 'this is what we do' never really raises any concerns, except among - maybe - those parents who are trying to raise their chidren with no knowledge of sex beyond, 'The wife submits to her husband.'

Instead, people lose their minds over a grown man wearing a rainbow shirt or a cartoon character not identifying with either of the two most popular genders, because they believe that simple awareness of the lack of universal condemnation of same sex marriage, trans* people, or nonbinary individuals will suddenly 'sexualize' their children.

This.