#HetrosexualPrideDay

[Trunkage]

Probably because people don't really like to be blamed for something they had nothing to do with.

Who's being blamed and what didn't they have anything to do with?

White people in general being blamed for minorities having a shitty life, instead of specific people. Same thing with straight people and homosexuals.
Happens mostly on the internet though.

I understand the need to point out specifics or specific people. But if you are blaming one person (or small group individuals), things quickly become personal. In my country, on the weekend, we voted a racist in two seats of our senate. Now, pointing out how the policies are racist just serves to reinforce her beliefs and encourages her supporters to fight harder. Look at the Brexit. The approval of that idea has increased racial violence by 5 times.

Like most things on the Internet, proving someone that they are wrong, just makes them believe more ferverently

As to white people making minorities' lives more difficult, whose in jail more white or minorities? Much of it is because white people get lighter sentences and cops more likely to check out what minority is doing because monorities are "more" likely to do the wrong thing. Reporting style of crime negatively impacts minorities because, once again, they are "more" likely to do the wrong thing. We, as white people, need to help change that system or we should be blame for making thier lives worse.

As a side note, Mexican immigrants are almost five times LESS likely to commit crimes in the US than naturalised citizens of all races. But they are being seen as part of the problem. That misinformed prejudice has already built a fence along the border and Trump wants to turn that into a wall.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Straight people, white people, gay people, black people...etc..etc.

This doesn't address a single thing I said.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about people I've met or spoken to. I'm talking about people I've spoken to on the internet and vidoes I've seen of people.

Riiiiiight. So it has no relevance to what anyone's talking about here?

I'm not saying all gay people or all black people or whatever.

You are, however, generalising arguments.

My whole point as I have said over and over again is that generalizing and stereotyping is idiotic.

Speaking generally is not idiotic. However, if you feel it's an issue, don't do it.

Just to be clear, you responded to Phasmal saying straight pride is an issue because people are tired of being blamed by some nondescript people that you've allegedly met. So are you seriously expecting me to believe it had no connection or relevance to the person you directly quoted?

We'll have to agree to disagree, you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about at all.
Maybe I'm unclear or not, but this is becoming tiring.

For the record, the only relevance and connection to anything I said had to Phasmal was what Phasmal herself/himself said.

Good night.

 

[Something Amyss]

We'll have to agree to disagree, you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about at all.

To the contrary, I'm trying to get you to see the problem with your position. You are using general terms to talk about how it's idiotic for people to use general terms. And you're responding to someone who was talking in a specific context, but saying it's not related to that context, but rather some alleged people you have talked to in the past.

I suspect these people are as real as that atheist in the airport that every Christian apologist seems to run into.

But again, the fact that you used general terms to address these things indicates that you can intuitively infer the difference between using general terms and speaking to all people in a group. Go with that feeling.

For the record, the only relevance and connection to anything I said had to Phasmal was what Phasmal herself/himself said.

You mean the straight girl, who thus far in threads like this has agreed with my points, the ones you don't seem to think are relevant, but seem to be the exact core of the comment you responded to?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Phasmal probably is as confused about the relevance to her post as I am. It just seems she's the figurehead for the #notallstraightpeople arguments somehow.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Based on? Because based on the polling and reactions I've seen, there isn't much in the way of

Where do you live, quote source of your polls. If you live in Europe than you straight up lie.
I've seen a lot of different reactions by individuals in my life but I'm sane and mature enough to not be a bigot and judge everyone by actions of minority.

Well, this wasn't aimed at me, but I'll go ahead and respond anyway:

I don't care. Neither attitude is good. Morgan Freeman is wrong. He was preaching that we stop looking at race at a time where he lived in a state actively curtailing his rights as a...well, I don't see race, and he doesn't want me to call him black, so I guess if his skull gets busted open by a cop shouting the N-word at him, I can't really say anything. I mean, Freeman has the luxury of being rich. He can move. Money somewhat protects him (though you've got plenty more black celebrities who can attest to how money doesn't solve all your racial problems).

You have all the right to not care but that doesn't mean you are right in slightest outside of your mind. Nor it makes mr Freeman wrong. What you siad about him is vile but flawed and easily torn down as an argument. He doesn't need to be black to deserve protection from ANYONE trying to bust his skull open. He is a human being. That's enough.
His money wasn't gifted or stolen. He earned it. No matter if that makes you all green in the face, that you failed to do so with your life. Get over your envy. Ofcourse he does enjoy things you don't because he worked for them and was successful in it, where many failed.

He overcome and achieved more with his life than most. Let this fact sink it. Perhaps you could show some grown up respect to that he is capable of postulating egalitarianism among people instead of slight like you just did.

Except, weirdly, that didn't work for decades. Are you sure "win" isn't a way of saying "I don't have to hear about it anymore?"

Have you tried? I have a gay friend who does act and 'win' in this way over assholes. Hell I learned that from him to get over myself being ridiculed. Because there will always be such individuals that will try. I also have a jewish friend who does the same with distasteful jokes about her heritage, even though she spent her youth 'fighting rightiously' to protect it. I wonder which decades you lived in 'gramps' which you bring up your experience from. In last 4 I lived in, yes this works the best among intelligent people.


I can only re-iterate. Being a non-heterosexual is normal = nothing special, be sure to nurse that valuable equality state, instead of pressuring to make it stand out and be 'special'. Perhaps I should also add, pray (literraly or not) that you don't actually live up to times where it isn't true anyomore or that you aren't forced to live in one of current theocratic states (as few members of my family) where this isn't true right now.

 

[Parasondox]

How about all of us try something that seems to be rare but really isnt. Lose the stubbornness and hatred and embrace the love and acceptance of each other no matter their sexual orientation, colour of their skin, the gods they worship or dont worship, where they were born and what gender they are. Just have more repect for each other and understand that with over 7 billion people on this planet, each one will be different to the next. Learn from that, respect it and love living life.

Is that too difficult to ask?

 

[Thaluikhain]

You have all the right to not care but that doesn't mean you are right in slightest outside of your mind. Nor it makes mr Freeman wrong. What you siad about him is vile but flawed and easily torn down as an argument. He doesn't need to be black to deserve protection from ANYONE trying to bust his skull open. He is a human being. That's enough.
His money wasn't gifted or stolen. He earned it. No matter if that makes you all green in the face, that you failed to do so with your life. Get over your envy. Ofcourse he does enjoy things you don't because he worked for them and was successful in it, where many failed.

He overcome and achieved more with his life than most. Let this fact sink it. Perhaps you could show some grown up respect to that he is capable of postulating egalitarism among people instead of slight like you just did.

That has little to do with Something Amyss's point, nor does Freeman's success make him beyond criticism.

Of course he deserves protection, the same as everyone else, but in a very large part it's being rich that actually gives it to him.

I can only re-iterate. Being a non-heterosexual is normal = nothing special, be sure to nurse that valuable equality state, instead of pressuring to make it stand out and be 'special'. Perhaps I should also add, pray (literraly or not) that you don't actually live up to times where it isn't true anyomore or that you aren't forced to live in one of current theocratic states (as few members of my family) where this isn't true right now.

Excepting that it's not seen as normal, and is seen as being special in a very bad way by large numbers of people throughout the West and beyond.

Sure, it'd be nice if LGBT activists didn't have to fight to gain and maintain rights, but that's not the world we live in.

 

[Dollabillyall]

I've seen a couple of times in my quick glances at this thread the argument that cisgendered people and especially of the white male variety have not been bullied or oppressed ever.

Its simply not true. The radical SJW movement has made cis white males, regardless of their individual persons, the stooge for everything that is wrong with the world. The SJW movement is bringing reverse racism, sexism and homophobia with it instead of true egalitarianism. The entire vocabulary is borrowed and/or stolen from marxist class warfare ideology causing the opposite of love and understanding since according to class warfare ideology the only way to progress is by utterly annihilating "the other" before the Ideal can be reached. There are millions of straight white men who had an identity thrusted upon them by the same people that are warring against them over it. This would not be important if the SJW movement did not have significant power or impact, but it does. Universities, the media, the internet, the workplace and even the home... in all sections of society they have gained power and are continuing the ideal of "destroying" the enemy identified as the cis white male in most cases.
Examples of the excesses of this process are aplenty and feed the hard core reactionaries in harnessing the identity that the SJW movement created for their own political and social goals.

The SJW movement created its own enemy by doing this. Instead of preaching love, tolerance and understanding for all people they preached class warfare and forced a gigantic portion of "neutrals" into the enemy camp. Now we are stuck with bullshit like hetero pride while instead the SJW movement could have been working to get neutrals to celebrate the gay pride.

bit of a rant but fuck it, im off to work

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

That has little to do with Something Amyss's point, nor does Freeman's success make him beyond criticism.

Of course he deserves protection, the same as everyone else, but in a very large part it's being rich that actually gives it to him.

That is part of the problem, there is no point in whole resentment and envy Amyss' posting oogles with.
I am happy that you agree that it is sufficient to be a human being to have human rights protected. Yet you just repeat baseless assertion about mr Freeman. Someone who grew up in state where till 1950s it still was possible to be lynched just for his skin colour, who seen 8 decades worth of changes in his countries and who - YES - despite his circumstances grew to wealth and power that comes with it... such person is better suited to tell what is needed to end racism, than bunch of MTV grown kids born in 90s or later.

Excepting that it's not seen as normal, and is seen as being special in a very bad way by large numbers of people throughout the West and beyond.

Sure, it'd be nice if LGBT activists didn't have to fight to gain and maintain rights, but that's not the world we live in.

Really which western state segregates and penalizes non-heterosexuals or executes them for immorality. There are some states right now that do that mind you. How many activists died last week fighting to protect these victims?
You use war-like rhetoric because you do not know war nor most of people that call themselves 'activists' even understand what they have right now. How about peaceful law reforms and execution of civil rights already in place.

Have a closer look at how exactly communist, facists and nazi movements were born after the WW1. At start these weren't people youngs imagine nor WW2 chronicles show. They were a bunch of war victims, neglected and betrayed veterans, abused failures maligned in their poverty that felt that they were wronged (yet again), enraged that state didn't protect their rights, that their race/class/nation was opressed and wronged. They demanded retribution and compensation, not equality, because all of the suffering required... more than that. And best part is, they actually were poor and abused minorities (at start), unfortunate to be led by 'great' leaders to do most despicable and horrific things in human history in name of obtaining what they felt their victimhood entitled them to...

I'd take Morgan Freeman's remedy over such course of 'justice' any day of the week.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yet you just repeat baseless assertion about mr Freeman.

I have made three assertions about him

That he is not beyond criticism
That he deserves protection
That being rich is largely what gives it to him

Which of those do you disagree with?

Really which western state segregates and penalizes non-heterosexuals or executes them for immorality. There are some states right now that do that mind you.

Yes, and? That western nations don't execute people for being LGBT isn't setting the bar very far.

Have a closer look at how exactly communist, facists and nazi movements were born after the WW1. At start these weren't people youngs imagine nor WW2 chronicles show. They were a bunch of war victims, neglected and betrayed veterans, abused failures maligned in their poverty that felt that they were wronged (yet again), enraged that state didn't protect their rights, that their race/class/nation was opressed and wronged. They demanded retribution and compensation, not equality, because all of the suffering required... more than that. And best part is, they actually were poor and abused minorities (at start), unfortunate to be led by 'great' leaders to do most despicable and horrific things in human history in name of obtaining what they felt their victimhood entitled them to...

Yes, and? If we are looking for comparisons to Nazism, there is a side of the argument over LGBT rights that does come to mind, but it's not people wanting them to have them.

I'd take Morgan Freeman's remedy over such course of 'justice' any day of the week.

Yes, oddly enough most people would prefer not doing anything over Nazism. However, it's whether or not they'd prefer not doing anything to equality for LGBT people that's rather more relevant.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That is part of the problem, there is no point in whole resentment and envy Amyss' posting oogles with.
I am happy that you agree that it is sufficient to be a human being to have human rights protected. Yet you just repeat baseless assertion about mr Freeman. Someone who grew up in state where till 1950s it still was possible to be lynched just for his skin colour, who seen 8 decades worth of changes in his countries and who - YES - despite his circumstances grew to wealth and power that comes with it... such person is better suited to tell what is needed to end racism, than bunch of MTV grown kids born in 90s or later.

So what about all those people who disagree, and experienced the same turmoil? Martin Luther King advocated socialism and civil disobedience. Surely then his words carry more weight than Freeman's because he was actually killed for his beliefs. Also, I was totally an 80s kid. I remember (barely) the Wall coming down. I was too young to enjoy grunge and way too young to recognise it was crap.

If I were an American, I'd be a Reganaut.

Really which western state segregates and penalizes non-heterosexuals or executes them for immorality. There are some states right now that do that mind you. How many activists died last week fighting to protect these victims?

So unless we're getting murdered by the state, nothing is wrong with the world? Also, just wait a second ... so in order to be an activist in the domestic sphere, you must go somewhere else? Also, did you just pull out a; "Starving kids in Africa..." argument?

You use war-like rhetoric because you do not know war nor most of people that call themselves 'activists' even understand what they have right now. How about peaceful law reforms and execution of civil rights already in place.

Which rhetoric? I'm not seeing anything remotely 'war-like' in Thaluikhan's words. I was in the army, not remotely seeing anything 'war-like' ... and I've met some overeager nationalists. 'Course this was back when there was a slight possibility of a Konfrontasi v2.0 ... in fact, the most violent people I've met are those trying to defend some barely coherent definition of the status quo.

Have a closer look at how exactly communist, facists and nazi movements were born after the WW1. At start these weren't people youngs imagine nor WW2 chronicles show. They were a bunch of war victims, neglected and betrayed veterans, abused failures maligned in their poverty that felt that they were wronged (yet again), enraged that state didn't protect their rights, that their race/class/nation was opressed and wronged.

Which describes every revolutionary struggle. Moreover, if the state is willing to simply give in to pressure from some group, armed revolution isn't often the result anyways. Violent revolution happens because conflict escalation happens. Philippine Revolution against Marcos is an example of peaceful revolution. Little conflict escalation. A few violent engagements, but sporadic, tiny in number and localised.

The InterFET is also an example where two opposing military forces can even settle for a bloodless secession (eventually). Rampant hostilities, then organised de-escalation despite additional potential belligerents. When peaceful options find purchase, they are often embarked upon.

They demanded retribution and compensation, not equality, because all of the suffering required... more than that. And best part is, they actually were poor and abused minorities (at start), unfortunate to be led by 'great' leaders to do most despicable and horrific things in human history in name of obtaining what they felt their victimhood entitled them to...

I'd take Morgan Freeman's remedy over such course of 'justice' any day of the week.

I'm sorry, which LGBTQ activists here have advocated for violent revolution? Like, just one person. Point.

 

[minkus_draconus]

[snip]
As a person in a heterosexual relationship, fuck me this is embarrassing. We are completely and utterly accepted. We don't have to worry about being kicked out of our houses or sent to camps for being straight. We don't have to worry about being shot for it.

[snip]

There is one group of straight people who still get hate and abuse and I suspect in the worong place violence. Interracial couples.

 

[Phasmal]

[snip]
As a person in a heterosexual relationship, fuck me this is embarrassing. We are completely and utterly accepted. We don't have to worry about being kicked out of our houses or sent to camps for being straight. We don't have to worry about being shot for it.

[snip]

There is one group of straight people who still get hate and abuse and I suspect in the worong place violence. Interracial couples.

Well, yes, true. But that's not just for being straight, it's because of racism.

 

[minkus_draconus]

This seems to be the part that humans get wrong all the time. Because really, at the end of the day, You do You and I'll do Me is really the best policy.

Sounds like National Masturbation Pride Day to me.

Mutual Masturbation Pride Day.

 

[Avnger]

[snip]
As a person in a heterosexual relationship, fuck me this is embarrassing. We are completely and utterly accepted. We don't have to worry about being kicked out of our houses or sent to camps for being straight. We don't have to worry about being shot for it.

[snip]

There is one group of straight people who still get hate and abuse and I suspect in the worong place violence. Interracial couples.

Very true but that is not at all due to their heterosexuality. Its due to their race =/

 

[minkus_draconus]

[snip]
As a person in a heterosexual relationship, fuck me this is embarrassing. We are completely and utterly accepted. We don't have to worry about being kicked out of our houses or sent to camps for being straight. We don't have to worry about being shot for it.

[snip]

There is one group of straight people who still get hate and abuse and I suspect in the worong place violence. Interracial couples.

Well, yes, true. But that's not just for being straight, it's because of racism.

Quite true.

This whole topic just made me reflect on the fact that without Loving Vs. Virginia I would have to hide my relationship, not be able to marry the one I love and possibly be assaulted, jailed or even killed. Some of these things happened even after those laws were declared unconstitutional. These things sound an awful lot like what LGBTQ people have suffered. While I can not say I have experienced the things the LGBTQ community has I think I can see where they are coming from and can empathize.

It took Alabama until 2000 to finally repeal it's laws officially and over half a million people voted to keep those laws at that time. Previous repeal attempts failed due to a majority of people voting to keep those laws.

I was not trying to make less of what LGBTQ people have suffered. It just made me think of one group of straight people (I'm sure interracial LGBTQ have it even worse) who had plenty of that treatment as well (we got a 40 year head start of the basics of legality).

We still get stared at, people react badly in public (and this is in the northern states), you hear comments.
It also lets you see how fucking all over the place racism still is. The two of us can go in the store and one will be followed around as if they need to keep an eye on "the good silver" and the other will be treated like some kind of visiting royalty (slight exaggeration). This happens in every part of the US and in every kind of store. A true eye opener and sign of the quality of management.

 

[minkus_draconus]

[snip]
As a person in a heterosexual relationship, fuck me this is embarrassing. We are completely and utterly accepted. We don't have to worry about being kicked out of our houses or sent to camps for being straight. We don't have to worry about being shot for it.

[snip]

There is one group of straight people who still get hate and abuse and I suspect in the worong place violence. Interracial couples.

Very true but that is not at all due to their heterosexuality. Its due to their race =/

Please see my response to Phasmal as it would be redundant to post that again.

 

[Street Halo]

Either you just missed my point completely, or you're being sneaky at roughly this level:

lol, Not sneaky but a reeding comprehenshun failure. Having re-read I'm still not entirely sure what you meant, care to dumb it down for me?

I have no idea why you made that comment. It has noting to do why my comment.

ANd if you care only about "Hate crimes"......

I mentioned the Asian site because you brought up "International Fetish Day" and I noticed The Escapists/other ad services label me an Asian fetishist because I view asian porn on occasion.

As for the hate crime statistics, I already stated I knew they'd lead that category so I'm not why why you're pointing it out to me. My main argument in all of this is being against us all separating off into little camps, playing the blame game and fighting amongst ourselves whilst the powers that be laugh at our antics...whilst nothing really changes.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

I have made three assertions about him

That he is not beyond criticism
That he deserves protection
That being rich is largely what gives it to him

Which of those do you disagree with?

That's not really what you asserted. You split it purposely now to make them seem unrelated and all true on their own. Assertation was that he can not understand how it is to not be protected due to him being rich and thus protected. It is completely false and anyone that would take a minute to look at Freeman's life can see that, me included.

Yes, and? That western nations don't execute people for being LGBT isn't setting the bar very far.

Problem being acting hostile towards people that make asshat pranks instead of directing the militant attitude toward actual threat. Antagonising somone that does at least try with "you're not trying hard enough!" all the while person next to him completely and uncontestedly does opposite of efforts and results you demand will not help you achive them.
That's something anyone with 2 or more kids or who is responsible for managing bigger team of people understands eventually. It applies here as well.

Yes, and? If we are looking for comparisons to Nazism, there is a side of the argument over LGBT rights that does come to mind, but it's not people wanting them to have them.

No, it's not simple mindless labelling things as 'nazism'. I called it up as an example of how badly can end up 'justified' causes of victimized groups of people if they start to feel entitled to more than equality - in short when they turn into exact mirror image of thing they fight against. And then might take a step further. It was ment as simple fact from history to learn on, not as a deterioration.
However you bring up a valid point for driving analogy further. The 'other side' to nazis where communists and vice versa. They did wind up one another but suprisingly victims of this conflict (regardless of who won in the particular country) where bystanders. Indifferent people who dared to not participate or mocked their 'righteous' efforts. Majority.

I'd take Morgan Freeman's remedy over such course of 'justice' any day of the week.

Yes, oddly enough most people would prefer not doing anything over Nazism. However, it's whether or not they'd prefer not doing anything to equality for LGBT people that's rather more relevant.

Freeman did not postulate 'not doing anything'. On contrary he does speak up when things are done wrong against people and their human rights (i.e. Baltimore). He spoke against 'special treatment', favourism and any form of new segragation from stand point of someone who did experience poverty and racial discrimination. I have a lot respect to a man who can tell a difference between having equality and taking 'revenge' for lack of equality. Especially that he could have personal grounds to follow the latter sentiment, yet he follows principle.

Sure I could argue that had he failed in life he would have been bitter and follow the suit with 'equality' via compensation route. However that is denying the man higher moral grounds based on presumption. Lastly should we really follow advices of bitter failures or successful kind people (however annoying their attitude may feel to someone 'less fortunate').

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

So what about all those people who disagree, and experienced the same turmoil? Martin Luther King advocated socialism and civil disobedience. Surely then his words carry more weight than Freeman's because he was actually killed for his beliefs. Also, I was totally an 80s kid. I remember (barely) the Wall coming down. I was too young to enjoy grunge and way too young to recognise it was crap.

If I were an American, I'd be a Reganaut.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character" looks like mr Freeman lives up to Martin Luther King Jr's words and carries on his legacy. Although he preached colour-blindness, so in current 'activist' standards making him a racist had he been white. I would not bring up this american civil rights hero trying to justify anyone's actions right now. Simply because as you noticed he is dead. He did not have a chance to see how things play out. Neither with civil rights fight nor with states trying to implement socialism and communism in practice. He did not see Mugabe's reign of terror or indifference and cowerdice of Dutch soldiers in face of genocide in Srebrenica. Neither I or you can tell how that would shape him. I just hope that neither of it would break him and make give up on his dream.

So unless we're getting murdered by the state, nothing is wrong with the world? Also, just wait a second ... so in order to be an activist in the domestic sphere, you must go somewhere else? Also, did you just pull out a; "Starving kids in Africa..." argument?

No it's don't cry 'I'm going to die!' because you got standard coke instead of light. Sure it's a problem to you and sure there could be worse situation than this. Just explain you got treated wrong (because hey unlike kids dying out of drought in Africa, you have all the possibility to do so, even if sometimes you get to hear 'f-ck off' instead of getting new coke). If you aren't complete dick about it, there's higher chance you may get a new coke... without a spit in it.
On more serious note, I explained this in previous post.

Which rhetoric? I'm not seeing anything remotely 'war-like' in Thaluikhan's words. I was in the army, not remotely seeing anything 'war-like' ... and I've met some overeager nationalists. 'Course this was back when there was a slight possibility of a Konfrontasi v2.0 ... in fact, the most violent people I've met are those trying to defend some barely coherent definition of the status quo.

War-like not military. Here we have conscription for males so everyone able is or was in the force, so I don't see why you bring it up. Being in military doesn't mean you've been to war which you try to imply.
That's true what you say about nationalists to a degree (some patriots are nationalists but not extremists). Extremists/fundamentalists do act violently because they are minority and eventually they don't see any other possibility to change majority but to enforce their 'rightous' way on them.
Either way perhaps war-like wasn't a suitable choice of words. Confrontational and needlessly pathetic would be better. Talks about 'fights' and 'struggle' and 'systemic opressions'... when they live in countries offering them civil rights protection and possibility to take their case to court when it gets slighted. That's like telling that I fought a noble battle against tooth ache, suffering struggles on my way to state funded dentist... ok I took it too far the other way but you get the point I hope.

Which describes every revolutionary struggle. Moreover, if the state is willing to simply give in to pressure from some group, armed revolution isn't often the result anyways. Violent revolution happens because conflict escalation happens. Philippine Revolution against Marcos is an example of peaceful revolution. Little conflict escalation. A few violent engagements, but sporadic, tiny in number and localised.

The InterFET is also an example where two opposing military forces can even settle for a bloodless secession (eventually). Rampant hostilities, then organised de-escalation despite additional potential belligerents. When peaceful options find purchase, they are often embarked upon.

Absolutely! I should've just say be careful not to strike up a revolution where peaceful evolution is already in works.
People ridiculing your goals and methods? Good, play along. Perhaps reflect on why they did that not just assert they are vile enemies (sexist, homophobes etc.) you need to confront.

I'm sorry, which LGBTQ activists here have advocated for violent revolution? Like, just one person. Point.

I'm pointing toward 'outrage' over hashtag prank campaign. In my opinion counterproductive and fuelling confrontational sentiments whereas it could have been treated as nothing more than a stupid goof.
I don't even know or care, which of 'you here' are LGBT activists. Nor it matters, since its just a label and another unnecessary division line.