The Dangers of using Inflammatory Language

My thoughts on this started when looking at this

“I do know that abused kids are more likely to be gay and that there is an active recruitment of that type (the vagina monologues famously had the glorification of such a moment of an underage girl and an adult woman; the fact that it wasn’t shouted off stage shows how far people are misled on this. The scene was removed a decade later or so.

Perhaps the line “it was a good rape” was a little too on the nose coming from a 13 year old character. But this was a prizewinning and much applauded play.”

The fact that children are abused because they are gay seems to slip her empty mind: Homosexuality Link to Child Sex Abuse Confirmed — Gender Nonconformity | Brain Blogger
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/5/e20173004

As for the play, some people want to get inflammatory language just to be inflammatory and get a reaction. I don’t like it either, as there is often very little nuance in such measures and little room for reinterpretation when you go all out like that

“There is also the infamous article “can we just admit that we do want to convert kids?” article. And you can discover that that’s how it works today. Just go to antifa meetings, to marxist feminist meetings, go to gay bars and genderqueer parties. I saw it in real life before I started studying the statistics.”

The article she mentions says this: Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? / Queerty

“I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Hell, our opponents even do the same. Yes, they regularly appeal to parents, older adults, and “values voters” through their advertising but they also provide organizing materials so students so they can challenge queer acceptance on their own “Day of Dialogue.” The old Day of Dialogue website even contained a press kit so student organizers could alert the local media to come and cover their campaign. Anti-gay opponents are already unabashedly indoctrinating our children with the church and conservative politicians on their side and they make no bones about it.”

Basically he is turing their logic against them.

And in the comments:

@David Gervais: When I say recruit, I mean “get on our side” and “get to help fight our battles for us.””

Off coruse he was being tounge in cheek in some places, which I feel shouldn’t have been done. Don’t act like people can understand sarcasm in written word.

And others in the comments agree:

“Surely even the dullards who churn out text for the new Queerty must realize that our adversaries do not appreciate or understand efforts to “reclaim” terminology nor do they really get irony. To this day, they continue to cite as evidence of a nefarious gay agenda to eradicate heterosexuality a creative writing piece written 25 years ago by an unknown author who explicitly stated that the piece was satirical.

How dare you jack up hits by tossing out incendiary language which can be abused and misused by our adversaries? More to the point, don’t ever use “we” to include both me and the writers of Queerty. “We” agree on very little, not least of which is your competence in carrying the blog forward.”

“Let me teach you about something called “tact:” it’s what articulate people utilize to avoid making themselves look foolish.

Way to be, Danny boy, way to be.

And if anyone from outside the LGBT community is reading this comment, I’d just like them to know that this idiot doesn’t speak for me, he definitely doesn’t speak for the community as a whole, and apparently he can’t even speak intelligently for himself. Let’s put this child to bed so that us adults can have an intelligent discussion on the issues.

PS Can QUEERTY go back to being closed now? Thanks!”

As we can see there is a lot that the gay community doesn’t like here even if they understand what the author was trying to do. To use this as an example of honest intentions to indoctrinate is wrong, but easy to arrive to because the writers think they are being clever.