GA: It is the perceived PROJECTION of homosexual culture weh Iah fight in a bid to preserve certain livity at least within InI own homes. Babylon intrusively promotes the culture of homosexualism on the front foot of its agenda.
There's nothing wrong with this ideology. You should always control what comes into your home and if there is something you don't want to be exposed to you shouldn't have to be. You said gays should have no say within reggae.
I would say that's true up until the point there are LGBTQ reggae artists. Each artist has their own freedom of speech (which I believe you mentioned in reference to Sizzla). If Sizzla's freedom of speech should be defended then so should the same freedom of speech when it belongs to LGBTQ entertainers.
They (homosexuals) should have the freedom to "mind dem business" as you eloquently stated. I agree with you on that. I don't like cancel culture. Or rather... I feel like cancel culture has gotten out of control because it was "appropriated" from its original design. Such is life and evolution and mutation.
But on the flip side, no one should run off LGBTQ if they want to participate because it is not an "invasion".
Everyone should have the same rights.
Devil's advocate: If there should be no propaganda (Whatever you consider that to be) for LGBTQ why should it be allowed for heterosexuality? If heterosexuality being displayed on TV isn't propaganda then neither is homosexuality being displayed.
If Sizzla is allowed to be anti-gay, vocally, then homosexual artists are allowed by the self-same logic, to be vocally anti-hetero which is definitely going to sound like propaganda because anti-gay rhetoric is ALSO propaganda.
What feels to us as NORMAL (and therefore not propaganda) feels differently to them. And so they seek REPRESENTATION in the media the same as African Americans for much of the same logical reason. When black people do not have representation it promotes negative stereotypes that are used to discriminate and perpetuate oppression. Instead of being called the N-word, they are called other names like "faggot". These names are just as hurtful and psychologically scarring. And for the same reason that African Americans don't like Confederate monuments we, as a society, enshrine not simply the norm of heterosexuality but, in reggae music, it could be argued that we've made a monument for oppression against gays. And their REACTION to oppression is the same as the black reaction to oppression.
1. Get power
2. Get representation
3. Change the narrative
4. Seek acceptance
5. Seek equality
(and they're allowed to seek these things but no one is personally/individually forced to give it)
If an entertainer is pressured by the LGBTQ community then they're not being forced to change. They are choosing because they are choosing money and that's market forces at work. They learned this from boycotting in the Civil Rights movement. It would be hypocritical to say that it cannot be used against black people.
They get treated like they are not people in the same way that heterosexuals are people. Why wouldn't they react to this? Why wouldn't they, at some point, try to change the way they're viewed? A lot of people still don't like black and brown people because we're "different". They choose to see what's different more than what is the same.
But again... do we say white people must love black people? No. Sizzla ain't gotta love gay people. But if a white person is spreading hate toward black people do they not deserve an equal and opposite reaction? Or is that cool as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone?
Now there's a difference between force and choice. People can choose not to support Sizzla or go to his concerts. No one has to speak out against him or write songs and articles against him, attacking him, etc. But by the same exact logic, heterosexuals, including Sizzla, don't need to speak out against gays or write songs about them. Just don't support it. Just don't do it. There's a difference between someone not liking something and starting or joining the KKK to be against that thing they don't like. And if I justify one form of oppression... if I justify an anti-gay agenda then, logically, I'm also justifying an anti-black or anti-jewish agenda.
Because at the end of the day no one is forced to participate and I was wrong, there are no "gay rays" radiating through the TV from the Ellen show. If your body chemistry is for the opposite sex then nothing they can say is going to convert you. And if your body chemistry is attracting you to the same sex then you can suppress it out of fear and pretend to be straight but you shouldn't have to do that and you're going to be psychologically hurting yourself in that process. But heterosexual content isn't going to convert you to being hetero. If that was the case there wouldn't be any gays.
So if someone is forcing you to watch Teletubbies... that's a problem. But I would argue that the problem isn't with the Teletubbies but whoever it is controlling your TV and eyeballs to where you have to watch it. There are like a zillion other channels and with youtube, the channels are essentially infinite.
Now if the Teletubbies are saying "we hate straight! we hate straight!" then that's a problem too. But I don't think that's the case. But blink twice if anyone is forcing you to watch gay content. And blink 3 times if that gay content is actually threatening your heterosexuality. Showing content isn't a problem at all unless you have to watch everything being shown. Because unless its being shown to you specifically then it's still a choice to participate or not. My ex and I specifically decided what content to allow our children to watch. But I wouldn't tell HBO to not make Game of Thrones. I would just not watch it in front of the kids. That's my responsibility, not HBO's. So I think every parent and every person has to be responsible with the content they consume.
|
|
