I don’t think anyone can realistically suggest that any group of people is 100% pedo-free. There are pedo priests, pedo cops, pedo mums, pedo traffic wardens etc etc so there is going to be a non-zero amount of drag artists that are pedos simply by virtue of the fact that pedos exist unfortunately.
I don’t agree that the spirit of this meme is suggesting no drag artist has ever hurt a child and I think it’s pretty fair to say, based on the data that does exist (poor quality though it is) that drag artists, as a group of people, are extremely low on the offending against kids front.
The arguments being used by some to suggest drag artists, as a group, are dangerous to kids (and I’m not suggesting you’re one of the people doing this) could be applied to any group of people that come into contact with any other group of people. I mean, Dennis Rader used to be a census taker - does that mean census takers as a group are fair game to be treated as likely to murder people by torture?
The “Letter” of the meme is contradictory to fact. I think the “Spirit” of the meme is funny. You also have to take into account the VAST disparity in numbers regarding this situation too. How many religious people/clergymen, etc are there? As a ratio of drag queens? Of COURSE that number is going to look incredibly lop-sided. It’s meant to as optics to further an argument. As I said in my original statement – not using an absolutist statement as this meme does, would solve my problem altogether. But people are willing to jump out of their seats to dogpile a person who perceivably has a different view than them, even though I don’t actually. But because someone would argue that something presented as fact, isn’t actually factual…out come the pitchforks.
Mate, I am totally not dog-piling you. I’m trying to be respectful but I would really like to know where the data is that led you to form the opinion that this is a numbers issue. Are you saying that if we had the data we’d see there’d be a roughly equal percentage of pedo priests as pedo drag artists?
I’m also not sure the meme is saying what you think it is. You seem to think it’s saying only one group has hurt kids but it doesn’t say that. It says that one group definitely have. i.e. that we know that priests definitely and in substantial numbers, hurt kids. It’s not saying no drag artist has ever hurt a kid, but that, as a group, we can’t say drag artists definitely hurt kids, whereas we clearly can say that about priests.
Oh, don’t think I was claiming that you were dog-piling, I was saying that just as a general observation of the platform as a whole. No worries there mate.
You could put any “group” or categorization of people up there and say that they’ve hurt children. Definitely. So saying “One Group” while knowing full well that this problem probably runs equally through all groups, while relying on the fact that - drag queens are practically non existent when it comes to a percentage of the population – is disingenuous. It portrays them as being perfect somehow, and they are definitely not. They’re not less perfect than anyone else either, but it feels dirty to compare them to the clergy too.
But, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, your argument hinges solely on how you personally interpret the title of this meme. All it says is that one group definitely hurt kids. That’s simply factual. What you then did was assume the meme was saying ‘the number of drag artists that have hurt kids is zero’ and it doesn’t make any such claim at all. It simply states one group has definitely hurt children.
When does a number of individuals become ‘a group’ I guess is the question. Maybe (and I fully accept this is solely my opinion) the meme is suggesting that as the number of kid hurting drag artists, although a non-zero number, is so very low it’s hard to even class them as a group. When the word ‘group’ is used by the ultra conservatives and xtians it seems to me that what they’re attempting is try and make out there’s enough offending individuals to justify referring to them as a group in a way that makes them representative of the whole.
One of the people in one of your links for example - they offended in 2008 then later became a drag artist. Is that person really a pedo drag artist? Or are they a pedo who’s realised that with the advent of drag artists reading stories to kids, becoming a drag artist was a good way to get access to kids, in the same way some pedos become teachers etc? We don’t say teachers, as a group, are inherently pedo’s or that pedo teachers are representative of teachers so why do it with drag artists?
I’m sorry, but your argument is simply incorrect. It is not merely “my interpretation” as claimed. It’s the interpretation of literally every person in this thread so far…with exception of yourself. I don’t need to bother with the rest of your reply, because it all relies on the first claim being accurate, which it is not. You are attempting to change what the title is saying by interpreting it intentionally differently than everyone else has thus far. At least argue in good faith here.
You keep saying how much you value logic and fact. I’m (disingenuously, I admit) pointing out to you that stripped of all context, the title of this meme simply states that one group has hurt kids and doesn’t say only one group. It’s literally factual to say that, but - as you say - not accurate because context matters, right?
I’m trying to get you to see that there’s nuance and shades of grey that goes beyond facts and touches (as I said ages ago) on the spirit of the meme. (And really, it is just a meme, do they live and die by pure facts? Clearly not based on most of them).
I don’t think anyone is claiming that there’s a non-zero amount of drag artists who’ve hurt kids. But you saying ‘both?’ is not really taking account of various nuances and contexts, such as - is there even enough drag artists who’ve hurt kids to classify them as a group? Could it be that some of them were pedo’s who, after offending and doing time and being released realised that glomming onto the drag artist community was a way to get close to kids now?
We don’t factually know. That’s why it’s difficult to understand why you say ‘both?’ in a way that infers both are groups that represent their respective communities or are somehow equal.
I’ve only responded to you one other time here and let most of this go but this comment is absolutely heinous. “Runs equally”? That’s just disgusting. Drag queens walk around with a target on their back for this kind of thing nowadays partially because of people playing devil’s advocate or whatever this is that you’re doing here. All three of the people in your stories were charged and fired, if employed. The church protects these clergymen from the consequences of their crimes and they’re held in high regard, generally. The worst they have to worry about is kids cracking jokes they probably won’t hear anyway. I don’t care if you’re an engineer or what your deal is but this comment is just problematic and your whole attitude isn’t convincing me that you would be much better in a different context.
I don’t think anyone can realistically suggest that any group of people is 100% pedo-free. There are pedo priests, pedo cops, pedo mums, pedo traffic wardens etc etc so there is going to be a non-zero amount of drag artists that are pedos simply by virtue of the fact that pedos exist unfortunately.
I don’t agree that the spirit of this meme is suggesting no drag artist has ever hurt a child and I think it’s pretty fair to say, based on the data that does exist (poor quality though it is) that drag artists, as a group of people, are extremely low on the offending against kids front.
The arguments being used by some to suggest drag artists, as a group, are dangerous to kids (and I’m not suggesting you’re one of the people doing this) could be applied to any group of people that come into contact with any other group of people. I mean, Dennis Rader used to be a census taker - does that mean census takers as a group are fair game to be treated as likely to murder people by torture?
The “Letter” of the meme is contradictory to fact. I think the “Spirit” of the meme is funny. You also have to take into account the VAST disparity in numbers regarding this situation too. How many religious people/clergymen, etc are there? As a ratio of drag queens? Of COURSE that number is going to look incredibly lop-sided. It’s meant to as optics to further an argument. As I said in my original statement – not using an absolutist statement as this meme does, would solve my problem altogether. But people are willing to jump out of their seats to dogpile a person who perceivably has a different view than them, even though I don’t actually. But because someone would argue that something presented as fact, isn’t actually factual…out come the pitchforks.
Mate, I am totally not dog-piling you. I’m trying to be respectful but I would really like to know where the data is that led you to form the opinion that this is a numbers issue. Are you saying that if we had the data we’d see there’d be a roughly equal percentage of pedo priests as pedo drag artists?
I’m also not sure the meme is saying what you think it is. You seem to think it’s saying only one group has hurt kids but it doesn’t say that. It says that one group definitely have. i.e. that we know that priests definitely and in substantial numbers, hurt kids. It’s not saying no drag artist has ever hurt a kid, but that, as a group, we can’t say drag artists definitely hurt kids, whereas we clearly can say that about priests.
Oh, don’t think I was claiming that you were dog-piling, I was saying that just as a general observation of the platform as a whole. No worries there mate.
You could put any “group” or categorization of people up there and say that they’ve hurt children. Definitely. So saying “One Group” while knowing full well that this problem probably runs equally through all groups, while relying on the fact that - drag queens are practically non existent when it comes to a percentage of the population – is disingenuous. It portrays them as being perfect somehow, and they are definitely not. They’re not less perfect than anyone else either, but it feels dirty to compare them to the clergy too.
But, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, your argument hinges solely on how you personally interpret the title of this meme. All it says is that one group definitely hurt kids. That’s simply factual. What you then did was assume the meme was saying ‘the number of drag artists that have hurt kids is zero’ and it doesn’t make any such claim at all. It simply states one group has definitely hurt children.
When does a number of individuals become ‘a group’ I guess is the question. Maybe (and I fully accept this is solely my opinion) the meme is suggesting that as the number of kid hurting drag artists, although a non-zero number, is so very low it’s hard to even class them as a group. When the word ‘group’ is used by the ultra conservatives and xtians it seems to me that what they’re attempting is try and make out there’s enough offending individuals to justify referring to them as a group in a way that makes them representative of the whole.
One of the people in one of your links for example - they offended in 2008 then later became a drag artist. Is that person really a pedo drag artist? Or are they a pedo who’s realised that with the advent of drag artists reading stories to kids, becoming a drag artist was a good way to get access to kids, in the same way some pedos become teachers etc? We don’t say teachers, as a group, are inherently pedo’s or that pedo teachers are representative of teachers so why do it with drag artists?
I’m sorry, but your argument is simply incorrect. It is not merely “my interpretation” as claimed. It’s the interpretation of literally every person in this thread so far…with exception of yourself. I don’t need to bother with the rest of your reply, because it all relies on the first claim being accurate, which it is not. You are attempting to change what the title is saying by interpreting it intentionally differently than everyone else has thus far. At least argue in good faith here.
I am, I admit, playing devils advocate a bit.
You keep saying how much you value logic and fact. I’m (disingenuously, I admit) pointing out to you that stripped of all context, the title of this meme simply states that one group has hurt kids and doesn’t say only one group. It’s literally factual to say that, but - as you say - not accurate because context matters, right?
I’m trying to get you to see that there’s nuance and shades of grey that goes beyond facts and touches (as I said ages ago) on the spirit of the meme. (And really, it is just a meme, do they live and die by pure facts? Clearly not based on most of them).
I don’t think anyone is claiming that there’s a non-zero amount of drag artists who’ve hurt kids. But you saying ‘both?’ is not really taking account of various nuances and contexts, such as - is there even enough drag artists who’ve hurt kids to classify them as a group? Could it be that some of them were pedo’s who, after offending and doing time and being released realised that glomming onto the drag artist community was a way to get close to kids now?
We don’t factually know. That’s why it’s difficult to understand why you say ‘both?’ in a way that infers both are groups that represent their respective communities or are somehow equal.
I’ve only responded to you one other time here and let most of this go but this comment is absolutely heinous. “Runs equally”? That’s just disgusting. Drag queens walk around with a target on their back for this kind of thing nowadays partially because of people playing devil’s advocate or whatever this is that you’re doing here. All three of the people in your stories were charged and fired, if employed. The church protects these clergymen from the consequences of their crimes and they’re held in high regard, generally. The worst they have to worry about is kids cracking jokes they probably won’t hear anyway. I don’t care if you’re an engineer or what your deal is but this comment is just problematic and your whole attitude isn’t convincing me that you would be much better in a different context.