this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
937 points (94.2% liked)
Atheist Memes
5501 readers
69 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This TikToker actually goes through all the news stories and logs every child abuse case and whether or not it's a drag queen or trans person. She even publishes all the data so you can fact check. Currently the count of drag queens abusing kids is ZERO since she started. So... no, you're wrong.
You'd be quite internet famous if you found inaccuracy. Please go for it.
Check it out, if you're interested in learning or being correct: https://www.whoismakingnews.com/.
To be fair, we've got a pretty big backlog of priests that need prosecution so counting articles might bias the results.
And that's on top of the untold thousands of children the Catholic (and other) churches murdered in their schools over the course of decades.
It's kind of cheating when your compound has a graveyard.
Weird that they didn't have this one: https://www.kezi.com/news/former-elementary-school-staffer-sentenced-for-encouraging-child-sexual-abuse/article_b5d0f482-d25e-11ed-bb58-47a8a084aa33.html -- This "Drag Mom" who was convicted seems to have been left out...
Maybe...your site is a little biased?
It's not uncommon for absolutist statements to not hold up to scrutiny very well.
How about this one?: https://abc13.com/houston-public-library-drag-queen-story-time-albert-garza-reader-charged-with-child-sex-assault/5197176/
Or maybe this one?: https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2022/06/central-pa-drag-queen-activist-charged-with-25-counts-of-child-pornography-police.html
I can go on. There are plenty. I'm not going to be 'internet famous' either, for correcting some delusional internet-dweller who thinks that a specific class of people are any more righteous than any other specific class of people. That's the same as thinking cops don't lie, or cheat, or steal, because they're cops. Drag queens are just as fucked up as the rest of society. Claiming otherwise is simply naive. edit: I was being a little mean, so I removed my nasty statement
Link #3 is concerning, but not assault. That is a pedophile with CP.
Drag queens, and pretty much everyone else, have a substantially lower incidence rate of child assault than the clergy.
But if your point is literally trying to say "But 'most' isn't the same as 'all'!!1!!", yeah fine. Be happy with your technicality, and miss the point completely.
Are you saying someone with CP isn't perpetuating harm to children? Are you listening to yourself right now? In what world do you live that this is a reasonable argument to...anything?
But yes, I'm simply arguing technicality here. I think the spirit of this meme is funny. However, as you've clearly noticed - I've got a problem with people presenting misinformation as factual.
It isn't misinformation, you're simply making inferences that aren't inherent to the post you've read. Exactly what the post title and text says is true. You're either unable to cope with something like OCD (and therefore unable to accept the post as anything other than what you personally would consider ideal) or you're being obtuse in order to derail the post as much as you can. But really it just seems like you just need to maybe chill out a bit, have a chuckle or don't, and then move on.
Your indignation is probably religiously based, so you're automatically incapacitated to "look at reality objectively".
I'm not only not religious, I bill myself as pretty anti-religious. So, wrong. Trying to attack me personally with some made-up trait about me doesn't make you right just because you dislike my correction. Nice straw-man though.
Nor am I republican, nor am I against drag queens, or any other bullshit made up trait you can think of. I'm wholly for the equal treatment of all humans, regardless of ... well, practically any trait you could categorize a group of people with.
What I AM against, however - is liars and people who try to misconstrue factual information.
To me it seems that on lemmy (as it was/is in reddit) the majority of users is leaning more to one side (if not the extreme side) of the ideologies and people who try to be reasonable get quickly shut down for not fitting this or that narrative. That's sad in my opinion because all it's doing is replicating what used to be the norm on the opposite side of the spectrum and you can clearly see that most don't even notice it. For all intents and purposes they believe 100% that they are right and therefore no nuances are allowed, period. But you know, maybe the biggot is you for not accepting that last 1% of the current narrative... I feel I'm in the same boat as you though.
So many of these instances are how folks come across, some are coarse and some not so much. Active voice, authoritative tone, and missing the vibe can really impact perception. Of course reality is highly nuanced, but low stake comment sections often aren't. Just my 2c.
That's the state of the world today unfortunately. You either fit into this perfectly defined "slot" of people, or the moment you deviate from it even a smidge, you're put on the "You're against us!!" side.
I've gotten so tired of it, tbh. Doesn't look like nuance is allowed here on Lemmy either. I'm hoping that'll change. I was hoping that the diaspora of people here were kind of the "early adopters" that made the initial reddit so great - but it doesn't look like that's the case this time. Honestly, I'm not even trying to stir shit either. It would be refreshing to actually discuss these topics honestly though - without this...what I call "listening to reply" stuff. I guarantee I wouldn't see any of the people here as my enemy in the real world. But I am an engineer and programmer. I work with facts, logic, and when something is even slightly misplaced, things break. So likewise, I dislike misinformation or logic that doesn't flow right.
But you're not being logical. The meme title states that one group has definitely hurt children. That's simply a fact.
You then said: "But the way it’s worded is basically a claim into itself that the bottom group has NEVER…EVER harmed a child. Which, being an absolutist statement probably doesn’t hold water."
That's your non-factual interpretation of the statement. That's how you saw it and that wasn't based on any of the words contained in the title but what you thought they were trying to imply.
If you're going to claim you're solely interested in logic and fact then you really need to own that position.
Both groups have definitely hurt children though...how is that not logical?
The meme says "ONE group" has. That's not true. Both groups have. You don't seem to be making an argument here in good faith. It's very clear that my interpretation is the same interpretation as is being held in the rest of this community. Do you disagree? Because I can find a dozen examples of people arguing with me that the bottom group has never hurt children. which means -- in fact -- my "interpretation" as you so put it, is accurate, and therefore, so is my initial argument.
If you were to expand what the title of this post was saying to be more concise, it would read "One [of these] group[s] playing dress up has definitely hurt children". And that is the interpretation everyone else has come to in this thread.
The meme states that one group has hurt kids....and that's it. And that is a fact. One group has hurt kids. You're interpretation that the meme is saying only one group has hurt kids is just that - your interpretation. I'm asking you to look at the your statements that you are basing your opinion on logic and facts and weigh that against the exact wording of this meme. Factually, the meme states one group has hurt kids. It does not say only one group has hurt kids. The truth of that can be seen by simply coldly and logically reading the title of the post/meme.
But if you're now saying that facts and logic aren't the only thing that come into play here then I agree with you. In that case, we have to look at context and probability, neither of which can be factual as the data is scant. But it's also pretty reasonable, based on what we do have, that its accurate to refer to priests as a group that hurt kids. We can't really say that about drag artists.
I'm sorry that you're interpreting the statement incorrectly, because the statement doesn't stand on its own. The statement stands with the meme it was posted with. With 2 groups of people pictured. You're arguing tangentially to reality here. I'm sorry if you've failed to understand. Good luck.
I've answered elsewhere but I am being slightly disingenuous to try and make a point, I admit.
FWIW, you're not alone in your disappointment. I like Lemmy but critical thinking is in short supply.
And yet you equate individual actions with MASSIVE FUCKOFF EFFORTS by thousands of people, all over the world, for decades, to give priests the ability to rape children on the daily.
If you actually equate these things I suggest a therapist.
Your correction reveals some kind of hatred, but that between you, your psychiatrist and your meds.
Searching with a microscope for any case that gives credence to a sick group of haters doesn't speak well of you, so I don't particularly care about being unflinchingly objective. You don't seem to be worth it.
Seems like you're putting a lot of self projection into your replies. Also, you're violating rule #4.
First link was a crime from 2022, which is before the data set started. But also, the perpetrator wasn't a drag queen. She was a pervert that liked dressing kids up in drag. That's a straight non-drag person being psycho: https://nypost.com/2023/04/25/mom-who-mentored-drag-queen-11-sentenced-for-child-sex-crimes/. Not a drag queen.
Your second link was a guy who read at drag story hour in 2018, and assaulted a kid before that. No indication that he ever did drag before he assaulted the kid.
And if you need to stretch back to 2018 to find something... which weren't even drag queens but were just tangentially related..., but only had to stretch back to last week to find a non-drag assaulter, are you really being honest? Or are you just trying to be correct?
https://www.vulture.com/2021/12/sharon-needles-drag-race-accused-abusing-fan.html - as I said, can go on. You're moving the goalposts now. Now it has to be AFTER 2022 to count? Please...give me a break. The OP's claim clearly states that the bottom group has no capacity whatsoever to harm children. I've clearly given you evidence of the contrary. And here you are blabbing "reasons" why my examples "don't count"? Are you serious right now? I've given you your evidence that there are clearly drag abusers. I don't have anything against drag queens at all, I'm merely trying to be technically accurate here.
Accuracy in statements is my goal here. You may be caught up in this post-factual society, but I am not.
Doesn't have to be after 2022. I was talking about that one website.
This is the first link you've provided that has a drag queen being an abuser. That one is horrible. Super bad. She should be punished.
More importantly, do you just... collect these? You got a weird kink my dude.
Rather than admit that the other person was correct, you resort to ad hominem? This is exactly the insanity the other person is trying to fight.
Autism isn't an insult. It's a set of mental patterns. We can smell our own. It's not an attack, it's real advice.
Literally the first page of a Google Search. Never looked it up before in my life. What kind of degenerate fuck would actually keep a record of these? Oh wait, you did with the website you linked, didn't you...as an effort to claim there had been NONE. So you're lying. Do you know why you have to lie for this cause? More than anything I simply hate disinformation and liars. I don't care about the debate about drag queens, what people do with their own time is their own business.
But more than anything, I hate liars. And I hate people who post things as fact and clearly, purposely, know that what they are saying isn't factual. I know you think this helps your cause, but it doesn't. And the only thing you have to do -- is not use absolutist statements. That's it.
That explains the poor quality links.
I've followed that other site for a couple months. She's great on TikTok.
I claimed there were none on that site. This was accurate.
You should talk to someone about that need for pedantry. It shows a lack of understanding of how communication works. Maybe get a diagnosis. It will help. It helped me.
I tire of correcting you. Have a night!
They're an alt-right troll here to JAQ off.
Accuracy in statements that aren't yours, you mean.
You're playing the same disingenuous JAQoff games the alt-right does every single time they invade a forum.
Curious.
I can't see the top story as I'm in the EU but the second one committed offences in 2008. From what I can tell, the TikToker is only recording 'new' cases i.e. cases where offences occurred after she started doing this. The third one you should definitley tell her about. There's an email on her page.
That's great and all, but it's being used as "evidence" that Drag Queens have "never" done any harm. It's smoke and mirrors because it sounds better than admitting that they have. More than anything I care about the things people are presenting as fact, to -- you know -- actually be grounded in FACT. I could not care less about drag queens themselves. Only thing I care about is people not bullshitting constantly. We live in a world where everyone just makes up bullshit lies and everyone else just seems to accept the rhetoric. I'm tired of it. I do my best not to spread misinformation or use words that may mis-portray factual information. Just feels like everyone is stomping around in a big puddle of shit, and claiming they're cleaner than the person next to them.
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.