Anti-LGBTQ+ ‘Million Man Marches’ Are Being Held Across Canada. Who is Behind Them and What Are They Really About?

Wilhoit's law -

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Left leaving people believe that every human is worth the same - right leaning people draw lines and exclude people from that equal group.

The more often they draw the line against a part of the population most people aren't part of the more likely is it that they manage to convince one of those that it's actually worth it for them to agree with those divisions

Marginalize hate by becoming hate.

Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one's stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.

Since some people don't seem to realize what a bigot actually is:

bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word "you" with generic pronouns.

Haha, I thought it was just the lefties being paid by Soros to protest

If you think these people don't have any impact, you've not been paying attention to your neighbours to the south (or to us over the pond, or to anywhere where trans and other queer people are being targeted, really)

The way the poster reads it looks like this is the 1 millionth march of 4 children. Which is kind of hilarious.

It's actually four children.

Parliament just gave a standing ovation to a literal nazi. I don't think the government gives a shit about hate speech.

Yeah, it's conservatives who are the real victims, good thing they have clowns like you to focus on the important issues and advocate for them!

I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.

Because their concerns are delusional.

You can't have a "normal conversation" about kitty litter boxes being placed in schools for students who are furries. It never happened, but someone told them it did and now they're angry about it. Try to tell them it's not happening and they fell for a hoax and then they accuse you of being blind to the truth and hurting children.

Constructive discourse is impossible. All you can hope to do is limit their influence by appealing to people who have not already fallen for their fear mongering. Engaging directly is a trap.

common ground

Where is the common ground between 'trans people are people' and 'trans people are abominations that should be relegated to the backwash of society until we find a socially acceptable reason to kill them.'?

Whichever side of the fence we're on I think one thing we can agree are on is that you need to work on your spelling

I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.

When conservatives learn to present their arguments in a non-hyperbolic fashion that doesn't ignore science and reality, and to have an adult conversation about the merits of those arguments, and to be honest about what is motivating those arguments, then this complaint will hold some water.

if they are religious we see comments saying they will do anything for their imaginary friend

I mean, yeah, usually the religious people demonstrating have things saying "you will burn in hell" or similar. Thats not an argument at all, other than they doing it for their imaginary friend.

Dearest doorknob, where did you receive your education? Serious question.

Indeed, discussion between the left and right no longer seems possible. Both sides focus on the extremes. The far-right arguments and the far-left arguments instead of the centrist povs.

I think that any controversial point that people have different takes works like this... Vast majority of people, free of influence from their others, are centrist. A bell-curve of dividing opinions. Most people would either not care, or not find a big issue about it. Few will take it to the extremes. But over time in political discourse, we move from a bell curve of opinions to two very divisive sides.

Since the main topic is apparently too hot of a take, I'll take pineapple on a pizza for example (Perhaps I'm getting into even hotter waters). Free of external influence (i.e. memes), I think most people will eat it without much thought. Some might like it, some might not, and I doubt it's all that controversial--likely less than anchovies. If you don't like it, you just don't have to eat it.

But if one extreme said we must ban pineapples from all pizzas, and the other end of the extreme said we must put pineapple on all pizzas, we have a very different scenario. I myself enjoy Hawaiian pizza and find pineapples to be a fine topping. But I certainly don't want to eat only pineapple pizzas all the time. So, I'd look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever. That seems better of the two options. I can no longer be a centrist because the idea of having only pineapple pizza seems horrible. But I don't really eat whole pizzas by myself, I eat it with others. And if others are such great lovers of pineapple pizza, I'd be influenced to side with the other extreme of always having pineapple due to peers.

I want to highlight that both of these extremes are authoritarian. One forces you to eat pineapple. The other forces you to not eat pineapple. Neither are true libertarian choices. They are forced viewpoints one forces on the other. That's what forces people to have such strong negative emotion towards it. No one wants to be forced into things. This is important and I'll come back to this later.

Just look at every other reply to the comment I'm replying to. They highlight how the extreme right is horrible. Yeah. They are. It seems there's no arguing with them. They seem to have extreme authoritarian views. How do you deal with them as a left leaning person? You can't. The ones that can deal with them, are not you, but the centrists or the non-extreme rights. You can only bring them to your side by shunning your own extreme left. Vice versa the other way around too for rights bringing in the left. You need to recognize extremism and learn to shun them. But we don't do that. We get into team mentality and think your side is right and the other is wrong. The more people think like that, the more divisive people get because they associate the extreme with the rest. Just because I want to eat pineapple pizza doesn't mean I want to force everyone to eat pineapple pizza.

Look at this article. It constantly highlights how some members of the organization are extreme leaning. Yes, I'm sure there are. It's a team game after all. But then we're intentionally ignoring the vast quantity of people who aren't.

The right is seeing authoritarian regime from the left as their children are now forced to learn about things they don't approve of. Whether or not you think learning of LGBT+ in school is right or wrong is what you will be fixated on, but it is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not I want pineapple on pizza is irrelevant. Problem is forced. Problem is whether or not I'm forced to eat pineapple pizza. This is why you get such push away, why the centrists find themselves having to side with one or the other. They're siding with the one they feel less repulsed to. Though people love to (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance and how they must intolerate the intolerant, they don't realize this is said on both sides of the spectrum. Both sides feel forced by the other to suppress them, and then we continue to speculate on what is the other side through the extreme responses. This is why both sides keep saying they're victims. This is why they both claim the other is a fascist. You might not be the extreme authoritarian so you probably think the argument is idiotic, bigotry, etc. because you brought a sensible argument. But some of the people on your team are. You probably don't realize they're behind you. But they're the face the other side sees.

Though I did bring the solution, I doubt it's a plausible one. I don't think any significant number of people in the moderate political climate is interested in doing so. As seen by number of downvotes. Frankly, I think we're fucked.

I think you shouldn't speak until you work on your spelling, my God it's atrocious.