How do you deal with ignorance or bigots? Like if someone says something hateful to you, to make you feel bad? Or maybe someone who is genuinely misinformed about the lgbtqap community?
>My friends tell me they don't believe in bisexuality, because they don't understand how a person can like multiple genders.
>Calmly explain to them that the sexuality spectrum isn't simply gay and straight and that there is so many things in between.
I don't really get angry at ignorance unless it has hateful intentions or negative connotations tbqh senpai.
>>5388343
>lgbtqap community
>p
See this right here! Vote Trump!
>>5388355
You don't believe in pansexuality?
>>5388370
Just another special snowflake.
>>5388355
Not that anon, but there is a point at which labelling ceases to be valid, useful or healthy and the lgbt thinkspace has overshot that point by about forty different "-alitiy"s.
I don't understand people in this community that yell and scream when people don't believe in what they do. What happened to having intellectual discussions when it comes to differing opinions?
>>5388370
Of course I believe in bisexuality. I'm bisexual myself.
In reference to what you're saying OP. It's fine. For the majority of people the idea of being attracted to both at the same time is entirely alien and they just don't understand it. Think about how alien and weird it must be. "You like dicks AND vaginas? I find one of those repulsive! But you like both?" Try to have a little empathy for god's sake.
The way I usually explain it to people who are confused about it is: People can have two different tastes at the same time. A hetrosexual male doesn't only like one type a woman. They'll like different sorts for different reasons. It's much like that except a bisexual also likes different sexes for different reasons. Hope this helps.
>>5388343
You don't. If they're not informed, they will do research on their own. If they just hate you, then why bother wasting time?
>>5388355
Dear god. That is the first thing i noticed to!
LGBT people hole themselves into this circle of self-reinforcement where only they are right and anyone who challenges their perversions is a "sick homophobe" or "X-phobe".
This is caused by "gay acceptance therapy". I knew a guy who went to it and is now like that. I don't speak to him anymore.
Everyone who disagrees is "ignorant". Everyone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman is a "x-phobe".
I just ignore them while screaming in my head
>>5389703
> perversions
See, this is why. when you label someone's lifestyle a perversion and pressure them out of society, they will retaliate. You don't get to just be a colossal asshole and expect people to just be ok with it.
I used to flip out when confronted with this stuff. Things changed for me when I stopped to consider what it must be like to have a life so shallow and devoid of meaning that lashing out at LGBT people is all you have left. Now I just silently pity people like >>5389703
>>5390698
The reason these people "retaliate" is because they are brainwashed to believe what they are is always OK, and anyone that disagrees is Adolf Hitler.
I'm not making this up, it's just how it works. Having been to one "gay acceptance therapy" I can comment on the cult like attitudes pretty well. "Accept yourself". "Don't let anyone get you down". It's all brainwashing.
>>5388343
Most of the time I just don't engage.
If I want to actually convince the person to change their beliefs I never argue with them. I never insult or admonish the other person for disagreeing with me, because adversarial conversations simply don't convince people to change their beliefs. An argument usually just reinforces the ideologues beliefs.
Instead I use a kind of pseudo Socratic method to talk people out of their own irrational positions through a friendly 1 on 1 discussion. In these discussions I try to do as little talking as possible. My goal is to have the other person talk me, and more importantly themselves, through their beliefs.
Keep the talk civil and friendly. To show your interlocutor that you're both well meaning human beings start your conversation by finding common ground on some unrelated topic (like a hobby, band, exercise, food, etc).
Once a rapport has been established I frame the rest of the conversation around asking them what they believe, and more importantly why they believe it. After they tell me what they believe I ask them how certain they are their belief is true on a scale of 1 (I'm not certain at all) - 100 (I'm absolutely certain this is true). Once that's determined I just ask follow up questions from the mind set that what they believe might be correct, and I want them to convince me what they believe is true.
In the process of asking them questions you're eventually going to run into a question that they simply can't answer satisfyingly without feeling a hell of a lot of cognitive dissonance. It's when they get to that point that I usually end the conversation, then ask them if they've moved up or down the 1-100 scale of certainty.
The goal of this method is to have the person leaving the conversation liking and respecting you as a person, less certain of their ideology, and more open to nuanced ideas.
(cont. 1/2)
>>5390982
(cont. 2/2)
Using this method I've gotten a family member to change his position that when I talked about a roadtrip I took with a boyfriend on spring break I was "pushing my homosexuality upon him."
Granted this method doesn't always work. But it's been far more effective for me than just declaring a person bigoted to their face, or staying silent when they say hateful things. It doesn't kill off topics of discussion, it encourages ideologues to be less dogmatic, and usually it can let you parse out a taboo subject without ending relationships in a shouting match.
>ltqap
I'm fucking glad I don't associate with with those groups.
