11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

Oh the ironing. Being called Mary Whitehouse and then"woke" in 2 consecutive posts. :pac:

Don't flatter yourself. I was referring to the poster I replied to.

I assume by your lack of substance in the post that you no longer entertain the idea that Good Morning America stated it was okay to have kids in nightclubs at 4am or are you going to pursue the point you made with evidence?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Why don't you just type good morning america trans kid or amazing desmond yourself. Take you a couple of seconds.

The Good Morning America links have been dropped on the thread dozens of times now. It would be a pretty random thing to make up.


And relax there.

Because I didn't make the point. And the GMA links don't claim what Zorya and Johnmc1 claim they made, so they're obviously talking about different interviews.

It's up to Zorya to prove her statement that GMA made a statement she claimed they did. did. Otherwise, it's like asking an athiest to prove God doesn't exist.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And I would - and have on several occasions, see example of most recent below - totally agree with you.



It's nice that you want to appear woke and to register your disapproval, but right place right time. Because - AGAIN - unless you, Zorya, or ANYONE else - actually has a link to a broadccast or publication that Good Morning America or anyone else actually stating that children in nightclubs at 4am is fine; yuor post is nothing more than an attempt at appearing to be "woke".

And, furthermore, the suspiciously quiet Johnmc1's post about alleged left-wing media approving such behaviour is proven to be bull**** and a pathetic smear (like most of the rest of his posts) and the rest of you need to learn how to read the post BEFORE you hit the reply button.

Does google not work on your phone, no? I will in my hole go fish out a link that’s been posted numerous time in the thread already. So take your rachet opinions and go inform yourself on what you’re talking about because you’re appearing basic AF in your ignorance.

One eyed Jack

Zorya wrote: »

Oh the ironing. Being called Mary Whitehouse and then"woke" in 2 consecutive posts. :pac:

By two different posters? There’s no irony there?


FWIW myself and PB couldn’t be further poles apart ideologically speaking, and still we’re all in agreement that having a child in a nightclub at that hour was completely inappropriate, whether or not it is perfectly legal in that particular State in the US.

Zorya

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because I didn't make the point. And the GMA links don't claim what Zorya and Johnmc1 claim they made, so they're obviously talking about different interviews.

It's up to Zorya to prove her statement that GMA made a statement she claimed they did. did. Otherwise, it's like asking an athiest to prove God doesn't exist.

Don't know what"statement" of mine you are referring to. I only posted references to shows and companies that have overtly lauded both children's stunning and brave lifestyles. Which they have.

woddensanta

I hate it when someone tries th bog a thread down in a pedantic quagmire, the GMA show "celebrated" it, they might not have said the exact phrase "11yo blah blah blah blah blah is FINE!!" But you get the point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Does google not work on your phone, no? I will in my hole go fish out a link that’s been posted numerous time in the thread already. So take your rachet opinions and go inform yourself on what you’re talking about because you’re appearing basic AF in your ignorance.

So what you're saying is this: if you make a statement, and no one else can disprove it, that satement is automatically true?

In that case, there is a giant invisible teapot in the sky. Now go google it and prove me wrong.

Zorya wrote: »

Don't know what"statement" of mine you are referring to. I only posted references to shows and companies that have overtly lauded both children's stunning and brave lifestyles. Which they have.

At this point, I have to apologise to you. I thought you made the statement, when it was Shoesdaychild who made it, so sorry about that!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

woddensanta wrote: »

I hate it when someone tries th bog a thread down in a pedantic quagmire, the GMA show "celebrated" it, they might not have said the exact phrase "11yo blah blah blah blah blah is FINE!!" But you get the point.

Tell me, where's the similarity between "kids dressing up is ok" and "kids in nightcluibs at 4am is ok"?

Zorya

These two children, one 10, the other 11, have appeared on day time mainstream global media, being fawned over and glorified as modern freedom fighters. One was last seen dancing in drag late at night in a gay bar and the other was last seen clutching happily onto the arm of a naked drag queen.

Wonder how the daytime glossy shows are going to explain that next time they have these children and their doting Moms on for some bracing prepubescent inspiration.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So what you're saying is this: if you make a statement, and no one else can disprove it, that satement is automatically true?

In that case, there is a giant invisible teapot in the sky. Now go google it and prove me wrong.



At this point, I have to apologise to you. I thought you made the statement, when it was Shoesdaychild who made it, so sorry about that!

I’m saying that I wont google the link, you can find it yourself. They have celebrated a child being taken advantage of and used by adults, that’s not hard to find. I have no intention in indulging you in a discussion. If you’re genuinely interested, google it, If not build a bridge and get over it. Keep on defending children being exploited for the good of #lgbt

Zorya

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

At this point, I have to apologise to you. I thought you made the statement, when it was Shoesdaychild who made it, so sorry about that!

Okay, thanks.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I’m saying that I wont google the link, you can find it yourself. They have celebrated a child being taken advantage of and used by adults, that’s not hard to find. I have no intention in indulging you in a discussion. If you’re genuinely interested, google it, If not build a bridge and get over it. Keep on defending children being exploited for the good of #lgbt

You won't Google it because you KNOW it doesn't exist. In other words, you're bull****ting and too proud to admit it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You won't Google it because you KNOW it doesn't exist. In other words, you're bull****ting and too proud to admit it.

I won’t because I can’t be bothered. It’s been posted in the thread numerous times.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I won’t because I can’t be bothered. It’s been posted in the thread numerous times.

Diffeent interview, as well you know. I;ve watched it they never said it's ok to have kids in nightclubs at 4am. So clearly, you're talking about a different interview which you claim exists but don't want to...

.. becaue you know it doesn;t.

Good night. PM me if you have evidence that Good Mornign America said it;s ok to have kids in nightclubs at 4am. I won't be coming back to read you're vague retorts here - you;ve wasted enough time.

The Talking Bread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You won't Google it because you KNOW it doesn't exist. In other words, you're bull****ting and too proud to admit it.

Just to entertain this nonsense of yours, where exactly did the poster say that Good Morning America explicitly said that kids stripping in nightclubs at 4am is ok? What exactly are you bloody trying to prove?

The Talking Bread

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Mostly the Leftists in the media that peddle and promote stuff like this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What media?

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Good morning America for one

Zorya wrote: »

CBC also did an arts feature on Lactatia the child who was with the man in the deleted image. CBC is Canada's public broadcast network, like RTE here

The boy also appeared in 2017 on This Morning ITV

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Link?

Just to be clear: JohnMc1 made the point that the useage of children in procative photos is promoted by mainstream media, and you're confirmed that this is the case with Good Morning America?

Or are you saying that all cases of someone in drag are automatically sexually provocative?

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

I would say having a child of 11 years old gyrating on a stage of a club at 4am while grown adults throw dolla bills at them is sexually provocative, yes

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And I would - and have on several occasions, see example of most recent below - totally agree with you.



It's nice that you want to appear woke and to register your disapproval, but right place right time. Because - AGAIN - unless you, Zorya, or ANYONE else - actually has a link to a broadccast or publication that Good Morning America or anyone else actually stating that children in nightclubs at 4am is fine; yuor post is nothing more than an attempt at appearing to be "woke".

And, furthermore, the suspiciously quiet Johnmc1's post about alleged left-wing media approving such behaviour is proven to be bull**** and a pathetic smear (like most of the rest of his posts) and the rest of you need to learn how to read the post BEFORE you hit the reply button.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Don't flatter yourself. I was referring to the poster I replied to.

I assume by your lack of substance in the post that you no longer entertain the idea that Good Morning America stated it was okay to have kids in nightclubs at 4am or are you going to pursue the point you made with evidence?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Diffeent interview, as well you know. I;ve watched it they never said it's ok to have kids in nightclubs at 4am. So clearly, you're talking about a different interview which you claim exists but don't want to...

.. becaue you know it doesn;t.

Good night. PM me if you have evidence that Good Mornign America said it;s ok to have kids in nightclubs at 4am. I won't be coming back to read you're vague retorts here - you;ve wasted enough time.

I think you need help actually following a conversation and what exactly posters say, dear Princess.........

BattleCorp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Diffeent interview, as well you know. I;ve watched it they never said it's ok to have kids in nightclubs at 4am. So clearly, you're talking about a different interview which you claim exists but don't want to...

.. becaue you know it doesn;t.

Good night. PM me if you have evidence that Good Mornign America said it;s ok to have kids in nightclubs at 4am. I won't be coming back to read you're vague retorts here - you;ve wasted enough time.

I think when you have Good Morning America celebrating drag children like Desmond, it does seem like they are endorsing all actions by Desmond, such as the twerking at the pride parade, pretending to snort ket, hanging out with a murderer, doing shows at 4am in a club etc.

You can't celebrate Desmond in drag without questioning all the other negative carry-on.

By putting Desmond on mainstream TV, it's showing people that what he does is fine............. the message is everything that he does is fine................and that's the part I have a problem with.

Because everything in his life isn't fine. He's being exposed to far too much at far too young an age.

sbsquarepants

Seen this on vigilant citizen the other day



Here's Desmond tarted up like a demented hooker as usual, posing with his murderer friend and some other likely freak under a picture of a child with the word Rohypnol.

This shít has paedos written all over it!

Alrigghtythen

Why had they a gofund me page(aug18), first for the holidays (2500 target ) and then an updated one because "whatever money desmond makes performing isn't enough to cover his basic living expenses" - his unemployed parents



For **** sake parents he's 11, it's your job to cover his basic living expenses

JupiterKid

This is seriously f*cked up stuff. A child of 11 twerking and simulating drug misuse in a gay bar at 4am?

This will only serve to embolden the homophobes to link gay men with paedophiles.

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

This is seriously f*cked up stuff. A child of 11 twerking and simulating drug misuse in a gay bar at 4am?

This will only serve to embolden the homophobes to link gay men with paedophiles.

Fair play for a measured, restrained, and (in my mind) correct response Kiddo! :-)

Omackeral

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Why had they a gofund me page(aug18), first for the holidays (2500 target ) and then an updated one because "whatever money desmond makes performing isn't enough to cover his basic living expenses" - his unemployed parents

That's basically whoring him out openly, so to speak.

Wibbs

JupiterKid wrote: »

This is seriously f*cked up stuff. A child of 11 twerking and simulating drug misuse in a gay bar at 4am?

This will only serve to embolden the homophobes to link gay men with paedophiles.

Yep and like I noted earlier J, it was a load of gay lads who were at the club that night who had the completely natural and justified WTF response to this sick crap who first highlighted this on twitter, Facebook and the like.

One eyed Jack

JupiterKid wrote: »

This is seriously f*cked up stuff. A child of 11 twerking and simulating drug misuse in a gay bar at 4am?

This will only serve to embolden the homophobes to link gay men with paedophiles.

It won’t do that at all. The whole intent of this thread sure is to link transgenderism to paedophilia. Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is old news. Transgenderism is the newest “threat” to society... apparently - associate paedophilia with anything you have an objection to and let people’s paranoia and revulsion of paedophiles do the rest -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_4BZnWnXzI

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It won’t do that at all. The whole intent of this thread sure is to link transgenderism to paedophilia. Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is old news. Transgenderism is the newest “threat” to society... apparently - associate paedophilia with anything you have an objection to and let people’s paranoia and revulsion of paedophiles do the rest -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_4BZnWnXzI

Thing is, there will be a lot of idiots out there that will link it to both homosexuality and transgenderism. This is America after all, they have a much larger more influential anti-gay lobby than we would over here.

Alrigghtythen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

... - associate paedophilia with anything you have an objection to and let people’s paranoia and revulsion of paedophiles do the rest -...

Or associate paedophilia a child dancing in a bar with adults throwing money and hollering.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It won’t do that at all. The whole intent of this thread sure is to link transgenderism to paedophilia. Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is old news. Transgenderism is the newest “threat” to society... apparently - associate paedophilia with anything you have an objection to and let people’s paranoia and revulsion of paedophiles do the rest -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_4BZnWnXzI

Yeah I get your point but it will. Lets face it, some ppl are so thick uniformed that they think transgenderism and homosexuality are one and the same thing. All stuff that it not straightforward heterosexuality that is somehow intrinsically warped.

As a homosexual one might think I might know all about transgenderism. I don't and the more controversies there are concerning it the more confused I get. In other words there is proof that there is no connection between homosexuality and transgenderism. I am to a transgender what a heterosexual is to transgender, in other words no connection at all, but as I said some think they are kinda the same thing in a slightly different form.



In an earlier post I made some not too flattering remarks about Drag artists related to my experience of them in gay bars in my past. This story has done nothing to raise my respect for them. I have always found their 'thing' to be about being 'outrageous' for the sake of it, attention seekers of the highest and in your face order. That is what they are about and this time they have overstepped the mark in drawing attention to themselves all designed to inflate their needy ego. They have done a lot of damage and I think it's about time some of them voiced disapproval for what has been going on but given their physiological state of mind I'm afraid that hope is highly unlikely to transpire.

Alrigghtythen

He's on the autistic spectrum according to his mother

https://m.imgur.com/a/xrv521C


Link is to picture of fb message

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

She’s seriously that upset because of a 1 Star review? Her child is that delicate and she thinks he’s fair game to put on a stage for the world to see?? And then pull the vulnerability card when the reaction isn’t what the child wants?
With all due respect it’s up to her and her husband to protect her child.

AllForIt

I think the greatest thing that annoys me about this is the idea that being into Drag is somehow part of one's identity in the sense it's akin to one's nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation etc. And that this Desmond kid in 'coming out' as a Drag artist at a young age is somehow a symbol of Dragism acceptance in society. This is absurd but that is the way this is playing out in the media. It's as absurd as a teenager 'coming out' as a plumber.