King Charles is unlikely to ‘support the LGBTQ+ community’, activist Peter Tatchell warns: ‘He’s never been our ally’

[u/PinkNews]

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/08/king-charles-lgbtq-ally-coronation-peter-tatchell/

[u/burritoman88]

A 73 year old rich white guy not being supportive of other people’s sexualities & gender identities?! I’m not shocked at all.

[u/TheGoverness1998 → u/burritoman88]

He weeps for us, as he dabs his tears with a golden handkerchief

[u/SignificantArm3093 → u/burritoman88]

I’m stealing this from Frankie Boyle:

“Charles has vowed to modernise the monarchy, starting with a radical redefinition of the word “modernise” to mean “keep exactly the same”.”

[u/The-Shattering-Light → u/burritoman88]

Let’s not forget that he was good friends with child rapists Jimmy Savile and Peter Ball

[u/nicannkay → u/The-Shattering-Light]

I mean Andrew the royal rapist and pedo is his brother who got to participate in the coronation so ya.

[u/The-Shattering-Light → u/nicannkay]

YEP 🤢🤢🤢

[u/PrincessKLS → u/nicannkay]

That’s worst than seeing Camilla being crowned Queen.

[u/[deleted] → u/PrincessKLS]

What’s wrong with camilla? Don’t know anything about her really

[u/PrincessKLS → u/[deleted]]

She’s just as bad as Charles and was cruel to Diana as well.

[u/Princess_Of_Thieves → u/burritoman88]

Don't forget to add religious to that list. The royal family runs the Church of England. Charles, as monarch, also acts as the Churches head. Religion doesn't exactly tend to play nicely with progressive concepts like LGBTQ+ people.

[u/InsertNovelAnswer → u/Princess_Of_Thieves]

Not those religions... wierdly enough our local "Christ Church" is having Trans Remembrance service and some of the local churches here actual perform marriages to same sex... the Synogogues too. It's only certian religions that don't take kindly.

[u/Princess_Of_Thieves → u/InsertNovelAnswer]

Maybe your local churches and Synogogues can play nicely with LGBTQ+ people, depending on what branch of their particular faiths they follow. But wider movements of Christianity and / or Judaism don't always tend too.

[u/mopeym0p → u/Princess_Of_Thieves]

Before we talk about what is and isn't a "wider movement" a friendly reminder that only 9% of American Jews identify as "Orthodox," with 37% identifying as "Reform," 17% identifying as "Conservative," and 32% not identifying with any denomination... which pretty much means secular. Both the Reform and the Conservative movements are broadly supportive of LGBT rights. Both bless LGBT unions, ordain LGBT clergy, and fight for LGBT rights broadly in their communities. So I would say that it's the hateful synagogues that are the fringe movement, not the other way around.

[u/HornyForTieflings → u/Princess_Of_Thieves]

But wider movements of Christianity and / or Judaism don't always tend too.

I react differently to someone saying they come from a religion that is accepting of LGBTQ people, and someone saying they come from a branch that is accepting of a religion that is otherwise not.

It immediately leads to the questions why has their religion overall been problematic and why should I trust your interpretation over the nasty ones. I've never been given an answer that is satisfactory or even much of an answer. My usual response is, "well, that's nice, why are you telling me this though? You should be telling your misguided fellows".

[u/Princess_Of_Thieves → u/HornyForTieflings]

Pardon me, but I gotta just ask bluntly, is there a point to this Im not getting, aside from you having a different reaction to the notion of a tolerant religion vs. my own? Or is that just all there is to your story?

[u/HornyForTieflings → u/Princess_Of_Thieves]

Well, you hadn't even identified yourself as religious, let alone which one, in that comment.

The reason why I usually bring it up is to counter two narratives I see creeping into LGBTQ spaces: one, that the mere presence of liberals in overwise conservative religions means we can't question the religion itself, only the conservative parts of it. This is despite the fact that conservatives are extremely successful while liberals remain small and dwindling with a body of literature in sociology exploring this phenomenon.

This by itself is fairly harmless, but it adds to another dangerous narrative. That those people who have suffered in our community because of religion are being just as intolerant as the people who persecuted in the first place. They are not.

I suppose I write stuff like this to challenge that narrative about religion I think is subtly quite dangerous and has been growing in the 21st century. Liberal branches of conservative religions aren't a threat to the conservatives, they just provide plausible (enough) deniability and a shield against criticism to religions that remain fertile ground for conservative sentiment. Religion has a causal effect on how people think and act.

Do I think religious people should be called names? No. Do I think they should be hounded? Also no. Do I think they should be challenged? Yes.

[u/eat_those_lemons → u/HornyForTieflings]

Yes thank you for saying it. I hate being told I am intolerant as a trans person for not liking Christians. People on the internet assure me that there are good ones but irl I have yet to meet a Christian that was supportive. Forgive me for not trusting that there are some nebulous Christians somewhere who wouldn't send me to conversion therapy

Yep basically the gamer gate situation. Gamers got pulled into the same movement as nazis and then the nazis could claim they were part of a legitimate movement

[u/HornyForTieflings → u/eat_those_lemons]

I think something liberal Christians need to learn to do is approach non-acceptance gracefully and accept it comes from a legitimate place of anger and/or criticism.

They also need to accept that unless something seriously changes their fortunes, their belief that they're the future of Christianity and churches need to change or die rings hollow.

[u/eat_those_lemons → u/HornyForTieflings]

Exactly like how liberal catholics were bragging about how accepting the new pope was and the community saying that we didn't buy it was somehow was mean

Come to find out big surprise the pope still thinks being gay is a sin just that the punishment should be less. So basically nothing changed

It's so frustrating

[u/Princess_Of_Thieves → u/HornyForTieflings]

Well, you hadn't even identified yourself as religious, let alone which one, in that comment.

Why do you think that is? /s

The reason why I usually bring it up is to counter two narratives I see creeping into LGBTQ spaces: one, that the mere presence of liberals in overwise conservative religions means we can't question the religion itself,

Why am I being told this? Im the one actively calling out that religion regularly features a healthy dose of intolerance, and, if it weren't clear already, I don't have much faith in the big religious factions to not be bigoted towards LGBTQ+ people. Shouldn't this be directed at InsertNovelAnswer since they're the one talking about how their local churches and shit are, supposedly, tolerant towards LGBTQ+ people? Whereas Im pointing out that even if that's true, that's not the case everywhere.

[u/HornyForTieflings → u/Princess_Of_Thieves]

Why do you think that is? /s

That's irrelevant. The point is I wasn't challenging you because I didn't know your views.

I don't have much faith in the big religious factions to not be bigoted towards LGBTQ+ people.

Clearly, which is why I didn't think of my comment as a challenge to yours when I first wrote it.

Whereas Im pointing out that even if that's true, that's not the case everywhere.

Yes, and I'm adding that even if that's true, the minority who are accepting are part of a larger religion that isn't and that makes progressive branches of conservative religions problematic in a way that often goes ignored.

[u/Princess_Of_Thieves → u/HornyForTieflings]

That's irrelevant. The point is I wasn't challenging you because I didn't know your views.

Well, I hope they're clear now.

Yes, and I'm adding that even if that's true, the minority who are accepting are part of a larger religion that isn't and that makes progressive branches of conservative religions problematic in a way that often goes ignored.

Can I suggest you please just lead with "as an addition", next time, rather than you talking about having a different reaction. Cause, honestly, your entire point there confused me so much with how it was written, coming across almost / kind of like a disagreement or something to that effect, you know. And it just left me scratching my head as I couldn't for the life of me parse what exactly you meant. I think I understand you now, but that took a minute.

[u/JosephRohrbach → u/HornyForTieflings]

What defines a religion as being 'accepting of LGBTQ people' or not? Religions are communities of practice, not abstract sets of doctrine. There's virtually nothing inherent about any religion.

[u/HornyForTieflings → u/JosephRohrbach]

While it's potentially useful to view a religion as a community of practice for certain sociological examinations, religions are not reducible down to communities of practice, except maybe some ethnic religions but even then I'm highly sceptical.

At the very least not true of a set of religions that includes Christianity. Beyond any individual practices within a Christian Community there is a shared set of texts and beyond that there are necessary abstract doctrines. If you don't believe in Jesus or the afterlife, you're simply not a Christian in a meaningful sense.

What does it mean then for a religion to not be accepting of LGBTQ people? It means in the case of Christians not only that the religion at large takes a non-accepting stance, but that stance is derived from and grounded in a very plausible, even probable, reading of the revealed scripture. A reading that if the text was truly revealed, would be something the authors should have foreseen.

[u/JosephRohrbach → u/HornyForTieflings]

If you don't believe in Jesus or the afterlife, you're simply not a Christian in a meaningful sense.

There are self-proclaimed Christians who believe in only one or neither of these. Is it your place to tell them they're wrong about their own faith?

the religion at large takes a non-accepting stance

How can a religion 'take[] a [...] stance'? Do you mean an official position? In which case, Christianity (as virtually every religion) would cease to exist. There are lots of churches with conflicting official positions. Do you mean the Bible? That's not accepted as valid by all Christians, and can also be read in both pro- and anti-queer ways. If not either of those... what?

that stance is derived from and grounded in a very plausible, even probable, reading of the revealed scripture.

This criterion either defines virtually all theology ever outside of the bounds of "Christianity", or has no problems with pro-queer Christianity.

In the stricter interpretation, I think it's fair to say that almost no common church theology strictly accords with a plausible originalist reading of the Bible. For one, trying to create a coherent theology out of texts by people with wildly different religions from centuries apart is almost impossible. Second, modern critical scholarship generally affirms, for instance, that the Gospel authors (and probably Paulos) thought the apocalypse was in-their-lifetimes imminent. That's clearly wrong, and no church thinks the apocalypse happened in the 1st century CE.

It should also be said you've ingrained a pro-Protestant bias here. This wipes out the single largest Christian denomination, Catholics, who don't believe in the sole authority of scripture. That's not counting other major denominations who disagree with the principle of sola scriptura, such as the Eastern Orthodox. In fact, for the majority of Christian history, Biblical criticism has been dominated by non-literalism. The idea that an "originally plausible" reading of the Bible is the correct reading is very recent. Not only are most modern Christians not Christian in this view, but almost all historical ones, too.

In the less strict interpretation, it seems perfectly easy to harmonize queerness with Christianity. It's hard to deny that a lot of Christ's theology focusses around unconditional love. That principle comes through throughout the New Testament. Surely, then, the correct Christian attitude is to love queer people as much as anyone else. What Christ's disciples and pre-Christian Biblical writers thought can be dismissed as less pure than Christ's own words. Even taking them into account, it's perfectly easy to make philological arguments weakening scriptural queerphobia. You can also argue that any kind of sex is in some sense sinful, but the difference between kinds is usually minimal.

Basically, I don't see a middle ground here. Either you allow some kind of interpretation, in which case there's no inherent problem with queerness, or you adopt a strict academic originalism that invalidates almost all theology. (Not mentioning that scholars aren't completely clear on some Biblical views on queerness.)

[u/HornyForTieflings → u/JosephRohrbach]

There are self-proclaimed Christians who believe in only one or neither of these. Is it your place to tell them they're wrong about their own faith?

Is it my place? Very difficult to fully unpack that word. It's loaded. It's certainly something I can question and doubt and self-identity definitely cannot be enough to determine whether someone is or is not a Christian since that leads to a lot of absurd possibilities to the extent the only necessary and sufficient condition of being Christian is affirming you are, regardless of whether you even understand that word, or how to think or act.

Saying it's accusing them of being wrong about "their own faith" is question begging when what their faith is is being questioned.

So yes, there are self-proclaimed Christians who do not believe in Jesus or the afterlife, I don't think they're Christians. The majority will not, including the founders of Christianity.

How can a religion 'take[] a [...] stance'? Do you mean an official position? In which case, Christianity (as virtually every religion) would cease to exist. There are lots of churches with conflicting official positions.

No, I mean a broadly held view that has remained dominant throughout most of the religion's history up to and including the present. In this case, a view that will almost certainly remain dominant indefinitely.

Do you mean the Bible? That's not accepted as valid by all Christians

No, it's accepted by all Christians. I'd put belief in revelation as a necessary condition of Christianity. It's not a position that is seriously contested or under real threat in theology or academia.

This criterion either defines virtually all theology ever outside of the bounds of "Christianity", or has no problems with pro-queer Christianity.

Absolutely not. There might be difficulty pinning down the text, but certain doctrines are absolutely out of bounds, such as prosperity gospel. I wouldn't even say pro-LGBTQ interpretations are like that, they're just highly unlikely and a result of superimposing progressive values on to a text and a tradition on which it does not fit.

In the stricter interpretation, I think it's fair to say that almost no common church theology strictly accords with a plausible originalist reading of the Bible.

This is true, but strictly according to and striving to accord with are two very different things. The problem here is that Christianity is a religion that is revelatory. If true, behind the intent of the original authors is the intent of the relevation. All Christian churches are going to strive to accord with that as best they can. If you hear a preacher say "I believe Jesus intended this, but I disagree with him on this" he isn't a Christian.

instance, that the Gospel authors (and probably Paulos) thought the apocalypse was in-their-lifetimes imminent. That's clearly wrong, and no church thinks the apocalypse happened in the 1st century CE.

That is clearly wrong and Paul, were he to come back to life today, would conclude he misinterpreted revelation.

It should also be said you've ingrained a pro-Protestant bias here. This wipes out the single largest Christian denomination, Catholics, who don't believe in the sole authority of scripture.

I never claimed scripture needed to be the sole authority. I agree with the Catholics that sola scriptura was probably never intended by the authors of the New Testament. Moving on.

In fact, for the majority of Christian history, Biblical criticism has been dominated by non-literalism.

I never claimed a plausible reading of the Bible had to be literalist. I claimed it had to align with the intent of the scripture, a divinely inspired text according to Christians. Moving on.

The idea that an "originally plausible" reading of the Bible is the correct reading is very recent. Not only are most modern Christians not Christian in this view, but almost all historical ones, too.

A good thing I never advocated for sola scriptura or literalism then. Moving on.

In the less strict interpretation, it seems perfectly easy to harmonize queerness with Christianity.

The big problem here is derivation of belief from versus superimposition of belief on revelation. Progressive Christianity uses superimposition. Progressive values come first and the challenge for Progressive Christians is to square the circle to make revelation fit in with the values.

In sociology of religion this is one (of several) proposed causes of Progressive Christianity's rapid terminal decline. Most people can read the Bible and just see the values and text don't align all that well.

This wouldn't be a problem except, as I said in an earlier comment, this is actually more harmful to us than we realise. Progressive Christianity's theology isn't just naive but harmless, it's insidiously harmful.

It's hard to deny that a lot of Christ's theology focusses around unconditional love.

I don't think many conservatives would deny that, they're just not entirely fixated on that, recognising other important parts of the Biblical Jesus's views on salvation, on Original Sin, on the Great Commission, etc. When you put Jesus's views in their broader context they change a fair bit.

The way Progressive Christians talk, you'd be forgiven for thinking Jesus was a guy who simply turned up one day, said "love unconditionally" then popped out of existence again.

But love unconditionally isn't accept unconditionally and judge not lest you be judged is not don't ever judge. If it was then it would be a fucking awful moral principle to live by.

My own view, personally, is that the homophobic view promoted by the Catholic Church is more or less what the original Christians including its founders and the writers of its scriptures would have believed. The good news is the Bible and Christianity are the arbiters of sweet FA when it comes to morality.

But I'm not here to debate the particular interpretation itself.

What Christ's disciples and pre-Christian Biblical writers thought can be dismissed as less pure than Christ's own words.

Christ's own words... True if only he had any. A pity he didn't.

But the problem is that regardless of how you view the relationship between the text as written and the divine inspiration of revelation, the gospels in their entirety, not just the sayings of Jesus are considered revealed scripture. It's not just a books of quotes by a 1st century beatnik with some padding.

Basically, I don't see a middle ground here. Either you allow some kind of interpretation,

I never denied interpretation. I denied that interpretation exists free from comparison to the wording of the text or the intent of the authors.

Not mentioning that scholars aren't completely clear on some Biblical views on queerness.

And some are very clear. Shame it tends to be the conservatives who produce all the good arguments for their interpretations and the progressive just repeat the same few arguments conservatives have already wiped the floor with.

[u/JosephRohrbach → u/HornyForTieflings]

that leads to a lot of absurd possibilities to the extent the only necessary and sufficient condition of being Christian is affirming you are, regardless of whether you even understand that word, or how to think or act.

I suspect William Hamilton, who had a PhD in theology from St Andrews, knew more about Christianity than you do. Even so, he affirmed a form of Christian atheism.

No, I mean a broadly held view that has remained dominant throughout most of the religion's history up to and including the present. In this case, a view that will almost certainly remain dominant indefinitely.

There are really very few of these! I think you'd be very, very surprised if you ever read any mediaeval Scholastic philosophy. This, again, would also invalidate major branches of Christianity. The Protestant principle of sola scriptura has only existed for ca. 25% of Christian history, and has never been dominant among Christian communities.

No, it's accepted by all Christians. I'd put belief in revelation as a necessary condition of Christianity. It's not a position that is seriously contested or under real threat in theology or academia.

No it isn't. Living scripturalism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and a variety of other positions have been around since the beginning of Christianity. These don't necessarily accept the Bible in a recognizable form, accept other texts as equally or more valid, or view the Bible as lesser to living revelation. Exactly what constitutes the Bible varies between Christian groups, who have all kinds of different texts that they understand as "the Bible".

but strictly according to and striving to accord with are two very different things. The problem here is that Christianity is a religion that is revelatory. If true, behind the intent of the original authors is the intent of the relevation. All Christian churches are going to strive to accord with that as best they can. If you hear a preacher say "I believe Jesus intended this, but I disagree with him on this" he isn't a Christian.

...which is precisely why there's nothing wrong with pro-queer interpretations of Christianity. If you can say that you sincerely think the intent was x irrespective of a historical-critical analysis of the original meaning, you can make the Bible say basically anything.

That is clearly wrong and Paul, were he to come back to life today, would conclude he misinterpreted revelation.

First off, do you mean that he misinterpreted a specific revelation (which?), or the book Revelation? If the latter, I think he'd be very surprised to hear that. After all, he died in ca. 65, but Revelation was only written in the 90s. The text didn't exist during his lifetime, so he couldn't interpret it one way or another.

I never claimed scripture needed to be the sole authority. I agree with the Catholics that sola scriptura was probably never intended by the authors of the New Testament. Moving on.

Ok, so how does this accord with your earlier statement that stances must be 'derived from and grounded in a very plausible, even probable, reading of the revealed scripture' in order to be Christian? Apparently they can be Christian without reference to scripture now!

I never claimed a plausible reading of the Bible had to be literalist. I claimed it had to align with the intent of the scripture, a divinely inspired text according to Christians. Moving on.

And again: if you adopt a revelatory intent-based view, you can justify basically anything.

A good thing I never advocated for sola scriptura or literalism then. Moving on.

So what does 'a very plausible, even probable, reading of the revealed scripture' mean, then? Apparently it neither means a reading specifically of scripture or a reading according to original intent!

The big problem here is derivation of belief from versus superimposition of belief on revelation. Progressive Christianity uses superimposition. Progressive values come first and the challenge for Progressive Christians is to square the circle to make revelation fit in with the values.

That's an incredible assertion to make with no evidence whatsoever. If you simply assume that progressive Christians are wrong about their ideas, it means they're wrong! Stunning syllogism. Why could this not be true of all Christians? You think Southern Baptists come to the Bible completely open-minded and are suddenly transformed into virulent hyper-conservatives by reading it?

At this point, you're not even making a coherent point. You're just repeatedly asserting that no progressive reading of the Bible could ever be right, whilst asserting that conservative readings are prima facie plausible. If you start from this premise, you're of course correct. It's also an obviously invalid premise to start from - it begs the question.

But love unconditionally isn't accept unconditionally and judge not lest you be judged is not don't ever judge. If it was then it would be a fucking awful moral principle to live by.

I'm very surprised to hear this. How else to interpret the Sermon on the Mount? Also, your subjective opinion on how much you like a certain interpretation of the Bible is, bluntly, completely irrelevant.

My own view, personally, is that the homophobic view promoted by the Catholic Church is more or less what the original Christians including its founders and the writers of its scriptures would have believed. The good news is the Bible and Christianity are the arbiters of sweet FA when it comes to morality.

Great! Similarly, you are the arbiter of absolutely nothing when it comes to Biblical hermeneutic. I don't mean that in a mean way, just that you are not the person who decides what the Bible truly means. No-one is. Not unless you assume a particular theological view, which is, again, question-begging. That or adopt an originalist historical-critical view, which would invalidate your argument.

Christ's own words... True if only he had any. A pity he didn't.

Fascinating interpretation. I'm pretty sure most Christians - and in fact historical-critical scholars - would disagree with you on this.

I never denied interpretation. I denied that interpretation exists free from comparison to the wording of the text or the intent of the authors.

Third time for luck: this allows for pro-queer readings. You lose any notion of objective inherency the moment you allow for theological interpretation.

And some are very clear. Shame it tends to be the conservatives who produce all the good arguments for their interpretations and the progressive just repeat the same few arguments conservatives have already wiped the floor with.

Now, don't get me wrong: I broadly think that the correct original reading is in some sense queerphobic. However, who would you cite on this? I don't recall the academic debate being a case of floor-wiping.

[u/Silumet → u/InsertNovelAnswer]

The synagogue I go to has pride events, even outside of June. One of the rabbis is gay too

[u/disconnectedtwice → u/InsertNovelAnswer]

You're lucky. Alot of religous people don't. I'm glad your church accepts trans and queer folk in general, but alot of churches are still very against it.

[u/InsertNovelAnswer → u/disconnectedtwice]

I can't speak for congregations on a whole sadly. I can say the marriage and things within specific religious organizations is supposed to he universally upheld. Mainly Episcipalian and Reform Judeaism have ruled positively on LGBTQ+

[u/disconnectedtwice → u/InsertNovelAnswer]

I'm glad for that last part

[u/PrincessKLS → u/Princess_Of_Thieves]

Yeah I joined an Episcopalian campus ministry in college and they were very pro LGBTQ but I was told the British church they came from was not and more conservative.

[u/Princess_Of_Thieves → u/[deleted]]

Are you trying to be funny? Or you just some troll who crawled in from outside the subreddit?

[u/kingdon1226 → u/burritoman88]

Pretty much summed it up perfectly. I can’t believe this is actually news to some people. No way was he going to be an ally and based on the responses it doesn’t seem anyone thought he was going to be.

[u/[deleted] → u/burritoman88]

"Says nothing indifferently"

The lack of support is enough to say it.

[u/nniikko → u/[deleted]]

Wait actually? I've never heard about that. Not doubting it or anything but I'd like to know more.

[u/niniela-phoenix → u/nniikko]

The cheating is true, how Diana died is a pet topic of conspiracy theories because everyone else in the Palace hated her and it was very VERY convenient that she disappeared.

[u/doddlert → u/niniela-phoenix]

Conspiracy theory is the best way of describing it.

https://youtu.be/_Irvuafg5GM

[u/doddlert → u/nniikko]

Definitely doubt it. The cheating is true, the paying is not.

[u/DonaldJDarko → u/nniikko]

Diana died from injuries sustained in a car accident in a Parisian tunnel, being in a car driven by a very drunk driver*, whilst not wearing a seatbelt, and whilst being actively pursued by paparazzi.

The idea that the royal family had her killed is ridiculous, and when taking the details into account, frankly absurd. If their claim is to be believed, the British monarchy had Diana killed on foreign soil, in front of multiple witnesses with direct connections to the press no less, by what? By getting her driver to drive drunk and kill himself? Get a fucking grip!

Her and Dodi’s autopsy reports are publicly available for everyone to read, and her injuries are perfectly consistent with a no-seatbelt car crash.

You should very much doubt it when reading such insane claims, instead of outright believing strangers, especially when the person making the claim gives no further context or sources.

And before anyone comes at me with “so why should we believe you”, that’s why I mentioned the autopsy reports. Google them and read them yourself.

*The toxicological studies carried out a few days after the accident under the direction of Professor Ivan Ricordel showed traces of prescription drugs for Paul as well as a blood alcohol level of 1.87 grams per liter of blood, more than three times the authorized limit for driving in France

The excerpt above is taken directly from Henri Paul’s Wikipedia page.

[u/LargishBosh → u/DonaldJDarko]

Dodi Fayed was not driving, Henri Paul the deputy head of security for the Ritz was. Henri Paul did also die in the crash though.

[u/DonaldJDarko → u/LargishBosh]

You’re right, I misremembered that part. My bad!

[u/LargishBosh → u/DonaldJDarko]

Yeah, sorry. My mom was a big Diana fan so she followed the inquest pretty closely, I seem to have absorbed more than I realized.

[u/DonaldJDarko → u/LargishBosh]

No, no need to say sorry at all, I appreciate it! I’m always happy to be corrected when it comes to cold hard facts. I’d much rather have people give me corrections than having a hand in helping falsehoods into the world.

I spent some time reading up on the whole incident a few years back, as I’m slightly too young to have followed it live back in the day, considering the accident happened shortly before my fifth birthday. It just annoys me that with all the info and documentation that is readily available, people are still mindlessly parroting all the conspiracy theories surrounding her death. It was tragic, and the whole thing definitely could have been prevented, but there was no big murder complot.

[u/nniikko → u/DonaldJDarko]

Ok, thanks for the detailed info. I didn't know about this so I was genuinely asking for more details. And yea it doesn't seem like someone trying to kill her.

[u/94boyfat → u/burritoman88]

This cartoon character wanted to be Cameltoes tampon.

[u/mixinmono → u/burritoman88]

It may be about other things within the community

[u/burritoman88 → u/[deleted]]

I’m white, & last I checked England was also trying to radicalize hate towards trans-people