So I managed to convince some of my liberal friends to rescind support of Desmond. It most certainly can be done, if you go about it in the right way. Here are some do's and don't's.
DO: frame it in terms of Desmond's page being "problematic". They respond well to that word, as it signifies something off about the narrative as opposed to anything inherent about the person. The word problematic means that something warrants further investigation.
DON'T: Use the word degenerate or make any references to degeneracy. You have to consider that misguided liberals would be supporting Desmond because they think they are supporting LGBTQ expression, and certainly they would not react well to the insinuation of LGBTQ people being degenerate.
DO: Suggest the problem is that Desmond is being exploited by his parents and pedophiles, and that a queer child is not being allowed to have a childhood free of sexualization. A liberal would be looking out for the wellbeing of a queer child in most cases.
DON'T: Suggest the problem is Desmond's queerness, or that Desmond is not actually queer and his parents are just telling him that. As much as you may believe in this being the case, a lot of gay people can know they are gay pretty young. Think about it, in general, it's not unusual to know what genders you like pretty young, many of you probably knew you liked men pretty young too (or women).
DO: Provide specific examples of the exploitation, like the Three Dollar Bill incident, the naked posing with drag queens, and the inappropriate comments on the pages that the parents leave up. Frank examples speak for themselves.
DON'T: Link to any news articles on Desmond, as those can be accused of having a conservative bias since few liberal outlets are willing to report on it.
ESPECIALLY DON'T : Link to this KF thread as evidence.
