Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

TV3 Toy Show, inappropriatally sexual for a kids show?

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Macavity.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭Macavity.


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Gay people are nothing to be scared of Newmug. You're children will be fine.

    Keep building that strawman.


  • Options
    #93
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Again, the post made about the OP being outraged for the sake of it was made before any other posts. Therefore comparing it to posts made afterwards is ridiculous.

    That doesn't make any sense at all. Can I not compare Die Hard to A Good Day To Die Hard because the latter was made afterwards? Should I not compare Castlevania to Castlevania II: Simon's Quest?

    What point are you trying to make?


  • Options
    #94
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    newmug wrote: »

    No, the thread is not about my attitude towards cross dressing. Its about sexually inappropriate behaviour being aired on a kids TV show. It is YOU and a few others who keep bringing up the fact that this man is gay NOT me.

    I haven't brought up he was gay either, except to say it's irrelevant. You, in your OP, made this about the inappropriateness of cross dressing.


  • Options
    #95
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Have you said something like that before? I've a distinct memory of reading lines that on more than one occassion on boards... I just can't place them. Awful sense of deja-vu...

    Eh no I haven't. I think you're looking for the conspiracy forum.


  • Options
    #96
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense at all. Can I not compare Die Hard to A Good Day To Die Hard because the latter was made afterwards? Should I not compare Castlevania to Castlevania II: Simon's Quest?

    What point are you trying to make?

    My point is that me asking if this was a case of being outraged for the sake of being outraged was based on limited information given by the OP. Any posts of outrage at the OP was made afterwards. The poster who quoted me seemed to imply there was a certain sense of irony that it was said, given other posts in this thread. However, since the posts were made afterwards, the irony is lost. If I posted that after all the rest of the posts, then yes, there may be a certain sense of irony to it. Given that that's not what happened, there isn't, therefore his point isn't valid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Eh no I haven't. I think you're looking for the conspiracy forum.

    No, it was just slightly off topic. I definitely remember someone saying just about those exact words on another thread before, it was just odd is all :o


  • Options
    #98
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    No, it was just slightly off topic. I definitely remember someone saying just about those exact words on another thread before, it was just odd is all :o

    Ah OK well it wasn't me.


  • Options
    #99
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Macavity. wrote: »
    Keep building that strawman.

    It's not a strawman, its the truth. Newmug is concerned for his kids, I'd say he is probably the only person who has an issue with it but its not surprising given his previous posting. His worries say more about him than anything really.


  • Options
    #100
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Howling "homophobe" on the basis of the opening post just gives the crowd who go on about the PC brigade ammunition.
    Kneejerk isn't effective debate - from people of any political persuasion.


  • Options
    #101
    Macavity.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭Macavity.


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It's not a strawman, its the truth. Newmug is concerned for his kids, I'd say he is probably the only person who has an issue with it but its not surprising given his previous posting. His worries say more about him than anything really.
    Gay people are nothing to be scared of Newmug.

    He has not implied that gays are anything to be scared of. It's pretty obvious from this thread that a number of people take issue with what was shown. You have tried to build up this strawman to distract from that fact.

    It's a common tactic on this site and drives me fucking mad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    Howling "homophobe" on the basis of the opening post just gives the crowd who go on about the PC brigade ammunition.
    Kneejerk isn't effective debate - from people of any political persuasion.

    So there's not a hint of homophobia in the OP?


  • Options
    #103
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Macavity. wrote: »
    He has not implied that gays are anything to be scared of. It's pretty obvious from this thread that a number of people take issue with what was shown. You have tried to build up this strawman to distract from that fact.

    It's a common tactic on this site and drives me fucking mad.

    Look at his post history Macavity, he's well known for his dislike of gay people. Its not an isolated post.


  • Options
    #104
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    So there's not a hint of homophobia in the OP?
    Tbh I read it more as just being concerned about sexual innuendo on a children's show, the sexual orientation of the person in question being irrelevant (although no need to mention it, that's true).
    Personally I wouldn't consider it a big deal - that kind of stuff goes over children's heads, but I dislike leaping to call people homophobes, racists, sexists etc on the basis of a few lines they're written that don't explicitly indicate that they're any of the above.
    Of course they could then keep on writing and eventually their mask slip, but until then, I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.


  • Options
    #105
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    Tbh I read it more as just being concerned about sexual innuendo on a children's show, the sexual orientation of the person in question being irrelevant (although no need to mention it, that's true).
    Personally I wouldn't consider it a big deal - that kind of stuff goes over children's heads, but I dislike leaping to call people homophobes, racists, sexists etc on the basis of a few lines they're written that don't explicitly indicate that they're any of the above.
    Of course they could then keep on writing and eventually their mask slip, but until then, I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    I disagree, the post was clearly written with homophobic undertones and people are entitled to point that out. It's quite rare that people leap to those conclusions. People are entitled to refer to something as homophobic, racist, sexist etc. Freedom of speech.


  • Options
    #106
    Macavity.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭Macavity.


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Look at his post history Macavity, he's well known for his dislike of gay people. Its not an isolated post.

    I'll have a look later on, not familiar with him/her.


  • Options
    #107
    R0ot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    Father of two (almost 3) found the clip (just after they talk to Santa at around the 1 hour 2 minute mark on the tv3 player), okay it's a little bit tongue in cheek reference but I'd have no problem with my kids watching that. I don't consider cross dressing to be specifically sexual either.

    As was said if this was a gay female celebrity / person that had Barbie cross dressing into action man's clothes you'd probably be fine with it. My kids undress every doll they get, you'd have trouble finding the clothes most of the time and unless you are trying to imply that the mere mention of "cross-dressing" is going to have some unforeseen impact/direct influence on their sexual orientation later in life and that's why you think it was a sexual reference your opinion (and that's what it is) is flawed (in my opinion).


  • Options
    #108
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    I disagree, the post was clearly written with homophobic undertones and people are entitled to point that out.
    I don't agree with "clearly" - I think it's a subjective interpretation.
    Perhaps you're right but I don't agree it's definite.
    It's quite rare that people leap to those conclusions.
    Not really anymore on social media.
    People are entitled to refer to something as homophobic, racist, sexist etc. Freedom of speech.
    Calling someone a homophobe without sufficient grounds? Don't know about freedom of speech applying here; there's also defamation.
    People also have the free speech to say it's out of line to call someone a homophobe without sufficient grounds.


  • Options
    #109
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    I don't agree with "clearly" - I think it's a subjective interpretation.
    Perhaps you're right but I don't agree it's definite.

    Not really anymore on social media.

    Calling someone a homophobe without sufficient grounds? Don't know about freedom of speech applying here; there's also defamation.
    People also have the free speech to say it's out of line to call someone a homophobe without sufficient grounds.

    You've just admitted that there's a possibility that the OP was homophobic.

    The evidence is in the post. It's not being said without foundation. The post has homophobic undertones.

    It doesn't mean the poster is a bad person or that I condemn him/her, but it's seems simply clear that the post has homophobic undertones. Rather than denying it, the poster and people that write up similar things/believe things about gay people, should try to challenge their own prejudices.

    Often debates on gay issues try to exclude the word "homophobia" because homophobic people get terribly annoyed when they're called out on it.


  • Options
    #110
    Don Kedick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Don Kedick


    Gay or not, Brian Dowling is a bit of a dick.


  • Options
    #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Gay people are nothing to be scared of Newmug. You're children will be fine.

    Nice twisting of the OPs point


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sup_dude wrote: »
    My point is that me asking if this was a case of being outraged for the sake of being outraged was based on limited information given by the OP. Any posts of outrage at the OP was made afterwards. The poster who quoted me seemed to imply there was a certain sense of irony that it was said, given other posts in this thread. However, since the posts were made afterwards, the irony is lost. If I posted that after all the rest of the posts, then yes, there may be a certain sense of irony to it. Given that that's not what happened, there isn't, therefore his point isn't valid.

    Perhaps you need a hobby. I made the post you are referring to and even I'm not that invested in it


  • Options
    #113
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Perhaps you need a hobby. I made the post you are referring to and even I'm not that invested in it


    It was asked to be explained, so I explained it.


  • Options
    #114
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    You've just admitted that there's a possibility that the OP was homophobic.

    The evidence is in the post. It's not being said without foundation. The post has homophobic undertones.
    Admitting a possibility is not the same as saying it's a definite. And that possibility doesn't mean it's right to yell "Homophobe!" either.
    I'm just saying let someone elaborate before deciding they're something that they may not be.
    The only thing in the post that indicated possible homophobic undertones to me was the mentioning that the guy is gay, which wasn't necessary (this however doesn't mean homophobia for definite either though). However otherwise, in the following:
    "He said that action man was his favourite in such an "OOoohh Matron" kind of way, then he said he used to undress him, and then CROSS dress him! Even if it was true, why would you say that to anyone?


    If you're gay, you're gay, whatever, I don't care. But I don't want my kids to know about things of a sexual nature for a few years to come yet. If that was a straight man saying his favourite doll was his sisters Barbie, and that he used to undress her for pervy reasons, there would have been uproar."

    Some naivety there (cross-dressing is of course not always sexual - if it were, that means a whole lot of sexy pantos and TV shows) but homophobia? I genuinely don't see it for definite - just open to interpretation.


  • Options
    #115
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,062 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    Admitting a possibility is not the same as saying it's a definite. And that possibility doesn't mean it's right to yell "Homophobe!" either.
    I'm just saying let someone elaborate before deciding they're something that they may not be.
    The only thing in the post that indicated possible homophobic undertones to me was the mentioning that the guy is gay, which wasn't necessary (this however doesn't mean homophobia for definite either though). However otherwise, in the following:
    "He said that action man was his favourite in such an "OOoohh Matron" kind of way, then he said he used to undress him, and then CROSS dress him! Even if it was true, why would you say that to anyone?


    If you're gay, you're gay, whatever, I don't care. But I don't want my kids to know about things of a sexual nature for a few years to come yet. If that was a straight man saying his favourite doll was his sisters Barbie, and that he used to undress her for pervy reasons, there would have been uproar."

    Some naivety there (cross-dressing is of course not always sexual - if it were, that means a whole lot of sexy pantos and TV shows) but homophobia? I genuinely don't see it for definite - just open to interpretation.

    This is the point you're missing...Interpretation..and many of us felt it was homophobic.

    The people that believed it was homophobic are entitled to say that and you're entitled to disagree with that. But to say they aren't allowed to use terms like homophobic, is just unfair and censorship.


  • Options
    #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sup_dude wrote: »
    It was asked to be explained, so I explained it.

    OK. I understand your point about sequence of posts, but honestly don't agree with it. Agree to disagree?

    Anyway, if the 'claims' about newmug are true, then I might start backing out of this thread


  • Options
    #117
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    This is the point you're missing...Interpretation..and many of us felt it was homophobic.
    Well you said "clearly" though - it's not clearly IMO.
    The people that believed it was homophobic are entitled to say that and you're entitled to disagree with that. But to say they aren't allowed to use terms like homophobic, is just unfair and censorship.
    Who said they aren't allowed? :confused:
    Saying it's not fair to call someone a homophobe until there's sufficient evidence (not a discussion forum post that's subject to interpretation) is not saying they're not allowed say it; but others should also be allowed to say when they don't think it's fair to assess someone as homophobic.


  • Options
    #118
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    I don't agree with "clearly" - I think it's a subjective interpretation.
    Perhaps you're right but I don't agree it's definite.

    Not really anymore on social media.

    Calling someone a homophobe without sufficient grounds? Don't know about freedom of speech applying here; there's also defamation.
    People also have the free speech to say it's out of line to call someone a homophobe without sufficient grounds.

    It seems that a homophobe is anyone who disagrees with the act of homosexuality.

    Free speach and a right to having a point of view based on whatever grounds is forbidden if it doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda.


  • Options
    #119
    batnolan
    Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭batnolan


    Non issue. The innuendo would have gone over the heads of the kids but some adults watching it might have found it humorous (and toy shows are dreadfully boring and tedious.) Look at all the sexual innuendo that goes on in cartoon shows.


  • Options
    #120
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Emily Green Lottery wrote: »
    It seems that a homophobe is anyone who disagrees with the act of homosexuality.

    No sh1t.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Emily Green Lottery wrote: »
    It seems that a homophobe is anyone who disagrees with the act of homosexuality.
    Well yeh, and disliking gay people because they're gay, and viewing them as perverted or even choosing to be gay.
    Free speach and a right to having a point of view based on whatever grounds is forbidden if it doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda.
    "Homosexual agenda" - the other extreme to the "You're homophobic!!!" in response to the vaguest of the vague!


Advertisement