Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

lynski · 14-07-2014 10:16pm

LordChessington wrote: »

Not that it matters, but Rory made his comments that kicked off Pantigate while dressed heterosexually.

how does one dress heterosexually?
Do you mean he was dressed as a 'real' man? not in recognisable 'homosexual' attire?
perhaps there is a market? hmmm

lynski · 14-07-2014 10:19pm

lazygal wrote: »

Perhaps a jaunty pink triangle could be affixed to outer clothing. And other groups could wear similar identifying shapes.

A&A forum users singled out with a special biscuit shaped one of course so he can identify us and approach and make us state our arguments in broad daylight in front of his discrening gaze, which of course being cowardly cowards of social media we wont.

Mr. CooL ICE · 15-07-2014 10:29am

lynski wrote: »

how does one dress heterosexually?
Do you mean he was dressed as a 'real' man? not in recognisable 'homosexual' attire?
perhaps there is a market? hmmm

My response was to somebody who implied that Rory's experiences of homophobia shouldn't have been taken seriously because he was in drag. He was dressed normally on BOC, not in drag and not in anything that might be synonymous with being gay, i.e. a pink suit. You can read more into it if you want, but I was defending him.

Nodin · 15-07-2014 2:27pm

lazygal wrote: »

Perhaps a jaunty pink triangle could be affixed to outer clothing. And other groups could wear similar identifying shapes.

Does that mean I have to affix a drawing of a bollocks on my lapel?

Bannasidhe · 15-07-2014 2:30pm

Nodin wrote: »

Does that mean I have to affix a drawing of a bollocks on my lapel?

Hmmmm...could be interesting explaining the pink vagina broach attached to my stereotypical dungarees and lumberjack shirt* (orwhateverthehellthesterotypesaysishouldbewearing)

*I possess none of these items.

iwantmydinner · 15-07-2014 2:35pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmmm...could be interesting explaining the pink vagina broach attached to my stereotypical dungarees and lumberjack shirt* (orwhateverthehellthesterotypesaysishouldbewearing)

*I possess none of these items.

I 100% want a vagina brooch now.

oscarBravo · 15-07-2014 2:59pm

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I 100% want a vagina brooch now.

I know where you can get a 3D model that you could print into a brooch...!

Sulla Felix · 15-07-2014 3:09pm

I always thought the easter lily pins the shinners flog had a slight resemblance. Eve more so for the 3d bronze plaques thrown up around dublin city centre.

Nodin · 15-07-2014 6:07pm

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I 100% want a vagina brooch now.

There is such a thing. Also rings, if I remember correctly.

Nodin · 15-07-2014 6:08pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmmm...could be interesting explaining the pink vagina broach attached to my stereotypical dungarees and lumberjack shirt* (orwhateverthehellthesterotypesaysishouldbewearing)

*I possess none of these items.

This season I think yez are in hairy armpits, a big beard and a cloud of man-hatred.

Jim Rockford · 15-07-2014 6:18pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I know where you can get a 3D model that you could print into a brooch...!

Have you tried a 3d girlfriend ?

oscarBravo · 15-07-2014 6:27pm

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Have you tried a 3d girlfriend ?

I have one, thanks.

Links234 · 15-07-2014 6:45pm

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Have you tried a 3d girlfriend ?

?

Jim Rockford · 15-07-2014 6:46pm

Links234 wrote: »

?

Whatever floats your boat, but you can't beat a real one you know.

Bannasidhe · 15-07-2014 6:59pm

Nodin wrote: »

This season I think yez are in hairy armpits, a big beard and a cloud of man-hatred.

Two out of three ain't bad.

:pac:

lynski · 15-07-2014 11:47pm

LordChessington wrote: »

My response was to somebody who implied that Rory's experiences of homophobia shouldn't have been taken seriously because he was in drag. He was dressed normally on BOC, not in drag and not in anything that might be synonymous with being gay, i.e. a pink suit. You can read more into it if you want, but I was defending him.

Tongue was firmly lodged in cheek if that was not obvious.

CramCycle · 15-07-2014 11:52pm

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Whatever floats your boat, but you can't beat a real one you know.

You can, but it's frowned upon with good reason :pac:

Jim Rockford · 16-07-2014 10:16am

CramCycle wrote: »

You can, but it's frowned upon with good reason :pac:

I hope you've stopped beating her.

Bannasidhe · 16-07-2014 10:55am

Jim Rockford wrote: »

I hope you've stopped beating her.

Do you have anything interesting to say?

Jim Rockford · 16-07-2014 12:45pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you have anything interesting to say?

Seeing as its ok for everyone else on this thread to make any remarks . . . when someone on this thread does say anything interesting, sure let me know

robindch · 16-07-2014 12:56pm

Jim Rockford wrote: »

when someone on this thread does say anything interesting [...]

Why not try saying something interesting yourself?

We await with -- interest.

Jim Rockford · 16-07-2014 1:01pm

robindch wrote: »

Why not try saying something interesting yourself?

We await with -- interest.

After you . . .

Turtwig · 16-07-2014 1:07pm

Jim Rockford wrote: »

After you . . .

Fine I'll say something interesting so.

Hmm, that wasn't on topic though. This is hard. ..

robindch · 16-07-2014 1:11pm

^^^ Intelligent falling?

Turtwig · 16-07-2014 1:26pm

Divine holy water more like.

SebBerkovich · 23-07-2014 3:15pm

The dead arose and appeared to many...

Mr. Waters should be in jail claims Mr. Waters**. So i guess we've found something that even those in the middle east could agree on.

**Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thing - i'm not a masochist.

Pherekydes · 23-07-2014 3:37pm

On a related topic, I can't help feel that on account of my modest campaign to highlight the absurdity of jailing people for being caught in a queue in the post office...

Jeez, the man is a professional twit.

Bannasidhe · 23-07-2014 4:12pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Jeez, the man is a professional twit.

I skipped the article and began to read the comments. Then I lost the will to live.

Mr. CooL ICE · 23-07-2014 4:23pm

Brian Shanahan · 23-07-2014 7:21pm

LordChessington wrote: »

Fishfingers?

Yumm!

tawnyowl · 07-09-2014 1:23am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmmm if JW is back in the saddle so as to speak, does that mean we can't include Breda on this thread any more?

She had a laughably bad piece in the IT on Saturday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/bert-and-ernie-s-romance-offers-a-lesson-in-tolerance-1.1863318?page=1

I'm pretty sure that's the most stupid sentence I've ever seen written in a broadsheet newspaper.

Strong in the derp this one is!

Vivisectus · 09-09-2014 12:46pm

Reporting the bakery sends the message that it is not okay to disagree, only to capitulate. If legislation for gay marriage is passed, are we to expect more of this kind of behaviour, more targeting of businesses and even attempts to put them out of business? Are we to expect more demands for tolerance from people who exhibit little tolerance in their turn?

Amazing that Breda can spout this a few months after the Iona institute, of which she is a patron, threatened to sue the RTE for someone merely expressing the opinion that they are homophobes, and received a large chunk of public money as a result.

Amazing how intolerant these gays are of intolerance to gays!

So lessons here from auntie breda:

1: Homophobia hurts homophobes when they get called on it. This is gay peoples fault because they are so intolerant of homophobes.
2: Lawsuits against people who refuse someone equal treatment because they have decided a political slogan is against thgeir religion = persecution. Lawsuits against people who campaign for the unequal treatment of gay people = defending the freedom of expression.

TheChizler · 11-09-2014 12:57am

Vivisectus wrote: »

Amazing that Breda can spout this a few months after the Iona institute, of which she is a patron, threatened to sue the RTE for someone merely expressing the opinion that they are homophobes, and received a large chunk of public money as a result.

Or even expressing the opinion that their acts were homophobic.

Interestingly, lately I'm of the opinion (hear me out!) that his wateryness might not actually be homophobic (:eek:).

Recently I was having a conversation with a psychotherapist about the matter. It went along the lines of, some people can feel threatened when they see the world that they're familiar with, or even their perception of the world, changing, and respond to that by reacting inappropriately or doing everything in their power to prevent it changing, even if that change is inevitable and their actions don't address the core of the matter.

So it might be that his actions and words appear, and at times definitely are, homophobic, but at the core might just be cover for insecurity and resistance to change. A horrible way to do it though, with no regard for others, and definitely not ok.

Thought it might be interesting to throw a different opinion into the ring. "They're just homophobes" might be overly simplistic. 'Know your enemy' they say!

oscarBravo · 11-09-2014 9:39am

TheChizler wrote: »

Or even expressing the opinion that their acts were homophobic.

Interestingly, lately I'm of the opinion (hear me out!) that his wateryness might not actually be homophobic (:eek:).

Recently I was having a conversation with a psychotherapist about the matter. It went along the lines of, some people can feel threatened when they see the world that they're familiar with, or even their perception of the world, changing, and respond to that by reacting inappropriately or doing everything in their power to prevent it changing, even if that change is inevitable and their actions don't address the core of the matter.

So it might be that his actions and words appear, and at times definitely are, homophobic, but at the core might just be cover for insecurity and resistance to change. A horrible way to do it though, with no regard for others, and definitely not ok.

Thought it might be interesting to throw a different opinion into the ring. "They're just homophobes" might be overly simplistic. 'Know your enemy' they say!

It's an interesting perspective, but if you pick it apart a little further, the question becomes: what is a homophobe, if not simply someone whose words and actions are informed by homophobia?

If I said of (say) Donald Sterling that he's not a racist, but just an insecure person whose insecurity happens to manifest as racism - is that anything other than a distinction without a difference?

Put another way: if someone who says homophobic things isn't necessarily homophobic, how do you identify "genuine" homophobes?

TheChizler · 11-09-2014 6:55pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an interesting perspective, but if you pick it apart a little further, the question becomes: what is a homophobe, if not simply someone whose words and actions are informed by homophobia?

If I said of (say) Donald Sterling that he's not a racist, but just an insecure person whose insecurity happens to manifest as racism - is that anything other than a distinction without a difference?

Put another way: if someone who says homophobic things isn't necessarily homophobic, how do you identify "genuine" homophobes?

Yeah, it's all about subjective definitions. I suppose it's all to do with intent behind actions (think we've heard that phrase before in the abortion thread). Actions are objective, whereas character/personality/intent traits are subjective. You could say that a homophobe was someone who just doesn't like gay people for the sake of it, but does anyone at the root of it just not like gay people for the sake of it? There's general something behind it, like a book, or traditions, or non-exposure up to now.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-10-2014 9:34pm

Only Waters could (or would) drag gay marriage into an article about RTE Long Wave closing down:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/rtes-all-too-blunt-message-for-the-irish-diaspora-to-hell-or-the-internet-30628452.html

RTE informs us that the "vast majority" of its listeners will be unaffected by the move - 98pc, which by my calculation leaves 2pc, a proportion more or less equivalent to the number of citizens potentially implicated in a certain referendum coming up in the next year.

Very oddly for him, he didn't actually mention that apart from the very few people not able to get either Saorview or Radio 1 FM, the only reason to listen to LW (in one's home, at least) is that it carries religious programming on Sunday morning which isn't on Radio 1 FM.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-10-2014 7:56am

Nation breathes a collective sigh of relief

“I’ve no intention, nor ever had I of dishing the sexual dirt (it mostly wasn’t that interesting). I merely had to come up with a funny quote to attach with the press release for the book.”

robindch · 09-10-2014 12:06pm

Didn't realize that John Waters was in The Life Of Brian - there he is, in between John Cleese and Eric Idle!

Nodin · 09-10-2014 3:34pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nation breathes a collective sigh of relief

'the horror, the horror......'

The Black Oil · 09-10-2014 6:08pm

Only 2pc.

Is that John-speak for telling the gays to f**k off?

PopePalpatine · 09-10-2014 7:07pm

Hey, I know someone else on Boards who uses that sort of majoritarianism AND verbose prose to justify discrimination!

Vivisectus · 17-10-2014 3:40pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Yeah, it's all about subjective definitions. I suppose it's all to do with intent behind actions (think we've heard that phrase before in the abortion thread). Actions are objective, whereas character/personality/intent traits are subjective. You could say that a homophobe was someone who just doesn't like gay people for the sake of it, but does anyone at the root of it just not like gay people for the sake of it? There's general something behind it, like a book, or traditions, or non-exposure up to now.

Homophobia is an irrational dislike of, fear of, or aversion to homosexuals.

As such it seems to me that it does not matter what the intent behind it is. It is actually a morally neutral term: you can be homophobic without wanting to be homophobic. That is actually morally OK as long as you realize it is an irrational fear, and do your best not to treat gay people differently because of it. By the same token loads of people are mildly xenophobic, but do their best not to let it influence their relationships with people from other ethnicities and cultures.

People tend to use the phrase to describe people who are actually bigots: people who ascribe negative traits to homosexuals based solely on the fact that they are homosexual. Most anti-gay bigots are also homophobes, of course. But it is possible to be a non-bigoted homophobe.

Waters, of course, is probably both. He certainly is bigoted. He thinks gay people make bad parents, for a start.

goose2005 · 18-12-2014 1:13pm

Amazingly, the Áras Attracta débacle came about because of not enough Jesus.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/fixation-with-regulation-and-eliminating-human-contact-is-what-leads-to-bungalow-3-30843430.html

Hidden RTE cameras saw things we had been rather intent on avoiding. Obsessed with discovering the mote in the eye of the past, we have turned away from the beams in the vision of the present. In this sense, among others, it was an important piece of journalism.

I recently participated in a day's "think-in" with members of a Catholic order involved in a related area who were seeking to review their operations and renew their vocational energy. A genuinely nice man from the HSE made a lengthy but impenetrable contribution with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained to the care workers - both lay and religious - how they might adapt their procedures to the betterment of what he called their "clients".

I started from the position that no "system" could be capable of improving on the charisma the order had been implementing for hundreds of years - based on the idea of an encounter between two people, each of whom is deemed to represent the person of Jesus Christ. No matter what we claim to believe, all of us who have lived our lives in this culture have some idea what this means. If I am called upon to help someone, I must ask myself how Jesus would act in this situation, and at the same time remember that the person I am called to help might be Jesus in disguise. Something further from the culture of Bungalow 3 would be hard to imagine.

At the Q&A session afterwards, I found myself under attack from the floor from an individual who appeared to be interpreting my observations as dismissive of regulation. What, she demanded, of all the abuses we had been hearing about in recent years?

It has latterly become way too easy to close down arguments by being the one who appears to hold exclusive rights to compassion for the victims of past abuses. But I held my ground and said that, once you prohibit the person at the cutting edge of the ministering activity from being totally and uninhibitedly herself, you create conditions where authentic human contact ceases, and then you're a short step from patients getting beaten up by their "carers". Regulation is necessary, yes, but the current obsession with developing perfect systems and protocols invites a creeping dehumanisation because it removes the possibility of a true encounter. My point was that the abuses which flow from the elimination of the human encounter are likely to be far, far worse than anything arising from human frailty of itself. The interim outcome has been an escalating formalisation in which the process of dehumanisation works both ways. Absent the encounter, both the helper and the one requiring assistance are reduced. Because the "care worker" cannot be fully herself, there is no one to conduct a relationship with the resident.

'''

When I was growing up, the potential for informality in relationships between authority and citizens came with risks that we now understand better than we did then. Allowing a garda discretion to deal with things unofficially meant that sometimes a fractious youngster got a kick up the arse. Overall it meant that "the system" remained broadly human because those working it were enabled to be themselves rather than automatons representing an apparatus. When our hospitals were run by nuns, they were clean, efficient and humane; now, operated by a bureaucracy, they are dirty, overstaffed and competence-deficient. The nuns had one boss and He required minimal paperwork, but today about 70pc of the energy of our health service is sucked up in box-ticking. This ensures that individual workers become more interested in covering their asses than looking at the person in front of them.

It is quite astonishing that anyone could actually claim that the institutions of the past were better than those of the modern day - they are universally viewed as cold (in both senses), cruel, violent, abusive, uncaring places. Is JW's solution really more nuns? Less oversight? More "discretion" for gardaí to assault suspects / turn the blind eye to crime?

And I'm sick of hearing about how 'clean' hospitals were in the good old days. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were very rare, you can't compare rates of nosocomial infection back then with now. Moreover, if someone did get an infection in hospital back then, they wouldn't know because of trust in institutions and lack of oversight.

Skrynesaver · 18-12-2014 1:57pm

goose2005 wrote: »

Amazingly, the Áras Attracta débacle came about because of not enough Jesus.

It is quite astonishing that anyone could actually claim that the institutions of the past were better than those of the modern day - they are universally viewed as cold (in both senses), cruel, violent, abusive, uncaring places. Is JW's solution really more nuns? Less oversight? More "discretion" for gardaí to assault suspects / turn the blind eye to crime?

And I'm sick of hearing about how 'clean' hospitals were in the good old days. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were very rare, you can't compare rates of nosocomial infection back then with now. Moreover, if someone did get an infection in hospital back then, they wouldn't know because of trust in institutions and lack of oversight.

Fair enough, what gets me though is Waters having a dig at the "nice man from the HSE" for having "made a lengthy but impenetrable contribution".

goose2005 · 18-12-2014 2:56pm

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Fair enough, what gets me though is Waters having a dig at the "nice man from the HSE" for having "made a lengthy but impenetrable contribution".

John's one to talk...

Hotblack Desiato · 18-12-2014 9:56pm

I'm sure John could very easily find the neonatal and maternal death rates from those wonderful nun-run hospitals, if he were so inclined.

lazygal · 18-12-2014 10:15pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm sure John could very easily find the neonatal and maternal death rates from those wonderful nun-run hospitals, if he were so inclined.

It's not like any services provided by nuns in the last century had higher than average death rates or anything.

The Black Oil · 18-12-2014 10:28pm

Amazing how people trot out this misty eyed 'shure, in my day it was grand' routine.

goose2005 wrote: »

Amazingly, the Áras Attracta débacle came about because of not enough Jesus.

The Mike Huckabee defence.

lazygal · 18-12-2014 10:33pm

The Black Oil wrote: »

Amazing how people trot out this misty eyed 'shure, in my day it was grand' routine.

The Mike Huckabee defence.

Why didn't god just smote all the baddies and stop this from happening?

TwoShedsJackson · 19-12-2014 9:02am

lazygal wrote: »

Why didn't god just smote all the baddies and stop this from happening?

It takes time to work up to a good smiting, you know. God was probably too busy helping NFL players score touchdowns or finding peoples car keys for them to bother with some abusers.

Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Comments