A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

CrystalLettuce

Sonics2k wrote: »

To be fair Crystal, your posts can often come across as a little more "aggressive" than I believe you want.

You throw around the word privileged in quite a harsh way, and it makes your posts seem a lot harsher.

Step back a bit, and remember that people are entitled to an opinion.
Some people may never be entirely comfortable with gay people having children, but not too long ago people were uncomfortable with black people living in the same area's as white people.

Things will change.

I for one like to listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo to help me relax and just reflect on how things can be.

People are not entitled to their own facts, and one feature of articles such as this and those defending it is that fallacies are put into full effect to defend their poor reasoning.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Why should you not have to take it? Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't matter whether they're straight or LGBT

I am bisexual yet I admit I am hugely privileged. I have issues which would be there if I wasn't bisexual; I'm not going to blame anytime I'm going through a rough patch on the fact that I'm bisexual. And I certainly am not going to go around claiming everyone else is privileged and poor little aul bisexual me :rolleyes: Yes I also have problems relating to being bi but another straight white male may have problems related to being homeless, deaf, poor, uneducated, from a certain neighbourhood, because he has ginger hair etc. etc. which I will never have to deal with.

A straight white male could have a million and one other problems which I don't have.

I have a roof over my head, food, I am receiving a good education, I have enough money to keep me going...how many white straight males do you see on the streets who don't have that?? (and yes I'm assuming they are straight - I know there are a lot of LGBT homeless people too)

Read my post directed at wonderfulname.

Also, not all bisexuals are as privileged as you.

Read the articles on Intersectionality at the bottom here:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54

"A straight white male could have a million and one other problems which I don't have. " <- This very line here is why many of the articles on that page were written. I hope you realise how much that line grates on those who are more serious than us here about LGBT activism, and what a cliché it is. It is ignoring the concept of intersectionality, it is not just that there are homeless LGBTs - there are very few things ONLY straight white males experience in terms of lack of privilege - therefore they are a more privileged group than LGBTs after all. This is actually very simple, so even the social conservatives in this thread should be able to understand it.

wonderfulname

apache wrote: »

you know what? you remind me of myself when i was in college with no reality of the real world. you seem to disregard peoples views at the drop of a hat. relying on scientific research etc. i've seen you quoting lots of "statistics" here. they mean nothing to me and don't represent me.

Not in college, don't be ageist now,, give me a position that makes sense and I'll say so, which begs the point, what exactly did you quote that particular post for? Because it appears you are disregarding my opinion merely because I am young and can back it up with something without offering anything of your own.

apache wrote: »

fyi re the judges pay (probably offtopic but you brought it up) you seem to not give people the benefit of the doubt. you bring up judges pay. i voted yes. i'm not ignorent. i see how you worded it with your poor broken dublin accent.

Actually I was doing the accent I grew up with, pretty standard joke here, self mockery, sorry if you didn't get it, just because I don't make a big deal of not being from ballsbridge doesn't mean you can automatically assume I am. On the judges pay issue I merely said there was a reason to vote against, there was also a reason to vote for, were both presented equally the results would have been closer.

apache wrote: »

i work with them every day.

you marter

apache wrote: »

so just disregard peoples viewpoints because of course you are always right!

I am discussing, I made concessions to you earlier with regard the importance of marriage, just because I did not cave entirely to your view does not mean I disregarded it for no good reason, assuming as such merely makes you precisely what you are claiming of me. I clarified my position on judges pay, I was not flat out saying 4 in 5 irish people are ignorant. Of course you have disregarded any point I have made as a personal attack on you or the people you "work" with, charming, but of course it does allow you to "feel" right, "in your own head", without having to listen to any of those nasty alternate opinions.

apache

Plautus wrote: »

I genuinely can say I never come across opinions as ignorant as Delaney's on anywhere like even an monthly basis.

And if I did, I'd chalk it up as an argument not worth wasting energy on. A person who becomes 'offended', as he says he is, about something he has no demonstrable experience of isn't going to have their mind changed by me. It really is a piece written off the top of his head.

A useful follow-up would be for Eamon to shadow some LGBT organisations for a week, see if they are getting just so big for their boots. I wonder if he's really willing to do that though, and that this wasn't disposable aggravation generation.

In general, of course, all we can do is put out information about how we aren't, to a man, sex-crazed interior designers and hope for the best

everybodies situation is different. you will find that the highest criers have little sense of real discrimination. it would do well if others thought about it before they just chattered away. i think in my humble opinion i have changed peoples point of view through humour and education.
and if that dosen't work i always resort to lady gaga loves me. i'm her little monster
although got a few black eyes over that one :rolleyes:

CrystalLettuce

apache wrote: »

everybodies situation is different. you will find that the highest criers have little sense of real discrimination. it would do well if others thought about it before they just chattered away. i think in my humble opinion i have changed peoples point of view through humour and education.
and if that dosen't work i always resort to lady gaga loves me. i'm her little monster
although got a few black eyes over that one :rolleyes:

That's bollocks, I've been thrown out of a house for being trans and received a stream of abuse for it from other quarters, along with other things I don't feel comfortable talking about in public. Please don't make such presumptions when you yourself may not have experienced the abuse other LGBTs have. A lot of people don't feel comfortable openly mentioning whatever may have happened to them, especially of the situation was severe.

Sonics2k

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

People are not entitled to their own facts, and one feature of articles such as this and those defending it is that fallacies are put into full effect to defend their poor reasoning.

I read the articles a while ago. Frankly the OP on ShortScale basically seemed to be out looking for an argument and anyone who didn't completely agree was homophobic or not as "Pro-Gay" as they like to think. If people make a gay joke, they're homophobic and so on.
I'm not going to go on about privileged, because I find that whole argument as tedious as Bible bashers.

Well you know what. I'm not pro-gay. I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro or anti anything.

I live by a simply philosophy. People are who they are, some will change and some won't. And I frankly do not care, as long as people live a decent life, and strive towards being a better person and making the world a good place to live for our children and so on.
I have always made jokes about everything, and I will continue to do so, and to hell with anyone who dares to call me a homophobe/transphobe/heterophobe/racist/sexist or bloody well anything else.

marienbad

wonderfulname wrote: »

It failed because it was incredibly poorly written with very questionable content which would be open to abuse, Judges Pay was not a no brainer, it was presented as one, it too is poorly worded and open to abuse. That is why I chose it as an example, there was a reason there for people to vote against it, media presentation ensured that the minority picked up on that.
You mean my wording, which I chose to use on an LGBT forum, not with the general public You mean an inbuilt defence system to make people wonder why they ever had a problem with same sex unions being endorsed by the state in the first place! (See, depends how it's framed, and I have definitely heard it framed like that by yer one on midweek, the media will be biased towards the yes side no doubt about it) But how will they be presented? Dana incorporated every accusation you can imagine into her presidential campaign, and Mitchell attempted same, Did this benefit them do you think? Or did it just make the other choices look better by comparison?
Sad state to be in really, preferring not to try than to fail.

Firstly wonderfulname who said anything about not trying ? I would hazard a guess that I have been on a lot more campaigns over a much longer time frame on such issues than a lot on here.

Most of the points you make above are reasonable but they are mainly irrelevant. What is the single biggest complaint after every referendum ? I did'nt understand it, it was'nt explained , or variations of same ad nauseum - this in the information age !

The fact is unless the issues affects the voter directly they will not research it and will form opinions on the fly. This gives the no side an inbuilt advantage as it is easier to just say no or some such slogan as opposed to present an argument calling for change.

Next up , as we have just seen , referenda rarely pull a big voter turnout , so it all comes down to getting the committed voter out- now who do you think is going to win that battle ? If the voters of shall we say ''the left'' to use a shorthand descriptor pulled their weight they would have a permanent grip on power in every western democracy. problem is they never do - they are too busy living to bother voting.

Next - what are voter sectors most likely to vote yes- the young , also the sector least likely to vote. Most likely to vote no- middle aged and up and most likely to vote .

Timing is everything - the 1st divorce referendum was in 1986 and lost and many were stunned by that loss and it delayed the introduction until 1996 and that vote scraped home by 10,000 majority out of 1.6 million cast.


You are mistaken is you think the government parties are going to actively support and campaign on this issue. Individuals T.D's will , but you will get the platitudes trotted out by the Government about the will of the people/ matter of concience and such to create a distance between the proposers and any possible defeat.

The same complacency I see on this issue I also saw in 1986. - Anyway I better stop there as I suppose I am wandering off topic. Apologies if I offended anyone in my previous posts.

CrystalLettuce

Sonics2k wrote: »

I read the articles a while ago. Frankly the OP on ShortScale basically seemed to be out looking for an argument and anyone who didn't completely agree was homophobic or not as "Pro-Gay" as they like to think. If people make a gay joke, they're homophobic and so on.
I'm not going to go on about privileged, because I find that whole argument as tedious as Bible bashers.

Well you know what. I'm not pro-gay. I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro or anti anything.

I live by a simply philosophy. People are who they are, some will change and some won't. And I frankly do not care, as long as people live a decent life, and strive towards being a better person and making the world a good place to live for our children and so on.
I have always made jokes about everything, and I will continue to do so, and to hell with anyone who dares to call me a homophobe/transphobe/heterophobe/racist/sexist or bloody well anything else.

Except that doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. It's not up to you to decide that. Similarly no matter how tedious you find the concept of privilege - it still applies. You can say the things you do, largely, because you are not gay, do not know what it's like to be gay and receive abuse for being gay(of course, some gays don't either - and there is such a thing as gay people internalising these values - again very simple ideas if you actually had a clue what you were talking about).

And sometimes a "simple" philosophy is what causes the most harm. Social conservatism is a simple philosophy. But it leads to great injustice and causes people who are different and don't fit in with a simply philosophy to become marginalised and sometimes abused.

Simply not caring whether or not someone is gay is sufficient. If you make remarks that are insensitive towards their life experience - just as if you make rape jokes in front of a rape victim - you are in the wrong, and need to own up to it.

You are just making excuses as to why in certain situations, you get to leave civility at the door if it so suits whatever witty remark you want to crack.

If you really think the OP of that thread is looking for trouble - then you simply have never been in that situation and cannot understand what it's like. And this is where "privilege" becomes an issue - because you have the privilege to avoid this situation - you should recognise that, and not insult someone for reacting in that way to a situation you've never experienced.

Sonics2k

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Except that doesn't mean you're not a homophobe. It's not up to you to decide that. Similarly no matter how tedious you find the concept of privilege - it still applies. You can say the things you do, largely, because you are not gay, do not know what it's like to be gay and receive abuse for being gay(of course, some gays don't either - and there is such a thing as gay people internalising these values - again very simple ideas if you actually had a clue what you were talking about).

And sometimes a "simple" philosophy is what causes the most harm. Social conservatism is a simple philosophy. But it leads to great injustice and causes people who are different and don't fit in with a simply philosophy to become marginalised and sometimes abused.

Simply not caring whether or not someone is gay is sufficient. If you make remarks that are insensitive towards their life experience - just as if you make rape jokes in front of a rape victim - you are in the wrong, and need to own up to it.

You are just making excuses as to why in certain situations, you get to leave civility at the door if it so suits whatever witty remark you want to crack.

If you really think the OP of that thread is looking for trouble - then you simply have never been in that situation and cannot understand what it's like. And this is where "privilege" becomes an issue - because you have the privilege to avoid this situation - you should recognise that, and not insult someone for reacting in that way to a situation you've never experienced.

Oh I see. Because I'm not gay, and don't agree with everything you say, I'm a homophobe.

I'll be sure to go and tell my mothers immediately.
I don't pretend that I know what it's like to face homophobia as a "member of the community" or any of that crap, I'm more than aware of that, but then again, I don't care.
I'm also not black, does this make me racist because I don't agree with everything Malcolm X said?

I can call you out on being "Privileged" because you didn't have to go through over a year's worth of court appearances to fight for the right to see your two children who were taken from because you weren't married at the time of their both.
But I won't. I have no need too. It's irrelevant.

The -fact- right here, is that you're arguing with me, a complete supporter of equality for all people, because I don't entirely agree with your opinion. And apparently I'm also a bigot.

Get a clue.

CrystalLettuce

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh I see. Because I'm not gay, and don't agree with everything you say, I'm a homophobe.

I'll be sure to go and tell my mothers immediately.
I don't pretend that I know what it's like to face homophobia as a "member of the community" or any of that crap, I'm more than aware of that, but then again, I don't care.
I'm also not black, does this make me racist because I don't agree with everything Malcolm X said?

I would say you're more likely to be a homophobe because you don't care about gay people and the struggles they face.

Homophobia is not the only thing that gay people have to face though. You can't say "oh well I'm not hateful of gays - therefore it's not homophobic" - and then make the assumption that because it's not homophobic, it's not bad.

People can have all kinds of prejudices and again can fail to recognise their own privilege with regards others and as long as those things are glossed over - they are held at a disadvantage. This may be a minor issue to you - but it's not to us.

Whether something is "Homophobic" or not is not the issue. If it's inequality, and you support it directly or indirectly - it's bad. Phrases like "Homophobia" and "PC" are often used more by conservatives to get off the hook more than they're used against them - because oh aren't they such silly concepts, therefore I must be right.

I can call you out on being "Privileged" because you didn't have to go through over a year's worth of court appearances to fight for the right to see your two children who were taken from because you weren't married at the time of their both.
But I won't. I have no need too. It's irrelevant.

You don't know that I didn't. As a transgendered person - I am more likely to have such legal issues. Changing sex can cause all sorts of such nonsense. Some people can be gay come out of the closet having undergone a "false" marriage with kids. Again, there are very few issues that only straight white males can face. Nobody is denying that that the concept that only gay people can face hardship is a silly idea - and when you phrase it like that, it makes you look absurd for even suggesting so. And nobody is at fault for being privileged. However most of the issues brought up are things that marginalised people experience at least as much and failing to respect that means you ARE at fault. Making up excuses like "Oh well I joke about everything/I'm not the most PC person/I have gay friends so I must be right" does not change this.

The -fact- right here, is that you're arguing with me, a complete supporter of equality for all people, because I don't entirely agree with your opinion. And apparently I'm also a bigot.

Get a clue.

Just because you claim to be a supporter of all people does not mean I cannot disagree with you or point out where you are wrong. There are even gay people arguing with gay people in this thread. Why should you be exempt from it?

Please read this article, as it covers your stance better than I can:

http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-allies-fail-part-one.html

Can you please acknowledge at least that his article makes an attempt to defend against your position?

Claiming you're supportive of gays, or do not discriminate against them, does not make you impervious from making negative comments, especially when you say yourself you don't care about their struggles.

baby and crumble

Can we get back on topic please guys? This is a thread about the article mentioned in the OP. There is a thread open on the forum about privilege and associated issues.

Sonics2k

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I would say you're more likely to be a homophobe because you don't care about gay people and the struggles they face.

You're an idiot. You're just as pig-headed and stubborn as any Bible-Bashing preacher in the southern U.S. claiming gay's are a disease.
You dare to accuse me of homophobia because I'm not gay or don't care. You're mis-reading all my posts and doing it intentionally because you're so angry at everything bad that's happened to you.
By your own reasoning, there are a lot of gay people who are homophobic because they don't agree with you on everything you say.

I recognise the "advantages" I've had in life, I had a stable loving family that raised me, cared for me and taught me to judge people on their actions, not because of their race/gender/sexuality/religion etc. It also "helps" I'm a white male, I'm less likely to be attacked in the street based on my appearance, y'know if it wasn't for the fact I grew up on the North side of Cork as a complete metal-headed goth with long hair and eyeliner which resulted in me getting my arse handed to me on a near daily basis.

So again, get over yourself and understand this.
The way you act and treat people on this forum is shameful and wrong. You actively and consistently discriminate against others who are not gay, because in your mind, they can't possibly be truly "fine" with homosexuality if they are straight.

Sorry mods, it had to be said, and I'll take my ban/warning/infraction with a cuppa tea (one sugar, plenty of milk) please so I can enjoy the rest of CL's wonderfully pointless and over-reacting hate posts aimed at anyone who doesn't share the exact same opinion.

edit: apologise Baby and Crumble, didn't see your post. Will delete this if you wish and it's my final say on Privilage. CL can PM if they wish to continue this.

CrystalLettuce

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056435554

Captain Graphite

I really have no idea how this got turned into an argument about privilege but just on the article I hate to say it but there are a few small parts of it I agree with:

Many gays also feel this way and resist the increasing politicisation and institutionalising of gay life. Last week, in the Guardian, a newspaper almost obsessed with things gay and 'progressive', columnist Suzanne Moore objected to gay marriage on the basis that it was a conservative 'selling-out'. Being gay should be edgy and experimental, she said.

But isn't this part of the problem? Many gays want to have it both ways. Thus gay magazines are full of ads endorsing late-night gyms, sex lines and a freewheeling sexual activity which would be dismissed as sleazy in heterosexual culture. But we also have articles that suggest a yearning for bourgeois respectability.

Likewise, travel books, such as the trendy Rough Guides, scold the mainstream 'meat-market' discos of foreign capitals but provide plenty of details for gay pick-up spots. Many red-blooded straight men might wish that society would endorse their own ambitions with such PC gusto.

Firstly, saying that being gay should be "edgy and experimental" is cringeworthy, and I don't blame Éamon Delaney for ridiculing the journalist who wrote that.

Also, while I'm not sure what exactly he means when he says "heterosexual culture", I do see his point as regards the w"freewheeling sexual activity" that's often associated with being gay. And I'm not talking about sex lines, because you often see them in newspapers for straight guys too. But when I see websites dedicated to cruising and ads in gay magazines promoting hookups, it just makes me feel sad and a little embarrassed.

Then you have gay saunas. I'm not a prude, and would have no problem with gay saunas if there was a straight equivalent. But it bothers me that this "sort of thing" (unintentional Father Ted reference! :pac:) is only associated with gay men and no other group. Then, of course, you have to deal with ignorant people who notice this and proceed to tar all gay men with the same promiscuous, sordid brush. I can't help but feel things like cruising and gay saunas are a huge disservice to gay men everywhere.

The rest of the article is rubbish. I have no time for anyone who argues against gay marriage (marriage is a civil ceremony, not necessarily a religious one) or gay adoption.

baby and crumble

Captain Graphite wrote: »

Also, while I'm not sure what exactly he means when he says "heterosexual culture", I do see his point as regards the w"freewheeling sexual activity" that's often associated with being gay. And I'm not talking about sex lines, because you often see them in newspapers for straight guys too. But when I see websites dedicated to cruising and ads in gay magazines promoting hookups, it just makes me feel sad and a little embarrassed.

Then you have gay saunas. I'm not a prude, and would have no problem with gay saunas if there was a straight equivalent. But it bothers me that this "sort of thing" (unintentional Father Ted reference! :pac:) is only associated with gay men and no other group. Then, of course, you have to deal with ignorant people who notice this and proceed to tar all gay men with the same promiscuous, sordid brush. I can't help but feel things like cruising and gay saunas are a huge disservice to gay men everywhere.
.

I'd have to agree with you on this, actually. It always annoys me that such huge tracts of say, GCN or equivalent community magazines are so full of adverts for overtly sexual events or locations. I think it does a lot of the work of right wing conservatives for us, actually. It's why so many straight folks can't separate gay sex from being gay, and why the arguments against equal rights are dominated by the "inappropriate upbringing" that would occur for children being raised in gay families.

Also, it bugs me that all the examples are always of gay men parenting. It feeds into the general assumption that men only have children because their (female) partners want them. It's kind of odd.

Plautus

Well, I think that straights do have rather sexualised venues too - they have dogging websites, brothels, 'massage' parlours etc. etc. All of society is deeply sexualised and there's a lot more material catering to 'straight' by dint of sheer volume of numbers!

The point being, in any event, that guys (or gals) who freely associate with each other and hook up for sex aren't really damaging any cause in their own right anymore than straight people are indicting the heterosexual majority when they drop their keys in a jar at a straight swinger's party.

The problem, again, rests squarely with those who would move so swiftly from the specific to the general.

In sum: keep shagging folks if that's you're prerogative :pac: It shouldn't be held against either you or others who want to later settle down, have families etc.

CrystalLettuce

The problem with complaining about gay magazines etc. and their promotion of "seedy" culture is that this largely exists because of people like Eamo and his arguing against homosexuals becoming an accepted aspect of regular society.

floggg

foggy_lad wrote: »

All while the rights of another who should ultimately have as much right because they are a biological parent are trampled upon.

How is that any different from straight adoption? If a straight couple don't a child the natural parents are limited. It would be no different with gays.

Nobody suggestion tht gays should be allowed to go into the maternity wards nd pick them up at random.

Bannasidhe

foggy_lad wrote: »

But we are now talking about the partner of a father or mother who has no blood ties with the child(ren) of the relationship having rights which supercede the rights of the child(ren)s other biological parent.

For most people this is a far greeater issue than what age people should get married at, Travellers and roma people still get married at 14.

This already happens - if an unmarried mother has not signed a statutory declaration which legally recognises the biological father as the father of her children later marries, the law allows her husband to adopt the children and in effect have rights which supersede the rights of the biological parent.

If a heterosexual man can adopt his wife's children even though biologically he has no ties to them why can't homosexuals? How is that not a situation where heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated differently based only on sexual orientation?

CrystalLettuce

Plautus wrote: »

Well, I think that straights do have rather sexualised venues too - they have dogging websites, brothels, 'massage' parlours etc. etc. All of society is deeply sexualised and there's a lot more material catering to 'straight' by dint of sheer volume of numbers!

The point being, in any event, that guys (or gals) who freely associate with each other and hook up for sex aren't really damaging any cause in their own right anymore than straight people are indicting the heterosexual majority when they drop their keys in a jar at a straight swinger's party.

The problem, again, rests squarely with those who would move so swiftly from the specific to the general.

In sum: keep shagging folks if that's you're prerogative :pac: It shouldn't be held against either you or others who want to later settle down, have families etc.

yes - heterosexuality is constantly thrown out at us. complain about sexualisation - don't single out homosexuals because they do it slightly more often, when you're at fault for painting that image of them in the first place.

Plautus

Well, I've nothing against sexualisation per se - we're all sexual beings and sex was repressed for too long for no good reason. There are health issues, both mental and physical; and thus sex education is vital (as is responsible behaviour such as the use of contraception) but I don't see a problem with dirty shenanigans between consenting adults of any gender or sexuality. Even if those adults are strangers to one another (rawr)

apache

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

That's bollocks, I've been thrown out of a house for being trans and received a stream of abuse for it from other quarters, along with other things I don't feel comfortable talking about in public. Please don't make such presumptions when you yourself may not have experienced the abuse other LGBTs have. A lot of people don't feel comfortable openly mentioning whatever may have happened to them, especially of the situation was severe.

i dont want to hear your life story! You disregard me as i disregard you. I laugh at your stupidity. Yes its all about you. Dont be saying what im saying is bollocks. You dont know what i am or what i do. You thought i was straight a few posts back. You are lucky im on my phone and a **** phone at that!

Annasopra

Thread closed as it is completely off topic and descending into rows.