The Saturday Night Show - 25th. October 2014 10.05pm

hotmail.com

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Yes but everyone is targeted by scumbags, usually for no reason, or because the former are in groups and they're cowards.

I just think claiming that it unmasks Irish society's intolerance or what have you is way off the mark. Far too grandiose.

The same way that scumbags being racist means we're all racist.

We're all targeted for some reason is my point.

Who said this??? No one.

This argument about "well scum bags target anyone, not just gay people" is just a diversionary tactic. No gay person is saying that - all is being said is that gay people often get targeted because they are gay. That is homophobic. That is wrong. (and so is being targeted for any other reason)

CountyHurler

hotmail.com wrote: »

all is being said is that gay people often get targeted because they are gay.

Have you completely ruled out the possibility that people just dont like you, as opposed to anything to do with sexual orientation... I think that's worth investigating...

efb

CountyHurler wrote: »

Have you completely ruled out the possibility that people just dont like you, as opposed to anything to do with sexual orientation... I think that's worth investigating...

they are quick to come to that judgement...

An Claidheamh

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Panti/Iona issue did expose underlying homophobia among a large amount of people and forced them to consider their prejudice against gay people.

Thank you Iona.

Well this was a bit grandiose. But the front of his book says something about "the nation" being changed.

hotmail.com

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Well this was a bit grandiose. But the front of his book says something about "the nation" being changed.

My comment said "a large section".

hotmail.com

CountyHurler wrote: »

Have you completely ruled out the possibility that people just dont like you, as opposed to anything to do with sexual orientation... I think that's worth investigating...

Have you ruled out the possibility that you are homophobic?

CountyHurler

hotmail.com wrote: »

Have you ruled out the possibility that you are homophobic?

I'm just trying to help you. Dont shoot the messenger..

Ol' Donie

Genuine question, not trying to stir things up.

If a man dresses up as a woman (as I gather Panti was when the abuse referred to in that speech took place), for the purpose of doing a drag show...

Well, it's designed to get attention, isn't it? I mean along with double entendres and so on, it's designed to be part of a show, which is designed to get attention.

So if some of the attention is negative, isn't that to be expected? The alternative is that literally everybody loves it. Is it reasonable?

hotmail.com

CountyHurler wrote: »

I'm just trying to help you. Dont shoot the messenger..

Perhaps you're unaware of your homophobia.

hotmail.com

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Genuine question, not trying to stir things up.

If a man dresses up as a woman (as I gather Panti was when the abuse referred to in that speech took place), for the purpose of doing a drag show...

Well, it's designed to get attention, isn't it? I mean along with double entendres and so on, it's designed to be part of a show, which is designed to get attention.

So if some of the attention is negative, isn't that to be expected? The alternative is that literally everybody loves it. Is it reasonable?

Like negative in terms of I think her show is crap - fine.

Negative in terms of "I think he's a disgusting freak, men shouldn't wear dresses" - not so fine.

It's like an act, like being a comedian, a singer, a magician etc. Some people like them, some don't.

Ol' Donie

hotmail.com wrote: »

Like negative in terms of I think her show is crap - fine.

Negative in terms of "I think he's a disgusting freak, men shouldn't wear dresses" - not so fine.

It's like an act, like being a comedian, a singer, a magician etc. Some people like them, some don't.

Again, not trying to stir it up.

I'm totally in favour of acceptance and so on. But if you court the positive, aren't you exposing yourself to the negative?

And therefore, shouldn't you position yourself to accept it, rather than be outraged?

hotmail.com

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Again, not trying to stir it up.

I'm totally in favour of acceptance and so on. But if you court the positive, aren't you exposing yourself to the negative?

And therefore, shouldn't you position yourself to accept it, rather than be outraged?

I don't think Panti was or gets annoyed about negative press in relation to her drag act.

I don't quite get what you mean. The "outrage" earlier this year wasn't about criticism of her act!

Ash.J.Williams

hotmail.com wrote: »

Brendan not allowing a discussion on the merits of the payout and apology to Iona.

He would need a bigot to balance out the argument.

Ol' Donie

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't think Panti was or gets annoyed about negative press in relation to her drag act.

I don't quite get what you mean. The "outrage" earlier this year wasn't about criticism of her act!

He got abuse in the street from some f*ckers for being a man dressed as a woman. Is this, or is it not, done to get attention? I'm assuming, since he makes a living from it, that it is. Otherwise we never would have heard of him.

If he were a gay man just standing there, not drawing attention to himself, it probably wouldn't have happened. That's what I mean by act.

hotmail.com

Ol' Donie wrote: »

He got abuse in the street from some f*ckers for being a man dressed as a woman. Is this, or is it not, done to get attention? I'm assuming, since he makes a living from it, that it is. Otherwise we never would have heard of him.

If he were a gay man just standing there, not drawing attention to himself, it probably wouldn't have happened. That's what I mean by act.

He wasn't in drag for that incident.

The focus on the incident itself misses Panti's point. Panti used the incident to convey how gay people feel when they have to ensure that they don't stand out while walking on the street. Gay people must conform. And the fact that gay people are aware of this, that they must be careful, is bloomin annoying, Panti says "I hate myself".

Why should a gay man or woman not draw not attention to themselves?
The speech struck a cord with many people gay and straight alike, because it's message is about tolerance and acceptance of difference.

Ol' Donie

Okay. I clearly got the impression he was in drag. Didn't he hint that he was?

Anyway, best of luck to him.

Ol' Donie

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why should a gay man or woman not draw not attention to themselves?

I didn't say they shouldn't. My original point was simply if you draw attention to yourself, in any situation, you can't reasonably expect none of it to be negative.

hotmail.com

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I didn't say they shouldn't. My original point was simply if you draw attention to yourself, in any situation, you can't reasonably expect none of it to be negative.

But there's no excuse for abuse, physical or verbal to anyone.

Ol' Donie

hotmail.com wrote: »

But there's no excuse for abuse, physical or verbal to anyone.

No there isn't. Definitley not. But it's a reality for everyone.

CountyHurler

hotmail.com wrote: »

Perhaps you're unaware of your homophobia.

Nah, I've thought about this... I said to myself "If I dont like hotmail.com does that make me homophobic. ... But then I said, wait, there's loads of gay people that I DO like. So that must mean that I'm not homophobic. I must just like or dislike people based on the level of respect that they give to other people... "

So that's where I am with that at the moment, but I'd be very interested to hear any further contributions you would like to make that might help me to clarify the situation further..

hotmail.com

Ol' Donie wrote: »

No there isn't. Definitley not. But it's a reality for everyone.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean gay people can't talk about homophobia and talk about being targeted because they are gay. The intention is not to distract from general abuse, but to highlight what some gay people suffer.

hotmail.com

CountyHurler wrote: »

Nah, I've thought about this... I said to myself "If I dont like hotmail.com does that make me homophobic. ... But then I said, wait, there's loads of gay people that I DO like. So that must mean that I'm not homophobic. I must just like or dislike people based on the level of respect that they give to other people... "

So that's where I am with that at the moment, but I'd be very interested to hear any further contributions you would like to make that might help me to clarify the situation further..

This is just so off the wall. You like some gay people so that doesn't make you homophobic.

You're clearly unaware of your own backwardness and I ain't debating it further.

Lapin

Missed SNS last night but the repeat has just started.

Is it worth sitting through?

Already the first two guests are from Cork and talking about Cork so I'm having doubts here. And judging by some of the posts, that irritating attention seeking pain in the arse, Panti is on too.

BO'C's indulgance of his fellow county chums is getting a bit tedious at this stage. Even Hookie woulsn't be so blatent.

Lapin

Ihateblackties wrote: »

Panti is a shining light.

She should become the ambassador for the marriage equality referendum.

Her speech was so heart felt and eloquent.

I want to see more of PANTI PANTI PANTI> GO TEAM PANTIES

Panti is a bloke.

You don't change what sex you are just by putting on a dress and giving yourself a silly name.

Skid X

Lapin wrote: »

Missed SNS last night but the repeat has just started.

Is it worth sitting through?

Already the first two guests are from Cork and talking about Cork so I'm having doubts here. And judging by some of the posts, that irritating attention seeking pain in the arse, Panti is on too.

BO'C's indulgance of his fellow county chums is getting a bit tedious at this stage. Even Hookie woulsn't be so blatent.

Not really Lapin, to be honest.

Dull enough show last night.

CountyHurler

Skid X wrote: »

Not really Lapin, to be honest. Dull enough show last night.

I disagree.. I think it's worth watching for the enthusiastic and rambunctious debate that we had on here....

Lapin

I like Donal Og Cusack and admire the man in many ways but I think the manner in which he phrased that question to the Russian deputy was bang out of order. There can have been no other reason for it than to elicit an apparently controversial response.

Why would a hetrosexual harbour homosexual thoughts? And what is so wrong with someone admitting to finding the notion disgusting?

RayM

Lapin wrote: »

Panti is a bloke.

You don't change what sex you are just by putting on a dress and giving yourself a silly name.

Panti is a character. A female character. For that reason, it's not inappropriate to use female pronouns when referring to her.

CountyHurler

"Did you ever do any hellraising with your father?"

"I remember one day we were in Limerick"...

I was sure the story was gonna end there.. :pac:

CountyHurler

And I'm just not sure I fully believe the story about "Dickie Harris killed my (six foot tall) boyfriend" when he was seventy years old...