Homophobia still alive in modern Ireland

wakka12

Manion wrote: »

For the agenda obviously. Did you not get the news letter?

You'd have to admit the graffiti is strange though, I have never seen graffiti that neat and in chalk as well.
I dont agree that it was a publicity stunt as I think the george does very good business..and I don't think that would make more people go to it
but strange graffiti none the less.

gizmo81

Was that the pink glitter thing that came in my letterbox?

Manion wrote: »

For the agenda obviously. Did you not get the news letter?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Jack unless life conforms to your perspective you always seem to raise an eyebrow ! And that applies to most issues outside a 'traditional' view of life.

It's understandable you'd have that impression marien given that you don't know me at all.

Every LGBT person I have ever met ( and I have met quite a lot) has and will continue to have experience of homophobia . That is simply a fact of life.

Every one of them? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it but one of the reasons why threads like this raise an eyebrow is because most people I know who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender don't experience that sort of treatment. To say it's a fact of life is exactly the sort of negative, divisive attitude I'm referring to.

Sometimes it will just be a 'here we go again' minor irritation and sometimes it will be a lot more so - but it will always be there . And it makes no difference if it is 00.1% or 10 % of the population . If a person is being insulted, assaulted, intimidated should they remind themselves that it is only a minority ?

Yes they should, because that would be maintaining the perspective I mentioned earlier rather than allowing themselves to give in to mass paranoia which would be completely irrational and closing themselves off from society as a result. The George would probably close down as a result though if people realised that people aren't generally homophobic.

Will it ever end ? IMHO opinion - never , but we can at least call it what it is without equivocation .

No equivocation is necessary, nor was it ever necessary (I hate when people make equivocations myself, they're never legitimate comparisons), nor is exaggeration and polarisation necessary either.

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

Publicity for what or whom?

To whip up hysteria and paranoia among the LGBT community is one reason off the top of my head. These incidents go viral very quickly on social media.

Manion

wakka12 wrote: »

You'd have to admit the graffiti is strange though, I have never seen graffiti that neat and in chalk as well.
I dont agree that it was a publicity stunt as I think the george does very good business..and I don't think that would make more people go to it
but strange graffiti none the less.

You make an excellent point. Trump wasn't in America last night, can any of us truly be sure it wasn't him? Yes is the answer.

I feel I've fallen into an episode of brasseye. You realise you're insane yes ?

DivingDuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Every one of them? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it but one of the reasons why threads like this raise an eyebrow is because most people I know who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender don't experience that sort of treatment.

When you say "that sort of treatment", what do you mean?

Most people haven't had the crap kicked out of them or been told they're not being hired because they're gay, no.

Most people will have experienced something along the lines of hearing "Really? Jesus, you don't look gay" or had someone shout something rude at them while they were holding hands with a partner in public, for example, or maybe been called something in a derogatory way while at school.

There are degrees of homophobia. I would be surprised if most of your LGBT friends/acquaintances haven't experienced at least the smaller examples of it.

gizmo81

We don't need to fake homophobia see post 80 for facts and stats!!!!!!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To whip up hysteria and paranoia among the LGBT community is one reason off the top of my head. These incidents go viral very quickly on social media.

AllForIt

wordofwarning wrote: »

There are around 1.3m people living in Dublin. The odd negative incident against a LGBT person occurs. Yet we are supposed in buy into this notion that Ireland is a homophobic society because a few people a year out of 1.3m do something bad in Dublin?

Do a few isolated LGBT related incidents make Ireland a homophobic place? IMO not at all.

I feel there is a certain segment of the LGBT community who refuse to accept Ireland is in large a LGBT friendly country. They live for isolated incidents like this to confirm their bias that Ireland is not LGBT friendly...

Yes, Ireland is largely a friendly LGBT country. Nevertheless this state of affairs came about by the efforts of LGBT rights activists over the last few decades. It certainly didn't come about by some innate evolution by the ordinary citizens of Ireland. And certainly not the Catholic ones. It was fought for and won.

Any kind of homophobia is unacceptable. Why would anyone accept a tiny bit of homophobia. As long as there still exists a 'tiny' bit of homophobia then I don't see why anyone gets upset when it is pointed out. It has to be totally eradicated otherwise it may flourish again in the future.

One eyed Jack

Grey Wind wrote: »

Someone spray paints fag and a swastika across a gay bar and you think it's a publicity stunt? Are you for real? No wonder you don't think homophobia's a problem if this is your reaction to it.

They'd want to be in their 40s to have any understanding of the relevance of the graffiti. Younger people wouldn't get it at all.

wakka12

Manion wrote: »

You make an excellent point. Trump wasn't in America last night, can any of us truly be sure it wasn't him? Yes is the answer.

I feel I've fallen into an episode of brasseye. You realise you're insane yes ?

I said I didnt think it was a publicity stunt but the graffiti just looks weird.

One eyed Jack

DivingDuck wrote: »

When you say "that sort of treatment", what do you mean?

Most people haven't had the crap kicked out of them or been told they're not being hired because they're gay, no.

Most people will have experienced something along the lines of hearing "Really? Jesus, you don't look gay" or had someone shout something rude at them while they were holding hands with a partner in public, for example, or maybe been called something in a derogatory way while at school.

There are degrees of homophobia. I would be surprised if most of your LGBT friends/acquaintances haven't experienced at least the smaller examples of it.

Well I mean the examples that you mentioned above, or the examples that baby and crumble mentioned earlier. I mean, if we're defining homophobia as an irrational fear or hatred of people who are LGBT (it's my own personal bugbear that people are lumped together like that, but that's for another thread), then that has to have some sort of standard where we can clearly say yes, that is an example of homophobia/transphobia, etc. The recent example of Caitlyn Jenner being subjected to harassment by the paps for example, that's a clear example of transphobia. It doesn't mean transphobia is "alive and well" in the UK. It means that's one example where we can say yes, that person committed a hate crime!

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's understandable you'd have that impression marien given that you don't know me at all.





Every one of them? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it but one of the reasons why threads like this raise an eyebrow is because most people I know who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender don't experience that sort of treatment. To say it's a fact of life is exactly the sort of negative, divisive attitude I'm referring to.





Yes they should, because that would be maintaining the perspective I mentioned earlier rather than allowing themselves to give in to mass paranoia which would be completely irrational and closing themselves off from society as a result. The George would probably close down as a result though if people realised that people aren't generally homophobic.





No equivocation is necessary, nor was it ever necessary (I hate when people make equivocations myself, they're never legitimate comparisons), nor is exaggeration and polarisation necessary either.

Do I know you personally ? Most unlikely - do I know your boards persona ? Very well , and if you don't accept that may I suggest you don't understand the concept of a chat forum . Now whether your boards persona is totally unrelated to your actual views I have no way of knowing , but I think not , you don't strike me as the kind of person that needs that kind of false validation .

I have yet to meet to LGBT person that has not experienced homophobia , every single one of them - bar none . As I say it is a fact of life , the degree may vary but the experience is a given .

Why not look on it as you would any other criminal act ? Why must the LGBT community be any different ?

It is as if by highlighting a wrong they are being ungrateful as it could be worse .

Frank Fetterson

Bigotry will always exist. Yes, it was an abhorrent act of vandalism, but the widespread condemnation of the offence in question demonstrates how unfavourably homophobia is received by society at large.

Not_A_Racist

How is it criminal damage if its written in chalk?

Maybe its one for the legal forum?

Can the content of the graffiti itself be criminal damage?

If somebody writes 'hello' in chalk on the ground the police won't be looking for them for criminal damage.

If you use a light beam to project a message onto a building are you committing criminal damage?

Will I Am Not

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You can do many things. Challenging through counter speech. Education. Etc etc

You can try many things but the chances of changing the mind of a bigot are slim to none.

There will always be prejudice. It's delusional to think that there will be 100% acceptance, be it sexuality, religion, race etc.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Do I know you personally ? Most unlikely - do I know your boards persona ? Very well , and if you don't accept that may I suggest you don't understand the concept of a chat forum . Now whether your boards persona is totally unrelated to your actual views I have no way of knowing , but I think not , you don't strike me as the kind of person that needs that kind of false validation .

I guess it was when you said anything that doesn't conform to my traditional world view raises an eyebrow but sure all you have to do is look through my post history, I don't think I'm actually that sheltered as I think you're making out.

If anything, it's actually the likes of the George like I said is more of a throwback to a time in history when people were persecuted for being gay. I could understand then the necessity for a place like the George, but nowadays? Not so much. Theirs is the more traditional view of LGBT culture in a modern society.

I have yet to meet to LGBT person that has not experienced homophobia , every single one of them - bar none . As I say it is a fact of life , the degree may vary but the experience is a given.

We probably gravitate towards different people then in that case. I don't tend to gravitate towards people where life is a constant struggle for them and every interaction is analysed to the nth degree. That sort of over-thinking every social interaction is debilitating and mentally exhausting.

Why not look on it as you would any other criminal act ? Why must the LGBT community be any different ?

It is as if by highlighting a wrong they are being ungrateful as it could be worse .

I thought we weren't doing equivocation? Clearly though how I would define homophobia is worlds apart from how some people here would define homophobia.

gizmo81

None of my friends have been victims of domestic abuse, but it exists.
None of my friends have been victims of terrorism, but it exists.
What kind of argument are you trying to make here?

George Weinberg defined homophobia, I''ll go with his definition.

Why are you trying to deny people their lived experience?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I guess it was when you said anything that doesn't conform to my traditional world view raises an eyebrow but sure all you have to do is look through my post history, I don't think I'm actually that sheltered as I think you're making out.

If anything, it's actually the likes of the George like I said is more of a throwback to a time in history when people were persecuted for being gay. I could understand then the necessity for a place like the George, but nowadays? Not so much. Theirs is the more traditional view of LGBT culture in a modern society.





We probably gravitate towards different people then in that case. I don't tend to gravitate towards people where life is a constant struggle for them and every interaction is analysed to the nth degree. That sort of over-thinking every social interaction is debilitating and mentally exhausting.





I thought we weren't doing equivocation? Clearly though how I would define homophobia is worlds apart from how some people here would define homophobia.

.........

Everything is still alive in modern Ireland, from rickets to tb.

sabat

I'm not even gay and I've been called a queer and fag (usually shouted out a taxi window by a gang of scrotes) 3 or 4 times when walking up that end of the street.

rtron

What happened in the George was vandalism surely?

koumi

Yes it is alive and well, this thread is hilarious btw

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

None of my friends have been victims of domestic abuse, but it exists.
None of my friends have been victims of terrorism, but it exists.
What kind of argument are you trying to make here?

I'm saying that it's completely irrational to use an incident like this, to suggest that homophobia "is alive and well in modern Ireland". It an old internet term you may have heard of if you're old enough to remember it - FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. If you don't remember that, then maybe you don't remember the story of the chicken who thought the sky was falling because an acorn fell on her head. It's creating an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, mistrust and divisiveness that is completely disproportionate to the original incident.

George Weinberg defined homophobia, I''ll go with his definition.

And when you continue to expand that definition beyond it's original intent and common understanding to include every slight perceived by a person, then the term quickly becomes misunderstood and loses it's impact.

Why are you trying to deny people their lived experience?

I'm doing no such thing, and I'd thank you to reel that trope back in. I'm not denying anyone their lived experiences which are entirely subjective. I'm questioning the validity of the insinuation that "homophobia is alive and well in modern Ireland", and all the implications a statement like that carries with it on the basis of just this one incident alone.

gizmo81

Dude! You betray yourselves with every sentence you type.

I've quoted two studies which outline that homophobia (violence/bias) is a problem in Ireland and actually has increased since the marriage referendum. Post 80.
:
You are obviously not familiar with George Weinberg's Definition:

I coined the word homophobia to mean it was a phobia about homosexuals, It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear, and it had led to great brutality, as fear always does.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/george-weinberg-dead-coined-homophobia.html

52% of school going teenagers have experienced homophobic taunts. What part of that is it you cannot understand? See post 80 for reference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that it's completely irrational to use an incident like this, to suggest that homophobia "is alive and well in modern Ireland". It an old internet term you may have heard of if you're old enough to remember it - FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. If you don't remember that, then maybe you don't remember the story of the chicken who thought the sky was falling because an acorn fell on her head. It's creating an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, mistrust and divisiveness that is completely disproportionate to the original incident.





And when you continue to expand that definition beyond it's original intent and common understanding to include every slight perceived by a person, then the term quickly becomes misunderstood and loses it's impact.





I'm doing no such thing, and I'd thank you to reel that trope back in. I'm not denying anyone their lived experiences which are entirely subjective. I'm questioning the validity of the insinuation that "homophobia is alive and well in modern Ireland", and all the implications a statement like that carries with it on the basis of just this one incident alone.

Annasopra

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You can try many things but the chances of changing the mind of a bigot are slim to none.

There will always be prejudice. It's delusional to think that there will be 100% acceptance, be it sexuality, religion, race etc.

Did I ever claim there would be 100% acceptance?

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

You are obviously not familiar with George Weinberg's Definition:

From that very same article, exactly what I referred to earlier -

Over time, “homophobia” evolved from a rallying cry to a contested term. Critics, both gay and heterosexual, argued that however useful the word might be as a political tool, or as a consciousness raiser, it did not withstand scrutiny. Homophobia, they pointed out, was not precisely equivalent to an irrational fear of snakes or heights, and the emotions associated with it were more likely to be anger or disgust than fear. Its meaning had become too diffuse, they argued, covering everything from physical assault to private thoughts to government policies.

In 2012, The Associated Press, in a revision of its stylebook, discouraged use of the word. “Phobia means irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness,” David Minthorn, The A.P.’s deputy standards editor, wrote in a column. “In terms like homophobia, it’s often speculation. The reasons for anti-gay feelings or actions may not be apparent. Specifics are better than vague characterizations of a person’s general feelings about something.”

Dr. Weinberg remained unconvinced. The phenomenon still existed, he asserted, and only one word did it justice.

52% of school going teenagers have experienced homophobic taunts. What part of that is it you cannot understand? See post 80 for reference.

When I was in school, 100% of teenagers experienced homophobic taunts. I'm not too sure how many of them actually knew what it meant, let alone how many of them actually hated or had an irrational fear of people who were gay. A 48% reduction? I'd say that was progress, but to teenagers nowadays, everything is gay! I don't immediately assume they actually have an irrational fear or hatred of people who gay though.

Annasopra

......... wrote: »

Everything is still alive in modern Ireland, from rickets to tb.

Yeah. So what. We can all do whataboutery.

SterlingArcher

Some of the replys from the person who actually posted original pictures are quite interesting .

" it's troubling that we can't have spaces of our own and the straights aren't happy with us being too visible "

Some nice us vs them mentality. With awesome sweeping generalisations to boot. I wonder are their parents non gay friends lumped in here too.

Another person " sure the George has become trendy for straights we can't even have our own queer space. Referendum changed nothing" . ok that's quite interesting for someone mentioning a referendum which was voted in by many "straights" so all could be treated the same yet wanting exclusivity in same sentence.

" I'm angry and scared". This for me is getting hysterical.

Now I get these are the opinions of just a few who I consider idiots so I won't go kicking any not straights outta my spaces .

I'm a " straight" so I might be doing the equivalent of mansplaining here.

One eyed Jack

Grey Wind wrote: »

Someone spray paints fag and a swastika across a gay bar and you think it's a publicity stunt? Are you for real? No wonder you don't think homophobia's a problem if this is your reaction to it.

It's not as though the idea is actually unheard of?

Gay Pastor Apologizes After Accusing Whole Foods of Writing Slur on Chocolate Cake

The case of the chocolate cake slur, it seems, was simply a hoax.

An openly gay Texas pastor who had accused Whole Foods of defacing his cake with an anti-gay slur dropped his lawsuit against the grocery chain on Monday, issuing an apology that said he was wrong to “perpetuate this story.”

“The company did nothing wrong,” the pastor, Jordan Brown, said in a statement. “I was wrong to pursue this matter and use the media to perpetuate this story.”

He also apologized to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community “for diverting attention from real issues.”

Lesbian Admits She Faked Homophobic Attack, Punched HERSELF

Last August, Mari Poindexter, a professor at Central Michigan University reported on social media that she was violently assaulted by a man at a local concert she attended with her family.

She posted a detailed account of the alleged assault which included a man shouting “crossdressing fag” at her, before attacking her in a carpark of a local bar later that night. Along with the post, she included graphic pictures of her injuries.

Poindexter’s supporters urged her to report the attack to police. When she did, the police investigated CCTV footage of the carpark, prompting the alleged victim to confess that she had lied about the attack, but maintains that she was still verbally abused by a man at the concert.

Police said that Poindexter, “made the story up about being assaulted by a male subject at the bar and punched herself in the eye because she wanted to raise awareness about the social hardships of people in the LGBT community.”

Her lawyer told Morning Sun News, “On the night in question, she was accosted, by another patron at a local concert. The assault included many homophobic remarks, [and was] very mean spirited” but “made the mistake of exaggerating the assault.”

Gay YouTube personality allegedly faked own assault, hitting himself in head with pay phone

Calum McSwiggan made his name as a YouTube personality whose videos discuss LGBT issues.

The 26-year-old’s channel, which had 62,809 subscribers early Thursday morning, is mostly focused on sex — his videos have titles like “I Paid For Sex in Thailand” and “I Did Gay Porn & I’m Sorry,” interspersed with issue-centric ones like “I Was Fired For Being Gay” and “Homophobic Bullying | Your Stories.”

Following the June 12 mass shooting in Pulse, an Orlando gay nightclub, he choked “we do not deserve this f—— treatment” through tears in a video.

Fifteen days later, McSwiggan posted a disturbing photo to his Instagram account showing him in a hospital bed with bleary, puffy eyes and a bandage on his head.

“Last night was the worst night of my life and I’m really struggling to find the words to talk about it,” the caption read.  It described an attack on him outside a California gay club. According to the post, he was out celebrating after a weekend at VidCon when he was separated from his friends and “beaten up by three guys.”

“With three broken teeth and six stitches in my forehead, I’ve never felt so terrified to be a gay man in the public eye,” the caption said.

Police, though, found no evidence of such an event and have charged him with filing a false police report, according to the Los Angeles Times.

I'm very much for real as it happens, unlike the stories above which were used to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among people in society.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as though the idea is actually unheard of?
Gay Pastor Apologizes After Accusing Whole Foods of Writing Slur on Chocolate Cake

Lesbian Admits She Faked Homophobic Attack, Punched HERSELF

Gay YouTube personality allegedly faked own assault, hitting himself in head with pay phone

I'm very much for real as it happens, unlike the stories above which were used to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among people in society.

Wow. 3 examples from America and suddenly it's a massive social phenomenen. Who knew? I actually think your conspiracy theories on this are really what is trying to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among peoole in society.

Conspiracy theories are alas par for the course with that user. I recall for example the time a reporter wrote about telling a one night stand that she wanted to get pregnant and be a single mother. It was her life choice - the guy happily consented (win-win in his mind). Not happy with her choices the user in question decides to invent out of nowhere that she committed to this 18-21 period of single motherhood as an intentional means to have an article to write and further her career. Not a shred of evidence that was her motivation existed at the time - or that her motivations for getting pregnant were anything other than what she herself claimed them to be - nor was any such evidence offered by him when asked (in fact he moved towards being openly abusive when asked for it) - but that has never stopped him inventing a narrative of his own that he could deride with relative ease.

Interesting too to see that user play down the homophobia in any situation - given how often he plays down his own. Recall how he wrote about how deeply he is adversely affected by merely seeing homosexuals hold hands in a restaurant - to the point not only would he complain about it - but he would do so in the full expectation the management of the restaurant should be expected do anything it can to alleviate his suffering - up to and including removing the loving and innocent patrons from the establishment.

So to see him rolling into a forum about homosexuality to not just play down - but perpetuate _as yet_ unfounded (after all who knows) conspiracy theories about - an ominous (given the reference to Nazism) homophobic event is barely going to move the needle on the surprise meter here at least.

Though it is interesting to see him _exaggerate_ the OP in an effort to _downplay_ the OP. An interesting tactic - but certainly when he wrote "I didn't deny at all that homophobia exists? I'm saying that it doesn't exist to the degree that was implied in the opening post." - I went reading the Opening post again. 5 times in fact. And I am yet to read a single word - let alone sentence - that implied anything remotely approaching "degrees" of it. The user has simply (par for the course once again with him) made it up himself - never one to let what people _actually said_ get in the way of what he would like them to have said.

All that said I do try to look for the silver lining in even the worst events. A couple of years ago we had a referendum on equal marriage and during that time we had all kinds of anti-homosexuality narratives. In our print and audio and visual media. Now two years later we have a lone coward expressing his frustrations and ineptitude and ineffectual lack of any cogent arguments in the only way his cowardice and lack of rational reason allow him to.

In the dark - alone - with a piece of chalk. So horrible thing to do as it may have been - some schadenfreude part of me get spin some pleasure out of the event at the same time - well no not the event itself - so much as this loners pathetic part in it. All the arguments against homosexuality - homosexual marriage - homosexual adoption - and every other topic that came up during that period of debate - have simply evaporated as the empty wind they were at the time. There simply is no arguments left that stood up to even the mildest scrutiny. So scrawling on walls with cowardice is all that little minority have left.