Homophobia still alive in modern Ireland

Will I Am Not

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Did I ever claim there would be 100% acceptance?

Well here's how the conversation was going when you quoted me.

NIMAN wrote: »

No-one is denying that, but you are being unrealistic if you think there will be 100% acceptance across the population.

It simply isn't going to ever happen, because people are people. And every country is the same.

There will always be homophobia, racism, sexism, ageism ........

baby and crumble wrote: »

I disagree. Why should we be ok with some of our population being treated unequally? "Just because"? That's not good enough

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You don't have to be ok with it. You just can't do anything about how people feel.

You may not have said it in your own words but you seemed to be arguing the same point as B&C, you even thanked that post.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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.

I said it wasn't unheard of and used examples to illustrate my point. How is that any different from your homophobia is still alive in modern Ireland on the basis of this one incident? Homophobia isn't unheard of in Ireland either, but I'm not going to imply people are as ignorant to it or unaware of it as you did in your opening post. People are aware of it, but there's no need to dramatise it in an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said it wasn't unheard of and used examples to illustrate my point. How is that any different from your homophobia is still alive in modern Ireland on the basis of this one incident? Homophobia isn't unheard of in Ireland either, but I'm not going to imply people are as ignorant to it or unaware of it as you did in your opening post. People are aware of it, but there's no need to dramatise it in an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily.

Why is their no need to dramatize it ? Would you say the same if it was a swastika daubed on a synagogue ?

And furthermore how do you come to the conclusion it is ''an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily '' by the OP ?

To be honest with you there seems to be a subtext to all your posts that LGBT people should 'know their place ' . Why are you treating this incident differently than any other incident ?

Grey Wind

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.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Again, it's no wonder you don't see homophobia as a problem if your reaction to blatant vandalism is to come up with conspiracy theories that fit your view.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said it wasn't unheard of and used examples to illustrate my point. How is that any different from your homophobia is still alive in modern Ireland on the basis of this one incident? Homophobia isn't unheard of in Ireland either, but I'm not going to imply people are as ignorant to it or unaware of it as you did in your opening post. People are aware of it, but there's no need to dramatise it in an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily.

But what does the OP imply? You keep saying that the OP dramatises it and suggests a certain level and all that, but literally the only thing the OP says is that it exists:

I think sometimes there can be a perception that homophobia doesn't exist anymore here in this country since May 23rd 2015.

It does.

That's it. OP's point is that yes, while homophobia was a much larger problem in the past and that gay people are relatively lucky to live in a more forward thinking society, it's still there. You have repeatedly been given actual concrete examples of homophobia in Ireland and continue to ignore it and move the goalposts so that whatever weird view you're trying to profess comes out on top.

http://www.thejournal.ie/homophobia-ireland-1313875-Feb2014/
http://www.thejournal.ie/homophobia-1329801-Feb2014/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/52-of-young-irish-lgbti-people-face-abuse-at-school-1.2651002
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homophobia-case-study-there-s-no-classification-of-these-crimes-1.3022277
http://www.independent.ie/sport/revealed-ireland-the-second-worst-offender-when-it-comes-to-homophobia-in-sport-31210431.html

One eyed Jack

Homophobia exists, who knew?

Not_A_Racist

I would argue that homophobia will likely always exist. And for the reason already given; that you cannot control peoples feelings.

Both homophobia and racism can be latent, like racism largely was in Ireland for many years. But now that there's foreigners to rail against the latent racism reasserts itself.

There is simply no way to convince others of your point of view. Doubling down and trying harder often makes the opposing side dig in also and become more fixed in their position.


Gay pride marches are divisive for two related reasons.
Firstly, there aren't straight pride marches, and secondly, our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection or of sexuality. I suspect our culture doesn't like sexually dominant people either and you see a lot of those at gay pride marches.

For those reasons, mainly cultural, gay pride marches are polarising and divisive.

Also, on a global scale, gay rights are divisive with some countries now voting to restrict gay rights.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Why is their no need to dramatize it ? Would you say the same if it was a swastika daubed on a synagogue ?

So much for "no need to draw equivalences" and then you go and draw equivalences. If there were someone trying to use it to make a point as though anti-semitism were prevalent in Irish society I would, yes, and I would be equally cautious about jumping to conclusions based on one single incident.

And furthermore how do you come to the conclusion it is ''an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily '' by the OP ?

One incident in Dublin is not representative of "modern Ireland".

To be honest with you there seems to be a subtext to all your posts that LGBT people should 'know their place ' .

Odd persecution complex you've got going on there.

Why are you treating this incident differently than any other incident ?

I'm only talking about this incident because I'm not drawing equivalences and I'm not blowing it out of proportion to suggest that homophobia is "still alive in modern Ireland" as though it's actually more prevalent than it is.

sunny2004

Why do people think its a phobia ?

Grey Wind

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One incident in Dublin is not representative of "modern Ireland".

...

I'm only talking about this incident because I'm not drawing equivalences and I'm not blowing it out of proportion to suggest that homophobia is "still alive in modern Ireland" as though it's actually more prevalent than it is.

You are completely inventing this narrative. Nowhere in the OP does it say that this is a representation of modern Ireland; simply that it exists in modern Ireland. Nor did the OP imply that any specific level of homophobia is present here.

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

Why do people think its a phobia ?

Maybe because it's a negative attitude towards LGBT people - during the 1980s and 1990s it was an explicit contempt, hatred and violence towards gay people - very often based on irrational fears and religious beliefs. The current pope says it's OK to be gay - provided you don't practice.
Maybe you could google Declan Flynn who was beaten to death in 1983 or Robert Drake who was left permanently brain-damaged in 1999 etc due to homophobia - both attacks were purely based on an irrational fear - or a phobia - of gay people (which was perpetuated by Irish laws and attitudes of society at the time).

sunny2004

Logo wrote: »

Maybe because it's a negative attitude towards LGBT people -

I am not sure that is a phobia.

gizmo81

But but homophobia exists in Ireland and is on the increase, but no lets ignore the stats on focus on an irrelevant argument to reinforce my heteronormative bias.

More than 52 per cent of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans and intersex) young people have experienced homophobic or transphobic name-calling while at school in Ireland, according to a Unesco study.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...hool-1.2651002


And if you want to focus on homophobia as violence rather than bias,


Hate crime figures from the Central Statistics Office, released to the Press Association in October, showed that 26 cases of crimes based on gender, transphobia or homophobia were recorded in the first six months of 2016, compared to 25 overall in 2015. These were the first statistics available since the Pulse recording system used by An Garda Siochana was expanded to include transphobic crimes in 2015.


http://ilga-europe.org/sites/default...17/ireland.pdf

*I already posted these links Post 80 but One-Eye Jack keeps missing them.

Professor Moriarty

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

I would argue that homophobia will likely always exist. And for the reason already given; that you cannot control peoples feelings.

Both homophobia and racism can be latent, like racism largely was in Ireland for many years. But now that there's foreigners to rail against the latent racism reasserts itself.

There is simply no way to convince others of your point of view. Doubling down and trying harder often makes the opposing side dig in also and become more fixed in their position.


Gay pride marches are divisive for two related reasons.
Firstly, there aren't straight pride marches, and secondly, our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection or of sexuality. I suspect our culture doesn't like sexually dominant people either and you see a lot of those at gay pride marches.

For those reasons, mainly cultural, gay pride marches are polarising and divisive.

Also, on a global scale, gay rights are divisive with some countries now voting to restrict gay rights.

Our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection? Time for cultural change.

Sexually dominant people? How would you define one of those? Why are they particularly populous at gay pride parades?

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

I am not sure that is a phobia.

Maybe a negative attitude isn't a phobia but it does create an irrational fear - which is a phobia.

sunny2004

Logo wrote: »

Maybe a negative attitude isn't a phobia but it does create an irrational fear - which is a phobia.

so you assume they are afraid ?

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

so you assume they are afraid ?

Up to 2016 Irelands laws discriminated against gay people. So society accepted that it was OK to value LGBT people as less than others. I never said that anyone was afraid - but it was a phobia or irrational fear of something that wasn't of the mainstream white Irish Catholic majority.

sunny2004

Logo wrote: »

Up to 2016 Irelands laws discriminated against gay people. So society accepted that it was OK to value LGBT people as less than others. I never said that anyone was afraid - but it was a phobia or irrational fear of something that wasn't of the mainstream white Irish Catholic majority.

Trying to work thorugh all the additional information you post to get to your point, I was asking about the use of the term phobia, you mentioned an irrational fear, I always assumed the word fear was associated with feeling afraid. I can see this is going nowhere.

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

Trying to work thorugh all the additional information you post to get to your point, I was asking about the use of the term phobia, you mentioned an irrational fear, I always assumed the word fear was associated with feeling afraid. I can see this is going nowhere.

Yep agree that it's going nowhere fast. Will happily agree to disagree.

Not_A_Racist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection? Time for cultural change.

Sexually dominant people? How would you define one of those? Why are they particularly populous at gay pride parades?

Your post is nothing but questions apart from the cryptic phrase 'Time for cultural change' which I suspect is sarcastic.

I suspect therefore that you're not here to offer your own opinion, or to engagein discussion; you're here to harass other people who express opinions you don't like.


Our society doesn't like overt displays of affection.
Do you dispute that?
Are you claiming to be unaware of that?
or are you merely being obtuse?


I believe 'sexually dominant' is self explanatory.

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

gizmo81

Do you know why there is Pride?

Why on earth would there be a straight pride?

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Your post is nothing but questions apart from the cryptic phrase 'Time for cultural change' which I suspect is sarcastic.

I suspect therefore that you're not here to offer your own opinion, or to engagein discussion; you're here to harass other people who express opinions you don't like.


Our society doesn't like overt displays of affection.
Do you dispute that?
Are you claiming to be unaware of that?
or are you merely being obtuse?


I believe 'sexually dominant' is self explanatory.

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

But but homophobia exists in Ireland and is on the increase, but no lets ignore the stats on focus on an irrelevant argument to reinforce my heteronormative bias.

...

*I already posted these links Post 80 but One-Eye Jack keeps missing them.

No gizmo, there's nothing irrelevant about claiming one incident is representative of homophobia in modern Ireland, that would be selection bias, and confirmation bias.

I'm not missing your links as I'm well aware of the stats and the reports behind them, which is why I would suggest that rather than blowing things out of proportion, we wouldn't use one incident to perpetuate myths about modern Irish society. I'd sooner focus on the positives in Irish society than always being attuned to the negatives.

Focusing on pointing out the negatives is a a trait of a person with a persecution complex who wants to confirm their bias. That's far easier for some people to do than focus on the positives, and an incident like this can be used to reinforce negative attitudes among a community towards people whom they perceive to be homophobic where no such homophobia exists.

gizmo81

Please point to where I based anything I've said on one incident.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

gizmo81 wrote: »

But but homophobia exists in Ireland and is on the increase, but no lets ignore the stats on focus on an irrelevant argument to reinforce my heteronormative bias.

...

*I already posted these links Post 80 but One-Eye Jack keeps missing them.

No gizmo, there's nothing irrelevant about claiming one incident is representative of homophobia in modern Ireland, that would be selection bias, and confirmation bias.

I'm not missing your links as I'm well aware of the stats and the reports behind them, which is why I would suggest that rather than blowing things out of proportion, we wouldn't use one incident to perpetuate myths about modern Irish society. I'd sooner focus on the positives in Irish society than always being attuned to the negatives.

Focusing on pointing out the negatives is a a trait of a person with a persecution complex who wants to confirm their bias. That's far easier for some people to do than focus on the positives, and an incident like this can be used to reinforce negative attitudes among a community towards people whom they perceive to be homophobic where no such homophobia exists.

baby and crumble

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

I know that you're not going to listen to what I've got to say, but every day is a straight pride day.

Yes, it has changed massively in Ireland, and now it's less unusual to see a gay couple walking around town holding hands. When I first came to Dublin in 2000 you NEVER saw it. You never saw gay couples kissing in non gay bars. You never saw a gay person approach someone in a non gay specific/ friendly environment. Now all those things happen, but it's still not to the same degree as it should.

If you want to talk about sexual aggressiveness and advertising their sexuality, I give you any nightclub in Ireland, with straight couples practically shagging in corners. I give you stag and hen nights. I give you couples making out on every corner. I give you what I saw every single weekend when I lived on Camden St, which was guys getting blowjobs off women in the street beside whelans, I saw young women wearing no underwear. I saw such sexual aggressiveness that it shocked me. I never ever have seen anything like that at any gay event ever.

It's "sexual aggressiveness" and unpleasant for you to think about from gay people, because all of a sudden you're forced to look at gay people kissing, gay people being proud of something that for centuries was shunned.

And before you say it, because it's always brought up, is this argument of "well I don't see why the men have to dress in leather/ as women/ whatever" at a parade for say, 15,000 people I often see 10 people like that. And anyway, who cares? Have you seen Paddys Day recently?

Don't try and turn this into a classic "gay people are more sexually aggressive" thing because that's exactly the attitudes that were espoused years ago to create the idea that we were sexual deviants and to justify locking us up for existing, or worse.

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

Please point to where I based anything I've said on one incident.

I didn't say you had done that gizmo, I would have said the same of anyone who uses one incident, whatever it is, to insinuate that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is. That's not "hetronormative bias" or anything like that, it's "positivity bias" if there is even such a thing, because I'm not going to look at one minor incident and suggest well that outweighs all the positives in our society.

Professor Moriarty

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Your post is nothing but questions apart from the cryptic phrase 'Time for cultural change' which I suspect is sarcastic.

I suspect therefore that you're not here to offer your own opinion, or to engagein discussion; you're here to harass other people who express opinions you don't like.


Our society doesn't like overt displays of affection.
Do you dispute that?
Are you claiming to be unaware of that?
or are you merely being obtuse?


I believe 'sexually dominant' is self explanatory.

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

To be honest, I haven't a clue as to what point you're trying to make.

However, your line about "some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance." gives me insight into how your mind works. It's rather a silly and anachronistic way of thinking.

Grey Wind

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No gizmo, there's nothing irrelevant about claiming one incident is representative of homophobia in modern Ireland, that would be selection bias, and confirmation bias.

I'm not missing your links as I'm well aware of the stats and the reports behind them, which is why I would suggest that rather than blowing things out of proportion, we wouldn't use one incident to perpetuate myths about modern Irish society. I'd sooner focus on the positives in Irish society than always being attuned to the negatives.

Focusing on pointing out the negatives is a a trait of a person with a persecution complex who wants to confirm their bias. That's far easier for some people to do than focus on the positives, and an incident like this can be used to reinforce negative attitudes among a community towards people whom they perceive to be homophobic where no such homophobia exists.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say you had done that gizmo, I would have said the same of anyone who uses one incident, whatever it is, to insinuate that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is. That's not "hetronormative bias" or anything like that, it's "positivity bias" if there is even such a thing, because I'm not going to look at one minor incident and suggest well that outweighs all the positives in our society.

No one is using this one incident! No one is blowing things out of proportion! The only thing the OP was trying to say was that homophobia still exists in Ireland, which it does. No one even commented on its prevalence. You are the one inventing this narrative that the OP and the others posters are trying to exaggerate this incident.

Also, who is focusing on the negative? We linked you to examples of homophobia when you tried to downplay its existence. We're talking about it in this thread because it's relevant. Pretending a problem doesn't exist isn't being "positive", it's being ignorant of the struggles of people who aren't you.

What are you even trying to argue that this point? It feels more like you have some sort of problem with people discussing homophobia and are using this thread to argue in circles about it.

gizmo81

I can't even read this paragraph as it makes absolutely zero sense. However thank you for agreeing I am correct in my analysis. Now let me point out how your analysis is incorrect regarding people using this incident for their agenda.

You state, I didn't state that, but then go on to say you'd say the same to anyone who uses one incident. No one is using this one incident in isolation to insinuate that homophobia exists.

What you'll find is people are using this highly public act of homophobia to reference the insidious homophobia that prevails in Irish society. I've backed this up numerous times for you.

It is heteronormative to ignore all current research regarding homophobia (violence/bias) to further your agenda that homophobia is not prevalent in Irish society. 52% of teenagers have been subjected to homophobic abuse, that is prevalent.

I don't understand why you're talking about the Pollyanna principle, people focus positive and negative experiences on different levels.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say you had done that gizmo, I would have said the same of anyone who uses one incident, whatever it is, to insinuate that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is. That's not "hetronormative bias" or anything like that, it's "positivity bias" if there is even such a thing, because I'm not going to look at one minor incident and suggest well that outweighs all the positives in our society.

One eyed Jack

Grey Wind wrote: »

No one is using this one incident! No one is blowing things out of proportion! The only thing the OP was trying to say was that homophobia still exists in Ireland, which it does. No one even commented on its prevalence. You are the one inventing this narrative that the OP and the others posters are trying to exaggerate this incident.

Joey said he thinks there's a perception that homophobia doesn't exist in Ireland since the marriage equality referendum. I think this was an attempt to argue something that simply isn't true, and then to use one single example as a way to make their point was blowing the incident out of proportion, in order to make more of an issue than it actually is.

Also, who is focusing on the negative? We linked you to examples of homophobia when you tried to downplay its existence. We're talking about it in this thread because it's relevant. Pretending a problem doesn't exist isn't being "positive", it's being ignorant of the struggles of people who aren't you.

What are you even trying to argue that this point? It feels more like you have some sort of problem with people discussing homophobia and are using this thread to argue in circles about it.

I could link to dozens of examples of homophobia too, but that would be fuelling the perception that the issue is actually more prevalent than it is as the Internet has a way of magnifying the significance of an incident and people losing the run of themselves. I'm not pretending a problem doesn't exist, I'm saying I don't think it's a good idea to feed a persecution complex. It's completely irrational thinking.

"Being ignorant of the struggles of people who aren't you" suggests that you think you think that by virtue of the fact that you see yourself as different to everyone else, that people you assume you have something in common with experience the same struggles you do. It's literally the definition of a persecution complex, and it's as outdated in modern Irish society as bars like the George and the graffiti that was chalked so carefully on the pillars.

I've never known a conscientious vandal, have you?

baby and crumble

Back onto the original topic, looks like a man in his 20's has been arrested, with CCTV footage showing him undertaking the graffiti.

http://jrnl.ie/3401051

wakka12

baby and crumble wrote: »

Back onto the original topic, looks like a man in his 20's has been arrested, with CCTV footage showing him undertaking the graffiti.

http://jrnl.ie/3401051

So we can put the publicity stunt rumours to bed..