Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

If it was difficult to find I'd post a link but when it's easy to find I'm not going doing the work for others. In the time it took to quote my post and ask me to do it for them they'd have had it themselves.

You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not expect others to do your work for you.

salmocab

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not expect others to do your work for you.

It doesn’t matter if there are gangs of gays roaming around bashing people it wouldn’t make the other side of the coin okay, I don’t understand his argument anyway.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

If it was difficult to find I'd post a link but when it's easy to find I'm not going doing the work for others. In the time it took to quote my post and ask me to do it for them they'd have had it themselves.

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

Well at least you tried.

When I get home this evening I'll put up a few links for you. Unable to do it on the phone.

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

Well at least you tried.

When I get home this evening I'll put up a few links for you. Unable to do it on the phone.

Of course that doesn't for a second justify anything from anyone else as already pointed out.

:rolleyes:

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

It doesn’t matter if there are gangs of gays roaming around bashing people it wouldn’t make the other side of the coin okay, I don’t understand his argument anyway.

I didn't say it was OK to beat anybody. My comment was in response to a person talking about isolated pockets of religious extremists, I was just pointing out that you have those on both sides.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say it was OK to beat anybody. My comment was in response to a person talking about isolated pockets of religious extremists, I was just pointing out that you have those on both sides.

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

I'd also quite like to know where there are isolated pockets of gay extremists.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Your agenda is to bash religion.
As a non-religious person I find you every bit as bad as those who try force religion down your throat.

focusing on the uh less controversial aspect of the post

it is a false equivalence to hold that an atheist querying special status for religious beliefs is comparable to a person justifying any of their behaviours by referencing such beliefs.

its not a case of two opposing but equal cases. one is no case at all.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

An aside question. Would clearing cookies be sufficient if your IP address identified you?

Niska

You could use a non-biased search engine (i.e. a search engine that does not take previous web usage and searches into account when compiling the search result) - like duckduckgo.com

Produced two "gay gangs attack straight man" results on the first page.

A Snopes fact check (Was an Atlanta Man Assaulted and Raped by Gay Gang the ‘Sweet Bloods’? - conclusion false) - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/atlanta-gay-gang-sweet-bloods/

and a newsbiscuit report - STRAIGHT MAN ATTACKED BY GANG OF VICIOUS HOMOSEXUALS - which appears satirical, but sometimes these days I can't tell anymore - http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/05/20/straight-man-attacked-by-gang-of-vicious-homosexuals/

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

An aside question. Would clearing cookies be sufficient if your IP address identified you?

If you always connect via the same static IP address, possibly. More typically you'll have a dynamically assigned IP address that is liable to change quite frequently, so your IP address can identify your service provider but not you individually. I'm on a LAN here with DHCP with a pair of static addresses going as far as the router so at best, IP will get you as far as the server though I think the server side firewall would even make that a bit awkward.

smacl

Niska wrote: »

and a newsbiscuit report - STRAIGHT MAN ATTACKED BY GANG OF VICIOUS HOMOSEXUALS - which appears satirical, but sometimes these days I can't tell anymore

Reading the description of the attack, I think we can safely say it is satirical

The victim told reporters that earlier that evening he had been the subject of a series of bitingly waspish remarks from what had either been two men and a woman, one man and two women, three very effeminate men or three very butch women. Their comments, which were of a ribald nature, were accompanied by a lot of ‘oohs’ and ‘ahs’ and high-pitched shrieking.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Reading the description of the attack, I think we can safely say it is satirical

Sounds like he was attacked by the cast of a Carry On film.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sounds like he was attacked by the cast of a Carry On film.

Indeed. Given we've now had two people carrying out a search, one returning nothing and the other returning two false positives, I think the assertion that this is something easily found with a search is utter rubbish. I look forward to EagleEye's posting of his reference on that basis.

eagle eye

smacl wrote: »

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

I never mentioned equivalence.

There is a great book on the subject I mentioned https://nyupress.org/9781479870028/the-gangs-all-queer/

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

I never mentioned equivalence.

There is a great book on the subject I mentioned https://nyupress.org/9781479870028/the-gangs-all-queer/

So that's your easy to find source? With all of three ratings on Amazon. Looks like an interesting enough read from the comments on Goodreads but I'd hardly consider it a strong reference for the assertion that there are gay gangs out there beating people up.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

So that's your easy to find source? With all of three ratings on Amazon. Looks like an interesting enough read from the comments on Goodreads but I'd hardly consider it a strong reference for the assertion that there are gay gangs out there beating people up.

From that link

Some are still closeted to their fellow gang members and families

Can it be a gay gang while members are in the closet??

Seem to me this book is primarily about gay members of gangs rather than gay gangs.
And yes, of course there are gays in gangs. There are gays everywhere - as we have been telling people for decades now.

milehip

[quote="Niska;111933364"

and a newsbiscuit report - STRAIGHT MAN ATTACKED BY GANG OF VICIOUS HOMOSEXUALS - which appears satirical, but sometimes these days I can't tell anymore - http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/05/20/straight-man-attacked-by-gang-of-vicious-homosexuals/[/quote]

That's obviously a piss take.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

Seem to me this book is primarily about gay members of gangs rather than gay gangs. And yes, of course there are gays in gangs. There are gays everywhere - as we have been telling people for decades now.

It's about both, and it's really an academic book. It's excellent.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

It's about both, and it's really an academic book. It's excellent.

It may be excellent but an academic sociological text discussing the case study of a specific place that states many gang members are closeted is hardly proof of your assertion that gay gangs are going around beating (presumably straight) people up.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

It may be excellent but an academic sociological text discussing the case study of a specific place that states many gang members are closeted is hardly proof of your assertion that gay gangs are going around beating (presumably straight) people up.

It's not about closeted gang members, it's about some of them. It's about out in the open gay members of gangs too and about gay gangs.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not about closeted gang members, it's about some of them. It's about out in the open gay members of gangs too and about gay gangs.

It is, and I quote

The Gang’s All Queer draws from interviews with over 50 gay gang- and crime-involved young men in Columbus, Ohio, the majority of whom are men of color in their late teens and early twenties, as well as on-the-ground ethnographic fieldwork with men who are in gay, hybrid, and straight gangs.

You said, and again I quote:

You do realise that there are gay gangs nowadays who beat people up?

as some sort of equivalence to religious extremists.
As 'evidence' you have produced a sociological study of 50 young men in Columbus Ohio who are gang members.

That's it. Men who are in gangs are violent. Hardly hold the press shock horror news.
Some of those men are gay. Again, this is to be expected. It is estimated that 10% of the population is homosexual.

The issue is from this you have extrapolated there are 'gay gangs going around beating people up' and presented it as if this happens frequently and globally. You are going to need more evidence than interviews with 50 young gang members in Ohio to demonstrate this is a correct assertion.

There are, however, frequent attacks on gay people by religious extremists frequently and globally. I can provide a hell of a lot more evidence for that than a single academic book.

pauldla

C'mon, give eagle eye some slack. It's a book! It has the words 'gay' and 'gang' on the cover! It obviously supports the argument he was making earlier...don't let his desperate three-minute google search be in vain....

robindch

eagle eye wrote: »

It's about both, and it's really an academic book. It's excellent.

If you like that, here's a twitter account which regularly posts links to similar books and papers in the genres of anthropology, sociology, gender studies and queer studies:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

It's gripping stuff.

Cabaal

pauldla wrote: »

C'mon, give eagle eye some slack. It's a book! It has the words 'gay' and 'gang' on the cover! It obviously supports the argument he was making earlier...don't let his desperate three-minute google search be in vain....

eagle eye has dug a nice hole, it must be hard to dig up though :pac::pac:

eagle eye

Cabaal wrote:

eagle eye has dug a nice hole, it must be hard to dig up though

I haven't dug any hole. People, who clearly struggle with comprehension, are attributing things to my posts which aren't there.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

I haven't dug any hole. People, who clearly struggle with comprehension, are attributing things to my posts which aren't there.

Alternatively you threw a wide claim out there and when asked to provide some evidence to support that claim the only thing you could find was a very narrow study published in one academic book.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

Alternatively you threw a wide claim out there and when asked to provide some evidence to support that claim the only thing you could find was a very narrow study published in one academic book.

There's no alternatively, you are just making things up that are not in my post and going with it.

Bannasidhe

You began with the claim that anyone who doesn't agree with "the" LGBT are afriad to speak out - i.e that the victims of homophobia are the homophobes ... (where have we heard that before??)

eagle eye wrote: »

Gay people were afraid to admit it 25 years ago. Now the LGBT have anyone who doesn't agree with them afraid to admit it in case they'd lose their jobs.

eagle eye wrote: »

If they admitted at work that they believe that actively sexual gay people are sinners do you think they'd face sanction?
It'd be wrong if they did.

eagle eye wrote: »

See the thing is that there are many religious people out there who believe in the Bible and believe that if you have sex with the same gender that you are sinning.
If somebody critics their beliefs and calls them homophobic they don't lose their jobs over it.
It's one-sided, the religious are now where the gay people were 25 years ago.
It was wrong then and it's wrong now too.

You then expnded that to claim there are gay gangs going around beating people up as if this is common.
The comparison you were implying was questioned by quite a few posters

eagle eye wrote: »

You talk about mis-treatment of gay people and the crazed views of some people and actions of some. You do realise that there are gay gangs nowadays who beat people up?

pauldla wrote: »

Did that happen inside your head or outside your head...?

salmocab wrote: »

It doesn’t matter if there are gangs of gays roaming around bashing people it wouldn’t make the other side of the coin okay, I don’t understand his argument anyway.

smacl wrote: »

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say it was OK to beat anybody. My comment was in response to a person talking about isolated pockets of religious extremists, I was just pointing out that you have those on both sides.

smacl wrote: »

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

smacl wrote: »

Indeed. Given we've now had two people carrying out a search, one returning nothing and the other returning two false positives, I think the assertion that this is something easily found with a search is utter rubbish. I look forward to EagleEye's posting of his reference on that basis.

smacl wrote: »

So that's your easy to find source? With all of three ratings on Amazon. Looks like an interesting enough read from the comments on Goodreads but I'd hardly consider it a strong reference for the assertion that there are gay gangs out there beating people up.

Cabaal wrote: »

eagle eye has dug a nice hole, it must be hard to dig up though :pac::pac:

Now, apparently I am making things up...

eagle eye wrote: »

There's no alternatively, you are just making things up that are not in my post and going with it.

You tried to draw an equivalence between the very real persecution of homosexual people and religious people being 'afraid' to air their views.
When you were called out on that you announced this 'gay gangs' as if it was some kind of trump card.
Again, many questioned you on this. Some
went looking for evidence as you were reluctant to supply any.

Finally - we got a link to an academic book publisher and their publication of a text discussing 50 young gay (an unknown number of whom are in the closet) gang members in Ohio.

And I am making things up?!?! I don't think so.