Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

You need to understand and what I said before you respond.
I said I don't want to be associated with the haters.

I read the text. You started by stating that everyone deserved respect regardless of race, sexuality or religion. You then directly contradicted yourself by labeling atheists as haters. Given your previous posts defending the rights of religious people to publicly declare all homosexuals and atheists as sinners who are going to hell, I find your notions of respect rather dubious.

I'm of the opinion that we should judge people based on what they do, not who they are. People who have my respect tend to have earned it.

nozzferrahhtoo

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm with you feargale. I believe in respecting every man and woman regardless of their beliefs, sexuality or skin colour.

As do I. But I can do so while disrespecting bad ideas and nonsense beliefs.

Which for most people is fine. But some people.... usually online but not only.... conflate disrespect for an idea with disrespect for the person holding that idea.

The extreme example of this is the case where disparagement of Islam is called racism. But that is the extreme. There are plenty of other examples along the spectrum.

When I say that the idea there is a god is an unsubstantiated nonsense, then I am not disrespecting people who think there is a god. Like one speaker is meant to have said once: It is in fact BECAUSE I respect them as people so much that I CANT respect their more nonsense ideas and bad beliefs.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

You then directly contradicted yourself by labeling atheists as haters.

No, I said haters who call themselves atheists.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

No, I said haters who call themselves atheists.

As opposed to the likes of Folau, haters who call themselves Christian? Just because some Christians are haters and some atheists are haters doesn't imply correlation let alone causation. Haters gonna hate. Simple as that. Condoning hatred under the banner of freedom of religious expression has me wondering whether the motive is actually defending that freedom or just a veiled excuse for complicity in the homophobic sentiment?

eagle eye

Can you link to a quote from Folau from a credible source where he said something hateful?
I'm not looking for Bible quotes. I'm not looking for words from his sermon, which I personally find delusional, about his belief that God is punishing us.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Can you link to a quote from Folau from a credible source where he said something hateful?
I'm not looking for Bible quotes. I'm not looking for words from his sermon, which I personally find delusional, about his belief that God is punishing us.

While you might not be looking for words from his sermon, that's where he's delivering the hate speech. From the Mirror;

Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison has branded Israel Folau's homophobic bushfire comments as "appallingly insensitive".

Former rugby star Folau claimed that the recent fires which have swept across Australia, and killed six people, were caused by the nation voting to legalise same-sex marriages.

Folau is a devote Christian who had his Rugby Australia contract ripped up for anti-gay hate speech on social media.

Morrison said the comments were "appallingly insensitive" and would have offended "many Christians in Australia for whom that is not their view at all, and whose thoughts and prayers ... are very much with those who are suffering under the terrible burden of fire."

Just because hate speech is delivered from the pulpit doesn't make it any less hateful. Similar comments reported in the Australian news

“I just look at him and say ‘why would you say such divisive, hurtful things?’ It’s a hurtful thing to say to someone who has lost their home in a bushfire — that God hates you and he’s punishing you. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s manure.”

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

While you might not be looking for words from his sermon, that's where he's delivering the hate speech. From the

Is there a direct quote in that which is construed as hate speech by an ordinary, rational person?
And it's the mirror, hardly a credible source.

robinph

Here is the transcript for you:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/caldronpool.com/heres-what-israel-folau-actually-said-entire-transcript-of-controversial-november-sermon/

He said Australia is suffering from bush fires, Australia has permitted gay marriage and asked the not a genuine question of if that was a coincidence. That is just a political trick of saying A happens because of B without using those exact words so that he can try and claim he didn't really mean it afterwards.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Is there a direct quote in that which is construed as hate speech by an ordinary, rational person?
And it's the mirror, hardly a credible source.

Let's have a look at what the term 'hate speech' means. An ordinary, rational person might Google it or look in their dictionary. From Google;

hate speech
noun
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Saying homosexuals are going to hell unless they repent expresses prejudice against homosexuals.

From Merriam-Webster

hate speech noun
Legal Definition of hate speech
: speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)

Saying homosexuals and atheists are going to hell unless is insulting, offensive and intimidating to homosexuals. Whatever about being offensive or insulting, the intent is clearly to intimidate those involve to change, i.e. repent.

By those definitions, Folau is guilty of hate speech. This isn't exactly rocket science.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

Saying homosexuals are going to hell unless they repent expresses prejudice against homosexuals.

He never said that, he quoted the Bible and asked all these people to repent. He is just following the bible as a Christian.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

He never said that, he quoted the Bible and asked all these people to repent. He is just following the bible as a Christian.

a tattooed works on the Sabbath kinda Christian.
Or to put it another way - a pick and choose which bits they want to follow who then tells other people they are going to Hell for not following the bits they chose to follow kinda Christian.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

He never said that, he quoted the Bible and asked all these people to repent. He is just following the bible as a Christian.

Repeating someone else's hate speech with their original intent is still hate speech. Doesn't matter whether its inspired by the bible or Charles Manson.

eagle eye

smacl wrote:

Repeating someone else's hate speech with their original intent is still hate speech. Doesn't matter whether its inspired by the bible or Charles Manson.

It wasn't hate speech when it was written because hate speech didn't exist.
I suppose you want to ban the Fairytales of New York because it has the f word in it?

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

It wasn't hate speech when it was written because hate speech didn't exist.

Burning heretics wasn't a crime at the time it took place, would you consider it ok today?

I suppose you want to ban the Fairytales of New York because it has the f word in it?

You suppose wrong, and it's Fairytale in New York BTW. I've no problem with derogatory language in music, film or art unless it is specifically intended to incite prejudice or hatred against others. While some people consider specific words offensive regardless of context, I'd take more issue with the intent with which they're delivered.

AllForIt

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What I am reading is that you feel isolated within the group you hang out with as your politics are different to theirs and that, somehow, this is the 'fault' of 'the Left'.

Which is, imo, a rather insulting view of those you call friends as it implies they have been 'taken over' and do not genuinely believe in left wing politics.

Also, your knowledge of the LGBT fight for recognition is astoundingly poor.
The rights that exist are there because of 'leftys', those rights you enjoy today.

But that does not behove you to anything more than a bit of acknowledgement of the debt you owe the 'leftys' - and yes, the non-white gender queers who didn't have the 'luxury' of 'passing' who literally fought on the streets for your freedoms because I'll tell you this - weren't no white men being dragged into paddy wagons in Christopher Street the night it kicked off.

And yes, there were white men marching in the Pride parades, alongside the men of other colours, the dykes, the gender fluid, the transgendered - all getting spat at and abused and you know what - those white men were 'leftys'.
Some of them were straight - they marched because they saw and injustice and wanted to change it. They didn't abstain as they 'didn't feel passionate about it' - which is another way of saying I couldn't be arsed as it doesn't affect me personally.
Just like the dykes who took up the battle against AIDS to care for our gay brothers.

I know because I was there. 10 years ago. 20 years ago. 30 years ago.

And now I have to listen to privileged pups who are befitting from the battles others fought whinging that they don't like the politics that won them their rights. :rolleyes:

My advice to you - if you don't like the lefty gays - go get yourself some righty ones. There are plenty of them out there who will happily whine along with you.

I still can't get over how much your post proves exactly what I was saying.

I never thought 'who' I owe my gay rights to but If I were it would be to white gay males and white male politicians predominately. Not the black gender fluid transients of whom you speak.

You talk about my lack of knowledge but let me knowledge readers here. The Stonewall bar was a fag bar, for men, 95% white. It was the most non-diverse place once cold dwell. It was a bar for men who were interested in men only. It wasn't some LGBT utopia and at that time gender-fluidity was something even gay men never heard of.

But I think you misunderstand me and that is my fault. I'm talking about the current loony left, not the left of old for which yes I have benefited.

I'm talking about the current loony left who have some strange ideas.

Going back to who I owe my gay right to, I was intrigued by an interview with George Osborne conducted by Ruth Davidson, where he stated that in a party vote on the issue of gay adoption, 3 ppl voted against the party line of no to gay adoption - those three ppl were Osborne, Cameron and...Boris. 3 right wing white males.

So please don't tell my I own my gay rights to some gender fluid non-binary black male living in NY who is non-privileged, when I as a white male grew up in the bog and had no fag bar to frequent when I was horny in the 80s. Privileged pup me backside.

I have done everything I can, being a non-political activist, and that is to come out to people in a non-pushy way in social circles and one of the reasons I do that is because I know I don't fit the stereotype. I came out to my parents when I was 24, that was 1993. I marched in a gay prided event in Dublin that year when they weren't as popular as they are these days.

If you get noting from this post I hope you get that I don't consider 'the Left' to be what is used to be. And I don't consider the Left as some kind of God, ironically.

As for the further comments about myself being some sort of 'righty' and feeling 'isolated' I can tell you this is complete fantasy, I've never felt isolated in my life, in fact all gay men I know thoroughly agree with me on the current state of affairs. I think the voice of gay men has muted and most of then are not happy with 'gay pride' becoming 'LGBT' pride. It's meaningless to me anymore because the term has become so broad.

jaxxx

One day, humanity will become mad. When they see someone who is not mad, they will attack them and say "You are mad, for you are not like us" - some old geezer a long bloody time ago

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

I still can't get over how much your post proves exactly what I was saying.

I never thought 'who' I owe my gay rights to .

Indeed.
And still don't if you think it was white men.

Hotblack Desiato

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm with you feargale. I believe in respecting every man and woman regardless of their beliefs, sexuality or skin colour.

Which isn't compatible with your many posts on this thread saying that bigotry is acceptable provided it's rooted in religion.

I don't believe in a god but don't ever call myself atheist as I don't want to be associated with the haters that call themselves that.

(a) Complete irony fail
(b) There are plenty of haters/fcukwits who call themselves Irish (and even make a big deal of how proud they are of their accident of birth) so do you for that reason disassociate youself from being described as Irish, too?

I have great friends, and family, who are deeply religious. They are entitled to be religious just as I'm entitled not to be. We all get along and respect each other.

If they kept telling you that you are going to hell, would that be respecting you?

AllForIt

Here is a perfect example of the types of current day odd lefties I'm talking about. Only a modern day lefty could make Piers Morgan look good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1roM98Dass&

So here we have a gay man fighting for the rights of the so called gender fluid - or is it the non-binary, don't quite get the difference, if there is a difference.

What I love about this clip is here we have an old fashioned transgender person ridiculing him. And rightly argues that he has no idea what he is talking about.

Psychologically, Benjamin Butterworth is to me the type of lefty SJW that seems to rail against standard heterosexuals. White heterosexuals at that. I somethings think LGBT+ as it grows endlessly should be changed to ABWH, Anything But White Heterosexual.

As a gay man I'm totally embarrassed by these kinds of people. Seriously, gay men especially, many who are just recently enjoying the freedoms they have, are now experiencing a backlash because of the muttering of lefty idiots like him.

Thanks to the left creating this umbrella term of LGBT, we are all seen as one entity, and this to me as gay man is an utter disaster. And who is responsible for this - the loony left of course. For doing their best to claim all LGBT as their own for political reasons.

I have seen some gay men on this message board describing themselves as 'LGBT'. I'm LGBT they say. This is just embarrassing. How ironic is it to claim individualism due to their sexual predilections and them subscribe to a lefty movement. What white gay men fought for is gone to be replaced with another kind of conformism. It beggars belief what is happening currently.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

. . . What white gay men fought for is gone to be replaced with another kind of conformism. It beggars belief what is happening currently.

Why should the conformism that white gay men fought for be privileged over other kinds of conformism?

AllForIt

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.
And still don't if you think it was white men.

Well it wasn't for the activities of aggressive butch dykes that's for sure.

Rights that has been realized in the homosexual world has come about by the actives of white gay man - predominately - overwhelmingly.

I've been seeing over and over again recently with all these transgender controversies up every other day, a push from the fluid left - to rewrite history. I.e. that anyone but white homo men were responsible for starting the gay rights movements. They even call it the LGBT movement now - what utter nonsense.

The reality is that that transgender activism latched onto Gay rights for power in numbers. For visibility. It worked for them and we didn't mind. Now it has become somewhat farcical. A bit lefty sh*tshow. But the idea that transgender ppl are responsible for the Stonewall riots is so completely ridiculous and an outright lie.

And all done to make the gay rights movement feel guilty because currently the transgender lefty brigade feel like the gay movement have abandoned them. Like Martian Navratilova did when she didn't agree that transgender women should compete in women's sport. Quite right to.

All of this is explained by the horrid lefty view that white men are the aggressor in all circumstances and even in the case of gay rights. No, lets thank all the black people, all the woman, the white gays males always had if comfy and were quite happy being in the closet because they are so well off and privileged. No need to come out at all.

I will call out this nasty lefty revisionism wherever I see it.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why should the conformism that white gay men fought for be privileged over other kinds of conformism?

Your question is a bit vague but If I look at what I meant in context I was talking about gay men conforming to a heterosexual lifestyle - now in contrast to conforming to a lefty lifestyle. Does that help?

Any comment on the main point I was making instead on nit-picking over my comments?

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Your question is a bit vague but If I look at what I meant in context I was talking about gay men conforming to a heterosexual lifestyle - now in contrast to conforming to a lefty lifestyle. Does that help?

Any comment on the main point I was making instead on nit-picking over my comments?

I think you have a false equivalence there. (And I don't know what a "lefty lifestyle" is.)

In the past gay men were pressured/required to live as though they were straight. But nobody is now demanding that they live as though they were transgender, or non-binary.

I think the demand is more that they should accept and respect those who live in this way, and (possibly) that they should recognise that the fight for acceptance and respect that those communities are now engaged in has obvious parallels with the fight that gay men had to make (and in many respects still have to make).

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

I still can't get over how much your post proves exactly what I was saying.

I never thought 'who' I owe my gay rights to but If I were it would be to white gay males and white male politicians predominately. Not the black gender fluid transients of whom you speak.

You talk about my lack of knowledge but let me knowledge readers here. The Stonewall bar was a fag bar, for men, 95% white.

But I think you misunderstand me and that is my fault. I'm talking about the current loony left, not the left of old for which yes I have benefited.

AllForIt wrote: »

So here we have a gay man fighting for the rights of the so called gender fluid - or is it the non-binary, don't quite get the difference, if there is a difference.





Thanks to the left creating this umbrella term of LGBT, we are all seen as one entity, and this to me as gay man is an utter disaster. And who is responsible for this - the loony left of course. For doing their best to claim all LGBT as their own for political reasons.

.

AllForIt wrote: »

Well it wasn't for the activities of aggressive butch dykes that's for sure.

Rights that has been realized in the homosexual world has come about by the actives of white gay man - predominately - overwhelmingly.

I've been seeing over and over again recently with all these transgender controversies up every other day, a push from the fluid left - to rewrite history. I.e. that anyone but white homo men were responsible for starting the gay rights movements. They even call it the LGBT movement now - what utter nonsense.

The reality is that that transgender activism latched onto Gay rights for power in numbers. For visibility. It worked for them and we didn't mind. Now it has become somewhat farcical. A bit lefty sh*tshow. But the idea that transgender ppl are responsible for the Stonewall riots is so completely ridiculous and an outright lie.



I will call out this nasty lefty revisionism wherever I see it.

MOD

You are quite entitled to your own 'nasty revisionism; - to paraphrase yourself - but you are not entitled to do so using inflammatory language such as highlighted.
If you cannot express yourself in this forum without constant references to "loony left", resorting to terms like "aggressive butch dykes", "so-called gender fluid" etc etc than I suggest this forum is not the place for you and you may be more comfortable expressing your 'nasty revisionism' elsewhere.

I let "fag bar" slide and you took that as permission to insult all those within the LGBT+ community who do not conform to your world view. That stops now.

You are welcome to express your opinion. You are not welcome to do so by using insulting and inflammatory language. Nor is your undercurrent of racism welcome.

DO NOT respond to this warning in thread. If you have an issue take it to PM.

Thanking you.

smacl

AllForIt wrote: »

I will call out this nasty lefty revisionism wherever I see it.

Perhaps you could also post some credible sources for your claims, notably that it was exclusively gay white men involved? A quick search for the history of the Stonewall riots came up with the following; https://stonewall50consortium.org/stonewallfactsheet.pdf which contradicts this.

What was the Stonewall uprising or the Stonewall riots?
In the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, homeless LGBTQ teens, trans women of color, lesbians, drag queens, gay men, and allies all decided to take a stand. What started out as an all-too-routine police raid of the Stonewall Inn gay bar in New York City turned into a multi-night uprising on the streets of Greenwich Village. It wasn’t the first time LGBTQ people fought back
and organized against oppression, but the Stonewall uprising ignited a mass movement that quickly spread across the U.S. and around the globe.

David Carter's book seems to be the main credible source from what I can gather.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you have a false equivalence there. (And I don't know what a "lefty lifestyle" is.)

In the past gay men were pressured/required to live as though they were straight. But nobody is now demanding that they live as though they were transgender, or non-binary.

I think the demand is more that they should accept and respect those who live in this way, and (possibly) that they should recognise that the fight for acceptance and respect that those communities are now engaged in has obvious parallels with the fight that gay men had to make (and in many respects still have to make).

Well your not following me at all if you don't know what I mean to be pressurized to follow a lefty lifestyle.

Your point...

I think the demand is...

That's the problem. The demand.

Some ppl said, even heterosexuals, that Navratilova pulled the ladder up after she got her freedom. After being a lesbian icon for decades. I think that's a bit rough.

It is this demand, the pressurizing, that one minority group, be totally behind the minority views and demands of another. And based on what logic? That both are demanding rights? Simply that one demanded rights so we should snug up together for no other reason that we both demand rights?

What about freedom of opinion? What about having the right of freedom of thought than feeling one is inextricably linked into other ppl's thoughts like a political lefty groupthink.

AllForIt

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could also post some credible sources for your claims, notably that it was exclusively gay white men involved? A quick search for the history of the Stonewall riots came up with the following; https://stonewall50consortium.org/stonewallfactsheet.pdf which contradicts this.



David Carter's book seems to be the main credible source from what I can gather.

This is all blatant lefty revisionism.

What was the Stonewall uprising
or the Stonewall riots?
In the early morning hours of June 28, 1969,
homeless LGBTQ teens, trans women of
color, lesbians, drag queens, gay men, and
allies all decided to take a stand. What
started out as an all-too-routine police raid
of the Stonewall Inn gay bar in New York
City turned into a multi-night uprising on
the streets of Greenwich Village. It wasn’t
the first time LGBTQ people fought back
and organized against oppression, but the
Stonewall uprising ignited a mass movement
that quickly spread across the U.S. and
around the globe.

That's the first paragraph to what you linked.

It's laughably lefty. There is no way whatsoever that the Stonewall bar was full of Transgender people of color, lesbians, LGBT teens etc. Teens in a bar? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

It was a man bar who wore handlebar mustaches , YMCA style, who were after one thing only, and the idea that the bar was some kind of lefty utopia is so funny because it's so daft as an idea, given that that the Stonewall bar was a pick up joint.

I think if a mod is going to warn me it should be on general forum rules. I think I'm entitled to argue against one point though.

I use the term *fag* as reclaiming it. I have no problem with it. You can call me what you like, names don't hurt me. I'm a fag and I don't mind if anyone uses the term to describe me. Boris Johnson got into trouble for calling gays as 'tank top wearing bum boys'. Should I be a snowflake about this. No. I've already shown that white male politicians did more for gay rights than anyone else.

Where is the black version of Peter Tatchell? Where is the Transgender version of Peter Tatchell? Where is the non-binary version of Peter Tatchell? Nowhere - they don't exist.

As I said, the worrying lefty view is to claim anyone who is not hetro, as their own. And I can see from the last mod note that my opinion should be shut down.

smacl

AllForIt wrote: »

This is all blatant lefty revisionism.

That's the first paragraph to what you linked.

It's laughably lefty. There is no way whatsoever that the Stonewall bar was full of Transgender people of color, lesbians, LGBT teens etc. Teens in a bar? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

It was a man bar who wore handlebar mustaches , YMCA style, who were after one thing only, and the idea that the bar was some kind of lefty utopia is so funny because it's so daft as an idea, given that that the Stonewall bar was a pick up joint.

I think if a mod is going to warn me it should be on general forum rules. I think I'm entitled to argue against one point though.

I use the term *fag* as reclaiming it. I have no problem with it. You can call me what you like, names don't hurt me. I'm a fag and I don't mind if anyone uses the term to describe me. Boris Johnson got into trouble for calling gays as 'tank top wearing bum boys'. Should I be a snowflake about this. No. I've already shown that white male politicians did more for gay rights than anyone else.

Where is the black version of Peter Tatchell? Where is the Transgender version of Peter Tatchell? Where is the non-binary version of Peter Tatchell? Nowhere - they don't exist.

As I said, the worrying lefty view is to claim anyone who is not hetro, as their own. And I can see from the last mod note that my opinion should be shut down.

Mod: Unless you can cite some credible source for all the above, it appears you're soap boxing which is against the forum charter. Can you?

You've also been instructed not to discuss mod warnings in thread and are being carded as a result.

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's but please don't post in such as way as to intentionally inflame others. Please also note that opinions that run contrary to the documented and broadly accepted history of an event might do better in the conspiracy theories forum than this one.

DO NOT respond to this warning in thread. If you have an issue take it to PM.

Thanks for your attention

Hotblack Desiato

AllForIt wrote: »

That's the problem. The demand.

What do you actually want trans people to do? Go back into the closet and lead a false life?
Ring any bells..?

seamus

I wouldn't ordinarily post content warnngs, trigger warnings, etc. If you're involved in a troubling discussion, you can expect difficult conversations. It's not up to others to protect you from it.

I will in this case though because it's a slight change of tone of the discussion. This is the suicide note of a trans woman who died on Friday after stepping in front of a train in Scotland. She planned this meticulously, for months.

I post this in the hope that people who have "issues" with the transgender debate might realise that while this is an academic, political or social dalliance for them, it is a lived reality for trans people. They don't get to log off and "forget" about transgender issues, discussions or thought experiments.

What's most striking for me about it, is the lack of blame. The entire note can basically be summarised as "I've been fighting to escape from a personal jail my entire life, and now I'm too old and too tired to fight anymore." What it does, is reveal the inner humanity here. There is no attention-seeking nutjob or sexual pervert here. Just a human being trying to find a comfortable existence, and consistently failing.

This note is something anyone who is "gender critical" or anti-trans should consider the next time they discuss transgender issues with anyone. But in any case, if you are in a dark place yourself, discretion is advised. It is a difficult read from an existential PoV, it's not graphic or anything.

https://myunwantedexistenceblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/14/goodbye-final-entry/

It has been confirmed legit by a number of sources, but I don't think it's necessary for me to post them unless people really insist.