Iona vs Panti

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 10:32PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

While all this was great in theory, it didn't take into account the reality of the situation or consider the children who were on the front line of this experiment. it was a complete failure, with the children of all races being the victims as mini race wars erupted and violence ensued.

So the problem wasn't racism, it was desegregation?

Are you even trying to make sense?

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 10:33PM

Jernal wrote: »

How did you even come to this conclusion. S/he never said they knew better than anybody. They just said that this person should still have equal rights, even if they themselves, don't necessarily wish for them. It's a common human phenomenon some people don't always want what's in their best interests. The obvious example is abusive relationships.

It's quite clear.

He says that gay people who oppose gay marriage are only against gay marriage because "they are so effected by the minority in society". He also says it is "simple as that" i.e. no other reasons are valid including the views of the actual people he is talking about.

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 10:34PM

Stark wrote: »

Well then you're absolutely and objectively wrong.

Wrong about what?

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 10:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wrong about what?

Everything. Just... all of it.

Phill Ewinn · 03-02-2014 10:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's quite clear.

He says that gay people who oppose gay marriage are only against gay marriage because "they are so effected by the minority in society". He also says it is "simple as that" i.e. no other reasons are valid including the views of the actual people he is talking about.

He did qualify his statement by admitting he is racist. Then went on to accuse everyone of racism to some degree or another.

It seems you're arguing with racists about supposed homophobia?

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 10:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wrong about what?

Wrong about signs that say "Stop Race Mixing" not being racist. That's pretty self-evident to anyone who isn't being argumentative purely for the sake of contrarianism.

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 10:43PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

He did qualify his statement by admitting he is racist. Then went on to accuse everyone of racism to some degree or another.

Who did?

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 10:51PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Everything. Just... all of it.

I'm afraid not. Based on what is available from the stills those people would be best described as "racialists" not "racists". One is as equally detestable as the other IMO but they are distinct from each other with different meanings.

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 10:56PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm afraid not. Based on what is available from the stills those people would be best described as "racialists" not "racists". One is as equally detestable as the other IMO but they are distinct from each other with different meanings.

Please don't take this personally now, but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

And I'm South African, so I know a good few things about 'racialism' and 'racism', and you know what... they both suck.

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 10:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the problem wasn't racism, it was desegregation?

Are you even trying to make sense?

Racism was the problem. Desegregation wasn't the solution and had real consequences for the children or the lab rats in this liberal experiment.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/violence-in-boston-over-racial-busing

Bannasidhe · 03-02-2014 11:00PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Racism was the problem. Desegregation wasn't the solution and had real consequences for the children or the lab rats in this liberal experiment.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/violence-in-boston-over-racial-busing

Is my son a 'social experiment'?

Is he a 'victim'?

oscarBravo · 03-02-2014 11:02PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Racism was the problem. Desegregation wasn't the solution...

No no no. You don't get to slither away from your claim that people who hold up signs saying "Stop Race Mixing" are not racists by complaining about a possibly misguided solution to the problem of racism.

You also don't get to slither away from it by introducing a stupidly pedantic argument about "racialism".

If you believe that someone who wants races segregated, and who attends a protest carrying a sign to that effect, isn't racist, explain why - without recourse to linguistic wankery.

Corkfeen · 03-02-2014 11:06PM

This thread just hit a new level of crazy.

Brian Shanahan · 03-02-2014 11:13PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Or in plain English. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Yes, Phil. We know that is what you believe.

Please stop flaunting your prejudices and engage in the debate.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 11:15PM

AerynSun wrote: »

And why would "doing Neill McCafferty circa 1983" be a bad thing?

Nothing at all, if you are Nell McCafferty and the year is 1983.

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're the one dismissing people's concerns as an irrelevance and I'm the one who's glib?

Well, I'm more observing that (overwhelmingly) people aren't concerned. But, yes, you were glib. IIRC, you introduced the topic of Filipino maids for reasons that were not immediately apparent.

Obliq wrote: »

Gosh, and here was me thinking I was just getting in the way of GCU'splaining. Perhaps I should have spelled out the non-gender specific, GCU specific nature of my post.......

The stage is yours. Can I recommend a few bottles of Carlsberg Special, and a skinful of Pernod and Black, to get right into the zone.

Sarky · 03-02-2014 11:16PM

More international coverage. Dan Savage is a fairly big name in the US gay rights arena. We had an MEP call a spade a spade just a couple of hours ago. This is getting very interesting altogether.

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 11:23PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Nothing at all, if you are Nell McCafferty and the year is 1983.

And what if we're NOT Nell McCafferty and the year is NOT 1983... what exactly is the problem? Are you saying that feminism is no longer relevant in 2014? And what is/was it about Nell McCafferty that you're finding so objectionable when you see something that resembles her (manner? content?) on Boards?

Obliq · 03-02-2014 11:24PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The stage is yours. Can I recommend a few bottles of Carlsberg Special, and a skinful of Pernod and Black, to get right into the zone.

Seems like I've some catching up to do, eh? And here was me heading for the scratcher at an early hour....But hey, with all that on board, no wonder you're a tad tetchy for a battleship, even if you are a wrongly named one. Less flexible of demeanour and more 'GCU Poke it with a stick', if I'm not mistaken. Anyhow, nope. Won't be drawn into battle. I'll just wait till you've calmed down this time.

Enjoy :rolleyes:

Obliq · 03-02-2014 11:26PM

AerynSun wrote: »

And what if we're NOT Nell McCafferty and the year is NOT 1983... what exactly is the problem? Are you saying that feminism is no longer relevant in 2014? And what is/was it about Nell McCafferty that you're finding so objectionable when you see something that resembles her (manner? content?) on Boards?

I.O.U. a few pints for this :cool: Will check back tomorrow to see who survived....Night all!

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 11:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is my son a 'social experiment'?

Is he a 'victim'?

I have no idea. Though these are the words my dad's cousin from South Boston who described these events to me has used.

Bannasidhe · 03-02-2014 11:41PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no idea. Though these are the words my dad's cousin from South Boston who described these events to me has used.

Indeed you have No Idea what it is like to be a gay parent or the child of gay parents so may I ask you, as a parent, to leave children out of this and stop using them to try and score points.

You have made several references to children being raised by gay people. Comments which in a certain light could be viewed as less than complementary.

I ask you now to stop. Just stop.

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 11:44PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Please don't take this personally now, but that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

And I'm South African, so I know a good few things about 'racialism' and 'racism', and you know what... they both suck.

I don't think I could ever take anything you said the wrong way. FWIW I find you uncommonly polite and respectful.
I'll just pick you up on one thing though. You have essentially reiterated what I just said while describing it as "ridiculous".

We both agree that both racism and racialism are something truly awful and your use of the term "both" strongly suggest that you consider them as distinct.

In fact if I was South African we'd have the trifecta

I have myself been subjected to what must be the mildest form of racial abuse from both black and white people, always strangers. I find it infuriating and disgusting. I am white and my wife is brown skinned and we are subjected to occasional comments from strangers.

I had a feeling that people would leap to the wrong conclusion that I was somehow defending the scum in the photos. I was just trying to make the point that if you are going to accuse anyone of anything to make sure you are putting the correct charge to them.

robindch · 03-02-2014 11:44PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Or in plain English. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If we apply actual definitions where the definitions have actual meaning, as I would prefer then no, "racist" is not the word that best describes this group.

A+A is a debating forum where people are allowed to put forward pretty much any view they wish, so long as the moderators feel it's put forward in good faith and its proponents are prepared to discuss it in a generally mature and/or humorous fashion. I'm afraid that I don't get the impression for one minute that either of you two have any interest in taking part in such a debate. Even in a debate on an important topic which is currently headline news in the country.

Anyhow, I've had enough of the two of you and from the sheer level of forum complaints, it seems that just about everybody else has too. The next person who trolls, or posts some uncharitable, paranoid or tatty rhetorical flourish, or indeed, anything at all which isn't the high level of debate that most people are willing to make the effort to sustain here on A+A, will be banned without warning.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 12:03AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed you have No Idea what it is like to be a gay parent or the child of gay parents so may I ask you, as a parent, to leave children out of this and stop using them to try and score points.

You have made several references to children being raised by gay people. Comments which in a certain light could be viewed as less than complementary.

I ask you now to stop. Just stop.

I know nothing of your personal situation and have not once said that Gay parent(s) would make bad parents. In fact, I actually said that based on my own observations that gay parents, if anything, would make better parents. I'm sure your child/children are very lucky to have you

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 12:10AM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

That's very Kind of you and to your credit if I responded to you in a fair and respectful manner it was because that was a tone you kept throughout with me and that's not easy when you are arguing something and its 10 against 1 :pac:

I can't give you any more evidence that hasn't already been given but I think reserving judgement on Waters et al is actually fair enough but at the same time I don't think what Rory said was unreasonable (especially in his own definition)

What bothered me most about this whole thing was actually RTE's reaction. Over the next year and a half RTE's role should be to remain impartial and facilitate debate, not shut it down. Instead of removing the interview and apologising on Rory's behalf and then making a payout they should have given Iona and the others the space to respond to such accusations. What they did doesn't set a good precedent for future debates on this topic. We dont want it to be a situation where we are afraid to say what needs to be said for fear of being sued (and that works both ways)

There is a positive side to this though. If we assume that Waters and friends had been up to now been churning out anti-gay propaganda then this has been a watershed moment. The spotlight is now firmly on them. They are not in a position to do this anymore.

AerynSun · 04-02-2014 12:11AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

...your use of the term "both" strongly suggest that you consider them as distinct.

You're the one that introduced them as distinct, and I was making sure that you would understand that neither racialism nor racism (or any other concept you might like to offer that is 'similar yet different' by your distinction) is defensible in any way.

In South Africa, racialism was used as the 'educated' justification for systematic racism that was imposed on all of the people who lived in the country under Apartheid. So for me, given my life's experiences, racialism cannot be disentangled from racism - because the one is the academic face of the other. I don't think it's helpful to make a distinction in this debate, and say 'racialism, well that's okay in some academic discipline kinda way' and 'racism is bad'. Because honestly now, what has the academic (usually touted as 'scientific') study of race (which is a social construct), contributed to the well-being of the world? The pencil test? This and various other 'scientific measures' were used under Apartheid to distinguish people and categorise them as belonging to one race or another (when members of the same biological family could be separated out on the grounds of these 'scientific' tests). Racialism is, IMO, a weasel word to make racism sound good.

In fact if I was South African we'd have the trifecta I have myself been subjected to what must be the mildest form of racial abuse from both black and white people, always strangers. I find it infuriating and disgusting. I am white and my wife is brown skinned and we are subjected to occasional comments from strangers.

I'm sorry you've had to experience that abuse. Racists don't like interracial couples. Much in the same way that homophobes don't like LGBT couples. So you can empathise on that score with some of the experiences that people have talked about here.

I had a feeling that people would leap to the wrong conclusion that I was somehow defending the scum in the photos. I was just trying to make the point that if you are going to accuse anyone of anything to make sure you are putting the correct charge to them.

It would help if you made the point about them being scum before you tried to explain the subtle nuances of their bigotry. In fact, for myself now, I can't understand why we need to describe the subtle nuances - if someone is a bigot and using whatever means they have (brain, brawn, whatever) to deny somebody else their human rights and dignity... then that's just plain not on.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 04-02-2014 12:18AM

AerynSun wrote: »

And what if we're NOT Nell McCafferty and the year is NOT 1983... what exactly is the problem? Are you saying that feminism is no longer relevant in 2014? And what is/was it about Nell McCafferty that you're finding so objectionable when you see something that resembles her (manner? content?) on Boards?

Why would emulation necessarily be a problem? Sure, artificial outrage is so much easier to respond to.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 12:19AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I know nothing of your personal situation and have not once said that Gay parent(s) would make bad parents. In fact, I actually said that based on my own observations that gay parents, if anything, would make better parents. I'm sure your child/children are very lucky to have you

You remind me a lot of David Quinn and Breda O Brien. On the surface you try to appear reasonable and you preface most of your commentary with reasonable phrases in order to take the sting out of the objectionable comments that follow.

Phill Ewinn · 04-02-2014 12:19AM

robindch wrote: »

A+A is a debating forum where people are allowed to put forward pretty much any view they wish, so long as the moderators feel it's put forward in good faith and its proponents are prepared to discuss it in a generally mature and/or humorous fashion. I'm afraid that I don't get the impression for one minute that either of you two have any interest in taking part in such a debate. Even in a debate on an important topic which is currently headline news in the country.

Anyhow, I've had enough of the two of you and from the sheer level of forum complaints, it seems that just about everybody else has too. The next person who trolls, or posts some uncharitable, paranoid or tatty rhetorical flourish, or indeed, anything at all which isn't the high level of debate that most people are willing to make the effort to sustain here on A+A, will be banned without warning.

I presume that includes you? You should ban yourself. You have clearly excluded yourself from any rational debate whatsoever. Trying to justify your postion by using threats is now the level you have come to. Do you imagine that is acceptable? Do you believe in debate or democracy at all?

The OP has asked what has happened to free speech. Let me tell you.

Its been censoered. Any gay man, woman, any straight man or woman from whatever background or race is not allowed to disagree with this mob. This mob will try justify their censorship as mobs do. Using threats, abuse and bullying to get their will.

AerynSun · 04-02-2014 12:22AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why would emulation necessarily be a problem? Sure, artificial outrage is so much easier to respond to.

Are you saying that you are encountering artificial outrage on this forum/thread?