|
On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this?
He was a gay bar patron.
|
On June 25 2013 05:52 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:41 Bagration wrote:On June 25 2013 05:36 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:29 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:21 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too. Spoken like a true privileged straight person. http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/ It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you. Oh so Morgan Freeman said it's okay, therefore it's okay guys. Just like Louis CK says it's okay to call people faggots in his standup routine, therefore it's now okay. I don't agree with Morgan Freeman. I don't care if you think he is the ultimate authority of race wisdom. I don't agree with him. I'm not posting like a prick. I'm pointing out this person's privilege. If you are straight, you have access to more benefits and privileges in life. This isn't just an opinion, it's a fact, go on read the article and see if those things aren't true. "spoken like a true privileged straight person" is a pretty dick thing to say. I've heard the same argument multiple times from homosexuals. They rather keep the whole "we're gay and proud, and we're gunna show it all up in your face" out of the equation. You sure like to make assumptions about people you have no idea where they're from. If you are straight, like myself, you are privileged. It's not actually an insult to be privileged. It's insulting to shove your privilege off on other people through ignorance, as many people are doing. You do not live a DAY in the shoes of a homosexual who has to deal with 1 or all of the things in the link above, and think about them often. How do I get rid of my privilege? Having all this privilege makes me feel unworthy. You don't need to get rid of your privilege. What a lot of people don't understand about privilege is that no one is expecting some monumental charity work from you. Simply understanding why gay people need gay pride and that they are marginalized is all we expect. A lot of stuff you do the world considers normal. We're not so lucky. A little sympathy is all we want. I would argue that "privilege" is a terrible word. People do not like being called "privileged". A better way to put it is that gay people need to remind homophobic people that they are not leaving and gays won't put up with their bullshit. If you are straight and you ever see someone who is gay being marginalized, any help would be pretty great. Much like gays don't like being lumped into one group, all straight people don't like being lumped in with homophobic people. But privilege is exactly what it is. Your day to day activities regarding your sexual orientation aren't judged and aren't derided. And your sexual orientation is catered to almost exclusively in every medium. That's privilege. The world caters to you. Just because straight people don't like the word doesn't mean we're going to stop using it given that it's completely appropriate. If they don't like being called privileged imagine how gay people must feel to not even be privileged at all.
Privilege imparts the idea that someone is not entitled to their place is life or what they have. It is insulting. We use it to refer to rich, care free people who have not experienced loss or other problems in life. If you want to win people to your side, why would you start by insulting them?
I don't disagree that straight people have it easier because they are straight. But saying it is "privilege" is not the best way to convey that. It is better to say the world treat you differently because you are gay. It takes the burden off of the person you are speaking with and does not impart fault to them. Calling them privileged does the opposite and makes it seem like they are part of the problem.
|
Can we have LGBTLPD please? =)
|
On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron.
So what ? I'm atheist and went into a church once.
|
On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron.
And no homophobic person has ever gone to a gay bar to cause problems or harass gay people and then been kicked out?(its a trick question)
|
|
|
On June 25 2013 05:59 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron. So what ? I'm atheist and went into a church once.
Then I boldly assert without any evidence that you are NOT an atheist! HA! I win the argument!
|
Sorry, is this Nyan Horse in the new logo?
And how come you people discuss gay stuff in new logo thread? :D
|
On June 25 2013 05:56 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:54 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:47 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:42 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:36 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:29 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:21 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too. Spoken like a true privileged straight person. http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/ It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you. Oh so Morgan Freeman said it's okay, therefore it's okay guys. Just like Louis CK says it's okay to call people faggots in his standup routine, therefore it's now okay. I don't agree with Morgan Freeman. I don't care if you think he is the ultimate authority of race wisdom. I don't agree with him. I'm not posting like a prick. I'm pointing out this person's privilege. If you are straight, you have access to more benefits and privileges in life. This isn't just an opinion, it's a fact, go on read the article and see if those things aren't true. "spoken like a true privileged straight person" is a pretty dick thing to say. I've heard the same argument multiple times from homosexuals. They rather keep the whole "we're gay and proud, and we're gunna show it all up in your face" out of the equation. You sure like to make assumptions about people you have no idea where they're from. If you are straight, like myself, you are privileged. It's not actually an insult to be privileged. It's insulting to shove your privilege off on other people through ignorance, as many people are doing. You do not live a DAY in the shoes of a homosexual who has to deal with 1 or all of the things in the link above, and think about them often. That is a shitty way to argue and people don't like being told that they are "privileged" just because they exist. My girlfriend's entire immediate family has died of cancer and heart failure. If you called her privileged to make some argument about race or sexuality, she might spit in your face or slap you. It is a terrible way to argue. People are not privileged because they exist and are a specific race, gender or sexuality. Those minorities are put at a disadvantage due to causes by society, which the person you are arguing with may have nothing to do with. The only thing you accomplish by saying that is pushing the person away from your argument and lumping them in with racist and homophobes. If your sister was trying to tell the LGBT community to stop "shoving it in my face" in reference to parades, and pride week? I would say that she was behaving ignorantly because of her privilege. If she slapped me in the face for saying that, okay I guess I get slapped in the face. Doesn't make what I say any less true. Sorry that cancer and heart failure runs in the family. I don't see what that has to do with people being born gay and then being discriminated against regularly by individuals, organizations, and the government in everyday life and law. Has your sister been told she can't go to the PTA meeting because people might be disturbed that she has heart failure and cancer in her family? Has your sister been told by the government she can't legally get married because she has heart failure and cancer in her family? Has your sister been worried about laid off, evicted, disowned, beaten, murdered, losing child custody, etc... because of her family history with heart failure and cancer? The example you bring up, is not equivalent. Its my girlfriend, not my sister. If my sister lost her entire immediate family, I would be dead. And the point is that calling someone "privileged" is a bad way to argue the point. People see being called "privileged" as insulting. It imparts the idea that they are no entitled to the place that they have in life. If you are trying to win people to helping and supporting you, don't open up by doing something they consider an insult. Yeah I edited the post I don't know why I kept writing sister lol. What word other than privilege accurately gets across the point that someone is privileged in society, and their opinion is based in ignorance since their view of the world is totally different, having been privileged.
I am not saying the word is wrong. I am saying it sucks and will only make straight people defensive about the subject. Your argument is sound. The way you present your argument sucks and is slightly aggressive toward straight people.
No straight, white male likes it when people assume he is homophobic, racist and abuses women. Just like gay people do not like it when people assume they are sexual deviants.
|
On June 25 2013 05:59 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron. So what ? I'm atheist and went into a church once.
So it was obviously not a hate crime.
The first link deliberately tried to mislead the reader by not mentioning the suspect was a bar patron and his motive was not anti-gay hatred.
|
On June 25 2013 06:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron. And no homophobic person has ever gone to a gay bar to cause problems or harass gay people and then been kicked out?(its a trick question)
At first I thought Zaqwe was ignorant, I'm now seriously starting to think he is just a full blown troll. No one can genuinely believe that the only people who go into gay bars consist exclusively of gay supporters, and indeed, that from that group, that the people who get kicked out of said bars for causing trouble, are also entirely pro-gay.
I also find it hard to believe that someone could think that someone would commit such a crime for being kicked out of a bar and for absolutely no other reason.
Just baffles the mind.
|
On June 25 2013 06:03 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:59 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron. So what ? I'm atheist and went into a church once. So it was obviously not a hate crime. The first link deliberately tried to mislead the reader by not mentioning the suspect was a bar patron and his motive was not anti-gay hatred.
And from where did you gleam this information that is not in the article?
|
To me saying that eSports is anti gay and needs activists is just the biggest load. TL can express support for gays and I say whatever. They can if they like. However, TL seems to be this place for the cutting edge of the gay agenda, for not following in lockstep with its agenda you can and will be banned.
This desire to prove gay-friendlyness seems to be based on guilt, but why? Nowhere in a real esports event has anyone been anything but the best of hosts to any transgender people, with fans bending over backwards to accommodate them, when Puck plays everyone does their best to refer to Puck as 'proper gender of the week'. Are there harsh comments on Twitch chat? Maybe but only 12 year olds post on Twitch. Actual adults 99.9% of the time on TL post nothing but supportive and gay friendly statements.
Nowhere in any esports event has anyone ever been anti-gay that I have seen. And for that matter, if there have ever been gay couples at these events then why do they not kiss or hug? Perhaps its overblown how many "queer" people even visit these events. You are making the few gays happy but highlighting them but for what gain?
If you ask me you have the problem of only including whites and asians in SC2. If there was a more worthy goal, it would be to get black men and women to follow the game, rather than the gays, if the goal is to support eSports which I thought TL was for. The gays feel supported already, so where are the Africans(American)?
TeamLiquid needing for no reason to flaunt its gay friendlyness, where does that come from? Heterosexuals get no such celebrations, nobody ever gets singled out for being amazingly het, but LBGTQA (whatever letter I missed) stand alone in their constant need for attention and celebration.
Nowhere on TL would I ever have gotten the idea that we need to make amends or prove a damn thing about being gay-friendly.
Team Liquid is for all of us and I say this has gotten far too much press, lets become part of the "human sexuality wheel" then and HGLBT. Heterosexuality is also as important as any other sexuality.
|
On June 25 2013 06:06 DeathProfessor wrote:
To me saying that eSports is anti gay and needs activists is just the biggest load. TL can express support for gays and I say whatever. They can if they like. However, TL seems to be this place for the cutting edge of the gay agenda, for not following in lockstep with its agenda you can and will be banned.
This desire to prove gay-friendlyness seems to be based on guilt, but why? Nowhere in a real esports event has anyone been anything but the best of hosts to any transgender people, with fans bending over backwards to accommodate them, when Puck plays everyone does their best to refer to Puck as 'proper gender of the week'. Are there harsh comments on Twitch chat? Maybe but only 12 year olds post on Twitch. Actual adults 99.9% of the time on TL post nothing but supportive and gay friendly statements.
Nowhere in any esports event has anyone ever been anti-gay that I have seen. And for that matter, if there have ever been gay couples at these events then why do they not kiss or hug? Perhaps its overblown how many "queer" people even visit these events. You are making the few gays happy but highlighting them but for what gain?
If you ask me you have the problem of only including whites and asians in SC2. If there was a more worthy goal, it would be to get black men and women to follow the game, rather than the gays, if the goal is to support eSports which I thought TL was for. The gays feel supported already, so where are the Africans(American)?
TeamLiquid needing for no reason to flaunt its gay friendlyness, where does that come from? Heterosexuals get no such celebrations, nobody ever gets singled out for being amazingly het, but LBGTQA (whatever letter I missed) stand alone in their constant need for attention and celebration.
Nowhere on TL would I ever have gotten the idea that we need to make amends or prove a damn thing about being gay-friendly.
Team Liquid is for all of us and I say this has gotten far too much press, lets become part of the "human sexuality wheel" then and HGLBT. Heterosexuality is also as important as any other sexuality.
I think only one person has been banned in this thread, and that was for ban martyring.
|
On June 25 2013 06:05 Raneth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 06:03 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:59 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron. So what ? I'm atheist and went into a church once. So it was obviously not a hate crime. The first link deliberately tried to mislead the reader by not mentioning the suspect was a bar patron and his motive was not anti-gay hatred. And from where did you gleam this information that is not in the article?
It's axiomatic.
Which is of course why the first source didn't mention the suspect or his motives at all.
If there were any wiggle room to twist this into an anti-gay hate crime (there isn't) they would have taken it. Instead they knew they had to mislead by omission.
|
On June 25 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:52 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:41 Bagration wrote:On June 25 2013 05:36 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:29 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote:It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you. Oh so Morgan Freeman said it's okay, therefore it's okay guys. Just like Louis CK says it's okay to call people faggots in his standup routine, therefore it's now okay. I don't agree with Morgan Freeman. I don't care if you think he is the ultimate authority of race wisdom. I don't agree with him. I'm not posting like a prick. I'm pointing out this person's privilege. If you are straight, you have access to more benefits and privileges in life. This isn't just an opinion, it's a fact, go on read the article and see if those things aren't true. "spoken like a true privileged straight person" is a pretty dick thing to say. I've heard the same argument multiple times from homosexuals. They rather keep the whole "we're gay and proud, and we're gunna show it all up in your face" out of the equation. You sure like to make assumptions about people you have no idea where they're from. If you are straight, like myself, you are privileged. It's not actually an insult to be privileged. It's insulting to shove your privilege off on other people through ignorance, as many people are doing. You do not live a DAY in the shoes of a homosexual who has to deal with 1 or all of the things in the link above, and think about them often. How do I get rid of my privilege? Having all this privilege makes me feel unworthy. You don't need to get rid of your privilege. What a lot of people don't understand about privilege is that no one is expecting some monumental charity work from you. Simply understanding why gay people need gay pride and that they are marginalized is all we expect. A lot of stuff you do the world considers normal. We're not so lucky. A little sympathy is all we want. I would argue that "privilege" is a terrible word. People do not like being called "privileged". A better way to put it is that gay people need to remind homophobic people that they are not leaving and gays won't put up with their bullshit. If you are straight and you ever see someone who is gay being marginalized, any help would be pretty great. Much like gays don't like being lumped into one group, all straight people don't like being lumped in with homophobic people. But privilege is exactly what it is. Your day to day activities regarding your sexual orientation aren't judged and aren't derided. And your sexual orientation is catered to almost exclusively in every medium. That's privilege. The world caters to you. Just because straight people don't like the word doesn't mean we're going to stop using it given that it's completely appropriate. If they don't like being called privileged imagine how gay people must feel to not even be privileged at all. Privilege imparts the idea that someone is not entitled to their place is life or what they have. It is insulting. We use it to refer to rich, care free people who have not experienced loss or other problems in life. If you want to win people to your side, why would you start by insulting them? I don't disagree that straight people have it easier because they are straight. But saying it is "privilege" is not the best way to convey that. It is better to say the world treat you differently because you are gay. It takes the burden off of the person you are speaking with and does not impart fault to them. Calling them privileged does the opposite and makes it seem like they are part of the problem.
We're not using the words to describe allies. It's in response to people who say they don't like having "the gay" shoved in their faces. Those people aren't allies. Those are people who feel entitled to have only heterosexuality portrayed. And, with regards to their orientation, yeah they are carefree and and have never experienced a problem.
You'll forgive us for not being too worried that the word "privileged" makes a coddled straight person feel uncomfortable.
|
On June 25 2013 06:09 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 06:05 Raneth wrote:On June 25 2013 06:03 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:59 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 05:58 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:53 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:43 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Where do you get that he was gay? He was patronizing a gay bar. At any rate he certainly wasn't anti-gay and this was no hate crime. I just found it interesting that the source the person linked didn't mention this. They way they paint the story it seems they were trying to portray it as a hate crime. Even worse they criticize the media for not making a big deal of the fact the deceased were gay. In light of this not being a hate crime at all, it actually shows the media was being very tolerant and respectful of the victims. He was a trouble maker, and had been tossed out. He was an unwelcome patron, if he was any kind of patron. If someone goes in a gay bar, they are then confirmed as gay? Stop trying to twist this for your own purposes. And now you are acting as if you KNOW that this person did it. There was no conviction, only an arrest made, and a suspection of guilt based on hear say. The only people trying to twist it are the ones that are implying it was a hate crime. It's very obvious why that site that was first linked didn't mention motives or the suspect at all. It doesn't fit in with this narrative of oppression that the "biggest gay massacre" was committed by a gay-friendly (or possibly gay himself) patron whose motive was anger over being kicked out. I don't understand why you are getting so upset with my for pointing this out. Why do you think the person was gay-friendly? What evidence do you have of this? He was a gay bar patron. So what ? I'm atheist and went into a church once. So it was obviously not a hate crime. The first link deliberately tried to mislead the reader by not mentioning the suspect was a bar patron and his motive was not anti-gay hatred. And from where did you gleam this information that is not in the article? It's axiomatic. Which is of course why the first source didn't mention the suspect or his motives at all. If there were any wiggle room to twist this into an anti-gay hate crime (there isn't) they would have taken it. Instead they knew they had to mislead by omission.
That is a lot of assuming you do there. But you do that a lot.
|
United States41962 Posts
On June 25 2013 03:49 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:41 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:26 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:25 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:
[quote]The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often.
If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose.
[quote]
Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture??
1) Is underpopulation an issue?
2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." You are basing your archaic and bigoted views on your religion. You made this a religious debate. Either man up and defend your book or gtfo out of the thread. You just quoted what I just said, lol. So you're really ok with Paul saying that all sex is immoral and that marriage is just an indulgence of that immorality? But if you're ok with that you wanna turn around and say that people indulging their gay desires is somehow wrong? Oh and of course we have to respect you. Nothing but respect. *bows head* I'm back! Paul says that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman in line with the idea that the best man follows the path of Jesus. When he says that "sexual immorality" is occurring, he's talking about homosexual sex and orgies. He specifically says, as according to marriage, that "each man should have sexual relations with his own wife." Just want to help clear up that misunderstanding for you. It's not a misunderstanding. I'm more than capable of reading. You're just engaging in mental gymnastics in order to avoid admitting that your New Testament hero has some grossly nonsensical ideas about sex and marriage. And he's not even remotely an authority on homosexuality. He's a disciple of Christ. If you are a Christian, and read the Gospel, you'd know that the disciples speak the words of God. No engaging in mental gymnastics, here. I think I've got my logic pretty well sorted out. You can insult the Bible and the books of the disciples all you want, that's fine by me. But for millions of Christians, the Bible IS the final authority on homosexuality.
"He's a disciple of Christ. If you are a Christian, and read the Gospel, you'd know that the disciples speak the words of God."
Then I guess you're not a Christian because if you'd read the bible you would know that Paul was not a disciple of Christ. Like seriously, you're telling people to read the bible and you don't even know the difference between a disciple and an apostle or Paul's backstory.
|
On June 25 2013 06:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:49 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:41 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:26 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:25 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:12 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:
[quote]
Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine.
1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control...
2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Paul also says that heterosexual marriage is nothing more than an indulgence of temptation. Citing that weirdo isn't going to do your case much good. No he does not...He says that if man should marry, it should be according to God's covenant. But yes, he also says that ideally man would live in the image of Jesus. I'm going to avoid making this a religious debate, though. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." You are basing your archaic and bigoted views on your religion. You made this a religious debate. Either man up and defend your book or gtfo out of the thread. You just quoted what I just said, lol. So you're really ok with Paul saying that all sex is immoral and that marriage is just an indulgence of that immorality? But if you're ok with that you wanna turn around and say that people indulging their gay desires is somehow wrong? Oh and of course we have to respect you. Nothing but respect. *bows head* I'm back! Paul says that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman in line with the idea that the best man follows the path of Jesus. When he says that "sexual immorality" is occurring, he's talking about homosexual sex and orgies. He specifically says, as according to marriage, that "each man should have sexual relations with his own wife." Just want to help clear up that misunderstanding for you. It's not a misunderstanding. I'm more than capable of reading. You're just engaging in mental gymnastics in order to avoid admitting that your New Testament hero has some grossly nonsensical ideas about sex and marriage. And he's not even remotely an authority on homosexuality. He's a disciple of Christ. If you are a Christian, and read the Gospel, you'd know that the disciples speak the words of God. No engaging in mental gymnastics, here. I think I've got my logic pretty well sorted out. You can insult the Bible and the books of the disciples all you want, that's fine by me. But for millions of Christians, the Bible IS the final authority on homosexuality. "He's a disciple of Christ. If you are a Christian, and read the Gospel, you'd know that the disciples speak the words of God." Then I guess you're not a Christian because if you'd read the bible you would know that Paul was not a disciple of Christ. Like seriously, you're telling people to read the bible and you don't even know the difference between a disciple and an apostle or Paul's backstory.
Sooooooo Muuuuuch Pwnage in one post
lol
good job Kwark
|
On June 25 2013 06:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:56 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:54 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:47 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:42 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:36 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:33 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:29 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote:It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you. Oh so Morgan Freeman said it's okay, therefore it's okay guys. Just like Louis CK says it's okay to call people faggots in his standup routine, therefore it's now okay. I don't agree with Morgan Freeman. I don't care if you think he is the ultimate authority of race wisdom. I don't agree with him. I'm not posting like a prick. I'm pointing out this person's privilege. If you are straight, you have access to more benefits and privileges in life. This isn't just an opinion, it's a fact, go on read the article and see if those things aren't true. "spoken like a true privileged straight person" is a pretty dick thing to say. I've heard the same argument multiple times from homosexuals. They rather keep the whole "we're gay and proud, and we're gunna show it all up in your face" out of the equation. You sure like to make assumptions about people you have no idea where they're from. If you are straight, like myself, you are privileged. It's not actually an insult to be privileged. It's insulting to shove your privilege off on other people through ignorance, as many people are doing. You do not live a DAY in the shoes of a homosexual who has to deal with 1 or all of the things in the link above, and think about them often. That is a shitty way to argue and people don't like being told that they are "privileged" just because they exist. My girlfriend's entire immediate family has died of cancer and heart failure. If you called her privileged to make some argument about race or sexuality, she might spit in your face or slap you. It is a terrible way to argue. People are not privileged because they exist and are a specific race, gender or sexuality. Those minorities are put at a disadvantage due to causes by society, which the person you are arguing with may have nothing to do with. The only thing you accomplish by saying that is pushing the person away from your argument and lumping them in with racist and homophobes. If your sister was trying to tell the LGBT community to stop "shoving it in my face" in reference to parades, and pride week? I would say that she was behaving ignorantly because of her privilege. If she slapped me in the face for saying that, okay I guess I get slapped in the face. Doesn't make what I say any less true. Sorry that cancer and heart failure runs in the family. I don't see what that has to do with people being born gay and then being discriminated against regularly by individuals, organizations, and the government in everyday life and law. Has your sister been told she can't go to the PTA meeting because people might be disturbed that she has heart failure and cancer in her family? Has your sister been told by the government she can't legally get married because she has heart failure and cancer in her family? Has your sister been worried about laid off, evicted, disowned, beaten, murdered, losing child custody, etc... because of her family history with heart failure and cancer? The example you bring up, is not equivalent. Its my girlfriend, not my sister. If my sister lost her entire immediate family, I would be dead. And the point is that calling someone "privileged" is a bad way to argue the point. People see being called "privileged" as insulting. It imparts the idea that they are no entitled to the place that they have in life. If you are trying to win people to helping and supporting you, don't open up by doing something they consider an insult. Yeah I edited the post I don't know why I kept writing sister lol. What word other than privilege accurately gets across the point that someone is privileged in society, and their opinion is based in ignorance since their view of the world is totally different, having been privileged. I am not saying the word is wrong. I am saying it sucks and will only make straight people defensive about the subject. Your argument is sound. The way you present your argument sucks and is slightly aggressive toward straight people. No straight, white male likes it when people assume he is homophobic, racist and abuses women. Just like gay people do not like it when people assume they are sexual deviants.
Well that person would be slightly mentally unstable for taking what I said to mean that I am implying that they are "homophobic, racist and abuse women."
Sorry that the word privilege to you is synonymous with "homophobic, racist and abuses women". I think that's absurd to equate the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
