|
On June 25 2013 07:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:15 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 07:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 06:57 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 06:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:41 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 06:39 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:36 Raneth wrote:On June 25 2013 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:24 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I don't are what characters are on screen and only want good writing and TV. And if you are using the phrase as an insult, then call it and insult. Don't use some argument to justify why a straight person is privileged, because you end up roping in the people who totally support gays and insulting them too.
In short, just call the guy a douche and move on. Or just call him a typical privileged straight asshole, so everyone knows you are insulting him and not all straight people. You're being insulted by a word that doesn't even apply to you. I...don't really know how to help you. Dude, it doesn't matter if you are privileged and aware of it, or privileged and ignorant, if you are an english speaking, white, male, heterosexual, you are privileged. You lead a privileged life, and being aware of it doesn't stop it being the case, the word -does- apply to him, and it -does- apply to me, and it -does- apply to a lot of other people who are on -your side- of the debate. Read what he is saying again. So then why is it an insult? Why are they taking offense to it? Because if I used it in the phrase "privileged rich kids" its a pejorative. Just like I use the word "Hun" with a woman I am mad at, it is a pejorative. Context is king with these words. It's an incorrectly applied pejorative because the kids didn't choose to be rich. They had no say in that part of their life experience. But we'd say they'd have trouble empathizing with poor kids, and in that regard we mean they are privileged. If they are insulted by that then...they're idiots who don't understand what words mean. And I do realize I've sorta split off into two lines of thought here. Yes, every straight white male is privileged. But I only ever bring it up as an issue or even really thing about it when they get offended by any representation other than heterosexuality. This is horrible comparison rich healthy person who never had trouble in his life is privileged, straight white male could had a horrible life. The world privilege doesn't mean: has trouble with being emphatic. I also don't like this world because it assumes normal treatment as privileged. You could just tell that he wasn't repressed because of his sexuality, that would be the way to clearly say what you want to say, without offending people that have nothing to do with that, without being confusing, and divisive for no reason. Normal treatment (Not by frequency of happenings, but referring to a solid family that isn't affected by institutionalized discrimination, relatively poor socioeconomic status, etc. etc. etc.) is a privilege. Sorry, you gotta accept it. Being black gay in USA is a privilege compared to being white straight male in Belarus, sorry you gotta accept it. Ok? Guess what? We're in the U.S. We're trying to deal with our societal problems. How does your comment have any relevance whatsoever?
This is an international website with contributors from all over the world.
|
On June 25 2013 07:19 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:17 Zenocide wrote:On June 25 2013 07:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you wrap your head around the fact that for them they're the ones acting "normal" while you're the one thats not "normal"? I didn't chose to be straight any more then they didn't chose to be gay. They chose to dress and act flamboyant. There is a reason why sometimes you can tell if someone is gay just by looking and hearing them talk. I don't think that this is a choice. I have no interest in acting flamboyant so I will not behave like that. I never had to think twice about how to behave since I behave as stereotypically male as it goes.
Deciding what to wear, and how to talk are most definitely a choice.
|
On June 25 2013 06:33 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 06:28 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 06:22 shinosai wrote:On June 25 2013 06:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 06:19 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:17 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 06:09 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:52 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. How about me, who is totally comfortable, but still hates the word with the fire of a nova? Calling someone a "privileged white person" has the same affect as me calling someone "A typical angry black man". No matter what grain of truth there is in the statement, it is still aggressive and insulting to everyone in that demographic. There is no way I hear that phrase and side with the person who said it. It is a shitty way to argue the point and only serves to alienate everyone in that demographic. Do you feel entitled to only have heterosexuals displayed in the media and do you feel that any representation of homosexuality is "shoving it in your face?" If yes, then you are privileged and idc if you're insulted cause you lack perspective and are kinda a dick. If no, then you are not privileged and you shouldn't be getting bent out of shape about that word because no one is using it to describe you. I dunno about you, but American media has a lot of homosexual couples in it now... 4.4% is a lot? And that's only after tons of activism. Two years ago it was 2.9%. Dunno where that percentage comes from; but it's always in public eye imo. 2011-2012 http://www.glaad.org/publications/whereweareontv112.9% 2012-13 http://www.glaad.org/publications/whereweareontv124.4% Sorry, I probably should have sourced it in the first post. Still, that's not "a lot" of representation.
If I understand the source correctly, it means that 4.4% of all scripted regular characters in series are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender?
As far as I'm aware thats actually not all that bad considering the most recent study I've seen on the estimations on overall population. Think it was something like 3.5% who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, and 11% admitting some sort of same-sex attraction (took a while but here's the source)
The numbers should probably still be higher to represent the 'actual' numbers but at least its getting there.
Still, no matter how accurate the media reflects society heterosexuality will (probably) still be the norm and being a part of the majority is always beneficial. Generalising is however always bad but in this case there's no need to read too much into it.
For me it just means I'm lucky and that I have a few less things to worry about. In those aspects I am privileged and even though I can understand that some are offended by it, its simply facts. I mean, the same thing can be said about homosexual people in the western societies compared to what's, sadly, still a large part of the world.
So even though some parts of life sucks there's also always someone who's worse off. I have a hard time understanding why some people are so irritated by the very universal desire to have a better life.
|
On June 25 2013 07:21 Zenocide wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:19 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 07:17 Zenocide wrote:On June 25 2013 07:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you wrap your head around the fact that for them they're the ones acting "normal" while you're the one thats not "normal"? I didn't chose to be straight any more then they didn't chose to be gay. They chose to dress and act flamboyant. There is a reason why sometimes you can tell if someone is gay just by looking and hearing them talk. I don't think that this is a choice. I have no interest in acting flamboyant so I will not behave like that. I never had to think twice about how to behave since I behave as stereotypically male as it goes. Deciding what wear, and how to talk are most definitely a choice.
Sure, but you can be straight or gay and wear flamboyant stuff.
|
On June 25 2013 07:21 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:16 ZenithM wrote:
I like how slowly even mods are contributing to making us feel guilty for being "privileged". This fucking "white straight male are privileged" is so simple-minded, like human beings can be defined by a vector of their color, sexual orientation and gender only. What if I never had parents, am I privileged now too? What if I have dyslexia and can't read or speak correctly?
Stop trying to put people in boxes, and stop feeling proud because you defend the other box. Boxes are precisely what needs to go away. You don't get it. You're not privileged in every term of the sens. At the basis, it's just that if you're straight, you had the privilege of never hiding your orientation, never having to hide who you are, etc. Or your cis, you had the privilege to live your life as your preferred gender. It's just privilege regarding your gender identity or sexual orientation, That's all there is to it, not about if you're poor or not. That's irrelevant here, of course a rich gay person have some privilege that you do not as a poor straight guy.
Lol, that's not what is being said here dude. They're combining features like "white+male+heterosexual" make you "more privileged" than "white+male" only. I'm just saying that doesn't work that way.
This "privileged in respect to X" is dumb anyway, so yeah I don't get it. I couldn't care less that I'm black or white if I'm deaf and blind.
|
On June 25 2013 07:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:15 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 07:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 06:57 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 06:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:41 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 06:39 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:36 Raneth wrote:On June 25 2013 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:24 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I don't are what characters are on screen and only want good writing and TV. And if you are using the phrase as an insult, then call it and insult. Don't use some argument to justify why a straight person is privileged, because you end up roping in the people who totally support gays and insulting them too.
In short, just call the guy a douche and move on. Or just call him a typical privileged straight asshole, so everyone knows you are insulting him and not all straight people. You're being insulted by a word that doesn't even apply to you. I...don't really know how to help you. Dude, it doesn't matter if you are privileged and aware of it, or privileged and ignorant, if you are an english speaking, white, male, heterosexual, you are privileged. You lead a privileged life, and being aware of it doesn't stop it being the case, the word -does- apply to him, and it -does- apply to me, and it -does- apply to a lot of other people who are on -your side- of the debate. Read what he is saying again. So then why is it an insult? Why are they taking offense to it? Because if I used it in the phrase "privileged rich kids" its a pejorative. Just like I use the word "Hun" with a woman I am mad at, it is a pejorative. Context is king with these words. It's an incorrectly applied pejorative because the kids didn't choose to be rich. They had no say in that part of their life experience. But we'd say they'd have trouble empathizing with poor kids, and in that regard we mean they are privileged. If they are insulted by that then...they're idiots who don't understand what words mean. And I do realize I've sorta split off into two lines of thought here. Yes, every straight white male is privileged. But I only ever bring it up as an issue or even really thing about it when they get offended by any representation other than heterosexuality. This is horrible comparison rich healthy person who never had trouble in his life is privileged, straight white male could had a horrible life. The world privilege doesn't mean: has trouble with being emphatic. I also don't like this world because it assumes normal treatment as privileged. You could just tell that he wasn't repressed because of his sexuality, that would be the way to clearly say what you want to say, without offending people that have nothing to do with that, without being confusing, and divisive for no reason. Normal treatment (Not by frequency of happenings, but referring to a solid family that isn't affected by institutionalized discrimination, relatively poor socioeconomic status, etc. etc. etc.) is a privilege. Sorry, you gotta accept it. Being black gay in USA is a privilege compared to being white straight male in Belarus, sorry you gotta accept it. Ok? Guess what? We're in the U.S. We're trying to deal with our societal problems. How does your comment have any relevance whatsoever?
TL isn't a website that can be used from any place in the world? Gay people have only problems in USA? Rainbow flag is international.
And if you want to focus on USA since other people aren't important I guess, then I am sure that there are straight white males from broken poor families that were bullied, and had horrible life, and gay people in USA that had a great life, and that didn't had problems with being gay. Now you are calling the first one as privileged, seems pretty divisive, and unfair to me.
|
On June 25 2013 07:21 Zenocide wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:19 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 07:17 Zenocide wrote:On June 25 2013 07:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you wrap your head around the fact that for them they're the ones acting "normal" while you're the one thats not "normal"? I didn't chose to be straight any more then they didn't chose to be gay. They chose to dress and act flamboyant. There is a reason why sometimes you can tell if someone is gay just by looking and hearing them talk. I don't think that this is a choice. I have no interest in acting flamboyant so I will not behave like that. I never had to think twice about how to behave since I behave as stereotypically male as it goes. Deciding what to wear, and how to talk are most definitely a choice.
I have to agree, this is indeed a choice
|
On June 25 2013 07:21 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 07:15 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 07:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 25 2013 06:57 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 06:44 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:41 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 06:39 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 06:36 Raneth wrote:On June 25 2013 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
You're being insulted by a word that doesn't even apply to you. I...don't really know how to help you. Dude, it doesn't matter if you are privileged and aware of it, or privileged and ignorant, if you are an english speaking, white, male, heterosexual, you are privileged. You lead a privileged life, and being aware of it doesn't stop it being the case, the word -does- apply to him, and it -does- apply to me, and it -does- apply to a lot of other people who are on -your side- of the debate. Read what he is saying again. So then why is it an insult? Why are they taking offense to it? Because if I used it in the phrase "privileged rich kids" its a pejorative. Just like I use the word "Hun" with a woman I am mad at, it is a pejorative. Context is king with these words. It's an incorrectly applied pejorative because the kids didn't choose to be rich. They had no say in that part of their life experience. But we'd say they'd have trouble empathizing with poor kids, and in that regard we mean they are privileged. If they are insulted by that then...they're idiots who don't understand what words mean. And I do realize I've sorta split off into two lines of thought here. Yes, every straight white male is privileged. But I only ever bring it up as an issue or even really thing about it when they get offended by any representation other than heterosexuality. This is horrible comparison rich healthy person who never had trouble in his life is privileged, straight white male could had a horrible life. The world privilege doesn't mean: has trouble with being emphatic. I also don't like this world because it assumes normal treatment as privileged. You could just tell that he wasn't repressed because of his sexuality, that would be the way to clearly say what you want to say, without offending people that have nothing to do with that, without being confusing, and divisive for no reason. Normal treatment (Not by frequency of happenings, but referring to a solid family that isn't affected by institutionalized discrimination, relatively poor socioeconomic status, etc. etc. etc.) is a privilege. Sorry, you gotta accept it. Being black gay in USA is a privilege compared to being white straight male in Belarus, sorry you gotta accept it. Ok? Guess what? We're in the U.S. We're trying to deal with our societal problems. How does your comment have any relevance whatsoever? This is an international website with contributors from all over the world.
Of course it is, and no shit there are other cultures out there with other problems and the U.S. isn't THE important one out there. However, this particular conversation at this particular moment has a large focus on the discussion of American culture and how we treat homosexuals here (which tends to be extrapolated to most of the western world, even if that isn't entirely accurate), with gay pride stuff happening all over the country this week and the SCOTUS expected to hand down some HUGE rulings on the issue this week.
TL isn't a website that can be used from any place in the world? Gay people have only problems in USA? Rainbow flag is international.
And if you want to focus on USA since other people aren't important I guess, then I am sure that there are straight white males from broken poor families that were bullied, and had horrible life, and gay people in USA that had a great life, and that didn't had problems with being gay. Now you are calling the first one as privileged, seems pretty divisive, and unfair to me.
Either read the posts that are coming out or take an introductory-level college course on the subject. White/Christian/Male/Straight privilege doesn't refer to socioeconomic privilege.
|
United States41962 Posts
On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself?
Can you keep your straight mannerisms to yourself? No? Because that's how you are and you're fortunate enough to have your thing be the majority thing so you don't get confronted by how ridiculous it is to tell a gay guy to stop acting so gay. This is why people bring up privilege, it's because of demands to be normal and accept the status quo when the status quo being demanded happens to be exactly what the guy doing the demanding does anyway.
|
On June 25 2013 07:26 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:21 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 07:16 ZenithM wrote:
I like how slowly even mods are contributing to making us feel guilty for being "privileged". This fucking "white straight male are privileged" is so simple-minded, like human beings can be defined by a vector of their color, sexual orientation and gender only. What if I never had parents, am I privileged now too? What if I have dyslexia and can't read or speak correctly?
Stop trying to put people in boxes, and stop feeling proud because you defend the other box. Boxes are precisely what needs to go away. You don't get it. You're not privileged in every term of the sens. At the basis, it's just that if you're straight, you had the privilege of never hiding your orientation, never having to hide who you are, etc. Or your cis, you had the privilege to live your life as your preferred gender. It's just privilege regarding your gender identity or sexual orientation, That's all there is to it, not about if you're poor or not. That's irrelevant here, of course a rich gay person have some privilege that you do not as a poor straight guy. Lol, that's not what is being said here dude. They're combining features like "white+male+heterosexual" make you "more privileged" than "white+male" only. I'm just saying that doesn't work that way. This "privileged in respect to X" is dumb anyway, so yeah I don't get it. I couldn't care less that I'm black or white if I'm deaf and blind.
It's not dumb, because if you are deaf and blind and black, it suddenly matters when a deaf/blind white guy is treated better than you simply for being white. This shit happens all the time, and it's why "X Privilege" concepts exist and are studied.
|
Is there a TL press release/news post somewhere about what the new logo is for and for how long it is going to be up?
|
On June 25 2013 07:20 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:11 lookfirewood 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. What's kind of funny is that most content in the western world IS straight banners and straight parades. Try watching commercials where the couples are gay. Try watchin movies where "the man" gets "the man" without it being a spectacle of sexuality (broke back mountain anyone?). Try shopping diapers without pictures of a straight family on the package. Try asking a man if he's got a boyfriend without it being awkward. My point is that people makes statements and assumptions about other people being straight ALL THE TIME. It's not labeled "The Hugo Boss Straight Commercial", but it sure as hell is a commercial for straight people when the women gets seduced by a man with a hugo boss perfume. The pride parades is a way of getting into the ever pushing straight parade of the heteronormative world. I don't know what you want to change? Matter of fact is that >90% of (grown) people in the US/world identify themselves as heterosexual. As such, much of the advertisement industry is tailored to reach most people. There is no secret agenda to push heteronorms through. It just happens that most of the people are that way.
Yes the advertisement fill a role by trying to reach a specific target group, it was just an example of not being represented. And no there's no secret agenda to push heteronorms because no one is going to beat you up or call you names for being straight. And my post was simply a way to show that there in fact are straight parades (as in commercials), so why not let pride parades co-exist to help lifting problems about it? The advertisement was maybe a bad example, but do not forget the other ones. Advertisement is still a matter of exposure. 10% is still a large number of americans that would be stupid by companies to miss! 
|
On June 25 2013 06:57 Polis wrote:
I also don't like this world because it assumes normal treatment as privileged. You could just tell that he wasn't repressed because of his sexuality, that would be the way to clearly say what you want to say, without offending people that have nothing to do with that, without being confusing, and divisive for no reason.
Actually, I'm not sure that it is divisive for no reason. Social shaming has been an incredibly effective tactic for advancing a more progressive culture, and labeling dissenters as "privileged" is a reason to ignore what they're saying - which makes for poor discourse but great (in the sense of being effective) politics.
|
On June 25 2013 07:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you keep your straight mannerisms to yourself? No? Because that's how you are and you're fortunate enough to have your thing be the majority thing so you don't get confronted by how ridiculous it is to tell a gay guy to stop acting so gay. This is why people bring up privilege, it's because of demands to be normal and accept the status quo when the status quo being demanded happens to be exactly what the guy doing the demanding does anyway.
But they are so many gay people that do not "act" gay, which almost leads me to believe that some of them are putting on the flamboyant "gayness" for show. I am not going to proclaim that this is true to a 100% but it is just this feeling that i have, however stupid it might be :/
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 25 2013 07:40 Kamakiri wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:28 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you keep your straight mannerisms to yourself? No? Because that's how you are and you're fortunate enough to have your thing be the majority thing so you don't get confronted by how ridiculous it is to tell a gay guy to stop acting so gay. This is why people bring up privilege, it's because of demands to be normal and accept the status quo when the status quo being demanded happens to be exactly what the guy doing the demanding does anyway. But they are so many gay people that do not "act" gay, which almost leads me to believe that some of them are putting on the flamboyant "gayness" for show. I am not going to proclaim that this is true to a 100% but it is just this feeling that i have, however stupid it might be :/
1) so what if some people put it on?
2) how do you intend to distinguish between those who do and those who don't?
|
On June 25 2013 07:21 Zenocide wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:19 Polis wrote:On June 25 2013 07:17 Zenocide wrote:On June 25 2013 07:08 Sermokala wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you wrap your head around the fact that for them they're the ones acting "normal" while you're the one thats not "normal"? I didn't chose to be straight any more then they didn't chose to be gay. They chose to dress and act flamboyant. There is a reason why sometimes you can tell if someone is gay just by looking and hearing them talk. I don't think that this is a choice. I have no interest in acting flamboyant so I will not behave like that. I never had to think twice about how to behave since I behave as stereotypically male as it goes. Deciding what wear, and how to talk are most definitely a choice.
So you're saying you feel people should adhere to a certain dress code and censorship based on your values?
Does that even have anything to do with gay rights?
|
Osaka27118 Posts
Yawn at the sheeple that still believe gay rights is a political issue. They have been done a great disservice by the Republican / Democrat dichotomy which labels gay rights as something to vote on, rather than a human rights issue. Let's look at some of the classic arguments about why this banner is a bad idea.
1. Why do I have to hear so much about gay people? We don't have 'straight people' psa's and days and weeks and parades.
Fuck you in the ear. Those straight days are every day. You know why they call it being in the closet? It is because people fear to live openly. They are forced to live their life in fear. FEAR. You know what the goal of a terrorist is? To instill fear in a population. If you can't accept gay pride celebrations because you don't feel like you are getting the same airtime, then you are a terrorist.
2. Why do gay people have to be so... GAY? Eww... Like colourful and flamboyant and talk funny.
Fuck you in the eye. Why do jocks have to pop a collar all the time. Why do hipsters wear their mom's jeans. Why does any group of people that claims an identity wear something different? Everyone should wear grey shapeless sacks! I bet you go to Mardi Gras and say "too many beads! Why is there colour in the world!"
3. Gay people are gross and unnatural.
To quote some moron in this thread "the P doesn't go in the B". (Which is hilarious kindergarten speak for buttsex).
Fuck you in the bellybutton. A) I guaran-fucking-tee that you have jerked off to butt fucking before. B) Dicks are awesome and belong everywhere. Hands, mouths, feet, titties, armpits, chins, and butts. Dicks twitch and jerk, change shapes, and are the number one reason for using the word "engorged", my favorite word ever. If you don't want to put your dick in a bowl of butterscotch pudding, then you don't have to. But don't judge me for where I put my own dick since it doesn't affect you, and there is a traumatized Yoda plushie under your bad screaming "HYPOCRITE" right now.
4. I hate people different from me and my holy book backs me up.
Fuck you in brain. Because it is broken. Is that gay person enraging you by existing? Hating people for the way they are born is not sensible, and makes you a sociopath. So-ci-o-path. Learn the word, because you will hear it a lot from the judge at your trial.
5. This isn't necessary. Gay people are tolerated now way more than before. And lots of gay people I know don't like this stuff.
Scroll up.
And while it is great that your friend feels so secure and accepted, their experience is not the experience of all gay people. If this wasn't an issue, it wouldn't get such a reaction. And who knows, they may experience something once their situation changes. Life is not static. An investment against prejudice now pays off in the future.
So yeah. I'm done. If various colours on an internet banner cause you to lose control of your shit, then get off of the site and never come back. Don't want you, don't need you.
|
On June 25 2013 07:40 Kamakiri wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:28 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you keep your straight mannerisms to yourself? No? Because that's how you are and you're fortunate enough to have your thing be the majority thing so you don't get confronted by how ridiculous it is to tell a gay guy to stop acting so gay. This is why people bring up privilege, it's because of demands to be normal and accept the status quo when the status quo being demanded happens to be exactly what the guy doing the demanding does anyway. But they are so many gay people that do not "act" gay, which almost leads me to believe that some of them are putting on the flamboyant "gayness" for show. I am not going to proclaim that this is true to a 100% but it is just this feeling that i have, however stupid it might be :/
Has the thought ever occurred to you that when gay people "act" straight, they are putting on their "straightness" for show? Because that actually happens. A lot. Not that there's a universal way to act gay - there isn't - but it's a really strong assumption that people are acting like themselves for show. I know from personal experience that when in public, I always "act" in a particular way so as to avoid conflict with others. I am only openly myself in places that I know to be lbgt friendly. So, again, maybe it's not that they are putting on flamboyant gayness for show, but it's the straightness that's an act.
|
On June 25 2013 07:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you keep your straight mannerisms to yourself? No? Because that's how you are and you're fortunate enough to have your thing be the majority thing so you don't get confronted by how ridiculous it is to tell a gay guy to stop acting so gay. This is why people bring up privilege, it's because of demands to be normal and accept the status quo when the status quo being demanded happens to be exactly what the guy doing the demanding does anyway.
I have gay neighbors and you would never know it because they act like most normal people. I also had a conversation about this very topic, and they felt embarrassed by the fact that some of the homosexual community feel the need show the gayness off to the world as if they are special people. I believe that once more people are more accepting of gays that maybe they will lose the act.
|
On June 25 2013 07:40 Kamakiri wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 07:28 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2013 07:06 Zenocide wrote:
I have no problems with gay people except the flaming ones who feel the need to shove it in your face, also the ones who feel the need to talk "gay". Can't you just act normal and keep your sexuality to yourself? Can you keep your straight mannerisms to yourself? No? Because that's how you are and you're fortunate enough to have your thing be the majority thing so you don't get confronted by how ridiculous it is to tell a gay guy to stop acting so gay. This is why people bring up privilege, it's because of demands to be normal and accept the status quo when the status quo being demanded happens to be exactly what the guy doing the demanding does anyway. But they are so many gay people that do not "act" gay, which almost leads me to believe that some of them are putting on the flamboyant "gayness" for show. I am not going to proclaim that this is true to a 100% but it is just this feeling that i have, however stupid it might be :/
What about bro's/womanizers/sluts/all the people that constantly talk about sex and objectify people, even in public? Are these people not forcing their heterosexual lifestyle into everyone's views? And yet they aren't criticized for it nearly as much.
What about the idea that many gay people may have been forced to hide their "gay" personality characteristics due to the discrimination they face in society for being gay, forcing them to act "normal"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
