| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 04 2013 05:58 xsnac wrote: lol ? you when you dont like a taste of ice-cream it means you are afraid of ice-cream ? Why do we taste food in order to assess if the food is edible and if it has the nutrients we seek. If you don't like the taste of the food your body fear that it's inedible and thus would do harm to your body. It's not entirely conscious but it's all the same. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11905 Posts
| ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
| ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
On August 04 2013 08:04 Simberto wrote: I'd say that there is a difference between dislike and fear. Also, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Homophobia is commonly used not as being afraid of homosexuals, but for anyone that dislikes them, or hates them, or whatever negative emotion you want to use. It is a misnomer, but also not really problematic since everyone knows what you are talking about unless they are being facetious. Homophobia isn't meant to imply fear of homosexuals, "phobia" is being used to show that this kind of discrimination is irrational because discriminating against people for something they can't control and aren't inflicting harm with their actions to anyone, is irrational. A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. I agree that it's not the best way to name it, but it does make some sense. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27054 Posts
On August 04 2013 08:04 Alex1Sun wrote: Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild. I don't give a fuck about Russian society as a whole, their issue to deal with. On the other hand, the Olympics is essentially a symbol of prestige, a propaganda device for the host nation. I personally found the London ones nauseating, but that's me not being a nationalist person, perhaps others viewed it differently. Should it be entirely neutral politically, or be an agent of change? If you want to make the the Olympics divorced from 'Western values' by all means do so, but to me given their huge financial backing from overwhelmingly Western companies it seems an odd distinction to make. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27054 Posts
On August 04 2013 08:04 Alex1Sun wrote: Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild. We're perfectly aware of this. Apartheid South Africa was made an international pariah, there's not really much difference to me. Why treat one country in one way, and another in a completely different manner? (Rhetorical question before anyone raises an answer) | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On August 04 2013 05:44 semantics wrote: Well what made the civil rights movement actually work in the US exposure though the television of how the south was handling blacks and although a ton of people in the rest of the US were racist they weren't sick the dogs and fire-hoses on black children racist. It was sickening for them to see it, it was their assistance and support around the nation plus the persistence of blacks to keep butting heads with the established south that made it work. There is a difference between seeing blatent abuse and watching parades. Also, I am not convinced that russian TV is as independent from the government as is needed for them to pick such stories up. http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/galina-arapova/media-freedom-in-russian-regions-you-must-be-joking… And foreing media in Russia? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/23/us-russia-media-foreignagent-idUSBRE8AM0QU20121123 | ||
|
biteMe
Germany241 Posts
On August 04 2013 08:04 Alex1Sun wrote: Guys, it seems that you don't really understand how Russian society functions. In Russia gays are viewed either on par with pedophiles or as freaks with serious mental disorder. It is prohibited to say even neutral things about gays in public, that is the law, which is supported by almost every Russian. Compared to that punishing gay propaganda during Olympics is actually quite mild. Its not that people dont understand it. People are aware of those views and reflect that on russian society. Its not the gays being pedophiles or freaks, its the russians being freaks with their heads up the ass with a serious mental disorder. we have old ppl here too that connect gays with all kind of things too. like incest or whatnot. they are being old and.. [oh so many words] but i d rather not say. they are CONCERNED. thats the word. old ppl are concerned about everything here. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive. Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer: Mutko emphasized that the law wasn’t designed to punish anyone for being gay or lesbian. But like the Russian lawmakers who authored the bill, Mutko said athletes would be punished only for propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law. | ||
|
biteMe
Germany241 Posts
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any vote possible imho. Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive. i our area politicians have to put an effort into forming majorities for votes in important matters. where i live politicians dont just wake up to sit in a chair with some new motives every day. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho. Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive. Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer: The LGBT rights have been moving towards normalisation through the last 30 years. It is not just a political votefishing expedition per se. The crux of the problem is that civil rights are to some degree uneven if marriage is not possible for gays and the government grants special possibilities to married couples. It is basically the same fight women, jews, blacks and romas have been through or are still going through. Just politizising the problem is often a way to hide the real motives behind the opinion... Btw. What you quoted holds this part about "...propaganda, a word that remains ambiguous under the new law". It is called a rubber paragraf and such paragrafs can almost always be abused by law enforcement. In this case "propaganda" could cover any speech related to sexuality with the possibility of ever reaching children or it can be specifically asking for people to become gays, when a child is present. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On August 04 2013 11:05 darkness wrote: I agree with Russia for once. This pro-gay propaganda seems repetitive, annoying and too loud. If giving rights to gays wasn't turned into showing off or an opportunity for some politician to earn a few more votes, then alright. With that said, Mitt Romney had more honour in this case, while Obama was trying to get any possible vote imho. Do you think western politicians woke up one day and said, "Fuck it, let's give them rights"? I just question their motive. Edit: and this is what I mean by "annoying and loud" to make myself clearer: So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 04 2013 12:37 Roe wrote: So since it's an easy way of getting votes in the US, we need to persecute gays in Russia (or anyone else) for discussing sexuality? Because anti-homophobia is repetitive we need to throw them in jail? Holy fuck. You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e. What I'm only saying is: 1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays. 2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't. My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On August 04 2013 12:54 darkness wrote: You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e. What I'm only saying is: 1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays. 2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't. My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic. Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 04 2013 13:05 Roe wrote: Sorry, I don't buy it. If you don't agree with Russia go back and edit your post. the rest of this #1 and #2 is fluff that isn't (or at least shouldn't) related to what Russia has done, and is inconsequential. No, I agree with Russia if they try to reduce the whole gay propaganda as it is an overspoken thing these days. That alone doesn't mean someone is homophobic though. The rest of my post was to clarify my previous post because you said things I didn't imply or say, so I tried to make myself clearer. I'll keep myself from further offtopic on unrelated to this topic matters. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On August 04 2013 13:11 darkness wrote: No, I agree with Russia if they try to reduce the whole gay propaganda as it is an overspoken thing these days. That alone doesn't mean someone is homophobic though. The rest of my post was to clarify my previous post because you said things I didn't imply or say. It pretty well does. Why would you make it illegal to speak unless you're afraid of its consequences or content? | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 04 2013 13:14 Roe wrote: It pretty well does. Why would you make it illegal to speak unless you're afraid of its consequences or content? Probably because Russians are traditionalists in some cases like family values? Like the UK are traditionalists to have their monarchy around. I just happen to agree with having less of the gay topic. Simple as that. About the show-off thing, I may have been wrong. Music nowadays shows off sexual content too, so that can be reduced like gay propaganda too regardless if it makes gays happy or not. This sexual orientation thing is blown out of proportion. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On August 04 2013 13:19 darkness wrote: Probably because Russians are traditionalists in some cases like family values? Like the UK are traditionalists to have their monarchy around. I just happen to agree with having less of the gay topic. Simple as that. About the show-off thing, I may have been wrong. Music nowadays shows off sexual content too, so that can be reduced like gay propaganda too regardless if it makes gays happy or not. This sexual orientation thing is blown out of proportion. I can't even tell what you're talking about anymore...You're still avoiding your homophobia at any rate. I mean you're really telling me it's ok to criminalize discussing sexuality in Russia, a traditional and conservative country, because in the US "this sexual orientation thing is blown out of proportion"? And you even go on to say that music should be regulated and content should be illegal because it shows off sexual content. Essentially what it comes down to for you: gays aren't stoned and burned and KOS in america, so they should shut up and be grateful, and by the way we should shut down any progress attempting to be made in Russia because it's annoying over here in the Bay area. Here's a tip: if you want "less of the gay topic" stop listening, stop talking, turn off the TV. TURN OFF THE TV. lol. Don't make freedom illegal. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On August 04 2013 12:54 darkness wrote: You're putting words into my mouth. Please go back to my post and re-read. Or rather, learn to read. I've never ever implied persecution or as an act of punishment to chase gays in Russia because they have more rights in USA or w/e. What I'm only saying is: 1. I don't trust western politicians when they advocate gay rights. I just don't think they have a sincere and simple reason to do so. Possibility may be they fish for votes or to slightly boost economy by having more marriages now than ever. I'm not saying this is definitely their cause, I'm just saying they have some not very obvious interest to back gays. 2. Making the whole gay stuff a hot topic and appear on news a lot is unneccessary and annoying. Have you seen heterosexuals to show off that much (reference to gay pride movements)? I haven't. My thought is either grant gays rights or not. Whatever you choose, be done with it and move on. Don't make it an excessive topic. 1. Except Russia isn't referring to politicians trying to bring gay voters into their ring, they quite literally mean saying anything about it at all -- let alone good. If you told a child the definition of homosexuality, you would literally be guilty of spreading gay propaganda to a minor. I don't think dictionaries are tools of propaganda, do you? By saying you agree with Russia, you have to accept this stance. Don't say you agree with Russia unless you're content with being viewed as a monumental bigot, because Russia has taken the stance of a monumental bigot. If your concern really is with removing the gay rights movement from the media, then you should be upset with Russia. They could have just allowed the Pride House into the olympics. That would be uncontroversial, and would appear no where in the news. But they took the controversial, head-line grabbing route to put out their own anti-gay propaganda to the world and gave the finger to the gay community. You DO understand when you're discriminated against, treated as less than human, and deprived of basic human liberties your fellow heterosexual man has, you have a vested interest in getting support for your cause? So you should also understand that bigoted interests whom for whatever arbitrary reason are against gay rights share that same vested interested to rally support against gay rights. Regardless, BOTH sides lose their incentive when the gay community is literally just accepted as equal human beings and given their due rights and liberties. 2. I haven't seen heterosexuals show off their sexuality in parades, but I also haven't heard of heterosexuals being specifically targeted for violence and discrimination for the last few millennia either -- unless they' have and simply endured it with silence...? You realize how stupid that is to say, right? Which rights have you been deprived of recently because of your heterosexuality? Which large demographic of people hate you for your heterosexuality? Your thought is a very convenient one when it's an issue which does not relate to you. But it relates to millions of others, and they are most certainly interested in keeping the issue alive. Just who are you to decide what an important topic should be to them? There are way more people interested in this topic than those such as yourself who aren't. I hope you aren't so arrogant to believe this world revolves around you? | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
Bombastic Starleague
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
