|
Don't post in this thread to say "gay gamers are like everyone else, why do they have a special thread?" It is something that has been posted numerous times, and this isn't the place for that discussion.
For regular posters, don't quote the trolls. |
On July 13 2011 01:51 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 01:47 nemo14 wrote:On July 13 2011 01:22 userstupidname wrote:
If you use racist remarks or speak condescendingly then the internet is no place for you. It has never been nor will it ever be. Which internet are you connecting to? Sounds like fun! That does sound a bit different from the internet I'm using...
Same internet as everyone else, go to any chat room, destiny is streaming go to it.
See all those writing shit? They are like what? 8 people total that is repeatingly saying that shit? Now compare to how many is actually there in the chat lobby not writing anything.
Seen graffiti on the street? Just because its there doesn't mean it belongs there. Whole city might be filled with graffiti, doesn't mean that the city is meant for graffiti - most people don't want that shit there. With some exceptions time to time when its ''good graffiti  ''
Stop listening to the loud minority like conformist zombies buddy 
|
I didn't know listening to the minority is conformist. What internet is this?!
|
The internet isn't like a city street. It's not all public property, or even overwhelmingly public property. Being publicly accessible doesn't make it so. Tax dollars don't go to making the internet available to everyone.
Graffiti is a terrible analogy. Anyways, I don't consider intolerant people to be a minority at all, I just consider the ones who are publicly outspoken about their intolerance to be a small number.
|
On August 27 2010 21:49 tomatriedes wrote:
Who do you think is the best looking Korean progamer?
Well, I'd certainly like to get squirtle squirting... xD
|
On July 13 2011 00:53 ChriS-X wrote:
what are the general attitudes towards those who politely disagree with homosexuality but still treat you without discriminating?
Mmm, I wonder it this might be put to you. So you disagree with homosexuality but you don't want to discriminate. Right, that's cool. What if your little boy comes home from school and asks to go to Tommy's house... but Tommy has 2 dads? It's all very well for you to say that you won't discriminate, but have you ever had to deal with a gay person in your life?
Also, by saying you disagree... This is just a vocab error. I think what you mean to say is that you do not approve. You are discriminating. It's like saying you disapprove of someone because they are black.
I could be 100% wrong when I say this but I think this outlook comes from deeply embedded ideals/preconceived ideas/values that you've just not taken the time to look at critically. I appreciate that you don't want to discriminate which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make up your own mind. If you are serious about not discriminating and making your own mind up on these sort of topics is give it a long think and ask yourself questions. Think seriously about the answers and if they are accurate to the context. Start with: "Why don't approve of gays". Maybe you'll realize you disapprove of us less than you think.
On July 13 2011 01:17 Chopin- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2011 16:44 jarrydesque wrote:Actually, there is something you can do. I was just rethinking my post. If every gay has a couple of friends that he/she stops from using "gay" as their word of choice for bad, it would mean at least a good number of people. You could even do community drives - maybe starting with Team Liquid. But it would require initiative. Edit edit: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=243022 Haha what awesome timing. There was that PSA with Hilary Duff to stop people from using gay as a bad connotation. I don't know if that really helped us that much lol. But I agree, I think it's more about doing your part to change people's minds by just being who you are or being a positive image of homosexuality that a lot of people don't have in their lives. I've been a lot of people's first (openly) gay person they've met. One of my friend's parents (conservative from China) thought that homosexuality didn't exist in Chinese people and was just a foreign thing and when my friend told them that I was gay, it surprised them. But now I've heard they've asked consistently how I've been doing and if I have a boyfriend yet. Very meaningful victory for me.
Ok cool, I'm going to do this. I'm going to ask everyone I know to try their utmost to stop using words like "gay" (and related) to describe anything that is not actually gay. It's so easy these days with mediums like facebook and twitter. I'll have it's success rely on the starfish story (every single one makes a difference) especially if as many gays as possible do it. I'll give a blog some thought as well. Will undoubtedly cause a stir, but hey, I suppose that is to be expected.
On July 13 2011 01:22 userstupidname wrote:
Love how people get mad at a gay thread for gays just wanting to find gays
but when a girl thread (Facebook group) is made looking for girls then its the opposite.
You guys crack me up - And to comment on using the term faggot on the internet? Let me tell you that of all of those I knew and know those who expresses their feelings using those sort of words are in nearly every instance an idiot/inescure/asshole or just is in someway not a nice guy.
While those who doesn't use such remarks are all good people who I truly respect as a person, not because they don't say faggot and gay cocksucker, but more because there is in my observation a correlation with idiocy and people saying cocksucker/fag - and - vice versa.
If you use racist remarks or speak condescendingly then the internet is no place for you. It has never been nor will it ever be.
Sad thing is this:
Gay and similar words have become part of everyday language. People don't mean it in a hurtful way. Dude says to dude:"My cat knocked over my new monitor". Dude replies:"Aww thats gay". Does he mean gay? Nope. Does he hate gays? Maybe, maybe not. Is it an attack on gays. No.
It's not hurtful to anyone really. But as in my post above when I came to my own realization that.... it's actually not ok. I've become lax with it because, well, it's not hurting anyone, right? But in reality it's' actually really, really bad, and we're all sitting around going: No but it's ok! It does not mean that we're hated! But it's actually not ok! Discrimination against us has become a norm in an worldwide language. That's a big fucking deal.
And as mentioned above, it shows on the internet.
|
ahh being gay is nasty, i wasn't raised to care either way, in my opinion having a Penis in another mans mouth is pretty sick, but some get off on it, some people get off on raping lil 4 year old girls to, i guess we shouldn't discriminate against them either should we, or i guess its ok to go rape a dog or let a dog ride you or something, i mean, its how they feel right, why should i judge someone that does something like that, well, i do and i can so get over it. If you get offended because of what some one calls you then you must not be very proud of what you are
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Ohhhh, cute comparisons you're making there friend. You're limited knowledge (or overall brain capacity) oozes through your poorly constructed 'argument' of why being gay is bad.
And obviously, if people being gay offends YOU so much, you must not be very proud of what you are.. Closet case, me thinks?
Good luck in life, man.
|
I can think of about 50 really appropriate responses to ch0sen. Exactly zero of them are appropriate for TL. Of course, if he's so proud of being a bigot, I'm sure he'd walk into a gay bar and shoot off his mouth like that... yeah right.
|
Silly faggots, dicks are for chicks.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
Ignorant foolish trolls are ignorant.
|
On July 13 2011 02:17 JingleHell wrote:
The internet isn't like a city street. It's not all public property, or even overwhelmingly public property. Being publicly accessible doesn't make it so. Tax dollars don't go to making the internet available to everyone.
Graffiti is a terrible analogy. Anyways, I don't consider intolerant people to be a minority at all, I just consider the ones who are publicly outspoken about their intolerance to be a small number.
The point was not about public property...
Now buddy the graffiti is not a terrible analogy, you just say it is without explaining why, you used that energy to dement the correlation between public property and internet vandalism which buddy was not the point.
I consider the intolerant people to be a minority - the internet community is not around 15 etc in average, rather its averaging 25.
There is the majority which are made up of those who are not intolerant, but handle intolerance in different ways, it can be trough a direct approach or indirect approach (answering/not answering) then you have the loudspoken minority, look around forums and those who post in the racist threads or make such remarks are repetitively writing those posts.
While the majority don't give a damn about the low lifers.
Attention whores fill the chat, the sane people you meet everyday (I hope buddy) is the other ones those 500 people not typing anything opposed to the 8 people spamming the chat with nigger.
Its dumb, lazy, naive and frankly old that this idea that the trolls and attention whores is a central part of the internet when in actuality it isn't.
Hell look at 4chan, ton of those posts are not even trolling in any nature, just bored people talking about anything (Be it /b/ related content but still)
Or even more look at facebook where one is not hidden behind a fake name, there is no trolling or faggot/nigger spam there. <- the point with that statement is that there are few who still says nigger or faggot, you probably have a friend or two who does it to in real life. And that is what I mean, the thousands of people around these little misfits is what counts, and by not encouraging them or fighting them you don't have two of your friends ruining the mood at a party etc.
Trolling and racism is not fundamentally integrated or is a part of the internet - rather its like real life where there are some misfits here and there who in someway have troubles in their lives.
|
lol.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Can we stop calling me buddy? I disapprove of excessively familiar terms from people I don't know. It comes off as either condescending, sycophantic, or appeasing, depending on the scenario. In this case, appeasing.
The public property thing was WHY I said the graffiti analogy isn't so hot. Graffiti is, specifically, a form of vandalism. Not all places on the internet moderate or censor discussion, so in those places, the graffiti analogy falls flat, because it isn't considered a degradation of the quality of the site.
It's acceptance vs non-acceptance, essentially. You say graffiti, but only portions of the internet actually do anything to prevent, stop, or remove the spread of intolerant statements. If you had said graffiti on private property, instead of the city street, it would have been closer, because some private property, they'll leave it up, others won't.
Anyone who ignores intolerance is already supporting intolerance by not speaking out. Even if they wouldn't say it themselves, it's kind of hard to say you're against something if you never actually try to do anything to counter it. Acceptance of the status quo is allowing the intolerance to continue.
The vocal ones may not be an excessive majority, but when you factor in the apathetic, it certainly does become the majority, which was where I was going to begin with.
|
To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run.
|
On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote:
To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run.
If it was going to be a natural response to societal pressures, it would probably be a population pressure rather than some bizarre community mature/juvenile ratio thing, IMHO.
And more adults vs less children isn't an evolutionary advantage at all, you can't consider something that prevents (natural) reproduction an evolutionary advantage. It's completely counterintuitive. If anything, it would be an evolutionary advantage if there was a correlation between certain genetic weaknesses and homosexuality, but there isn't.
|
On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote:
To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run.
Unfortunately its difficult to describe homosexuality positively in evolutionary terms as its basically an evolutionary cul-de-sac. If the entire human race were to become gay, it would end pretty quickly. Unless we evolved asexual reproduction or some other form of procreation.
|
On July 13 2011 05:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote:
To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run. And more adults vs less children isn't an evolutionary advantage at all, you can't consider something that prevents (natural) reproduction an evolutionary advantage. It's completely counterintuitive. If anything, it would be an evolutionary advantage if there was a correlation between certain genetic weaknesses and homosexuality, but there isn't.
But the entire human reproduction model is based around more adults vs less children. The human race has very few offspring and the whole community focuses on helping every one of them reaching maturity, but for a good 12 or 13 years children are just dead weight and useless mouths to feed (from an evolutionary POV, of course). If the gestation period for human females was 5 months instead of 9, there would have been too many children in primitive societies compared to the number of adults and most of them would have just starved. So while it might sound counter intuitive at first, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to suggest that the ratio of adults to children that will result in the fastest population growth may be reached more easily by having a small percentage of the adults not reproduce at all.
And hey, homosexuality is still in our genome after hundred of thousands of years. There has to be some kind of a reason...
|
I love how this thread works like an electric flytrap. All the homophobic and intolerant people gets drawn here and squashed by the banhammer like the bugs they are. I know this thread is old, but I'm still amazed by the sheer amount of "tards" getting banned. It's great. I'm bumpin' <3.
|
On July 13 2011 05:34 Savern101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote:
To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run. Unfortunately its difficult to describe homosexuality positively in evolutionary terms as its basically an evolutionary cul-de-sac. If the entire human race were to become gay, it would end pretty quickly. Unless we evolved asexual reproduction or some other form of procreation.
There are really a couple different evolutionary theories that I have heard and seem to have any sort of grounding to them scientifically, but they are at the end of the day mostly speculation. Homosexuality seems to be directly poor for evolutionary advantages, at least if you only have a cursory, high school biology knowledge of evolution (a complex and interesting field of study where you could learn something new about it every day all the way to a phd if you wanted). Other things that prevent an individual to reproduce (rapid onset illnesses that destroy ability to reproduce or that kill early) such as cystic fibrosis are extremely rare. Cystic fibrosis is my example because it is so common, effecting about 1 in 2000 births in Caucasian populations. Compare this to the 5-10% estimate of homosexuality (and the fact that human sexuality appears to be in a spectrum rather than a black and white ordeal) and the only logical, evolutionary conclusion is that homosexuality must positively improve the population's total chance of reproductive success or it would have been selected against a long time ago. (anything affecting 1 in 20 male births is extremely common biologically and so cannot really be hand waved away with 'evolution takes time'. it has had time.)
There are a couple good ways to explain how this might be possible. My personal favorite is the "grandmother theory" that states that gay males increase kin selection (competitive selection of your family) by offering more adults to care for children. In a world where death came all too early, an extra adult increased the chances of living and taking care of the young.
There is also evidence in animal species that male homosexuality causes a mating male shortage, allowing for females to mate with several different males and raise the young with their "gay best friend" as it were.
Another theory (that I feel doesn't adequately explain the spectrum of human sexuality well) is that the same genes that cause male homosexuality may increase fertility in women or offer a similar evolutionary advantage. You see this happen with certain genetic diseases like sickle-cell anaemia (which reduces the severity of malaria, which is more likely to kill faster than anaemia, allowing reproduction).
There are a lot of ways that homosexuality might be advantageous, but those are all I remember because my biology tutor was too cute for me to focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
