First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply NUS tells LGBT societies to abolish gay men’s reps because ‘they don’t face oppression’
13885 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
I never expected history to repeat itself on such a large scale in a trimeframe not only to be within my life but not even a decade. Just a couple of years ago we were going against creationists and now we have morons talking shit about opressions and stacks that get everything ass backwards. Like some kind of natural cause within us humans wanting to be wrong.
Also we told gays that they will be next. Looks like it's starting.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 4/2/16 , edited 4/2/16
TFW Liberals again show that every claim of "homophobia" was them projecting their own hate against gays onto the Right.



16215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
i think this pc culture is about to implode on itself in the next few years.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
15261 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 4/2/16 , edited 4/2/16
The whole situation in a nutshell:



Well done NUS...
3286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Everywhere
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
33395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/2/16 , edited 4/2/16
The NUS's LGBT arm is entirely in the wrong to suggest that cisgendered homosexual men shouldn't have representatives, and I am proud of the LGBT groups and individual activists that have called this out. There is a difference between addressing biphobia and transphobia in the LGBT community and disenfranchising gay men. One is sensible and necessary, the other unacceptable and counterproductive. Get your head on right, NUS.


maxgale wrote:

TFW Liberals again show that every claim of "homophobia" was them projecting their own hate against gays onto the Right.


Want to see something cool? Ted Cruz attended and spoke at a rally where Kevin Swanson called for the deaths of homosexuals very loudly and clearly, and appeared onstage with and spoke to Swanson. But hey, at least Swanson also generously offers a little time for homosexuals and the USA in general to repent as though this negates that he thinks homosexuals should eventually be killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZU6pGKgRk

Cruz waited months to admit that was a bad move, and initially blasted complaints about Swanson's views and Cruz's attendance and speaking as "liberal nonsense". But if you're not convinced of the insincerity of his backpedal then let's consider that Cruz has also bragged about endorsement from some more pretty radically anti-LGBT people like Mike Bickle (that's Mr. Hitler Was God's Jew Hunter if you didn't know) and Bob Vander Plaats. The latter compares the fight against LGBT rights to the fight against slavery and considers homosexuality to itself be a health hazard akin to smoking cigarettes even though this in no way reflects the assessments given by the experts who actually generated the data upon which he's basing such claims, so you'd probably like him. He was so liked by Cruz that he actually got a position in the senator's presidential campaign, and Cruz said of him:


“With Bob’s leadership we will succeed in uniting conservatives around this country,” said Cruz. “Bob is an inspiring leader in the conservative movement with the values and tested ability to help us fight to restore the principles that made this country exceptional. I’m grateful to have such a tireless advocate for liberty on our team. If we as conservatives come together, we will win.”


https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-endorsement-of-mike-bickle/

https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-bob-vander-plaats-as-national-co-chair/

Want to have some more fun? Here's Charles Worley, another conservative pastor calling for gay men and lesbians to be rounded up and put in a prison camp until they (he presumes) disappear as a population for want of the ability to reproduce (which homosexual people can do). There are also reports of Worley fondly speaking of times when hanging homosexuals was acceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-bashing-north-carolina-pastor-charles-worley-forty-years-gays-hung-oak-tree-article-1.1083079

Now let's meet Steven Anderson. And if you're curious yes, I watched this entire disgusting sermon even despite its being an hour long and completely vapid and hateful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWXjuUbBfUc

Oh, the fun we're having by 11:08-12:08. "I don't say homosexuals should be put to death, God does!" in so many words. Then from 12:08-13:10 we move between "I'm not proposing we kill homosexuals, but that's what God would want given the scriptures" to "Our nation is in moral decay because it doesn't follow God's will" to "Well, actually our nation has killed homosexuals before so following God on this wouldn't be unheard of anyway". Then he goes into the New Testament and starts trying to build up a case that God's will is still, even after Christ's coming, sacrifice, and resurrection, to kill homosexuals. That God hasn't changed His mind, and that Sodom serves as an example against all ungodly people and nations (by implication homosexuals and the United States for letting homosexuals live).

Anderson then makes a very long case that homosexuals are personally responsible for their own demise as "reprobates" at a "godly" society's hands. He casts homosexuals as cartoon villains who are intrinsically dishonest, murderous, perverse, merciless, and will never be satisfied, even going as far as to insist that homosexuals are actually all bisexuals, paedophiles, and practice bestiality, and refusing to take an account of observable, countervailing facts about homosexuals, all the while demanding that his reading of the Bible be considered all there is to the story. He finishes up by echoing Vander Plaats' assessment of homosexuality from a "clinical" perspective (note that the CDC isn't listing homosexuality as a health hazard and that Anderson notes the researchers he has cited complained that pastors like him were misrepresenting their findings and conclusions) and scoffs at the scientific community in general.

Have some more footage of Anderson speaking. Even if you don't look at the liberal commentator, look at the footage of Anderson speaking. We have the context now, we know who we're dealing with from the other sermon, so we know he is sincerely calling for LGBT people to die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlqX9Y2Pf0Q

There is no denying that pastors calling for the deaths of homosexuals under Biblical law are homophobic regardless of the timescale they have in mind for enacting the policy, that Ted Cruz has embraced such people, or that Ted Cruz is appropriately placed on the political right. There is no denying that Ted Cruz is having a substantial political impact, because he is presently the only viable competitor with Donald Trump for the GOP presidential nomination and holds office as a federal senator. You're objectively, demonstrably wrong to claim that there's no homophobia on the political right, or even that what homophobia there is nevertheless fails to reach the highest levels of conservative politics.
22013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
well its because they are men and men are the most privileged class of course i mean its obvious, none gendered people ^-^
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/16
They are saying gay males don't get much oppression from within the LGBT community. It is important to note that. They aren't saying they don't face oppression in general.
14783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/2/16 , edited 4/2/16

BlueOni wrote:

The NUS's LGBT arm is entirely in the wrong to suggest that cisgendered homosexual men shouldn't have representatives, and I am proud of the LGBT groups and individual activists that have called this out. There is a difference between addressing biphobia and transphobia in the LGBT community and disenfranchising gay men.


The thing is, not to bring up the old "Alphabet Soup" jokes about a group which has five factions and counting, but when you have a group that searches for identity in being "different", the reality is, you're not going to get the unity you need to form an actual cultural identity--

Like the Republicans, a group that insists on angrily rebelling will have no one left to fight but each other, and the Star-bellied Sneetches will soon start calling out those with no stars upon th'ars.
The infighting just ends up reinforcing the idea in the mainstream that the group consists of Special Snowflakes who want the one-way street of marketing their speciality, but not bothering to show tolerance toward each other or the average population...Thus bringing out the old accusations of "Narcissism", "Divisiveness", "Immaturity", "Isolationism", etc.
But in just about every cultural group that runs out of battles to fight, and is left with the threatening prospect of being all assimilated into the melting pot, it soon becomes an argument of who "deserves" to wear the badge and who doesn't. The lesson of "'Us' isn't just about 'You'" the first lesson for any group to learn, and it's usually a lesson learned by real historical persecution.

(Not by accusing anyone who says bad things about you of being a religious lunatic from cartoonish news headlines.)
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 4/2/16

BlueOni wrote:

The NUS's LGBT arm is entirely in the wrong to suggest that cisgendered homosexual men shouldn't have representatives, and I am proud of the LGBT groups and individual activists that have called this out. There is a difference between addressing biphobia and transphobia in the LGBT community and disenfranchising gay men. One is sensible and necessary, the other unacceptable and counterproductive. Get your head on right, NUS.


maxgale wrote:

TFW Liberals again show that every claim of "homophobia" was them projecting their own hate against gays onto the Right.


Want to see something cool? Ted Cruz attended and spoke at a rally where Kevin Swanson called for the deaths of homosexuals very loudly and clearly, and appeared onstage with and spoke to Swanson. But hey, at least Swanson also generously offers a little time for homosexuals and the USA in general to repent as though this negates that he thinks homosexuals should eventually be killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZU6pGKgRk

Cruz waited months to admit that was a bad move, and initially blasted complaints about Swanson's views and Cruz's attendance and speaking as "liberal nonsense". But if you're not convinced of the insincerity of his backpedal then let's consider that Cruz has also bragged about endorsement from some more pretty radically anti-LGBT people like Mike Bickle (that's Mr. Hitler Was God's Jew Hunter if you didn't know) and Bob Vander Plaats. The latter compares the fight against LGBT rights to the fight against slavery and considers homosexuality to itself be a health hazard akin to smoking cigarettes even though this in no way reflects the assessments given by the experts who actually generated the data upon which he's basing such claims, so you'd probably like him. He was so liked by Cruz that he actually got a position in the senator's presidential campaign, and Cruz said of him:


“With Bob’s leadership we will succeed in uniting conservatives around this country,” said Cruz. “Bob is an inspiring leader in the conservative movement with the values and tested ability to help us fight to restore the principles that made this country exceptional. I’m grateful to have such a tireless advocate for liberty on our team. If we as conservatives come together, we will win.”


https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-endorsement-of-mike-bickle/

https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-bob-vander-plaats-as-national-co-chair/

Want to have some more fun? Here's Charles Worley, another conservative pastor calling for gay men and lesbians to be rounded up and put in a prison camp until they (he presumes) disappear as a population for want of the ability to reproduce (which homosexual people can do). There are also reports of Worley fondly speaking of times when hanging homosexuals was acceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-bashing-north-carolina-pastor-charles-worley-forty-years-gays-hung-oak-tree-article-1.1083079

Now let's meet Steven Anderson. And if you're curious yes, I watched this entire disgusting sermon even despite its being an hour long and completely vapid and hateful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWXjuUbBfUc

Oh, the fun we're having by 11:08-12:08. "I don't say homosexuals should be put to death, God does!" in so many words. Then from 12:08-13:10 we move between "I'm not proposing we kill homosexuals, but that's what God would want given the scriptures" to "Our nation is in moral decay because it doesn't follow God's will" to "Well, actually our nation has killed homosexuals before so following God on this wouldn't be unheard of anyway". Then he goes into the New Testament and starts trying to build up a case that God's will is still, even after Christ's coming, sacrifice, and resurrection, to kill homosexuals. That God hasn't changed His mind, and that Sodom serves as an example against all ungodly people and nations (by implication homosexuals and the United States for letting homosexuals live).

Anderson then makes a very long case that homosexuals are personally responsible for their own demise as "reprobates" at a "godly" society's hands. He casts homosexuals as cartoon villains who are intrinsically dishonest, murderous, perverse, merciless, and will never be satisfied, even going as far as to insist that homosexuals are actually all bisexuals, paedophiles, and practice bestiality, and refusing to take an account of observable, countervailing facts about homosexuals, all the while demanding that his reading of the Bible be considered all there is to the story. He finishes up by echoing Vander Plaats' assessment of homosexuality from a "clinical" perspective (note that the CDC isn't listing homosexuality as a health hazard and that Anderson notes the researchers he has cited complained that pastors like him were misrepresenting their findings and conclusions) and scoffs at the scientific community in general.

Have some more footage of Anderson speaking. Even if you don't look at the liberal commentator, look at the footage of Anderson speaking. We have the context now, we know who we're dealing with from the other sermon, so we know he is sincerely calling for LGBT people to die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlqX9Y2Pf0Q

There is no denying that pastors calling for the deaths of homosexuals under Biblical law are homophobic regardless of the timescale they have in mind for enacting the policy, that Ted Cruz has embraced such people, or that Ted Cruz is appropriately placed on the political right. There is no denying that Ted Cruz is having a substantial political impact, because he is presently the only viable competitor with Donald Trump for the GOP presidential nomination and holds office as a federal senator. You're objectively, demonstrably wrong to claim that there's no homophobia on the political right, or even that what homophobia there is nevertheless fails to reach the highest levels of conservative politics.





And one kooky pastor who was subject to disdain from the Right is in no way comparable to a group which is echoing sentiments shared by others on the Left.


It's the difference between one bad apple which may ruin the bunch (the Right), and an orchard covered in thistles (the Left).
8178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/2/16 , edited 4/2/16
The major problem with group identity politics is the groups keep getting smaller and more narrowly defined while the list of enemies for said groups only grows longer and broader.

Of course, human tribalism breeds contempt and violence regardless of what the tribe is composed of.

I think you have to take the view that individuals trump the group generally while in specific situations the group trumps the individual. We need a certain level of group-based thinking to maintain a civil society. On the other hand, if we think of individuals as serving society rather than the other way around, we get a lot of very bad politics.

Individuals have to be the focal point most of the time.

When you think in terms of the tribal group, you run into situations where you don't really agree with an individual but you back them anyway because "those people" are attacking them.

Here's a hypo: you're at a party and you see a fellow anime fans acting like the worst stereotype of an anime fan. You're about to go tell them to knock it off but then someone who hates anime says "ugh, an anime fan. They are all so stupid."

Don't you then feel a need to defend anime fans like yourself even if it means defending the idiot too? It's a natural response. And instead of addressing the problem fan you end up fighting with the anti-anime person because your entire group was attacked.
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/3/16

Ejanss wrote:

The thing is, not to bring up the old "Alphabet Soup" jokes about a group which has five factions and counting, but when you have a group that searches for identity in being "different", the reality is, you're not going to get the unity you need to form an actual cultural identity--

Like the Republicans, a group that insists on angrily rebelling will have no one left to fight but each other, and the Star-bellied Sneetches will soon start calling out those with no stars upon th'ars.
The infighting just ends up reinforcing the idea in the mainstream that the group consists of Special Snowflakes who want the one-way street of marketing their speciality, but not bothering to show tolerance toward each other or the average population...Thus bringing out the old accusations of "Narcissism", "Divisiveness", "Immaturity", "Isolationism", etc.
But in just about every cultural group that runs out of battles to fight, and is left with the threatening prospect of being all assimilated into the melting pot, it soon becomes an argument of who "deserves" to wear the badge and who doesn't. The lesson of "'Us' isn't just about 'You'" the first lesson for any group to learn, and it's usually a lesson learned by real historical persecution.

(Not by accusing anyone who says bad things about you of being a religious lunatic from cartoonish news headlines.)


Run out of battles to fight. I cite three pastors calling for summary execution of homosexuals, one of whom a top-level GOP candidate had no problem appearing onstage with, and you say no battles remain to be fought. Another person embraced by top-level conservative politicians compares opposition to LGBT activism as opposition to slavery, and you say there are no battles to be fought. You personally compare open homosexuals to children insisting on wearing Halloween costumes in contextually inappropriate settings, and you tell me there are no battles left to be fought.

I grow tired of this, Ejanss.


maxgale wrote:

And one kooky pastor who was subject to disdain from the Right is in no way comparable to a group which is echoing sentiments shared by others on the Left.


It's the difference between one bad apple which may ruin the bunch (the Right), and an orchard covered in thistles (the Left).


Here's a response of equal quality:

lolnope
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 4/3/16 , edited 4/3/16
American Homosexuals should be very glad not to live in Iraq - where they are thrown off roofs, Iran where they are stoned or hung, or Saudi Arabia which recently promised to exterminate them. Democrats elected a former high ranking member of the KKK (Byrd) so there is no shortage of Democrates appearing with whackos. Apple, so irate over pastors being protected from being forced to conduct homosexual ceremonies, even threatening to pull out of states passing those (just) laws - has no problem doing business in Saudi Arabia - hypocrites!

Despite the politically correct CDC, homosexuality is very unhealthy (MOST AIDS cases are male homosexuals). Any sex outside of marriage (marriage means the Union of a man and woman) is condemned by God, so drop the homosexual persecution complex.

Anyone advocating violence should be condemned... even when they are homosexual:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/09/22/gay-group-list-extremist-christians-leads-death-threats

Leave the florists and pizza shop owners in peace instead of threatening them.

Morgan Freeman had a great monologue in Shawshank Redemption on the word "rehabilitated"
"Homophobia" too is - a made up Bull**** word.

Truly there are many battles to be fought... even though it is the left starting most of them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.