Anti-Gay Westboro Hate Preacher Dies

[Sheikah]

It seems that the fashion is now to compare homosexuality to *insert differentiating factor here*.

 

No one is saying there's anything wrong with avoiding people that annoy you. For instance, a religious fundamentalist could quite easily annoy you with religious preaching. Similarly, you may ignore groups of people who primarily focus on something which you have no interest in. But to blanket say 'Avoiding homosexuals is ok' just doesn't make sense. What is the factor of annoyance?

 

The only thing that has been put forward is 'I don't like what they do'. There is nothing to suggest that they will talk to you about things you don't want to hear, or that they will be any different to any other person you have as a friend. The discerning factor is something that shouldn't bear any weight on the decision to associate with them.

[MoogleViper]

Say if someone would avoid dating someone who is ginger or something, would you say that's discrimination or just simply normal that they're not attracted to gingers?

 

I'd say they were fucking racists.

 

It seems that the fashion is now to compare homosexuality to *insert differentiating factor here*.

 

No one is saying there's anything wrong with avoiding people that annoy you. For instance, a religious fundamentalist could quite easily annoy you with religious preaching. Similarly, you may ignore groups of people who primarily focus on something which you have no interest in. But to blanket say 'Avoiding homosexuals is ok' just doesn't make sense. What is the factor of annoyance?

 

The only thing that has been put forward is 'I don't like what they do'. There is nothing to suggest that they will talk to you about things you don't want to hear, or that they will be any different to any other person you have as a friend. The discerning factor is something that shouldn't bear any weight on the decision to associate with them.

 

It's common knowledge that all gay people wear pink, have high voices, watch Sex in the City and love Celine Dion.

 

That's not the sort of shit I want to associate with.

[Kav]

It seems that the fashion is now to compare homosexuality to *insert differentiating factor here*.

 

No one is saying there's anything wrong with avoiding people that annoy you. For instance, a religious fundamentalist could quite easily annoy you with religious preaching. Similarly, you may ignore groups of people who primarily focus on something which you have no interest in. But to blanket say 'Avoiding homosexuals is ok' just doesn't make sense. What is the factor of annoyance?

 

The only thing that has been put forward is 'I don't like what they do'. There is nothing to suggest that they will talk to you about things you don't want to hear, or that they will be any different to any other person you have as a friend. The discerning factor is something that shouldn't bear any weight on the decision to associate with them.

 

The same goes with religious people. I have plenty of friends who are religious, all from different religions, none of them talk about their religion to me.

 

You're saying it's ok to avoid religious people but not homosexuals... you are discriminating.

 

Also, you'd said that religion wasn't as personal as race or sexuality. It is. To some people their religion is much more personal than anything else. You can't say that it's not just because you don't think it is.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Kav

[Beast]

It seems that the fashion is now to compare homosexuality to *insert differentiating factor here*.

 

No one is saying there's anything wrong with avoiding people that annoy you. For instance, a religious fundamentalist could quite easily annoy you with religious preaching. Similarly, you may ignore groups of people who primarily focus on something which you have no interest in. But to blanket say 'Avoiding homosexuals is ok' just doesn't make sense. What is the factor of annoyance?

 

The only thing that has been put forward is 'I don't like what they do'. There is nothing to suggest that they will talk to you about things you don't want to hear, or that they will be any different to any other person you have as a friend. The discerning factor is something that shouldn't bear any weight on the decision to associate with them.

 

I do agree with you on that. I don't get why people would avoid homosexual people either just because they're homosexual. It wouldn't necessarily mean they'll talk to you about what they get up to sexually. They're still the same person, it's just that they like the same-sex.

 

I'd say they were fucking racists.

 

It's common knowledge that all gay people wear pink, have high voices, watch Sex in the City and love Celine Dion.

 

That's not the sort of shit I want to associate with.

 

You get my point though, right? Would it be discrimination if you didn't want to date someone who wasn't your type? I mean, being totally truthful, personality outweighs looks but looks do play a part in it. Would you say you were discriminating if you were not to go out with a woman who didn't attract you?

 

The same goes with religious people. I have plenty of friends who are religious, all from different religions, none of them talk about their religion to me.

 

You're saying it's ok to avoid religious people but not homosexuals... you are discriminating.

 

Also, you'd said that religion wasn't as personal as race or sexuality. It is. To some people their religion is much more personal than anything else. You can't say that it's not just because you don't think it is.

 

I don't mind either just as long as they don't preach it to me all of the time. I just don't like preachers in general. Even though I support it, if someone was to go on about gay rights all of the time, I couldn't bear it. Same goes for people who are against racism, if they were to preach that to me all of the time, I'd walk away. I'm already supporting it, you've got me, why are you banging on for?! I like hearing people's views and I love discussing and challenging them but when people don't listen and preach and it's day in, day out, 24/7, shit is just annoying.

[Sheikah]

The same goes with religious people. I have plenty of friends who are religious, all from different religions, none of them talk about their religion to me.

 

You're saying it's ok to avoid religious people but not homosexuals... you are discriminating.

 

Also, you'd said that religion wasn't as personal as race or sexuality. It is. To some people their religion is much more personal than anything else. You can't say that it's not just because you don't think it is.

 

Except, I didn't say that. People that annoy you, I said you would want to avoid. Which may be fundamentalist people who do preach to you.

 

You also didn't refute the point - on what basis might one avoid homosexuals, unless they were pre-judging how they would behave?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Sheikah

[Kav]

The very fact you know certain people have homophobic beliefs means they preached it (unless you have the ability to read minds). If people truly had no intention of doing harm with their view, they'd have kept it to themselves...

 

...I don't agree that it is harmless to hold hateful views, like Diageo said. It would affect the way you treat homosexuals, even if subconsciously, which can easily lead to discrimination.

 

It's a combination of these posts Sheikah. Firstly, my friend hadn't preached to me, this came up in conversation because I asked because one of his best friends is gay.

 

Secondly, you can't say that anti-gay views would effect the way they treat homosexuals, because it hasn't effected the way my friends treat each other. Even though one believes the other will burn in hell.

 

With this, to me, it felt like you lumped religious people together, not just leaving your last comment about a preacher as a separate comment. Which to me made it sound like it's ok to avoid religious people but not homosexuals.

 

If people want to avoid homosexuals, fair enough. I don't know why as I see no issue, but some people may and we have to be willing to accept that.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Kav

[Ville]

Sexuality and race are more personal things that people don't choose unlike someone's fashion, religion or political views. Hence, discrimination of those is more of a big deal and should be challenged more readily. You can hardly argue that racism is the same as judging someone's taste in clothes, can you?

 

What I'm saying is that people discriminate against each other for the most ridiculous little things. "Omg that guy has an earring, what a pussy." Also, people don't choose to be born fat, ugly, sick, stupid, handicapped or whatever, yet still many people discriminate against them based on biological aversion mechanisms alone. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

 

No one is saying there's anything wrong with avoiding people that annoy you. For instance, a religious fundamentalist could quite easily annoy you with religious preaching. Similarly, you may ignore groups of people who primarily focus on something which you have no interest in. But to blanket say 'Avoiding homosexuals is ok' just doesn't make sense. What is the factor of annoyance?

 

I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying it happens, deal with it. People make blanket statements all the time, and if that's how they wanna live their lives then so be it (as long as it doesn't escalate into violence / harassing / discriminating laws). For example, the internet is full of nutcase feminists (women and men) who think I'm an utter tool just because I'm a heterosexual man who's not buying their shit. Clearly sexist and discriminatory. But what can you do? Offer your opinion and shoot the arguments down, and that's about it. Thus with the same logic, if someone is adamant about avoiding homosexuals, then what can you do about it? In a free country, not much. If it happens in privacy, who cares. If it happens in public / work / school / whatever, then that's their problem (they have to adapt to the rules and laws of the majority).

 

You get my point though, right? Would it be discrimination if you didn't want to date someone who wasn't your type? I mean, being totally truthful, personality outweighs looks but looks do play a part in it. Would you say you were discriminating if you were not to go out with a woman who didn't attract you?

 

Why would you? Not everyone can be attracted to everyone...yes, you could still give them a chance to build up attraction, but it's not gonna happen with everyone, and that's a fact. Totally normal...

[MoogleViper]

You get my point though, right? Would it be discrimination if you didn't want to date someone who wasn't your type? I mean, being totally truthful, personality outweighs looks but looks do play a part in it. Would you say you were discriminating if you were not to go out with a woman who didn't attract you?

 

Yeah I agree, it wouldn't be discrimination.

 

Although I think people would be less comfortable with "I don't find black men/women attractive" than something like "I don't find short men/women attractive".

 

I certainly don't think the former is racist, but I think a lot of people would consider it to be. A case of racial hypersensitivity.

[Jonnas]

Sheikah, are you not discriminating against people that hold different beliefs to yours by "calling them out and challenging their beliefs" though? You don't treat other people like that, why those with different beliefs? Why can't you accept they have the right to believe what they do, if they're not preaching or acting out?

 

Discrimination, by definition, affects things that have absolutely nothing to do with opinion. Gender, race, sexuality... none of that is an opinion.

 

Cultural and Religious intolerance is a bit different, where discrimination is the inability to compromise with an opposing view. Challenging those views isn't lack of compromise, it's a step towards it. Oppressing those views is the actual inability to compromise.

 

You're saying it's ok to avoid religious people but not homosexuals... you are discriminating.

 

I thought Zechs was the one who said this?

 

basically the better way of dealing with this is compromise and/or the ofendee mitigating their own feelings by omission or personal reflection, it should not be the person perceived causing offense changing

 

You make perfect sense. I tried to explain the concept of a compromise, but couldn't find the word.

 

In Zechs' examples (gays holding hands & muslims, public drinking & muslims), a compromise must also be reached, but not necessarily the same one. It's one thing to avoid drinking beer in from of Muslims you know are offended by it (surely, you are less bothered by not-drinking-alcohol than the Muslim is by watching you do it), it's another to stop showing the affection to your loved one for the sake of a stranger.

 

In either case, a reasonable compromise needs to be reached, and the outcome doesn't need to be the same.

 

Let's not use condoms because they offend the Catholics? How about no. Let's segregate women because Islam has a problem with them? Same answer.

 

An addendum to this: religions aren't as rigid as they seem. The Catholic church is being more progressive now, and the vast majority of catholics I know aren't against condoms at all (and they held this opinion before Francis, too).

 

Similarly, the treatment of women in Islam also depends on interpretation, which is open to change (as rigid as the current Islamic regimes and vocal minorities seem to be, the majority seem to be perfectly reasonable about it)

 

So yeah, even religious people are capable of compromising, regardless of belief.

[Agent Gibbs]

For the record, I'm actually enjoying reading this thread because of the different views and opinions. It's really made me think a lot on this shit. I love discussions like this and I love it when people challenge my views. Challenging views and opinions is healthy in life and can make for a brilliant discussion, such as this one, and it can also broaden your mind and sometimes, even change your opinion and see everything in a different light.

 

Same here, its why i felt like getting involved in this discussion because despite poor wording and some obvious hostility between certain personalities, its an interesting subject and one with no really right answer

 

But to blanket say 'Avoiding homosexuals is ok' just doesn't make sense. What is the factor of annoyance?

 

Thats the point i was trying to make earlier in the thread, a blanket dislike of a sexuality/religion/race etc surely has some basis, some defining factor for dislike

In the case of sexuality,

is it the physical logistics of intercourse? in which case its reasonable to assume as i said before opposing sexualities not liking the opposite etc from their view point

Is it that they don't like (kind of stealing from the insinuation of @MoogleViper's tongue in cheak point) overly camp people? because they don't have to be homosexual to be camp, my mates step dad is camper than some gay guys i know, and equally such i can be quite camp

 

the factor of annoyance could be avoided separately without generalising and avoiding an entire sexuality, as they will miss out on people who they need not and could be a part of their life

I was gonna give an example to illustrate my point, but by not avoiding people myself its hard to get that mindset and think of something...avoiding the dutch because you don't like clogs? you'd avoid clogs?

 

 

obviously there are those like the Westboro baptist church who hate everything that homosexuality is and they are quite rightly labeled as bigoted

 

 

 

For example, the internet is full of nutcase feminists (women and men) who think I'm an utter tool just because I'm a heterosexual man who's not buying their shit. Clearly sexist and discriminatory. But what can you do? Offer your opinion and shoot the arguments down, and that's about it.

 

good example, i've encountered the mind set on neogaf when foolishly involving myself in the Anita Sarkasian debate, by simply pointing out a flaw in her research, i became a rapist in the misogynistic culture trying to oppress the views of a woman - a wild generalisation by them based on one comment

 

You make perfect sense. I tried to explain the concept of a compromise, but couldn't find the word.

 

In Zechs' examples (gays holding hands & muslims, public drinking & muslims), a compromise must also be reached, but not necessarily the same one. It's one thing to avoid drinking beer in from of Muslims you know are offended by it (surely, you are less bothered by not-drinking-alcohol than the Muslim is by watching you do it), it's another to stop showing the affection to your loved one for the sake of a stranger.

 

In either case, a reasonable compromise needs to be reached, and the outcome doesn't need to be the same.

 

Totally Agree, a lot of this is having compromises and realising others have different sensitivities and whilst someone may disagree with them, they should respect them

 

I was gonna attribute this quote that signifies freedom of speech to Voltaire but its incorrectly attributed to him it seems

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her book on Voltaire

Edited March 26, 2014 by Agent Gibbs

[Beast]

Yeah I agree, it wouldn't be discrimination.

 

Although I think people would be less comfortable with "I don't find black men/women attractive" than something like "I don't find short men/women attractive".

 

I certainly don't think the former is racist, but I think a lot of people would consider it to be. A case of racial hypersensitivity.

 

I can see why it would offend them but personally, it wouldn't offend me so much. I'm pretty sure I told you guys that this has happened to me before where I spoke to a girl and we were getting on like a house on fire and then she suddenly told me she doesn't date black people...even though I'm not really black...at first, it's odd but it didn't really bother me so much that I dwell on it. I just got on with my life.

 

I think there are people out there who are seriously super-sensitive about stuff like racism or sexism or homophobia or even heterophobia to the point where they'll see the slightest remark as that.

[Agent Gibbs]

I can see why it would offend them but personally, it wouldn't offend me so much. I'm pretty sure I told you guys that this has happened to me before where I spoke to a girl and we were getting on like a house on fire and then she suddenly told me she doesn't date black people...even though I'm not really black...at first, it's odd but it didn't really bother me so much that I dwell on it. I just got on with my life.

 

I think there are people out there who are seriously super-sensitive about stuff like racism or sexism or homophobia or even heterophobia to the point where they'll see the slightest remark as that.

 

did you see something in the news the other week about the recent Top Gear special being racist?

 

Clarkson was talking to Hammond looking at the bridge they built and said "theres a slope on that birdge"

There was a slope to the bridge, it seemed to be about 6inch lower on the right (from his view point) to the left

 

this caused furror because apparently the word slope can also be used racist to refer to oriental people, and as he said it, one was stood on the other side of the bridge

 

that is being overly sensitive, and it seems to be happening more and more...and oddly not from the people who would supposedly be offended, just from people who think others would be offended

 

did people know the old nursery rhyme bah bah black sheep is banned at schools in its original format? its now bah bah wooley sheep? so as not to offend? because being the black sheep of the family apparently has racist connotations and could offend....

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Of course all opinions are not equally sound in anyone's eyes. Everyone will believe there own opinion is right.

 

No one said you were a bigot for not agreeing with people. People were saying that those who were sounding as if certain opinions were almost 'thought crimes' were going too far.

 

Not what I meant. Not all opinions are equally true, factual, logically consistent. Considering homosexuality unnatural or morally wrong is not a logically sound belief, just as believing the Earth was made by a creator 6,000 years ago isn't, either.

 

But they might as well have meant me. Nobody in this thread has said people were not allowed to have whatever opinion they want; some of us have, however, argued that opinions shouldn't be free from criticism, especially when they do not make sense rationally, and that they should be challenged on that grounds. Is an opinion being challenged now equal to it being a thought crime? Because that's what it sounded like to me.

 

For the record, I actually completely agree with you about freedom of thought and expression; nobody has the right to not be offended, and everyone has the right to have and express any opinion. But I maintain that no opinion has the right to not be criticised.

[Beast]

did you see something in the news the other week about the recent Top Gear special being racist?

 

Clarkson was talking to Hammond looking at the bridge they built and said "theres a slope on that birdge"

There was a slope to the bridge, it seemed to be about 6inch lower on the right (from his view point) to the left

 

this caused furror because apparently the word slope can also be used racist to refer to oriental people, and as he said it, one was stood on the other side of the bridge

 

that is being overly sensitive, and it seems to be happening more and more...and oddly not from the people who would supposedly be offended, just from people who think others would be offended

 

did people know the old nursery rhyme bah bah black sheep is banned at schools in its original format? its now bah bah wooley sheep? so as not to offend? because being the black sheep of the family apparently has racist connotations and could offend....

 

I'm sorry but if I met any of these people, I would have to try and control myself to not bitchslap them. I've never heard of the word "slope" being racist, that's a whole new one, and I'm pretty sure that people knew what he meant and I'm sure that the BBC would have edited it if they saw it as racist. I just honestly think that people need to stop being over-sensitive sometimes!

 

I'm a little sensitive to racism if it's derogatory but I can take racist jokes and I can laugh at myself, this doesn't necessarily mean I condone racism but I just think people can be way too uptight. My line is someone calling me a 'monkey', I hate being called it whether it's used as a joke or not, depending on the context it's used in. I had a group of lads in school who used to call me that all of the time and I just hated it. However, I wouldn't get all pissy if a parent called their child a "cheeky monkey" and I don't necessarily mind the phrase being used on myself. It's just a complex thing for me, it's a bit touchy. That's literally the only thing I think I can be over-sensitive to but that's my deal, not anybody else's.

 

As for the nursery rhyme, people definitely need a bitchslap with that one. That irritated me. In Birmingham, schools had to use "Baa baa rainbow sheep", which not only is stupid but also breaks the rhythm of the song.

[MoogleViper]

did people know the old nursery rhyme bah bah black sheep is banned at schools in its original format? its now bah bah wooley sheep? so as not to offend? because being the black sheep of the family apparently has racist connotations and could offend....

 

That not true. It's just another vicious Daily Mail bullshit, in an attempt at an ad hominem argument against political correctness, to try and anger people and turn them towards racism and hate.

 

As for the "slope" incident, that's another case of the tabloids blowing a few idiots' comments way out of proportion to fulfil the agenda I mentioned above.

[Agent Gibbs]

That not true. It's just another vicious Daily Mail bullshit, in an attempt at an ad hominem argument against political correctness, to try and anger people and turn them towards racism and hate.

 

As for the "slope" incident, that's another case of the tabloids blowing a few idiots' comments way out of proportion to fulfil the agenda I mentioned above.

 

my source on the bah bah black sheep stuff isn't the papers (although admittedly the top gear incident is after a mate posted it on facebook) my mum who is a senior member of staff at a school in Leeds,she told me this after it was banned at her school for those reasons, she was fuming about PC gone mad

 

perhaps its just the local education board here then and not a national thing, but its certainly banned at her school

 

 

but i get your point, other similar instances are just part of the media agenda.

 

 

 

does anyone else think most of this should be a thread rip to somewhere else now?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Agent Gibbs

[Grazza]

They're everywhere now. I walk into a town centre and from one shop to the other, I always get hassled by charity. However, I found a little something that deters them. I tell them I'm 20. You have to either be 21, 25 or 27 to sign up to shit. Saying you're 20 gets you in the clear.

 

Thanks, I'll remember that.

 

Reminds me of the time I was walking home and a charming lady said to me: "Excuse me, will you go in that shop and buy me some beer? I'm banned because my other half beat up the owner."

 

All I could think to do was say: "Sorry, I'm underage," and run off up the hill.

 

Woman (calling after me): "You ain't underage, you liar!"

[Sheikah]

Reminds me of the time I was walking home and a charming lady said to me: "Excuse me, will you go in that shop and buy me some beer? I'm banned because my other half beat up the owner."

 

All I could think to do was say: "Sorry, I'm underage," and run off up the hill.

 

Woman (calling after me): "You ain't underage, you liar!"

 

You should have said I AM THE OWNER! Then chased her away. Like a boss.

[Beast]

my source on the bah bah black sheep stuff isn't the papers (although admittedly the top gear incident is after a mate posted it on facebook) my mum who is a senior member of staff at a school in Leeds,she told me this after it was banned at her school for those reasons, she was fuming about PC gone mad

 

perhaps its just the local education board here then and not a national thing, but its certainly banned at her school

 

 

but i get your point, other similar instances are just part of the media agenda.

 

 

 

does anyone else think most of this should be a thread rip to somewhere else now?

 

I can also confirm that the nursery rhyme is true. A mate's son told her about the song he'd learned. She weren't best pleased either and wrote to the school. The school replied with a letter basically saying that people find it offensive, which I think is total bollocks on the school's part. It really is PC gone mad.

 

Also, I, too, agree on a thread rip.

 

Thanks, I'll remember that.

 

Reminds me of the time I was walking home and a charming lady said to me: "Excuse me, will you go in that shop and buy me some beer? I'm banned because my other half beat up the owner."

 

All I could think to do was say: "Sorry, I'm underage," and run off up the hill.

 

Woman (calling after me): "You ain't underage, you liar!"

 

You should have said I AM THE OWNER! Then chased her away. Like a boss.

 

LOL! That would have been funny!

 

Personally, I'd have told her to walk her lazy arse to another shop and get alcohol there. Either that or charge her a fiver to buy it.

[Blade]

This made me laugh today.

 

Was talking to a client and helping completing the forms for Legal Aid. She is a diversity and equality officer at the organisation she works at. Anyway part of the form asks "What do you consider your sexual orientation to be"

 

She responded with "normal"

 

Worst Diversity & Equality Officer ever.