Homosexuality VS Camp: is homophobia a projected misogyny?

Uh. Germany springs to mind. And, wow: seen Zimbabwe recently? Guess who was democratically elected. Again and again and again... Have a good look on what platform.

DG, I'm the least popular troper in the LGBT circles and I wouldn't permit that to happen.

So that should tell you how well that'll work out.

Citation Needed.

From what I've read, they did no such thing. They just chose to ignore the people who said they were wrong.

To turn your own words against you, everyone is not you.

Also, your views aren't being snowballed within an echo chamber of agreeable opinions. Your opinion is largely shaped because of the volume of people who argue against you.

edited 22nd May '12 9:25:17 AM by KingZeal

@Starship: Yeah, but you're still pretty moderate in terms of the LGBT debate. There are a LOT of people out there that make you look like a flaming atheistic liberal.

edited 22nd May '12 9:24:34 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:18:59 PM

Yup. I love my Starship. I can't love some others I've had the "pleasure" of attempting to talk to. <shudders>

You're good for a nice debate, Maxima: you're not loathed.

edited 22nd May '12 9:26:19 AM by Euodiachloris

Let's continue, Rwanda, Bosnia, the hellish period in Cambodia. The fucked up dictatorships in South America. Each place known for ruthlessly shutting down any opinion that didn't go with the party line.

Funny how that works out.

They didn't always start out as the party line, though. And, I'm not seeing anybody accusing Britain of turning into a Dictatorship with its checks and balances working away.

To add to the list of countries with similar checks: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Modern Germany, boring old Switzerland with its funny little system (and, not fantastic rights for what it classes foreigners, but hey)...

edited 22nd May '12 9:29:47 AM by Euodiachloris

Nope. Doesn't work that way. "This is bad" is should NEVER be enough for legislation. (Even our current system theoretically doesn't work that way.)

No he wouldn't. Again, no one is talking about a system in which a person criticizes a methodology. In fact, that would be important. For example, a Christian scientist that continues to criticize theories which disprove God's existence would be just as allowed under the system as a scientist who disagrees that the Earth is flat.

Slippery Slope Fallacy and False Dichotomy.

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:19:10 PM

This is Slippery Slope Fallacy because it's assuming that the second thing would inherently be more valuable than the first.

This is False Dichotomy because democracy can exist just fine without idiotic views. In fact, idiotic views are actually the major flaw in a democratic system.

Again, three wolves and a sheep voting over dinner.

edited 22nd May '12 9:44:49 AM by KingZeal

fanty: in most of Europe, it's not questioning the status quo that gets you in prison. Or even coming up with "dangerous" ideas. It's the use of any ideas to victimise others that gets you in prison by fundamentally threatening their human rights as determined by lawfully acknowledged bodies.

Unless the Court of Human Rights becomes really, really weird in the next three weeks and turns into an all-devouring monster, I'm not seeing how this objective (if stuffy, invasive, etc., etc.: yes, heard it all before) entity is... well... a bad thing. It doesn't have very many teeth, but it can highlight when a State is doing things that can well become bad things. And, brings it to attention of others.

edited 22nd May '12 9:42:42 AM by Euodiachloris

Citation Granted: The following quote from this Wikipedia article: "American abolitionism labored under the handicap that it was accused of threatening the harmony of North and South in the Union." Read through the Civil Rights movement sometime and see how they tried to outlaw "integration talk". Also look up Mc Carthy, Senator Joseph.

Touche.

I've been called worse by the fundies.

x 7

Thanks dude.

Citation Needed and Your Mileage May Vary

Medals awarded by the awsome goddess of wonder that is Euodiachloris require no citations, minion!

But, will you take a quick vote?

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:20:34 PM

Well Zeal, technically, it's you who keep doing the False Dichotomies and Slippery Slope Fallacies.

You say somebody shouldn't be allowed to say "Blacks are lazy". History shows that outlawing thoughts past 'you can't incite sedition' usually ends up badly, whether in the near or long term, with very little to show in the way of benefit.

Nowadays, people can and do say "blacks are lazy" all the time. Please show me where being allowed to say that is destabilizing society.

This is the thing: I don't get how you think I don't. It's hate speech I can't tolerate. Free is welcome and fun. Advocating bashing a gay or lesbian's brains in because they deserve it... uh, just because? Um... free to undermine another's freedom is a form of freedom I just can't accept. Now, tell me how you think it's a bad idea to be LGBT, and, well... that's opinion. Have at it.

What factual statements were these?

edited 22nd May '12 9:54:50 AM by Euodiachloris

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying, though. In fact, at risk of falling under my own Confirmation Bias, I'm seeing how that backs up my whole point.

There's no logical basis under which these things are being outlawed. For example, "threatening the harmony of North and South in the Union" is absolutely true, but it's not a logical argument, because it assumes that said harmony was a good thing. (The thing that actually DID end slavery, the American Civil War, literally ended North/South harmony). It's logic built upon popular conception and emotional fears rather than any empirical fact.

Another example would be the Reconstruction era. It was argued before the war that ending slavery would destroy the American social system because it had absolutely NO plan for what to do with black people. Even abolitionists, by and large, assumed there would be some sort of mass-migration back to Africa when slavery ended, but pro-slavery advocates knew that blacks would stay and pretty much be a disrupting factor in the socio-economic system.

The pro-slavery people were right. The Reconstruction era and the freed slaves completely destroyed the system as it existed, and we are still sorting out the problems freed slaves posed to this day. But them being right had nothing to do with the morality of slavery, and it had nothing to do with censorship. It was specifically about a completely fabricated, illogical, and prejudiced viewpoint that had infiltrated every single aspect of society and politics.

Only because the things being outlawed had proven validity. What I'm saying is that your viewpoint would be outlawed UNTIL it had validity. Then, you would be able to preach it from the mountaintops.

And this doesn't include things like "God exists". It would be for things like "You can heal arthritis with a blowtorch" or "Jewish people steal money".

Blacks are still hired far less than whites specifically because of that viewpoint.

edited 22nd May '12 9:59:54 AM by KingZeal

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:20:47 PM

I'm pretty sure that saying gays deserve to die is hate speech.

Eh? Incitement to violence is a part of hate speech and visa versa. It's because the line is hard to draw between them that the relationship is clear.

edited 22nd May '12 10:02:06 AM by Euodiachloris

Or for that matter, saying black people are animals (and thus don't deserve rights).

edited 22nd May '12 10:01:39 AM by KingZeal

Yes, but I'm trying to keep this at least tangentially related to the topic.

edited 22nd May '12 10:03:02 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Maxima is trying to point out is that opinions change over time. Abolitionism wasn't popular for a time, and the government didn't do anything to either protect that sort of talk or ban it. And we all know how that ended up eventually, it sorted itself out on its own, and it couldn't have happened without free speech.

Ideas change, and their popularity waxes and wanes with the fickle opinions of the people, which is exactly how it should be.

Using Zeals example of how you can't say that a blowtorch cures cancer or whatnot: I think that's perfectly acceptable to say, because it's idiotic. If you believe a blowtorch can cure cancer, then fuck it, light yourself up. The rest of us sane people will raise our eyebrows at the notion, and then forget about it 60 seconds later when we go back to our lives.

I'm a firm believer in society having the freedom to succeed or fail on its own merits. If you're telling other people to commit violence against others, yeah, intervention is needed. If you're spewing offensive nonsense, people will just stop listening to you.

If people do listen to something you think is offensive nonsense, then it isn't offensive nonsense to them.

Free speech is like the firearm, the great equalizer. Ideas can succeed or fail on their own merits, based on a group consensus, and that's how we shape our own society. I think this is absolutely, positively, how it should be. To a fucking fault. So long as you are not advocating taking away the rights of others or causing them harm, or deliberately sowing confusion, then take it away. And by sowing confusion I basically mean libel or slander, things that can be actually proven to be utterly false that harm the reputation of another person.

There's shades of grey here, and that's why with libel and slander, it isn't the governments job to enforce it. It's your job to go hire a lawyer and sue for damages if what people are saying or writing is not only false, but causing you some form of damage.

As an example: "I don't like muslims. I think their religion is hateful, deceitful, and a blight on the human landscape." This is acceptable. It's an opinion. It can't be proven to be wrong or right in any real regard, all you can do is look at events and make your own decision.

But.. "Muslims are hateful and deceitful mongrels, and it's our job as Americans to take them out before they do the same to us!" That could be interpreted to incite violence against Muslims. That's not ok.

The first quote is just ignorant and bigoted, the second one shows motivation or intent to cause harm.

Incitement to violence takes priority. Saying "I hate gays and lesbians, I hope they all die." is hateful, but it isn't an appeal to commit violence against them necessarily. Saying that people need to facilitate that position, that's inciting others to violence, which is dangerous.

edited 22nd May '12 10:12:52 AM by Barkey

And thus we see that certain rights are only available to those who can afford the better lawyer. And I think that's awful and needs to change.

edited 22nd May '12 10:14:33 AM by DrunkGirlfriend