By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Now that the club has confirmed Morsy chose not to wear the armband, how do our LGBTQ fans feel about this? Like I say I would continue the interesting conversation we were having but that thread is locked.
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 22:43 - Dec 5 by Europablue
Honestly, there is a group of you guys including Mullet and a few other who don't respond to me in good faith. You enjoy your echo chamber a bit too much and your pile ons. You like to project that I am some kind of hateful troll. But, I do engage and I actually learn something from the people who are posting in good faith. You and your gang come across as ignorant and actually hateful in that some of you (not you to be fair) call me very unkind names. it's not constructive, but I support yours and their free speech.
You just changed the subject completely from attitudes towards homosexuality in the UK and now you talking about foreign countries and horrible things happening there that I find disgusting but have no influence on. What has any of that got to do with me? You seem to think you (and somehow me too) have way more influence and control over the world than you do. It is not healthy to get upset about all the horrible things that are happening around the world when you had nothing to do with it and have no way of solving it.
Unfortunately most of your comments are not in good faith nor intellectually honest. Which is why you get those reactions.
1
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 23:14 - Dec 5 with 1575 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 23:04 - Dec 5 by redrickstuhaart
Unfortunately most of your comments are not in good faith nor intellectually honest. Which is why you get those reactions.
My comments are meant in good faith, but not taken in good faith. I don't know what intellectually honest means. I think intellectually inconsistent is a fair criticism if you cite examples. You can tell when people are not engaging in good faith. It is when they are calling you names and saying something like you are spouting rubbish without giving examples. I think it's just virtue signaling and it demonstrates that either they do not have a cogent argument, or they are not able to form a cogent argument. For some people, the most offensive thing is not automatically agreeing with everything they said.
0
I'd be "extremely disappointed".... on 23:44 - Dec 5 with 1516 views
I'd be "extremely disappointed".... on 21:53 - Dec 5 by Europablue
I appreciate you making your points in good faith. It's not a nostalgic conception of tolerance, it's that only one that works. I understand how to legislate to respect people's rights, but how do you legislate that people respect a person? Are you going to prosecute people for being unkind to others? I can't see a way that doesn't become authoritarian. That's why I'm talking about the distinction between legal measures enforced by the state and how we choose to freely associate. If I go to restaurant and they are just rude to me I won't go there again. If I went to a business and I was racially abused or someone else was racially abused, I wouldn't give them my custom. If a friend crossed a line, I wouldn't be friends with them anymore. It doesn't upset me if someone views white people as inferior. They are entitled to hold a stupid view, it doesn't hurt me. If someone tells me that white people are not allowed to walk down a certain street and someone tries to enforce it, then I have a problem. What hurts me is if freedom of speech is suppressed because the whole of society is decayed. There only seems to tolerance of a minority speaking out about things. Muslims seem to be allowed to protest teaching children about homosexuality, but the government is considering to make Islamophobia illegal (Islamophobia basically means a dislike or criticism of Islam). Women should be able to freely express their concerns about the eroding of their rights. Even straight white men should have freedom of speech. I'm respecting Morsy's right to have his beliefs, I'm not respecting his beliefs. If we were having a chat in a pub I would probably disagree with some of his beliefs and agree with others. Some things might even make me dislike him. People in England think that we have freedom of speech, but we don't even understand what it involves and it only exists when you allow others to hold unpalatable views. Answer this question, what exactly are the definitive list of unpalatable views, and who decides what views you hold and how do you look into someone's mind and judge what they are thinking? So yes, you have to accept that some people are hateful and you can't control them. In the context of a football match you can ban people for inappropriate chanting, but you can't ban someone for looking disparagingly at a gay couple or something like that.
Much of that post is very random, and it doesn't particularly address my reply. I'm surprised you attempted to continue your argument to be honest; maybe a pile of randomness was the best avenue through which it could be continued.
You began in your previous post with the awkward suggestion that I don't understand the definition of a word that you seemingly do not understand yourself, despite quoting it to me. 'To tolerate' is not synonymous with 'to respect', it just isn't. If you've previously understood it to mean that then I've provided a small service tonight. It is about enduring, suffering, acceding to, allowing the existence of something, even if you dislike or disagree with or are disrespected on account of it.
The only one of us who is apparently attempting to legislate is you, and your conception fails to work for the very reason that we permit intolerance in a tolerant society. We accommodate disrespectful views, providing they do not stray into illegality, and there are tonnes of disrespectful, legal thoughts and beliefs available to you. We allow for others to not respect disrespectful views in return. Incidentally, you do not need to respect me as a person to be tolerant of me.
You've spent a lot of time talking about the right to offend tonight, and you have offended, and you have made disrespectful comments, which is often subjective, to answer your question, and yet you also attempt to dictate that tolerance requires that offensive, disrespectful views be respected. It doesn't.
Your respect of Morsy's right to hold his belief has been echoed dozens of times in this thread, incidentally, and I said as much myself many pages ago. I am very critical of the club's decision to not place the armband in better hands, and I'm critical of Morsy's inability to support inclusion, but I of course respect his right to refuse to wear the rainbow armband. You can't ban someone for looking disparagingly at a gay couple, you are right. Your sentence beginning 'people' is understood by many, I believe, but your train of thought appears quite muddled across the text.
Lastly, a less serious example of tolerance, in which respect of one's view is patently not required: the sincerest deeply held belief by a neighbour that the world is flat. Once you appreciate the importance with which they held their view, civility kicks in and you do not ridicule them for a belief that was understood to be wrong centuries ago, and which hopefully causes nobody harm, and you afford them the right to exist alongside their belief. Tolerance doesn't require you to now respect what is known to be absurd.*
*Just to provide closing thoughts on this conversation (I don't wish to distract from the thread by continuing with it, but naturally Europa is welcome to and I'd be fine to reply by PM if he would like further answers from me), it would also have been tolerant to rebut the neighbour's point of view, or to let them know that you don't personally respect it, but that you accept they're entitled to believe what they do. Lastly lastly, I haven't meant to suggest that tolerance is always the virtuous path. It's very possible for tolerance to be an awful position to take (slavery, suffrage movement, bullying, abuse etc., and what we perceive to be horrible views, which is why we tolerate intolerance in our best attempt at providing a tolerant society, even if that sentence sounds illogical - it is when society shuts down all perceived instances of intolerance that society loses the very thing it attempted to defend).
[Post edited 6 Dec 2024 0:43]
1
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 23:47 - Dec 5 with 1513 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 22:43 - Dec 5 by Europablue
Honestly, there is a group of you guys including Mullet and a few other who don't respond to me in good faith. You enjoy your echo chamber a bit too much and your pile ons. You like to project that I am some kind of hateful troll. But, I do engage and I actually learn something from the people who are posting in good faith. You and your gang come across as ignorant and actually hateful in that some of you (not you to be fair) call me very unkind names. it's not constructive, but I support yours and their free speech.
You just changed the subject completely from attitudes towards homosexuality in the UK and now you talking about foreign countries and horrible things happening there that I find disgusting but have no influence on. What has any of that got to do with me? You seem to think you (and somehow me too) have way more influence and control over the world than you do. It is not healthy to get upset about all the horrible things that are happening around the world when you had nothing to do with it and have no way of solving it.
I think you may have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure I'm in any sort of gang here, unless of course by gang you mean people with a different view to you? Regarding expanding the debate to the world stage, I don't see why you wouldn't agree it's a natural, and entirely relevant, progression of the conversation. If you or any other poster posts a comment I don't agree with, posting a comment expressing that is at the very heart of a healthy message board. The same goes for positive comments too. The problem here is of course that those who hold and post a contrary view to yourself are seemingly labled ignorant and only interested in a pile on. Myself, I thought the post I replied to initially was in poor taste and I also didn't like the way you dismissed the views of a gay poster, who arguably has more skin in this game than you, as "not representing all gay people". I'm not sure they thought they were, but I'd take what they say about their lived experience of being gay, rather than your anecdotes of your gay friends. I think you're way off the spirit of this thread. It's a thread of learning and challenging ones own views of this sensitive, yet fascinating thread. On your part I'm not sure I've seen even the slightest contrition or acceptance of other's views when they differ to yours. You seem to have to be right. I can't speak for anyone else or those in my imaginary gang, but for me, I simply don't like the way you engage here.
[Post edited 5 Dec 2024 23:49]
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
6
I'd be "extremely disappointed".... on 00:22 - Dec 6 with 1473 views
I'd be "extremely disappointed".... on 23:44 - Dec 5 by Vegtablue
Much of that post is very random, and it doesn't particularly address my reply. I'm surprised you attempted to continue your argument to be honest; maybe a pile of randomness was the best avenue through which it could be continued.
You began in your previous post with the awkward suggestion that I don't understand the definition of a word that you seemingly do not understand yourself, despite quoting it to me. 'To tolerate' is not synonymous with 'to respect', it just isn't. If you've previously understood it to mean that then I've provided a small service tonight. It is about enduring, suffering, acceding to, allowing the existence of something, even if you dislike or disagree with or are disrespected on account of it.
The only one of us who is apparently attempting to legislate is you, and your conception fails to work for the very reason that we permit intolerance in a tolerant society. We accommodate disrespectful views, providing they do not stray into illegality, and there are tonnes of disrespectful, legal thoughts and beliefs available to you. We allow for others to not respect disrespectful views in return. Incidentally, you do not need to respect me as a person to be tolerant of me.
You've spent a lot of time talking about the right to offend tonight, and you have offended, and you have made disrespectful comments, which is often subjective, to answer your question, and yet you also attempt to dictate that tolerance requires that offensive, disrespectful views be respected. It doesn't.
Your respect of Morsy's right to hold his belief has been echoed dozens of times in this thread, incidentally, and I said as much myself many pages ago. I am very critical of the club's decision to not place the armband in better hands, and I'm critical of Morsy's inability to support inclusion, but I of course respect his right to refuse to wear the rainbow armband. You can't ban someone for looking disparagingly at a gay couple, you are right. Your sentence beginning 'people' is understood by many, I believe, but your train of thought appears quite muddled across the text.
Lastly, a less serious example of tolerance, in which respect of one's view is patently not required: the sincerest deeply held belief by a neighbour that the world is flat. Once you appreciate the importance with which they held their view, civility kicks in and you do not ridicule them for a belief that was understood to be wrong centuries ago, and which hopefully causes nobody harm, and you afford them the right to exist alongside their belief. Tolerance doesn't require you to now respect what is known to be absurd.*
*Just to provide closing thoughts on this conversation (I don't wish to distract from the thread by continuing with it, but naturally Europa is welcome to and I'd be fine to reply by PM if he would like further answers from me), it would also have been tolerant to rebut the neighbour's point of view, or to let them know that you don't personally respect it, but that you accept they're entitled to believe what they do. Lastly lastly, I haven't meant to suggest that tolerance is always the virtuous path. It's very possible for tolerance to be an awful position to take (slavery, suffrage movement, bullying, abuse etc., and what we perceive to be horrible views, which is why we tolerate intolerance in our best attempt at providing a tolerant society, even if that sentence sounds illogical - it is when society shuts down all perceived instances of intolerance that society loses the very thing it attempted to defend).
[Post edited 6 Dec 2024 0:43]
Maybe I offended you by suggesting that you don't understand the meaning of words, but it's very arrogant to say "If you've previously understood it to mean that then I've provided a small service tonight". I had an idea of word the words meant, double-checked by googling the meaning of the word, then I provided you with that meaning. Then I went into detail about how there are two different meanings for the different words. You can look back for the exact definitions I provided. I assume that you don't dispute that there are two meanings for respect, one being more like acknowledge. You'd have to quote me exactly with what I said if you want to dispute my understanding, I can't accept your framing.
I don't know why we are on different wavelengths and we seem to be talking past each other. You don't think that I am responding to what you said and I feel like you are saying things that I agree with in a way that seems like you think I have an opposing view.
You said that "you have made disrespectful comments", maybe, but what I said was fairly tame and much less disrespectful than comments aimed at me. You'd have to elaborate if you think I've been offensive. I think a few people have been emotional and reactive. They have probably had bad experiences in the past and me being skeptical triggers them and reminds them of people who bullied them.
I think you should also be aware of how what some term inclusion is actually also exclusion. The thing that we all have in common is football, and when we have to pronounce a judgment on any issue it will have an exclusionary effect. I'm not a supporter of the LGBT+ political movement or any religion. What I feel strongly about is that in the public forum all voices should be heard in political discussion, but actually political discussion and pronouncements should sometimes stay out of something that people enjoy as escapism from everything else that is politicized. Changing the captain would have been making a value judgment. The club was right to issue the statement the way that they did. I certainly respect that the club has considered the issue and come to a reasonable conclusion that some might not agree with and I respect that they might involve themselves in initiatives I don't wholly agree with because I agree with the goal that they have even if I don't agree with the way they are going about it.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. I would only add that I am open to being proven wrong in my belief that the earth is round if there is compelling evidence otherwise, but I remain skeptical. I wouldn't place much weight on the neighbours views on flat earth and I would be more bothered about whether he makes a lot of noise or parks in my driveway.
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 00:34 - Dec 6 with 1460 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:32 - Dec 5 by redrickstuhaart
You really are slippery. And bright enough for it to be deliberate.
Its not about morsy showing tolerance by not commenting. Its about the message sent by not joining in, and whether that is compatible with being captain of a club which most of us hope is inclusive.
And then you deflect to farageish stuff about positive discrimination which simply usnt relevant.
[Post edited 5 Dec 2024 14:43]
Europa's gonna Europa
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 00:45 - Dec 6 with 1450 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 23:47 - Dec 5 by Whos_blue
I think you may have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure I'm in any sort of gang here, unless of course by gang you mean people with a different view to you? Regarding expanding the debate to the world stage, I don't see why you wouldn't agree it's a natural, and entirely relevant, progression of the conversation. If you or any other poster posts a comment I don't agree with, posting a comment expressing that is at the very heart of a healthy message board. The same goes for positive comments too. The problem here is of course that those who hold and post a contrary view to yourself are seemingly labled ignorant and only interested in a pile on. Myself, I thought the post I replied to initially was in poor taste and I also didn't like the way you dismissed the views of a gay poster, who arguably has more skin in this game than you, as "not representing all gay people". I'm not sure they thought they were, but I'd take what they say about their lived experience of being gay, rather than your anecdotes of your gay friends. I think you're way off the spirit of this thread. It's a thread of learning and challenging ones own views of this sensitive, yet fascinating thread. On your part I'm not sure I've seen even the slightest contrition or acceptance of other's views when they differ to yours. You seem to have to be right. I can't speak for anyone else or those in my imaginary gang, but for me, I simply don't like the way you engage here.
[Post edited 5 Dec 2024 23:49]
"I think you may have me confused with someone else." Maybe, if there is someone else with a similar profile picture. It did feel like you were part of the dogpile dismissing what I said without addressing any points. There are a few far left-wing people on here who won't tolerate any difference of opinion and who will bully anyone who has a different take on things. I apologize if I have you mistaken. There are of course plenty of people on the left or right of centre who will respectfully engage with others. There are so many expansions and tangents that the conversation can go into. I might have had an emotional response because the penguin dude was calling me vile and saying that I have no compassion for gay people basically because I didn't take what he said as gospel. At the time it felt like you were suggesting that I am denying that these horrible things are happening in other countries. I think it is a huge modern problem that we are too connected to the rest of the world and we are not built to process all the suffering in the world and as I don't have any influence on what happens, I'd rather not look into it. I think it is valid to limit the discussion to what things are like in the UK. Tolerance of gay people is better than it's ever been, the way people talk makes it sound like it is a problem that is only getting worse. "lived experience" is a nonsensical buzzword I think he actually meant personal experience. What my gay friends told me is also from their personal experience and is valid. It isn't me hetro-splaining or whatever.
"I think you're way off the spirit of this thread. It's a thread of learning and challenging ones own views of this sensitive, yet fascinating thread." That is what I am doing, I'm listening and challenging my views, I have mirrored the respect and compassion that has been shown to me. "On your part I'm not sure I've seen even the slightest contrition or acceptance of other's views when they differ to yours." I accept that they have their views, I respect they have their right to their views, but their views don't automatically trump the views I have formed by listening to many people. I'm open to them influencing my ideas, but they have to show respect to me too. "I simply don't like the way you engage here" I respect your candour and I like the straight talking.
I'd be "extremely disappointed".... on 00:22 - Dec 6 by Europablue
Maybe I offended you by suggesting that you don't understand the meaning of words, but it's very arrogant to say "If you've previously understood it to mean that then I've provided a small service tonight". I had an idea of word the words meant, double-checked by googling the meaning of the word, then I provided you with that meaning. Then I went into detail about how there are two different meanings for the different words. You can look back for the exact definitions I provided. I assume that you don't dispute that there are two meanings for respect, one being more like acknowledge. You'd have to quote me exactly with what I said if you want to dispute my understanding, I can't accept your framing.
I don't know why we are on different wavelengths and we seem to be talking past each other. You don't think that I am responding to what you said and I feel like you are saying things that I agree with in a way that seems like you think I have an opposing view.
You said that "you have made disrespectful comments", maybe, but what I said was fairly tame and much less disrespectful than comments aimed at me. You'd have to elaborate if you think I've been offensive. I think a few people have been emotional and reactive. They have probably had bad experiences in the past and me being skeptical triggers them and reminds them of people who bullied them.
I think you should also be aware of how what some term inclusion is actually also exclusion. The thing that we all have in common is football, and when we have to pronounce a judgment on any issue it will have an exclusionary effect. I'm not a supporter of the LGBT+ political movement or any religion. What I feel strongly about is that in the public forum all voices should be heard in political discussion, but actually political discussion and pronouncements should sometimes stay out of something that people enjoy as escapism from everything else that is politicized. Changing the captain would have been making a value judgment. The club was right to issue the statement the way that they did. I certainly respect that the club has considered the issue and come to a reasonable conclusion that some might not agree with and I respect that they might involve themselves in initiatives I don't wholly agree with because I agree with the goal that they have even if I don't agree with the way they are going about it.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. I would only add that I am open to being proven wrong in my belief that the earth is round if there is compelling evidence otherwise, but I remain skeptical. I wouldn't place much weight on the neighbours views on flat earth and I would be more bothered about whether he makes a lot of noise or parks in my driveway.
Fair enough, I'll reply to your 'arrogance' point here. You wrote:
"We used to have something called tolerance. The idea is that you don't have to like something, but you do have to respect it."
I replied, arguing that is not the accepted understanding of tolerance. Tolerance does not require respect. You then replied:
"From what you have said I don't think you understand what tolerance means. It is "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with""
And then you continued to elaborate on the dictionary definitions for respect, and why you believe respect is a necessary component. Since then you have appeared to agree with my alternative view mostly, but you included the sentence which defended your original position, quoted at the top of this post, which made it strike and odd tone. There was a lot of stuff that wasn't strictly relevant to our personal chat which is fine, and then one sentence claiming that your original interpretation is the only correct one. I offer you the floor for a closing comment if you wish and must work on my recent insomnia!
2
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 01:41 - Dec 6 with 1378 views
The really sad thing is that 35 pages later people that aren’t LGBTQIA+ are telling people that are that they should be more tolerant of intolerance towards them, that they should accept that they will not be accepted, that they should stay quiet and not ask for a small gesture of equality.
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 01:41 - Dec 6 by NewcyBlue
The really sad thing is that 35 pages later people that aren’t LGBTQIA+ are telling people that are that they should be more tolerant of intolerance towards them, that they should accept that they will not be accepted, that they should stay quiet and not ask for a small gesture of equality.
That really quite saddens me.
Only a minority though - and though that's still too many, take heart from the majority being supportive + at least four saying they've shifted position, understand things better as a result of the contributions to the thread of posters who are LGBTQIA+.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and the tide's moving in the right direction.
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 10:03 - Dec 5 by Jimmy86
You are aware there are 2 different scenarios here right?
1. You are born gay, or bi-sexual
2. Through life you can turn gay, or bi-sexual..
I speak from personal experience here, as after 6 years of being with my son's mother, she left me for a woman, whom she had a steady 4 year relationship with... She then split with her and has since had 2 male partners.
I genuinely believe that she "turned" gay or bi-sexual, as she wasn't originally either of those things when I began a relationship with her.
She didn’t “turn” bro JFC
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
I'd be "extremely disappointed".... on 01:04 - Dec 6 by Vegtablue
Fair enough, I'll reply to your 'arrogance' point here. You wrote:
"We used to have something called tolerance. The idea is that you don't have to like something, but you do have to respect it."
I replied, arguing that is not the accepted understanding of tolerance. Tolerance does not require respect. You then replied:
"From what you have said I don't think you understand what tolerance means. It is "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with""
And then you continued to elaborate on the dictionary definitions for respect, and why you believe respect is a necessary component. Since then you have appeared to agree with my alternative view mostly, but you included the sentence which defended your original position, quoted at the top of this post, which made it strike and odd tone. There was a lot of stuff that wasn't strictly relevant to our personal chat which is fine, and then one sentence claiming that your original interpretation is the only correct one. I offer you the floor for a closing comment if you wish and must work on my recent insomnia!
I'm smiling when I read your response, so I hope that tone comes through. I enjoyed this interaction and I appreciated you responding to what I said and making relevant points. I surely do go on some tangents, which kindly would be termed off topic, but some others unkindly refer to it as nonsense or rubbish.
I think in general and maybe in our case there is a lot of arguing over a topic that both people are on the same page about, but somehow take opposing sides on. You weren't mistaken in thinking that I mostly agree with you. Maybe we are just splitting hairs and sometimes how the second person characterizes the first person's argument is often how the second person continues to understand their argument, but that is like photocopying a photocopy. Added into that, it's very difficult to keep track of exactly who one is responding to and tones get mixed up too. This is the last I'll say on this because we're not getting any younger. Respecting someone's rights is like respecting someone's privacy. Tolerate is not a synonym, but it gets pretty close. It would be arrogant to say that I'm tolerating your rights because your rights are inherent, they are not granted by me or any government, so I can't say that I am allowing you your rights. I am at the same time respecting your rights and not challenging your rights and not infringing on your rights. There are definitely two distinct uses of respect one for people you admire and one often for someone you do not like or are neutral on. If I venture onto a thread again, hopefully we cross paths!
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 08:43 - Dec 6 with 1105 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 01:41 - Dec 6 by NewcyBlue
The really sad thing is that 35 pages later people that aren’t LGBTQIA+ are telling people that are that they should be more tolerant of intolerance towards them, that they should accept that they will not be accepted, that they should stay quiet and not ask for a small gesture of equality.
That really quite saddens me.
I think at this stage there are 35 pages on this topic. I didn't read many of the first 30 pages of comments. You mentioned the 35th page, so based on the the last two pages or so it sounds like you are commenting about me. If not then I apologize, but if you are then you have misrepresented my argument. I never advocated for anyone staying quiet, that would be offensively hypocritical of me. In fact I think you should exercise your right to free speech to the extent that you wish to and you certainly should not be silenced. To get through life you do have to accept that there are going to be people who are intolerant of you and it makes no sense to burden yourself fighting an unwinnable war. Yes, everyone should make peace with the fact that some people won't accept them. I have a biracial daughter, I'm sure some people think that is disgusting and immoral. I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with them. I even think they have some valid arguments like it is difficult to maintain a culture if parents have vastly different cultures. My counterpoint is that I'm not trying to maintain all the culture I was brought up in, and the world doesn't really belong to me anymore, it is there for children to find their way and build on the wisdom that we can pass on. We have expanded very far from the inciting incident. My key point is that we have to respect the right of a person to have freedom of thought, and freedom of expression and in Morsy's case freedom of conscience. If we didn't have free speech, gay rights would never have progressed this far and generally people intolerant of their lifestyle were tolerant of their freedom of expression (there certainly was a lot of violence and abuse, but our society has always been more tolerant than totalitarian societies). The key to free speech is to support opinions that you disagree with to be expressed, then you counter those opinions with more speech. Not singling out a particular group for criticism or praise is a proper display of equality.
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 08:51 - Dec 6 with 1086 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:59 - Dec 5 by lowhouseblue
[trigger warning - this post is discussing uk political culture because it interests me, please do not assume that the views critiqued are my views in any simple way.]
good and passionate post and i agree with it. all the evidence is that the uk as a whole is now positive / supportive / accepting about homosexuality. polls show a huge majority, 85% or more, saying so. we should celebrate that degree os consensus on such an important issue. but that leaves a small minority whose attitude is stuck in the 1970s. it's certainly safe to assume that that minority is sadly over-represented in some sections of football supporters. i'd be surprised however if you took a portman road home crowd as a whole if you'd be far off the national average.
but there is something else going on in the uk (and definitely the us) which is different, and which, while it definitely overlaps with outdated views on lgbt issues, is also separate from them. your 'do they have to shove it down our throats 24/7' rather gets to it. there is a more widespread cultural / political view in the uk, held by much more than the 15% who seem unaccepting of differences in sexuality, that they are being lectured to about cultural questions more broadly in a condescending manner. people see it as a unrepresentative and privileged elite with a political agenda lecturing them and seeking to control them on cultural issues. they see much of the media as being the vehicle for this along with various public sector initiatives and events and campaigns and gesture. lots of people feel alienated by this and as a result turn their backs on it all - to an extent with this group the messaging has become counter productive not only because people have stopped listening but because they see it as divisive and manipulative. part of the response to things like arm bands isn't a kick back about equality or inclusivity it's a much broader rejection of what they see as being manipulated.
you may say, these people are just bad and wrong. (i'm sure what someone will say that what i have set out is actually my own view - see trigger warning). but you can't understand populism in the uk (which in its broadest sense includes much more than the backward 15% above) without looking at this, and you definitely can't understand trumps victory in the us in which a rejection of the democrat's cultural stance and the belief that people were being manipulated by a controlling elite seems absolutely central.
That's a very fair post highlighting the fact that there are a lot of people who will not support an LGBT initiative, but they don't have any ill intent towards gay people, in fact they probably have gay friends and family members. There are plenty of gay people who hate LGBT campaigns, my close friend who happens to be gay has heavily influenced my views on the matter. people should not be like George W Bush and say you either agree entirely and have to go to war with me, or you are against me.
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:01 - Dec 6 with 1055 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 08:43 - Dec 6 by Europablue
I think at this stage there are 35 pages on this topic. I didn't read many of the first 30 pages of comments. You mentioned the 35th page, so based on the the last two pages or so it sounds like you are commenting about me. If not then I apologize, but if you are then you have misrepresented my argument. I never advocated for anyone staying quiet, that would be offensively hypocritical of me. In fact I think you should exercise your right to free speech to the extent that you wish to and you certainly should not be silenced. To get through life you do have to accept that there are going to be people who are intolerant of you and it makes no sense to burden yourself fighting an unwinnable war. Yes, everyone should make peace with the fact that some people won't accept them. I have a biracial daughter, I'm sure some people think that is disgusting and immoral. I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with them. I even think they have some valid arguments like it is difficult to maintain a culture if parents have vastly different cultures. My counterpoint is that I'm not trying to maintain all the culture I was brought up in, and the world doesn't really belong to me anymore, it is there for children to find their way and build on the wisdom that we can pass on. We have expanded very far from the inciting incident. My key point is that we have to respect the right of a person to have freedom of thought, and freedom of expression and in Morsy's case freedom of conscience. If we didn't have free speech, gay rights would never have progressed this far and generally people intolerant of their lifestyle were tolerant of their freedom of expression (there certainly was a lot of violence and abuse, but our society has always been more tolerant than totalitarian societies). The key to free speech is to support opinions that you disagree with to be expressed, then you counter those opinions with more speech. Not singling out a particular group for criticism or praise is a proper display of equality.
That essentially means you should accept all viewpoints, not challenge prejudice, not stand up for those oppressed, and not try to make the world a more tolerant place moving forwards, because you won’t win. That doesn’t sit right with me in any way, and I’m assuming it’s the same for the numerous posters who have pushed back against you. That’s the key point you’re missing.
Extreme example (not hyperbole though). Should people not have stood up to Hitler? Was that fighting an ‘unwinnable war” to use your words? That’s a genuine question. I’m assuming your answer will be “the world was right to fight the Nazis”, so why should fighting homophobia and those who wish to cause harm/discredit the community be any different?
[Post edited 6 Dec 2024 9:10]
Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:10 - Dec 6 with 1005 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 10:03 - Dec 5 by Jimmy86
You are aware there are 2 different scenarios here right?
1. You are born gay, or bi-sexual
2. Through life you can turn gay, or bi-sexual..
I speak from personal experience here, as after 6 years of being with my son's mother, she left me for a woman, whom she had a steady 4 year relationship with... She then split with her and has since had 2 male partners.
I genuinely believe that she "turned" gay or bi-sexual, as she wasn't originally either of those things when I began a relationship with her.
First, I'm sorry to hear that. I appreciate you sharing your comment. Experiences definitely colour our understanding of the world. I can totally understand that if you were told by your partner that she was leaving you for a woman and she justified it that way (for some reason cheating is socially acceptable if it's with someone of the same sex), then you would have the understanding that you can turn gay, because you have first hand experience of someone telling you that. From what you say it sounds like she is bisexual, it's not entirely obvious that someone is bisexual if they are in a couple with someone of the opposite sex. She may have been confused, but that doesn't alter that she has treated you badly and told you something that is not true and frankly has been duplicitous. I hope you have moved on in a positive way.
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:20 - Dec 6 with 966 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:01 - Dec 6 by Swailsey
That essentially means you should accept all viewpoints, not challenge prejudice, not stand up for those oppressed, and not try to make the world a more tolerant place moving forwards, because you won’t win. That doesn’t sit right with me in any way, and I’m assuming it’s the same for the numerous posters who have pushed back against you. That’s the key point you’re missing.
Extreme example (not hyperbole though). Should people not have stood up to Hitler? Was that fighting an ‘unwinnable war” to use your words? That’s a genuine question. I’m assuming your answer will be “the world was right to fight the Nazis”, so why should fighting homophobia and those who wish to cause harm/discredit the community be any different?
[Post edited 6 Dec 2024 9:10]
didn't he cover that with: "The key to free speech is to support opinions that you disagree with to be expressed, then you counter those opinions with more speech."? not the fighting a war aspect of course, but the challenging prejudice and standing up for the oppressed?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
1
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:26 - Dec 6 with 938 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:01 - Dec 6 by Swailsey
That essentially means you should accept all viewpoints, not challenge prejudice, not stand up for those oppressed, and not try to make the world a more tolerant place moving forwards, because you won’t win. That doesn’t sit right with me in any way, and I’m assuming it’s the same for the numerous posters who have pushed back against you. That’s the key point you’re missing.
Extreme example (not hyperbole though). Should people not have stood up to Hitler? Was that fighting an ‘unwinnable war” to use your words? That’s a genuine question. I’m assuming your answer will be “the world was right to fight the Nazis”, so why should fighting homophobia and those who wish to cause harm/discredit the community be any different?
[Post edited 6 Dec 2024 9:10]
Don't look at a differing opinion like the one I expressed as an opposing view. Look at it as more of a spectrum. Some people have call me vile for disagreeing with them. To them you are either totally onboard or you are an enemy. It's more of a case that you have to start by accepting that you can't hope to change everyone's minds and hearts. That is the unwinnable war. If you accept that then you can be in a healthy place to challenge prejudice. If 95% of people agree with you, you should not blow the 5% out of proportion and give them oxygen. I don't know how you can expect people to be more tolerant of your views if you won't be tolerate them expressing their opinions (they can express their views and take the social costs involved with expressing those views and deal with the response of more free speech from the opposing side).
Maybe this will surprise you, but I would say that each person would have to search their own conscience to decide whether they could take the personal risk to stand against Hitler. I don't think I would have lasted one minute in Nazi Germany, I can't stand totalitarianism. I certainly respect countries not thinking that they should get involved.
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:31 - Dec 6 with 903 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:26 - Dec 6 by Europablue
Don't look at a differing opinion like the one I expressed as an opposing view. Look at it as more of a spectrum. Some people have call me vile for disagreeing with them. To them you are either totally onboard or you are an enemy. It's more of a case that you have to start by accepting that you can't hope to change everyone's minds and hearts. That is the unwinnable war. If you accept that then you can be in a healthy place to challenge prejudice. If 95% of people agree with you, you should not blow the 5% out of proportion and give them oxygen. I don't know how you can expect people to be more tolerant of your views if you won't be tolerate them expressing their opinions (they can express their views and take the social costs involved with expressing those views and deal with the response of more free speech from the opposing side).
Maybe this will surprise you, but I would say that each person would have to search their own conscience to decide whether they could take the personal risk to stand against Hitler. I don't think I would have lasted one minute in Nazi Germany, I can't stand totalitarianism. I certainly respect countries not thinking that they should get involved.
In your opinion, was the world ‘correct’ in fighting the Nazis? It’s a really simple question. Ethically was it the correct thing to do.
Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA
0
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:50 - Dec 6 with 833 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 08:43 - Dec 6 by Europablue
I think at this stage there are 35 pages on this topic. I didn't read many of the first 30 pages of comments. You mentioned the 35th page, so based on the the last two pages or so it sounds like you are commenting about me. If not then I apologize, but if you are then you have misrepresented my argument. I never advocated for anyone staying quiet, that would be offensively hypocritical of me. In fact I think you should exercise your right to free speech to the extent that you wish to and you certainly should not be silenced. To get through life you do have to accept that there are going to be people who are intolerant of you and it makes no sense to burden yourself fighting an unwinnable war. Yes, everyone should make peace with the fact that some people won't accept them. I have a biracial daughter, I'm sure some people think that is disgusting and immoral. I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with them. I even think they have some valid arguments like it is difficult to maintain a culture if parents have vastly different cultures. My counterpoint is that I'm not trying to maintain all the culture I was brought up in, and the world doesn't really belong to me anymore, it is there for children to find their way and build on the wisdom that we can pass on. We have expanded very far from the inciting incident. My key point is that we have to respect the right of a person to have freedom of thought, and freedom of expression and in Morsy's case freedom of conscience. If we didn't have free speech, gay rights would never have progressed this far and generally people intolerant of their lifestyle were tolerant of their freedom of expression (there certainly was a lot of violence and abuse, but our society has always been more tolerant than totalitarian societies). The key to free speech is to support opinions that you disagree with to be expressed, then you counter those opinions with more speech. Not singling out a particular group for criticism or praise is a proper display of equality.
"My key point is that we have to respect the right of a person to have freedom of thought, and freedom of expression and in Morsy's case freedom of conscience."
You have expressed this sentiment on more than one occasion but you appear to be tilting at windmills because I am not aware of anyone on this thread disputing this point.
1
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 10:01 - Dec 6 with 784 views
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:10 - Dec 6 by Europablue
First, I'm sorry to hear that. I appreciate you sharing your comment. Experiences definitely colour our understanding of the world. I can totally understand that if you were told by your partner that she was leaving you for a woman and she justified it that way (for some reason cheating is socially acceptable if it's with someone of the same sex), then you would have the understanding that you can turn gay, because you have first hand experience of someone telling you that. From what you say it sounds like she is bisexual, it's not entirely obvious that someone is bisexual if they are in a couple with someone of the opposite sex. She may have been confused, but that doesn't alter that she has treated you badly and told you something that is not true and frankly has been duplicitous. I hope you have moved on in a positive way.
The assumption that it is acceptable for cheating with a person of the same sex is not correct, it is still wrong to cheat. Your reply suggests that the wife cheated during the first relationship but he never said his wife began a same sex relationship after his relationship or whether cheating was involved. She later had further relationships, which straight people find acceptable. You hear of people having multiple relationships all the time, of any sexuality.
By the sounds of it, the female in question perhaps grew up in a society where being lesbian is wrong. There’s no reason to say she didn’t love her husband during their relationship just because her future relationship was with a female. Would you say that she left the future female due to cheating without further knowledge?
My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 09:31 - Dec 6 by Swailsey
In your opinion, was the world ‘correct’ in fighting the Nazis? It’s a really simple question. Ethically was it the correct thing to do.
Where are you going with this asking me to explicitly agree to fighting the Nazis? Yes, I think it was right to not only fight the Nazis, but to prioritize fighting the Nazis. The best thing about the Nazis was that we recognized and dealt with the threat. There is the ethical concern of killing innocent soldiers and the inevitable deaths on your own side when you enter a war, so you can see why in the context appeasement was followed. Homophobia and Nazis are a very bad equivalence.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
