Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why do you consistently come up with hypotheticals excusing homophobia instead of considering the effect on the targets? For someone who's a champion for gays according to all his gay mates, you seem to really be struggling.

Not at all. I’m just pointing out that there is a real world out there where the homosexual right not to be offended, which doesn’t actually exist, or to be discriminated against, which does exist, often comes with riders that are complicated, and that these sociology types who sit in Universities and public policy forums and seek to dictate to the rest of us their absolute versions of right and wrong seem not to understand the difficulties their endless stream of of new commandments creates for those of us that inhabit this real world.

And I never said I was a champion for gays. I just enjoy beers with those of them who are my mates.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Not at all.

You are though. You're coming up with scenarios where repeated, ongoing homophobic behaviour is somehow excusable or should be glossed over. What if theyre lonely, what if the police come down? At what point do you consider the impact on the targets?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's a deep thought process because these are 2 old blokes, without spouses, and with pretty much bugger all left in their not very long to go lives. You seem to want me to deliver them a life sentence of loneliness and exclusion based on entrenched behaviour and beliefs dating back 80 odd years. Interestingly, when I consulted the gay players regarding this they were stronger about retaining the old blokes than I was, for which I was grateful.

I think it's bullshit that an 80-something in sound mind can't unlearn bad habits.

I'm closing in alarmingly on that demographic myself, and I can still go out of my way to not use obnoxious expressions. You make them out to be lovable, if lonely, old rogues but there's every chance they're just being dickheads, because most people, when repeatedly reminded that a term they're using is obnoxious, will moderate their language. Poor example.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You are though. You're coming up with scenarios where repeated, ongoing homophobic behaviour is somehow excusable or should be glossed over. What if theyre lonely, what if the police come down? At what point do you consider the impact on the targets?

Because you are so determined to paint homosexuals as ongoing victims, and I am illustrating that it’s a complicated world out there, prejudice towards homosexuals will never entirely be wiped out, and we’ve reached a point where homosexuals would be better served to get on with life, enjoy their broad acceptance, and drop the victimhood.

You might have also noticed I was illustrating that there’s a broad range of groups out there who are suffering for one reason or another, through no fault of their own, and society owes it to them to work towards easing their pain as well.

All of these initiatives, well meaning though they might be, take from the collective energy of society to help their fellow human. And so it gets left to the state. And the state does a shit job of it.

So, in short, you’ve had a great run, now move on with life. And let society try to improve the lives of others.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think it's bullshit that an 80-something in sound mind can't unlearn bad habits.

I'm closing in alarmingly on that demographic myself, and I can still go out of my way to not use obnoxious expressions. You make them out to be lovable, if lonely, old rogues but there's every chance they're just being dickheads, because most people, when repeatedly reminded that a term they're using is obnoxious, will moderate their language. Poor example.

Right. So they’re dickheads. There are dickheads in all clubs. Do we throw them out for being dickheads?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Right. So they’re dickheads. There are dickheads in all clubs. Do we throw them out for being dickheads?

Up to you. I don't know your club. Most clubs have standards of what's acceptable behaviour, or they're not really clubs, are they?

You're making this like no-one has ever been banned from a club for what its members consider unacceptable behaviour. If your club thinks that repeatedly calling someone a ****ter after receiving numerous warnings is acceptable, then that probably explains why these two lovable old rogues are still there.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Up to you. I don't know your club. Most clubs have standards of what's acceptable behaviour, or they're not really clubs, are they?

You're making this like no-one has ever been banned from a club for what its members consider unacceptable behaviour. If your club thinks that repeatedly calling someone a ****ter after receiving numerous warnings is acceptable, then that probably explains why these two lovable old rogues are still there.

In their minds it has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the character of someone over cooking an injury. It’s a blurring of terms over years.

 

[Kapanis]

So who is on the Swans Float? LGBTI swans players, straight swans players supporting LGBTI people, swans supporters who are or aren't LGBTI, swans non playing employees who are or aren't LGBTI?

 

[Swansujelly]

Nic Newman and his brother are walk up starts. The leadership group, the coaches, CEO etc. a few sponsers, job done.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

In their minds it has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the character of someone over cooking an injury. It’s a blurring of terms over years.

Well if that's not a slur on gay people, that they're wimps and fakers, I don't know what is.

Whatever. I'm done. I'm not taking the side of some of the others you're arguing with here. I really don't have all that much invested in this subject. I'm only making two points - I think you're portraying this decision to enter a float in the mardi gras as unnecessarily combative, when in reality it's just a sensible community-minded act by a club with its finger on the pulse, to be seen taking part in a major event which these days has widespread community acceptance. Not everything is a battleground of ideas.

And secondly, what some people deride as political correctness is often simply common decency and good manners. I refuse to accept that people should be allowed to continue to use obnoxious terms because they're supposedly too old to change. Bullshit. Good manners are not age-specific.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Because you are so determined to paint homosexuals as ongoing victims, and I am illustrating that it’s a complicated world out there, prejudice towards homosexuals will never entirely be wiped out, and we’ve reached a point where homosexuals would be better served to get on with life, enjoy their broad acceptance, and drop the victimhood.

I think at this point there isn't much I could say to you, so I think I should just point out that a number of the comments you have made during this discussion, such as LGBTQI people being constant victims, having gay friends who make gay jokes, that community being oversensitive snowflakes when a complaint is made, and waving a flag making demands, are eerily similar to those made about indigenous Australians during the Goodes saga after his comments on racism.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think at this point there isn't much I could say to you, so I think I should just point out that a number of the comments you have made during this discussion, such as LGBTQI people being constant victims, having gay friends who make gay jokes, that community being oversensitive snowflakes when a complaint is made, and waving a flag making demands, are eerily similar to those made about indigenous Australians during the Goodes saga after his comments on racism.

And I guess if you cherry picked certain phrases, removed them entirely from the context in which they were made, listed them together as though they represented my argument, then conflated them with a recent episode of mass racial bullying which disgusted us all and hoped that those who read your comment didn’t go back to check the various contexts in which those phrases were used, then that would make you guilty of a fairly contemptible act of deceit designed to cause others to believe I am making an argument on behalf of bigotry.

And that would be dishonest, wouldn’t it. Are you dishonest?

 

[Kummerspeck]

, listed them together as though they represented my argument,

Your argument, as I've represented it, has been that you believe homophobia and the associated behaviour is almost non existent in football and that those who wish to discuss it or are affected by it in a way you deem as not sufficiently bigoted enough are, to use your words, perpetual victims, flag waving clowns (rainbow in this case), or hypersensitive. Which part of this is inaccurate?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Your argument, as I've represented it, has been that you believe homophobia and the associated behaviour is almost non existent in football and that those who wish to discuss it or are affected by it in a way you deem as not sufficiently bigoted enough are, to use your words, perpetual victims, flag waving clowns (rainbow in this case), or hypersensitive. Which part of this is inaccurate?

Pretty much all of it.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Pretty much all of it.

Oh okay, so you didn't say homophobia was almost non-existent and make multiple references to perpetual victimhood?

 

[BarneyBent]

That is actually 100% incorrect. Nor did it have anything to do with "giving equal rights to the gay community".

The vote had nothing to do with "homophobia". The question was precise.

Every person in this country regardless of sexuality has equal rights whether homosexual, transexual, heterosexual or any other prefixsexual (just dwell on the number of categories there are for a while for how laughable this all has become) and has had since around the year 2000 in absolute terms and much earlier in practical terms regardless of what think.

You cannot possibly know what the people who voted "no" where thinking? How can you imply around 40% of the people in this country are homophobic or that any type of hatred of homosexuals had anything to do with a no vote?

That is projection and ridiculous. Shameful actually.

There are a number of arguments against same sex marriage. I cannot think of a single one that does not either implicitly or explicitly discriminate against homosexuals. Can you please enlighten me as to what these non-discriminatory no voters were thinking?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Oh okay, so you didn't say homophobia was almost non-existent and make multiple references to perpetual victimhood?

No. I said homophobia was no longer prevalent (this is now the 5th time I have had to correct you on this. You can surely no longer claim that the difference between the two is "semantics"). I did make multiple references to perpetual victimhood.

And the question I am quoting bears no resemblance to your previous characterisations of what I have said.

 

[Kummerspeck]

No. I said homophobia was no longer prevalent (this is now the 5th time I have had to correct you on this.

What's the difference between almost non-existent and largely no longer existent?

4. It does seem that going to the footy now seems to necessarily include some sort of sermon from someone about something largely no longer existent.

I did make multiple references to perpetual victimhood.

And the question I am quoting bears no resemblance to your previous characterisations of what I have said.

Nah, I've been pretty consistent. Because you don't experience or observe homophobic abuse (or what you consider to be homophobic abuse), it's almost non existent. You even said when someone challenged you for evidence on that, you referenced yourself.

My line from the start has been that as someone who doesn't experience it, you're not in a position to comment on the prevalence of homophobia.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What's the difference between almost non-existent and largely no longer existent?

Nah, I've been pretty consistent. Because you don't experience or observe homophobic abuse (or what you consider to be homophobic abuse), it's almost non existent. You even said when someone challenged you for evidence on that, you referenced yourself.

My line from the start has been that as someone who doesn't experience it, you're not in a position to comment on the prevalence of homophobia.

Again, as explained to you, that was a more general comment about a range of issues. My specific comment relating to homophobia was that it was no longer prevalent. You have prevaricated all over this. First you said their was little difference in the meaning. Now you are dishonestly ignoring my specific opinion regarding homophobia which was expressed in the same post. You are deceitful.

You are right about consistent, insofar as you might be referring to your wilful misrepresentations of my position.

"Homophobia: a hear of homosexuals". I'm tipping the neither you nor I experience this fear. I certainly don't. Bigotry is a consequence of that fear. No. I don't experience bigotry. I used to witness it frequently in relation to homosexuals. I now witness it very rarely. And usually in relatively mild circumstances. This DOES NOT mean it is non-existent. What it does mean is that it has been reduced to a level below which it is unlikely to drop.

Your exclusion of groups from comment based on age, gender, and sexuality is bigoted.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Again, as explained to you, that was a more general comment about a range of issues.

Unless you're specifically excluding homophobia from that range of issues, then it doesn't really change.

. Now you are dishonestly ignoring my specific opinion regarding homophobia which was expressed in the same post. You are deceitful.

You're finally referring to your personal view as opinion, not fact. We're getting there.

"Homophobia: a hear of homosexuals". I'm tipping the neither you nor I experience this fear. I certainly don't. Bigotry is a consequence of that fear.

Homophobia covers a range of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours towards homosexuals.

I don't experience bigotry. I used to witness it frequently in relation to homosexuals. I now witness it very rarely. And usually in relatively mild circumstances. This DOES NOT mean it is non-existent. What it does mean is that it has been reduced to a level below which it is unlikely to drop.

Again, evidence that homophobia isn't likely to drop further that ISN'T just your experience as someone who hasn't experienced any level of homophobia directed at you?

Your exclusion of groups from comment based on age, gender, and sexuality is bigoted.

Who's excluding? You're free to comment, just recognise the value. You're shitting kittens at someone apparently misrepresenting you and what you believe, yet you're going on about something you don't and haven't lived through, dismissing examples that contradict it.

 

[kelpie_X]

Say I'm living in a cave. When?

Sorry. I'm not answering you. You confirmed my question in your very next post quoting Bruce. You're baiting the poster. And I will not contribute to your inflated post count

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Unless you're specifically excluding homophobia from that range of issues, then it doesn't really change.

You elected to take a general comment about a range of issues as your preferred characterisation of my opinion over a specific comment about homosexuality. Tell me seriously you are not addicted to victimhood. Seriously. You look at two comments, one general, and one specific, and choose the one that best makes me look a bigot. Can you not see a problem with that?

You're finally referring to your personal view as opinion, not fact. We're getting there.

Get stuffed.

Homophobia covers a range of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours towards homosexuals.

But it also has a specific meaning, defined by me very early in this conversation. A definition you have ignored. Why? Because you are desperate to be a victim.

Again, evidence that homophobia isn't likely to drop further that ISN'T just your experience as someone who hasn't experienced any level of homophobia directed at you?

Please tell me what information could possible be provided to the broader community that they don't already know that might change their minds on homosexuality. It's done. Ok? It's out there. The rest of the bigots ain't going to change. And Queens on a float in a parade certainly isn't going to change them. Nor are footballers. If you think they are, your experience of humanity is limited.

Who's excluding? You're free to comment, just recognise the value. You're shitting kittens at someone apparently misrepresenting you and what you believe, yet you're going on about something you don't and haven't lived through, dismissing examples that contradict it.

I'm shitting kittens because you have been deceitful about what I have said, and I find that offensive. But, I guess, what I, a white, hetero, old bloke finds offensive is of no consequence. Because I'm a white, hetero, old bloke. Are you beginning to see the hypocrisy here?

At the end of the day, you guys are equal. There's a bunch of people worse off than you. Every ounce of attention that you demand of the public discourse is attention not being given to others who are in worse shape for whatever reason. You have equality. You have means of reparation if you are discriminated against. Sadly, some are still not going to like you or your sexuality. Get over it. The world has some unpleasant characters in it. You wanted equality. Well now you have it.

Get on with your lives and celebrate that you don't live in some other countries.

 

[Kummerspeck]

You elected to take a general comment about a range of issues as your preferred characterisation of my opinion over a specific comment about homosexuality.

So did that comment specifically exclude homophobia or not? Again, unless you did, it's still a comment on homophobia.

Tell me seriously you are not addicted to victimhood. Seriously. You look at two comments, one general, and one specific, and choose the one that best makes me look a bigot. Can you not see a problem with that?

I looked at two comments which commented on homophobia and responded to them. At no point did I accuse you of being a bigot.

But it also has a specific meaning, defined by me very early in this conversation. A definition you have ignored. Why? Because you are desperate to be a victim.

Well, aside from the fact that you don't get to personally decide the definition of words (I'm sensing a theme in your world view here), it's also because no reasonable discussion on the topic of the position of LGBTQI people in society uses the definition of "being scared of homosexuals".

Please tell me what information could possible be provided to the broader community that they don't already know that might change their minds on homosexuality. It's done. Ok? It's out there. The rest of the bigots ain't going to change.

Lived experience, perhaps. You lived through a national election where every man and their dog had their say on the value of your relationship and whether it's worth recognising? Ever been called a ******, pillow biter or **** at every opportunity by opposition players or had players on your own team continually making jokes about the shower or soap? From speaking to my mates who're gay and played football, that shit grinds and builds up. What's worse is when they complained, it was all "just joking around", which is the kind of dismissive behaviour you exhibited earlier when you made your "oversensitive snowflakes" remark.

And Queens on a float in a parade certainly isn't going to change them. Nor are footballers. If you think they are, your experience of humanity is limited.

The float is the Swans engaging with the LGBTQI community, something which members of that community have said means something to them. Why you're ignoring this to dismiss it as queens on a float in a parade, I don't know.

At the end of the day, you guys are equal. There's a bunch of people worse off than you. Every ounce of attention that you demand of the public discourse is attention not being given to others who are in worse shape for whatever reason. You have equality. You have means of reparation if you are discriminated against. Sadly, some are still not going to like you or your sexuality. Get over it. The world has some unpleasant characters in it. You wanted equality. Well now you have it.

Get on with your lives and celebrate that you don't live in some other countries.

You've got to see the irony in a guy who'll argue for three days about his views on the experiences of gay people being respected saying that gay people should get over homophobic behaviour.

Again, "perpetual victimhood", "there are worse off people", "stop being offended", 'be grateful you don't live in other countries', all very similar to what was said about indigenous Australians during the Goodes saga.

This is all a ****ing huge showing from you, just because someone didn't accept your view on homophobia straight away.

 

[mtooler]

There are a number of arguments against same sex marriage. I cannot think of a single one that does not either implicitly or explicitly discriminate against homosexuals. Can you please enlighten me as to what these non-discriminatory no voters were thinking?

I voted no on faith based reasons based on what the Bible teaches. However I totally understand why people say it discriminates against gay relationships, as it does and speaks against them clearly. Im not a Christian that picks and chooses the politically correct scriptures and ignores the others. Other no voters may have done likewise along faith based reasons. To people who dont believe the Bible is truth it will look like discrimination however and I totally get that, but Im not apologetic for believing in what I believe to be God's word.

 

[Kapanis]

I voted no on faith based reasons based on what the Bible teaches. However I totally understand why people say it discriminates against gay relationships, as it does and speaks against them clearly. Im not a Christian that picks and chooses the politically correct scriptures and ignores the others. Other no voters may have done likewise along faith based reasons. To people who dont believe the Bible is truth it will look like discrimination however and I totally get that, but Im not apologetic for believing in what I believe to be God's word.

Just out of interest, do you go to the footy on a Sunday?