Good. You've now made me feel better. You can give yourself a gold star and a pat on the back.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Good. You've now made me feel better. You can give yourself a gold star and a pat on the back.
Just to be clear. I am a pretty old fashioned type. I hold doors open for everyone. I acknowledge anyone that acknowledges me. Last week the bus was full and I grabbed my son's hand so we could stand up to let an old couple getting on have a seat.
A couple of months ago an old woman who felt faint getting on the bus but stoical (as a lot of us are) refused to have an ambulance called insisting he was alright and her son was at her home to look after her. Several people helped her on the bus and several people were concerned for her and looking after her. They asked her where she lived which was not that far from me and then asked if anyone in the bus lived near there. I stayed silent for a while because being on the ASD spectrum people and strangers are very hard for me to deal with like most people find natural but I plucked up the courage and put my hand up (not speaking because that would've been a burbled mess.) I didn't want to because apart from the awkward uncomfortableness of this kind of situation for me I also was on a schedule (refer to ASD) and had my time planned to get home, unload bag, go to somewhere else.
So I got off at 2 stop earlier than my house and with another woman who also lived reasonably close we walked her home away from my house. Only about 5 minutes walk but meant it would set me back about 30 minutes + any waiting time at her house.
I am naturally charitable if you can call general politeness that everyone should have as charity. but if a situation comes up and I have to choose family over someone else it will always be family. If I had to choose between saving one of my children or saving a stranger the answer is quite obvious. Maybe not so obvious if it is a choice between saving myself or saving my child because I am pretty sure that "No1" would become irrelevant in that situation and it would not be something I would have to think about after the event because I would have made that split decision and my own life would have finished.
Both Looking after your own AND caring about all humans are compatible with each other and my point on BLM and Owen Jones is not a denial that what they say is wrong. It is that they insist on ot being about their cause to the exclusion of others. They are not happy to make a point that their community is the one that is targetted. They have to insist it is all about their cause to the exclusion of any other. It is a projection that this is not an overall problem. It is an attack on "me" not them. Stop stealing the rights to this event. It is all about me.
While I am totally in agreement that this was an attack on the LGBT community and that there is undoubtedly a problem with how police deal with black issues in America it is the way that activists these days are more concerned about claiming tragedies and "owning" them for their cause than actually looking at the wider viewpoint.
Owen Jones was not bothered about what really happened. HE was so consumed with the other people not devoting the "rights" to the tragedy to his cause that he stormed off. No-one was denying that it was an attack on a gay club. It obviously was but it was also a terrorist attack and no doubt has much wider reasoning as well as to why something happened. It is this constant "ownership" of tragedies that is the problem here because it becomes nothing to do with humanity. It becomes a vehicle for certain people and organisations to utilise to drive their own personal agenda and they lose sight of the real human issue at hand because all they seem to care about is what this means to "me."
A couple of months ago an old woman who felt faint getting on the bus but stoical (as a lot of us are) refused to have an ambulance called insisting he was alright and her son was at her home to look after her. Several people helped her on the bus and several people were concerned for her and looking after her. They asked her where she lived which was not that far from me and then asked if anyone in the bus lived near there. I stayed silent for a while because being on the ASD spectrum people and strangers are very hard for me to deal with like most people find natural but I plucked up the courage and put my hand up (not speaking because that would've been a burbled mess.) I didn't want to because apart from the awkward uncomfortableness of this kind of situation for me I also was on a schedule (refer to ASD) and had my time planned to get home, unload bag, go to somewhere else.
So I got off at 2 stop earlier than my house and with another woman who also lived reasonably close we walked her home away from my house. Only about 5 minutes walk but meant it would set me back about 30 minutes + any waiting time at her house.
I am naturally charitable if you can call general politeness that everyone should have as charity. but if a situation comes up and I have to choose family over someone else it will always be family. If I had to choose between saving one of my children or saving a stranger the answer is quite obvious. Maybe not so obvious if it is a choice between saving myself or saving my child because I am pretty sure that "No1" would become irrelevant in that situation and it would not be something I would have to think about after the event because I would have made that split decision and my own life would have finished.
Both Looking after your own AND caring about all humans are compatible with each other and my point on BLM and Owen Jones is not a denial that what they say is wrong. It is that they insist on ot being about their cause to the exclusion of others. They are not happy to make a point that their community is the one that is targetted. They have to insist it is all about their cause to the exclusion of any other. It is a projection that this is not an overall problem. It is an attack on "me" not them. Stop stealing the rights to this event. It is all about me.
While I am totally in agreement that this was an attack on the LGBT community and that there is undoubtedly a problem with how police deal with black issues in America it is the way that activists these days are more concerned about claiming tragedies and "owning" them for their cause than actually looking at the wider viewpoint.
Owen Jones was not bothered about what really happened. HE was so consumed with the other people not devoting the "rights" to the tragedy to his cause that he stormed off. No-one was denying that it was an attack on a gay club. It obviously was but it was also a terrorist attack and no doubt has much wider reasoning as well as to why something happened. It is this constant "ownership" of tragedies that is the problem here because it becomes nothing to do with humanity. It becomes a vehicle for certain people and organisations to utilise to drive their own personal agenda and they lose sight of the real human issue at hand because all they seem to care about is what this means to "me."
The other problem with immediately saying "This is a racist/homophobic/terrorist attack." is that your assumptions may prove false. Remember the "You ain't no muslim bruv" terrorist attack? Well it wasn't a terrorist attack at all. The guy did read up on ISIS but he wasn't linked with them in any real way and the attack pretty much happened because he had serious mental health problems. He's now in Broadmoor.
It is this insatiable lack of any consideration for the wider aspect that I am meaning. People died and there is going to be trouble but for Chris Bryant it is just an excuse to blame it all on Brexit.
You must log in or register to see media
I can agree with that people shouldn't jump to conclusions. If the Sky people had the stance of "We don't know yet if this was truly an Islamic extremist attack, or if it was a homophobic attack or neither" that would have been fine.
But the reason Sky appeared not to want to discuss it was because they had already come to the conclusion it was an Islamic terrorist attack. And because it was an Islamic terrorist attack, it could not possibly have been homophobic. When it could just as easily have been both, or neither.
So the reason why I somewhat side with Jones is because he was saying it was both. Whereas the Sky dude was insisting it was just Islamic terrorism, despite there being plenty of evidence that homophobia might have played a role.
But that's not a big deal. Walking off the set because your theory is different than someone else's theory is an over-reaction and rather baby-ish.
I think where it went off the rails was when Jones was saying that it was the worst attack against gays... and dude cut him off before he could finish. And then claimed it wasn't worse than Paris and that Jones was trying to "own" the attack.
I think it's in incredibly poor taste to try to compare tragedies when they are fresh. Could you imagine if, after the London bombings a British person had come on US Fox News and said "This is a horrible attack on London..." "It's not worse than 9/11, don't be a baby!"
And then he doubled down by accusing Jones of trying to "own" the attack. That's a rather harsh, and disgusting accusation. You are accusing someone on national television of personally trying to profit from a horrible tragedy.
That would have made me absolutely furious as well. At that point, I kind of find it hard to blame him for walking off the set.
The Sky lady, I thought she was okay. Mostly just trying to make peace, but the situation was already out of hand and awkward so she didn't do a very good job and probably ended up making it worse.
I'm sorry but you defend Jones for saying it was the worst attack on gays and immediately follow it up with "I think it's in incredibly poor taste to try to compare tragedies when they are fresh."
So Jones compared it. We are done. We all know it was an attack on a gay community and we all know it was done with Islamist intentions. Doesn't need people fighting for the rights. It was an attack against everyone and the target was LGBT because that is one of the key targets of Islamism. There is no ownership and that was the point the arrogant (but correct in his assessment of Jones) Sky chap was making.
But Jones wasn't making a comparison between specific events. If he says it was the worst attack on gays and you disagree, okay fine. Just keep your mouth shut. If you feel like you must say something just say "Maybe it's not the time to try to compare tragedies" and leave it at that. It's not the time to get into an argument about it.
And Jones specifically said "on the LGBT community" so by mentioning Paris you are putting an ugly slant on the thing by making the implication that Jones is implying that gay people should count more or something. And when Jones tried to make that distinction, he got slammed again.
We know it was an attack on a gay community, whether that was the specific motive or not. We don't know if it was done with Islamist intentions but I would argue it needs to be discussed. Why is it that you can mention one aspect of the crime and not the other?
I believe this was TSS's point. Two people can see the same incident and focus on different aspects of it and neither side is being unreasonable. Black Lives Matter AND All Lives Matter are not inherently contradictory. The Orlando attack being against gays AND being an Islamist attack is not inherently contradictory. The degree to which you attempt to balance everything and interpret the situation is understandably likely to lead to heated debate.
Reasonable minds can disagree (and I do) that there is a systemic problem with racism in the police force. Or that Mateen was specifically targeting gays as a motive. But it's another step to take that off the table as a discussion topic entirely and to accuse anyone who broaches the topic of ill-intent.
And Jones specifically said "on the LGBT community" so by mentioning Paris you are putting an ugly slant on the thing by making the implication that Jones is implying that gay people should count more or something. And when Jones tried to make that distinction, he got slammed again.
We know it was an attack on a gay community, whether that was the specific motive or not. We don't know if it was done with Islamist intentions but I would argue it needs to be discussed. Why is it that you can mention one aspect of the crime and not the other?
I believe this was TSS's point. Two people can see the same incident and focus on different aspects of it and neither side is being unreasonable. Black Lives Matter AND All Lives Matter are not inherently contradictory. The Orlando attack being against gays AND being an Islamist attack is not inherently contradictory. The degree to which you attempt to balance everything and interpret the situation is understandably likely to lead to heated debate.
Reasonable minds can disagree (and I do) that there is a systemic problem with racism in the police force. Or that Mateen was specifically targeting gays as a motive. But it's another step to take that off the table as a discussion topic entirely and to accuse anyone who broaches the topic of ill-intent.
Can we please stop referring to homosexuals as 'gays' or 'the gays'. These terms can be seen to belittling and derogatory. Thank you.
Don't know about Britain, but here in the US the term "gay" is preferred to "homosexual."
If it's the reverse over there, I apologize.
If it's the reverse over there, I apologize.
Nothing wrong with using the word gay. It just depends if you use it as a insult. Using "the gays" is however not needed.
Don't for many homosexual (gay) people it is fine. I actually go clubbing with a few gay and lesbian people and they say it all the time.
I don't have a problem with people using the word gay. I meant specifically describing a group of people as 'gays'. It's the same as describing a group of people as 'blacks'.
'Gay people' or the 'gay community' is less belittling.
'Gay people' or the 'gay community' is less belittling.
I sometimes have to write press-releases and papers at my job and so I can tell you the AP style rules for newspapers.
In the US, either"black(s)" or "African American(s)" are acceptable and neither one is preferred over the other. Obviously the term has to fit as the two are not perfectly interchangeable. It would not be appropriate to call a black Spanish citizen an "African American." Or a white person from South Africa "black."
"Gay/gays" is considered preferable to "homosexual/homosexuals" and should be used unless referring to something clinical/medical. And I believe there is a movement to try and get the American Medical Association to stop using the term "homosexual" as well, but until they do it is acceptable to use "homosexual" in the context where the medical profession has defined something that way.
In the US, either"black(s)" or "African American(s)" are acceptable and neither one is preferred over the other. Obviously the term has to fit as the two are not perfectly interchangeable. It would not be appropriate to call a black Spanish citizen an "African American." Or a white person from South Africa "black."
"Gay/gays" is considered preferable to "homosexual/homosexuals" and should be used unless referring to something clinical/medical. And I believe there is a movement to try and get the American Medical Association to stop using the term "homosexual" as well, but until they do it is acceptable to use "homosexual" in the context where the medical profession has defined something that way.
I did not know that. My apologies.
To be clear "gay" or "black" are not appropriate as a singular nouns here in the US. Only as a plural noun or as an adjective. So "the gays" or "a gay" or "six blacks" is offensive. "Gays," "a gay man," "six black women" is correct.
I suppose in the UK it is only appropriate as an adjective? Does this apply to all ethnic/cultural groupings and the like?
Would like not to embarrass myself in the future.
To be clear "gay" or "black" are not appropriate as a singular nouns here in the US. Only as a plural noun or as an adjective. So "the gays" or "a gay" or "six blacks" is offensive. "Gays," "a gay man," "six black women" is correct.
I suppose in the UK it is only appropriate as an adjective? Does this apply to all ethnic/cultural groupings and the like?
Would like not to embarrass myself in the future.
Why would "homosexual" or "same sex", be any more pejorative than "same sex" marriages?.........
.........or heterosexual? ..........or homogenous?
Where does this leave the term homoerotic ? Is this a non-starter this month?
I can understand members of the gay community (is that allowed?) being offended by terms like "****s" "bent" and "queer" unless, of course, it's them saying it. These terms were always insulting and meant to be. Homosexual is the most neutral, descriptive, non-judgemental phrase ...it describes the situation perfectly...unless of course, the person in question is bisexual.
