[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Well to be fair, if "The Bell" hadn't crash landed some decades later on America soil then the Third Reich's mastery of temporal displacement would have rendered all this talk of racism rather ... moot I suppose.   

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Hmm, vaccines ... witchcraft I say! Sickness is clearly a curse from God to smite the Sinners! --- Uh-oh, is that a tickle in the back of my throat?

 

 

Moon Landing ... actually happened but the footage that was broadcast was faked in order to cover up what they really found up there.

 

 

Evolution you say? Get your hands off me you dirty stinking apes!

 

 

Quarks? You trying to destroy the world son? I swear, kids these days with their strangelets and ice-9.

[What planet are we on?]

As I recall, in one of the early printings of The Hobbit, China was mentioned as existing and being somewhere one could travel.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Besides, something that I've found is that the "Chicken Little" nutcases on Global Cooling no wait ... Population Bomb no wait ... Death of the Oceans no wait ... Global Warning ... err, Climate Change seldom want to address exactly what a "sustainable lifestyle" would actually look like in both the First as well as the Third Worlds, and even when they do they pad the actual capabilities of current alternate energy generation technology instead of using realistic numbers.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Yep, the same Ferguson that the Justice Department, in its report, refers to as possessing institutional racism against primarily black people:

 

"...Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular."

 

But go on.

 

 

Yup, the same Justice Department that is headed by the entirely impartial and even handed Eric Holder. Also unless I'm misremembering I seem to recall hearing something about the methods used in said report as being flawed. Pretty much everyone has condemned the emails though. 

 

However, even if I were to take the entire report at face value, racism still didn't play a part in the justified self defense that ended a young man's life, at least not on the part of the officer. ... I'm still more interested in whether racism is going to be found in the background of the pig in the South Carolina case.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

You mean the same Ferguson where a young man attacked and forced an officer to defend himself shortly after strong arm robbing a store? --- However if you are referring to what I think you are in South Carolina, yeah, the pig who shot a fleeing man in the back is almost certainly going to get what he deserves.

 

 

 

However, unless I missed something in the South Carolina shooting (Which is possible.), racism hasn't been proven to be a factor, AND it certainly wasn't in Ferguson's "Gentle Giant". 

[About that expansion....]

I don't know, I'm all for "interesting tactical combat" but the entire "stripping layer after layer of defense" in my opinion just wasn't all that interesting and lead to "God Guide It!" play more then actual tactics ... similar to how sometimes in say ... Dragon Age your mages "just know" where and when to drop a couple of nasty AoE effects in order to counter an upcoming ambush. 

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ...

Yeah, it was annoying to see only one example. I guess they wanted to keep it American. But you could easily put that in other contexts and see how it transfers.

 

 

 

You're less of a cynic than I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

 

 

 

Ooo ... kay, I'm not quite sure whether to simply shake my head at this point or if I would be better served by slowly backing away with no sudden movements. ... I mean seriously, I literally spelled the reason your reaction bothered me for everyone to see and you come back with "Please explain why you are bothered by my post."

 

 

As for making assumptions and since this thread is starting to drift away from baselessly people of being homophobic to racism I'll ask a simple question; since it's apparently fine to make assumptions provided that we preface them with the disclaimer of "I only meant most and not all." Does that make the statement; "You must be one of the good ones." any less offensive to my Mick ancestors when they were being discrimated against because of their country of origin and religion? What about the other minority groups who had that statement thrown into their faces, perhaps most notably and recently against black people.

 

 

---- Oh, and since no-one offered to take me up on my joke in the other thread I'll provide the punchline at this time ...  "a sixpack and a potato".

 

 

I am not sure you and I are even on the same page anymore with this debate

 

 

I am challenging the notion that you said " I make assumptions about groups of people " 

 

If you arent saying that now then I'm not sure what we are debating. If you are saying you still found my comment to be offensive thats fine, I am not going to presume to tell you how you should interpret my posts. Sorry if you assumed I was necessarily talking about you but I have idea how your parents treated you so I can't say if you were included in the point earlier I made where I basically said " most straight people haven't had there parents tell them they wish they had been aborted " ...if your parents did say that to you then you have my sincere condolences because as I said to Mungri that's cruel and unfair 

 

If that's not what you talking about then I still don't understand exactly what I said that caused something to get stuck in your throat because I am missing how what I said to Mungri is relevant to my self-importance ....that the bit I really don't get 

 

And yes you are correct,  to say to some ethnic group " you must be one of the good ones " is offensive and patronizing but once again that's not what I said or meant. And I don't know how many times I can keep explaining this  

 

 

 

*sighs* Look, I'm very nearly convinced that you are being purposefully obtuse and seeing how long you can go before I simply throw up my hands in frustration and walk away. If so then congrats are in order, you are very nearly, but not quite there. So let's try this one last time; I understand that you moved the goalposts from chiding FaustianEchoes with " No, the funny thing is I am not  really like you at all. I don't make assumptions about groups of people unless they actually say or do something that warrants criticism. " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1657861 ) to " I don't say things like " all Russians are homophobic " despite homophobic laws being passed in Russia  or I wouldn't say " all Americans are arrogant warmongers " despite America under Bush being very militant around foreign policy " and finishing with " I respond directly to what people say or how they act " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1657925 ) However the bottom line is that you do in fact make assumptions about groups of people to the point of dismissingly throwing out this gem;  " and I'm sure we  will now  hear comments like  " oh so now  only gay people have a monopoly on there parents treating them badly..my parents did this to me and my parents did that  " " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1656293 ). That is not a point that I'm willing to let slide as I view grouping people via ideologies far more important than mere geographical locations. 

 

As for my visceral reaction to your post towards Mungri ... you are missing the point by assuming that it must somehow be about me or my past at all. Hells, I don't know Mungri from Adam (He seems like a pretty cool guy though.) but my reading of your original post ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1656293 ) was more about you trying to use his story simply as a springboard in advancing your own cause, with a little anecdotal quip thrown in about how shocking one of your friends was treated by his mother for coming out as gay, not to mention getting in a jab at the people you disagree with in this very thread. I suppose it's possible that you didn't mean it the way it read to me, but when combined with posts where you claim that it's impossible for a "defender of gay rights" to be a bigot ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1655894 ) I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all.

We are, all of us, guilty of some forms of racism, whether we like it or not. The problem is that we white people go absolutely bonkers if someone points out we do, screaming 'I'm not a racist!'. Usually followed by racist slurs to prove the point. (hilarious) Or, even worse in my opinion, claiming that those who bring up these points are actually the problem.

 

You don't have to be a conviced racist to do racist things, nor do you have to be a convinced mysoginist to do mysoginistic things, or be a convinced homophobe to do homophobic things... etc.

 

 

 

I tend to disagree, in my experience the defensiveness starts when the threshold for bigotry is lowered from intolerance towards something to mere unacceptance. 

  

 

If we eradicated all infectious diseases forever, then our immune systems would become useless. Id rather maintain a strong immune system.

 

I don't know if you were making an offhand joke or meant this comment in the deeper sense that I read it.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

RE: Cropping Quotes ...

 

 

Agreed, especially when trying to reply to the "staircase to hell" exchanges and the forum keeps spitting errors back at you. ... As an aside, does anyone else have almost every "reply" start with a random format preselected?

 

 

 

Sociological definition of racism.

 

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all.

 

 

+1 for dictionary definitions suck. That's one one of the main reasons why we have those idiots that run around crying 'but evolution is only a theory', because dictionaries give the definition of hypothesis to theory instead.

Then again, resorting to anything a dictionary defines for any kind of debate relating to science is a moronic thing that only dumb people do anyway. A person requires zero knowledge to look something up in a dictionary and quote whatever it says, even a 5 year old can do that.

 

Although I did give this a "like" because I tend to agree with the sentiment in general; at the same time words do have meanings and in this very thread we've been told things like ... "You can't be a bigot if you defend gay rights.", which is something that I do take umbrage towards in addition to simply being flat out silly and wrong.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

 

 

 

Ooo ... kay, I'm not quite sure whether to simply shake my head at this point or if I would be better served by slowly backing away with no sudden movements. ... I mean seriously, I literally spelled the reason your reaction bothered me for everyone to see and you come back with "Please explain why you are bothered by my post."

 

 

As for making assumptions and since this thread is starting to drift away from baselessly people of being homophobic to racism I'll ask a simple question; since it's apparently fine to make assumptions provided that we preface them with the disclaimer of "I only meant most and not all." Does that make the statement; "You must be one of the good ones." any less offensive to my Mick ancestors when they were being discrimated against because of their country of origin and religion? What about the other minority groups who had that statement thrown into their faces, perhaps most notably and recently against black people.

 

 

---- Oh, and since no-one offered to take me up on my joke in the other thread I'll provide the punchline at this time ...  "a sixpack and a potato".

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Yeah, I don't get that statement either - regardless of what position the authors of the posts in this thread take, I've yet to encounter a single one accuse Firedorn or Obsidian of being transphobic (though truth be told, I have not read every single post in the thread).

 

What I have seen though are plenty of disturbing, clearly homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic remarks throughout this thread and others, from posts whose authors may or may not consciously understand that such statements are homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic.

 

Such discriminatory mindsets have as much to do with culture (certainly a force not lacking in homophobia and transphobia) as with ignorance. For example, I read in one of these threads where the author, whom I cannot remember, states that he (and it's almost certainly a he) only considers "genetic" females as females (that is, no Y chromosome, period), and continues on on how someone born "male" but identifying as "female" is unnatural. This completely undermines transsexual individuals and is a bigoted mindset, even if no ill-intent is on purpose. It's the same kind of reasoning that people used to think interracial marriage was "unnatural," or that women working rather than taking care of kids was "unnatural," or currently, that homosexuals are "unnatural."

 

Gender isn't as black-or-white (or more apt, male-or-female) as people think. The whole notion of genders, in fact, is actually pretty archaic. All I have to do to refute the author who opined that only "genetic" females are females is to tell him about androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). People with this condition can be born "genetically" male (XY), but due to certain developmental quirks, their bodies do not respond to androgens, and have a range of female secondary sexual characteristics, ranging from a small amount to having full-blown female curvatures and fully-developed breasts.

 

This is why I am so vocal about these issues and am proud to be a SJW, a term I've only recently become aware of, thanks mostly to the GamerGate crowd (seriously, how can detractors think using such a term will be insulting? Who ISN'T for social justice? I guess homophobes and bigots in general). If people can't see why the limerick is clearly transphobic (and misogynistic), considering that things like AIS exist, then there is still much to be done to increase the awareness of the general public.

 

 

Ok .... and? I've been told that one of my cousins although born physically female has some odd genetic mutation where she has an odd combination of "XXYX" or the like. She became convinced that instead of a straight female she was meant to be a gay male; underwent a sex change and although still extremely depressive does seem to be at least somewhat happier with life as a result. ... And you know what? More power to her as far as I'm concern, I wish them nothing but the best in life. (The boyfriend is fully aware of my cousin's history as is proper.)

 

 

--- Now see, I relayed my cousin's story in an knowingly insensitive manner, using the pronoun that I grew up referring to my to cousin as opposed to the one that fits his current biological sex. Hells, even today I switch back and forth between the male and female pronoun; doesn't mean that my cousin doesn't have an open invitation to dinner when he is in my part of the country, provided that he doesn't try to bring that damnable purse dog into my house.  

 

 

 

 

Most awesome video I've seen in a while:

 

Wow Psychevore, that guy nailed it on so many levels it's unbelievable. I wonder what the transformative experience was for him to change his mind...

 

 

I was saying to Serdan how I spend most of my time on these forums on the Off-Topic where I try to raise issues around SJ and most of the time people aren't really that interested...so I  use to feel I was one of the few people who seemed to care. But after reading many of the comments in this  thread and others its been very reassuring to see there are many people who share my views and refuse to accept discrimination on these forums. So this entire discussion has been great

 

The only thing I do nowadays is I say " I care about SJ values " and not  " I'm a SJW ". They do basically mean the same thing but what I have noticed is  an immediate dismissive attitude if you say " SJW " because that has become a term to describe people who want to change everything that people claim to hold dear. And even though we shouldn't have to not use the term SJW its much easier to initiate dialogue if you just avoid that word. The discussion can be exactly the same and thats what matters to me, the discussion. Frankly I don't care what people want to call me, I just want to debate the issues I feel are relevant to achieve a more equitable and tolerant society 

 

I can empathize with you completely, it definitely takes a certain mindset to wade in the mud against numerous, extremely vocal "social injustice warriors", as PrimeJunta would call them, and stick around despite all the childish insults like "lunatic" or "loon" being tossed around, so it feels really nice to see others who care about the same cause. Like the guy in the video, I won't back down to intolerance if I see it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. That the SIJWs would label people like us "babies" and "whiners" with no backbone, whilst hanging around in the relative safety of a game forum (which surely has far more like-minded SIJWs than other subgroups), is pure irony. I wonder how long they would last making comments at Jezebel or something like that, before they're viciously tore apart by the denizens that reside there.

 

EDIT: Regarding the insults, I find that if I simply engage them without lashing back with insults, they eventually back down and become more civil, and we can perhaps even get a conversation going. I mean, the start of this thread had a WHOLE lot of "feminazi," "idiot," "lunatic," and "crazy f***" thrown at anyone making any comment about social justice. Now, it's essentially gone, and I think part of it, besides perhaps threats by moderators to keep it civil, is that they know how ridiculous it looks when one side is making arguments that are mostly personal-insult-free, while the other side regurgitates tons of vitriol.

 

 

Umm ... unless you are being purposefully ironic here we just went through how many pages of SJWs calling anyone they disagreed with as bigots; or did my "homophobic bigotry" induce a state of delusion where I imagined all of that? 

 

 

 

"..intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

 

They're not being intolerant.

 

 

The author to which I refer does not even acknowledge the identified gender of trans individuals. How is this different than a person from the 1700s saying that black people weren't people, they're property? Even if that person harbored zero ill-will towards black people, it would still amount to 100% bigotry,

The notion that black people (or any people really) are property has severe legal consequences. The notion that homosexuality is "unnatural" does not have legal consequences.

 

 

because said person is completely intolerant to the idea that a black person can actually be a person, and not property. Back to the author, he is completely intolerant to the fact that a person born "genetically" as a male can still identify as a female, and vice versa.

Said person is not intolerant to the idea. They just don't accept it. Big difference.

 

Said person not even acknowledging the trans individual's identified female gender is.... not intolerance? That's news to me. How can you be tolerant of something that you do not even believe can exist? Not tolerating the fact that a XY trans individual can be considered female is the textbook definition of intolerance.

 

And something cannot be considered bigoted if there's no legal frameworks around it? You should tell that to the police officer during the Ferguson protests who called the protestors "f***cking animals."

 

 

 

Video wouldn't load for me so I can't hear the officer's actual words; if he was referring to the rioters as "animals" because they are black then yeah, that was most certainly racist on his part. However, if on the other hand he referred to the rioters as "animals" because they were looting and destroying and generally carrying on as such then it most likely wasn't racist at all, either way it's a bit of a moot point as I very much doubt anyone here knows the officer well enough to be able to peer into his heart and make a meaningful determination either way.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

[Nitpick: Neck is the same as cape]

Personally I'd be happy with a toggle for a purely cosmetic cape and then morph the current capes into "amulets".

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

 

 

 

I don't make assumptions about groups of people

 

Nonsense. Everybody does. The trick is (1) attempting to be aware of making those assumptions and (2) being able to set them aside when they're pointed out to you.

 

Human cognition is based on categorization and generalization. It's just the way we tick. It's how we deal with the resulting biases that count.

 

 

Once again give me examples of where I have made assumptions of groups of people ?

 

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Try reading it again. If you want I can help you.

 

Please do, I clearly need help 

 

 

 

Originally I was going to largely ignore this series of posts outside of my rather snarky "like" as I'm under the impression that you aren't really interested in the necessary introspection but then I remembered how your reaction caught in my throat while everyone else was rightfully expressing their shock and sympathy for the legitimate and completely unexcusaeble bigotry Mungri's own father hurled into his face. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a gay I do not side with the whine babies over this incident. The original limerick was top funny.

But on the other hand I agree that all straight men should want to sleep with me ... Because.

Like in PoE how there's machines that absorb souls, I need to invent machines to turn everyone gay. This of course is the ultimate homosexual agenda - You see any display of homosexual flamboyance and that will turn you gay. This has been our master plan all along. But unfortunately the alcohol and roofies are no longer enough, we need soul altering machines with straight to gay altering properties pronto.

Even better if the effects of such a machine are temporary and only last for about 24 hours but with no memory loss, hence all the straight men can remember in full vivid detail what they did the previous night with another man. There will be many men jumping off cliffs as a result of this, an unfortunate side effect.

 

 

Mungri can I ask you a question? As a gay man how do you feel about some of these comments on this thread? Do you find comments like " homosexuality is not natural " annoying? Offensive? Or do you just not  care. My gay friends seem to care less about gay rights than I do, they say things like " you will never change some peoples minds so why bother ".

 

But I refuse to accept that. I don't need to change peoples minds, I just want to let people that homophobia is not acceptable

I'm pretty much desensitised to such stuff after my father told me that he would have had me aborted if he knew I was going to turn out gay.

 

Yeah some of my friends have similar stories, not all of them but some. Living in South Africa we have a very liberal constitution that protects your sexual orientation in society but that doesn't stop all  homophobic comments and of course nothing can stop what people and family say and act on a personal level 

 

 

One of my friends told his mom at the age of 20 he was gay and she didn't speak to him for 3 years because her  boyfriend was homophobic. They get on very well now but when he told me the story he didn't even seem angry with her....I was thinking   " how can your mom chose some random guy over her  own son...and how can you not be angry and disappointed with her " ... but I never said those things to him because I didn't want to make him feel worse about his moms behavior

 

I know you aren't looking for sympathy and I'm sure we  will now  hear comments like  " oh so now  only gay people have a monopoly on there parents treating them badly..my parents did this to me and my parents did that  " but the reality is most straight people have never had to deal with the emotional and verbal abuse and hurt  that many gay people have to deal with including the incredibly insensitive  and appalling comments that your were subjected to by your dad ...anyway thanks for sharing

 

 

 

So ... was that another BruceVC?

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

 

 

Ok, please feel free.  But did you ever consider there are avenues to go about this task that arent internet forums for kickstarter driven RPGs?

 

Some of them may actually yield a tangible effect on society.

 

Or you could keep on truckin' on a kickstarter driven RPG forum.  Its like training-wheels for social activists, I guess?

 

Take your patronising bs and shove it.

If the bigots hadn't shown up in force I would never have touched any social issues, but I guess you think bigotry should pass without remark.

 

Again, you're slashing people who have a right to their opinion. In all reality, you're the true "Politically Correct" Bigot. You're a tool, or a mouth piece for the "Soft core Communist" propaganda machine. 

 

 

Come one lets try to be reasonable, I known these discussions get personal and people tend to get vituperative but Serdan is definitely not a bigot ...its obvious he is the complete opposite and has been defending gay rights 

 

I also tend to get annoyed with people in some debates and say things I don't mean so I'm not acting better than anyone and more mature...I have been there and do exactly the same thing. It doesn't make it right though

 

 

As much as I dislike the gross overuse of the term bigot whether it comes from the SJWs or GGers this is a perfect example of a rather insidious tactic ... "defending gay rights" as you term it hardly grants a blanket defense. "But he's one of us." should never be an acceptable defense if you care about integrity.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Umm .... ok, just a couple of things to point out ... in order to find the video in question you need to go to the actual you-tube page and click on the link in the description there. Secondly, let me warn people that fighting in short-shorts creates some definite NOT WORKPLACE SAFE footage.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

Calling someone's behavior unnatural has quite the negative connotation - it does not simply mean "not found in nature" (again, the irony is completely lost to them). It has a negative connotation because it implies that a person is disturbed and uncomfortable with the behavior, even if the behavior does absolutely no harm to anyone.

 

Hence, bigots screaming about interracial marriage (and now teh gays) being "unnatural" is, in fact, quite bigoted.

 

Being a hypocritical, heterosexual hating bigot yourself, it's no wonder you're vomiting out this pile of idiotic bullcrap.

 

 

 

Ok, this is the same pot/kettle nonsense that I was originally talking about. Do you have any actual evidence that achaye raises to actual bigotry towards straights?

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

My personal theory is that it has more to do with Utopianism then anything else.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

Wow. You're part of the problem. I didn't hurt anyone, all I said is two men having sex is not what nature intended, seeing as how that does not reproduce. I guess we all need a little biology refresher.

Nature does not have intentions, and the results are not any indicator as to whether or not something is natural. I think you are confusing nature with productivity.

 

 

 

Yeah, communism. You're trying to force me or shame me because of my personal views. It's soft liberal, progressive type of communism, but yeah, not cool.

 

It isn't communism at all. That's a really bizarre sentiment.

 

 

Although I could be mistaken I believe that the proper term for what Striker meant is cultural Marxism (Probably sans the tinfoil hat baggage.), although it's actually more akin to the fabled "Rules for Radicals" at least as they are understood on the Right. (I understand that Leftists don't view them in the same negative light.) 

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

 

 

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 a lot of people on the social justice side do this with fetishes they do not tolerate. Like pedophilia. Something you can not do anything about it as well.  Its your sexual orientation and it should not be a crime unless people get hurt by it.  Thats the biggest example

 

If I see someone do that I'll call them a bigot too, so that's not much of a counterexample.

 

 

 

And with the defense of pedophilia you just crossed the line of no longer being worth my time.

 

 

Holy cow, are people so oblivious to their own bigotry that they don't understand that calling someone else's behavior, as long as it does no harm to others, unnatural is..... wait for it.....bigotry?

 

Don't answer that, because it's a rhetorical question, of course they're that oblivious.

 

A behavior doesn't NEED to be found in nature to be considered "natural," and what is natural doesn't always mean it's moral.

 

Case in point, hitting up Netflix after a hard day's work at Google is, by all accounts, not found in nature, but is by all means, a perfectly natural and acceptable behavior (it's not immoral).

 

A male having sex with another male, something found in nature all the time, is also perfectly natural and acceptable.

 

Actually no, calling something unnatural or even using a pronoun that you don't agree with is insulting, insensitive, and quite frankly ... just plain rude ... but doesn't rise to the level of bigotry on its face.

 

So if you're calling someone else's perfectly ok behavior (that is, it does no harm to others) unnatural, that's pretty bigoted.

 

Just like before interracial marriage was legally allowed (and for quite some time after), the same bigots screamed at how unnatural it was.

 

Now they're screaming about how homosexuality is unnatural (the irony is unfortunately lost on them).

 

 

*sighs* You know I remember when words used to actually mean things ... calling for people to tolerate people with different sexual orientations (Sadly I now need to add a disclaimer about informed consent considering that we actually have someone willing to defend pedophilia.) is a laudable endeavor that I haven't seen anyone actually argue against here. On the other hand the SJWs have sadly forgotten that tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance and have decided that it's somehow appropriate to use the label of bigotry at the first sign that someone may disagree with them and are so hypersensitive that anything less then total acceptance of the SJW's cause is considered evidence.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

   Perhaps you should start a poll.     

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

Ok RedSocialKnight, your point is ... what exactly? The article you linked reads to me like Urguhart is trying to thread the needle by saying that on one hand they are "anti-hate" (Assuming that I ignore the entire "kill all men" nonsense I have yet to see anyone on either side who is actually pro-hate but ... whatever.) while on the other hand Firedorn is a great guy and because of that in the end Urguhart manages to actually say very little that is noteworthy at all.  

 

 

*EDIT*

 

 

Oh, I almost forgot ... I still don't believe that the poem was "unvetted" in the first place.

Oh wait, I read it again and I think he is saying that hate is a theme in the game as a valid emotion but they don't want to have something in the game that will lead to hate as the end goal ?

 

 

I disagree, partially because if that was Urguhart's intent then his praise of Firedorn would be completely out of sync with the rest of his message. Besides, as I read it he goes to great and pained lengths to avoid actively condemning the poem itself and he certainly tries to lead people to believe that had Firedorn wanted the poem to stay then the poem would still be there.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

Ok RedSocialKnight, your point is ... what exactly? The article you linked reads to me like Urguhart is trying to thread the needle by saying that on one hand they are "anti-hate" (Assuming that I ignore the entire "kill all men" nonsense I have yet to see anyone on either side who is actually pro-hate but ... whatever.) while on the other hand Firedorn is a great guy and because of that in the end Urguhart manages to actually say very little that is noteworthy at all.  

 

 

*EDIT*

 

 

Oh, I almost forgot ... I still don't believe that the poem was "unvetted" in the first place.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

I think it's easy to conflate saying something is unnatural with saying it is bad because it is such a common way of denouncing things as weird or bad. Not always, of course, but like... If someone told me "I think genetic modification of vegetables is unnatural", I would be surprised if they turned out to be a GMO proponent, you know?

 

 

Funny you use that example because I happen to think that genetically modifying food is unnatural and unless the price difference raises above what I consider to be a reasonable threshold I'd much rather buy the unmodified stuff. --- However I still fully support companies' right to experiment and sell GMO product ... I do support mandatory labeling though.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

 

Yet he didn't advocate for making homosexuals be treated as second class citizens. So obviously that's not always the case.

 

What?

Just... what?

Using the rhetoric of bigots is a predictor of being a bigot. Do you actually disagree with this?

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

 

Actually no, even with my "interesting qualifier" I do not find hypersensitivity in general to ever be reasonable. ... As for the rest, well, that's to be expected I suppose.

Ohhh... That's very interesting. Please define this "hypersensitivity" that I am apparently guilty of.

 

 

 

I read the thread that you linked to earlier and saw your reaction to people referring to Erika with the male pronoun and in this thread you are arguing that it's somehow reasonable to make an assumption that people are bigots if they use insensitive but nonhateful language. At best that is hypersensitivity and at worse it is simply using a label to group people whom you disagree with as "the lesser", which is would be actually rather ironic if you stop and think about it.    

 

 

 

 

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to people as unnatural that was explicitly non-judgemental and the converse is usually true.

I briefly considered asking for clarification, but the prior for Striker genuinely not being aware of the connotations is just so incredibly low.

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

 

 

Yes I can actually, although for the most part their names wouldn't mean anything to you. Hells, until I see actual evidence of bigotry from the people using it here I'd also say that they probably qualify as well. Saying something is "unnatural" is simply an insensitive way of denoting that the speaker is uncomfortable with something and does not raise to the level of bigotry. Remember that tolerance is not the same as acceptance.