Re-emergence of "gay" as an insult in Western culture... should we be worried or do anything about it.

[MrPolite]

I was watching BBC news this summer, when this supposedly "respectable" political reporter woman called Sarah Smith, made a totally weird comment when covering the Republican convention, This was when Vance had just been unveiled as the VP pick. She finished the coverage of his speech by making a comment suggesting that J.D. Vance's wave looked 'gay'.

She didn't say the word but it's clearly what she was implying. There couldn't have been anything else. It's just so lame. She's a Scottish woman the daughter of a former UK party leader, for those of you who don't know (which will be the vast majority)

 

I don't have a clip of this, I couldn't find it on YouTube and the BBC don't have long-time availability of their news broadcasts, cause they don't want intelligent folk actually analysing their output and being able to complain in the same way people do about other networks.

BBC news is supposed to be the most "respectable" and "mainstream" form of getting your info. But this woman was making playground insults like a nasty 12-year-old girl. So what about that?

Also, when Vance said something about UK's (painful) relationship with Islam, our now "Deputy Prime Minister" called him "fruity" which also basically means gay. 

If it's acceptable for two talentless Eurotrash cows to say or imply this kind of thing, where does that leave us? Calling a bearded man 4,000 miles away a "gay" gives them a giddy thrill to them for some reason... 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

In the 20th century, “fruity” became associated with the term “fruitcake”. The phrase “you're as nutty as a fruitcake” was used to describe people who were seen to be crazy. Rayner classed what he said - not him - as "fruity". I think you need to go back to Nigel and ask him what his next plan of attack is. BTW, seeing what his and Trump's next target (after POC and immigrants), is ...

[BootmanLA]

FWIW, there are a significant number of people who believe Mr. Vance is a closeted gay man in denial. While that shouldn't be, under normal circumstances, any reason to smear him with innuendo, he's the number two guy in an incoming administration that's actively anti-LGBTQ (and I'm not interested in anyone pointing out the occasional Uncle Tom queer guy in his administration - save it). And that makes him, for many, a legitimate target.

[MrPolite]

3 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

FWIW, there are a significant number of people who believe Mr. Vance is a closeted gay man in denial. While that shouldn't be, under normal circumstances, any reason to smear him with innuendo, he's the number two guy in an incoming administration that's actively anti-LGBTQ (and I'm not interested in anyone pointing out the occasional Uncle Tom queer guy in his administration - save it). And that makes him, for many, a legitimate target.

Those people can be defined in a single word:

"Asufutimaehaehfutbw"

Edited December 4 by MrPolite

[BootmanLA]

16 minutes ago, MrPolite said:

Those people can be defined in a single word:

"Asufutimaehaehfutbw"

Could you please try to explain your point by using actual words? 

[gimpsub69]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

Could you please try to explain your point by using actual words? 

Stop using LGBTQ+ to talk about a group of people who have nothing in common with each other. LGB people are same sex attracted and have a sexual orientation. The rest of the alphabet is feelings and identities 

[BootmanLA]

29 minutes ago, gimpsub69 said:

Stop using LGBTQ+ to talk about a group of people who have nothing in common with each other. LGB people are same sex attracted and have a sexual orientation. The rest of the alphabet is feelings and identities 

Please do not attempt to tell me what words or phrases to use. I can assure you that's not an action that will end well. 

[Poz50something]

5 hours ago, MrPolite said:

I was watching BBC news this summer, when this supposedly "respectable" political reporter woman called Sarah Smith, made a totally weird comment when covering the Republican convention, This was when Vance had just been unveiled as the VP pick. She finished the coverage of his speech by making a comment suggesting that J.D. Vance's wave looked 'gay'.

She didn't say the word but it's clearly what she was implying.

so what word DID Smith use? I think we have to be careful of jumping to conclusions. If she used the word 'Poof' or 'sod', or if she were Cockney, she would use the term 'iron' meaning a gay man (iron = iron hoof = poof), then we could talk....unlike the States,  fruity is used more for someone's mental state. 

[topblkmale]

5 hours ago, gimpsub69 said:

Stop using LGBTQ+ to talk about a group of people who have nothing in common with each other. LGB people are same sex attracted and have a sexual orientation. The rest of the alphabet is feelings and identities 

I concur.

LGBTQIA+

POC

black and brown

I don't belong to any of these groups.

[BootmanLA]

How about the group "humans"? Is that too broad for people because it doesn't drill down specifically to "male"?

Categories work hierarchically. In biology, we recognize kingdoms (Animalia), phyla (Chordata), classes (Mammalia), orders (primates), families (Hominidae), genera (Homo) and species (sapiens), but we, as humans, are members of each group above that (along with a lot of non-human things). Just because you don't see any connection with the T or Q parts of that grouping doesn't mean that, at some level, we're all grouped into that category by people outside of it. 

When I hear people get snitty and say that they're not "LGBTQ" because they're just gay (or worse, they're men who have sex with men but they're not any of those "letters", I have to wonder what kind of drugs they're taking that lets them experience that kind of cognitive dissonance. 

[nanana]

I'd argue that the level of detail be it kingdom, order, or species, should probably be "fit for purpose." If we are looking for broad loving acceptance, give me a kingdom.  If we are looking for a more specific purpose, e.g., to fuck cum into a bareback bottom or absorb cum from a fucker-mate, then maybe not even the species level is sufficiently  specific.  It is perfectly reasonable, and unhateful, to specify a level in the heirarchy that is "fit for purpose."

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, nanana said:

I'd argue that the level of detail be it kingdom, order, or species, should probably be "fit for purpose." If we are looking for broad loving acceptance, give me a kingdom.  If we are looking for a more specific purpose, e.g., to fuck cum into a bareback bottom or absorb cum from a fucker-mate, then maybe not even the species level is sufficiently  specific.  It is perfectly reasonable, and unhateful, to specify a level in the heirarchy that is "fit for purpose."

I agree.

It's when people angrily declare the equivalent of "I'm not a MAMMAL, I'm a human!" (but in "deviance from the sexual behavior/identity standard" terms) that I roll my eyes.

[nanana]

This may seem counterintuitive but there’s a balance of peace between tribes when they talk about each other behind their backs to blow off the steam of not being in a trust-and-understanding tribe, which makes for healthy coexistence. I think coexistence is about the best our Homo sapiens can aspire to. The caveman who put down his club and started swearing is the caveman who invented civilization. While it’s true that evil triumphs when good men do nothing it’s also true that giving people no space to voice potentially offensive thoughts leaves them with no other tools but violent tools to oppose threats to their autonomy. We are not so thin skinned are we? People having  bad day. I found Someone who listened to me in a puny moment rather than judged me. Jonah was discovered in a whale. Live reins down while people (men) go through anger.  
 

on the other hand I get Hard when alpha/omegas acknowledge the hierarchy. I might Be destined to fill up a faggot that is hierarchically beneath me. Or I might be destined to be a fucktoy for a superior alpha. Both are good. The alpha/faggot thing is difficult to stuff into a democracy closet. @BootmanLA the only things we really know about you are that you have a formidable command of MSM facts, an ability to ensure that the left-of-center is well represented (thank you for giving voice to a less-than-loquacious majority on this fagsitw) an asshole that we all want to name the Capitol (from your beautiful pixels), and an argumentation that makes us choose democracy or hierarchy. Perhaps we should all be hole-less and dick-less and just be too kind to fuck. So many beautiful contradiicktions on the planet. I’ve seen a triple fuck but want to see or feel a quadruple fuck before AI takes over. 

[BootmanLA]

6 minutes ago, nanana said:

The caveman who put down his club and started swearing is the caveman who invented civilization.

Perhaps you have a different understanding of what "civilization" means. Civilization, as understood by historians, sociologists, and pretty much all social science fields, refers to the development of permanent dwelling places - the establishment of a city, or (in Latin) a civitas - a group of people living together who agree to be bound by basic rules of behavior (as opposed to nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers). Essentially the defining moment of civilization is generally held to be the introduction of agriculture - the raising of food as opposed to hunting and gathering it - which makes it possible to remain in a single place. Even then, civilizations could be (and often were) exceptionally tribal, but that doesn't mean individual tribes did not accept outsiders as members, either. It varied.

12 minutes ago, nanana said:

and an argumentation that makes us choose democracy or hierarchy. 

I think this is a false dichotomy. There are aspects of human existence which lend themselves to hierarchy; there are aspects that lend themselves to democracy; and there are aspects that ought to be off-limits to both. The allowance of free speech and freedom of (and from) religion, for example, should be neither hierarchical nor democratic; they're recognition that certain things are beyond the democratic process and not governed by who's at the top of the pyramid.

I think that in a healthy, first-world kind of place - one with the resources to address nearly any problem that exists, if we only had the willpower - that we should do so. Sadly, there are too many people in this society who think that if solving those problems means that someone who has managed to amass $200 billion might have to give up a good chunk of that, then the problem is not in fact capable of being solved. 

[MrPolite]

39 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Perhaps you have a different understanding of what "civilization" means. Civilization, as understood by historians, sociologists, and pretty much all social science fields, refers to the development of permanent dwelling places - the establishment of a city, or (in Latin) a civitas - a group of people living together who agree to be bound by basic rules of behavior (as opposed to nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers). Essentially the defining moment of civilization is generally held to be the introduction of agriculture - the raising of food as opposed to hunting and gathering it - which makes it possible to remain in a single place. Even then, civilizations could be (and often were) exceptionally tribal, but that doesn't mean individual tribes did not accept outsiders as members, either. It varied.

I think this is a false dichotomy.

I've been less bored during Woody Allen movies. Can you take this somewhere else. Thanks, wheelchair bruh.

On 12/5/2024 at 3:13 AM, Poz50something said:

so what word DID Smith use? I think we have to be careful of jumping to conclusions........  fruity is used more for someone's mental state. 

Um really... you think you understand my own country's dialogue better than I do? You really believe the chances of that are like, as high as 7 out of 11?