Anger Thread!

[Iceni]

I would copy and paste what this person actually said but the language alone is so offensive I would probably be banned for doing so. What's worse is that he has come onto the facebook page of the team he has attacked (Port Adelaide which coincidentally is my team) and is acting proud of his remarks.

Let me guess: he thinks he's "keepin' it real"? That's the general pretext that specifically American idiots use to attempt to lend credibility to their statements. Sadly, this is pretty common for a lot of the people I knew in my youth group - they seemed to think that if they annoyed anyone that somehow that was an indication that they were becoming martyrs of some kind. The irony that they feared another group of people who also sought out martyrdom was lost on them.

[Idlewilde]

that is somewhat sad it never crossed my mind that a whole gender is stupid. I am totally against homophobia and I had a teacher at the university that was insulting homosexual people all the time (while one of my collegues was homosexual and was actually a very shy girl as well). I had multiple fights with him and he was stubborn as a mule, he just couldn't start thinking that being homosexual does not mean having enough of the opposite gender and looking for a new way to have fun. Harsh times But thinking that all the girls/men are stupid is something that is quite sad for me as well. I think that in the first place I fall in love with a person and not a gender. And that people are different and colorful, even if gender is quite socially imposed sometimes.

[RelentlessOblivion]

If it's racist and homophobic will the police be getting involved. They would over here.

sadly comments made on facebook are virtually impossible to track down especially given the likelihood that this person is using a fake account. The facebook moderators can shut down the account but confidentiality clauses stipulate they are unable to pass private information about the individual (such as their email address) on to the police.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Let me guess: he thinks he's "keepin' it real"? That's the general pretext that specifically American idiots use to attempt to lend credibility to their statements. Sadly' date=' this is pretty common for a lot of the people I knew in my youth group - they seemed to think that if they annoyed anyone that somehow that was an indication that they were becoming martyrs of some kind. The irony that they feared another group of people who also sought out martyrdom was lost on them.[/quote'] Not at all Iceni he's simply boasting about how one comment could solicit such a reaction and saying how "petty" people are because the remarks weren't actually made on the Port Adelaide Football Club facebook page but were a response to a post on the Adelaide Football Club facebook page screenshotted and reposted on the PAFC FB page. Yes apparently it's petty that an Adelaide Football Club supporter was so offended by this person's remarks that they felt compelled to bring it to the attention of the Port Adelaide Football Club (the PAFC FB page has over 46,000 likes and this person's post has seen 40,000 comments since it was posted yesterday). This worthless, gutless coward hides behind a computer keyboard because they dare not express their opinion in less anonymous media. well over 40,000 people have condemned this person and I think if the individual said those things in public they would spend the rest of their miserable existance in a hospital bed being fed through a tube.

[NTNR]

now what was funny was that interview Nevertanezra did a while back

Which one? We've had a few.

[BlutAusNerd]

My roommate this year was gay and he was one of the most interesting people I've ever met. He really didn't fit any of the variegated stereotypes for homosexuals - most prominently he was not flagrant and obnoxious about the fact that he was homosexual. Always acted perfectly civil and friendly toward me. What was most fascinating was that he was actually a proper misogynist. He genuinely did not like women or girls at all - found them stupid and unpleasant company. He also really hated the fact that girls assumed he'd want to hang around with them and give them clothing advice just because he was gay. Naturally' date=' of course, he clashed with the feminists at my school. Still, it was really nice for me to discover a more nuanced homosexual than I typically encountered at my previous university.[/quote'] I've had a number of gay friends, and other than most of them being flaky, I can't say that I've ever had any bad experiences with them. I had a cool gay friend in high school that all of the girls wanted to get with, his physical attractiveness set girls off, but he couldn't stand it. They all wanted to be the one to "convert" him, as if anybody can just be turned on by anything. It's the same logical fallacy that creates homophobia in many insecure men, thinking that every gay dude in existence will always be trying to rape them or something. I can't think of many things more arrogant than assuming everyone on earth wants to fuck you, especially when most of these guys can't get any themselves. Most of the gay guys I've known haven't been flamboyant though, I used to play D&D and Magic: The Gathering with one gay friend, he was a total nerd and spent 15 hours/day on WoW when he lost his job. I've even known gay metal musicians, though I would not out them to everyone on the internet. We used to party with our lesbian neighbors, they had a pool table in their living room instead of "proper" furniture, and just wanted to drink beer and hang out. I know that people tend to fear what they don't understand (myself included with some things), but gay people are still people just like everyone else. I'm not sure why people care what other people do in their bedrooms, away from everyone else, but then I guess that's just another way in which larger groups like to oppress ideas and practices that are different from their own. It happens in society, religion, and just about anywhere in life, so I don't know why this topic would be any different.

[NTNR]

They all wanted to be the one to "convert" him' date=' as if anybody can just be turned on by anything.[/quote'] Super inflated egos or possibly a way to show they're promiscuous without ever being able to follow through. Either way a very stupid statement.

[Iceni]

It's the same logical fallacy that creates homophobia in many insecure men' date=' thinking that every gay dude in existence will always be trying to rape them or something. [...']I know that people tend to fear what they don't understand (myself included with some things), but gay people are still people just like everyone else. I'm not sure why people care what other people do in their bedrooms, away from everyone else, but then I guess that's just another way in which larger groups like to oppress ideas and practices that are different from their own. It happens in society, religion, and just about anywhere in life, so I don't know why this topic would be any different.

I thought the stereotype was that gay men were too effeminate to commit rape. They care about what other people do because they want to ensure the cohesion of the society. Simply put, homosexuality is a waste of baby-making material. Then again, so is being a bachelor, so that argument is a bit difficult to defend, especially in a Biblical context. I don't think people care what other people do in their bedrooms but when those other people TELL the ostensible prudes what they do in the bedroom then they're asking for criticism. There is a rationale for determining why people do actually care about what happens to other people sexually. I can say that Catholics see such behavior as a perversion of an act intended only for those planning to go forth and multiply. I suspect that the move to 'accept' homosexuals has probably done more to alienate people than actual homosexuality has. Because the movement has been so obnoxiously preachy and coercive it's done more to create an opposition than it has to actually generate any sort of understanding.

[BlutAusNerd]

I thought the stereotype was that gay men were too effeminate to commit rape. They care about what other people do because they want to ensure the cohesion of the society. Simply put, homosexuality is a waste of baby-making material. Then again, so is being a bachelor, so that argument is a bit difficult to defend, especially in a Biblical context. I don't think people care what other people do in their bedrooms but when those other people TELL the ostensible prudes what they do in the bedroom then they're asking for criticism. There is a rationale for determining why people do actually care about what happens to other people sexually. I can say that Catholics see such behavior as a perversion of an act intended only for those planning to go forth and multiply. I suspect that the move to 'accept' homosexuals has probably done more to alienate people than actual homosexuality has. Because the movement has been so obnoxiously preachy and coercive it's done more to create an opposition than it has to actually generate any sort of understanding.

Of course it has done nothing to generate understanding, it's called tolerance. You don't have to like it or understand it, you just have to tolerate its existence. This obviously does nothing to help the situation in the short term, but tolerance in one generation leads to it not being an issue (or anywhere near as big of one) in future generations. As far as the rest goes, I take issue with people being prudes in the first place. I'm not saying that I don't understand a desire for privacy and/or having barriers for what you may or may not want to know or have known about you by others, but being afraid to discuss things is part of what generates the problem in the first place. This is a huge phenomenon here with Mormonism, as sex is simply not talked about at all, and we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the nation, as well as one of the highest teenage suicide rates and prescription drug addiction rates. Simply trying to hide something just serves to entice and add a sense of mysterious fascination, or irrational fear and anger, but either way it doesn't lead to understanding. The bottom line though is that you don't need to agree or disagree with homosexuality, because unless you are a homosexual, it has nothing to do with you. If nobody is being harmed by it and it doesn't change you life, why do you care what homosexuals do? Perversity exists all over the sexual spectrum, and if something disgusts you, you be sure that someone of your same sexual orientation is doing the same or even worse somewhere. Besides not having a problem with it, I just don't see what the big deal is and why people waste so much of their time worrying about it.

[Parker]

Iceni, Jews don't eat bacon, but I've never seen Jews telling people who are not Jewish to not eat bacon. Shouldn't the same apply to people whose religion says not to commit homosexual acts?

[RelentlessOblivion]

As two of my closest high school mates first outed themselves to me (and honestly if they hadn't I never would have guessed) I just detest homophobia. They aren't hurting people, what they're doing has no bearing on anyone besides themselves so why on Earth would anyone feel compelled to treat them as less then human purely based on their sexual preferences. I personally don't view homosexuality as a choice it's part of who they are so to condemn someone for being themselves doesn't really make sense but then society has been doing that for generations so it's hardly surprising.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Re: Anger Thread! I hate homophobia theres a prick called Graham at our school who is homophobic

[satan 59]

sadly comments made on facebook are virtually impossible to track down especially given the likelihood that this person is using a fake account. The facebook moderators can shut down the account but confidentiality clauses stipulate they are unable to pass private information about the individual (such as their email address) on to the police.

Not so. They can find you very easily if they want to. Also the same with Twitter, there where a few case like this here and this scum was charged by the police.

[satan 59]

I don't follow football (soccer for you foreign types) and I'm getting a bit pissed off with the UK news. For the past few days on my local news station they have had lead stories of a fucking football manager retiring then another one getting sacked, lead fucking stories! People are dying etc and football is more important, fuck sake? You will know the stations I mean Dave.

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

Re: The Rant

I don't follow football (soccer for you foreign types) and I'm getting a bit pissed off with the UK news. For the past few days on my local news station they have had lead stories of a fucking football manager retiring then another one getting sacked, lead fucking stories! People are dying etc and football is more important, fuck sake? You will know the stations I mean Dave.

Do you mean BBC and ITV news? I know wtf are they prioritising football over deaths?!!

[satan 59]

Yep that's them.

[Iceni]

Of course it has done nothing to generate understanding, it's called tolerance. You don't have to like it or understand it, you just have to tolerate its existence. This obviously does nothing to help the situation in the short term, but tolerance in one generation leads to it not being an issue (or anywhere near as big of one) in future generations. As far as the rest goes, I take issue with people being prudes in the first place. I'm not saying that I don't understand a desire for privacy and/or having barriers for what you may or may not want to know or have known about you by others, but being afraid to discuss things is part of what generates the problem in the first place. This is a huge phenomenon here with Mormonism, as sex is simply not talked about at all, and we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the nation, as well as one of the highest teenage suicide rates and prescription drug addiction rates. Simply trying to hide something just serves to entice and add a sense of mysterious fascination, or irrational fear and anger, but either way it doesn't lead to understanding. The bottom line though is that you don't need to agree or disagree with homosexuality, because unless you are a homosexual, it has nothing to do with you. If nobody is being harmed by it and it doesn't change you life, why do you care what homosexuals do? Perversity exists all over the sexual spectrum, and if something disgusts you, you be sure that someone of your same sexual orientation is doing the same or even worse somewhere. Besides not having a problem with it, I just don't see what the big deal is and why people waste so much of their time worrying about it.

Alternately, an attempt to impose a rule on a group of people can cause them to resent you. A lot of people theorize that this is why Iraq and Afghanistan aren't working out. A cursory analysis to be sure, but the point is that coercive methods can produce a backlash rather than a solution. Modern tolerance is a semantic hoax designed to force morality down people's throats, ironically enough for a movement that claims to do the opposite and uses exactly the same vulgar idiom. Tolerating homosexuality is fine, but people have no bloody idea what tolerance means nowadays because the word is not used correctly. Tolerance is deciding not to murder someone for their belief - it is not actively seeking to show what an egalitarian you are by saying nothing at all about anything except that which everyone agrees about. My problem with is that 'tolerance' is, as a matter of fact, highly intolerant. The other problem is the division between state and ethics. In purely political terms there shouldn't be any controversy about homosexuals getting the same marriage rights. In ethical terms, some people think there's something wrong with that. In Islamic law the difference is not well outlined, so it'd be hard to determine the difference between political ethics and 'personal' ethics. The idea that a number of people do think that sex is outlined for a specific purpose - which is why I brought up the Catholics. Catholics will not be caught dead approving of sex in an inappropriate context, hence they will not approve of sodomy. They care because their understanding is that God has set up sex for a specific and consecrated purpose. In the meantime, somewhat more pragmatic atheists might argue against homosexuality because it fails to perpetuate genetic material. What I'm trying to point out is that there are answers to the question of why people disapprove of homosexuality. Prudishness may be obnoxious and certainly has its drawbacks, but consistent prudishness can also lead to a life of sobriety, chastity and productivity. The problem you describe is people not being consistent, which is the case in any ethical orientation. Anyhow, people worry about it because they think it's wrong and, typically, that they don't understand separation of church and state. If they did the debate would shape up differently.

[Iceni]

This worthless' date=' gutless coward hides behind a computer keyboard because they dare not express their opinion in less anonymous media. well over 40,000 people have condemned this person and I think if the individual said those things in public they would spend the rest of their miserable existance in a hospital bed being fed through a tube.[/quote'] This is exactly the kind of thing I can't really comment on without controversy. Anyhow, I'll leave a cliche to sum up my opinion on said issue: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even people that one might think of as debauched fools and sadists have rights as well.

[BlutAusNerd]

Alternately, an attempt to impose a rule on a group of people can cause them to resent you. A lot of people theorize that this is why Iraq and Afghanistan aren't working out. A cursory analysis to be sure, but the point is that coercive methods can produce a backlash rather than a solution. Modern tolerance is a semantic hoax designed to force morality down people's throats, ironically enough for a movement that claims to do the opposite and uses exactly the same vulgar idiom. Tolerating homosexuality is fine, but people have no bloody idea what tolerance means nowadays because the word is not used correctly. Tolerance is deciding not to murder someone for their belief - it is not actively seeking to show what an egalitarian you are by saying nothing at all about anything except that which everyone agrees about. My problem with is that 'tolerance' is, as a matter of fact, highly intolerant. The other problem is the division between state and ethics. In purely political terms there shouldn't be any controversy about homosexuals getting the same marriage rights. In ethical terms, some people think there's something wrong with that. In Islamic law the difference is not well outlined, so it'd be hard to determine the difference between political ethics and 'personal' ethics. The idea that a number of people do think that sex is outlined for a specific purpose - which is why I brought up the Catholics. Catholics will not be caught dead approving of sex in an inappropriate context, hence they will not approve of sodomy. They care because their understanding is that God has set up sex for a specific and consecrated purpose. In the meantime, somewhat more pragmatic atheists might argue against homosexuality because it fails to perpetuate genetic material. What I'm trying to point out is that there are answers to the question of why people disapprove of homosexuality. Prudishness may be obnoxious and certainly has its drawbacks, but consistent prudishness can also lead to a life of sobriety, chastity and productivity. The problem you describe is people not being consistent, which is the case in any ethical orientation. Anyhow, people worry about it because they think it's wrong and, typically, that they don't understand separation of church and state. If they did the debate would shape up differently.

If this were an imposition of a new rule, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, your analogy would make more sense. On the contrary, legalizing gay marriage is the lifting of an imposed rule to the contrary, leveling the playing field. Surely, there are still people that resent the leveling of the playing field with women and various races, but as it's not oppressing them, they have no reason to feel this way. It sounds like your definition of tolerance is the same as mine, tolerating the existence of something, not pandering to the masses for acceptance of popular ideas (a definition more fitting of the word "politics"). Obviously in that case, tolerance can coexist with hatred, which still doesn't make it the right thing to do or necessarily even a good thing to do, but it's a step in the right direction. Really, any factor that is not decided by someone should have no basis in shaping their character, so anything that someone is not choosing shouldn't be subject to criticism, let alone hatred. Fundamentalists will argue that being gay is a decision, and I'm sure in some cases it is (usually stemming from sexual abuse/trauma at an early age), but by and large a person's sexual preference is not their choosing. Much like anything that appeals to us (food, music, art, etc...), everybody has different tastes that, while subject to influence, are largely preferential to us for no reason at all and vary from person to person. Sure, I could choose to not have sex with women were society to deem it immoral and I were to conform to its standards (not fucking likely), but that would not stop me from being attracted to women sexually. You should be able to express your sexual preferences as they exist to you (with another consenting individual, of course), just as I should be able to express my hatred for mushrooms and not be forced to put them on all manner of food simply because it's the norm. Indeed, many people do have a problem with the thought of gay sex. However, unless they were to witness it, it should not have a negative impact on their lives, so there's no reason to deem it "bad". I have a problem picturing people that I find unattractive having sex, but regardless of the orientation and my feelings about it, I have no reason to get upset about it. I just wish that people could be secure enough in their own lives and activities that they no longer feel the need to concern themselves with what other people are doing. Live and let live, and if your own life is so sad and pointless that you have to live vicariously by elevating yourself at the expense of others that are different from you, then you can fuck off for all I care. Catholics, Muslims, and whomever else can continue believing how they want, but they should stay away from the hypocrisy of judging someone else from an imperfect foundation. Again, prudishness is not something that I personally agree with, but just like everything else it is a valid path that people can choose to take. However, attempting to choose that path for someone else is not a right that people should have, regardless of how perfect they may think that they are. My annoyance with the Mormons in my state is not that they are Mormons and have chosen that lifestyle, it's that they're trying their hardest to choose that lifestyle for everyone else in this state as well (while hypocritically owning and controlling all alcohol and tobacco trafficking into and out of the state and making a hefty sum off of what they deem to be sinful), and don't desire to allow for there to be a decision for adults. Right or wrong, people need to be allowed to make their own choices, and especially regarding religions that deem that free will was given to us by God, they would then be in direct defiance of God's will to take that away.

[Iceni]

The main problem of a lot of these people is that they have good intentions. Muslims especially understand the Sharia as something to liberate human beings for their jahiliyya (ignorant) ways and set them on a path toward prosperity and enlightenment. I think many of them despise the way that the 'separation of church and state' is used to accuse them of being oppressive when that was never their intent. The concept of having someone 'live their own life' is seen as a cruel fate that they would not want to subject any kafir to. Much of the time their interest is philanthropic, not the kind of nosy imps that any given missionary group is commonly stigmatized as. Many of these people simply do not understand (or outright reject as immoral, in the case of more radical Muslims such as Sayyid Qutb) the idea of separation of church and state, and so they assume that legal action somehow counts as conversion. My point is that a lot of these people are honestly trying to make an effort to understand what their theology believes and what the general principle is behind it. As a result, they approve of sex for heterosexuals (and entirely reproductive sex at that, in the case of Catholics), and so it does matter what other people do - which again stems back to their hope for morality. Now, it would be perfectly acceptable to say that these people do not understand their own book, or that their good intentions are misguided, but it's uncharitable to accuse them all of malicious intent. It is true that some people have a pathological desire to put others down, but to assume that individual neuroses are the basis for broader behavior is a problematic assumption. Finally, I agree with your last point entirely. I'm just trying to point out that sometimes the personal viewpoints of some people recommend or require that they do their level best to change others.

[The Strategos]

I've been trying to work out what hipsters are and it seems pretty odd to me. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely only liking things which are non-mainstream is a different side of the same trend-following coin. They are still not thinking for themselves, which is what they are supposed to prize. Thinking for youself mean just that and should be as seperated as possible from anybody else's opinions, otherwise you are actually just being dictated to be the masses - and looking kinda dumb at the same time. It seems that a lot of people talk a lot of rot about thinking for themselves but are really just looking for a different heard of sheep to follow.

[Iceni]

Words cannot properly express the wholeheartedness of my agreement. That is more or less exactly my sentiment. The interesting thing is that rebellion and unorthodoxy has become the norm in a number of fields: theology, clothing, music, politics and ethics. The enormous irony in this is of course that because rebellion is the orthodoxy there's no unorthodoxy (except of course the orthodoxy itself). The key to hipsterism and indeed many other allegedly controversial and brave positions (especially with regards to religious orientation) is that they are in fact in perfect keeping with the norm. The thing is, the new norm works as a simply superb marketing gimmick. Any given company can churn out a 'peace' shirt or a 'vintage tee', and because wearing them is considered 'rebellious' or 'quirky' or 'eclectic' they've successfully managed to sucker dozens of kids my age into buying it, with none of them becoming cognizant of the fact that everyone is wearing the same 'quirky', 'individualistic' style. And even if they do, they feel comfortable as part of a group. This is why hipsters have no place in metal. Philosophically metal refers to independent thinking and individualism, which are the two things hipsters say they do and yet will never be able to accomplish.

[NTNR]

I'm still sick and tired of hearing about sports in all their forms.

[NTNR]

I don't have enough time to practice at work today!

[Iceni]

I wasn't even allowed to listen to music at work when I was at McDonald's, even when I was doing stuff like mopping floors and cleaning trays. Pity, because I worked much faster and more enthusiastically when I listened to Symphony X accompanying me. Also, it was annoying because other employees DID put on their own music and never got punished for it.