Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

How the right respond to hate crime against gay people. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    No, he said the reporter finds it harder to understand the wider impact because he isn't LGBTQIA. that makes perfect sense.
    And it was said that Jews get attacked, does one have to be a Jew to fathom an attack. He was just getting arsy, like most who think it's all about them. :rolleyeyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    And it was said that Jews get attacked, does one have to be a Jew to fathom an attack. He was just getting arsy, like most who think it's all about them. :rolleyeyes:
    He didn't think it was about him at all. He was astounded by the fact the news reporters were claiming it wasn't an LGBT attack - yes it was. And to say it wasn't is completely out of line. That was his point. Go and read his article for The Guardian if you want to at least try and understand why he did what he did. I agree that he was slightly eccentric but he wasn't being selfish or 'arsy'. He had very strong reasons to do what he did and he was not the one in the wrong in this situation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Roast)
    Demonise Christians for a cake.

    Defend Muslims for 50 dead in a gay bar.


    What a time to be alive.
    Er, where is the defence of Muslims?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    He didn't think it was about him at all. He was astounded by the fact the news reporters were claiming it wasn't an LGBT attack - yes it was. And to say it wasn't is completely out of line. That was his point. Go and read his article for The Guardian if you want to at least try and understand why he did what he did. I agree that he was slightly eccentric but he wasn't being selfish or 'arsy'. He had very strong reasons to do what he did and he was not the one in the wrong in this situation.
    I was watching it all, no need to read his column. He's very opinionated but mostly I agree with him but not here. This is the first time a LGB attack has taken place (thankfully) but to throw a hissy fit & storm off, really? When Londoners died people were emotional yet they conducted interviews without all this behaviour.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    I was watching it all, no need to read his column. He's very opinionated but mostly I agree with him but not here. This is the first time a LGB attack has taken place (thankfully) but to throw a hissy fit & storm off, really? When Londoners died people were emotional yet they conducted interviews without all this behaviour.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm sorry but read the article. You clearly do not understand what he did and why.

    Gay attacks have been going on daily.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I was watching Sky News last night and couldn't understand what the guy on there was getting so upset about. He was getting caught up on certain words. It was just weird.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I'm sorry but read the article. You clearly do not understand what he did and why.

    Gay attacks have been going on daily.
    What mass shootings of gay people daily? :-/

    People are attacked daily for being black, white, brown, Sikh, Muslim, Christian. Or looked at the wrong way. Attacks aren't exclusive to gays.

    He's taken the light off the actual incident. As Obama said it was a terrorist attack.

    Which was in a club full of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals & Transgender and even straights. (latter is my quote)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    And it was said that Jews get attacked, does one have to be a Jew to fathom an attack. He was just getting arsy, like most who think it's all about them. :rolleyeyes:
    The reporters were patronising him and being ignorant and stubborn. No wonder he got up and left.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NathanW18)
    I was watching Sky News last night and couldn't understand what the guy on there was getting so upset about. He was getting caught up on certain words. It was just weird.
    They were trying to say it wasnt an LGBTQIA attack... which it was.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    They were trying to say it wasnt an LGBTQIA attack... which it was.
    I really don't think they were. I am almost positive the lady on the show (I don't know what her name is) said at least twice that they agree it was an attack on LGBT people. I do remember the male presenter talking about it being an attack on human beings and he got pissed off over that.

    He then mentioned something about them not understanding, because they're not gay? I felt like the guy was a **** and showed himself up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    What mass shootings of gay people daily? :-/

    People are attacked daily for being black, white, brown, Sikh, Muslim, Christian. Or looked at the wrong way. Attacks aren't exclusive to gays.

    He's taken the light off the actual incident. As Obama said it was a terrorist attack.

    Which was in a club full of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals & Transgender and even straights. (latter is my quote)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No - but attacks. Mass killings is different but attacks certainly do happen daily.

    I agree with you but that is not what anybody, including Owen, was arguing. People aren't talking about attacks generally - they are talking about Orlando. This was an anti-gay attack. It should be stated as such. It was a Homophobic Radical Islamic Terrorist attack in the State of Florida. That's all there is to it. And these reporters sought to take that away from the LGBT community by saying it was a general US attack, which it wasn't. 9/11 was, Paris was, Brussels was, and so were the July bombings in London. This is a case where a specific member of Society was targeted for who they were. News teams have an obligation to report facts - not rubbish.

    No, you could not be more wrong. Owen sought to stop light being taken off of the true nature of this event. It was a Homophobic Radical Islamic Terrorist attack. Nothing more, and nothing less.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NathanW18)
    I really don't think they were. I am almost positive the lady on the show (I don't know what her name is) said at least twice that they agree it was an attack on LGBT people. I do remember the male presenter talking about it being an attack on human beings and he got pissed off over that.

    He then mentioned something about them not understanding, because they're not gay? I felt like the guy was a **** and showed himself up.
    Then I feel you have misread the situation.

    If they agreed it was an attack on LGBT people, the argument wouldn't have occured. The reporter tried to say it was not an LGBT attack, but an attack on America. This is not true. It was an attack on LGBTQIA Americans, which presents a threat to US national security. It is what it is ad Owen was arguing that people should stop removing 'LGBT' from their brandings of the event - it was an LGBT Massacre. In an LGBT venue. Killing LGBT people. With an anti-LGBT motive, as confirmed by the boy's father.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    right wingers (or southern conservatives, in american political terms) don't advocate gay people *dying* - but quite a lot of muslims do (as it's their religion), but the left hedge muslims.
    and before you tell me "but it's christians' religion to kill gays too" - america is a country of the enlightenment where liberal values have trumped iron age religions - islam is a religion that has come from the middle east where that enlightenment never happened so its culture was barbaric by comparison
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I thought the sky interview was just weird. I don't know why they were so reluctant to say it was an attack on gay people. It was literally an attack on a gay bar.

    I also thought that, whilst I wouldn't endorse every word he wrote, Owen Jones was eminently reasonable in saying this:

    Orlando was both a terrorist attack and a homophobic attack on LGBT people. It was both the worst mass shooting in US history, and the worst targeted mass killing of LGBT people in the western world since the Holocaust. It is possible for an atrocity to be more than one thing at the same time. You are not compelled to select one option or the other
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Personally I thought the sky interview was just weird. I don't know why they were so reluctant to say it was an attack on gay people. It was literally an attack on a gay bar.

    I also thought that, whilst I wouldn't endorse every word he wrote, Owen Jones was eminently reasonable in saying this:
    This.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Personally I thought the sky interview was just weird. I don't know why they were so reluctant to say it was an attack on gay people. It was literally an attack on a gay bar.

    I also thought that, whilst I wouldn't endorse every word he wrote, Owen Jones was eminently reasonable in saying this:
    I agree. I really don't understand why the host had such a problem with Owen saying it was an attack on the LGBT demographic. He kept saying we are talking about the papers as if it wasn't some how relevant which is insane. It is incredibly insulting and insensitive, especially if you are talking to a gay person who is a LGBT activist. The host was acting as if even contemplating that an attack by someone who was inspired by ISIS, a group who execute gay people, would have any homophobic views/motivations would mean you are a leftist SJW nutjob.

    Only thing I can think of is there seems to be this need to be "balanced" which means whenever you have anyone who is left wing like Owen Jones you need to provide a counter argument and make the left winger look at best well meaning but a bit on the fringe. Even if the thing you are arguing about is as obvious as this was clearly a motivated attack against LGBT party goers. There is all this talk of regressive leftism, well I'd call this regressive centrism. To dismiss any anti LGBT motivation for the attack is giving these Islamist nut jobs a free pass. It's analogous to when the BBC talk to a homeopath or a flat earther and feel the need to provide "balance" when the one side of the argument are just wrong. The host was defend the "flat earth" of the above analogue essentially.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Roast)
    Demonise Christians for a cake.

    Defend Muslims for 50 dead in a gay bar.


    What a time to be alive.
    Peter Tatchell defended those homophobic bakers' right to not make their stupid cakes. He also said Owen Jones was right to storm off.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    Ad how the left responds

    http://thesatedire.com/news/world-ne...icising-islam/

    Homosexuality is an act of love, stand united. Religion is a set of ideas, some of which are hateful. Stand against ALL FORMS of fascism. This is not left and right. Let the politicians politic, let the right of mind unite.
    What exactly is wrong with standing against all forms of fascism?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What exactly is wrong with standing against all forms of fascism?
    I think you misread what I said
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I agree. I really don't understand why the host had such a problem with Owen saying it was an attack on the LGBT demographic. He kept saying we are talking about the papers as if it wasn't some how relevant which is insane. It is incredibly insulting and insensitive, especially if you are talking to a gay person who is a LGBT activist. The host was acting as if even contemplating that an attack by someone who was inspired by ISIS, a group who execute gay people, would have any homophobic views/motivations would mean you are a leftist SJW nutjob.

    Only thing I can think of is there seems to be this need to be "balanced" which means whenever you have anyone who is left wing like Owen Jones you need to provide a counter argument and make the left winger look at best well meaning but a bit on the fringe. Even if the thing you are arguing about is as obvious as this was clearly a motivated attack against LGBT party goers. There is all this talk of regressive leftism, well I'd call this regressive centrism. To dismiss any anti LGBT motivation for the attack is giving these Islamist nut jobs a free pass. It's analogous to when the BBC talk to a homeopath or a flat earther and feel the need to provide "balance" when the one side of the argument are just wrong. The host was defend the "flat earth" of the above analogue essentially.
    I wholeheartedly agree with regressive centrism, TV debates are set up to treat all opinions as equal when they clearly aren't.

    Surely this can be a religious attack on the LGBT community? Why does it have to be and either or question? We seem so ill-equipped to discuss big issues.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.