Dion

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

@Wade Wilson the patriarchy is so strong nowadays that even women are seen as men, so you can blame the patriarchy, son

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

@Wade Wilson thank you my son

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

@Mr Allen J this image would be funny but it really isn't because there's a gay fucking furry on it

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

This doesn't pertain to anyone rn, just a thought:

Why is it called homophobia? like xenophobia? You aren't terrified of gay people. You don't see one and start screaming and running for your life. People just don't like gay people and that's that. You won't change their minds but the way I see it. You don't have to like gay people but you can and will respect them as fellow human beings and treat them with the same rights (marriage, not blocking off usage of certain restrooms, not allowing businesses to not allow them inside based on sexuality) and you do this through law.

@SilentWriter83

There's a difference between legal rights, of which a homophobe will hopefully agree that homosexuals should have access to equal laws and rights. There's also social treatment. Nobody is under any pressure to be friends with homosexuals, to like them, or to accept them.

I can be anti homosexuality, and still agree that homosexuals should have equal access to any rights I have. So you're right. Law = law. Social interaction however is not.

You're not going to make people like others through law but you can grant them rights. People didn't, and still don't like black people. (I know this trust me) But we were granted the same rights as our white counterparts. Why? We're human. Same thing goes with non-hetero or non-cis people.

@SilentWriter83

This is cognitive bias. I'm white, I fuck heavily with black people. I just don't like the ones that scream racism in my face for making a casually racist joke. In the same way I don't get mad when my friend calls me a school shooter. But it's a matter - for me - of knowing the time and place of when these things are appropriate.

White people that walk up to a random black person and go 'ey my nigga' make me cringe. White people that go up to random black people and ask 'can I touch your hair' make me cringe.

White people know no shame.

Same goes for black people. Some black people did some cringy shit to me too, but key part that I took away from that is that it doesn't reflect on black people all together.

One other thing I noticed is that there's not much hatred within the white-people group. Maybe in Europe there's some historical tensions but not racial ones between white people.

Where as in the US, white people love eachother.

Now look at blacks - lightskin vs. darkskin, Carribean vs. US vs. African blacks, it's a lot of infighting and hatred within that group.

Black on black crime is a real and dangerous thing and I don't think it gets as much attention from blacks as it should. In fact it's kinda glorified a lot.

They wanna make some excuse that this 'bathroom law' will prevent rapes in bathrooms. False. It's just so conservatives can control the people that don't conform. I've watched a man follow a woman into a bathroom because she had short hair and wore basketball shorts. I've seen a woman, who didn't conform to the female archetype (basically short hair and 'boys' clothes) dragged out of the bathroom because police didn't believe she was born female. Like what, am I supposed to drop my pants and prove I have a vagina before I can pee?

@SilentWriter83

Disagree. I don't think the conservatives want to control anyone. Keep in mind I'm not a conservative nor a liberal, I am just whatever I want to be when it comes to issues. I can be liberal when it comes to technology and stuff, and I'm very conservative about values, norms and social stuffs. I switch around because I don't want my (political) opinions to be decided by whoever I side with.

If you believe the conservatives want to control people I think that's wrong. Yes they want to control people - to control them into using a certain bathroom. In the same way liberals want to control people - control them into using whatever bathroom, or control them into agreeing with them (with their 'stick' being the act of labeling anyone that disagrees as a sexist/bigot). It's a different side of the same damn coin, isn't it? It's not like they want to powertrip and become these lizard people that control everyone and their mother, with microchips in their brains.

Come on. You know better than that.

idk. I think it's dumb. No, not everyone will like non-hetero people but laws that specifically target them aren't cool. Who cares if a transgender person wants to use the bathroom that makes them more comfortable. And if, this is a big if, a man tries to claim he's transgender just to get in, the trust me something will be done. No woman really goes to the bathroom alone. We go in pairs as we were taught since we were little to avoid situations such as these. (also no one seems concerned at all about women lying to get into mens bathrooms but I won't touch on the hypocrisy behind THAT one as if men are innately predatory and women are these meak things. bleh)

@SilentWriter83

I'm on the fence. Gender has very fucking little to do with how you urinate or shit. Sex is important for the urinate part.
But then I also really don't care for female/male bathrooms and we should just get 1 bathroom for all.

I also doubt women would lie to get in the mens bathroom. If they want to see my dick or anyone elses dick, they can just ask and most men will happily show them.

We're weak in the brain when it comes to that.

These are just thoughts. So basically. Homophobia is not a phobia. You aren't scared you just disagree. People will never fully accept gay people because (slight offense) religion won't allow it. You'll always have people steadfast in their beliefs and you won't rid them of them. But everyone deserves the same rights regardless of sex, gender, orientation, skin color, etc.

@SilentWriter83

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

@Neurovoid depending on ethnicity, cultural background and their age, yes, they may have that problem.

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

_{i see buddha is going strong with sein new identity}

is this basically just so we all have a reason not to argue in the status bar

@Wade Wilson

no i changed my gender, my sexuality has nothing to do with my gender you fucking bigot. today i decided i am demiromanticsexualgender

that means you'll have to call me 'papi' or 'papa' or a variant of that word that denotes a male father figure

thanks.

yeah we're still going to argue just not in the status bar basically

@Ebonsquire

LOL keep dreaming

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

whats the deal with jews??????!!!!!

@Ebonsquire

what's the deal with airplane food?

shit i popped a boner and am ejaculating all over the place

i knew being seinfeld sexual was a mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant about 'teaching men not to rape'.

@Cynder I have two addendums. First of all I want to address that a large amount of the rape claims that are filed at the police are actually not true. Before you go batshit crazy (not you specifically but anyone reading this) about how that is sexist and victim blaming (lol victim blaming plz..) let me explain why this is bad for rape victims and men.

First of all if false rape claims are filed a lot more often than real rape claims, it becomes prerogative to assume a new rape claim is fake. 'Oh, most of them are fake.. this one probably is too.' Sounds mean, is reality. Police people do not see people in front of them, they see statistics and numbers. It's important to remember that.

So the more false rape claims, the more skeptical people become of rape claims in general. I can attest, I am very skeptical of rape claims especially when high profile people are involved. The reason is I am a man and I imagine it's hard for women to imagine, but even a false rape claim can permanently ruin a mans life to the point of not ever getting a job ever again.

If a false rape claim was ever filed against me, I'd probably never be capable of living my life out.

So, I am skeptical. Guilty until proven innocent is often how it goes with rape, because the media picks up quick and they have no issue filing your full name, picture and calling you a rapist before a conviction already.

So false rape claims are bad for both sides. Tumblr likes to advocate that there's no such thing as a false rape claim however so apparently I am wrong.

---

Second, as a martial artist, I'd have to say...

MMA is brutally effective. It's not a martial art, it doesn't teach you anything beyond fighting. It's good if you want to defend yourself and only that, and have no interest about other stuff.

I'd never recommend it to someone who isn't looking to become a fighting machine but just wants some experience in defending themselves. Same for Systema or Krav Maga. Both are respectable fighting disciplines, and I really want to learn one of the three (Krav Maga, Systema, MMA) but fact of the matter is they are not martial arts, they don't teach self defence, they teach you how to knock a mothafucka out.

If I had to say what a good self defence course would be, it'd be something like MMA style punching, some judo, some karate for stances and kicks, and then to teach the golden rule:

There is no one self defence style that is perfect. It's rock paper scissors. If you want to prevent rape, do not apply these techniques like they are performed in the book. Adaptability is the only thing that can help you, so apply the techniques in a realistic way that is useful.

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

@Vor More or less agree 100% with what you said. You can change all you want in laws (like in Russia) but if the people are unwilling to accept homosexuals you can't force them to like homosexuals.

@Vilageidiotx Gon reply in a quote because I'm too lazy to constantly scroll up to counter your points. Also, it lets me comment while I read which is better.

This is going to seem a little bit like it coming out of nowhere, like out of left field or something, but this thread sort of reminds me of a conversation that everyone who knows my father had to have with him last October. In October of 2015, the Kansas City Royals (American Baseball) won the World Series (Baseball championship among the parts of the world that matter, namely the US and Canada). I just happen to be from that exact same city. And really, the entire place got really into it. There was a homecoming parade that basically shutdown downtown. I had to work that day, a few miles south of the event. The foot traffic was enough to make me fifteen minutes late despite planning for it. In a midwestern US city, that type of thing is unusual. Surreal even. If you see pictures of it on the internet, it looks a whole lot like an ant colony in a sidewalk crack.

Sounds pretty damn fucking annoying. Not anything I'd get mad about. In the same way I'm not mad about gay prides. The reason I find gay prides unnecessary is because they do not offer constructive furthering of acceptance for homosexuals. The fact that it obstructs the city is just a small side note for me.

The reason I bring that up is to set up the conversation everyone had to have with my father shortly after. He is the type of guy who secretly thinks he is the only person in the world doing enough work. Everyone else is too lazy or something. He also absolutely hates professional sports. There have been plenty of "My tax dollar" rants about that in the past, and about how frivolous people are being, drinking and just watching people play a game and all that. So when that parade happened, and when he heard a few co workers complain they couldn't get the time off to go there, he sorta popped. I got a variation of the rant a few days later. The gist was something to the effect that people were childish for being interested, that blocking traffic was denying hardworking people proper access to the roads, that there are better things to do, whatevs whatevs. And he was legit pissed off about it.
Don't assume I'm pissed off, because as I said, I really couldn't care less, gay prides happen like once or twice a year here. Like mentioned above, they are not furthering acceptance and therefore are not useful. Tax funding for these projects, therefore, is nothing more than funding a party. Which is stupid IMHO. If they did it through crowdfunding/entry tickets or some shit like all the other festivals and parades do, then I really, really couldn't care less what the fuck they do.

But that's not how it goes.

How dare anybody do something in public that he had no interest in?

And the sort of "Dude, who the fuck cares?" reaction I had to that is basically the same one I have to the complaint about public homosexual events. Like, your argument seems to be marketing one in essence. A sort of "I think the way you sell your candy-bar is shit because the ad campaign doesn't appeal to me" thing. Then you should maybe consider reading it again, because that's not what I think. But that isn't really the point. You'd have to get solid evidence that gay parades don't appeal or effect anybody at all to show them as absolutely useless, and even then, that would be more of a marketing gaffe than anything else. But as this stands, the argument seems to be "Gay parades are bad because I personally am not convinced by them." I can't prove a negative. If the organizers can come with constructive ways of showing me that gay prides do further acceptance (in my country which is already very very accepting) then sure, be my guest, have all the gay prides you want.



My question then also is; do things like this belong in there?

I suggest you translate and read this because it shows exactly why I have issues with the gayprides here and I am backed up by it by the creator of the gayprides in the Netherlands. Commercialisation of the gay pride has come thus far that it's no longer about acceptance, it's about 'showing you support homosexuals' even if you don't. I mean, even the SGP had a float. For those that don't know the SGP, it's a Dutch party that is notoriously Christian and notoriously anti homosexual. .. does that make sense to you? Because to me it shows that the event is no longer about acceptance but PR.

And the thing is, I suspect we both share basically the same view on Homosexuality itself. I am not personally gay, I don't know very many gay people, it isn't a part of my life beyond it coming up in political discussions. But the difference I suppose is that, if I were to see a Gay Pride parade, the only effect it would have on me (assuming there isn't something funny to point out) would be to make me think "Looks like Main St is plugged with gays, better take Grand so I can get to where I am going."

I can sense you're missing the backdrop of this discussion. There was a discussion about this in the status bar - about how homophobia is inherently bad and all homophobes were evil. I set out to prove that isn't the case and that the number of homophobes is drastically over exaggerated. This wasn't about gay prides to begin with. But I do enjoy discussions about this so I'm just gonna continue.

I don't want to petition to ban gay prides. I think people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and if they're happy then cool. But it irks me that the government uses it as a PR-pony, funds it to 'look good' and is essentially just funding a festival for no reason. No other festival gets this type of funding, no other festival gets clearance to be hosted in the center of fucking Amsterdam, so why should homosexuals?

We want to accept homosexuals right? So why give them preferential treatment? Let them host a festival on the Malieveld in the Hague like all other festivals. Let them pay for it themselves, with minimal funding.

I think you're mistaking me for someone who really cares for this topic a lot and made this thread because of that. This is not the case. The case is I made this because we argued about it in the status bar and I wanted to continue the discussion.

I mean, shit, we had one of the more brawling Trump Rally's earlier in the spring, with people yelling about the wall and getting in fights with counter protesters and all that fun stuff. I don't particularly like Trump, but when I saw his rally, my reaction wasn't one of disgust, it was one of route-recalculation. It's a public place, and I'm only a tiny fraction of the population. As you said yourself, "Nobody really cares about what you think." Understandably, but you can't do this in Amsterdam. I am not American. We don't have 200 different blocks. We have tiny narrow streets with canals between them, that are hard to navigate, especially in a car, and if you go into a street, find out it's blocked, and then a car pulls up behind you, congratulations, you're stuck for the coming 5 hours before the blockage is removed.

I also feel like you are using the free speech argument backwards a bit here. The vibe I get from your argument is that vehemently disliking homophobes is an abuse of freedom of speech? No. This is not what I am saying. Read again. But wouldn't a person who is gay, or even just really pro-gay, naturally be inclined to dislike people who dislike them? That is their good right, just like it is the good right of homophobes to strongly dislike homosexuals. I am saying this works both ways and homophobes have rights too. And wouldn't, by the standards of free speech, a person who openly hates group A be open to the rebuke of group A? If you don't like the gays, the gays have every right not to like you. There is a sort of equal and opposite reaction thing that, really, both sides get confused by. If a person is openly homophobic, they should expect an equal and opposite reaction. If I spit on my neighbors cat, I've earned him spitting on mine. We don't seem to have a problem with homophobes being, like, lynched or anything, so I don't think that particular detail is out of control. The online hunt for homophobes I'd say is quite equal to that. Doxing someone and getting them fired is easy nowadays. It happened before. If the biggest threat is people saying stupid shit on tumblr, I think we're doing okay in the free speech department. My post really didn't have anything to do with free speech outside of the fact that homophobes have a right to free speech too. And really, except for the people everywhere who seem to think free speech means saying silly shit without being called out on it, I think the western world's free speech situation is doing quite well right now Refer to the comic in my OP. I don't disagree with you. It becomes a problem to me personally when social media platforms that really are just public platforms at this point (yes, twitter is a private platform, but it's so big and so public, it should be classified as such) are becoming echo chambers for those with specific sets of opinions, with the other side being blocked from accessing it or are severely limited in their ability to do so.

Democracy is a simpler thing to respond to: I do not think there is such a thing (outside of sci-fi novels and high school essays) as a society that can produce an ideal form of government. I have a solution, which is simply to switch government forms whenever society needs it. Fascism is great post-war if you lost. Communism is great when you need to carpet-bomb your country with factories. Democracy is great for small countries with good education systems. Dictatorship is great when you lack decisiveness and flip-flop between policies like the USA. There's benefits to all government forms, there is not one ideal form, there are many that in my opinion you need to combine.

But with human beings leading the countries, this can never exist. The photo on the box for democracy might be the old stiff-lipped citizen society of Athens as we want to remember it, but open the box and yes, it is true, you get a populist mess that veers with the wind. The photo on the box for Republicanism might be the stoic citizen-farmer-soldier Roman, but open it and you get corruption and more populism. But at the same time, look on the box for Monarchy you see the enlightened monarch, open it and you get George III, or Charles II of Spain, or Nicholas II. The box for Communism might be progression to a socialist utopia, but inside that box is Stalinist sycophantic bureaucracy, or whatever the fuck was up with Pol Pot. Fascism had the platonic, meritocratic dream-world, but the reality... i mean, holy shit Don't confuse fascism for nazism.. Humanity is just a messy species. It's what we do. Democracy as we practice it seems to keep society relatively balanced at least. For better or worse, we don't veer off in the Quixotic directions that modern anti-democracy seems to inevitably take. It seems like you're stuck with limited choices; corruption, or Caligula.

That being said, I am perfectly find with the rest of the world doing their own thing, because I understand that I don't really understand the rest of the world. If continental Europe wants to play with fascism again or something, go for it. I admit my Anglo-Saxoness makes it difficult for me to understand the attraction, but if you want to give everything up to some goofy fuck with a messiah complex and alcoholic-uncle type opinions, knock yourself out. Just don't invade France. I just want Antwerp back, man.

@Vilageidiotx

On LGBT+, homophobia, country-perspective (EU vs US), democracy, and free speech.

@SilentWriter83 I mean shieeeeeeeeeeeeed you ever seen how we build here? Our houses are like 6 meters wide and 3 stories tall just because we need to fit as many houses as we can into 1 street. :/ I can imagine that in NYC you can have a bit more space but you really can't here. Hence, private venue = best bet.