Dion

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

@Dynamo Frokane Shieeet homie, infertile women were out-casted to death and sometimes even killed, but shiet you right. You got it, it's not comparable. You can't see infertility. Can you see homosexuality? If so, please, tell me how. Far as I know homosexuals for the most part look like you and me. Might be awkward to assume someone is homosexual and they turn out not to be.

How is society heteronormative? I'm curious for your interpretation. Also, do you think it's strange that society is heteronormative, given that the norm is set by the majority, and the majority is hetero?

Aw shiet you just said you could tell that someone was gay. I guess you mean if they're openly holding hands and French kissing the fuck out of their partner (hot.) Yeah I agree they're normal people because actually I think homosexuality is normal (shiet, you even see it in birds. Not even because of a lack of different-sex partners but just for pleasure. Shit's crazy). You've never heard me say otherwise. I just wish that their gay prides resembled that they were regular people. Now that is something I would support because that in my eyes preaches social acceptance!

I strongly doubt that many people will be swayed by gay prides but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but raise you the counter point that the anti-homosexuality front probably in the same way attracts people.

As for your South Park analogy - I think that you're right. But shiet you must be able to tell that South Park never had South-Park-Prides where people preached the acceptance of muh naughty words. Like I said before, preaching 'WE MUST ACCEPT THESE PEOPLE OR ELSE WE ARE BIGOTS' is not going to help their cause man.

Rant about 'teaching men not to rape'.

@Dynamo Frokane Like I said my statement was based largely off of my own speculation.

The beauty about being convinced is I don't need to have data. This is my gut feeling. If I was certain and had the data to back it up I'd say I was certain. I presented the data to you though, and admitted it's flimsy. The sources are kinda shit.

Not all judgements are passed within court of law. I'd like you to imagine your name and image being forever attached to an article that says 'rapist' even if it's proven later that you didn't do it. And most rape-cases never get brought into a court, because the police does most the work. Only in complex/large scale cases will there be a court hearing that is public. Most of the time they're not and they're done by a lower-ranking judge that does criminal stuff.

And actually following statistics there are many many ways to determine what a 'real' rape victim is likely to do. For example most rape cases go unreported or are hidden for a long time, and that victims are generally ashamed of what happened (which is the reason many don't report it, as well as the fact that it's so hard for males to report it aside from the police not taking it seriously). So from this it's possible to assume that people wouldn't go into the media the day after it happened. See, there are some general statements you can make that can help you narrow down possible real victims from the possible fake ones.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't take both seriously. Just means it helps you categorize and search for clues.

Generalizations are useful sometimes.

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

@Dynamo Frokane Historically infertile women were given a lot of shit actually, and so were men that were considered infertile (because it wasn't possible to prove it back then). So you are wrong in that department. It has nothing to do with 'considering it normal' because infertility for straight couples historically resulted in shit too. In fact for a woman it was considered dangerous too. Because women didn't work = women didn't earn income = women relied on husbands to earn = husbands wanted a child to further their family line. No child = no food on the table = death.

The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.

In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.

bustle.com/articles/76161-how-infertil..

Ancient Indian childless women appeared not to have a good life either. One of the earliest Vedic texts reads: "O woe is the woman who does not carry out the provided role of a mother [birth of sons]. O woe the unmarried, woe the childless, woe the mother of daughters, the widow." Women who couldn't get pregnant were viewed as "possessed by Nirrti," a particularly ferocious goddess, and could be cast away out of the family unit.

Read a history book my man.

Generationally (that word comes up a lot when discussing social issues) we have gotten past that just like we will get past homophobia. But applying pressure like the LGBT community does now by forcing people to get over it is counteractive and makes it take longer to get over it. It makes people feel forced to do something and if anything, people don't like to be forced to do things.

I am unsure how protesting social acceptance would do any good. 'WE DEMAND YOU ACCEPT US' that's great, but.. who is going to listen to that? Do you expect to sway the hillbilly Christian who totes guns at homosexuals that steps too close to his property? How? He's not gonna have an epiphany, come on.

Race relations also don't improve with government bills but they're a start. Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome. But it can lead to equal outcome. For example, lets say blacks were now getting educated (which they are more and more) meaning they're legally and socially on more equal footing with other races (let's say whites, because that's the prime target group I guess).

Not only that but it brings them into areas that were previously predominantly white, and perhaps Asian and Euro-Hispanic. That makes them mix with white people and other races, and it begins the fostering of the understanding of different cultures and the feeling that perhaps they are not so different after all. The in-group is no longer defined by skin color alone, but also by just sharing the same space, talking, etc.

Now imagine the same for homosexuals. They have the same rights and equal access to the same agencies and possibilities. Instead of mingling with the majority and fostering the growth of the in-group relations, they choose to out themselves at gay prides to show 'look how different we are!' Do you think that straight people will go 'well damn, they're kinda like us after all!!!' Fuck no.

Most people will no care, and those hard-liners that were already against homosexuals will see the.. half naked men.. and go 'GOD DAMN WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG' and continue toting guns. Like I said before, acceptance is already at a very high level in city areas, and as mentioned by Jigg, the areas that do not have a lot of acceptance are full of hard-liners that are not going to chance their mind with gay prides.

Rant about 'teaching men not to rape'.

@Dynamo Frokane Citation depends 100% on which sources you read (duh). The research methods are also really off, and the subject groups are also too small. Scroll down to Rumney (2006) and see for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation..

There has yet to be a solid research into these numbers, therefore my statement is based entirely upon my own speculation. Perhaps I should have added that, but eh. I'm convinced a large part of the 'proven' rapes are also false.

Especially looking at those cases that make it into the media. Those are a big indicator for me. First of all, if someone doesn't seek the media for their rape case, I find their claim to be raped that much more believable. I don't think a real rape victim would speak to the media openly about what happened, especially if it's a celebrity.

There are many case studies recently that show exactly what I mean. Media-covered 'rapes' are already discredited in my eyes.

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

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

Surely you realise that you AND a few others in this thread, have also posted in unpopular opinions. Glad to see we are all part of the same edgy pirate ship.

@Dynamo Frokane

Please read. Including me I wrote.

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

<Snipped quote by Neurovoid>

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

I think the point that the Neurovoid was making that people dont have to worry about holding hands ont the basis of being heterosexual I'm sure a hetero jewish couple in an anti-semitic area might get shit for holding hands, but that would be because of their faith not because they are straight.

Hetero people just dont get shit for being straight in most of the world in the modern world and in history.

@Dynamo Frokane

And the point I was making was that being homosexual is just one of the problems a couple can face, not the problem a couple can face. It's a variable within a relationship and the outsider response to that relationship, not the single defining factor, and therefore, there are many different ways for a couple to be endangered in public.

One such reason could be as simple as looking at someone in public.

Violence doesn't need a reason, a lot of the times. You are correct in saying that heterosexuals don't get shit for being heterosexual in the world. There's not a single country that gives people shit for that.

Because that'd be - quite literally - the stupidest thing to ever exist. The reason being that if you are anti-heterosexuals you are anti-human nature, because fact of the matter is heterosexual couples make babies and therefore every society looks at heterosexuals favorably.

A society that is anti-heterosexual can't exist because that society would die out within one generation.

The entire point I'm making is that the legal rights of LGBT people have been established, therefore there is not much more the LGBT crowd can protest for. Bar maybe the bathroom rights (which I find a ridiculous thing to feel the need to argue for to begin with). Socially yeah, there's a lot we can still establish and improve on.

Such as homosexuals not being targeted in public.

Sadly you can never eradicate homosexuals being targeted - not because of religion, not because of hatred, not for any reason, because even if you remove those factors, senseless violence for no reason other than the desire to be violent still exists, and it is not unlikely in my eyes that this is a large cause for the violence against homosexual couples.

Protests won't help you with that.

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

@Dynamo Frokane except this is a serious thread where as yours is a thread full of edgy people doing their best to throw shade what 'subtle' unpopular opinions. That includes me.

Cheers mate.

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

@Dynamo Frokane Insightful, just like I've come to expect from you. Mature debate isn't possible with you around innit?

@Jig Get back to you once I'm done playing CSGO.

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

@Mr Allen J lol ok

The Palace of Pimpitude (A Hangout Thread)

<Snipped quote by Cynder>

You can't force it, homie.

@Mr Allen J

it's funny because once people actually start conversing they become friendly

where as when we argue, everyone hates everyone (and their mom)