Another battle front has opened up – keep going the fight for our gay rights is not over yet.
The same mindset prevailing in the UK that also supports a ban on same-sex marriage aided and abetted by some of our own gay people who are in lock-step with StonewallUK from which Cameron et al takes his cues on equality. Sickening to think that our own people support discrimination against their own. Self loathers if ever there were.
>Self loathers if ever there were.
This (tired) line does not improve with repetition.
Didn’t expect anything from these bible-banging cretins. The straights are the majority and can interpret the Constitution to say anything that they want it to. It’s a miracle decisions go our way as often as they do.
This (tired) line does not improve with repetition.
dont repeat it then
“This (tired) line does not improve with repetition.”
Yeah, but it only seems to offend those basket case morons who stand up against their own civil liberties and freedoms, doesn’t it?
more proof that equal rights do not exist
> dont repeat it then
> Yeah, but it only seems to offend those basket case morons who stand up against their own civil liberties and freedoms, doesn’t it?
It does something else which is boost the vanity of the person saying it. When a gay person calls another self-loathing or whatever choice phrase is in fashion, that person confers upon themselves the right to determine who is properly gay and who is not.
The person who is not properly gay is self-loathing. The self-anointed accuser is the real gay person. Being gay becomes linked to a political position rather than being a fact of life. And the accuser is the person who determines who can and cannot be considered as gay.
Using sexuality as an insult is internecine and no better being from a gay person to a gay person than a straight person to a gay person.
“When a gay person calls another self-loathing or whatever choice phrase is in fashion, that person confers upon themselves the right to determine who is properly gay and who is not.”
No, it implies what the phrase manes, that some gay people seek to undermine their own civil liberties due to some self esteem issues, or the belief that such actions will gain the approval from heterosexual people.
Ted Haggard, point and case. Gay people who vote BNP and other right wing parties that will ultimately suppress their resistance, is another.
Its really not that difficult a concept.
It may not really be that difficult. Or perhaps it may be more subtle than you suggest.
Yes – perhaps Teg Haggard is self-loathing. The term used like that is simple, as you point out. However, used against someone who is not in extremis, such as those who are on the centre-right and who post to this site does represent a view on the person using the term as an insult that they are able to determine who is properly gay.
Recall that the comment was made against people from Stonewall. One gay person called members of Stonewall, a gay rights group, self-loathing. That is nothing other than a calculated insult based upon not having the proper gay views.
“However, used against someone who is not in extremis”
Extremism is in the eye of the beholder, and it is fairly obvious to even the most untrained eye, that the closer to the ‘right’ a gay person becomes/thinks, the more likely (s)he is suffering from a multitude of debilitating physiological issues:- denial, need for acceptance from those who persecute you, guilt, “self loathing”, etc.
> Extremism is in the eye of the beholder, and it is fairly obvious to even the most untrained eye, that the closer to the ‘right’ a gay person becomes/thinks, the more likely (s)he is suffering from a multitude of debilitating physiological issues:- denial, need for acceptance from those who persecute you, guilt, “self loathing”, etc. Its really not that difficult a concept.
That’s mere stupidity and adds nothing to the conversation.
“That’s mere stupidity and adds nothing to the conversation.”
Ironically, I was thinking the same about you, but was being too polite. What a truely insipid and dull response that was. If one can’t be bothered to make a civilised and intelligent point, then insults just make one look more the buffoon, wouldn’t you agree?
Goes to show how the more right one is, the more angry one becomes. Good for you, “de Villiers”.
You deliberately raised the first insult by stating that a statement was ‘really’ not that difficult a concept. You deliberately picked one point of my comment out of context and criticised it. And to satisfy your vanity, you have made yet another hopeless point on right wing politics.
It is pure vanity and typical of the nastiness of the left.
“It is pure vanity and typical of the nastiness of the left.”
When you utter nonsense lines like this, it shows your narrow view of life. People are not “left” or “right”, just because they disagree or agree with you, that’s a simplistic world view. No offence, but you seem only interested in banal insults.
Lets look at the facts, not your insipid one liners of wisdom, shall we?
“Self loathers” *tend* to be conservatives who support suppression of civil liberties for gay people in order to keep social standing with a bunch of extremist right wing or religious lunatics. Point and case: Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr, George Alan Rekers, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper from Exodus International…
…the list is endless. All “self loathing” closet cases who persecute their own kind. As I have already said, its not that complicated a term to understand, there’s ample proof of its reality.
If you think that’s an attack on your personal political philosophy, then that’s your problem, I suggest you get a philosophy that isn’t so weak.
Yet more nastiness spews forth.
“Yet more nastiness spews forth.”
Hmmm. Indeed. You seem to have acute emotional difficulties with anyone that proves you wrong or disagrees with you, they become “nasty” and “left wing”.
Forgive me, I thought I was talking to someone with an iota of sanity. Clearly I was mistaken. I can only assume your counsellor makes a fortune from you.
The only person making personal comments is you. Recap over the board:
I raised the point that the dreary line about self-loathing failed to improve with repetition. Your first response was to speak of “basket case morons”.
In reply to a concern that attacking moderate gay individuals on the centre-right of politics was divisive, you thought that a persons on the right were “suffering from a multitude of debilitating physiological issues”.
Aided by the anonymity that the internet provides, you have now indulged in all-out viciousness of the type seen often on English-language internet boards. You have employed the rhetoric of false apology, ad hominem attacks and faint praise.
Such unpleasantness does not assist your argument and is possible only due to the benefit of your identity remaining concealed. No person would behave in such a way in open discussion or if their particulars were known.
Please, I have no interest in your dramas or your less then erudite and bitchy remarks.
Run along. Let it go.
> or your less then erudite and bitchy remarks
I am fairly confident that none of my remarks have been bitchy and, even though English is not my first language, I am certain that if my comments they have not shown great learning, they have been measured and reasonable.
You have resorted, yet again, to ad hominem attacks. As each of your posts becomes more unpleasant, you have sought not to resile from such remarks but to increase their ferocity.
Your interest in this thread, I fear, is to enjoy the sport of being nasty whilst having no responsibility through anonymity.
“You have resorted, yet again, to ad hominem attacks.”
No, I gave you proof. You gave petty insults. And I have little regard for people like you who use bitchy insults in lieu of logic.
Now I don’t really care thet your some self-identified right wing what-ever-you-call yourself with difficulties separating reality from your own political philosophy, its of little importance to me. Clearly you have some issues with it. And calling me “nasty” simple becuase you have some emotional hangups, well, let me paraphrase, “this (tired) line does not improve with repetition.”
I will respond no more to your insipid tirades. Good day to you sir, you are a buffoon.
You are no better than a bully.
de Villiers, get a life. You were shown up as lacking, so be man enough to bow out gracefully. Will, ignore that bitter queen. He’s appeared here before under the Tory threads lambasting anyone who didn’t agree with his rightwing fascism. And if anyone he is a bully its him. I agree with you, the threat to all of us comes from these deceitful gay people who oppose other gay people, but like to cruise toilets for cock after work. Maybe you hit a raw nerve with de Villiers.
This is no more than the equivalent of hate mail or flaming. There is no reason or weight to your accusation that I am a rightwing fascist or deceitful.
The raw nerve, if there be one, appears to be with those on the left who refuse to release the bitterness of their political march against the right – and who are unsparing in their hate of those who fail to agree with their politics.
It is a dismal recurrence that those on the right consider those on the left to be merely wrong. Those on the left consider those on the right to be immoral. It is a particular vanity.
Or rather, it is a dismal recurrence that although those on the right consider those on the left to be merely wrong, those on the left consider those on the right to be immoral. It is a particular vanity
Vanity? What on earth are you talking about you cretin? I’m glad English is not your first language, because you have an excuse for sounding like a fcuking retard. Look, who gives a toss about your definition of right and left, they only insist in your obsessed little head. Will made you look like a complete fool. Now I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but he did. Now give it a fcuking rest.
Vanity in English (I assume) from vanité in French or vanitas (vanus) in Latin meaning empty. Referring to an excessive and yet rather hollow pride. And the reference to being a retard (as an English noun), I assume refers to the French retarder or retardare in Latin from ‘re’ meaning referring back to and ‘tardus’ meaning slow – being someone who is intellectually slow.
And – what a surprise! Another anonymous poster swearing, bullying, making ad-hominem attacks. You and Will appear to be rather close bedfellows. It is easy to call someone a cretin from the anonymity of one’s computer or to swear or to gang-up on someone when no-one knows who you are. Yet even the insults lack grace and are merely functional.
In any event, the definition of the “right” was raised by Will in his reference to “right-wing parties”. I am sure that we both have some mutual understanding of the terms left and right. I am confident that they exist other than solely in my own mind.
Dean, it is a shame that those who are on the left do use such invective against those who are on the right. It is almost like Vichy in reverse. You would be happy to throw out from the gay family those who advocate policies on the centre-right. And that really is unfortunate. Like those present at the London pride who wore stickers stating, “I’ve never kissed a Tory” suggesting that members of the English Conservative party were not properly gay or that gay people should not enter into relationships with them. I’m quite sure I’ve not chosen politics as a discriminating factor when having sex.
In any event, the baiting which started with Will and which has continued with you appears to be driven by blind fury – against the political right. I can understand the hatred of a particular class of the right twenty years ago but not the whole of it today. It is not really an element of gay politics but left-wing politics masquerading as such. The ferocity and tenacity has much in common with religious people who are unable to prevent themselves attacking those who breach their articles of faith.
And as Lord Mandelson said in relation to President Sarkozy’s criticisms of him within the Union Européenne, I won’t be bullied – or at least, I will not quietly leave in response to yours.
Yeah, patronising to the last, aren’t you?
Wake up call for you: you are the insulting one with your arrogant “That’s mere stupidity and adds nothing to the conversation.” Actually what is the real crux is you can’t conduct a civilised discourse.
So, I’m not interested in you pompous attitude, or if you think Will and I are “rather close bedfellows” – that’s the jaded view of those who perceive persecution, and boy do you have one hell of a victim complex! You want to be a persecuted right wing queen, fine, off you go, but spare us the ramblings as you try to convince yourself of a superiority that really shouldn’t exist.
Well, if its not our old pal de Villiers. Tried to get a last word in, did we to on one thing, your hissy fits are well known to many of us “lefties” on any article about Tories that appeared here, and it appears you’ve made *more* friends on this site too. Good for you, Herr Rohm.
I regret that my language is considered by you to be either patronising or pompous. You will appreciate, I hope, that as a speaker of English as a second language, I was taught and learned formal English rather than the colloquial form that you use. Regardless, I consider myself to be neither persecuted by other gay people nor suffering from any particular complex.
That to which I to take objection is the suggestion that those on the right are somehow less gay than those on the left. To be self-hating implies an internal contradiction. When a person is considered to be self-hating because they are on the political right, it means that the politics of the right stand in contradiction to homosexuality as a matter of nature and existence. This implies that sexuality is itself part of a left-leaning political construct. Viewed through such a prism, being on the right would be self-hating as it would oppose the natural order of homosexuality being.
In this way, sexuality and politics are combined as a greater whole. To oppose the politics lessens the genuineness and authenticity of the sexuality and the sexuality as identity.
Being gay, however, is not an ideal or an ambition but a fact. Contrast with how being ‘an American’ is considered to be a political or philosophical state of affairs, such that one can be ‘un-American’, whereas to be French is merely to state what is. One cannot be ‘un-French’. As with sexuality. Aside from whether the incidence of being gay is planophysical or doliophysical, it stands outside and independently of any political apparatus.
That there are gay persons in all parties who are relaxed and open about their sexuality demonstrates the falsity of the sexuality / left wing politics construct. There were, at one time, many gay people in both the Nzai party, as personified by Ernst Rohm, and in the Communist parties of Russa, China and Cuba, all of which imprisoned and tortured homosexuals. In America, gay people are prominent in right-libertarian politics. In Germany, the right-libertarian Free Democrats, in coalition with the CDU, are led by the openly gay Guido Gesterwelle.
So one can disagree with Will’s statement that “to even the most untrained eye, that the closer to the ‘right’ a gay person becomes/thinks, the more likely (s)he is suffering from a multitude of debilitating physiological issues”. To the untrained eye, perhaps. Certainly not to the trained.
As for being unable to engage in civilised discourse, it was not I who referred to Stonewall as being self loathing, nor to anyone as a basket case moron, a buffoon, fascist, deceitful, a cretin, a retard or a Nzai, the last being courtesy of Rich. Those terms come from you Dean, Will and now Rich from the safety of your anonymity and obscurity.
In particular to Rich, to feel no remorse about calling another gay person a Nzai in the full knowledge of the number of gay Frenchmen that the German fascists killed, tortured and operated-on alive in the form of medical experimentation is horrific. Really horrific.
The demonisation of those with whom you disagree was a tactic of those very same people and the Vichy regime. Your comments put you in their company where the making of them allows you to consider those who stand outside your politics as less than human.
You whine incessantly, usually just after someone “offends” you. I see some others have given up in any conversation with you becuase of this. Is it a surprise? No. Its seems to be as constant as the north star, in fact.
As for your rebuke of “that the closer to the ‘right’ a gay person becomes/thinks, the more likely (s)he is suffering from a multitude of debilitating physiological issues”, I tend to agree with Will here. He has provided quite good examples of right wing (and by implication, usually religious conservatives) closet gay people who try to seek involvement with those who would reduce their liberties IS in fact a from of self loathing. Just becuase you disagree becuase it might reflect on your choices, is irrelevant.
The reason you disagree with this, is becuase you support right wing parties. You have been proven to be biased, and blinkered, in your approach to any criticism of them on other threads, and that makes your opinion less than logical and informed in my opinion.
And you assertion that “those on the left consider those on the right to be immoral” is embarrassingly stupid, to be honest. The right wing parties, because of their religious affiliations repeatedly call homosexuality “immoral”, but rarely you see this kind of christo-fascism from left wing parties. Time for a wake up call here, Mr. de Villiers, you seem to be immune to the reality of your own political affiliations.
Like Will, and Dean too it seems, I will not engage further on this. You are beyond any reason or logic, and for that I pity you. I also agree that you protest too much about your “right” wing politics, as this is a cross you seem to mount yourself on every time someone argues with you, and I agree with another comment here, you seem obsessed with it as if its the reason for all the “attacks” on you (i.e. you call everyone who disagrees with you a “leftie”) If you want to be right wing, then understand what that entails:- be a Log Cabin Republican, or the French equivalent if you so wish, but that does not give you immunity from reproach, or the right to approval from gay people in general, especially given right wing parties CONSISTENTLY aim to remove our rights, and CERTAINLY does not give you the validation to call everyone some kind of “nasty leftie”. That is simply just childish.
This particular forum has run its course, marred as usual buy you, De Villers, and your “centre” right wing propaganda, so I won’t be back again.
I for one will be glad when you find a French site to moan on.
> You are beyond any reason or logic, and for that I pity you.
That may be why you have not used any. Hopeless, nasty and bullying. Save your pity for yourself.