Reader comments · Comment: Don’t fight bigotry with bigotry · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Don’t fight bigotry with bigotry

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hear hear!

    1. Saying that there is homophobia in the black community is not racism. Its just fact.
      The thing is that when blacks get caught red handed (either stealing something, murdering somebody, boiling a child etc) they either hide behind their skin color or claim that those that caught them are “raysiss”
      This is really pathetic.
      The intro was classic, strictly taken from the homophobe playbook, (“I have gay friends” “I don’t hate anybody” “Its not about people its their conduct etc etc”) as though Lola is trying to justify what this mammal says and avoided the fact that this creature said about his own son.
      Either what he said was wrong, or it wasn’t period. Stop with this crying about “raysissim” I hate it. And it sounds even MORE PATHETIC on a gay web site.
      Grow up Lola and take Stu’s advice: “Get a thicker skin.”

      1. There is bigotry in both communities and there are people who are members of both communities. No bigotry justifies more bigotry.

        Some people will use the race card or the gay card or the religion card as justification for their actions. Occasionally, they will be justified – often they are abused.

        I didn’t give Lola that particular advice, pepa – so keep my name out of it – because I personally think Lola has a point

      2. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:27pm

        Pepa, please point out in my intro what you’re equating to “I have gay friends”. Because I’d really like to see it.

        I don’t know how many times in my article I had to say I wasn’t surprised by the racism, that I’d heard it was a problem, that I knew it was a problem. Your “get thicker skin” advice really doesn’t apply here, because it assumes this is the first time I’ve seen someone post some blatantly racist comment on PinkNews or any other gay site when it come to talking about a person of colour – and it isn’t.

        I’m curious though what your advice would be for people of colour who are also gay who sign on and see this type of racist ignorance? Are they supposed to just grow thicker skin as well? Do you not think that post racial slurs in response to someone’s homophobia isn’t alienating for members of colour in our community? Do you think I’m the only one bothered by it?

  2. Er…unless Lola can point out explicit examples of racism I’d put her findings down to reading comments left by trolls.

    1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 5:31pm

      She doesnt have to point out anything – what shes saying is true – I have witnessed it on here myself – constantly. She’s making a valid point.

    2. There was one troll who calls itself Enoch who said something racist. But I I don’t think they were real, or racist, probably a university graduate trying to be clever and stir things up (like the girl in damascus story) so they could then write a story about racism.

      1. And on the basis of one troll with too much time on his or her hands we get Lola’s version of events. Staircase to be honest with you I haven’t seen any explicit or what I would perceive to be legitimate examples of racism on this site. I’ve read plenty of posts by people like Rich or Enoch and I just put it down to some tool acting the cnut to see if they can get the sh!t to hit the fan.

        1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:21pm

          If just one troll is not enough to be angry – then why should anyone care what Tracy Morgan said in the first place?

          It does matter when someone uses bigoted language. It matters if it’s Tracy Morgan and it matters if it’s some “troll” on the internet.

          1. I do agree it matters which is why PN needs to find a way of resolving issues such as trolls like Enoch, Rich etc. without debasing the genuine freedom of speech and debate that exists here. Some of the comments of Rich and Pepa have been ridiculous and should have been dealt with far earlier

          2. But Lola the problem with getting angry with a troll is just pointless. Normally a troll will just write something inflammatory to cause some agro rather than writing anything with some conviction behind it, be it bigoted or otherwise.

          3. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 8:35pm

            This is not an isolated incident. I believe I mention in my article that people often respond to bigotry with bigotry. I don’t care if it’s one troll. Racism IS a problem within the LGBTQ community and it needs to be addressed.

          4. Too right Lola When an article about African anti gay attitudes is posted the common phrase is savages

          5. racism is an issue in lgbt communities as homophobia is in the black communities, How do you suggest a way forward for both?

          6. @Rapture

            We should not accept that racism should occure in the LGBTQ communities in the same way as we should not accept homophobia from people regardless of their race.

            How do we address that – confronting prejudice, education and by continuing to both normalise LGBTQ and different races into society and seeking to ensure equality means equality.

          7. @stu , i was interested to find out lolas interpretation on that topic but i agree both bigotries are equally stupid, and agree both should be challenged , however homophobia is mostly exempt from that concept by many, as lgbt people tend to be the most persecuted the world over when relative to other minorities and confronting homophobia is sometimes avoided in being challenged as to avoid cultural “sensitivities”

          8. @james! Have to say if a government, country or person supports violence against others based on their sexuality , i’d say the country was primitive and those that espouse this barbaric hatred, savages., their racial attributes are irrelevant.

          9. Eastern europeans are never called savages although they have the same attitude towards us

          10. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 9:28pm

            As a white person, I don’t feel I have the understanding to comment on any specific issue that is within the black community.

            I do know that when I see people in my community, the LGBTQ community, displaying bigotries, I feel obligated to comment on that.

          11. @Rapture

            I agree with much of what you are saying but am not convinced that LGBTQ people are the most persecuted people in the world … that is subjective … how does one measure it compared to other persecution?

          12. @james , i’ve often referred to the homophobic protesters in moscow as inbred savages .

          13. RE: ‘This is not an isolated incident.’ But Lola in your article you single out Facebook and Pink News as being the sources of racist comments.

          14. Yes, but racism within the LGBT community is not isolated within this one incident. I also mention that as well.

          15. Croation pride attacked by stone throwing mob and not one mention of savages or expelling them from the EU. If it happened in a black country we would see posts of sanctions, boycotts, aminals savages, uncivilised etc. Pure racism


          16. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:22am

            I do agree but there is also a case that while being racist or homophobic isn’t acceptable sites like this allow people to vent their frustration and anger and channel it into debate which personally I would prefer.
            People sometimes say thing they don’t mean in the heat of the moment but most people are equally aware of responsibilty even when they are angry.

          17. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:34am

            How is the term savages racist?

            I think this is the problem.
            We seem to make up words that are now suddenly racist when they are far from it.

            If someone describes a country as ‘savages’ because of their treatment of their own LGBTQI community, for example, an opinion of which homophobia is rife within it’s country, where death is an opinion for any homosexual, then the word savages describes those people as behaving in an uncivilized manner through violence.
            It can be aimed at anyone, anywhere.
            That is not racism.
            You are the only one associating the word savages with Africans so it is only you that is only you that is making it a race issue.

            Maybe if you’re uncertain you should ask for the person to explain what they mean before branding them.

            Most people talk in general but know not everyone.
            For example people here are sure to know my opinion on religion, through what I have been through and experienced but even I know not every religious person is like that.

          18. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:35am

            People should be allowed to express their frustration in a responsible manner through debate.
            It allows us to challenge those views, to agree or disagree.

          19. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:39am

            I do have to ask James! you also only pick up on this word when it is used towards Africans, not when it is used towards the US or other countries.

          20. @Jock S Trap

            I do agree with Lola that any bigotry – whether racist, homophobic, ageist, anti-semetic or on any other grounds is repugnant and wrong regardless of the motivation or provocation.

            I also agree that one of the joys of the PN message boards is the freedom to debate and chat without restriction. Yes, that causes a variety of problems – including the infiltration of people such as Rich, Pepa etc but also that some people are offended by some of the frankness of expression. Some of that is due to the difficulty in expressing nuance on message boards and some is due to assumptions made on the behalf of the person writing or reading.

            We need some balance – and given recent events with Pepa, Rich etc a free forum but with some level of moderation might be a solution?

          21. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 12:17pm

            I think for most of us we debate how we are but for the likes of Rich, Pepa etc they are so false they use the fact they are hidden behind a PC so try to be all daring and offensive…boring as it is I’d rather the real people.

            The rest of us don’t feel we need to pretend.

          22. Jock I said savages is used by other commenattors when describing balck anti gay people . Savages is never used if the anti gay people are white

          23. @Jock

            I agree that many people do engage freely and with some level of self control on here. I do think there are some over stepping of the mark both by the likes of Enoch, Pepa and Rich but also by others on occasion being aggressively insulting and offensive about people purely because they hold belief (its a fine line for that one – its appropriate and right to challenge and debate, but not to stereotype and offend).
            I do like the fact that most people on PN are themselves.

            Personally, I would call Botha and de Klerk (whites from the S African apertheid era) savages

          24. Lola, when someone has experienced first hand a lifetime of (sometimes brutal) homophobia from black people, you shouldn’t be surprised when they eventually embrace the idea that there is something inherently wrong with the vast majority of black people. I think the same thing about religious nutters, too. (And, of course, there is frequently an overlap between the two groups.) And for those who think I’m a troll, please get a life. I’m as entitled to free speech as Tracy Morgan is. This is the same Tracy Morgan who is employed by, paid by and professionally supported by gay people, but who still wants them dead.

          25. @ Lola,
            I have been subjected to VERY bigoted comments from some of the people on here.
            So when can I write an article and whine about it and submitted to the PN editors?
            Under your logic, anybody that has been subjected to bigoted comments on PN is ENTITLED to an article…
            This is just typical entitlement behavior exhibited by many blacks. They think they are entitled to anything and everything. Even having their own prides (even though the overwhelming majority of blacks OPPOSE homosexuality).
            Again, Lola, When I can submit my article so I can bitch and whine like you.
            Oy vey.

          26. the jockstrap: “People should be allowed to express their frustration in a responsible manner through debate.
            I almost choke myself laughing at this.
            Are you serious?
            Is this the same jockstrap? Or did IT change color?

          27. @pepa Everyone’s always been allowed to write an article. I don’t work for Pink News, you’d have to ask them.

          28. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 12:43pm

            I repeat James! no-one I’ve seen has describes Black people as savages.
            I have also seen plenty of comment calling savages for all who are this nasty against others White, Black or otherwise.
            It has been used against the US just as much as anywhere else.
            I suggest it is only you making it into something it’s not.

          29. Jock- the use of savage as a racial slur is probably used by people of Prince Philip’s generation and age group, those that probably still refer to Germans as ‘the Hun’.

        2. Rapture you’re wrong Black people are the most persecuted. A white gay man can pass as straight and go unnoticed

          1. @stu and james! I don’t know of any country in the world where being black is illegal unlike being gay? where some face the death penalty . I’m also aware that there are only a tiny few countries in the world where gay people can marry , that principle does not apply for black people or inter racial marraige. The same applies for adoption and so on.

          2. @Rapture

            I accept your arguments.

            However, there are plenty of countries where people are in actual or economic slavery as a result of the colour of their skin – I am not aware of anyone is a slave (except in a kinky way) due to their sexuality.

            The number of murders that are race related opposed to those based on sexuality are significantly higher.

          3. I really don’t think comparing oppressions does anyone any good. Trying to be the “most persecuted” does nothing for anyone and just derails from comments. The fact is, privileges and discriminations intersect. To say “being [x] is automatically worse than being [y]” is oversimplifying things a bit.

          4. @lola but you are comparing oppressions by the very title of your very lazy , patronizing white woman acting as speaker to those who you assume have no voice, in an almost colonialist saviour type article and i note you have made no suggestion or attempted to , on how to confront this issue.

          5. @Lola

            That was kind of my point by pointing out the subjectivity of which form of persecution is worse …

            My attempt to explain was far more clumsy

            Regardless of its form or prevalence, any persecution or bigotry is wrong

          6. Actually, I ID as genderqueer.

            My point was that using one bigotry to fight another doesn’t work. I never argued once that homophobia was identical to racism or that they should ever be compared in a quantitative sense.

            I also never said I spoke for any person of colour. I said I was tired of the racism I myself witnessed and that I expected more of white members of the LGBTQ community.

            If I did try to suggest what could be done in the black community to stop homophobia – that to me would be coming across as a white saviour. That would assume I know anything about what it’s like to be black and I could address the issues of the black community as equally as I could the LGBTQ community. I can speak as a member of the queer community because I’m part of it. I cannot speak about the black community. My commentary is not a suggestion for how to solve the problems of the world and the assumption that I even have all the answers is, IMO, way more of coloniser, white saviour idea.

          7. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 1:47am

            @James…not always – thats a tired & lazy comment

          8. Rapture you’re wrong Black people are the most persecuted. A white gay man can pass as straight and go unnoticed
            What kind of delusional thinking is this?
            I would say that blacks have it WAY better here in America than whites or gays.
            Blacks have special entitlements, affirmative action and quotas. Whites and gays don’t.

          9. @ Lola,
            “I really don’t think comparing oppressions does anyone any good.”
            Agreed. So when are you going to write an article for a black website using this statement as your thesis.
            All I see on these black web sites is a pissing match on who is the most oppressed.
            I didn’t know they gave out medals to the most victimized and losers.

          10. @ Stu
            My attempt to explain was far more clumsy
            What else is new?
            So are you going to tell Lola what you told me that when you get “insulted” by PN readers just take it and grow a “thicker skin?”
            Cuz I already did.
            Clumsy maybe, more like long winded.

          11. @pepa I wrote to PN to address the LGBTQ community because it’s a community I’m apart of. I’m white. I don’t think it would be right for me to comment on the black community when I’m not apart of it.

          12. @Pepa

            Again, never one to let facts get in the way of your misrepresentations are you – Lola is not black …

            Secondly, by all means use words I have used but do not ascribe them to me without my consent

            Cheap jibe at my honesty about clumsiness – but cheapness is something I would associate with you

            You know not only do you sound like an obsessed individual but more and more as though you have the insight of a petulent child – no wonder other websites bar you.

          13. @ Lola
            I’m white. I don’t think it would be right for me to comment on the black community when I’m not apart of it.
            But YOU DID.
            You are lecturing us about black people.

          14. by all means use words I have used but do not ascribe them to me without my consent
            Since when do you ask for my consent when you do the same to me?
            Just take your own advice and “get a thicker skin.”

          15. @Pepa, 1. I’m not lecturing you about anything. I’m actually expressing frustration that there’s so much racism within the LGBTQ community. And if I was “lecturing” you about anything – it would be to not use the n-word in response to homophobia. Is that something that needs a lecture? Really?

            I’ve already apologised if I came off as patronising. It wasn’t my intention at all. But as I’ve said to others, I can’t help feeling like you’re willing to read patronisation from whatever I write.

            My own advice is not to “Get a thicker skin”. My request is that we not use racial slurs within the LGBTQ community since, you know, there are people of colour that comprise our community that it hurts. Are you suggesting they “Grow a thicker skin”? Because I certainly am not. You don’t “grow a thicker skin” when it comes to hate speech and slurs. No one should have to. People should not use them because it’s not right.

          16. @Pepa
            Don’t inflate your own ego with the (wrong) belief I would want to claim any of your sorry words. The vile you spout is not something I would wish to have any connection to.

      2. possibly a goldsmiths student ermmmm…

      3. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:19am

        Agree eddy two
        This is the problem of course with a site that allows multiple names to be used, people can just come back with different names to make the same bigotted comments.
        Some outstay their welcomes others sense when we’re on to them and just change their nickname (or use someone elses!).
        It’s really no surprise that we get these creeps on here with such lax name security on here.

      4. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 6:49pm

        Enoch, I care about what’s in your heart just as much as I care about what’s in Morgan’s when he said what he said. What you said was vile, disgusting, racist, and inappropriate and no amount of detailing your history is going to change that.

        1. And I stand by it. Because I didn’t start it. And being equally hateful is the only answer. I’m going to appease the “brotherhood” by trying to teach them their “way” is wrong? I’d rather they all died in drive-bys or from dirty needles.

          1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:41pm


          2. Of course that would help you so much, Enoch

      5. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 10:35am

        I believe there was more than one troll making racist comments on this subject. I also agree that Pink News should follow closely complaints about trolls because they can falsly claim to be gay or lesbian and impugn the rest of us as rascists. That’s the goal of trolls – to stir up sh@t, make the rest of us look bad, and get lots of attention. We should address racism wheather it comes from trolls or true racist gays and lesbians. We should call it out.

    3. I agree with you, CMYB. In this instance, Tracy attacked the entire GLBT community. As a group. That makes it bigotry. An attack against Tracy as an individual, even if it is based on his race, is not bigotry unless the speaker intends the negative comments to apply to all persons of the same race. Otherwise it is just fighting back against the attacker with angry language.

      If he’d attacked with a weapon and someone fought back with a weapon, killing him, it wouldn’t be construed as a wish that all black people would die. We need to apply that logic to Lola’s analysis.

      Lola sounds like one of those “can’t we all just get along?” people that work my last nerve. Of course we can’t all get along and it’s foolish to think we can. Lola’s arguments are facile and specious at best and an embarrassment to commentators everywhere. I hope she’ll think through her logic more carefully in future comments.

      1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 1:56am

        what complete nonsense…
        Lola’s article isn’t saying anything as vacuous as ‘cant we all just get along’ – her article is saying that fighting bigotry with bigotry a) doesn’t work and b) isn’t the way forward.
        For a man who knows the word ‘specious’ you should be ashamed of yourself for saying something so ridiculously inflammatory as to suggest that she should ‘think thru her logic more carefully’. That’s just arrogant bollocks.
        Lola’s basic argument was a good one. Good enough to rattle you into coming up with the twaddle of yours…”An attack against Tracy as an individual, even if it is based on his race, is not bigotry” – What a complete load of unthought out racist twaddle!

      2. What a stupid response to this article. There is no reason why the black community and the lgbt community can’t get along it is only our own prejudice which is stopping us getting along this idea that we can’t all get along is half the problem have we ever tried?

        1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:47am

          My partner is black and not often but sometimes even in my local I’m the one that gets the racist comments said to me because of or aimed for my partner and thats From the LGBTQI community.
          It’s not acceptable dispite what my partner says, it spolis a night out, esp when it comes from people who should know better.

          Have to say we get it more in a Gay bar that a Straight one.

          1. Where the hell do you drink Jock? I can honestly say I’ve never witnessed or been privy to racist behaviour in all the boozers and flop houses I’ve visited over the years in London. I’ve seen plenty of racist behaviour in Scotland but that was amongst the straight community towards black people.

          2. @Jock S Trap

            I have to admit when a friend of mine (who happens to be black) was over last year I was surprised at some of the comments that were made. I wasn’t expecting so much overt racism on the gay scene.

          3. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 12:22pm

            The last time we was outside Comptons, Soho, last summer.

      3. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:44am

        I think that is another good point.
        Very often we get to comment on an individual on a story that suddenly someone takes issues with then they take that comment on one person to mean for all.
        That is a problem with some people here.

        1. @Jock S Trap

          You are correct. Sometimes though if not challenged what was intended as an observation of one person can be extrapolated to include a wider section of people either by the initial author or others. Where it is unclear we should either clarify or challenge.

      4. I agree , i have a flashback to equally unmeasured essays , we would write in school (so nothing enlightening by any means in her tired old crusade), even then her tired simplistic notions were fallible.

        1. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 5:45pm

          If “graduate student” hadn’t been noted in Lola’s bio, you wouldn’t be saying such things. You’re just trying to stereotype her any way you can in order to dismiss her views. You wouldn’t have made this remark if her bio didn’t mention she was a grad student. You would most definitely have come up with a new ad hominem to fit the alternate bio, though.
          By all means, prove me wrong and point out specific fallacies. You won’t. Because you can’t.

          1. You are very wrong .I’m not here and don’t have time to waste on you, to take you by the hand and guide you to the inaccuracies in her commentary because you lack an inquiring mind.

          2. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 5:15pm

            As I said, “You won’t. Because you can’t.” :D

          3. I can and i do , i guess thats what makes us very different , thank goodness. Pumpkin, i’ve already privileged you with enough of my knowledge to help you with a greater understanding to your shortcomings on here. You are nothing but a repressed individual who espouses your ill thought out rants online

        2. @Rapture

          That some friggin ivory tower you’re preaching from brother, some condescending tone …

          1. it may appear like that to a wishy washy, fence sitter lacking conviction and principle because i’m able to formulate a strong view.

      5. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:17pm

        What part of “I support anger” don’t you understand?

        You can deconstruct Morgan’s argument and tell him off without resorting to racism. And if you can’t do that perhaps you ought to think more logically.

  3. Fantastic humane comment, much welcome after a week in which we have seen more anti-Muslim drivel from the usual “liberal” suspects. Let’s fight homophobia without resorting to an oppression Olympics of us against them!

    1. Absolutely amazing heartfelt and fully insightful comments.

      Fighting homophobia by belittling others with other forms of bigotry or insult is demeaning to those passionate about ensuring LGBT rights are respected and enhanced

    2. Thank you so much for saying this, both Lola and Andy. I no longer post on Pink News because I am so angered and saddened by the anti-Muslim hatred that pours out here, day after day. This site must be the most alienating possible place for a queer person of faith or colour – it’s pretty bad for me as a white lesbian. I’m really glad that they gave voice to Lola’s impassioned and righteous critique.

      1. I agree that there is extreme anti religious bigotry on this site.

        It disturbs me.

        I do engage – and I recognise that some criticism of some people of faith is appropriate but the vitriol from some contributors on here is heinous.

        1. Yes, there is. I was hounded off this site recently because I’m a Unitarian and there probably one of the most progressive and gay friendly religious organisations in the world.

          1. @Rick
            I don’t share your faith and I query the rationality of it, but thats a debate we could have elsewhere. Whilst I may perceive you as having irrational beliefs in one respect – that does not mean that you are incapable of rationality.
            You are entitled to your views and beliefs without fear of ridicule that is offensive and unconstructive. Too often some of the anti religious repostes on here lack balance or a sense of proportion.

      2. You should go on some muslim sites , see whats said about lgbt , non believers , if you are too ultra sensitive for this site as a white lesbian , you would be devastated on islamic ones

        1. @Rapture

          Just because there is more bigotry elsewhere does not make bigotry on this site acceptable

          1. i never said it did, i was advising this white lesbian who claims to no longer post here, after her comment, that by comparison to other online sites for various communities that if she claims this site to be the most alienating for lgbt of faith and colour , she should visit some others to put it into perspective.

          2. @Rapture

            That may be an enlightening thing to do – however, your argument does not in any way change the fact that bigotry on this site (or elsewhere) is not acceptable

    3. I don’t expect you to agree with how I make sense of life and the world but I would ask what you see as irrational in my understanding. I have not said a great deal about what I do actually believe other than to use the term ‘Unitarian’ and since the term does not necessarily convey adherence to one particular religious perspective or set of doctrines I wonder what you are basing your assumption of irrationality on. Unitarians see truth and value in various spiritual perspectives including humanism (if that can be considered a spiritual perspective in the strictest sense). Unitarians have also been called ‘religious humanists’. I have come to consider Unitarianism not as a religion in itself but rather an approach to religion, and one which is very rational and reasonable. You use the term ‘faith’ but what exactly do you mean by that? If you mean ‘to believe something without proof’ or ‘to blindly follow without question’ then that would not reflect a Unitarian way of thinking and being in the world. I’m not exactly what you would call ‘a bible believing Christian’. I’m not out to convert or ‘save’ anyone or persuade them to follow a set of dogmas and doctrines. Or tell them who they can and can’t love or foster self loathing and dependency . As you say, this is a debate we could have elsewhere, and I would enjoy a thoughtful dialogue with you so perhaps we could continue the discussion on another site.

      1. @Rick
        Sounds like I have some learning to do and that we could have an interesting exchange of views and debate. My understanding (maybe wrong) of Unitarianism was somewhat different to that which you describe and if I have prejudged you on my own limited knowledge then I apologise without reservation. I would be more than happy to discuss elsewhere – where do you suggest?

        1. I have a group on Facebook called ‘Banned & Censored On The Christian Institute Facebook Page’. Perhaps we could have it there. Do you have any ideas for a topic heading?

          1. I shall go and look for you shortly … something along the lines of follow on from pink news????

          2. Have made a request to join the group

  4. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 5:28pm

    Bit wordy but full marks :o)
    The truth is that oppression focks people up – and the more layers of oppression a person has experienced/endured then the more multiply focked up they’re likely to be.
    You just have to read the comments on Pink News to see that in action – the minute someone is in target they’re off blunderbusting with all guns blazing. Often with no coherence to their argument which is usually based on nothing but counter prejudice and historical vitriol as if these things somehow work to make the world a better place or convince others of the error of their ways.
    Which of course they never do and never can. It is in appealing to someone’s shared humanity that all social evolutionary progress comes – not in belittling them in order to make ourselves feel that tiny bit taller.

    1. I too found it a bit ‘under grad dissertation’- esque. Another rich white kid trying to keep it real while her folks back home bankroll her epiphanies.

      1. Renee Olson 13 Jun 2011, 5:57pm

        Rich White Kid …. folks back home bankroll her epiphanies… Wow, you got that way wrong there.

        1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:03pm

          lol good for you, Lola! :o)
          (I could see that one coming….lol)

        2. You’re going to have to fill us in, I can’t be doing with trawling through the website of a modern witch to see what she has to say about her genderqueer studies relative. Does anyone have a normal job title in the US? Like shop assistant or hairdresser or junior vice president?

          1. Renee Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:12pm

            Actually I do have a “real” job title, I just keep my business life separate from personal. You said that her parents were bankrolling her and she was rich. I’m her mother, and I’m far from rich. I am however extremely proud that when she sees an injustice she stands up for it. Be it LGBT or not. AND she worked for her Master’s, no one paid for her. She’s an amazing person, with a great mind.

            I’m not sure what you mean about “trawling through a website of modern witch to see what she has to say about her genderqueer statues relative” You’ll have to clarify if you’d like that addressed.

            Lola has had first hand knowledge of living in the LGBT Community. Her website is listed if you’d like to see her information.

      2. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:11pm

        I am without a doubt privileged in many ways. I was able to go to university – both as an undergrad and grad, which a lot of people haven’t been able to. I won’t deny I have a lot of privilege in this instance.

        But does that make my words any less valid? Does that make racism okay?

        What’s the point in necessarily critiquing the way I phrased my words other than to invalidate what I’m trying to say? Is there something so wrong with asking people to stop being racist?

        1. Nothing wrong – there is too much hatred in the world and that includes on these threads

          1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 7:06pm

            And a nice mum too :o) bless her :o)
            “Does anyone have a normal job title in the US? Like shop assistant or hairdresser or junior vice president?” lol You’re just making Lola’s case for her you numpty. FOCUS young Skywalker FOCUS…..!
            Forgive them, Renee – they know not what they do – often whilst ironically thinking simultaneously that they do lol
            PS this is effectively the problem with the comment threads in general – that noone actually focuses on the actual article itself
            (and I too am now guilty of this myself so I’ll shut up! :o)
            God Bless x

          2. What I would say though is that the bigotry attacking bigotry is not a phenomenon known only to the LGBT communities. It is also prevalent in religious, race and other communities. I have witnessed racism being attacked with homophobia, religious intolerance attacked with ageism etc

            None of it is acceptable.

          3. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 7:45pm

            Definitely. Hence why I mentioned the UCLA incident. It’s not something ONLY LGBTQ people do. But it doesn’t make me any less sick of seeing it.

          4. @Lola

            Fair point – any bigotry whether by LGBTQ people, towards LGBTQ people or others is sickening and wrong

  5. I agree with her, resorting to racism isn’t the answer but…..I can’t really speak for Facebook but there were no racist comments on here that I saw and I read through most of them and the first 20 or 30 on Facebook had none either so I think I would like to see examples as well of racist comments.

    Also just a little annoyance for me is her ‘queer community’ comments a couple of times. I’m not part of that I’m gay not queer. I hate that word describing us. But hey.

    1. Totally with you on the ‘queer community’ terminology Paul- I do think that’s an Americanism to be fair and I do hate the word ‘queer’ being used in any form. For the life of me I can’t see any racist comments on the Pink News messageboard, I haven’t looked at Facebook yet to see what she’s talking about.

    2. I hate the word queer, but I use it like a black guy might use nlgger, especially when talking to homophobes. I don’t like the word gay either, cause I’m not always happy and it was originally used by heterosexuals as an insult, just like queer, faggot, puff, etc. I hate the word homosexual, because it’s a medical term. I hate same sex love because it’s so long. I wish the gay/queer/homo community would come up with a word themselves.

      1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:10pm

        how bout the word nobbledeyjoy? lol
        I just made that one up :-)
        can you see yourself feeling comfortable with that one then eddy? lol
        (perhaps your discomfort has less to do with which word is being used than the way you feel about the concept the words actually refer to?)
        PS there’s a lot of ‘hates’ in that comment! lol (I counted 3 plus 1 “I don’t like” and 1 “I’m not always happy”)
        So nobbledeyjoy it is then! :)

        1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:11pm

          It also rhymes with ‘boy’ which is useful for songwriting purposes lol

        2. No, I don’t like nobbledeyjoy, sounds really stupid. Worse than queer, gay, homo, puff, bent. Maybe we should just keep the offensive terms the ‘straights’ have labelled us with if that’s the best you can do.

          1. Happy with gay, queer and bent … no problems there

          2. I thought you’d be HAPPY with it. Simple Jack. You m m m make me happy.

          3. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:01am

            I was trying to be helpful and followed your suggestion lol
            what do YOU suggest then? lol
            (I still think nobbledeyjoy works quite well for many of the commentators on here at least! lol) Try it – go on – just for a week – report back at the end of it and tell us what you discovered by using it…

        3. @Eddy two

          I’m sure its amusing to you – its wasted on me …

      2. @eddy two

        Why do we need a descriptor?

      3. Just to say that I was told by a gay man that the word gay was originally an acronym for “Good As You”.

        Also, I agree with Lola – fighting bigotry with bigotry doesn’t help anyone.

        1. I thought that but apparently that was used after gay had already been used as an offensive term for us.

      4. @Eddy two

        Thanks for making me smile

        Apologies for getting narked at your comments on another thread

      5. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 12:41pm


        Been here before, me thinks.

    3. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:09pm

      I totally understand that not everyone wants to reclaim the word “queer”.

      As someone who identifies as “genderqueer”, I find “queer” more accepting and useful for me. I apologise, however, if it was alienating for you. That wasn’t my intention.

      1. Spanner1960 13 Jun 2011, 7:18pm

        By the same token, why do you not refer to yourself as a “Genderqueer Ni**er?” – Or would you rather not reclaim that word as well?

        I find the term queer just as offensive.

        1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 7:46pm

          I’m white. Did you read my article?

        2. Spanner you sad sack of ish

          1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 9:28pm

            Is that really necessary?

          2. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:49am

            Lola met James! LOL

    4. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 1:55pm

      “Queer” is a totally legitimate descriptor that encompasses the LGBT community as a whole. And anyone who says “I don’t like that term, that means I get to say n****r” has serious issues with proportionality.
      N****r is comparable to f****t. It is one of the absolute worst things you can call a black person. To compare it to a term that a great many of us openly and unironically use to describe ourselves is completely intellectually dishonest. And please don’t come back with “some black people use n****r just like some of us use queer”, because that’s not true. Some black people use n****r in the same way that some gay people use f****t. No matter how often you hear either of those words, you should never forget how much gravity they possess when compared to less offensive, but still contentious, terms like queer or coloured.

      1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 1:55pm

        Also, eddy two just came out as hating every single term we’ve ever used to describe ourselves as. I guess we can’t use any term because it might offend somebody then, right? Or, how about we grow up a little and acknowledge that a) you can’t please everyone and b) different words carry different weight. Don’t cry just because you can’t call people n****rs. They can’t call you f****ts, either. It’s a fair trade-off. So what if they can call you queer? You can call them coloured. Some black people hate that term, just like some of you hate the term queer. So, if it makes you feel any better, then run around telling black people they’re coloured. See how many new friends you make.

      2. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 6:14pm

        lol you must be American – it took me AGES to figure out what f****t was! lol
        The word faggot really doesn’t move me either way…lol
        (of course in UK the word ‘faggot’ means a kind of sweetmeat meatball thingy – and the word ‘fag’ just means a cigarette so I’m completely insensitive to it as in insult.
        Which is the interesting thing about insults – they have to have some kind of cultural weight behind them in order to become insulting. And it is in using the words to evoke those cultural weights that we are actually being insulting.

        1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 8:32pm

          Oh, I’m from England, but you’re totally right – that is more of an American term, isn’t it? I suppose over here, “poof” is the big insult. “Faggot” is just what I hear online more, what with there being far more North Americans than British commenters.

    5. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 10:42am

      Maybe you should have gone back a few days later to find the racist comments. I live in Canada and am a dual US/Canadian citizen. Typically I don’t get my link to this site until most other comments are 2-4 days old. I saw more racist comments than I wanted (which would be zero) and that was after the period of time I mentioned.

  6. Where I saw mentions of nooses, lynchings and slavery in the posts responding to Tracy Morgan’s homophobic outburst (and it was HOMOPHOBIC, not “heterosexist”) these were not suggesting that because of his skin colour he should be subjected to such abuse, they were claiming that if anyone had made a similar “joke” or rant using these topics and tried to hide behind “artistic licence” or “edgy” comedy then a half-hearted and insincere “apology” (“I’m sorry, but…”) would be rejected as insufficient.

    1. What I’ve seen on the comments isn’t fighting bigotry with bigotry – it’s people making a point that if racial bigotry is wrong, so it homophobic bigotry. It saddens me when I hear gay people being racist. It saddened me to learn that black and Hispanic people mostly voted for Prop 8 in California. I have this expectation of empathy – that people who have been oppressed should know how crappy it is to be on the receiving end of bigotry and hatred. To use an example of unacceptable bigotry (i.e. racism) to show how unacceptable Morgan’s comments are, that is not bigotry it is illustration by example. Claiming that this is bigotry disarms the critics. I think that either Lola has missed the point, or feels that some bigotry is more acceptable than others.

      1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 5:43pm

        Lola hasn’t missed anything – but I think you may have…
        ….Bigotry is bigotry, oppression is oppression.

        1. I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m disagreeing with the general tone of the article which seems to be bent on pointing the finger back at gay people. Almost “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Yes there are people here who display bigoted thinking (see the post under this thread), but I doubt you will see any high profile gay advocate, or any person on this forum who is capable of displaying capacity for reasoned argument, defending bigotry whether it’s based on race, gender, religion, age, disability or any of the other countless ways people find to put someone else down. You will find people defending Tracy Morgan, though. So – as I said – some bigotries are more acceptable than others.

          1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:17pm

            No bigotry is more acceptable. Period. And if you seriously believe that, holy crap, I don’t even know where to begin. I WILL hold people responsible for the bigotries, regardless of what community they are in.

          2. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:59pm

            Thats simply not true – look at any of the comments on articles where someone involved in the story is Muslim or Catholic – the comments go riotous. And certainly most of the ‘top ten’ posters are equally responsible for that. (Look at the comments to the articles concerning the black Christian couple who were barred from adopting….or the articles about Uganda’s endemic Homophobia). The list goes on….

          3. @Staircase2

            I do get frustrated by some of the attacks on religious people on here.

            I am non-religious and I recognise that some religious people are bigoted and some have carried out heinous acts. But I also recognise that saying because someone is Catholic they are a paedophile, or that because someone is Muslim they are a homophobe is as reliable a barometer as saying a gay guy is effeminate. The stereotyping and generalisations (often based on personally experienced pain) is also bigoted and wrong – like the pain some have experienced.

  7. BECAUSE THE BLACK COMMUNITY SHOULD KNOW BETTER! They are the first to complain about discrimination against them, but its o.k for them to dish it out apparently! They are happy to reference the civil rights movement when it suits them, but not when they want to refuse otehrs their own civil rights. 9/10 homophobic attacks i read on are committed by black people. I was never racist but since coming to London, I have only ever experienced hate from the black community,. I fail to see what advantages they bring frankly. ,

    1. WOW . really?! Here is the dumbed down version genius, US VRS THEM dose NOT help. YOU are making yourself part of the problem. gross. Go crawl back under your uneducated, fearsome, prejudice rock.

    2. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 5:39pm

      ‘Advantages they bring’?!?!
      WTF are you talking about?
      If you’ve ‘only ever experienced hate’ from ‘the black community’ that says more about the friends you have and friends you don’t have than it does about any mythical ‘black community’.
      Anyone, black or white, committing an attack on another person is not (by definition) going to be committed civil rights devotee….
      Also I think you should re-examine the facts – something tells me you’re allowing your pre-existing prejudices to cloud your reading of ‘the facts’

    3. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:40pm

      Unfortunately, being a member of one minority group does not mean you understand what it’s like to be another minority group.

      I remember quite distinctly when looking at the clubs in my university, seeing a Queer Women of Colour group. I remember reacting with, “Why do they have to have their own group? What’s wrong with us?”. If you would have asked me why LGBTQ people needed their own group, I would have been able to get that immediately. But I didn’t understand the concept of white privilege and I refused to believe I had privilege because I was white – mostly because I had dealt with classism, attacks against my religion, homophobia, and ableism. Sometimes, people who are marginalised have a hard time accepting they could ever have any sort of privilege because they’ve gone through so much hatred themselves.

      1. I would’nt want you in my group either , oh you’re not part of the lgbt community though are you ? just dipping your toes in as a social experiment, hence to the vague gender queer id. less commitment whilst a rad student.

        1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:04pm

          I really don’t need to justify my queerness to you.

          The racism found within the LGBTQ community would still exist and it still does exist – regardless of what you think of me personally.

        2. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 5:37pm

          Genderqueer is a subcategory of transgender. You remember that term? It’s represented by the T in LGBT. You going to apologise for that choice bit of transphobia, or just try to sweep that under the rug, too? By saying that, you insult not just Lola, but all our transgender users.
          Blimey, this is exactly the situation the article was referring to, just replacing racism with transphobia! Shame you didn’t learn anything from it. Only this time, nobody had to insult you to bring out the bigotry. You’re just a total creep.

          1. You insult genuine trans people by assuming that you are as a gender non specific or as you put it genderqueer (makes you sound a bit more skins and rad ) speaking on their behalf. In your definition genderqueer is a subcategory of transgendered not in mine so i dismiss your stupid rant of transphobia as a means to silence criticism of your stupidity.

          2. And you should apologise to genuine transgendered people for your blatant disregard in assuming that they are not aware of their specific gender by attempting to make yourself inclusive in the trans community. you are such an idiot , its pitiful.

          3. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 8:40pm

            @PumpkinPie I appreciate you going into detail about what genderqueer means, but the focus here isn’t what my identity is.

            Racism is still a problem that should be pointed out. My identity is not important here because it’s only being used to distract from the original point, which is that racism is not an appropriate response to homophobia.

          4. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 5:20pm

            Alright, I’ll just leave this dead-end discussion with one last note. Transsexuals acknowledge concepts such as “genderqueer” or “third gender” as legitimate gender identities. rapture, you’d know this if you actually had any knowledge of the transgender community. Alright, that’s the end of that.

          5. Under what capacity do you assume transexuals acknowledge genderqueer? Your arrogance concludes that transgendered incorporates those who are androgenous/genderless which is not what encompasses transexual traits.Not any transexuals i’ve ever encountered and there have been many , have no concept of your gender queer label that you use to describe yourself . You are definitely not a person with a gender dysphoria, more a teenage angsty possibly stunted individual. This is a dead end topic as you are trying to purport your half thought idea odf being gender non specific and how it is somehow part of the trans community.

          6. Even lola has abandoned you as an embarrassment to those who are more capable of defining their id status. Also lolas identity is irrelevant here as she said ,but you wish to single handedly have put the terminology of genderqueer into disrepute. tHere have been gender benders, androgenous mutations , genderless, asexual, many more non gender specific terms used by many before , genderqueer is just another word du jour but nothing new in this concept , however to insist that a gender non specific individual is appropriated by the trans spectrum is debatable at best.

          7. Lola Olson 17 Jun 2011, 3:09pm

            Rapture, Don’t tell someone else what my intentions are. I’ve abandoned this because it has nothing to do with the subject. I’m not debating my identity with you. My identity is not relevant to the main point which is about racism in the LGBTQ community.

          8. @lola well looks like some genderqueers have ambushed whatever the purpose of your incipient commentary was as your genderqueer status is obviously more controversial .

          9. Lola Olson 22 Jun 2011, 5:15pm

            No they haven’t. You’ve attempted to derail the subject of the article by focusing on my identity, which is not only none of your business but irrelevant to the main point. Now do you have something to contest about my commentary or not? Because I really don’t think I need to identify as anything in particular to realise that using racist language is wrong.


  9. Hello Lola. If you really want to not fight bigotry with bigotry, stop using the word queer.

    1. Agreed. The idea of “gender queer” implies that there is something unnatural or abnormal about same sex attraction. I don’t think that the argument of “reclaiming” this word holds any water.

      1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 5:48pm

        And in fact rather than signally ‘ABnormal’ it signifies ‘outside of the norm’ – ie outside of the claustrophobic confines of the normaloid (and heterosexual, Judao-Christian) Western world.

        1. Oxford English dictionary:
          queer a. Strange, odd, eccentric; slightly ill or faint; (derog) homosexual; v.t. to spoil.

          If you take it to mean homosexual, or even just “not 100% missionary position heterosexual” that doesn’t mean that suddenly your usage takes precedence over the cultural context of the word. There is nothing positive in there at all.

          1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:12pm

            Like I said – at least 30 years….
            where you been?

      2. @David G

        In a living breathing language things change.

        I have looked in four dictionaries and only one defines queer as being negative when relating to orientation.

        I think the following definition is interesting:
        “Originally pejorative for gay, now being reclaimed by some gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons as a self-affirming umbrella term. Caution: still extremely offensive when used as an epithet”

      3. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:23pm

        Genderqueer is a gender identity. Please look it up.

    2. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 5:46pm

      The word ‘Queer’ has been a widely acceptable political term used by the LGBT community for a very long time now (almost 30 years). I’m kinda confused as to why you (and others) would chose this forum to pick up on that now.

      1. We or certainly I have picked up on this term before now Staircase and on other stories apart from Lola’s post. And who agreed it was an ‘acceptable’ term to use? Cause from what I’ve read again and again there are plenty of people who don’t appreciate the word ‘queer’. And before you or anyone else calls me a ‘self-loather’ (which is another term all too readily cast about on this site) I most definitely am not.

        1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:14pm

          what on earth made you think I was about to term you a ‘self-loather’ just because you havent noticed the use of the word ‘Queer’ in gay politics over the past 30 or so years? lol

          1. Spanner1960 13 Jun 2011, 7:20pm

            Because anybody that is gay that doesn’t follow the leftie “party line” is immediately branded as such. If you are straight, they simply call you homophobic.

          2. @Spanner

            Self loather is not a phrase that would occur to me to use … and speaks to me more of petulant bullying and name calling than any rational debate or discussion

          3. Durrr. Do you want me to respond to your comment Stiarcase or just roll my eyes and shrug? Hey, I’ve just done both.

        2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 10:47am

          You have a right to not be comfortable with the term “queer” when used by gay people, but others have the right to be comfortable and to use the term applied towards themselves. So let’s just let people call themselves what they want. If some one who’s gay uses the term applied to you and you don’t like it. Just politely tell them you don’t want the term applied to yourself, otherwise ignore other gay peoples’s use of it. You know what they mean by it.

        3. @CMYB

          I find this one a hard one …

          I think everyone should be entitled to use whatever form of description to identify themselves that they wish … be that gay, straight, queer, bi, trans, whatever …

          I think we need to bear in mind that some people may be offended by our use of words.

          How we balance the two – because we will not always be aware in advance that the other may be offended, is awkward …

      2. I personally don’t find the term queer offensive – in fact there have been several bars called queer that I have enjoyed frequenting!

        I do think bringing up the use of the term may be a distraction from those who recognise something in the authors discussion of bigotry attacking bigotry

        1. But Stu, you’re so nice you don’t find anything offensive. And in terms of a distraction of the real story. Let’s not forget that this is about a homophobic comedian who has a very public voice, not racist trolls on pink news. Talk about distraction, why don’t we focus on homophobia. This is a gay news site.

          1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:16pm

            Because there are people of colour within the gay community who are silenced and alienated by the virulent racism demonstrated and that deserves comment.

          2. B@@locks I find plenty offensive

            I think gay politics are important and that is one of the reasons I contribute to this site – but I also recognise LGBT people can do things wrong too – including me (and shock horror including you too eddy two). That means we have a responsibility to not respond to bigotry with bigotry. Unfortunately there are examples of that on PN.

          3. Lola, maybe because I’m into black guys and black culture I just don’t know what you are talking about. I thought being black was a bonus.

          4. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 9:52pm

            Eddy two, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but “being into black guys and into black culture”… I have no idea what you’re trying to quantify with that but it sounds a bit screwed up.

          5. Stu takes step back and realises he over stepped the mark on debate – apologies guys

          6. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 10:48am

            Good on you Stu! I totally agree.

          7. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 12:45pm

            B@@locks is only one @ but two L L’s!

        2. @Eddy Two

          Being black can be a bonus – but not always!

      3. Widely acceptable? I’ve had this discussion with friends and none of us like the word. It may have been “reclaimed” by people who like to think they lead the vanguard of militant thinking but for many of us it is still a term of abuse.

        1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:40pm

          Just cause you don’t like the word doesn’t mean it hasn’t been widely acceptable by the LGBT community over the years.
          Maybe it didnt spread outside of London then? lol
          (it has after all only been 30 years…)(or so….)(give or take 5 years…) lol

    3. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:13pm

      Again, I apologise if my use of “queer” alienated anyone. Personally, “queer” is a far better descriptor of my orientation than “lesbian” or “gay” is. I prefer the word vastly over the other terms and would rather use it to describe myself.

      My reclamation of the word is not equal to bigotry. I don’t expect everyone to reclaim the word, but to compare it to bigotry is really laughable at best.

      1. Its one of those competing rights, Lola.

        Of course, you or I have the right to use whatever label we feel is appropriate to describe ourselves – and I have no probelm with gay male or queer or many others. However, I do recognise that others may be offended at some of my choice of descriptors. That probably speaks more of their insecurity than of mine – but in a decent society its incumbant on us not to offend each other if it can be avoided.

        I agree with most of your article and find it disturbing that some queers (with apologies to those that find that term demeaning) think attacking homophobic bigotry with other forms of bigotry is acceptable.

        Well written article. Lola

      2. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:29pm

        Aside from anything ‘QUEER’ makes a great t-shirt design lol

        1. Depends is a queer does the artistry …. lol

          1. I personally find the word queer more helpful to me because I am different from the supposed norm in several ways, not just by being bisexual, so queer is like an umbrella term for all of my non-normative sexuality. I understand that not everyone finds the term helpful, but there’s now queer theory and queer theology and both of those are full of very helpful ideas which are useful tools for deconstructing heteronormativity and explain in some depth why some people (on both sides of the Atlantic) have chosen to reclaim the word queer.

  10. Well said Lola. There is often quite a lot of borderline racism/disablism/deep unpleasantness about other LGBT people on these message boards.

  11. If anything Lola’s writing inadvertently highlights the legitimacy of posting messages on blogs and message boards. Whether it be that dude in Edinburgh Uni posing as a Syrian lesbian or people posting deliberately inflammatory messages on here to get a rise from genuine readers her argument doesn’t really amount to much in the context of what she’s read and reported about on internet message boards. Now if we had some televised debate re the lgbt community and bigotry and named actual people were quoted then you’d have a more concrete factual story.

    1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:14pm

      I believe that’s why it’s listed as a “Comment”, not an article.

    2. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:18pm

      Not at all – if you lot cant get your shot together on a message board how the fock you think thats gonna suddenly magic itself into a coherent strategy with John Snow chairing on televisual? lol
      Aside from anything else the boards would be dead all day if you lot were busy in make-up giving good face to the great British of Isles! lol

      1. @Staircase2

        Say what?

        Joking aside, I do think that there is an issue re the trolls on these comment threads and that there must be a better way of monitoring them

        1. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:36pm

          I agree Stu – I think they should do a secure login option for people at the very least – that would help enormously. And stop people from hijacking people’s name-tags maliciously.
          But even bigger sites like Gaydar for example which have ‘monitors’ don’t do a particularly effective job. Pink News should have in place a robust policy which people have to sign up to though – and a swift enforcement of that policy. That would go some way towards dealing with some of the nastiness of the postings on here.
          But this notion of ‘troll’ is however such a ridiculous one who’s time has come – after all most of you guys are on here all day long – does that make you ‘trolls’? lol
          In my experience ALL message boards create the same kind of playground bullying them and us mentality. (which is in itself very very odd) Something about the mentality of people who use them (and its invariably men by the way) – very odd….

          1. You raise an interesting sociological point about it being mainly men – be interesting to explore why that is …
            I do think one persons troll is anothers advocate, but its about understanding rights and responsibilities …
            Bullying is never acceptable and there needs to be a more rigorous enforcement of the message boards on here – I for one would be happy to engage with PN and help discuss how this could be resolved – I am sure others would be happy to do so as well.

        2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 10:51am

          Hear Hear!

  12. daniel edmondson 13 Jun 2011, 6:28pm

    i agree with this artical. reading some news on this site makes me upset, but reading the comments make me feel worse

    1. Tom Stoppard 13 Jun 2011, 7:47pm

      Agreed Daniel. It seems that with every article I read, there’s a chorus of people picking everything apart. They seem to take pleasure in disagreeing and being negative. But you’d bet that if you met them face to face they’d be far too cowardly to ever disagree.

      1. Some of that is good debate … but I do concede sometimes there is unnecessary negativity (IMHO)

        1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:12am

          ENORMOUSLY unnecessarily negative….
          knee jerk
          small minded
          should I go on….? lol

          1. Agreed I’ve given commenting on stories that talk about Islam as I know the comments im going to heat and I can’t be arsed with it all

          2. There are some very strident views on religion on here that extrapolate their opinions on holding faith to mean that anyone who does is stupid. That is claerly untrue and a bigoted view.

            Engaging with such dogmatic views as a non religious person is difficult as often they try and make me fit into a particular box – which I choose not to fit.

            Attacking people for their beliefs is as unacceptable as attacking people for their orientation – full stop.

            That does not justify some of the horrific actions of some people of some faiths.
            But nor is the actions of some an excuse for ridiculing others who have no responsibility for the actions of others.

  13. Groan out comes the race card.

    If he was northern, female, had a lisp, was disabled, was common etc people would have picked on that.

    Had he NOT said anything ant-gay people wouldn’t have mentioned his colour. The trouble with gay people is we just take it. There is NO high road.

    1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 6:44pm

      The “race card”, eh?

      So, saying someone shouldn’t make references to nooses and joke about sexual assault on slavery plantations is now “pulling out the race card”.

      It is NEVER acceptable to insult someone based on the colour of their skin – regardless of what ignorant opinions they may have. One bigotry does not excuse the other. And there IS a way of rejecting what Morgan said without resorting to racial slurs to do it.

      1. Again if someone says something about minority when they are a minority themselves they should expect some people to retaliate. If they don’t like it then perhaps they should not of said something in the first place. While you may not like it surely you can understand it?
        This ISN’T a race issue. If he had been ginger haired, had a speech impediment etc that would have been the focus of the “backlash”

        You are confused whith what bigotry is.
        A man who made an unprovoked attack on gay people deliberately trying to stir hatred is a bigot.
        Gay people who said negative things about that mans ethnicity is a human reaction.
        They are not the same.

        Lola would you have written your article had Tracy been red haired? I think not. Perhaps you need to try and get a clearer understand of what actually happened here.

        1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 7:51pm

          If Tracy would have been ginger, no one would have called him a racial slur, would they?

          You’re really the one who’s not understanding the issue. Racial slurs are never okay. It does not occur to me to call someone a racial slur because they are homophobic. If it occurs to you, then that’s part of the problem.

          1. So what you are saying is racial slurs are not acceptable but to comment on someone being red haired is???
            You missed my point.
            I did say had Tracy being a different minority that would have been the focus of the retaliation.
            However the comment about hanging and slavery did go to far but not all the comments come out of racism.
            Your comment was a very simplified view.

          2. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 8:06pm

            Re: Andy. No I’m saying that if you really think that being ginger is identical to being black you’re either sadly misinformed or being intentionally thick.

            I could give a crap less if someone would have made a bigoted comment regardless of what minority he was. It’s not right for racial slurs to be used. Period. And you hypothesizing over what *would* have happened is irrelevant.

            I never once said ANYWHERE that EVERY comment was racist. Nor did I say gays had a monopoly on reacting to bigotries with bigotries. The only thing that’s simplified is your reading of my commentary. Go back and read it again, pull your head out of your bum, and stop trying to justify hatred.

        2. Racists are the first to deny its existence just like anti gay people

        3. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 1:26pm

          Right. And if this had been a gay comedian making a racist joke, and the black community had responded with homophobic remarks, what do you think the people here would have said?
          “He should have expected it”, or “look how homophobic those black people are, let’s respond in kind”?
          If you think we’re justified in responding to homophobia with racism, then straight blacks are justified in responding to us with homophobia (and I suppose queer blacks would be justified in responding to us with more racism). It just gets unnecessarily messy and unpleasant.

          1. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 10:54am


      2. Any mentions of nooses etc were made in connection with the physical threats of violence towards the black community by white militants in the US. The references were made to highlight what black people were subjected to and the irony with Tracy Morgan’s suggestion that he’d kill his son if he was gay. I think you went looking for issues that weren’t present Lola.

        1. That’s certainly not what the person who mentioned a noose on facebook said in response. They said specifically actually that Morgan deserved to have racist slurs thrown at him so he’d know exactly what it feels like to have homophobic slurs thrown at him.

          Again, these comments are not isolated incidents of racism within the LGBTQ community. This is a larger problem that’s illustrated, but not composed entirely, within SEVERAL comments that SEVERAL people made on the PinkNews Facebook.

    2. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:49pm

      Er actually – no – the ‘problem with gay people’ isn’t that ‘we just take it’ at all – the article is pointing out that what ‘we’ do instead is come out flailing our arms everywhere lambasting people with old prejudices when what we should be doing is making a coherent and spirited defence against those who take against us.
      All that flailing is a waste of time, energy and focus and simply both misses the real point and turns people against us who are actually on our side…
      Lola makes a good argument when she points out that white gay men are effectively thereby telling black gay men for example that they are not welcome or part of the ‘gay community’. Which is of course complete rubbish.
      Gay politics and Gay Pride wouldn’t exist as we now know it without the monumental efforts of black gay men and women, drag queens, transsexuals, bisexuals and anyone else aligned with the Queer community (Stonewalls).

    3. Staircase2 13 Jun 2011, 6:51pm

      That gay humour has so long focused on belittling people who scare us does not excuse, condone or even justify it.
      It doesn’t work – pure and simple. Its simply inflammatory bollocks which gets us nowhere. Its divisive and corrosive and needs to stop. Right now.
      I fully support what Lola is saying.

      1. While you agree, you are incorrect about ‘white gay men are effectively thereby telling black gay men for example that they are not welcome or part of the ‘gay community’
        inflammatory melodrama

      2. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 7:59pm

        Just want to add for myself, I don’t think you’re incorrect or melodramatic at all.

        1. I could say that’s because you are both but I won’t.

          1. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 8:08pm

            e_e It’s sad when you have to result to saying “inflammatory melodrama” to prove a point you obviously don’t have. Your refusal to believe that the LGBTQ community isn’t always a friendly place for POCs doesn’t make it magically a friendly place, unfortunately for us all.

  14. Thank you Lola for addressing LGBT’s dirty little secret. No other commentator has addressed it. Time for the LGBT community to grow up and realise it is not perfect and has no moral high ground while accepting this racism as the norm.

    1. @James!

      I don’t often agree with you – but on this I am with you 100%.

      I do think, so often, the LGBTQ communities are so self absorbed that they perceive anyone holding a different view must be wrong. There is a sense that the LGBTQ communities will always have the moral high ground – and some of this comes from a victim mentality (not all but some).

      Equally, there is a lack willing to examine our own motives and morality in terms of how we treat others.

      These are generalisations and not every LGBTQ person will react in this way but there is a tendency to a holier than though approach.

      1. Cheers Stu

        The irony is Black people in the uk had no beef with gay people. There are plenty of gay people ,clubs and bars in Brixton. Black people have a problem with the racism.Sort that out and you’ll see the change

        1. Black people have no beef with gay people? Are you sure about that? Are you saying it’s just white people who are homophobic? You sound as racist as the idiots that think its only black people who are homophobic.

          1. @Eddy two

            Of course, there are homophobic people of all races, sexes, religions (and none) etc

            Equally there are racists who are gay, straight, bisexual, trans etc

        2. Eddy there are loads of black gay people in Brixton. When I was growing up gay people were seen as rebels and welcome in the community. As black people became intergrated into the scene the secret came out.

    2. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:18am

      Not strictly true, James – Kevin Maxwell did an excellent piece a little while back on the issue of racism within the LGBT community

  15. I agree with the commentators who say this is a black issue. I’ve never liked Tracy Mogan – she’s a crap comedienne – just like her fellow black ‘comics’ – Iris Robinson, Melanie Phillips, Jan Moir. When they have an International Day of Homophobia, all these black women will take over Loose Women for the day…

    What, you say? Tracy Morgan isn’t a man and all the others you mention aren’t black? But they have to be. I tells you, only black people are homophobic. Says so in the Bible, dunnit?

    This morally, intellectually, emotionally and observationally bankrupt argument that ‘black automatically equals anti-gay’ is such a witless philosophy that I despair. And if another person brings up the ‘black support for Prop 8 in California meant that it succeeded’, I’ll probably fight hard against the desire to throttle them. Given the way the vote went, it didn’t matter one way or another how the black community of California voted it made no difference to how the vote turned out.

    1. No, but Melanie Philips is a man.
      Tracy Morgan was born that way but he wasn’t born a homophobe.
      Iris Robinson is an adulterer who used homophobic comments as a smolescreen to divert attention from her sinful activities with the local butcher and his son (and Lord knows who else)… Jan Moir?

    2. Lola Olson 13 Jun 2011, 9:53pm

      Can I ask why you’re referring to Tracy Morgan as a “she” and saying he’s not a man?

      1. Now you are being a pain Lola.

        1. Some PN comments clearly went too far but none so far as to say they would stab black homophobic comics.

          But on behalf of some here on Pink News who went a bit too far, I want to apologise to the black and homophobe community for their choice of words in response to Morgans recent anti-gay stand-up act in Nashville.

        2. A pain? Hrm, because I’m questioning the intentions behind someone’s comment. Because calling out racism is fine with you but pointing out where there may be some possible misogyny/transphobia isn’t?

          If that’s me being a pain, then good.

          1. Or because you needed a slant for whatever essay you need to hand in by next week?

          2. Actually, I’m done with my essays. But good on you for trying to make yourself feel better about your own ignorance by attacking my status as a graduate student. Because, you know, having a bit of education means I can’t really care about anything about my education.

            Trust me, I really don’t need random ignorant people on the internet to give me essay ideas. Luckily, I have plenty of those of my own.

          3. Why do we have to distinguish people as either he or she? Isn’t that rather sexist?
            Why assume Tracy Morgan is a man? Isn’t that sexist too?
            Certainly Tracy Morgan looks a bit masculine facially and the article does refer to Tracy Morgan as “he” but taking a closer look at the delicate hands and arms there’s room for doubt.
            If Tracy Morgan was a real man he’d have no need to make a show of his “manliness” by putting down gays.

          4. @Pavlos

            What is your point?

            Your are sounding incoherent …

            Are you trying to say that we all judge people … if so, yes we do …

            However, we dont all display bigoted views – and some LGBTQ people do to others and others do to some LGBTQ people … neither is acceptable – however you try and market it

          5. Pavlos, I agree I see something problematic in distinguishing people in binary gendered terms as a genderqueer person, absolutely. I think it’s pretty obvious to assume that Morgan identifies as a man and with “he” pronouns. And to assert there’s a such thing as a “real man” and anyone who doesn’t fall in line with that should be called a “she” is really sexist, because you’re asserting that “she” is less than “he”. Maybe that’s not your intention, but it is how it comes off. Also, when you talk about “real men”, it makes me wonder if a “real man” has to be manly or masculine at all.

            I think we can critique what Morgan said without it having to be about manliness. No one should have said what Morgan said, whether they’re “manly” or not.

          6. Stu, my point is that you can take this too far, especially here where Lola was calling out Dazzer on possible misogyny/transphobia when he/she is totally with Lola against racist bigotry if you read what Dazzer wrote more carefully
            “This morally, intellectually, emotionally and observationally bankrupt argument that ‘black automatically equals anti-gay’ is such a witless philosophy that I despair”

          7. Lola, it’s very manly for a man to be in touch and at ease with his feminine side.
            Dazzer is in possibly in touch with Tracy Morgans feminine side to an extent that Tracy Morgan himself can never be aware of.

          8. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:03am

            Just because someone agrees with me about racism, doesn’t mean their possible sexism or transphobia is okay. That’s precisely the problem I’m pointing out in my article. Don’t respond to bigotry with bigotry.

            I could care less about what makes a “manly” man or not. You’re still assuming men have to be manly and that men being manly is necessary and a requirement. It also is completely irrelevant to Morgan’s comments. The issue is that what Morgan said was homophobic and horrible. It has nothing to do with him being manly or not.

        3. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:36am

          You’re talking out of your alcohol drenched bum, Pavlos….
          Tracy Morgan is a man (while you’re now busy being a mouse) ;o)
          and ‘pip’ and ‘squeak’ are two words that spring to mind….

          1. Nutcase2: Shut it!

          2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:05am

            Fraid I have to agree with Staircase2 and Lola on this Pavios. And now, because you are feeling slighted you’re starting to call names. Is that what this thread has been about? Reponding to homophobia with bigotry and hatred – wheather it is racism, sexism, or what ever you might want to pitch to try to negate your opponent’s arguments. There’s a word for it. Actually four words – an ad hominem argument.

      2. Lola using ‘she’ to describe Tracy Morgan is a joke because of his name. Like A Boy Called Sue, Nothing perjorative about it. Just used for absurd effect like calling Iris Robinson et al black. Pavlos got the joke. I’m sorry that you didn’t.

        1. @Dazzer
          I got the joke … and found it fairly amusing – didnt quite understand Pavlos continuation and run with it

          1. Cause Lola didn’t get it presumably.

          2. @CMYB

            Not undestanding your comment ….

          3. Stu, do you think perhaps you are overdoing the “seek clarification” thing. There is no such thing as perfect comprehension and there’s not much that’s more tedious than having to explain every word.
            Lola is choosing not to have a sense of humour today, she’s wearing her professional gender studies hat, has her career to think of, this stuff is in print remember

          4. A career in what exactly? I thought my art degree wasn’t worth the paper it was conceptually printed on, but a gender studies degree, whatever. I’ve come across (not in that way) people on Gaydar doing their gender studies degrees and posing (a la that weirdo 40 year old Edinburgh student) as gay to ask X amount of questions from X amount of gay guys and filter all that bullsh1t into something they can present as a well argued case study in what being male and gay means.

          5. @Pavlos

            I am clearly seeking to understand what others are saying, if you have a problem with that, then quite frankly that is your problem.

            There is no such thing as perfect comprehension – and when I dont understand it might be due to my misunderstanding, my limitations, my wrong perception, some nuance that wasnt intended by the author or the author making a typographical or other error in what they had said.

        2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 4:04pm

          I did get your joke. I just didn’t find it funny.

          1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 6:31pm

            lol and why would you – it was badly executed for starters lol
            And I think I’m right in saying that Lola’s article says that she is studying International Studies. It gets easier to see from one comment to the other that you lot don’t even read past the headline when it come to commenting on articles….
            oh PS – It suddenly struck me that if could take almost any comments page on any article and shuffle them all around and put them with different articles and you lot would STILL be saying exactly the same mindless drivel over and over again. The subjects are the same regardless of the title.
            What’s up with that?

          2. @Lola, if you understood it was a joke, why were you trying to accuse me of mysogyny or transphobia? or whatever. Why didn’t you say: ‘OK, got the joke – try harder next time.’
            I’d have replied ‘OK, suit yourself’.
            Instead, you – the author on a piece on bigotry – immediately attempt try to turn something you understood to be an attempt at humour about racial bigotry into my potential bigotry!
            I will continue to speak out against bigotry as and when I see it, but I don’t think that in the future I will pay attention to you.
            You seem to be a divisive eather than unifying force in the LGBTQI population.

          3. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 8:48pm

            I’m sure Morgan thought he was just making a joke as well. Making it into a joke doesn’t make it appropriate. Misgendering Morgan as “she” when Morgan identifies as “he” in an attempt to be funny IS transphobic. And if you’re doing it in an attempt to make him seem less than “manly” as if “man” is less than “woman”, than you are being sexist as well. Whether that’s your intent or not, it’s not a funny joke. It’s not even hardly a joke.

          4. Because Dazzer she loves the sound of her own voice, a loud opinionated self server.

  16. And while I’m on this rant, I feel compelled to point out that the No to Prop 8 campaign was largely bankrolled by the Mormons – a hideously white organisation.

    Having said that, I see precious little anti-black comments on Pink News.

    However, if you’re gay and a Muslim on this site, then Allah/God/FlyingSpaghettiMonster help you.

    The abuse aimed at openly gay men on this site has been horrific.

    But back to the point of this comment about Tracy Morgan. Having read a lot of websites about what Mogan said, Pink News is positively lamblike in its comments. Look at American sites like Towleroad and Queerty to see real, proper racism in operation. The only American site I’ve read where Morgan’s comments are discussed, rather than his race, is AfterElton.

    One of the reasons I like this site is because Lola’s comments can be discussed in relative civility. I’m not sure an American site is ready fo this kind of debate just yet

  17. I agree with Lola & the content of her comment. I believe her point is that some of the LGBTQ community can be hypocrites when using bigotry to fight bigotry. Just because we have suffered, it doesn’t mean that it is acceptable to cause others suffering, by casting hate onto others, even if they have spewed hateful comments towards any of us. Two wrongs don’t make a right! I believe that the most effective way to challenge prejudice, hatred & ignorance is to appeal to the verbal assaulter’s better side, by asking them non-judgemental, direct & mind-opening questions, rather than capitalising on the situation and using it as an opportunity to spew other unacceptable forms of bigotry at others, especially against those who are in a vulnerable position in society. Some people here are making false conclusions about others, from their comments, which is unhelpful & unnecessary. Maybe the term Queer was not ideal, but I feel that it depends on who uses the word & in what manner or context.

    1. Absolutely …

      If confused about a persons view on something we should seek clarification rather than presume – I know I am guilty of presuming sometimes …

      1. Yes, I admit I can be presumptuous on occasions. My rants are usually aimed at corrupt politicians, bankers or people in a very responsible who abuse the power they have. We have to be careful not to presume that all we think or say is always justifiable, especially when we’re angry! Whether or not a comment is in the heat of the moment doesn’t alter how potentially harmful it can be to the individual and the wider community!

  18. Also, there has been alot of hate from this site from zealous LGBT religion haters towards members of the LGBT community who have religious beliefs. Those of us who still have a spiritual faith should not be shown so much hate and at times blamed for all the prejudice and lack of support from certain aspects of one’s individual religion. I personally don’t stay as a Christian because I agree with what my church is saying about issues I don’t agree with them on. I nearly left 10yrs ago, but stayed because I met so many other LGBT christians who I shared a positive affinity with. There are so many ways someone can believe in God. To subscribe to a faith you don’t have to agree to all it’s laws. Change & growth has happened through the ages, due to the hierarchy being challenged, although painfully slow on several occasions! Those of you who have something negative to say about this, please respond without hate or prejudice, which relates to what I believe is the spirit of Lola’s article.

    1. Zealous LGBT religion haters? you aren’t setting a good example by being immediately provocative and then doing the full “holier than thou” speil.

      In a sense LGBT Christians are acting like a human shield for the extreme institutionalised bigotry of the religion you shore up, in that sense you are useful to your churches in that you to try to block adverse criticism here, but the much proclaimed persecution from atheists supposedly endured by Christians is clearly not so severe that Christians are committing suicide or being attacked and bashed in the street by atheists.
      I hope you don’t think I am being hateful or prejudiced when I say get a sense of proportion Tony.

      1. @Pavlos

        As a non Christian, there is a huge difference between justifiable debate and criticism and outright hatred and bigotry agianst people of faith and belief – and both are visible on these message boards.

        1. @Stu. Yes, usually in response to gratuitous hit and run comments by anti-gay, allegedly Christian trolls here.
          Similarly I consider the recent high profile cases taken up by the Christian Institute and the Christian Legal Centre to be gratuitous hit and run attacks on gay rights.

          1. Absolutely there are some hit and run comments from Christians (and those of other faiths) which are offensive, bigoted and wrong and they should be condemned – they do not justify the same in reverse and there is plenty of evidence of people lumping all people of faith into one group on here. That is as simplistic as saying all gay men are limp wristed, effeminate, Kylie loving airline stewards.

      2. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 6:36pm

        “I hope you don’t think I am being hateful or prejudiced when I say get a sense of proportion Tony.”
        No you’re doing it when you opened your comment by talking about his “spiel” as being “holier than thou” lol
        You sure you aren’t Melanie Philips? Thats a very Daily Mail use of (ye) olde English….
        Come to think of it you lot have a remarkably close energy to the Melanie of Philips and the Richard of Dawkin…lol remarkably close!
        (things that make yer go, ‘hmmmmmm’)

      3. @Pavlos: I’m unsure why you think I see myself as “holier than thou!” I certainly don’t think I am!” Human shield comment ill-informed! Institutionalised bigotry is totally unacceptable, especially when it’s a religious institution because of it’s multi dimensional influence & power around the world. Just because I believe that Jesus’ life is a perfectly balanced example for anyone else to live their lives does not mean that I or all other Christians believe that they are living their lives in an ideal manner. The hate that has come from religion is insidious, especially when certain people in responsible religious positions influence their communities by spewing prejudice and hate, somehow claiming that God would back their evil argument! God would NEVER approve of discrimination. Jesus was also against prejudice. It’s the prejudiced religious people who cause most of the problems. Most religious people I know are understanding and don’t have prejudices or discriminate against others.

        1. It was something to do with your opening line “there has been alot of hate from this site from zealous LGBT religion haters towards members of the LGBT community who have religious beliefs.”
          You are not accusing me of being hateful are you?
          I am a secular atheist but I support LGCM, not because I think there is a jot of truth in Christianity but because they are working from the inside (sort of) to tackle the institutionalised anti-gay bigotry of the church .

          1. @Pavlos

            Its that kind of level headed balanced view towards faith I yearn to see from the LGBT communities. I understand the skepticism from many and I know there are some horrific examples of bigotry, abuse and worse from people of faith. However, responding like for like with attacks isnt the way forward – your approach of supporting those who wish to tackle institutionalised homophobia is to be congratulated!

          2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:14am

            Stu and Pavlos – you’ve found something to agree with each other on. I too agree with both of you. I am a secular huminist and I too get fed up with “pushy” religionists, but making generalized negative statements against all people of religion because of the “sins” of some is just as bigoted as the religious judgments of us as gay people by the religious bigots. Let’s all keep some perspective.

          3. @David Myers

            Absolutely we need to maintain perspective – not minimise the wrong doing of some (including some leaders) but recognise that taking a simplistic approach to views within a large group of people can lead to bigoted actions.

          4. @Pavlos: I wouldn’t say you were hateful, no. You jumped to a few conclusions about me, which can be easy and/or convenient, although I can understand why you thought I may have applied the ‘zealous hater’ term to you. I also support LGCM and agree that they help to raise awareness and challenge prejudice, fear and hate towards the LGBT community. The point I was trying to make was that I have received some hateful &/or prejudiced &/or narrow-minded comments from Pinknews users which I found disappointing, pathetic and definitely unhelpful regarding building bridges between different communities within the LGBT realm. It’s very disappointing when so many religious people behave in a manner contrary to their faith, as it’s totally hypocritical,as well as creating a false impression of who they are. I can totally understand LGBT objections against religion. It’s the hateful comments from the ignorant members that I feel are unacceptable. It can demonstrate that ANYONE can be prejudiced!

    2. And the beautiful thing is that Darwin came along and cut through, and said, ‘well actually it’s my theory that is the way, the truth and the light’.

      I’d protect anyone’s right to their faith – so long as it is not forced on anyone else – but I don’t pay much attention to those who cry of hurt feelings, because I might ridicule their beliefs.

      1. @AdrianT

        We have had this discussion many times before …

        Question, debate, challenge, etc … all reasonable

        Ridicule, belittle, Offend … not reasonable … and potentially borderline bigoted

  19. I can completely agree with this point. Even if the racism or whatever the hell you want to call it does not occur on here. the fact is that it occurs. After all Martin Luther King did not have success through blasting the “white man” know he understood that not all white people hated him. Just as not every straight person, or official or otherwise hates us. just as war only leads to more war, bigotry only leads to more bigotry and all anyone does by fighting bigotry with bigotry is ensure that a vicious cycle continues.

  20. TrollFromDamascus 14 Jun 2011, 1:36am

    What a load of rubbish.

    We get it. Discrimination is bad.

    Why write a 1000 word essay saying “it’s hypocritical to be discriminatory if you are the subject of discrimination”? Firstly it isn’t if the forms of discrimination are different. Second the incidence of racism is so minimal as to be not comment worthy.

    Libtards getting their knickers in a twist over nothing as usual.

    1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:32am

      “the incidence of racism is so minimal as to be not comment worthy”? What a tub of bollocks!
      I say once again – great article, Lola.
      And like I told your mother earlier – forgive them – they know not what they do (quite literally!) lol
      (and some of them (again – quite literally!) do not what they know!) (And I think this is the most dangerous of the two……)

      1. TrollFromDamascus 14 Jun 2011, 2:45am

        You’re absolutely right. I was mistaken The article is full of insight, statistical proof and in-depth analysis of the supporting theses and evidence. It’s not hyperbolic ranting at all.

        1. “It’s not hyperbolic ranting at all.”

          Yeah, point in case your dribble about “Libtards” and the “incidence of racism is so minimal”. Insightful and utterly lacking a basis in reality. Well done.

          1. TrollFromDamascus 15 Jun 2011, 2:40am

            Will, your statement isn’t supported by facts.

          2. TrollFromDamascus 15 Jun 2011, 2:53am

            If you need a 1000 word essay to tell you not to be racist, there’s something wrong with you.

            Is Lola Olson a new muse come to our blackened land to tell us tales of a place without racism?

            This essay is pointless.

            Is Lola of the impression gay people are more racist than others? I wonder…

        2. The article certainly is insightful

          There is some analysis and thought.

          There is reference to evidence within PN – which is the basis for the discussion.

          In such discussion there is no clear need for empirical data.

          So TrollfromDamascus you are right – you are mistaKen …

          and no racism, homophobia etc is acceptable

          1. TrollFromDamascus 15 Jun 2011, 2:50am

            “There is reference to evidence within PN – which is the basis for the discussion.”

            The essay is an essay on the racism evident on PinkNews?

            Or is the essay attempting to demonstrate racism is prevelant in gay people to a higher degree than society at large?

            “I do expect us to not resort to racism or to think racism is okay due to homophobia”

            If you need a 1000 word essay to tell you not to be racist, I think you have problems.

            It’s redundant and pointless.

        3. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 6:41pm

          Statistical proof doesn’t seem to be heavy in your comments either, Godfried. It was a comment – agree with is or disagree with it – but why bother tearing something down if you say you don’t believe it to made of any depth?
          As I said: “they know not what they do (quite literally!) lol (and some of them (again – quite literally!) do not what they know!) (And I think you’re the in the second and most dangerous of the two……)”

          1. TrollFromDamascus 15 Jun 2011, 2:45am

            “Statistical proof doesn’t seem to be heavy in your comments either”

            It is. The fact is the original essay was a rant about nothing which bears no relation to reality.

            “why bother tearing something down if you say you don’t believe it to made of any depth?”

            The legion of support this nonsense gains is frightening. It’s scremongering.

            As for your biblical quotes, I think you’re a little bit loopy.

        4. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:17am

          My you are aptly named arn’t you?

  21. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:43am

    It is my experience that for whatever reason message board/chat rooms generate this kind of nonsense. I have long known that it isn’t Reason or quality of argument which makes people see the light – thats simply down to personal consciousness. And you can’t enlighten another person – you can only inspire them to want to become enlightened. (“You can take a mouse to water but you cannot make him think” perhaps?)
    Its an interesting thought though as to why it is that the internet is so overwhelmingly filled with negativity and limited consciousness, narrow thinking and small mindedness. Given the global nature of the net youd think this wouldnt be the case. But we often forget that for most of us, most of our internet interaction is based on connections with other people who are occupying the same geographic, emotional, social and educational spaces that we are.

    1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 2:48am

      The web is literally just that – a web of many many people all focussing in the same direction. Given the immense amount of time we all tend to spend online these days its not surprising that we all eventually succumb to a certain amount of net fatigue.
      I believe that its this net fatigue which amplifies the negativity which we experience. It does this simply by gradually wearing down our own natural positivity and replacing it with negativity which we then also pass onto the next person we come across who ‘gets on our last nerve’.
      My experience as a teacher has taught me that I need to be energised and centred in order to be able to perform properly. Teaching a group of adults of kids when I’m tired is simply a recipe for disaster. The same is true for us all in terms of our internet interactions.
      Maybe the answer is ‘little and often’ lol
      God Bless x

      1. Now you are being insulting to Atheists, don;’t you ever stop, whatever happened to civility, manners and consideration for others.?
        It must be an artifact of the discussion site medium.
        Dog Mess x

        1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 6:51pm

          Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this has anything to do with ‘Atheists’ and also while you’re at it what ‘dog mess’ has to do with anything?
          You’re quite a confused bunny aren’t you – and perhaps if you read with your eyes instead of your bile duct you might actually understand what I said….Re-read it ….

  22. To Right all this fighting between different minorities is stupid we need to help bridge the gap on our side atleast.

  23. Well said. I totally agree and think this is a really important point. thanks.

  24. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:13am

    Thought provoking article.

    Brings a good debate.

    Though whilst it may not be acceptable I think people sometimes just react first out of anger before calming down and debating.

    I think there is sense that one persons bigotry is another persons debate.
    We all tend to define different things as bigotry.

    Clearly there is the straight forward racism and homophobia etc that just isn’t acceptable but I do feel too often some will use the words racist and homophobe not because the person they’re accusing is, not in the slightest but simply because they don’t like someone having a difference of opinion so throw these words to stall the topic, to distract.

    Whilst I do feel Lola makes an accurate case it must also be said that at what time do we stop debate?

    Many people may saying things in the heat of the moment against what others just feel they have a right to be hateful and that creates the fear and anger to retaliate.

    1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2011, 10:15am

      I think most people know whats too much and not acceptable, we see it here at times as stated.
      Sometimes those idiots remind us why we have to stand up and be counted but they always push it too far.

      1. @Jock S. Trap agree with you completely. As an illustration of your point, I made a ‘joke’ above in support of the author of this article, whereupon she turned round and intimated that I was misogynistic/transphobic/whatever. However, even as she did that, she realised I was making an attempt at humour. I feel the opportunity for her to cry ‘bigot’ was too great a temptation for her. It was easier for to make an accusation of bigotry rather than telling me face on she didn’t think much of my sense of humour.
        In debates about bigotry, it seems simple principles of discourse leave the room and let accusations and counter-accusations rule the roost.

        1. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 5:40pm

          No, I said your joke WAS misogynistic. And it was. It was a pathetic attempt to insult Morgan by misgendering him and you should apologise for your mistake and own up to what you did.

    2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:25pm

      Anyone who throws around the n-word a heated debate needs to grow the hell up. Words matter. And using the n-word, joking about slavery, and purposefully making comments about Morgan’s skin colour IS bigotry. It’s disgusting and there’s no room for it in any debate.

      I said I support anger. I do not expect people to turn the other cheek, and that’s where you failed to read part of my article. But I do expect people not to resort to bigotry to support their claims.

      Then again, as I said, I continue to be unsurprised. I’m unsurprised that it happened – annoyed and furious – but still unsurprised. And I’m stil unsurprised that there are a bunch of people in these comments who can’t go, “You know, maybe using the n-word and other racial slurs to respond to homophobia IS kind of ignorant and we should do better”, but instead feel the need to whinge and piss and moan because someone dared ask them to act decently.

      Because, you know. What I’m asking for in my article is friggin sainthood.

      1. JUST SHUT UP!

        1. So I take it from your responses you do think racism is an appropriate response to homophobia?

          1. You’d have worked well at the McCarthy witch hunts in the 40s and 50s Lola. If everyone doesn’t bend over and agree with every word you say then they’re a racist.

          2. Please point out to me where I’ve called someone a racist for not agreeing with me.

            I’m merely wondering why you seem so intent on shutting me up – when my message is that racism is not an appropriate response to homophobia.

          3. Well here for instance- So I take it from your responses you do think racism is an appropriate response to homophobia?

          4. I don’t believe I called you a racist. I believe I questioned your need to silence me. Either you agree with the premise of my commentary or you don’t. And if you agree, why are you trying to shut me up?

      2. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 1:13pm

        I’m torn on why you make that comment to the article.
        Part of me sees the need for this article and has agreed it’s a good piece of writing but there’s a part of me that feels you weren’t prepared for people to really debate it.

        Thankfully it’s very rare to see the n word or the f word here but like I said Clearly that racism and homophobia isn’t acceptable.
        That kind of discrimination is wrong and most people here know that with Freedom comes responsibilty.

        We sadly do get Troll here who do run riot using inflammatory language and some who brand us all ‘activist’, ‘rapists’ and ‘child molestors’ the bitch and complain that people aren’t responding in kind.
        Thankfully the majority of us have decided to ignore those creeps.

        Your article came the same day or 2 that Evan Davies comments that people should have the right to be bigots, so well placed.

        1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:08pm

          I’m not prepared for people to debate it? I guess my willigness to talk about it and respond to criticisms = lack of preparenedness?

          I’m more than willing to debate it. I have been debating it. Unfortunately, all anyone wants to do here is drag my personal details into and sweep everything else under the rug.

          If you think one troll is all of the racism that exists in the LGBTQ community – you’re wrong. It’s not an isolated incident. I’ll say it – again – my response was because of the Facebook comment, yes and because of the Morgan incident, but that does not mean that this is all the racism I have witnessed and others have witness in the LGBTQ community. It is a problem and it pisses me off because, even though I shouldn’t, I expect better.

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 4:09pm

            You clearly miss read my comment Lola.
            I’m putting what ‘I’ see.
            Oh and yes I know about racism within the LGBTQI community Thank you.
            Having a Black partner for 18 years you kinda get the jist of the discrimination, ta.

            My point is far from debating you actually seem disappointed that people haven’t said why you wanted or expected even those as I said most agree with you

          2. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 5:08pm

            If you know about racism in the community – what is the point of trying to pick me apart?

            I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying because of your sentence structure. Am I disappointed in the white members of the LGBTQ community when I see the racism, yes. Am I surprised? Unfortunately not. What emotion would you prefer I have in response to this?

            Is it too much to ask for people to agree not to use the n-word against a comedian because he went on a homophobic tirade?

            I don’t see most agreeing with me here. I see most people would rather focus on my personal details than talk about racism being a real problem.

        2. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 4:50pm

          To be honest Jock – I don’t see why Lola would be prepared for this kind of shot unless she had spent the last ten years on the web encountering equally focked up gay men on a daily bitter&twisted basis.
          Its not healthy boys! Give it up!
          Mind you, to describe this tired old flood of bollocks (quite literally as it happens!) as being ‘prepared for people to really debate it’ is somewhat wide of the mark! This lot wouldn’t recognise debate if they were hit over the head with a hammer branded with the word ‘DE’ being wielded by a man calling himself ‘Bate’. MasterBate more like!

      3. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 1:20pm

        You don’t want people to be bigots fair enough I and most would agree but you sound disappointed because people haven’t written what you either expected or wanted but fact remain most have agreed with you, including myself.

        My point is different people have different levels of what bigotry is.
        James! for example (nothing personal James!, it’s what I respect about you..(oo-er respect!!)) is in my eyes very sensitive about these issues whereas I find I’m not.
        Maybe that has something to do with me living through such behaviour I don’t know but whilst all bigotry is bad sometime good comes from it.
        Some people don’t realise they are saying terms that are deemed bigotry so there must be room for the learning curve.

        There is also something I find worrying is some in that when some people ask about a culture out of pure innocent interest they can be branded a bigot.
        It seems sometimes we cannot win and instead cause confusion but using th eterm far too easily.

        1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:12pm

          I don’t know how many times I have to say it. I don’t care what’s in people’s “heart”‘s. Who gets to decide where someone’s “learning curve” is? Who gets to decide who’s pure of intention and heart? Hrm.

          Intent is not magic. Because when you step on someone’s toe, it doesn’t matter if you didn’t mean it, if you’re not a toe stepper, if you’ve got friends with toes you’ve never stepped on. I could care less if Morgan intended to hurt anyone. I could care less if the people calling me a faggot in high school intended to be homophobic. Intent is irrelevant. Words matter. They hurt.

          And if you care a bit more about “winning” and proving how pure of intentions you are rather than the person you’ve just hurt – well that’s part of the problem.

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 4:19pm

            “I don’t know how many times I have to say it”

            Then stop saying it.

            You put the debate out there, now people are responding to it.
            It doesn’t mean you have to repeat yourself it means everyone has a different take on it.

            Your article is indeed a great article, you can tell by the fact it got so many comments but your article was your view for all to see, you don’t need to repeat it.
            Why should you?

            It’s created such interest and personally I think you should be proud of that but now the floor is opened for all who have an opinion.

            I know I’ve help can’t people’s opinions off the LGBT community by them just taking the time to get to know me and others.
            That the learning curve I’m talking about.
            There are many bigots out there and a lot would change if they stopped assuming and instead got to know the actual facts and mores to the point got to know us as people.

          2. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 4:21pm

            There will always be die hard abusers I’m afriad but luckily they’re less than those who are willing to see and change which we do see.

          3. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 5:11pm

            So let me get this right, Jock. I don’t respond to criticisms of my article – then I’m unwilling to have a debate. I do respond to it then I’m repeating myself and being self server or whatever it is.

            I’ve not attacked one person here. I’ve debated the issue. I’ve responded to criticisms of my article. I’ve not made anything personal. I guess my question for you is why you feel the need to tell me to stop commenting – as if me commenting is stopping others. It’s not stopping others. I’m not doing anything to prevent anyone from debating anything.

            And in fact, I think I’ve had quite good interactions with a few people about my article and I’ve been able to clear up some of the way people read me. Personally, I don’t think I’m harming anything because I’m not resorting to personal attacks (not saying you are) nor am I going so far as to be nasty. But you’re welcome to disagree.

      4. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 1:23pm

        I would much rather a reasoned debate, heated, written and the changes to put the point across AND listening to others than people being shut down and silenced.

        People know what’s acceptable and what’s not, it’s common sense if anythingbut sadly here we do attract some who just knowingly want to go that extra mile and spoil it for everyone else.

        Debate should be championed but yes in a reasoned and respectful way.

        1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:14pm

          People know what’s acceptable, do they? That’s why some of the debate on here has been reasonable, right? That’s why there’s been less focus on these commenters on racism – which is the real issue – and more focus on me as a person, my identity, and anything else people can use to try and detract from the issue. Because people know what’s acceptable.

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2011, 4:28pm

            So speak from the issue and leave people guessing about the rest.

            Fvck Lola if they that intereted in you I guess you’ve made it and jolted a few nerves, surely a sign of a good journalist.
            If they’ll only be on about who you are etc, they clearly haven’t got anything to say, maybe your theaten them, not everyone can write articles you know and even more just don’t bother.

            I think you just need to ignore the focus on you and put it down to being a good writer and putting something out there that challenges peoples opinion.

            Seriously Lola 500+ comments? It’s not you that has the problem if others can focus on it you and not the article.
            Thats success for you.

          2. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 5:13pm

            I AM ignoring the focus on me. You lot are the one who keep bringing it up. I’ve offered nothing about my personal life except to deny outright hilarious bogus claims. Re-read the thread. Seriously.

          3. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 9:07am

            Wow Lola you take compliments like insults I see.

            Me thinks maybe you were the wrong people to write an article.

            Sorry but way to sensitive.

          4. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 2:16pm

            How is you telling me to shut up a compliment?

            And please, if I were sensitive I would have said I was surprised by the virulent racism I witnessed. I’m not surprised. I’m pissed off about it. And I’m even more pissed off that people here can’t seem to take a simple, “Don’t use the n-word to insult someone just because they say homophobic things”, without winging and trying to pick apart my credentials – as if that message NEEDS to be picked apart or if it matters who the heck I am. That message is still there. And I’m not going to stop repeating it so long as people continue to ignore it.

          5. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:24pm

            Oh dear Lola.
            Where have I ever told you to shut up?
            Maybe re-read the comment where I am actually trying to praise you and your article but hey-ho.

            What I offer is my take, my opinion. I apologise that that seems to be so difficult for you.
            Like I said clearly you were the wrong person to write an article.

            Where would we be if the likes of Melanie Phillips had your attitude on things she wrote?

            Think we’re done now!
            Don’t call us.
            Ta Ta.

          6. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 5:42pm

            Um, how about where you tell me to stop saying it. Maybe you need to re-read then.

            Also, you’re doing a fantastic job of agreeing with me and complimenting me now, right?

          7. This thread seems full of horrible misunderstandings :( Lola, I haven’t read all of the comments here but that one of Jock’s where he mentions the 500+ comments you’ve got and how people could be being nasty to you because they know they’d never bother to do what you’ve done and write a Comment, really honestly sounded like a compliment.Genuinely.
            I know how hard it is to pick nice bits out when you’ve read through loads of snide remarks and outright attacks on you, but when someone mollifies their tone, it depresses me to see them leapt on (general observation there).I’m not surprised if you’ve got the feeling that everyone’s against you but that’s not the case and maybe you’ve even persuaded some people here to change their view of you, so that’s excellent.
            You made an important point about racism and it’s sad to see it bogged down in hostile comments because in the end it makes everyone paranoid that the most innocent-sounding remark is a veiled insult and that derails all debate.

          8. Iris,

            He also told me to stop commenting. Repeatedly. Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other, but where I come from “Shut up” prefaced with compliments is still a “shut up” nonetheless.

            I appreciate that Jock likes my article and agrees with me, but you don’t compliment someone by telling them to stop repeating their messages – especially when their message isn’t being heard.

          9. Lola, I can’t find the ‘shut up’ bit from Jock, but that could be because there are so many comments here, so I’m not doubting you. But I detected a substantial shift of tone in the comment I was referring too. I saw it as an olive branch and then it was upsetting to see that pushed back.
            None of that or my previous comment was meant as a criticism of you. It just pains me to see this kind of stuff because it’s so unnecessary. Yes – I just wish people could all get on :D

          10. Lola Olson 17 Jun 2011, 3:13pm

            Tone is difficult to read over text and if Jock didn’t MEAN to sound like what he was really saying was, “You’ve done a good job, now stop debating people in the comments because it makes you look bad!” then I do apologise. It seemed like Jock was saying I was contributing to all of the personal jibes and nonsense, but if that’s not what Jock meant, hey we misunderstood each other then.

          11. Yes, tone is so hard to get sometimes, and even emoticons can look like people are being sarcastic or something so they’re no answer either. Just one of the disadvantages of non-face to face communication, I suppose.
            Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to me.

  25. burningworm 14 Jun 2011, 11:00am

    Gay children are hated by their families and no amount of legislation changes that. The comedian, who is very funny made a joke about that. He should have been braver to stand by it and explain the joke.

    1. burningworm 14 Jun 2011, 11:04am

      And for those who reported my last comment and had it removed. The joke was valid. Comedians speak up and illuminate that which is unjust. To say that he would kill his son is to make clear that point.

      1. So you think he was making an ironic joke, I tried hard to see it that way too at first too but unfortunately everyone knows that irony is not appreciated nor understood in Nashville.

        1. I do think it might have been an attempt at humour – it wasnt funny though … and its not a justification ….

  26. Some of Lola’s language in her article and subsequent comments gives her away as Christian do-gooder.
    “as righteous as our anger may be”
    “The internet graced me”
    “something in my heart had a little faith.”
    “coming across as a white saviour.”
    “attacks against my religion”
    “I believe” …etc.
    There is definitely a “holier than thou” attitude being presented here.
    Unfortunately if you fail to accept that every person who comments on PN and on facebook is an individual representing nobody else’s pont of view other than their own, you tend to label and compartmentalise blame onto groups, religious, racial, sexual etc.
    Why has preacherwoman Lola been given a special and privileged front-page platform to blame LGBT’s as a group for racism rather than slug it out here with other ordinary individuals who post on the comments pages to maintain some balance.
    Don’t be nasty back to nasty people is her message, let’s all sit round the fire and all sing Kumbaya, but all dressed up as her thesis.

    1. @Pavlos

      Have to say regardless of her motivation the message tackling bigotry with bigotry is wrong, is a reasonable message.

      Your response comes across as someone who feels under attack and vulnerable – maybe thats not your intention but thats the message I get from what you say.

      You also come across as though you wish to vindicate bigotry – seeing it as acceptable … and I just dont see that …

      It disappoints me that LGBTQ people would feel they are vindicated in being bigoted because they are a minority who have been subject of other forms of bigotry.

      1. I’m not feeling under attack, I have never made racist comments here and would not want to. It’s ust patronising that someone comes here and preaches to us individuals as though we are a group to be ticked off.
        Some people who use racist language do so very deliberately for there own reasons, I am not about to make any justification for that but when they do someone or other will almost always step in to couter their comments and that is how a discussion site like this should work, I don’t think there is a problem. Lola ios trying to claim some sort of moral high ground, in doinmg so she’s claiming something that is not hers to claim and insulting the rest of us.

        1. Excuse typos: their own reasons, counter, is, etc.

        2. And Stu, please stop stop bundling every individuals comments under the title LGBTQ because individuals speak for themselves here, they are not representing the LGHBTQ as a group.

        3. @Pavlos

          Re my comments as LGBTQ – if you don’t like the descriptor thats a personal preference, I am very careful to describe it as LGBTQ communities i.e. plural so that it is clear that not everyone in the LGBTQ communities are the same .

          I haven’t suggested that you have made racist comments – your recent comments on this thread do seem defensive however. I see nothing wrong in a contributor to these threads voicing their own opinion as to the conduct of people on these threads. I happen to agree with much of what Lola says (and it appears I am not the only one). In the past when I have confronted some bigotry then where I have stood my ground against what I perceive to be vindictive and unwarranted comments I have been subject to offensive comments. Now I accept, that is rare and sometimes I have been backed by other participants but I find that conduct wrong.

          I do agree that open, free speech on here mades the discussion interesting and dynamic and I would not want to ….

          1. …. dilute the ability of people to comment.

            However, there is a balance to be achieved between preventing offensive comments including those seeking mass murder of people, racist comments and anti-semetic comments etc and ensuring free, intelligent, reasonable and responsible debate …

        4. I was insulted by the tone of this article too. We all know racism is wrong and I for one don’t appreciate be lectured to. Seek out the racists, call them out, report on their posts, but don’t patronise the other decent folks here by assuming we’re too dumb to have noticed or, worse, don’t care.

          1. Some people like being preached to Stefan, others like me don’t and when I question the motives of the writer get this in response; ‘good on you for trying to make yourself feel better about your own ignorance by attacking my status as a graduate student. Because, you know, having a bit of education means I can’t really care about anything about my education.
            Trust me, I really don’t need random ignorant people on the internet to give me essay ideas’. There’s an irony in Lola calling for the laying down of arms and at the same time calling those of us who disagree with her ignorant.

          2. Succinctly expressed Stefan.

          3. @ CMYB:
            Bitch slapping people with your education and degrees as Lola not very subtly did there is vulgar,
            There are plenty of people on these boards with degrees, some who are teachers, lecturers etc, I have two seperate degrees in related but different subjects and I put myself through Uni with no help from my family (I never felt the need to mention any of it till now)…so what? Everyone and their cousins have got degrees these days, it shows you can apply yourself to an academic task with reasonable proficiency is all.

          4. Pavlos her degree is probably what defines her. Her mother’s comment that ”Lola has had first hand knowledge of living in the LGBT Community” makes us sound like little more than a social experiment for Lola.

          5. @Stefan

            I cant respond on behalf of the author of the comment however, as a regular participant on these message boards I do sometimes find that there is a tacit acceptance of Islamophobia, racism and other offensive comments. It often appears that if the person making the comment is doing so on behalf of LGBTQ people in general or specific LGBTQ people then it is justifiable – almost the end justify the means. I do not mean everyone on PN feels this way, and I have been encouraged by support from many with regards some of the most insidious insults that I have personally received. However, there is a clear need to review conduct on these message boards – self regulation is good and on the whole works well, but there are issues that have increasingly become apparent where offensive, aggressive and hate inspired comments (of all kinds) are present on the message boards. These things do not belong in debate – and do not cover us as individuals of communities in credit.

          6. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:44pm

            Stefan, if you know racism is wrong why do you assume I lectured you? Why do you assume the article is even directed to you? I mean, honestly. If you agree with the message, why get hung up about whether it’s directed toward you are not? If you know you’re actively anti-racist and wouldn’t say the n-word, why not be ALSO agains the racists that do, instead complaining that I bothered you?

          7. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:46pm

            Stu, I think the people on this message board who use my name to make ridiculous comments, who are trying their best to discredit me using anything they can find about who I am, my age, my education, etc. anything are not going to care about personal moderation.

            I just think it’s sad that people can’t take “Please don’t use the n-word. That’s really screwed up”. And I think if anything people’s willingness to do all of this just illustrates my point further. *shrug*

          8. @Lola
            I personally see it as a fear of the boat being rocked – “I’m alright Jack” kind of approach.
            I may be wrong – and I hope I am but it seems that criticising you for being a student, your age, gender, nationality or whatever it may be are all irrelevant – at the end of the day you have an opinion (which largely I agree with) and whether you are Japanese or Icelandic, a bisexual male or asexual makes no difference to the validity of your opinion.

          9. Lola, of course, I’m against racism. I’ve been the victim of it myself. I take no issue with the content of your article. It was the tone that I disliked. You also used a similar tone to some posters in this comment box and I’ll admit I didn’t like that too much either.
            I don’t that often post on Pink News because the childish snipping and bitching is tedious. Every comment box falls into tit-for-tat jibes at each other.
            I said it like I saw it – I read your tone as patronising. Can you not take criticism without snide digs at people who disagree with you?

            You wrote – “why not be ALSO agains the racists that do, instead complaining that I bothered you?”
            I wasn’t “bothered” by you, I agreed with whoever said you sounded patronising.
            I AM actively against racism: I volunteer for a local group. Why do you so aggressively assume I don’t condemn the racists here just as much as you?

          10. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 4:09pm

            @Stu, I do think it matters who I am. I think it was important to mention that I was white. I think it was important to mention a lot of things because, again, I do have a lot of privileges and it’s quite easy to be righteous from a distance.

            I completely understand why people would take issue with my degrees. In truth, I mentioned I was a grad student, just because I couldn’t think of what else to put. XD But being a student does give me a lot of privileges that others don’t have. And I’m totally open to criticism when it comes to my privileges.

            The point many people have in pointing things out though is less about pointing out privilege and more just about trying to invalidate my point because I do [X] or I am [X].

            And the fact is, my entire point is that people shouldn’t use the n-word in response to homophobia. I don’t need to be angry at people using my identity to invalidate my point because – the fact that they’re trying to invalidate that point speaks for itself.

          11. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 4:11pm

            @Stefan, Because you’re spending more time here picking apart my tone than really caring about the original message. How my words are read and received by others isn’t really something I can control. I never intended to come off as patronising and if I did I apologise. The original point of the article still stands and personally, I think that the racism within the LGBTQ community should get under your skin a little bit more than my tone ever does.

          12. Lola, thank you for your polite reply and your apology. I hope that I made it clear that I was writing about my response to your words and I, in turn, apologise if I mistook your tone or misinterpreted anything you said. It’s hard to judge people’s tone and angle online sometimes, and that is how misunderstandings start. It’s good to clear things up :)

          13. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 6:54pm

            No worries. I attempted to frame myself in a way that made it clear that I don’t reject the anger people felt at Morgan’s words. I understand that and I do support it. You can’t expect people who deal with discrimination day in and day out to be happy and placid every time someone makes an ignorant comment.

            What I do expect is to not degenerate into using racial slurs to justify that anger. It’s unnecessary, vile, and it does nothing but alienate people of colour in our own community.

          14. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:08pm

            lol So which is it? dumb or don’t care?
            ….I’m plumping for ‘over my head’….

          15. Great example of a pointless, snippy comment there. Thanks. You prove my point.

    2. Re: Unfortunately if you fail to accept that every person who comments on PN and on facebook is an individual…or if you fail to see that there are probably a fair few timewasters shooting the breeze and saying anything inflammatory just to cause some ruckus- whether they actually believe in what they say or not. It amazes me that the comments of a few trolls are taken as gospel.

      1. Yes, to avoid confusion perhaps Pink News really needs to include a disclaimer to explain that the the views and opinions posted here are solely those of the individual discussion commentators, not necessarily endorsed by the PN editing staff nor are they representative of LGBTQ’s as a group.

        1. Or alternatively get more than just an email address from people when they want to post a message. Perhaps asking for a mobile phone number might thin the trolls out a bit.

          1. or actually getting people to register to take part so that in the event horrific comment occurs there can be efforts made to prevent recurrance.
            It works on other sites where there is freedom of speech – even on some monitored sites.

          2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:30am

            Agreed. Just don’t limit your request to mobile phone numbers. Some of us don’t believe in microwaving our brains. I have never owned one and probably never will, unless temporarily renting one for emergencies when I go camping or visiting in other countries. I am glad to see some apologies from multiple sides happening here and people attempting to reign in the rhetoric and listen to each other.

        2. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:12pm

          Thats there already….

    3. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:26pm

      LOL. I’m not a Christian by far. But go ahead and thinking that.

      1. The daughter of a witch! You’re a Pagan.

        1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 8:50pm

          Nope. My mother’s religion is her religion. But keep trying.

          1. Why don’t you just tell me, I’m a secular atheist from a Christian family.

          2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:44pm

            Because the point of my article is that fighting bigotry with bigotry is not okay. My religious preferences have absolutely nothing to do with that point.

          3. Me, I, My. Lola your whole schtick is about you and the kick you get from seeing your third rate writing published online. Just shut up, you’re a boring self serving walking vanity project.

          4. I’m responding to criticisms of my article. If I got a kick out of seeing myself published, don’t you think I would have done more of it by now?

    4. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:04pm

      “Some of Lola’s language in her article and subsequent comments gives her away as Christian do-gooder.”
      “There is definitely a “holier than thou” attitude being presented here.”
      You are such a twat. NO IT DOESN’T AND NO IT ISN’T”
      Her mums a witch who practices Wicca you numpty tosser. (
      Now I could easily forgive someone missing that – what I can’t be doing with is the HOURS of painstaking sewing together of various threads to make up your own duvet of hate and present it as ‘evidence’.
      You are clearly so filled with bile its untrue.
      When you say “Why has preacherwoman Lola been given a special and privileged front-page platform?” It’s not a ‘special and privileged’ platform – its a commentary. You’re just jealous. If you wrote something thought provoking I’m sure that PN would allow you to publish it too. So why don’t you put away the bitter twisted bollocks and go and do just that – write something thought provoking for a change..

      1. Freak!

        1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 8:04pm

          lol Which bit is the freakish part? the fact that I think or the fact that I therefore am? Or is it just that you’ve been hoisted by your own petard?
          You went out of your way (ENORMOUSLY out of your way!) to try to belittle Lola because you WANTED her to be a religious Christian so you could have a good old PN ‘we hate the Christians’ witch hunt. And now you’ve been shown up to be behaving like a fool you don’t like it…
          Man up and apologise – for making up lies based on your own prejudices

        2. Why am I supposed to know all about people’s mothers?

          1. I’m a secularist, I think people should be allowed to believe in whatever rubbish they wish and to worship accordingly within the law and without prjudice to others.
            I still say Lola comes across as holier than thou and I don’t take back anything I wrote, I certainly don’t have any lies to rescind, that’s simply an elaboration of your own over-active and belligerent imagination

          2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 8:54pm

            I apologise for coming off as holier-than-thou. That wasn’t my intention. I believe I specifically stated in my article that my own experiences with homophobia made it difficult for me to admit I had privilege due to being white.

            I can’t help but feel like you’ve decided to read my comments and everything as holier-than-thou. And to be honest, does it really matter what my tone is? My message is that one shouldn’t use the n-word against a person of colour just because they are homophobic. That using bigotry to fight another isn’t right. Is that really a message you can’t get behind? Is my tone so much so that you can’t agree with that? What is the point of wasting your time delving through everything I’ve said, picking it apart, and trying to find out about me personally – if not to disagree and discredit my message?

            So, I guess my real question for you is, what are you getting out of this? What do you get out of trying to pick me apart? Unless you completely disagree – that is.

          3. I totally get this “My message is that one shouldn’t use the n-word against a person of colour just because they are homophobic. ”
            I got it way before you wrote that and I still get it.

            My main beef is the way you assume this message board represents the LGBT community or “we” when it does not, for example you wrote : “the words we used to insult Morgan when he does something angers us – as righteous as our anger may be – they also matter.”

            This is a comments board with a variety of individuals posting comments representing nobody but themselves, some posters here are LGBT while there will be some who are just pretending to be LGBT simply because they can and then there’s the various other trolls who come here to flame as well as the anti-gay, allegedly religious posters, this message board does not represent LGBT’s as a group, it does not represent the views of the PN editorial staff.

          4. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:46pm

            “My main beef is the way you assume this message board represents the LGBT community”.

            I believe I’ve said – REPEATEDLY – this is not an isolated incident. So your main beef is that you’ve misunderstand what I’ve written. Racism within the LGBTQ community is something that happens, it is a problem, and it’s not isolated to this board.

            I seriously hope this message board doesn’t represent the LGBTQ community.

          5. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:57pm

            Also, I did duke it out with the individuals. Go back to the Facebook and look. PinkNews hasn’t given me a special platform. I wrote in a commentary just like anyone else could do.

          6. And you’ve said your piece so just go away.

          7. Please continue to think that you responding to me saying “go away” is doing anything but making you look foolish.

            My original point still stands. My question to you is why you are trying to shut that point up and what benefit you get, just as with Pavlos, out trying to shut it up?

  27. “On that same token, the words we used to insult Morgan when he does something angers us – as righteous as our anger may be – they also matter. ”

    Absolutely, Lola. There’s no excuse to throw insults back at someone just because you’re annoyed.
    But you don’t win an argument by calling people who disagree with you “thick” as you did to someone above and by suggesting that they ‘should take their head out of their bum’. That was unnecessary.
    Also, I’m sure you didn’t mean to, but your anger against that poster led you to imply that the kind of vicious bullying that contains insults like ‘ginger’ is not important. It IS. Bigotry is wrong and so is bullying. They’re both potentially damaging and both despicable.

    1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:28pm

      Please point out where I said bullying was “not important”. I said it was not the same as racism, is what I said.

      1. I said that you – in your IMPLIED it wasn’t important. And I dispute that it’s “not the same” as racism. Quite often, they share a common root and frequently overlap. The internet has also provided a ‘weapon’ for the bullies, as it has for the racists, so the two issues are linked.
        Ah, but don’t distract me from your lack of response to the rest of my comment. If “words matter” – which they do – is it really Ok for you to call people “thick” and so on? Again, that was unnecessary.

        1. Sorry, Lola – slipping mouse. It should say “I said that you – in your *anger* IMPLIED it wasn’t important”

        2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 6:57pm

          I apologise for implying that. I believe in my original commentary I talk about being bullied. I don’t take it lightly.

          But I do not believe it is fair to compare being red haired to being black – especially within the context of African American history. Nor do I think calling someone “thick” is even remotely comparable to calling someone the n-word.

          Words do matter. But let’s not make the mistake of assuming that hateful slurs and remarks that target a group of people with a history of oppression and marginalisation are identical to all other words. Words matter because of history and because of meanings. The history of the n-word, joking about sexual assault on slave plantations, and the imagery of the noose do not even have base for a comparison to the word “thick”.

          Was I being nice when I said he was misinformed or thick? No. But as I said in my commentary – I’m not advocating people turn the other cheek to be struck on that one too. I’m not advocating everyone always be nice.

          1. Good on you, Lola. Everyone, no matter what their intent, gets pissed off with people online and snaps at them, but it takes guts to admit it.
            As for what’s worse, I personally like to treat them all as bad. The reason I noticed the ‘ginger’ comment amongst all the others here is that bullying of that type was the worst case I’ve ever have to deal with. Children (and adults, of course) can be vicious, and in this case there was almost a tragedy.
            The motivation behind the bullying and bigotry is what’s key. People are picked on for whatever reason seems convenient – skin colour, hair colour, religion, wearing glasses, being thin/fat/tall/short. Dealing with the reasons why some people think it’s OK to attack others in this way is extremely important, and engendering a general feeling of tolerance and respect for others is a part of my job I take very seriously (I’m a teacher).
            Internet bullying and offensive, inexcusable expressions of ignorant prejudice is almost worse in a way….

          2. ..because the perpetrators are harder to trace. That’s why some people feel emboldened to write bigotted, outrageous slurs – anonymity brings out the worst in them.
            (BTW, I consider the posting of comments here under your name a form of bullying too. You’re doing the right thing by not responding or getting provoked.)

          3. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:01pm

            Iris, I totally understand why you would be concerned with the ginger comment and with school bullying – but you have to wonder why that person brought up gingers in the first place. The original point still stands – it doesn’t matter what ethnicity or minority Morgan is. For us to use slurs and hate speech to denigrate him for being homophobic is never acceptable. While I feel your intentions are in the right place, I doubt seriously the person who brought it up really cared about school bullying. It sounded like they were attempting to justify the racist reactions against Morgan by asserting that it would be been the same regardless of what minority he belonged to – and that isn’t an excuse.

          4. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:37am

            Iris. Very well stated. All bullying and all bigotry need to be treated as equally offensive. We want to change the world and stop bullying. We need to start with how we treat each other.

        3. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 6:59pm

          I don’t blame people for being pissed with Morgan, for shouting about it, for being angry.

          But denigrating him with racial slurs is not the same. Me getting a bit testy with someone on the internet is not the same as cyberbullying. And being ginger is not the same as being black (again, especially within the contexts of African American history). And comparing being ginger to being black, especially with regards to that history, especially when all I’m asking is for people to not call Morgan the n-word, is ridiculous and offensive in and of itself.

          1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:18pm

            Actually on a point of interest – taking issue with someone being Ginger is (historically) in the UK (and England in particular) racist. In that this was seen to be a sign of ‘celt-dom’ ie Irish or Scottish and unlike the US, the Irish have always been subject to racism in England in particular. Their journey in this country mirrors the experience of the Black population in many ways.
            This is of course very different to the (largely separate) experiences of Irish and Black population in America.

          2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 8:58pm

            @Staircase2 I definitely see your point. I hesitate to try and draw and quarter out the differences between oppressions, because it’s often just used to detract from the conversation. I truly doubt that the original person who mentioned gingers did it on the purposes of really caring about school bullying – but maybe I’m wrong about that, only that person could say.

            Power and privilege interact with each other in a variety of ways. I think it’s fair to compare them when it comes to obvious privilege. For example, someone who passes as heterosexual may not see as much homophobia as someone who doesn’t. But I think trying to say “Which oppression is worse” or who has it worse really detracts from any argument because privileges and power interact. For example, trans women experience misogyny on a different level than ciswomen. Black women experience a different type of misogynistic stereotyping than white women.

  28. I have to say that my (gay)son was absolutely outraged if I ever mentioned the words “Gay Community”. (Idon’t any more!) As he quite rightly points out, there isn’t a “Straight Community” so why is it assumed there is a gay one? In my opinion, we’re all the same, some of us are nice, some not, some are racists, some not, dividing us up into straight, gay etc just puts a dividing line between us.

    1. “…we’re all the same, some of us are nice, some not, some are racists, some not….”

      Well said.

    2. @Sian

      Its a really hard one to get right. In a way it is semantics. I do recognise that there are LGBTQ communities. We may belong to more than one of them – we may not recognise some as communities.

      I sing in a choir – they are my community, I have a community of friends, I live in a particular community, work in another and socialise in others …

      I appreciate some people do not like the phrase – but the reality is that in the same way that some women (and men) are racist, homophobic, Cathlo-phobic, ageist etc – some are genuine, welcoming, open minded and engaging – it is the same with LGBTQ people – whichever community they are part of or not

    3. Your son certainly isn’t the only one who feels that way Sian, it really bugs me too.

    4. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:42pm

      My message was not, “Everyone in the gay community is racist”. I can understand the frustration with wanting to put us on a monolith, using the word “community”. But I think if anything asking people to behave a little more decently and use less racial slurs and asking people as a community to not do that, especially seeing as how there are POCs in the LGBTQ community, is that really such a huge issue?

  29. Pink News publishes this Comment yet has STILL not removed disgusting racists comments from ‘Enoch’. I’ve reported them numerous times and I know many, many other people here have too.
    The problem is the failures in the Reporting system on Pink News to a large extent. Sadly, you’ll always get ignorant and offensive comments on ANY internet site, but PN is one of the worst I visit for just leaving them there.

    1. That is one of the problems you are very correct Iris. Regularly I have reported people and for days (sometimes permanently) the matters remain on the message boards. There is never any feedback. I think if there was some requirement to register then a more transparent reporting could occur and/or some basic monitoring which would then reduce the opportunity to offend and be bigoted on these message boards.

      1. I think someone emailed PN about the idea of registering, but was told they didn’t have the resources to set that up, which is understandable. But I do think leaving all those disgusting comments up is not only wrong, it also encourages more trolls who spot that PN is a place where unacceptable comments and outrageous statements can provide ‘amusement’ and gratification for the sad people who post such vile rubbish. Removing them promptly would be so much better.

        1. Yeah I agree
          I also think that with a safer signed up message boards area – which could remain (probably) largely self regulating – there would be a potentially greater audience with more quality interaction

        2. Jock S. Trap 16 Jun 2011, 3:31pm

          Yep that was me when I asked then.
          They didn’t have the resources or the time to go through checking IP addresses for offensive comments or name hijacking.

        3. @Jock and Iris

          Be interesting to see what the legal position of PN would be for a DPA request from police related to an investigation into an allegation of harassment etc.

          1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 1:04pm

            I mean don’t get me wrong I understand to a degree the resources claim but I do feel PinkNews should have a responsibilty to protect it’s reader from discriminatory attacks which we have enough of in life and namejacking with again we have enough of in life.

            Challenging, fair enough but cold hearted bigotry? no way.

          2. @Jock S Trap

            Absolutely, I know PN has limited resources and they provide a valuable service (despite constant – often unfounded – criticism by some on here).

            However, they do have a responsibility as a provider of a service to ensure the safety of their users from harassment and bullying. PN talks often about the difficult impact of bullying on the LGBT communities – this is an opportunity to take a stand.

            I personally think PN should consult its users and find a way of ensuring they can offer the protection we suggest whilst maintaining freedom of speech and expression.

  30. Why is Lola diverted attention away from the original story of the comedians homophobia already? Shouldn’t we be talking about the comedians homophobia in front of a packed theatre full of laughing homophobes and not one troll’s racist comment on pink news, which everyone responded to negatively? I’m not sure Lola’s intentions are that good personally.

    1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 1:37pm

      That’s some nice trolling there. There’s about three other articles on Morgan’s homophobic rant. You know where you can go if you want to address those issues? That’s right! To one of those articles! Any one! Take your pick! I’d recommend the most recent, personally. Now stop being a baby and stop trying to derail this discussion just because it’s not that discussion.

      1. Derail? You mean like Lola has derailed the discussion about morgans homophobia by getting everyone to focus on one trolls racist comment, instead of focusing on the original story about homophobia?
        So I ask why she has derailed that discussion, and then you ask me not to derail her derailment. Maybe someone else will write an article asking why people derail derailments. And you call me a baby? Yeah right pumpkin pie. LOL.

        1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 2:00pm

          She didn’t derail any discussion. It’s still there. Go on! Go pay it a visit! I’m not fibbing here. It’s really still there!
          Also, why aren’t you complaining about the Tracy Morgan stories derailing the real discussion about homophobia in the Middle East. Hop to it! Good luck on your crusade!

          1. She did derail the discussion. It was about a homophobic comedian until Lola turned into one about racism on pink news. And what are you going on about the middle east for? tracy morgan is an american homophobic comedian.

          2. But, eddy two, Lola’s article is quite clearly marked as ‘Comment’, ie a personal take on an issue, which is fair enough isn’t it?

          3. Of course it’s fair enough, I hope Lola carries on writing. I think it’s cool that a young graduate has bothered to write something, and I looked on her twitter and she was excited about it being here, so I’m made up for her. But, it’s also fair enough to point out that the issue we should be discussing is the comedians homophobia. Put it this way, as we’re talking about racism, do you think the black community started lambasting themselves over their homophobia when they were fighting for black rights? And we’re talking about one troll called enoch. Also, it’s good for a young writer to be challenged. If she can’t take it, she’ll never make it.

          4. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 2:46pm

            eddy, I’m pretty sure the civil rights movement was indeed inclusive of LGBTs.

          5. Ah, that must be why we can’t still join the army, get married, have equal rights in the workplace, why we were still classed as a mental illness in 1973, and why gay sex was only fully legalised in 2003. But there is a black president. Can you show me one speech where MLK said anything about gay rights? Or malcolm X? I’ll tell you before you do a wiki search. No. I know my gay rights history inside out and back to front. So no, the african american civil rights movement didn’t include gay rights.

          6. But come on, eddy two, Lola’s take on the matter is a spin-off from the original incident – and why not? She didn’t derail a discussion, she started another one. As has been pointed out, the other threads are still live; while at the time of writing there are 500 comments here, a depressing number of which, rather than challenging what she’s written, are impugning or being condescending towards her sex, ethnicity, age, background or sneering at her education. You’d think she’d promoted a N@zi manifesto from the amount of bile that’s spewed out as a result of this innocuous and clearly well-meaning article.
            Frankly I can well see why people are put off from contributing on PN.

    2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:39pm

      I don’t know why you all seem to have trouble reading “these are not isolated incidents”. If you think racism within the LGBTQ community is concentrated within “one troll’s” comments [and again, I clarify there were MULTIPLE people on Facebook being racist, one just deleted zir comment poking fun at sexual assault on plantations], then that’s part of the problem.

      1. That planation comment is disgusting, Lola. I wish you’d dwelt more on the racism on Facebook and on Youtube too – that’s just awful. I find it even sadder actually because most of the commenters there are so young. There was a very interesting essay on the internet a couple of years or so ago linking the growth in bigotry amongst teens and young adults with the popularity of sites like that. I wish I could remember the author because it was an excellent piece.

    3. @Eddy two
      I do have some sympathy with your wanting to address the comments of the comedian. I also have a lot of sympathy with your views on LGBTQ rights not being expressly promoted by the American civil rights movements (or indeed similar ones in the UK). That said, there was Stonewall, there are numerous LGBTQ organisations globally and there is a fight for equality. We must continue to campaign and stand our ground. I know homosexuality was defined as a mental illness as recently as 1973 – but that is 38 years ago, that has changed – we have had discussions on other threads about celebrating change and moving on – I know we need to know our history and learn from it – but using the argument being gay was seen as a mental illness in 1973 does not gain us anything – it isnt seen that way now and hasnt been for almost 2 generations …
      We are on the same side and so is Lola – but I agree with Lola that we need to be careful not to let our justifiable anger become bigotry

      1. Stu, the mental illness idea is still used today by people. And I’m not talking about dorris who works down the chipshop. I’m talking world leaders (the middle east, uganda etc), popes, men who are knighted by the monarchy. 38 years ago it may have been. It was over 50 years ago we were sent to the gas chambers, but there are still places in the world that kill us for being gay. We don’t have equality, We are still tortured and imprisoned in parts of the world because we’re gay. It’s worse than slavery what happens to us, not just back then, but still now. I’ll stop going on about the past when the present treats us equally. There are people right now in the world who are being treated like animals because the governments they live under think they have an illness. You need to wake up to reality, or live in your fluffy dream world and leave me to see reality.

        1. I have replied to your comment but it has posted out of sequence below, Eddy

    4. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:22pm

      THIS comment board is about the article that Lola wrote detailing her thoughts on the Tracy Morgan situation and the way that people reacted to it……
      I’m confused as to why you would engage in this comment board and then complain about us talking about the very thing that the article is talking about…

      1. @Staircase2
        You may not like it but sometimes debates branch into other areas

        1. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 5:04pm

          Its not that I ‘don’t like it’ its just bloody stupid and unfocused ESPECIALLY if people act like its all just one big comments board whereas they have, in fact, had to go into this one in particular in order to be able to even post that bloody stupidness in the first place….

  31. How old are you Lola?

    1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 2:03pm

      Ha, here comes some more character assassination.
      “Here’s a questionnaire on every single demographic subgroup, please tick all the boxes that apply to you so that I know which stereotypes to levy against you in order to completely misrepresent and then dismiss your views.”
      Funny how an argument against this sort of crap actually came up in the article itself, and is now being used against the writer herself.

      1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:37pm

        PumpkinPie, I’m not surprised. Honestly, I expected people to call me a b*tch and ask me if I was on my period. I’m just surprised that hasn’t happened yet.

        1. There you go judging others by your own standards. You assume men will call you out based on your gender just as you assume the gay community is rife with prejudice towards the black community. A lot of judging others Lola. Look to your own house first before offering a critique on the rest of us.

          1. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 5:04pm

            To be honest, the rampant ageism and occasional jabs at Lola being genderqueer kind of proved the point I made against Andy. Using demographic stereotypes to dismiss someone’s opinions is a common tactic of hecklers such as yourself. Just look at the amount of trolls tripping over themselves to find out every single bit of info they can on Lola. Is it because they’re deeply interested in her as a person? B0ll0cks is it.

          2. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 5:46pm

            How about you get as mad as you have at me at the people on at least this thread commenting with racial slurs? Also, where did I say I assume it would be by “men”?

            I AM looking at my “own house”. And I’m seeing a bunch of white LBGTQ people who would rather pretend the black and LGBTQ communities are separate and attack me for what I’ve said than sit back and say, “You know, maybe using the n-word to attack Morgan is taking it too far”. Because at the end of the day, that’s all I’m asking people to do. NOT use racial slurs to insult people just because they said something homophobic. Do you really have a problem with that message?

    2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 2:08pm

      Ummmm i’m like y’know 15 or somethin’ but my fake ID says 21 and that’s cool cause me and my buddies can get alcohol and drink in the park and pretend we’re grown up like you guys and stuff.

      1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:30pm

        Good one. :)

        1. Sign. Another well thought out and mature post (whichever Lola you are).

          I look forward to your next comment.
          I’m sure it will come from your vast personal and social experience and not blindsided.

          1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 7:03pm

            Andy, you might want to ask yourself why my age is even important.

            My point was that bigotry shouldn’t be used to fight bigotry. Why does my age matter? Why do you feel the need to verify my credentials for a message as simple as, “Hey, maybe it’s not cool to call someone the n-word just because they went on a homophobic rant?”.

            I don’t need vast personal experience to see why calling someone the n-word is ever appropriate. And you shouldn’t either.

          2. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:26pm

            @AndyQ – you rude arrogant tosser

          3. @Staircase2 – Thank you for that.
            FYI saying someone is rude and then calling them an arrogant tosser is a oxymoron.

            @Lola – Your comment was blindsided. I was trying to ascertain your age to see if that was the reason for your idyllic point of view. There were many factors that could have been covered not just people calling Tracy the N are racist.
            It was a wasted opportunity.

          4. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 8:09pm

            It was an (accurate) observation
            The rudeness is not in me calling you a rude arrogant tosser but in you BEING a rude arrogant tosser

          5. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:04pm

            Please let me know how my views were idyllic? If I recall I expressed the repeated sentiment that I was unsurprised by the racism and even wondered myself why I bothered to think that wouldn’t happen within this community.

            If you’re unhappy with the factors covered – feel free to write your own commentary. This was a personal response to something that angered me – not an article written by a journalist. I wrote what I felt, not what I had an obligation to cover.

          6. Andy, beyond a bunch of adjectives and oh-I -am-older-and-wiser assertion, do you actually have anything to say???? Oh yeah, there is also sarcasm. conent: ZERO. why dont you actually discuss the comments rather than the age of the author???

  32. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 2:08pm

    I’m going to take a break from arguing with other people to say: great article, Lola! It’s nice to see writers seeking to challenge the status quo within communities and giving people legitimate concerns to think about.

    1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 2:09pm

      Gee, that’s real neat of you to say. Y’know my next article is gonna be about how Barbie dolls are like so un cool for little girls and stuff. Its gonna be great. Hop y’all like it.

      1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 2:43pm

        Either that’s a troll taking advantage of the fact that usernames aren’t secure, or Lola’s flipped. I’m guessing it’s the former.

        1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:31pm

          It’s a troll. :)

          1. And when you don’t look in the mirror what do you see?

    2. Me too, Lola – what you said was worth saying, and I don’t see why people feel the need to put you down for saying it.

      1. Absolutely it was something that needed to be said – may not be comfortable reading for everyone – but things that matter dont always make comfortable reading

      2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:49am

        Agreed! I wish we had an agree with button here so I can support good points without having to make a whole new message that only says I agree.

  33. Ok I know im joining this late in the game but here I go anyway.
    First, what does genderqueer mean?
    Second, of course it is wrong to respond to homophobia with racism, but its also true that the overwhelming majority of LGBT organisations take an extremely proactive role challenging racism.

    third, many groups and individuals which challenge solely racism or religious intolerance hardly ever challenge homophobia. For example think of all the US rappers who one minute say how hard it is for a black guy in the “hood” (which it undoubtedly is) but then turn round and call someone a fa**ot. So I can see why some LGBT people may be frustrated about arguments concerning racism, as it often seems one way.

    fourth, to someones point about not saying ni**er but it is ok to call some qu**r. That is just silly. In all depends on context, for example when reading huckleberry finn or discussing racist comments about someone else, it is ok to say ni**er, but it is never ok to call someone else…

    1. … it in an offence manner. The same rule should be applied to qu**r. There is no distinctions between the terms, both have been used as nasty attacks, and also as tools for self empowerment.

    2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 2:26pm

      Gee, thats a real neat anal..anal…analogy Scott. I haven’t read Huck Finn since like grade school but I’m gonna sure include it in some paper I’m like writing real soon. I’m gonna make comparisons between umm I dunno like Huck Finn and to Kill a Mockingbird and like how stuff happens in the books and stuff. And the term genderqueer is kinda like how I’m describing myself this semester, I figure guys will think I’m hotter if they think I’m gonna be with girls and stuff, but there’s no freakin way I would, that is like so gross and stuff.

      1. Huh? I was agreeing with you! I was merely responding to someone elses comment that the US approach to the word ni**er where it can never ever be uttered is silly.

        Why did you respond by writing like a 12 year old.

        I asked what genderqueer was as I didnt know if it was a form os social theory, like functionalism or interactionism. Sheesh touchy.

        I was merely trying to say that homophobia and racism is always wrong, but also explain the causes of the opposition to an antiracist focus of lgbt campaigns by lgbt people because it is often a one way street.

        1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:31pm

          Someone’s posting with my name. They think it’s really amusing.

        2. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:54am

          Scott. It’s a troll posing as Lola. More evidence that membership and registration needs to be stricter.

      2. I’m guessing that you’re not the real lola, but that was funny as hell all the same.

        1. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 5:18pm

          You think transphobia is funny? Scumbag. Us bisexuals have to put up with that “they’re only doing it for attention” label, too, so I have no patience for bigots like you.

    3. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 2:58pm

      I think that’s me you’re referring to with the whole queer and n****r thing. Those posts were a bit of a mess, but my point wasn’t to condone slurs. Even that bit about encouraging people to run around shouting “coloureds” was just me trying to take the piss out of the sorts of people who are trying to turn this thing into some sort of “oppression olympics”.
      You’re right that it does depend on context, and anyone using queer as an insult deserves to be reprimanded harshly. My point was just that one of those words is never appropriate to use casually in a formal article, whereas the other is a legitimate term, even if some don’t like it.
      “Gay” was originally an insult, too. It implies campness. How should we treat gay people who don’t like that term? Perhaps call them what they prefer to be called, but certainly don’t ban it from your lexicon. Same goes for “queer” or “people of colour”. But definitely not n****r or f****t. Those words have only been reclaimed in an ironic sense.

      1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 3:07pm

        Also, regarding “genderqueer”, that term has nothing to do with sexuality. It’s a transgender term that refers to people who exhibit non-gender-conformative traits. A transsexual is a transsexual and recreational crossdressers are also easily identified, but how about people who occupy the middle ground? People who dress and act according to how they’re feeling and who don’t conform to typical views on how their gender should act? That’s where the term “genderqueer” comes in.
        Personally, I see them as the “bisexuals” of the transgender community, so they get a thumbs up from me. Also, my explanation is pretty sloppy. I actually consider myself somewhat genderqueer, in that I’d happily wear female clothing that looked good on me, and in that I really don’t care about how “un-manly” people think I am. But, I’m poor, so my wardrobe is all jeans and t-shirts. I’m sure Lola could give you a much better explanation of the term. The real one, that is, not the troll who’s posing as her.

        1. pumpkin head , wheres the transphobia in that comment ?your head only? chip on shoulder alert.

          1. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 4:56pm

            The comment you thought was hilarious accused Lola of only pretending to be genderqueer for whatever reason, a common insult levied against transgender people.

          2. Are you some kind of simpleton? a common insult levied against transgendered is an accusation of genderqueer pretence (which from your comments i would say you are the great pretender here). Do you actually have any knowledge of the trans community ?

          3. I know plenty about the trans community. You know why they appreciate genderqueer people? Because GQs provide yet more evidence for the fluidity of gender, which helps to smash down the archaic belief that “xx is always feminine, xy is always masculine”.
            Don’t believe me? Enter “genderqueer” and “transsexual” into Google. I think you’ll find they co-exist quite happily. You got any evidence they don’t?

          4. Google search is not the oracle of wisdom and many interpretations can be chosen. I disagree with you as trans people execute and propagate specific gender. As a gender non specific ,there is a binary of genders. And get a job and make your own money to buy clothes i’m not here to fund parasites.

        2. so basically you are a victim of cliches that does not even put them into practice , just a talker.

          1. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 4:57pm

            Explain. This makes no sense.

        3. So you see gender non specific peeps(a term irrelative of sexuality) as bisexuals of the transgendered community? You are just a label with no substance to validate. Your words are meaningless you really are dumb.

          1. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 4:59pm

            In response to your first sentence, genderqueers straddle the line between transgender and cisgender people in a similar fashion to how bisexuals straddle the line between gay and straight people.
            Your next sentences, however confuse me. You’ll need to explain them.

          2. OK i’ll clarify this simply for you , you dismiss enacting your genderqueer identity because you are poor and only wear jeans and teeshirts , lame excuse because you are either repressed or have no intention of wearing” female” clothing as you put it, and if you were really gender non specific you would not associate clothing with gender , idiot!! so hence you have defined yourself as a genderqueer purely from inner feelings lol , in that case anyone can say they are whatever i’m nigerian because i feel it in the inside , you are totally stupid.

          3. Genderqueer doesn’t just mean “gender non-specific”, nor does it have anything to do with not recognising gender. I don’t know where you got that from.
            I said before, it just means I don’t necessarily prescribe to normative gender behaviour. I’m most definitely male, but very much in touch with my feminine side. Doesn’t mean I look good in a dress.
            Also, that “inner feelings, anyone can define themselves as whatever they want” comment is yet another insult transgendered people have to put up with.

        4. So you’happily wear female clothing but obviously you don’t and genderqueers are bisexuals although is to genderless not associated with sexuality. Can you actually understand what genderqueer means or is the word the latest fad for someone like u to associate with Your “us bisexuals have to put up ” rant is perhaps due to a tired now trend of certain straight women bi-ing up for straight men titilation or teenage angst losers spoilt wanting to create a struggle feature for their mundane existance so lets be pretend bi’s .Which category are you in?

          1. Hey, I’d happily wear anything that looks good on me. If you want to help me pay for a new wardrobe, be my guest.
            And the issues us bisexuals face are down to people like you. You use every excuse you can get your hands on to de-legitimise us. Classic bigotry.

          2. If you have issues with how the word bi is perceived , you should take it up with straight girls pretending to get it on to entice men or dreary teenage angsty types who say their bi until they grow up to be different and a have a pretend struggle. However on all scientific reasoning bisexuality as fundament, does not exist and all bisexual case studies either proved to attracted predominantly to one sex or another.

    4. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 3:35pm

      Pumpkin Pie’s already defined genderqueer for me pretty well.

      I’ll use your second point to talk about your third. A great many black organisations have a history of helping out with gay rights, does that make it okay for a US rapper to use the word f*g in a song? No it doesn’t.

      The history of someone who uses a slur like the n-word or f*g is irrelevant. As I said, it doesn’t matter what’s in their “heart”. It matters what they SAID. When a US rapper uses the word f*g, it’s wrong. And when someone calles Morgan the n-word, or anyone the n-word for that matter, it’s wrong.

      I’m not saying I don’t understand frustrations, but you’re talking here like the LGBTQ community and the black community are two separate entities, and they aren’t.

      Fourth point, queer is being reclaimed. As someone who is queer, I can reclaim it and use it if I feel it fits me better. I can’t speak for someone reclaiming the n-word. As a white person, I don’t feel I have the right to criticise that.

      1. I think you may have misunderstood my point, and I also think I havent explained myself too clearly.
        Yes, some very noble institutions like the southern poverty law centre and people like Al sharpton have stood up against homophobia and racism. But when you look at many “black” church’s (pentecostal etc) they take a strong and vocal line against racism, yet contribute a great deal to homophobia. My point about rappers was that many people are angered by the hypocrisy of one minute complaining you are an abused minority, then turning to another even smaller minority and attack them. I was merely saying my view as to why some white gay people feel opposed to having a anti racist focus, instead of a solely anti homophobia stance.

        Also I think you are entirely wrong about the use of words. Using Ni**er/ Fa**ot/Qu**r in a derogatory manner is always wrong, using them in a formal manner is also wrong. I was merely stating my opposition to the way America treats the words, for example…

        1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 7:08pm

          “My point about rappers was that many people are angered by the hypocrisy of one minute complaining you are an abused minority, then turning to another even smaller minority and attack them.”

          And there are plenty in the gay community who did the same. Hence, my commentary.

          But the vast majority of the people making legislation… they’re white straight Christian males. Just because people monolith other minorities and say, “Oh they hate us, therefore it’s okay if we hate them”, regardless of what side does – it doesn’t make it right.

          You trying to “explain” the mindset behind why gay people might feel angry towards black people in the end doesn’t make sense. Because black people aren’t a monolith. And they feel opposed to having an antiracist focus because they fail to see that there are people of colour in their own community. That’s a failing on their part – not an understandable explanation of behaviour.

        2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 7:09pm

          We can debate on the reclamation of the word “Queer” if you’d like. But I personally see it as my identity. I prefer the term vastly over the others and it makes me feel more comfortable. I’m fine if other people don’t feel that way about it and they don’t want to reclaim it. Some people have had it used so much against them that they don’t see any power in it. But you don’t get to decide how I identify, I do. And I identify as “queer”. If that offends you, I apologise. But personally, other ways of identifying are uncomfortable for me and I vastly prefer queer.

          1. Actually i never said i was trying to explain racism, i said that i was trying to explain why some gay activists dont like the anti homophobia message being linked to a anti racism message, in that oftentimes we get kicked under the bus while other groups prosper.

            Now i dont agree with that, I believe that an anti racist message is important, I also however think that if organisations representing other minority groups took a more clear cut anti homophobia message (as for example the British hindu council does) then it would be easier to implement an anti racist strategy.

            Also, I dont mind at all how you identify yourself, you could call yourself a toaster if it made you feel happy, i was merely asking what genderqueer meant, i shall not dare to ask such a question again!

          2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:07pm

            No, you didn’t say you were trying to explain racism. But you are.

            What’s in Morgan’s heart doesn’t matter to me – neither does what is in the heart of any person who decides to resort to using the n-word. I can’t be expected – nor can anyone who calls out racism – to learn the history and peer into the depths of the soul of everyone that utters a racial slur.

            It’s not about what these people ARE. It’s about what they SAID. Morgan could be the nicest guy in the world. He could hug kittens and kiss orphans in his spare time. I wouldn’t care. Equally, the people who said “Fagg*t” constantly to me around school could have not had a homophobic bone in their body – I don’t care.

            Words hurt regardless of the person’s history. Morgan’s words hurt regardless of his heart. And using the n-word against in, in a public community for queer POCs to see, that hurts them. Regardless of frustrations, histories and feelings. You should not need racism to attack homophobia.

          3. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:09pm

            Scott, I’m not upset with you for asking what genderqueer meant. I’m fine with explaining it to people who ask. It’s when people assume, after someone’s already given a reasonable definition, that I have an obligation to educate them about it. The other poster already gave a fine definition. Why on earth should I have to type something else out? And why should I be obligated to, especially when I’m dealing with about 300 other comments doing their best to find my religion, my age, anything they can use to try and take away legitimacy from what I said? Put yourself in my shoes here.

      2. … I was watching US news around the time the Seinfeld fella called someone a ni**er. All the news outlets kept on wincing and saying “the N word”, it was silly. They should have just said the word. They were merely using it in a descriptive way. It is perfectly fine to say the N word when you are saying “OMG that horrid person just called that man a ni**er”. I was also arguing against the terrible things some US schools are doing to books like huck finn by removing the word ni**er, that is an affront to literature and in fairness to Mark Twain and to the actual morals of Huck finn.

        1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 7:12pm

          I do think that context does matter. I don’t believe I ever mentioned advocating for the n-word to be taken out of Huck Finn. But I do think that as a white person, there are certain instances about reclaiming the word or using it that I shouldn’t discuss because I have no experience of being called that word. I don’t know what it’s like. I’ll never know what it’s like for someone to call me that in the same way an African American person would. Therefore, I don’t feel I have the right to comment on that. And personally, as a white person who has and still benefits from racism, I think that not using the n-word if I can help it, is really the least I can do.

          1. I do, I don’t, I ever, I do, I shouldn’t, I have, I don’t, I’ll never, call me, I don’t, I have, I think, I can, I can. These are all instances where you refer to yourself in just one post. How self important are you? Don’t answer that, I’m not here to massage your ego and this message board isn’t a vessel for you to fawn at yourself.

          2. LOL, Okay Hamish. Would you prefer me to speak for you then?

          3. Well that’s exactly what you are doing when you say that racism within the lgbt community is endemic, you are speaking for us.

          4. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:16pm

            But I thought it was all about me? Which is it then? You should really make up your mind.

          5. I’m responding to your comment not Hamish’s, you troll. Lola the Trolla

      3. Oh do shut up you sanctimonious bore. If you have to depend on other people like Pumpin pie to provide the definition of genderqueer which you yourself identify as then you’re not as intelligent as you think you are.

        1. Lola not Scott

        2. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 6:14pm

          Hey, troll. How’s it trolling? Trolltastic.
          Ever thought to yourself that dealing with nearly 300 comments, amongst them derogatory slander, might get a bit tiring? I know what “genderqueer” means, so I figured I might as well answer Scott’s question. No-one asked me to do so. There’s no conspiracy here.

        3. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 7:13pm

          I’m not required to educate you or anyone else here about my identity. I don’t know what’s stopping you or anyone else from Googling “genderqueer”. It’s really not that difficult.

        4. Oh my my, troll dear. having run out of anything useful or intelligent or relevant to say, you of course need to come down to name calling? Also, tell me something, when you began typing, was bore what you initially wanted to type? No, don;t tell me love, I think I have seen enough of trollspeak to recognise it when I see it.

        5. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 11:58am

          Hamish look who’s being a santimonious bore you troll! Go away. You’re just getting in the way of a growingly useful discussion.

  34. @Lola ”I think the people on this message board who use my name to make ridiculous comments, who are trying their best to discredit me”. LOL Don’t get ahead of yourself, you’re not addressing the UN yet. Maybe when you’ve had time to think you’ll decide the Justin Bieber fan message board is the best place for your thoughts and whims.

    1. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 9:54am

      Grow up, you creepy misogynist.

      1. Get a grip homophobe.

        1. PumpkinPie 16 Jun 2011, 4:52pm

          I called Hamish a misogynist because of “the Justin Bieber fan message board is the best place for your thoughts and whims”.
          I’ve explained myself, now you explain yourself. How am I a homophobe?

          1. I was being sardonic, emulating your idiocy with sarcasm.You still have not explained just waffle about justin bieber as a mysogynistic attack. You bandy labels and accusations about without fully understanding the terminology . You have clearly a lot of unresolved issues around a delusional persecution complex perhaps?

  35. Well Lola, thanks for turning this ugly, tracy morgan rant,back onto the Lesbian/Gay community, that is why some of us react with feelings of HURT/anger. People of Our community are attacked, prayed to hell,maimed, killed and spat upon. At a time such as this, it does more harm, to an already Hurting people, to be attacked from with-in. My dear sisters and brothers, please do not take on one speck of guilt.

    1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 7:14pm

      Again, where did I say I was against the anger people felt.

      You don’t have to resort to racial slurs to express your anger towards Morgan. And if you do, that’s a problem. Because when you do you’re not only attacking Morgan, you’re attacking every person of colour in your own community who may see that. And if you care so much about your own community, try not using words that might make them feel the way Morgan’s words make you feel.

    2. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:36pm

      What a steaming great crock of poo!
      Well done Lola – you’ve forced the chickens out of the coop lol
      Years ago I posted a question on the message boards at Out UK which had a similar effect. I was suggesting that Out in the UK was lacking in racial diversity in terms of its members.
      I was FLOODED with bald fat middle aged white men complaining about how racist I was, how stupid I was, how I didnt know what I was talking about etc etc etc etc etc.
      Tired old tossers! Nothing stirs up a bunch of misogynistic, racist, middle class (and somewhat educated) white boys than suggesting they might be racist and holding up a mirror. They LITERALLY go bananas! What we have seen on this thread is a stunning example of that.
      Its like shining a bright light onto a lump of pork while simultaneously poring coke over it! lol And equally unpleasant…
      Don’t take ANY of what they say personally – simply because what they’re saying in real terms has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that you’ve said…

      1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:49pm

        Its like the death throes of a dying empire – violent, vitriolic, full of pomp and circumstance signifying (effectively) nothing.
        They like to be the feted ‘brains’ behind the stories, they like to sit here all day and (ironically) slag off Pink News and belittle its journalists.
        For all their talk of humanism they wouldn’t know humanity if it came up and hit them with a large hammer with the words ‘ity’ on whilst simultaneously saying “Hi, you don’t know me – I’m ‘Human’ “) They are small minded, bigoted, self absorbed, reactionary, misogynistic, antagonists who have come to the conclusion that they don’t exist without someone arguing with them. Their lives clearly revolve around arguing with people on Pink News and they take great delight in hitting the ‘top ten’ posters on a regular basis. In the old days they were probably doing exactly the same thing on gaydar chat and

        1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:52pm

          They are ADDICTED to the attention they get from being on here and are effectively taking advantage of Pink New’s slack moderation policy to have free reign to spout forth prejudiced nonsense whilst holding court.
          It’s HORRIBLE

          1. Who Lola? She seems addicted to the attention she’s getting. But then she and people like her with a blog and a twitter and a facebook and all the other trappings that go with self-serving usually are addicted to themselves.

          2. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 5:14pm

            Let me get this right, Hamish… If she doesn’t respond, it’s because she can’t respond and has been stunned into silence by the brilliance of your frankly bizarre non-arguments, so you win. If she does respond, she’s an “attention whore” and you win no matter what she says, because being an “attention whore” somehow means she instantly loses.
            Call me cynical, but I hardly think that’s fair. What would you say is the right way for Lola to respond to people like you?

    3. No one is asking anyone to take on guilt. That is the most useless emotion ever and is usually an excuse to continue doing exactly what I was doing, irrespective of what people say or think. Taking some responsibility for what we say would be good though. In fact, how can we not??
      Also MEB, for me the ‘fight’ is not literal, its not us versus them. I think it makes more sense to fight racism than racists, homophobia than homophobes. Otherwise, all I am doing is calling names and returning abuse with abuse. That’s not healthy mate!

    4. I said earlier she sounded like a colonialist with her “divide and conquer” reasoning .

      1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:13pm

        You also demanded that I solve the problems of homophobia in the black community – that I suggest the solution for that despite me saying repeatedly that I, as a white person, have no right to critique and comment on the black community.

        I’ve never suggested divide and conquer, but if you’d like to point out where I said that, I’d be more than happy to.

        Let’s get back to the original issue, however. My original message was that people shouldn’t use racism to attack homophobia. You don’t think using the n-word to insult Morgan alienates and divides our community? That it makes people of colour feel like they aren’t apart of the LGBTQ community, especially when that sentiment is echoed by people who use their experiences of homophobia from black people – as if the black and gay communities are separate?

        1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:14pm

          *happy to see. Grarg.

          1. Oh shut the hell up, your time is up here kid, the lid has been blown off your attempts at self promotion, the gushing praise you were expecting for that tripe you wrote is shortcoming. Better luck next time.

          2. Self promotion? Yeah, because it sure seems like a lot of people on here are bending over backwards to pat me on the back for what I’ve said.

        2. “Divide and conquer” is a terminology used in colonialist divisive policies. Your article is a subliminal attempt at such, to create discord between the black and lgbt communities.

          1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 8:48pm

            Assuming the black and LGBT communities are as separate as oil and water.

            Also, how is asking people not to call Tracy Morgan the n-word when goes on a homophobic rant creating discord? My point is that it alienates people of colour within the LGBTQ community. Maybe you should re-read the commentary.

      2. ROTFL. Got it in one rapture.

        1. She’s a homophobe , end off, don’t waste any more of your time on the ignorant scum. Shes probably straight is someones faghag and dips her toes few times now reckons she can contribute as part of our community being obtuse to the fact our communities are inclusive of many different cultures/races etc but yet she feels she can promote her ridiculous generalizations on here.

          1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:18pm

            You can continue to guess all you’d like about my personal life to derail the discussion.

            Racism continues to be a problem you refuse to address. I’m not the only one who believe so. Focusing on me isn’t going to change that.

          2. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 5:08pm

            Many different cultures and races who experience racism from their so-called brethren. Now who’s ignorant?

          3. I have addressed racism in the real world and experienced it , i’m not accountable to validate that ,to an online troll with an overinflated ego. . You are the one who is deflecting the focus onto yourself by the very nature of this thread. self obsessed with your commentary here, on your personal life and your experience of lgbt communities , hence you are deflecting to a personal agenda or maybe you are so self indulgent/egotistical in your phoney sentiment , that you are not aware of that.

          4. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 5:50pm

            Rapture, if I’m so intent on keeping the focus on myself, why am I not bothering to answer any and all questions about my background, my age, my identity, and my thesis. I’ve not focused on that. I don’t want to focus on that. Others do. Because it’s easier to attack me than it is to focus on racism within the LGBTQ community.

            I’ve repeatedly said that the issue here is about racism. What you personally think of me is irrelevant. The main point still is that it’s not acceptable to use the n-word to attack someone just because they went on a homophobic tirade. It’s never acceptable to use hate speech to attack someone, regardless of how ignorant they are.

          5. that last comment was for lola not for pumpkin

  36. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 6:09pm

    My dear sistersand brothers, please do not take on one speck of guilt.

    Unless you’ve been guilty of bigotry, or tolerated it. Otherwise, you’re fine.

  37. Bravo! Well said and this needed to be said! For those who are splitting hairs and counting comments to this particular post in an attempt to prove that there is no real racism, please take not of two things. First, the post is against prejudice and bigotry, of which racism is one form. Second, go back and read the posts around the infamous East End Gay pride. The kind of vitriol about Muslims, the ‘us versus them’ language was shocking! It does not matter if it was ‘technically’ based on skin colour or not. It was still hatred. It was still prejudice. And it was coming from people who had faced prejudice and should really aspire to better than subjecting others to hatred based on stereotypes and generalisations! So once more, well said/written! And it needed to be said!

    1. Staircase2 14 Jun 2011, 7:52pm


    2. Bravo straight to the point and ignored by the bigots

    3. Absolutely … totally agree

  38. @Staircase2 Yes once again your input is invaluable.

    @Lola – ONE of the points that should have been made is that people WILL stand up for themselves and trying to prove a point by by saying something “shocking”. To say if this is correct is one thing but to simplify as racisms is quite frankly insulting.
    I have asked 4 black friends if they were offended by what people had posted and if they thought racism was the main cause. Three are black gay men and one is a straight girl. None of them thought it was racism that was behind this and the three men said they understood, even saying “what did Tracy expect?”
    The other issue I have is more with posting your comment. It would have been better suited to your blog.

    1. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:17pm

      Andy, again. I don’t care what’s in Morgan’s heart and I don’t care what’s in the heart of someone who calls Morgan the n-word.

      It is never appropriate for someone to use racism in response to homophobia. It is never appropriate for someone to use hate speech to attack someone.

      And you’re welcome to tell the friends you tokenised my response, if you’d like.

      1. I I I, me, me, me. Its all about you now Lola, it was about the LGBT community when you started the post.

      2. I’m responding to criticisms of myself and my article. How else would you prefer I phrase myself?

    2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:19pm

      And also, the piece is prefaced with COMMENTARY. It’s not an article. It’s not a news piece. It’s a commentary. It’s not the only commentary piece on this site and newspapers have a long, long history of publishing commentaries/editorials. If you seriously think I’m the only one who’s ever sent PinkNews a letter that they’ve printed, you’re mistaken.

      1. Commentary? I’d print it off and use it for bog roll.

        1. Are you done with your ad hominems, or can we get back to the original point.

          Using racial slurs to address homophobia isn’t okay. And that’s the main point.

    3. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 9:23pm

      “What did Tracy expect?”
      Uh, didn’t they mean “what did black people expect?” Seeing as how bigotry is aimed at demographics, not individuals, of course.
      Also, possible selective quoting of the answers to possibly misleading questions by a bunch of unknown “black friends” always wins arguments. Always.

      1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 9:26pm

        Oh, poop. I messed up my post by using too many italics tags. That’s what happens when you try to play god, people.

  39. Also if you are wanting to write a piece on racism on the gay scene that is something else but to link it to posts on Facebook simply underminded any point you were trying to prove.

    As a white gay man I can not comment on the extent of racism on the scene. I view my black, asian and white friends the same.

    1. PumpkinPie 14 Jun 2011, 8:49pm

      I don’t think cold, hard evidence needs to be provided for something that everyone already knows is a real issue. Everyone except the denialists, of course. People like you are part of the problem. You may not be racist, but when you get all defensive and try to block or derail discussions, you inadvertantly help those who are racists.
      Anyone remember this article?:
      Same thing happened there. A whole bunch of privileged white LGBTs attempting to sweep the whole issue under the rug just because they had never witnessed it themselves (or worse and more likely, because they just never cared to notice), even in the face of people of colour who had actually experienced racism first-hand.

    2. Lola Olson 14 Jun 2011, 9:22pm

      Andy, my point is that no one should be called the n-word, even if they use homophobic language. Especially because using racial slurs alienates members of our community.

      Do you really think that’s a point undermined?

      “Colourblindness” is not the solution to racism or racist action either. I’m not going to delineate that because to be honest, there just isn’t enough space for that here. So I’m just going to link to the very literature that helped me understand white privilege –

      1. all these terms and analysis for one so young, you’re just swallowing those text books whole at university Lola, any chance you could form an opinion of your own that hasn’t been told to you from a book recommended by your professor or Oprah?

        1. Wow, Hamish! How condescending is that! We all read/watch stuff, get influenced by ideas concepts we come across, adopt them, use them, bounce them around, usually based on our own expereinces. In fact, we usually are more open to reading/seeing stuff which speaks to our lives anyway. What is this holy grail of originality you are preaching? and WTF is it relevant whether someone is young or old or not????

        2. If having read books at an age that must be lower than yours is something to be ashamed of, I must’ve missed the memo.

          I will tell you though one opinion that was imbued on me from a very, very young age. Not just from Oprah, but from professors, books, and my mother. It was that racism and racial slurs aren’t okay. And I was pretty much able to understand that early on. Even if I didn’t understand white privilege fully, I still pretty much knew that n-word wasn’t cool to call someone. I didn’t have to go to university to learn that.

        3. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 9:45am

          Hamish, you’re one of the worst people on here. So utterly consumed by hate and irrationality. Do you honestly think you’re more educated in a particular subject by having not read up on it? And please don’t go off on some bizarre tangent. Do you honestly believe that, or are you just trying to make a fool of yourself?

        4. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 12:02pm

          Give it up troll!

        5. I agree. I was trying to avoid saying such a thing.
          Lola reminds me very much of a friend of mine called Hannah (hello Hannah) who came froma lower middle class family, was very bright and well read. However her view (very similar to Lolas) was very black and white (excuse the pun) unfortunately the world is shades of grey.

          1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:20pm

            It’s too bad you don’t actually know anything about me, Andy.

            But continue to try and focus on me. There IS a problem with racism, both on the website, in the issue with Morgan, and in the LGBTQ community. I’m not the only one who’s pointing that out. So you can try and attack me all you’d like. Racism is still an issue. And if seeing the world in black and white = Don’t call someone the n-word just because they go on a homophobic rant, then I think I’ll be able to sleep tonight.

        6. Sounds more like she plagerized an opinion of a big brother contestant.

  40. Lola Olsen, I now feel you’re a narcissicist self-publicist. I agreed with the thrust of your article and stated it publicly. You turned that into some kind of attack on your sexuality. This started out as an article on Tracy Morgan and racism in the LGBTQI community and you’ve turned it into something about you. How proud do you feel right now?
    This started out as something about racism and somehow you’ve conflated it into bigotry against genderqueerism.
    Is bigotry against one thing the same as it is against something else? Every bit of bigotry has its unique flavour. There’s no one-campaign for dealing with everything. There’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to discrimination.
    I’m deeply unimpressed with you Ms Olsen. You’ve taken an article about racism and turned it into something about yourself and your worldview.
    I love the comments you make about racism in the gay community.

    1. You’re not the only one who feels that way Dazzer.

    2. Self-publicist? What am I publicising exactly?

      This is a commentary piece about my reaction and my thoughts. That’s what it’s always been. I’ve really not gained any money from this or any benefit, other than wasted hours arguing with ignorant people on the internet.

      I’ve not once asked about anyone’s religion, their age, their history, or their background. You all of asked that of me in attempt to derail from the original message – which is that racism is a problem in the LGBTQ community and the comments I saw concerning Tracy Morgan is ONE example of that.

      I’ve never accused anyone of bigotry against genderqueers. I called out your one “joke” for what it was. Sexist and transphobic. If you’re going to accuse, get the terms right. And if I recall, that didn’t detract from the discussion, nor did it stop me from repeating – again and again despite all of the ad hominem crap going on here about my life and my background – that the issue here is that racism is not appropriate.

    3. ‘I now feel you’re a narcissicist self-publicist. I agreed with the thrust of your article and stated it publicly. You turned that into some kind of attack on your sexuality.’ Really Dazzer? I found this SO abusive that I did a word search for queer. Here are the results, until before your post.
      No of times Lola has used it: 6.
      No of times other posters have: 15
      Contexts of Lola’s use: The first time it was juts a clarification_ I am genderqueer, upon being called a woman. after this, at least ten readers went on and on regarding how offensive they found the word, ignored Lola’s apology in case using queer had alienated anyone, ignored her clarification that genderqueer is a gender identity and insisted that using queer in any form could not be right.
      And you think Lola turned it into a personal attack? How? By somehow forcing people to go on asking questions around queer? I think you need to READ and analyse before you come up with judgements on character Dazzer. Shame on you!

    4. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 5:12pm

      What a crock of poo – my bet is that someone else has hijacked your account and is posting to support themselves lol
      …What kind of idiot would do that…..?

  41. I understand that genderqueer is something difficult for non-genderqueer people to understand. But being genderqueer is not the same as being someone of a different race.
    I understand that you’re a victim of discrimination. But your victimhood isn’t the same as anyone else’s. It’s unique. I get that.
    Please don’t conflate racism with antagonism and with anything else that’s a mass of predujice.
    Lola, the article you wrote was about racism. Stick to that. The point you’re making is clear and wonderful and unarguable.
    If you need to make arguments about other kinds of bigotry and discrimination, then make them. But do it in different articles.
    Pick your fights. Be specific in what you’re taking on. You’re capable of generating fantastic debate. But be specific.
    I apologise for any insults above. I believe in your ability, I just want see it focused on the many specific problems rather than seeing you fighting on so many different fronts.

    1. @ Dazzer,
      It is precisely this being specific which has landed us in this mess. What do you say to a gay gathering organising a party playing up racist stereotypes of ‘wild’ and ‘savage’ Africa- calling it a jungle party or something and then declaring, oh, too bad if some people were offended, but we are a specific group you see… we deal with homosexuality and at most homophobia- not racism! Surely, the whole point is being specific becomes an excuse for not addressing injustices. The lives we live are not specific. Neither are our experiences of discrimination. They intersect in bizarre ways and strange permutation combinations- it is a sensitivity to these intersections that this article called for. She did not just write about racism. She clearly also mentioned sexism and misogyny. She wrote about acknowledging intersections by not abusing one identity in the process of defending another. Focus and picking fights can be regressive too!

      1. @Dazzer:

        A demonstration of being soecific from this comment thread: eddy two declares, ‘Let’s not forget that this is about a homophobic comedian who has a very public voice, not racist trolls on pink news. Talk about distraction, why don’t we focus on homophobia. This is a gay news site.’

        So fighting racism is too many fights for the gay peeps- lacks ‘focus; you see! I guess people who face both racism and homophobia need to open their own ‘specific; website. I rest my case!

    2. I don’t want to discuss being genderqueer. You do. I called you out on your joke. That was the end of it. I’ve only mentioned anything about being genderqueer when someone asked or when they openly mocked it or confused it with someone else. I was even lambasted for refusing to define it AGAIN, when someone else already had. You’re the one making extra posts about my supposed self promotion and my identity. If anything, I’ve avoided discussing my identity because that’s not what this issue is about. This issue about how it’s not appropriate to fight bigotry with bigotry. My background has nothing to do with it.

    3. Also where the hell did I say being genderqueer was the same as being a different race? What I said was that your attempt to joke about Morgan, your attempts to misgender him in order to discredit him is transphobic and misogynistic. If you’re going to further criticise me, get what you’re saying right. Your joke wasn’t funny, but I never have said that being genderqueer was like being a different race. Do not put words in my mouth.

      1. @Lola, then please don’t words in my mouth. I did not ‘misgender’ Tracy Morgan. You decided to pick a fight with me. I didn’t pick one with you. You’ve also picked fights with other people here who started out as broadly supportive of you. Given the amount of time you are spending here – and the sheer volume of your comments – suggests to me you’re reveling in the attention rather than particularly advancing any debate on racism in the gay community.
        Oh well, I’ll leave you to it. I won’t be bothering to read this thread any more.
        Whatever you want out of this thread, Ms Olson, I hope you get it.

        1. You DID misgender him. You called Tracy Morgan a “she” in a pathetic attempt to make a joke. THAT is misgendering. You PURPOSEFULLY called him a “she” in some misguided attempt to either make him less than a “he” (misogyny) or to poke fun.

          I don’t care if you support my message regarding racism if you’re going to turn around and misgender people as if it’s funny. Do you think it’s hilarious to be misgendered? It’s not. It’s not funny for cispeople, and it’s certainly not funny for trans people.

          My message is that fighting bigotry with bigotry isn’t okay. And you making some joke about Tracy Morgan being a “she” IS bigoted and it proves nothing. You can think whatever you’d like about me personally – I really don’t care. But I’m calling your joke for what it is. It was misgendering, irrelevant and it did nothing to add to arguments against Morgan’s comments.

          1. No, and morgan saying he’d kill his own ‘nlgger’ son if he was gay isn’t funny either. But you choose to change the focus of that and write an article about racism in the gay community, rather than a homophobic comedian saying he’d kill his own son. All because of a few stupid trolls on a website. Gay guys are killing themselves and being killed because idiots like morgan can get away with saying what he said, why not write about that? Why not write about homophobia in the black community – it exists, virulently? And what effect exactly does a few racist idiots on pink news do? Absolutely none. You need to get your priorities in order before you start preaching again. Fight the LGBT enemies. Don’t judge the LGBT community, we’re judged enough thank you very much little miss perfect.

          2. Eddy, what part of “This is not an isolated incident” are you not getting. Morgan’s comments were a catalyst, but the problems of racism within the LGBTQ community are not only a few trolls.

            Also, where did I say I liked what Morgan said? Where did I say I supported it? Where did I say no one should be angry or infuriated by what he said?

            You DO NOT need to call Morgan the n-word to attack his words. Why did I write about it? Because racism within our community weakens our community. Our community CONSISTS of people of colour who are alienated daily by people post racist tripe that does NOTHING to take people like Morgan down a peg and does everything to take away legitimacy from everything we’ve done.

            Why not write about homophobia in the black community? BECAUSE I’M WHITE. I don’t know what it’s like to be black. I’m not in the black community. I do not have any right to speak to the black community about black issues.

          3. And really, if the “LGBTQ community” as you put it, doesn’t include people of colour who may be alienated by the racism coursing through it, then I do not follow your definition of the LGBTQ community.

            And really, Eddy. My main message is pretty clear. You shouldn’t be calling Morgan the n-word, REGARDLESS of what he said. It doesn’t make it right. So why not take your own advice and stop attacking me and instead decide whether or not you agree with that message. Because it really doesn’t take all that much effort to NOT use racial slurs.

          4. I didn’t call him a ‘nlgger’. I quoted what he called his own son. Don’t try and paint me as a racist, I’m not. You just don’t get that you have taken the focus away from the homophobia that our community suffers and deferred that into judging LGBT as racist. Try judging another community, not ours. We don’t even have equality. You’re obviously homophobic.

          5. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 2:21pm

            Eddy, your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I never said you called him the n-word. I said others did. And others have said equally racist tripe both on the Facebook page of PinkNews and in this thread. But I can see the racism that Pepa and Enoch both obviously have is worth ignoring – and yet my asking people to NOT use the n-word is worth a bunch of character assassination. And yet again, I’m unsurprised to hear people of colour feel alienated in the LGBTQ community.

            The LGBTQ community and the black community are not two distinct entities. THERE ARE BLACK LGBTQ PEOPLE. What part of that do you not get? What do you suggest they do when they see LGBTQ people throw racial slurs at Morgan’s face? I guess just pick one community then? They have to choose between queerness and blackness then and decide who’s side they’re on?

            Give me a break. Fighting bigotry is not one sum game. There is no one side or one community I or anyone else has to pick.

  42. @Eddy

    Dont think I dont know about Uganda – I have been there and met with LGBT people there …

    I am conversant with recent and more distant gay history. I am aware of the impact it has on our heritage and our future.

    I am also acutely aware that our future does not have to be governed by our past – that sometimes we need to say enough is enough and make our future rather than focussing on what has already been. That is not to disregard the past – its to have a healthy respect for it and to seek the future to be better.

    Sometimes by being so aware of the past we can fail to take opportunities to see what the future can bring.

    I guess I am glass half full guy and you’re a glass half empty

    1. My cup is overflowing.

      1. Well you don’t present it that way, you present a very negative pessimistic view in your commentary

  43. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH LOLA – Sound words – Be angry and sinned not – I know it is hard getting beat down at times, but we have to keep a positive attitude in our fight-backs and we will secure the victory in the end. If we become as ugly as Tracy Morgan or others like him, we will make ourselves look equally disgraceful – YES we have a right to be disgraceful, BUT unlike Tracy, we are still on the battlefield – Let us be WISE and use diplomacy at all costs!

    1. TrollFromDamascus 15 Jun 2011, 2:56am

      Jesus is the way and the light.

      1. Or perhaps an Ever-Ready torch. Better light. More reliable too.

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 3:44pm

          It depends what colour the light is.

  44. TrollFromDamascus 15 Jun 2011, 2:54am

    If you need a 1000 word essay to tell you not to be racist, there’s something wrong with you.

    Is Lola Olson a new muse come to our blackened land to tell us tales of a place without racism?

    This essay is pointless.

    Is Lola of the impression gay people are more racist than others? I wonder.

    1. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 9:38am

      Is Lola of the impression gay people are more racist than others? I wonder.

      Do only the most racist demographics have to worry about racism? By that logic, the Catholic church doesn’t need to amend its homophobic ways. This is an LGBT site. Why on Earth would Lola be interested in the racism of any other demographic? Nice attempt to sweep it under the rug, though. Clearly, you have a guilty conscience.
      If you need a 1000 word essay to tell you not to be racist, there’s something wrong with you.
      Even worse is to recieve said essay and then have it go completely over your head.

      1. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 9:39am

        Do only the most racist demographics have to worry about racism? By that logic, the Catholic church doesn’t need to amend its homophobic ways.
        “Because Islam is even more homophobic.”
        Would help if I edited my posts properly

      2. I don’t see the point in wasting time responding to someone who purposefully calls themselves a troll. :P

        1. David Myers 15 Jun 2011, 12:05pm


        2. And will you be responding to those of us who don’t call ourselves trolls or are you at this stage only responding to critics and questions you do have an answer for?

          1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:21pm

            I’ll respond to you if you have something relevant to the article to say. If you’re just going to derail the conversation by going on and on about who you think I am, my identity, or whatever trollish nonsense you have to say, then I don’t see the point.

            The commentary and the discussion is about racism – not about my identity or who you believe me to be.

          2. So now I’m a troll as well? Lola is EVERYONE who doesn’t subscribe to your radical philosophies a troll? Bigotry is bad, we get it, we don’t need you to tell us that and yet when we say this we’re accused of trollish behaviour.

          3. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 8:50pm

            When you have nothing to say but personal attacks on me, it shows the strength of your argument. If you actually have something about my commentary and the issue of racism to say, I’d be more than glad to read it.

            Also, I like how asking people to not use the n-word is now a “radical philosophy”. I was under the impression it was just being a decent person.

          4. Durrr- I was being facetious in terms of your ‘radical’ philosophies. You have about as much humour as you do original thoughts.

          5. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 2:23pm

            And making jokes that aren’t really that humorous is just about all the levying power you have. When you have a decent argument instead of some crappy ad hominems, let me know.

          6. All the action is taking place elsewhere now Lola, as someone else so succinctly put it on another message board you’ve had your 15 minutes of fame so why not try a different angle for your next revelation. You got to keep the momentum up, otherwise you’re just a one trick pony.

          7. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 5:54pm

            If one commentary on PinkNews is “Fame” to you, then I’m not quite sure what to say to put the world in perspective for you.

            How about you spend less time trying to insult me and more time either putting forth a decent critique of what I have to say, or finding a hobby. It’s obvious you have nothing of substance to add to object to my commentary. And you would rather spend your time hurling insults at me than even consider or think about racism within the LGBTQ community and how it alienates LGBTQ people of colour. That’s the original message. I could care less what you think about me personally, but if you have a problem with the message or something to say to that effect, then please share it.

  45. So in an effort to not fight bigotry with bigotry @staircase2 responds with a comment about “bald fat middle aged white men complaining”. And Lola throws her educational qualifications in the face of those of us she thinks too ‘ignorant’ to understand her. You two are just the ultimate hypocrites.

    1. Agreed , Don’t think much of her quasi education if all she can come up with is a plagerized comment.

      1. Vile pair of cronies both Lola and her dopey backup stooge Staircase2.

    2. @CMYB

      I do agree that there have been some insulting comments on here but I dont think Lolas mentioning of qualifications counts as insulting ….

      1. Calling someone ignorant does I’d say.

        1. @CMYB

          It might do …

          but its certainly not the same as being racist or homophobic …

      2. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:22pm

        I actually never mentioned my qualifications. It’s just one sentence in my bio. My educational qualifications are irrelevant.

        I’ve known since before I ever became a graduate student that calling someone the n-word isn’t bloody right. You don’t need a degree to sort that out.

    3. Maybe so but lets not dodge the fact that there are some gay bigots who post here

      1. Agreed, lola olson being the most prominant today.

        1. Lola the Trolla.

    4. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 5:54pm

      And Lola throws her educational qualifications in the face of those of us she thinks too ‘ignorant’ to understand her.

      Citation required.

    5. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 5:47pm

      Of course thats assuming two things – one that you yourself are bald (which of course being the faceless kind of boy that you are I have no way of knowing) and two: that youre assuming I think there is something wrong with being bald (I dont – in fact its often quite sexy and attractive) – which leads me to assume you must have a faull head of hair! lol

    6. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 5:49pm

      PS the difference on Out in The UK is that you CAN see people – and they were largely bald fat middle aged white men’
      READ what I said young skywalker…
      Like I said to Pavlos – if you read with your eyes instead of your bile duct you might actually understand what I was saying as opposed to seeing darkness where theres only light…..

  46. As I have said was not the place for Lola’s comment. Quote her and have a link by all means but it’s disconcerting that the site felt this was a well rounded comment to post.

    1. Lola Olson 15 Jun 2011, 3:24pm

      And as I’ve said, newspapers have a long history of posting commentary. Mine wasn’t special, selected out, or commissioned. I wrote them just like anyone else can do. No one’s stopping you or anyone else here from writing your own.

  47. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 6:29pm

    I just took a look back over the comments here, and it’s disappointing to see that this discussion seems to have turned out the way discussions about improvement of the LGBT community always do.
    Most people (a couple of dozen) agree with the topic, or at least want to engage with it in a sensible fashion. They post very little, because there’s only so many times you can agree with something.
    Then, you get a handful of trolls (about 5 or 6, not including pepa and Enoch who even those trolls hate) who are so upset at having their prejudices called out and challenged that they make post after post after post of vicious ad hominem attacks without making any attempt to engage in serious debate.
    Obviously, this gets us nowhere, so I got to thinking on ways we could possibly avoid this in future, or perhaps even salvage this discussion…

    1. PumpkinPie 15 Jun 2011, 6:30pm

      1) We need to try harder to ignore trolls. If you don’t want their foul behaviour going unpunished, then respond, but very briefly. Meet spurious allegations with “where”, “explain [X]”, “show me where that happened”, etc. Respond, but don’t engage unless there’s something worth engaging! I’m massively guilty of engaging trolls, so I know how hard it is to do this in practice, but I’ll try!
      2) We need comments and experiences from LGBT people of colour. Hearing about people’s friends is all well and good, but we need some first-hand accounts, too. It’s pretty white around here, but I know for certain there are a few regular PoC commenters on this site.
      3) Those of us who agree don’t need to feel that we have nothing more of value to say. Ideas on how to combat the problems raised in the article, or ones that we’ve witnessed firsthand, might be a useful point to raise new discussion. That’s perhaps reaching a bit: “hello? anyone got any ideas?”, but, hey, if you do, then post away!

      1. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 5:58pm

        I think with regards to #2 the biggest obstacle you’re going to have is that people don’t often taken POC’s legitimate complaints of racism seriously. I mean, just look at Pepa’s comment above. I think the issue is addressing white privilege – but it’s as complicated as addressing any privilege, and people have to want to learn about it and they have to be willing to be open about it.

        For those that are interested in thinking about racism and white privilege critically, there are reading materials that adress and talk about the issue in an easy to understand format, such as these:

        1. Oh, oh, oh! I read that “10 Conversations…” article just the other week! Through chance, somebody on one of the feminist blogs I read happened to link to a PoC blog which linked to this article. It’s an excellent article, and a nice change of pace for me, too. Most of the blogs I go to (mostly LGBT or feminist right now) tend to have a calmer tone, whereas POCO is intentionally rather caustic, both in articles and user comments. Justifiably so, of course, but some of those zingers still make me grin.
          That “caucasian” one was really interesting, too. I like a nice bit of etymology. And I really like the idea of embracing “European” as a replacement for “white”, too.
          I’ll check out the rest, and the videos, later on when I’ve got more time. Thanks for the links!

          1. Ooh, while I’m here… I recently ran across a nerd-tastic article exploring the ways in which society has misinterpreted the motives and methods behind the Civil Rights Movement (and thus subsequent race issues). Nerd-tastic because it’s explained through the medium of the X-Men, a comic series essentially based on an ersatz Civil Rights Movement, but written by white people.
            Probably not super-relevant, but if it compels at least one nerd to take a bigger interest in race issues, then it’s all good.

      2. Lola Olson 16 Jun 2011, 6:02pm

        And these are U.S. based but I feel the doll test really does illustrate quite abruptly how white supremacy is learned by both white and POC children from an early age and perpetuates itself in how we relate to others:

        But the thing is, people have to be willing to accept it. THAT’s why I’m unsurprised and also disappointed. I didn’t accept or learn about white privilege easily at all. I rejected the idea for a long time because it was easier for me to believe I was the good guy and I was always right and how could I ever be racist or do anything racist! It’s a lesson I had to learn and a lesson I’m still learning.

        But hopefully there are people who will see this, see some of these links, and be open to the idea and learn more about it. That’s all I think you can do

        1. Interesting videos – thank you, Lola. We do similar things at school (challenging children’s pre-conceptions) and I think racism is best countered by education very early on. I know you hinted at as much above, but I think the results would vary slightly – or maybe even quite significantly – in different countries.
          Thanks again for the links.

  48. Lola, I think most of us got the point of your article: Bigotry of any kind is wrong no matter the reason. It was well written and actually opened my eyes a bit. I’m a 53 year old gay white guy who never thought I was a bigot or racist, partly because of the old “I’ve had black friends all my life” thing. But could I really ever be sure? In this case, as disgusted as I was, I never once thought of his skin color. Not looking for praise here, none deserved, just a nice and welcome revelation to myself. Thanks for helping me with this.

  49. Thank you for this post, Lola :)

  50. Staircase2 20 Jun 2011, 5:59pm

    Just for the record – the way that so many of you have SHAMEFULLY taken to attack Lola simply because she deigned to write a commentary which was published is outrageous. The very fact that this comments board has more comments than I’ve seen for a very long time says as much about the quality of her point as it does the inherent racism, xenophobia and petty minded prejudice that you all hold dear.
    The puffed up indignation with which many of you have made ‘points’ (which are in fact just thinly veiled ‘how dare she?’s) speaks volumes about the kind of people you are and the lack of personal awareness you have.
    As I said earlier, every single ‘point’ you have raised is a repetition of the same tired old, lazy, cliche-ridden bollocks that you churn out on every single comment board. The way that you jump on people who might think differently from you tells me why you spend so much time on here: you simply cannot cope with people who are not locked into the same darkness as yourselves.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.