Things that cause Hatred, like a false belief of Hatred

[ColinEssex]

I dont know any queers, male or female. I think the whole thing is exaggerated just for attention. Two men getting married? Totally insane.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, you are wrong and right at the same time.

Sometimes you really do have two gay guys or two gay gals marrying each other. It actually happens. I have known at least a dozen married gay couples. The insanity is because some folks in society don't realize that "gay" is not actually a choice, it is a condition of birth. I could tell you the references needed to understand this, but the odds are that you wouldn't bother to read them. In the thread about "Science vs. the Religion of Sexuality" I have posted a couple of links to legit medical research showing that "gay" is not someone choosing to have society heap scorn on them for the rest of their lives. It is all about someone realizing that they are born in a way that the world doesn't understand. Shortest possible summary: It is possible for someone in a man's body to have a brain structured like a woman's brain. Or vice versa. And the brain controls all. We sometimes talk about someone who "thinks with his crotch." However, the truth is that he thinks with his brain - but the brain isn't thinking along the lines that other people might think.

The "exaggeration" is indeed for attention, because otherwise straight people (like you) will go through life ignorant of the fact that their close-minded or deeply puritanical religious viewpoints cause emotional harm. Gays do, indeed, try to educate people to the truth that they must live every day - they were born differently than most people, and it can be medically proved. But instead, folks want to hold onto and cherish their own narrow-minded views on what is normal - without stopping to think that the whole situation could be different than the puritans believe.

 

[ColinEssex]

I know they get married to same sex people. There was a big fuss about it when the Church of England allowed it. Tom Daley the Olympic gold medalist diver did it. He refers to his partner as his 'husband '.
I think I'd better shut up, I could go on about things related, but it would incur the wrath of the one who rules these forums (not Jon)then you would ban me again.
I will say however, as I was brought up in the 1950's and 60's it is difficult to accept some modern day thinking, and I do wonder if things have gone to far with this 'PC' rubbish. Just glance at a coloured person now and you're a racist.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Things that cause Hatred, like a false belief of Hatred​

Interesting interview, Elon answers questions from the BBC.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I know they get married to same sex people. There was a big fuss about it when the Church of England allowed it. Tom Daley the Olympic gold medalist diver did it. He refers to his partner as his 'husband '.
I think I'd better shut up, I could go on about things related, but it would incur the wrath of the one who rules these forums (not Jon)then you would ban me again.
I will say however, as I was brought up in the 1950's and 60's it is difficult to accept some modern day thinking, and I do wonder if things have gone to far with this 'PC' rubbish. Just glance at a coloured person now and you're a racist.
Col

If you think any moderator (including me) rules this forum, just remember that you were never banned due to the previous issue, you were just warned that you were skirting the edge because you were dredging up specific things of a personal nature against another member. If you want to go on about "things related (to gay marriage)" then go ahead. Such comments are something I imagine would be right up your alley, given your "half-caste" and "gold-digger" bashing against Meghan over the past few years. Just remember that it is personal attacks against a member that starts a problem. And thinly veiled personal attacks are usually recognized as such. But keeping the discussion directed to a public figure - or at least away from a member - is merely a discussion starter. Of course, SOMETIMES the discussion still invites negative feedback, Col, but I think you actually enjoy being a lightning rod.

 

[ColinEssex]

What is the difference between a 'super moderator' and a normal moderator? The impression given is the former is in charge of the others, and tells them what course of action to take if necessary over whatever issue.
Also, if a member (any member) discloses something in their past that is of a personal nature on a public forum for the world to read - then they must expect possibly someone may pick up on it. If the person doesn't want it discussed, then why say it? No point in getting uptight after you've posted it publically.
I have many things in my past I would never disclose publically on an Internet forum, some would shock, others not, but I know there are things in all of us we wouldn't publish. Not necessarily bad things, just things that may raise a few eyebrows.

BTW, i know i wasnt banned this time, but have been banned in the past several times for short periods.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, it isn't even that you picked up on something, but that you wouldn't let it go long after that discussion had faded. You were, as we say in the USA, "beating a dead horse." No matter how much you beat it, it isn't going to run any more. There are times to let things be. What did the Beatles sing? "There will be an answer, let it be, let it be..."

What's the difference between an ordinary moderator and my "Immoderate Moderator"? What's the difference between an ordinary moderator and Pat's "Super Moderator"? What's the difference between an ordinary user and your "Old registered user"? Answer: Each person's CHOICE for a tag-line under their avatar and name at the left of a posting.

The moderators, as far as I know, have no particular rank or differences in power. It is all in how it was used. I'm somewhat of an activist moderator because of my years of being a system administrator on a U.S. Navy computer used by literally hundreds of different people. But most of the time I use the "Spam Clean" option in the reporting system, which doesn't affect you at all. I try to not bear down too hard, though sometimes someone's persistence makes me react a bit more strongly. Look, Col... if my actions bothered you, I AM sorry - but I am not AT ALL sorry that I can sometimes do something affirmative to help keep the forum a more gentle place by simply reminding someone that they have crossed a line.

 

[Jon]

Just to chip in here. Moderator, super-moderator and administrator all have slightly different privileges on what they are able to do on the forum. However, there is no formal rank where X > Y.

 

[ColinEssex]

Just to chip in here. Moderator, super-moderator and administrator all have slightly different privileges on what they are able to do on the forum. However, there is no formal rank where X > Y.

Thank you, that's all I was asking.
Although to me anyway, the impression given is the 'super' mods dictate what action is needed, then the non 'super' mods carry out their request.
Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Col, it isn't even that you picked up on something, but that you wouldn't let it go long after that discussion had faded.

There were differences in the story. I asked for clarification and was met with a brick wall. Then you intervened.

Anyway, I think you should stop mentioning that discussion, it's obvious there is more to it, silence is deafening. Also, I haven't mentioned Miss Markel for months, yet you keep referring to it.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In reviewing this thread, I noticed a question that has not been answered and it is actually central to this theme.

Here is an example of the question: How is "banning drag shows" an example of hatred? Another form of it: How is "banning gay-themed books" an example of hatred? Or: How is "banning gay activities" an example of hatred?

Gays refer to themselves as "non-binary" because they don't feel that they quite fit into the male/female spectrum. That is at least in part because that traditional spectrum carries "baggage." We have phrases such as "Be a man about it" and similar cultural attachments to "manhood." There are phrases for women, too; cases where women are admonished to conform to cultural stereotypes. And the non-binary people of the world find that they cannot comfortably do so.

Hatred is non-binary in a different sense... it isn't just about black and white. You don't go from indifference to hatred in one giant step. There are degrees of hatred. Actions speak louder than words. So when you say you don't care to go to a drag show, fine. It isn't "your cup of tea." You avoid the drag show as a matter of preferring something else. In that context, no particular hatred has been expressed. But when you ban drag shows, you have publicly stated that someone else's preferences are unacceptable in society, like they were criminals. Yet drag shows are simply people dressing up differently and doing something in an attempt to reduce FEAR in the community. For reasons I don't always understand, people have a generic FEAR of gays and people in drag... which is most often unwarranted. Milton Berle was a famous comedian of the mid-20th century who did outrageous drag routines among other things, but his popularity was solid throughout his life and career.

When you ban gay activities, when you ban gay books, when you ban formal gay relationships, you express hatred for what some people do. When you analyze it more carefully, the harm you are doing to others is to dismiss them as people with their own ideas, loves, pain, and goals. I am reminded of Shylock's soliloquy in The Merchant of Venice. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

We know that gay people exist. They are real people, born in the same way as us but perhaps with some differences in birth characteristics. It is an example of hatred to say that people who look like you and are members of the same species are somehow NOT the same. At an autopsy, you would have a hard time seeing the difference.

We often point to certain books as classics. For instance, The Diary of Anne Frank is a memoir of growing up in a time of religious persecution. The book My Bondage and My Freedom (by Frederick Douglas) tells about life starting as a slave but gaining freedom. But books like Boy Erased: A Memoir get banned in libraries because it involves someone growing up gay. Why is it that we accept the first two but not the last? What makes the first two acceptable but the third one not?

People have thin skin these days. They find an insult in actions done by others, yet a rational analysis suggests that many of the insults are not personally aimed. People these days get bent out of shape because someone else didn't mow their lawn in a certain way, or their hedges aren't trimmed to a certain height. They get bent out of shape because someone else doesn't conform to THEIR standards. And they attempt to shame or, in the case of Home Owner Associations, legally compel someone to "toe the line." In some Islamic countries, they just execute the person who dares to be different, religiously or in terms of gender preference. This is a hatred of being different. We talk about slippery slopes. Hatred is yet another slippery slope because it starts out at mild dislike but ends with riots, executions, and lots of anguish for the victims of it.

Religious conservatives look at gay marriage as a threat to marriage. The "real" threat is that their beloved rigid, nearly iconoclastic images are being shown to be false. A lot of the negativity isn't about a gay person DOING something wrong, but about someone else facing the possibility that they might have been wrong in their thinking. Some people think that the greatest unkindness you can give someone is to have them face a truth that they don't like. And the resistance to that truth is the spark for that hatred to grow.

Gene Roddenberry (R.I.P.) had a vision of a future where people of different races (human and aliens from other planets) got along by suppressing all that fear of being different. Commander Spock treasured his IDIC award - "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." It always comes down to that saurian evolutionary heritage in humans, the source of our territoriality and selectively gregarious nature - to stay with your tribe and to shun all others. But if we cannot learn to grow past that "ascendancy of me and mine over thee and thine" viewpoint, we doom ourselves to endless conflict over petty differences.

Time to get off the soapbox, I need to prepare for my daily walk.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Maybe it's the proximity to children and why they want to be around them. If you say I don't want to expose my child to flamboyant males is that hatred or just common sense? I wouldn't want my young child to have story time with Hell's Angles either, I'm not comparing the two, but as a parent, you have to exercise good judgment and protect the innocent.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Maybe it's the proximity to children and why they want to be around them. If you say I don't want to expose my child to flamboyant males is that hatred or just common sense? I wouldn't want my young child to have story time with Hell's Angles either, I'm not comparing the two, but as a parent, you have to exercise good judgment and protect the innocent.

The difference is not that you don't want to expose your child to flamboyant gays, but HOW you choose to manage that non-exposure. Do you just avoid the event? Take your child to a theme park or water park? Rent an animated classic? OR do you take steps to prevent that event from happening in the first place?

One is expressing a preference. Nothing wrong with that. We all have differences in taste. As the French would say, chacun à son goût. (Each to his taste.) Also vive le différence! (Long live the difference!)

But the other extreme is to completely ignore the parallel rights that others may have to peaceably assemble (at least, here in the USA). If a Mardi Gras parade is legal, a gay pride parade is no worse from the viewpoint of parallel rights. And "separate but equal" as a rights concept has already been struck down as "not equal."

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Doc, you're buying into the the narrative of the left. Just because parents don't want their children exposed to adult sexual concepts, doesn't mean they hate gays or cross-dressers, etc or even want to ban such activities in adult context.

The race war was dying down so the left needed something else to divide the country and drag queens are the forefront of this new war. Near as I can tell, there was never a problem with drag shows when they were adult entertainment. It was only once warped people thought it was not only appropriate but required to expose children to them that they have become a problem. It isn't men dressing up as women (we all loved uncle Miltie), it is the sexually explicit aspect of the performances that disturb the parents. I personally think the "beauty pagent" cult that includes young children also sexualizes young girls as they are encouraged to live out the fantasies of their mothers. I was appalled when I watched a couple of episodes of the TV series that followed several children at the way they were dressed and taught to dance suggestively and make teasing poses.

Am I buying in to the narrative of the left? When people of the Jim Crow era wanted strict segregation, it was because they didn't want kids to even be in the same schools as blacks. Didn't want them to find out that horrible truth... that black kids are just kids! Denying children exposure to the fact that some people are maybe a little different is an attempt to deny their existence. Kids need to know - maybe NOT at 3rd grade, because the issues are still beyond their education - but certainly no later than junior high ('scuse me... middle school), where biology classes start to get more detailed, wen topics of genetics and breeding become a potential sub-topic.

Pat, I know that a lot of parents want to protect their kids... but from what, exactly? If it is merely that the kids aren't quite ready for "that" discussion about birds, bees, and cross-pollination, that is one thing. On the other hand, I have been around people whose reactions are very hard to distinguish from hatred. I sincerely wish it weren't so, but I think the divisive nature of politics has opened the floodgates for hatred to become normal, to become commonplace, in many other subjects.

 

[AccessBlaster]

@The_Doc_Man I hear what you're saying about kids who are questioning their sexuality, I have no beef with that. My beef is with grown men interacting with kids in a way that's inconsistent with 90% of society. It's not that we're disrespecting them, they're kind of disrespecting our values. But because everything has to be viewed thru the lens of victimhood the 90% are not allowed to speak for fear of alienating the 10%.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Doc, children are not born bigots. They learn that from their family and the society around them if their families don't teach them to hate those who are different.

Hence my posting of that song from South Pacific, "They've Got to Be Carefully Taught".

Your question is perfectly valid, Pat. I happen to agree there is an age that is "too young" for bringing "adult stuff" into the classroom or into a performance that is open to younger public. But where the disservice occurs is when the parents cross the line. It is entirely one thing to say "I would prefer that my child not go on that particular field trip" and another to say "Let's arrest the performers and charge them as sex offenders. Let's sue the school for even considering this." Don't tell me this hasn't happened, either. At some point, the kids will have to be old enough to understand that there is a furor over the topic. My parents were terribly repressive in some ways. I didn't find out about gays for a long time.

Here is another part of the problem and I get this from my step-daughter who is a 20-year+ school teacher. All too often parents want the schools to be the surrogate parents - but only if they act in certain ways. Otherwise, it is time for them to sue the schools, sue the teachers, sue the school board, and generally raise a stink. But this runs into the problem of a multiplicity of families with different viewpoints, where if you do it one way you rile up sub-group X, but another way ticks off sub-group Y. This particular question is one that no school will EVER be able to handle because they don't have enough teachers to customize each class. With shrinking budgets, schools have become - of necessity - one size fits all.

 

[Jon]

Information is power. Thing is, children often know more than their parents nowadays, what with the internet, ChatGPT and so on!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Schools used to be able to handle the problem. Think about when you were in school. Were children allowed to disrupt the learning of everyone else in the class? NO!! Schools have lost control over discipline. I don't remember any teacher ever striking any student (although they still did in Catholic school back in the 50's and 60's) but one of my high school teachers used to throw things at us. The man could have pitched for the Red Socks, he was that good. He also almost always caught the return. Some kids just couldn't throw. It wasn't his fault. He was also the best teacher I ever had and I was lucky to have him for two years for both algebra and geometry. Our windows (8 feet tall and a solid wall of them of at least 25 feet) looked out on the football field and there was always something going on to distract us so the first thing at every class was to pull the shades down. After that, anyone caught peeking under or around the shades got beaned with an eraser or a piece of chalk. He never missed. He assigned homework EVERY day. He collected it the next day and handed it back the day after. I doubt he missed three days in two years. No other teacher ever beat that record. His wife occasionally sub'd for him and operated exactly the same way. She had a better record with the chalk than with the eraser Talk about respect. That man was respected. I don't know how they teach teachers to take command of a room, but that is critical to their success. I doubt anyone who ever got beaned complained. They knew they deserved it so they took it with grace. Children who disrupt classes have to be removed and they used to be. This is a failure in the current teaching philosophy. Allowing one disruptive child to impact the learning of 20 other students is just plain wrong and parents need to complain about THAT rather than whining about Johnny getting too much homework.

Pat, it isn't the CHILD doing the disruptions these days... it is the parents demanding special treatment for their little angel, never mind the behavior of the other 30 or so demon spawns from Hell. Most of the younger kids don't have the intellectual development to decide how to best disrupt a class. But their parents do. When I was a kid, parents were involved in the parent/teacher groups. Hell, my mother was PTA president three times in my middle school. I couldn't get away with doodlum squat 'cause it would get back to her in a heartbeat. Now? Going to a PTA meeting includes teachers in body armor (ok... maybe exaggerating a LITTLE bit.)