Homophobic Africans

[Jack Weber]

I know exactly what he was getting at, and I don't actually disagree. But when I heard this talk about homophobic black people, the first thing I thought of was the controversy around "kill-fags"-themed reggae music, and the fact is: at least some Canadians were willing to stand up against that bigotry regardless of it coming from brown-people.

My personal suspicion is that the phenomenon you're referring to is not acceptance of hateful views, but rather the disbelief that it actually exists. Many on "the left" are either unaware that such views actually exist, unwilling to believe that they are widely held, or of the belief that once these brown bigots are transplanted to Canada their hearts will open like the flowers of the Jojopo tree to the warm sunny rays of liberal thought and that their intolerance will be purged from them, and that these former brown bigots will become their natural allies, united with the gays and the poor and the rest of the downtrodden by the the shared experience of persecution at the hands of RichStraightWhiteMen.

-k

The last bit...

I think that's part of it.I think what it really shows is the moral relativism of the left that says that no culture is superior or inferior,just different.I have problems with the terms of superiority and inferiority,but folks on the left never get it that many cultures in "develeoping" nations are extremely conservative.These folks are also riddled with the very thing that is worst for any non-Caucasian here,or elsewhere...Namely White Liberal Guilt,and it's paternalistic,infantilising nature...

[Machjo]

Now we all know that its fine and dandy for the media to demonize (even to sue and imprison) people who are perceived as "homophobes" (I.e. anyone who has any criticism of homosexuals and their lifestyles), but what happens when Homophobic countries (where we get the bulk of our immigrants) criticize homosexuality?

Anybody from the homosexual rights activists side (yes all you pro gay marriage advocates) has anything to say about this?

I'm not homosexual myself, so I can't really say what homosexuals really do amongst themselves behind closed doors. But I have a very hard time believing that they eat each others' feces. Who knows, maybe a small sick portion of them do, but then again you might have an eqaully small sick portion of heterosexuals who'd do the same thing. Or maybe the guy in the video met a pair of homosexuals who did do this and so assumes they all do. But I really have a hard time believing this is common among homosexuals.

That said,I admit that even thinking ever so briefly about sex with another man sends chills down my spine and nausea to my stomach, and that's bad enough, but I'm still not convinced that most homosexuals eat feces.

I do however believe that legal marriage ought to be between a man and a woman only, and that extramarital sex ought to be a fineable offense. But still, we should not make up stories like that pastor is doing, as that merely makes him look ignorant and ridiculous.

[Jack Weber]

I'm not homosexual myself, so I can't really say what homosexuals really do amongst themselves behind closed doors. But I have a very hard time believing that they eat each others' feces. Who knows, maybe a small sick portion of them do, but then again you might have an eqaully small sick portion of heterosexuals who'd do the same thing. Or maybe the guy in the video met a pair of homosexuals who did do this and so assumes they all do. But I really have a hard time believing this is common among homosexuals.

That said,I admit that even thinking ever so briefly about sex with another man sends chills down my spine and nausea to my stomach, and that's bad enough, but I'm still not convinced that most homosexuals eat feces.

I do however believe that legal marriage ought to be between a man and a woman only, and that extramarital sex ought to be a fineable offense. But still, we should not make up stories like that pastor is doing, as that merely makes him look ignorant and ridiculous.

Extramarital sex as a fineable offense???

I'm not advocating for adultery,but,are trying to legislate morality?

[Machjo]

Extramarital sex as a fineable offense???

I'm not advocating for adultery,but,are trying to legislate morality?

Adultery has social consequences, which can involve STDs, divorce, emotional hardship to the spouse and others, harm to friendships, and of course children stuck in the middle, along with economic consequences for the families concerned. We have a responsibility to enforce laws to protect society from such, and making adultery a fineable offense I think would help discourage it. Quite honestly, I'm not against prostitution per se, since it's no more nor less harmful than any other form of adultery.

[Oleg Bach]

That's interesting. I thought it meant 'to feel strangled'

Anger - Online Etymology Dictionary

Whether you feel it or not the effect creates a drive to protect one self...it is normal..that one angers when one is being suffocated ...but it seems that there are measures afoot that are training people to accept abuse and not protest that abuse..that is wrong to cry out in pain when one is being crushed by some crazy power oriented nut that believes respect is fear - fear cripples and destroys by lessening the potential of a society.

[Oleg Bach]

That's interesting. I thought it meant 'to feel strangled'

Anger - Online Etymology Dictionary

Whether you feel it or not the effect creates a drive to protect one self...it is normal..that one angers when one is being suffocated ...but it seems that there are measures afoot that are training people to accept abuse and not protest that abuse..that is wrong to cry out in pain when one is being crushed by some crazy power oriented nut that believes respect is fear - fear cripples and destroys by lessening the potential of a society.

[bloodyminded]

I know exactly what he was getting at, and I don't actually disagree. But when I heard this talk about homophobic black people, the first thing I thought of was the controversy around "kill-fags"-themed reggae music, and the fact is: at least some Canadians were willing to stand up against that bigotry regardless of it coming from brown-people.

My personal suspicion is that the phenomenon you're referring to is not acceptance of hateful views, but rather the disbelief that it actually exists. Many on "the left" are either unaware that such views actually exist, unwilling to believe that they are widely held, or of the belief that once these brown bigots are transplanted to Canada their hearts will open like the flowers of the Jojopo tree to the warm sunny rays of liberal thought and that their intolerance will be purged from them, and that these former brown bigots will become their natural allies, united with the gays and the poor and the rest of the downtrodden by the the shared experience of persecution at the hands of RichStraightWhiteMen.

-k

I get your point...but let's not forget the unfortunate truth that the self-styled "moderates" among us are usually the first to defend terrorism and mass murder...all you have to do is utter "Islamofascism" or "the Cold War" and they collapse into paroxysms of masturbatory "West-is-best" self-congratulations that would put the far Right to shame.

The problem with "moderates" is that they are insufficiently self-reflective; so they look around, and they say, "Hmmmm; that Right wing isn't too appealing; but, hey, two or three social issues aside, I have some problemns with the Left as well, I mean, listen to that crazy-assed rhetoric!"

All fair enough, by the way. But then they call themselves "moderate" and conveniently forget that stupidity is not determined on some ideological graph: it's an innate human characteristic, at least when politics is the subject.

Moderates, in all their smug sense of "non-aligned" [sic] superiority, forget that they, too, are monumental, drooling idiots like the rest of us.

Hence their (intensely ideological) support and defense of terrorism, genocide, etc.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Whether you feel it or not the effect creates a drive to protect one self...it is normal..that one angers when one is being suffocated ...but it seems that there are measures afoot that are training people to accept abuse and not protest that abuse..that is wrong to cry out in pain when one is being crushed by some crazy power oriented nut that believes respect is fear - fear cripples and destroys by lessening the potential of a society.

That is an interesting take Oleg, please elaborate. Especially about the 'training' part. Do you think this initiative is part of some explicit program or is it a general psychological trend in society?

[Oleg Bach]

That is an interesting take Oleg, please elaborate. Especially about the 'training' part. Do you think this initiative is part of some explicit program or is it a general psychological trend in society?

It all stems from a mis-interpretation of Christian Judaic values - the turn the other cheek bullshit that was Paulism that was in essence the religious sell out to the state and the twisting of original doctrine to suit said state.

The real origin of turn the other cheek was not about accepting unquestionable repeated abuse - and enternal submission to that abuse. The human hand has a front side and a back side. IF person was to gently strike you with the flat of the hand it was a show of friendship...If the person struck you with a back hand it was an assault and a challenge.

A right handed person if back handing the other will swing upwards with the right and strike the cheek with the back hand..If the person receiving the hit wanted to psychologically disarm the assailant he would grin and quickly turn the other cheek - at this point the assaulting hand would be in the down position with palm facing upward..this was a very speedy action. The hitter would instinctively come up with a second strike - but he was fooled into using the flat or friendly side of the hand..thus - he was emotionally dis-armed - Humor may have resulted that the assailant had been tricked into using the flat friendly side of the hand.

This opened the door to dialogue and peace. It is very clever..but then again the great rebel Christ was a very clever man.

Religion and state are the same - the Romans adopted and perverted the old doctrines because religion was a cheaper and more effective way to create a submissive and compliant citizenry. Secular society is still based on perverted religious doctrines. Even though we assume that church and state are separate- they are not..just the titles have been altered.

The "trend" as you call it does exist - as the population grows larger it becomes more complex and un-controlable..to generate a submissive compliance is a must - I an un-educated man has figured this out - if I understand this then I am sure that scholarly social engineers have figured this out long ago..and they reach back into the past implementing things that worked in the past and modernized the concepts.

SOCIETY always has these egg heads that advise business and politicals ...ancient knowledge can be used to abuse. Of course some very powerful men enjoy the thought of total social control - far as I am concerned , multi-culturalism - gayification - encouragement of familiar disloyalty and the manipulation through human natural emotion - is all part of the new trend in social engineering in the possible attainment of total control. Divide and conquer is a classic example in the hope of control attainment. So is the constant harrassment that causes the de-focusing and weakening of social resolve - our courts practice this by allowing hooligans to disrupt the social order in order to create fear and further submission and now - corporate compliance.

ALSO - The idea of left and right wing politics comes into play ultimately. This hypnotic vacilation from the left to the right and the right to left - disrupts the moderate and logical centrist mind..thus keeping the population subjected to blurred vision...this is all very old fashioned stuff but it still works.