2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

[sheatheman]

"Ellen, how do you feel about transgender elementary school boys being able to use the girl's restroom, and vice versa? Should there be a third restroom for transgender children?"

[eugene]

 

 

whether this is true or false is not the problem here btw. the problem is this theory being put in some schools' curriculum without informing parents about it. and french ministers officially lying about that being put in the curriculum, when all proofs are there for everyone to see. if they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't have to publicly lie.

 

why does it need a special inform ?

 

because some parents might strongly disagree with the sociological concepts approached by gender theory, since those might contradict their views. so the very least the ministry of education could do is being honest about this program, and tell parents that the eductional program on "equality" that's being experimented in a few schools is the application of the political claims of 2 lesbian activists, that were expressed in a political manifesto in '99: http://www.france.qrd.org/texts/manifeste_lesbien1999.html

i'm only asking for transparency, that's all.

 

some parents might disagree with teaching of physics and math, you never know if your child is gonna open a black hole or develop a miniature nuke or something, other might diasgree with teaching of theory of evolution and so on. all of the decisions in centralised educational programs are political in nature, so why gender studies get some special treatment from you ? what's wrong with political claims of 2 lesbian activist (and why even emphasize the fact that they're lesbians) ?

 

your prejudice is getting very obvious.

[brian trageskin]

some parents might disagree with teaching of physics and math, you never know if your child is gonna open a black hole or develop a miniature nuke or something, other might diasgree with teaching of theory of evolution and so on. all of the decisions in centralised educational programs are political in nature, so why gender studies get some special treatment from you ? what's wrong with political claims of 2 lesbian activist (and why even emphasize the fact that they're lesbians) ?

 

your prejudice is getting very obvious.

 

 

hehe, i knew we'd get there.

the difference with teaching of math, for example, is that the ministry of education doesn't hide it's teaching math. everybody knows what math is.

with teaching of theory of evolution, the ministry doesn't hide it either. the fact it can be used for political purposes doesn't change that people know what it's about.

what's different with gender theory is that the ministry's hiding the fact that it's being teached it at school. most parents don't know what it's about, they're not being given the tools to figure out what it's about, and they don't know it's being teached to some of their kids. there's no transparency.

 

now, there's nothing wrong with lesbian activists making political claims, they have the right to do so. but the funny part is their manifesto is like a prophecy that's currently being fulfilled. many of the amendments proposed in it were voted, or are being discussed. such as gay marriage, gender theory at school etc.

why is it relevant to underline that they're lesbians? because i read the thing, and it's basically 2 lesbians pretending to have authority on the matter of homosexuals being discriminated, and women being discriminated, just because they're women, and gay. hahaha. their reasoning doesn't make much sense yet they ask for radical societal changes. i wish you could read the thing, it's pretty bonkers.

[MisterE]

so in this thread the general sentiment seems to be that anyone against gay marriage is a bigot. which must mean that, anyone in this thread, or any thread, anywhere, ever, who has suggested bigotry for not supporting gay marriage, is therefore saying that the vast, overwhelming majority of muslims, are bigots.

i guess this must be a map of pure, raw bigotry (red) then?


i just mention this because it's all so confusing to me. i mean, imagine my bedazzlement, as a non-lefty, when i can't understand how it's ok for some people to just completely bend their own rules, depending on the context of whatever argument or agenda they are supporting. the people who are most vocal about suggesting bigotry in others who don't support gay marriage... seem to have a big overlap (read- they are probably the same people) with the people who are most vocal about supporting/defending muslims, in the context of other conversations, and are also the most vocal critics of christianity and its various historical and current atrocities (oh and also there is an overlap with those people and people who are likely to just casually call rednecks inbred, make disparaging comments towards their female population, openly wish they could be removed from society etc etc etc. you know, non-bigoty stuff).

but lets just break this down.

in other threads, and i'm not just talking here because this place is just reflective of the same types of conversations going on in the internet at large, places like reddit etc, but some of the same people who jump to defend muslims... hilariously enough, FROM bigotry, are now, going on record, calling the vast majority of their population bigots. i mean, that is fucking interesting isnt it?

[DerWaschbar]

lol E did you convert to Islam in your absence? Like a moth to the flame brother.

[usagi]

^ lol what a terrible post. what are you even saying?

 

so in this thread the general sentiment seems to be that anyone against gay marriage is a bigot.

 

there are bigots, and then there are people who are unaccustomed with gays enough that they don't get some things and are in need of education and time to reflect. there's a distinction there.

 

so as usual, you start with a false notion and then go on to spew a mountain of irrelevant self-congratulatory shite. quality

 

<3 Ellen *bails from thread for real*

[DerWaschbar]

I misread that last bit as *balls from thread for anal*

 

E will you marry me again pls?

[chenGOD]

Just like how the Old Testament made homosexuality punishable by death, and many Christians changed their belief, the same could happen in Islam. http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/imam-daayiee-abdullah-welcomes-gay-muslims-to-worship-marry/2013/04/17/3ebcab3a-a5db-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

[goDel]

good post imo, love it when godel and i can agree on something

Nice :D

 

But ima bit of a tough love though. There was this piece in the economist about obama not doing the right thing with the TTP, a fav of yours, which could cost the world economy 600billion. The point of the article being that the ttp can be a force of good...o yes ;D

[luke viia]

don't even

 

i just rollerbladed in to the france discussion to add this thing that seemed interesting:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/26/gay-marriage-protest-france_n_3339705.html

 

the top of the comments dude added some weird nuance to brian's argument that i thought was relevant here.

 

 

 

Yank_in_France
48
POLITICAL PUNDIT·2,625 Fans·Egalité Fraternité Fiscalité ! - Les Inconnus

As usual, when it comes to France, HP's coverage is lacking, perhaps because much of it comes from cheap translations by uber politically correct French people who lack the ability to see the nuances in politics. No matter. Here's the real deal.

The forcing opposing gay marriage in France are a bit more complex than present in this article.

First, the night club comedian, a woman who created a stage name based on a goof on Brigitte Bardot by calling herself Frigid Barjot. OK, we all knw what "frigid" means, but "barjot" in French is slang for "crazy" or "whxxxy" (sorry can't say that word on HP although it is not a dirty word).

The thing about "Frigid Barjot" is that she makes her living doing shows in gay nightclubs!

The second thing is that her anti-gay marriage organizations are also led by two militant gay organizations who refuse straight marriage as a diseased institution for straight people that they do NOT want spreading to gays!!

Yeah, there is the far right and the militant Catholics in these demos, but most of the anti-gay marriage people are NOT anti-gay!
What's that, you say? Have I gone "barjot"?

No, most of those opposing the current law are far more concerned about gay adoption and what the French call PMA (medically assisted procreation) which the pro-gay marriage people want the national heatlhcare system to pay for IN ENTIRETY.

People are worried about the adoption issue because, given that gay couples do not produce children on their own, they are going to be the biggest demanders for adoption. Even if they only represent 10% of the population, they could flood the tiny French adoption market. (French adoption is already difficult due to archaic laws that provide for the right of the natural mother to reclaim her child(ren) at any time during their childhood, regardless of their attachment to their foster parents. Obviously not many want to adopt kids under those harsh conditions.)

In a world of strident, self-righteous individuals, it is hard to debate these matters in a rational manner, but I am for gay marraige in the US and against it in France because the French are SLAVES of logic, so the govt will "logically" say that, since gays are to be equal, they must have equal access to parenthood and the only way for them to have that sort of equality is by having the rest of society pay for it.

But the national healthcare fund is already under severe financial stress, which is why so many medications are only covered by 30% to 50%. And now the PC crowd is demanding that we paying 100% for medically assisted procreation. Sorry, but in a world of limited means where choosing one thing means foregoing another, I say NON to paying for medically assisted procreation!

 

edit: see godel's point about USians assuming we know shit about other countries? i did anyway, i dunno

ps i'm listening to a limpyloo album so you know i'm on the right side of history

[goDel]

;D

 

Good quote. Lets talk about militant gay organizations taking over the world through a scheme of extreme adopting over the backs of the general public. Ellen Page might be their queen.

[LimpyLoo]

People are using alot of words to talk around a very simple matter.

 

 

Why don't you want gays to be able to marry? Why is maintaining the status quo more important than letting gay people marry?

 

 

 

This happens around every civil rights issue. All of the civil rights movements were allegedly disrupting some wonderful tradition that was allegedly really important to maintain.

[Guest A/D]

That is a fascinating addition Luke, thank you for posting!

 

As a US person, I'm a bit incredulous at the all-or-nothing nature of what he's claiming. If it's true, it's too bad, although I find the notion of gay couples slamming the adoption market a bit alarmist.

 

That was a fucking awesome article chen.

[sheatheman]

I forwarded this page to Ellen. Her response:

 

"Seriously, what about the Islam/homosexuality issue? Logically you have to slam their beliefs just as hard you slam Christianity. In fact you should slam Islam so much more, because homosexuality in Christianity is a sin like any sin, and is forgiven. But in Islam?

 

From an Islamic Studies text book from 2007:

Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a legal marriage.... Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place.

Mister E is right on this one, progressives cannot simultaneously be pro Islam and pro gay, because once they become close enough friends, Muslims will literally start killing homosexuals."

[MisterE]

there are bigots, and then there are people who are unaccustomed with gays enough that they don't get some things and are in need of education and time to reflect. there's a distinction there.

ahaha that's amazing. i thought someone might make an attempt at this but i didnt think it would be this awful. so here you are, basically saying that, it's BAD when white people in the USA or wherever don't like groups of people. that makes them bigots. and therefore, it's OK to hate THEM, because they are bigots. BUT meanwhile, in muslim ran countries, doing gay stuff commonly can result in prison... or death. but you actually, seriously, typed in some sentences defending that, saying it's NOT bigotry, it's just that they are 'unaccustomed with gays'.

 

i mean that is literally amazing, that you would say that, or that anyone could ever actually, honestly say that, and mean it. like my mind never ceases to get blown by this shit. i mean i'm not at all surprised but still amazed. anyone reading this, who may have ever wondered why i've typed some of the shit into this forum that i have in the past.... usagi's post there is EXHIBIT A

 

in the USA, if a redneck calls a gay a 'queer', and nothing else happens, that is the high crime of bigotry and those people are scum for that. BUT in the muslim world, being openly gay could land you in prison, or even executed, and a vast majority there will be ok with that, but THAT isn't bigotry. it's just a misunderstanding or something. because they are unaccustomed with gays. they just need education is all.

 

reading your post makes me feel like i'm watching one of those nature shows on the national geographic channel, when they are observing a creature in its wild habitat, discussing their habits, and whatnot. in my head i'm hearing a voice saying something like 'observe the liberal in his attempt at forming an argument, that makes absolutely no sense. this is because it's almost entirely based on their rich democrat overlords' desires to maintain popularity and to get the votes they need to stay in power and wealth, and not really based on any solid foundation of personally thought out logic. any attempt at finding consistency/coherency in it would be a fatal mistake. it is a trap.'

 

Just like how the Old Testament made homosexuality punishable by death, and many Christians changed their belief, the same could happen in Islam. http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/imam-daayiee-abdullah-welcomes-gay-muslims-to-worship-marry/2013/04/17/3ebcab3a-a5db-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

yeah that's, i mean i agree with that. but it's not really directly uh, it doesn't take away from anything i said. hopes and dreams that the ~2-5% of people accepting of LGBT in that region of the world will grow to a more significant number any time soon is just that, hopes and dreams. ifs/woulds/coulds/maybe wills about what could be don't have anything to do with the fact that far far worse shit is happening to gays over there NOW, yet liberals over here in the western world refuse to talk about that, give muslims a free pass for it, and will always be there to "defend" them in the face of big ole' bad evil ole' american bigotry. even though if you apply the same standard they are using to describe people here as bigots, it would mean almost all muslims are such themselves.

 

its a clusterfuck of contradictory logic held together only by one common string- liberal/democrats/lefties in the media and politics put these ideas (and by ideas i mean words/names to use to call people who don't agree with them on whatever agenda they are trying to push) out there for liberals below them to 'have' and repeat.

[LimpyLoo]

In the tradition of Pat Buchanan, right-wing people never have the balls to just come out and say they don't like gays/blacks/jews etc.

 

Rather, it is always disguised as a plea to return to 'traditional values.'

 

 

 

Become what you are. Just come out and say that you think gays are icky.

[MisterE]

i would agree that what you are saying has some basis in truth. some are like that. some will tell you. some really don't have a problem with them as people, or of their right to live their lifestyles however they choose, but perceive it as becoming a thing that is being promoted in an attempt to produce more of it rather than just make it acceptable.

 

but when being a liberal means systematically constructing a language that gives you ammo to use against someone on the opposite side of any possible debate, in the form of 'isms' 'ists' 'phobes' etc, to demonize them right out the gate, i mean no shit people are going to be a little hesitant to say what they think exactly. i mean a good liberal/democrat will find a way a way to work racism into the argument if they are debating about how a bridge should be built over some river somewhere. every single topic for debate that theyve come up with in recent years probably has some accusation of bigotry attached to it.

 

and on the other hand, i have serious ass doubts that almost anyone on the left are ever saying what they REALLY think too.

 

like for real mang, how many white 'intellectual' lefties do you think secretly think eugenics might be a good idea????? (how many just here.. i wonder...) with all this talk of overpopulation being the biggest threat, going on now.

 

or, i just wonder what bill clinton, a liberal hero, actually thinks about women. or what JFK thought about them? walking tits and asses?

 

how many believe communism or even just socialism (which was conceived as a stepping stone towards communism) would be better than capitalism, and 'secretly' want it? i mean i'm always seeing people slam capitalism around here but never specifically saying what they think would be better..........

[hoggy]

Brian:

 

What gender theory is being taught? What is your source?

[LimpyLoo]

fair enough, misterE

 

 

 

oh and I'm a bisexual socialist fwiw

[Adieu]

 

there are bigots, and then there are people who are unaccustomed with gays enough that they don't get some things and are in need of education and time to reflect. there's a distinction there.

ahaha that's amazing. i thought someone might make an attempt at this but i didnt think it would be this awful. so here you are, basically saying that, it's BAD when white people in the USA or wherever don't like groups of people. that makes them bigots. and therefore, it's OK to hate THEM, because they are bigots. BUT meanwhile, in muslim ran countries, doing gay stuff commonly can result in prison... or death. but you actually, seriously, typed in some sentences defending that, saying it's NOT bigotry, it's just that they are 'unaccustomed with gays'.

 

i mean that is literally amazing, that you would say that, or that anyone could ever actually, honestly say that, and mean it. like my mind never ceases to get blown by this shit. i mean i'm not at all surprised but still amazed. anyone reading this, who may have ever wondered why i've typed some of the shit into this forum that i have in the past.... usagi's post there is EXHIBIT A

 

in the USA, if a redneck calls a gay a 'queer', and nothing else happens, that is the high crime of bigotry and those people are scum for that. BUT in the muslim world, being openly gay could land you in prison, or even executed, and a vast majority there will be ok with that, but THAT isn't bigotry. it's just a misunderstanding or something. because they are unaccustomed with gays. they just need education is all.

 

reading your post makes me feel like i'm watching one of those nature shows on the national geographic channel, when they are observing a creature in its wild habitat, discussing their habits, and whatnot. in my head i'm hearing a voice saying something like 'observe the liberal in his attempt at forming an argument, that makes absolutely no sense. this is because it's almost entirely based on their rich democrat overlords' desires to maintain popularity and to get the votes they need to stay in power and wealth, and not really based on any solid foundation of personally thought out logic. any attempt at finding consistency/coherency in it would be a fatal mistake. it is a trap.'

 

Just like how the Old Testament made homosexuality punishable by death, and many Christians changed their belief, the same could happen in Islam. http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/imam-daayiee-abdullah-welcomes-gay-muslims-to-worship-marry/2013/04/17/3ebcab3a-a5db-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

yeah that's, i mean i agree with that. but it's not really directly uh, it doesn't take away from anything i said. hopes and dreams that the ~2-5% of people accepting of LGBT in that region of the world will grow to a more significant number any time soon is just that, hopes and dreams. ifs/woulds/coulds/maybe wills about what could be don't have anything to do with the fact that far far worse shit is happening to gays over there NOW, yet liberals over here in the western world refuse to talk about that, give muslims a free pass for it, and will always be there to "defend" them in the face of big ole' bad evil ole' american bigotry. even though if you apply the same standard they are using to describe people here as bigots, it would mean almost all muslims are such themselves.

 

its a clusterfuck of contradictory logic held together only by one common string- liberal/democrats/lefties in the media and politics put these ideas (and by ideas i mean words/names to use to call people who don't agree with them on whatever agenda they are trying to push) out there for liberals below them to 'have' and repeat.

 

 

Firstly, you're simplifying it to a point that isn't honest.

 

Secondly, any Muslim who hates gays is a bigot. Many American Liberals would agree with this. That doesn't mean all Muslims are bigots.

 

Third, you paint with with too wide of strokes.

 

Fourth, the whole. "its hypocritical to hate bigots" argument is flawed because bigots are people who hate other people with no substantial basis for being biased towards them. Hating someone who oppresses others for no reason is not the same as being a bigot. No one is trying to oppress bigots here. We are merely trying to take away their power to be oppressors, and to try and change their mind and bring them into reality.

[Adieu]

i would agree that what you are saying has some basis in truth. some are like that. some will tell you. some really don't have a problem with them as people, or of their right to live their lifestyles however they choose, but perceive it as becoming a thing that is being promoted in an attempt to produce more of it rather than just make it acceptable.

 

but when being a liberal means systematically constructing a language that gives you ammo to use against someone on the opposite side of any possible debate, in the form of 'isms' 'ists' 'phobes' etc, to demonize them right out the gate, i mean no shit people are going to be a little hesitant to say what they think exactly. i mean a good liberal/democrat will find a way a way to work racism into the argument if they are debating about how a bridge should be built over some river somewhere. every single topic for debate that theyve come up with in recent years probably has some accusation of bigotry attached to it.

 

and on the other hand, i have serious ass doubts that almost anyone on the left are ever saying what they REALLY think too.

 

like for real mang, how many white 'intellectual' lefties do you think secretly think eugenics might be a good idea????? (how many just here.. i wonder...) with all this talk of overpopulation being the biggest threat, going on now.

 

or, i just wonder what bill clinton, a liberal hero, actually thinks about women. or what JFK thought about them? walking tits and asses?

 

how many believe communism or even just socialism (which was conceived as a stepping stone towards communism) would be better than capitalism, and 'secretly' want it? i mean i'm always seeing people slam capitalism around here but never specifically saying what they think would be better..........

 

Some of this is valid, but a lot of it is straight up speculation. Speculation doesn't make an argument.

 

And making some emotional plea for why a bigot might be afraid to be a bigot is stupid. Conservatives do the exact same shit by the way.

 

You're also diminishing how big a problem bias actually is. Which is a common conservative stance by the way.

 

Firstly, we already live in a welfare state. It's only a few degrees removed from socialism. Our country has been this way for a long time.

 

I'm not an economic authority, or a sociologist, but I think that the argument being pushed by the right that the poor and the needy are the problem is straight up propaganda.

 

It's contrived to promote corporate interests while polarizing the population, and impeding unity.

 

Personally, I think all economic systems and governments can work. None of them actually do though because you have people that will always fuck it up.

 

We do need better redistribution of wealth as well as more efficient government in this country that is for sure.

[eugene]

 

some parents might disagree with teaching of physics and math, you never know if your child is gonna open a black hole or develop a miniature nuke or something, other might diasgree with teaching of theory of evolution and so on. all of the decisions in centralised educational programs are political in nature, so why gender studies get some special treatment from you ? what's wrong with political claims of 2 lesbian activist (and why even emphasize the fact that they're lesbians) ?

 

your prejudice is getting very obvious.

 

 

what's different with gender theory is that the ministry's hiding the fact that it's being teached it at school. most parents don't know what it's about, they're not being given the tools to figure out what it's about, and they don't know it's being teached to some of their kids. there's no transparency.

 

now, there's nothing wrong with lesbian activists making political claims, they have the right to do so. but the funny part is their manifesto is like a prophecy that's currently being fulfilled. many of the amendments proposed in it were voted, or are being discussed. such as gay marriage, gender theory at school etc.

why is it relevant to underline that they're lesbians? because i read the thing, and it's basically 2 lesbians pretending to have authority on the matter of homosexuals being discriminated, and women being discriminated, just because they're women, and gay. hahaha. their reasoning doesn't make much sense yet they ask for radical societal changes. i wish you could read the thing, it's pretty bonkers.

 

how can you hide what's being taught at school en masse, do parents lack the ability to ask their kids, like "hey son, what did you learn at school today" ? i'm pretty sure it's not being taught at grad school level.

 

regarding the activists, maybe the elected government considered them educated and convincing enough on the matter ? so they implemented some (?) of their proposed reforms.

[OneToThirtySix]

 

some parents might disagree with teaching of physics and math, you never know if your child is gonna open a black hole or develop a miniature nuke or something, other might diasgree with teaching of theory of evolution and so on. all of the decisions in centralised educational programs are political in nature, so why gender studies get some special treatment from you ? what's wrong with political claims of 2 lesbian activist (and why even emphasize the fact that they're lesbians) ?

 

your prejudice is getting very obvious.

 

 

hehe, i knew we'd get there.

the difference with teaching of math, for example, is that the ministry of education doesn't hide it's teaching math. everybody knows what math is.

with teaching of theory of evolution, the ministry doesn't hide it either. the fact it can be used for political purposes doesn't change that people know what it's about.

what's different with gender theory is that the ministry's hiding the fact that it's being teached it at school. most parents don't know what it's about, they're not being given the tools to figure out what it's about, and they don't know it's being teached to some of their kids. there's no transparency.

 

now, there's nothing wrong with lesbian activists making political claims, they have the right to do so. but the funny part is their manifesto is like a prophecy that's currently being fulfilled. many of the amendments proposed in it were voted, or are being discussed. such as gay marriage, gender theory at school etc.

why is it relevant to underline that they're lesbians? because i read the thing, and it's basically 2 lesbians pretending to have authority on the matter of homosexuals being discriminated, and women being discriminated, just because they're women, and gay. hahaha. their reasoning doesn't make much sense yet they ask for radical societal changes. i wish you could read the thing, it's pretty bonkers.

 

Conspiracy theorist warning in bold.

[Allize]

movie star: "i'm gay"

 

*gets applauded like she's a war hero*

 

 

 

[sheatheman]

3% of the world's Muslim population can be considered moderate, and .00001% of those are gay/think homosexuality is acceptable.

 

-according to a recent conversation with Ellen. She and I recently watched "Not Without My Daughter."

 

Then she whispered to me, "if only I'd met you sooner."

 

I