Toa Nidhiki05

You should add me, I have animal crossing.

Do you by chance have a net? Nooklings have been selling shovels and nets for the past three days.

Awesome. Have you gotten any games for it yet? I could definitely make some recommendations.

I picked up Animal Crossing: New Leaf; I'm think about getting Luigi's Mansion, Super Mario 3D land, and the new Mario & Luigi game at some point.

Grandpa Joe

lol wut?

iNCSACBCCVCiDN Winner

 

"I sympathize with the fellows in Nagasaki*. I broke my glass of water this morning. It hurt. The people in Nagasaki are hurting. So the problems are alike."

That statement should explain just about everything wrong with this sort of attitude. The differences between those problems are so vast, and the thing he is comparing his own issue to is so very different and so very much worse, that it seems very very clear that he doesn’t understand it all. Everyone hides their emotions. Everyone. Otherwise we’d have people sobbing in the streets. It isn’t a huge problem, that he considers his own problem to be in anyway similar to the life-threatening situation gays find themselves in speaks volumes.

It’s painfully out of touch, it’s clear he didn’t do any research into this very very sensitive issue and has little idea what the victims of homophobia go through on a daily basis.

*Circa 1945 of course.

 

What I see you arguing is akin to saying that, circa 1945, it would be invalid to oppose racism because you were bullied in school, and thus empathized with people that were being bullied to an extreme degree all the time. I don't think that sort of argument makes much sense at all.

People draw sympathy from all sorts of things, and personal experience is one of them. I don't see sympathizing with people to be a bad thing.

 

Honestly.

Since you seem completely and utterly unaware of the implications of what you posted, I suppose I'll have to explain it to you. You are one to talk about being blinded, since you seem unable to grasp anything that has been said to you about this. Anything that disagrees with you at least.

First off, the situations are not comparable. They exist on totally different levels. One might embarrass you a bit. On one hand, some chap got a picture taken of him kissing his girlfriend. Fine. He’ll be embarrassed for a week at most. Whatever. Big whoop. I got pictures taken of me dozing off in class once. It was even up on removed. Guess what? In a day or two it was over. That was the worst of it.

When someone who is gay, in the closet, gets a picture taken of them kissing their boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, they can be denied jobs because of it. Legally. They can expect to be bombarded with emails, hatemail mostly, they can expect to be told they can burn in a certain fiery place for a good long time because of it. Or even worse, they have certain blind fools tell them, lovingly and gently, that they’re hated by a deity because of it and they need to change or else. They could be sent to glorify brainwashing camps because of it. In short, one results in a day or mild uncomfortable sensations. The other can straight up ruin someone’s life.

They cannot be compared. The mere fact you say something that hurts, kills and otherwise ruins other people is less important to you then airing out your own personal problems (as you did in this blog) shows such a fundamental lack of respect that it staggers the mind.

 

He is saying that he sympathizes more with those in the closet due to his own experience with having to hide his feelings. Please explain how that is so terrible, because I'd really like to know how sympathizing with people is a bad thing. It may feel a little bit better to pull out the pitchforks and torches because he doesn't agree with you 100% on everything, but I don't think doing that is founded on the facts here.

I think what is happening here really does draw back to his argument - that many of the ills of our society is that people just can't communicate with each other. I think if people actually did try to communicate with each other instead of pulling out the pitchforks because they disagree, we'd find a lot more common ground and get a lot more done. But when you can't even sympathize with people, we have a problem.

I think you express a wonderful sentiment here. Expressing sympathy towards basically everyone might not be enough for some people, but I think most people would find it to be rather nice.

During the Revolutionary War we came within one day of annexing Canada, and during the Mexican-American War we nearly absorbed the entirety of Mexico.

 

This means that, in some alternate reality, the United States takes up very nearly the entirety of North America.

Don't forget we had control of Haiti, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic at points too.

Yes, but it's sad the Egypt's princess had died.

Egypt had a princess? I did not hear about this in the media.

Sorry about your mother... Although it seems like this was a bit crazy, banning you from her house seems more than a bit over the top. Most parents would be very happy their son spent the whole day riding a bike instead of being indoors.

That's in reference to the First Amendment of the United States, which does not apply on BZPower.

Um, no it is not. It is a basic summation of the views of the French philosopher Voltaire, as written by the English writer S.G. Tallentyre in her bigoraphy of Voltaire (The Friends of Voltaire). As far as I can tell, neither France nor England are governed by the Constitution or the First Amendment.

 

Funny how people use the words, "bigot" "haters" "radicals" "extremists" "ignorant" to label people if we disagree with them.

 

Rather funny to me.

 

(I do realize that a few of those words I mentioned, were not mentioned in this blog or any of the comments, but they have been.)

sure is funny when people call a bigot a bigot, and someone who refuses to be educated ignorant. funny how we're using words by their definitions. isn't it funny how language works?

 

By 'refuse to be educated' you mean 'refuse to change their beliefs to what I believe in'. With the sort of confrontational attitude your camp has, it is not surprising many people refuse to the change their beliefs. Why would they? If they view you as intolerant, disrespectful, or disparaging towards them, why should they be inclined to listen to you?

I'm going to reply in a very summarized way. I am hearing so much about how the opinions of people against homosexuality should not be allowed to post their opinions if they are insulting, etc. If someone posts insulting comments, they will be deleted by a staff member. That's that. But that's not what I'm getting at. I'm trying to tell you, that us people over here that don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, but are tolerant of it and have no prejudice, discrimination, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, whatsoever, are getting pressured just as much as those that are discriminating. Let's be honest, you are being condescending. You think you're right, just like I think I'm right. But I think you are missing my point. There is no reason for any of us to insult each other. There is no reason for us to argue like a bunch of two-year-olds. There is no reason for us to be condescending toward each other. Whether you like it or not, calling someone a bigot may or may not hurt them. If it does, that's on you. That makes you just like the people that insulted you.

 

I have an idea. How about we act like civil people, sit down, drink a cup of coffee, and discuss this without any insults; just pure logic, common sense, and some legitimate support for our ideas. It really doesn't matter if someone insults you. That does not give you a right--in other words, some kind of moral exception--to go and insult someone back.

 

-Rez

This. Please, listen to this everybody. If you have the better argument, there should be no reason for you to insult anyone.

The issue is pretty simple to me. The moment you use hateful speech and try to take away someone's rights you pretty much lose the right to have an opinion. Calling someone a "bigot" is a statement and a fact(assuming they have actually said intolerant/hurtful things).

 

Sadly, sitting down and talking about a lot of issues has gotten us nowhere in the world. Not allowing hateful speech would not be impossible, it would be the right thing to do.

But what do you define as hateful speech? Westboro Baptist Church, or someone simply saying 'I don't support gay marriage' (like Barack Obama did for his presidential campaign and the first half of his presidency)? The fact of the matter is, by lumping everyone into one camp or the other and having one camp be 'awesome heroes' and the other 'disgusting bigots', you don't get anywhere. Aside from failing to recognize that around half of the 'disgusting bigots' side favor civil unions (essentially 'marriage' with a different name), it also lumps them in with the true 'disgusting bigots' (like Westboro), which actually cheapens just how disgusting and bigoted groups like Westboro are.

I never said not allowing 'hateful speech' would be impossible. I said having a reasonable, constructive discussion that doesn't devolve into 'you are a terrible bigot' or 'you are immoral' is, and would be, impossible under both current rules and any rule change. It has clearly been shown, very repeatedly, that this topic can not be discussed constructively here, at all. And part of it is due to the attitude that sitting down and having a constructive discussion on such an important issue will 'get us nowhere'. It depends on what you define 'nowhere' as. Is it going to change many minds? Probably not. But it would maybe, just maybe, spread a little bit of understanding. Understanding is a bit lacking on both sides if you ask me.

I think any system where half the country will be free to speak and the other will be silenced is a bad idea, regardless of how you spin it. Regardless of what side you are on, not everyone on the other side is evil and not everyone on your side is a saint. The issue is far more complex than that.

In my humble opinion if both sides would just sit down and talk about it - without the insults or labels - everyone would be a whole lot better off, but clearly that is impossible here and, more importantly, would be impossible if you ban either side from speaking their opinion. This is a children's website still and the topic of sexuality is undoubtedly an adult one, and adult content isn't allowed here. That's my two cents, really.

No, that's not really it at all. The insidious nature of the patriarchy is that it's predominantly subconscious, and that it permeates our entire culture. It's not some small cabal of people pulling the strings - this is not a conspiracy theory - it's centuries of aggression and harmful tradition and misogynistic concepts that we take for granted because they're so ingrained in our society now.

 

By pulling back and being aware of these things, we can overcome them, in solidarity, and achieve equality among genders!

 

It's not a theory or a concept. It's literal, observable fact that our society is male-dominated. And believe me, it's anything but "dear" to me.

If the patriarchy is real, men have done a terrible job implementing it. If you take a good look at society, right now, you'll find just about as much evidence of discrimination against men as discrimination against women. Jail time, capital punishment, child support, custody rulings, and the draft are blatantly discriminatory against men, and there is plenty of social stigma related to leaving children alone with men.

I'm not saying there aren't issues on the women's side - to the contrary, there are plenty of them. But the folly of feminism is that it aims to solve all gender issues by focusing on only one gender. History is much more complex than just 'male over female'. If that was the case, why did men fight exclusively in wars? Why were women and children given precedence in emergencies and were spared in war, while men were left to die and were slaughtered in war? Why were men expected to perform almost all work?

Okay, I would actually have a much better idea of what was going down if I knew that "Teh PATRIARCHY" was a reference to. If it turns out there's some truly offensive meaning to that name, I get it. Otherwise, I just read it and I thought it was something completely random.

 

24601

The patriarchy is a concept in feminist theory that the world, generally, is dominated by all males so that all females can be subjugated, and that there are many elite males who conspire to keep it that way. I think the concept is a bit lacking in many regards (I believe there are more than a few logical inconsistencies in the theory), but it is apparently a dearly-held belief to many. I don't know about The Scanty Panty, but I would not have gotten involved with that if I knew there was going to be the kind of backlash there was.

I MADE A JOKE ABOUT CHANGING MY TO TEH PATRIARCHY AND EVERYONE WENT BALLISTIC. ESPECIALLY MCSMEAG. THEN TN05 CHANGED HIS BLOG NAME AND EVERYONE WENT BALLISTIC. ALSO AUTOMATION THINKS DREAMWORKS IS BETTER THAN PIXAR AND PEOPLE ALMOST WENT BALLISTIC. WHY ARE WE TYPING IN ALL CAPS?

Pretty much this. Jokes are jokes, but oh well.

 

 

 

Ah yes, the patriarchy, the feminist version of the NWO...

I kid. Sort of.

comparing reality to fiction is a great way to get people not to take you seriously

 

Well, I mean, if you look at it, he has a bit of a point. XD

 

Uhh

 

no?

 

I'm not going to get overtly political here: there are plenty of problems in the world that can be traced to international agreements, but there is not NWO. Similarly, there are many problems in the world that can be traced to gender, but there is no patriarchy. That's my opinion on the matter and I will leave it at that - it may rub some people the wrong way, but I think it reflects what a good portion of society would agree with.

 

Ah yes, the patriarchy, the feminist version of the NWO...

I kid. Sort of.

comparing reality to fiction is a great way to get people not to take you seriously

 

Maybe you didn't read the last half of my comment.

Ah yes, the patriarchy, the feminist version of the NWO...

I kid. Sort of.

 

Ah. Texas.

 

We really should sell, no, give it to China. We lose nothing and we weaken China.

California would be a better gift to the Chinese. Also why does everyone hate Texas as if it were the source of all evil?

 

Because it is the opposite of California.

Just saying, if you don't like it, there's 49 other states you can move to.

Seconded, and I'm sure there are many people in states with more liberal abortion laws that would say the same to opponents of those laws in their states.

What are people getting upset about this time?

An abortion law.

Needless to say, some people are very happy and some people are very unhappy.

I'm cursed with fair skin and usually burn at the very thought of sunlight. Needless to say this has happened to me on a number of occasions, and none of them were any fun.

Well, I hear you there. Pale skin and sun are not a very friendly combination.

A couple of weeks ago, I got sunburned, too. I was on a beach in Sarasota, by the Gulf of Mexico, when I fell asleep for a couple of hours. Though if you ask me, the itching is definitely better than the searing pain that lasts for half a week. It hurt to rest against a seat or lie down on bed. Yikes!

 

You're right, though. Ice cold showers never felt so good.

 

24601

I didn't mind the searing pain as much, really, but I can see your point - the itching has pretty much subsided by now, but searing would have lasted for a week or two.

Microsoft screwed up big with the Xbox One. I'll settle for the PS4.

Yeah, I think they expected Sony to do everything they did - DRM, price, and maybe always-online. Sony doing the exact opposite is going to immediately harm the Xbox One market and could alienate a good chunk of the Xbox 360 base (PS3 and Xbox 360 sold about evenly this generation).

I'll probably wait a year or two to get the PS4 (namely because I want a Wii U and 3DS first), but I will get it. I have both Xboxes, but I have no intention of ever getting the Xbone.

-TN05