Someone once said; that there are no monsters, just very bad, evil minded people.
General / Off-Topic Orlando
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
Well, 'evil' isn't any more constructive, given it's just another entirely emotive term.
Understand your point. But the issue is, easy targets.
In the US, in recent years, attacks have been made upon Cinemas, Infant schools, Colleges, Churches, nightclubs.
The common denominator is they are all easy targets. Inoffensive people who are unlikely to be capable of defending themselves.
I don't doubt that there have been attacks on some gun shows, Rodeos and gung ho sporting events such as Football, associated with tough guys, but I seriously doubt any were aimed generally at the events and their participants. If any have occurred, they will almost certainly be isolated incidents aimed at specific individuals.
That's why this attack and others similar are example of bullying.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that LGBT people are not being routinely attacked. Nor that they are being singled out because they are LGBT. But think about it, what possible reason could any have to attack an LGBT person.
They might say they are offended by men kissing. But why are they watching?
They might say their sexual activities are offensive to their religion. But what exactly do they know about anyone's sexual activities?
They might say they don't like the idea of a male pretending to be female. For what reason? Why get so uptight over the way someone chooses to dress or what they call themselves?
Don't you see? The problem is these bullies are obsessed. They are with what LGBT people do or think. They seek to impose their will upon others, in the case of Orlando, on LGBT people.
It's essentially tantamount to social Forced Sexual Contact. (Actual word deleted by Frontier).
Jazz Jennings Age 6. She is now a 15 YO girl.
Last edited:
Erm, isn't it a tad ridiculous not to mention inaccurate and misleading to count mass killings as "bullying"?
Bullying as a word functions just fine to describe what happens in the school playground, workplace, or across social media. It ceases to function when it pertains to a man firing a semi-automatic or automatic killing device at innocent people.
I--- have no way to respond to that... It just seems incomprehensively naive to be bemused as to the many, varied and wacky reasons organisations or/and individuals peddle bigotry and judgement. A cursory investigation into bigoted views will reveal myriad justifications, some fixed hard in religious texts.
And I have absolutely no clue as to why you linked that photo.
You are right. The analogies at this level, have no sense
Bullying is the use of threat or fear to impose your will upon others.
While religious tests have been used to justify attacking LGBT people, these are cherry picked, especially in the case of the Bible. Deuteronomy Ch 22, V 23, 24.
The texts are just an excuse. Just as claiming all LGBT people are perverts who want to attack children, dogs and horses.
There was a time, in may parts of the world when couples of mixed race would be attacked. That that no-longer happens is down to the general, and right, revulsion most feel about racism.
People attack LGBT people for the same reason they attack any vulnerable, identifiable people, because they are easy targets. And those attacking are bullys.
There's a difference between, for example, snide remarks that whittle down someone's self-esteem and suddenly having your skull shattered by a round fired from a semi-auto.
...there is also no "threat or fear" or imposition of "will" when tools designed for killing are used on innocent people on a night out: it is just death/murder.
The particularly odious and oft cited (and I'd say gravely misunderstood/twisted) Leviticus is another.
Every child knows the difference between good and evil. What would you prefer, misguided or mentally ill, or what?
As you basically said before: The target was selected because it was an 'easy target'. These kind of weak minded and weak willed people, don't attack protected targets, such as an army camps etc. They attack the weak, the vulnerable, because they can.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I am not saying that I disagree with what you have to say, or your sentiments, but you really need to re-look at what constitutes 'bullying'. The families of the 96 killed at Hillsbrough, have felt bullied for close to 30 years. Their experiences have been nothing like the snide remarks, of the play ground bully.
Well, no, if you asked a 2-year-old what 'evil' was they wouldn't have a clue, unless they could repeat back what an adult had told them and that's just conditioning (very young children can frequently display collectively rewarding behaviour even when not prompted, sure, but that's more about our species being a necessarily social animal). Good and evil are perceived, frequently subjective - and/or religious - moral constructs, they are not demonstrable or observable. Very young children may recognise a difference between constructive/positive and destructive/negative actions and behaviour, but that's a very different thing to adult concepts of rigidly binary morality.
As for mentally ill? If the individual is, then obviously it's an appropriately descriptive term. Crucially, recognising something like mental illness - or even societal/environmental conditioning - leaves room for productive responses, i.e. improved awareness about mental health, better ways to identify and help those who may pose a risk, and so on.
...wait, so you're also trying to deny it was a decidedly homophobic attack? Would you rather he assaulted an openly gay/bi/trans army unit instead? Because that'd be a bit of a stretch...
At 2 years old, that would make it an infant.
The second part of your answer, just tells me, we are not going to discuss this at an adult level. I would rather, the world lived in peace, not what you have, ridiculously suggested.
Well, I addressed three points, so "second part" is a bit vague. My stance on good/evil as constructs is an established and rather logical/reasonable point of view.
As for the third point - it was simply a challenge as to whether you see the assault as being identifiably homophobic.
Well lets take a guess: An LGBT night club attacked, so who was the target? Maybe the music makers, maybe the bar staff? Not even sure why I am humouring you anymore.
No, there isn't.
Both serve the same purpose, for the bully to impose his dominance over others.
...okay, let's rewind a bit.
Could you clarify what, precisely, is your point or observation about potential domestic terrorism if you peculiarly choose to just equate it to "bullying" (I quote: "That's why this attack and others similar are example of bullying")? As in, what is achieved by making that distinction?
In your OP you asserted that discussions about America's addiction to guns are off limits. Then you seemed to assert the Orlando attack was just a general lash out at the world, as opposed to a targeted slaughter of a particular section of society. And apparently even treating something as terrorism is a no-no: "The only solution is to treat each incidient as the isolated and evil criminal act it is".
Putting aside my complete objection to the use of the concept/word evil - what solutions might there then be? If civilian access to deadly weaponry isn't for discussion (even though Channel 4 News last night showed it's possible to walk off the street into a store in some states, and within 15mins be the 'proud' owner of a semi-auto rifle), nor social dynamics in terms of religious dogma vs liberal values... what is up for discussion? What, if anything, might be done in the future to stop such acts?
And can you maybe see why some might find your use of the term 'bullying' to describe the murder of 49 people with semi-automatic weapon a little insensitive, to put it mildly?
/edit
This piece by a Young Turk was an informal if still interesting piece on the shooting. It also tangentially outlines how dangerous the notion is to treat such acts as "isolated" (given nothing occurs in a vacuum).
Last edited:
1. Because all human conflict boils down to one seeking dominance over another. Terrorism is by definition, individuals acting through individual choice, identifying with a common goal. But the common goal is little more than a token. The terrorist in N Ireland, for example were mostly occupied in terrorising civilians, taking protection money and forcing young girls into prostitution. Apart from the IRA, they also marketed drugs. Thugs who disrupt football matches are motivated by the violence, they have little interest in football.
2. I asked that we don't discuss guns because such discussions are essentially pointless. America is awash with guns. If 90% of Americans supported gun control, that would leave 35mill who didn't. (Over half the population of the UK!). I hoped this discussion would be about the murders in Orlando and allow discussion on the issues of LGBTI equality and liberty.
3. None that I can see and none that I, and I'm sure, most non-Americans could ever understand. It is an America problem and best dealt with by them.
4. No, I don't. I sincerely hope we can all see terrorism, thuggery and these sorts of mass attacks from the same perspective as muggings, burglary, forced sex as the criminal acts they are. Dealt with by police and courts with the mass support of the general public, motivated by common good.
****************************************
Just watched the video link.
Understand the point about anti-gay being part of a culture passed down. Respectfully disagree.
The most vociferous anti-LGBT rhetoric, I have found, comes from those who are motivated by their own feelings. It's a reality that, as humans, we tend to join in with a crowd.
He makes the point that some seek to justify their anti-LGBT claims citing the Bible and Koran, while not attacking MacDonalds and others for serving pork or shellfish.
With respect, that is exactly the point I made. LGBT is an easy target, Pork and Shellfish consumption are not.
Bullys go for easy targets because they are essentially cowards.
But more importantly, when we, any of us, tolerate a bully, even in fun, we are encouraging that behaviour.
Last edited:
TO discuss the issues with LGBT equality etc..
This acronym, is a way to make it easier to talk about. I understand that this acronym has been around for a number of years, especially within the LGBT community itself; but it is only recently, that it is being used in the public domain. Using the acronym, makes it easier for; dare I say, normal people to speak of such things: To have to say; lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and trans-gender, raises all sorts of personal prejudices, peer-group pressures and programming. Which some; especially among the older generation, or religiously indoctrinated, who have been lead to believe that such things are wrong or against nature itself, find hard to discuss. Today, we say LGBT and think of rainbow flags and street parties, not some strange man, putting his mums frock on at the weekends.
It is a bit like the use of ICBM. If we, have to say, Inter Continental Ballistic Missile; we automatic think of something that represents, the horror of millions of deaths; but to say ICBM, sanitises the subject.
So does the LGBT community need this acronym; to make itself, more acceptable to the community as a whole?
Understand, that I have no issue with the LGBT community, or any type of community, unless they try to impose their beliefs or ideals, on to others.
I would say that the spell checker here, is a little bigoted. It won't accept trans-genders.
Last edited:
I hope not. But my understanding is the anachronisms are used because they are easier to say.
I potentially lost a few friends (on the basis they were friends of a friend of mine), but it doesn't matter. What matters is this is entirely just one more result of collective hypocrisy: people who believe there's a moral cause to forcing some semblance of a 'greater good' upon others, believing their cause makes them different from others. It's no different from any other shooting, any other war, or any other terrorist and non-terrorist attack.
I only hope every single member of the LGBT community takes this as reason enough to arm themselves like the Pink Pistols and Black Panthers. No one deserves to be a soft target. Period.
I only hope every single member of the LGBT community takes this as reason enough to arm themselves like the Pink Pistols and Black Panthers. No one deserves to be a soft target. Period.