Straight Guy in Wafflehouse beat down for homophobic slur

[LetalisK]

The free speech bubble bit came off a little homophobic, but you haven't said anything to suggest it so benefit of the doubt, just watch the phrasing a bit.

Two things. First, care to explain how my saying homophobes typically aren't going to come out of their legally protected bubbles is homophobic? Second, don't flatter yourself by thinking I care a wit about your condescending "benefit of the doubt" or warnings[footnote]Edit: My hostility towards your comment coming from the fact that, if my comment painted anyone in a bad light, it was homophobes, not homosexuals. My apologies if it was a simple misunderstanding.[/footnote].

With wider relevance, anyone who's been deeply engrained into believing gay people are scum of the earth aren't going to change. It's harsh but true. Allowing them to justify their hatred isn't a problem, because they already have, be it through religion or simply prejudice. They believe that wha they are doing is fully justified. Incidents like this don't make anyone MORE homophobic, they simply allow the homophobes to go ***** in their corner about "Fags" whilst having learnt that maybe messing with these guys is a bad idea.

Good point. Still doesn't excuse the use of violence though. "Oh, they're never going to change, so it's okay if we beat them into quiet submission."

Supporting what happened here is fully logical if you believe LGBT people are equal to everyone else, because it signifies a very clear message; "We are becoming intolerant of your intolerance."

No, it says we're okay using violence to silence someone. That violence is a reasonable action to take when someone says something that offends you. You can be intolerant of intolerance without beating someone up.

I'm not expecting anything big to come from this, but if more instances like this pop up, with gays defending themselves against intolerant slurs from fuckwits instead of just taking it, It would over all be a good thing.

Or you'd see more physical confrontations with gays on the punishing end of it because said homophobes have evidence of similar people to them getting beat up. I'm not going to make that gamble, even if I was okay with using violence to silence people. Oh, and by the way, I don't believe anyone has suggested gays just "take it".

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

The free speech bubble bit came off a little homophobic, but you haven't said anything to suggest it so benefit of the doubt, just watch the phrasing a bit.

Two things. First, care to explain how my saying homophobes typically aren't going to come out of their legally protected bubbles is homophobic? Second, don't flatter yourself by thinking I care a wit about your condescending "benefit of the doubt" or warnings[footnote]Edit: My hostility towards your comment coming from the fact that, if my comment painted anyone in a bad light, it was homophobes, not homosexuals. My apologies if it was a simple misunderstanding.[/footnote].

With wider relevance, anyone who's been deeply engrained into believing gay people are scum of the earth aren't going to change. It's harsh but true. Allowing them to justify their hatred isn't a problem, because they already have, be it through religion or simply prejudice. They believe that wha they are doing is fully justified. Incidents like this don't make anyone MORE homophobic, they simply allow the homophobes to go ***** in their corner about "Fags" whilst having learnt that maybe messing with these guys is a bad idea.

Good point. Still doesn't excuse the use of violence though. "Oh, they're never going to change, so it's okay if we beat them into quiet submission."

Supporting what happened here is fully logical if you believe LGBT people are equal to everyone else, because it signifies a very clear message; "We are becoming intolerant of your intolerance."

No, it says we're okay using violence to silence someone. That violence is a reasonable action to take when someone says something that offends you. You can be intolerant of intolerance without beating someone up.

I'm not expecting anything big to come from this, but if more instances like this pop up, with gays defending themselves against intolerant slurs from fuckwits instead of just taking it, It would over all be a good thing.

Or you'd see more physical confrontations with gays on the punishing end of it because said homophobes have evidence of similar people to them getting beat up. I'm not going to make that gamble, even if I was okay with using violence to silence people. Oh, and by the way, I don't believe anyone has suggested gays just "take it".

First one I take back, it seemed like you were talking about the gay people in a free speech bubble, not the homophobes. The way round you actually meant it makes far more sense, that was on me.

One thing bothers me though, "Oh, and by the way, I don't believe anyone has suggested gays just "take it".". Of course they have. That's the entire reason Gay bashing happened in the first place and legal ramifications didn't occur. It still happens today, but in a smaller way. There was a big story on this very site a couple of months ago where a university teacher told her gay pupils to "Tone it down a little" ergo, pretend to be something they aren't ergo, be how we want you to be implying that if you don't, you'll just have to take it. That part of your argument was idiotic, borderline offensive and completely un-thought out, because the whole reason gay people campaign for equal rights is because someone told them to just take it and they said no.

Look, your entire argument is based very firmly in pacifism, so you're biased at the opposite end of the spectrum to me. I'm not exactly advocating violence as a long term solution, I'm saying I prefer to see the homophobes on the punishment end for a change. My point is thus. We are polarized to such an extent if this argument continues, neither of us are going to convince the other that they are wrong, and we're probably going to descend into a heated argument that gets us nowhere. The best thing we can do is agree to disagree before this esculates.

 

[LetalisK]

One thing bothers me though, "Oh, and by the way, I don't believe anyone has suggested gays just "take it".". Of course they have. That's the entire reason Gay bashing happened in the first place and legal ramifications didn't occur. It still happens today, but in a smaller way. There was a big story on this very site a couple of months ago where a university teacher told her gay pupils to "Tone it down a little" ergo, pretend to be something they aren't ergo, be how we want you to be implying that if you don't, you'll just have to take it. That part of your argument was idiotic, borderline offensive and completely un-thought out, because the whole reason gay people campaign for equal rights is because someone told them to just take it and they said no.

And that teacher is wrong and has nothing to do with my argument that you just so wrongly insulted. Stop conflating ignoring the problems homosexuals face and advocating non-violence. It's not a false dilemma between letting gays beat up gay bashers and sitting in the corner, scuffing my shoe and saying "Well, gosh, I guess they'll just have to live with it." "Just taking it" is one of the last things I would advocate. It's not my argument, so stop trying to foist it onto me.

Also, I'm well aware someone, somewhere is saying gays should just "take it". However, I took it to mean you were saying people in this thread were saying that, people who were relevant to this discussion. If you find someone who is, please, point them out to me so I can make note of that disgusting attitude.

Look, your entire argument is based very firmly in pacifism, so you're biased at the opposite end of the spectrum to me. I'm not exactly advocating violence as a long term solution, I'm saying I prefer to see the homophobes on the punishment end for a change. My point is thus. We are polarized to such an extent if this argument continues, neither of us are going to convince the other that they are wrong, and we're probably going to descend into a heated argument that gets us nowhere. The best thing we can do is agree to disagree before this esculates.

I will be able to maintain my composure. But if you're just tired of this conversation, then I understand.

Edit: Fixed my quote tags and removed unintended condescension.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

One thing bothers me though, "Oh, and by the way, I don't believe anyone has suggested gays just "take it".". Of course they have. That's the entire reason Gay bashing happened in the first place and legal ramifications didn't occur. It still happens today, but in a smaller way. There was a big story on this very site a couple of months ago where a university teacher told her gay pupils to "Tone it down a little" ergo, pretend to be something they aren't ergo, be how we want you to be implying that if you don't, you'll just have to take it. That part of your argument was idiotic, borderline offensive and completely un-thought out, because the whole reason gay people campaign for equal rights is because someone told them to just take it and they said no.

And that teacher is wrong and has nothing to do with my argument that you just so wrongly insulted. Stop conflating ignoring the problems homosexuals face and advocating non-violence. It's not a false dilemma between letting gays beat up gay bashers and sitting in the corner, scuffing my shoe and saying "Well, gosh, I guess they'll just have to live with it." "Just taking it" is one of the last things I would advocate. It's not my argument, so stop trying to foist it onto me.

Also, I'm well aware someone, somewhere is saying gays should just "take it". However, I took it to mean you were saying people in this thread were saying that, people who were relevant to this discussion. If you find someone who is, please, point them out to me so I can make note of that disgusting attitude.

Look, your entire argument is based very firmly in pacifism, so you're biased at the opposite end of the spectrum to me. I'm not exactly advocating violence as a long term solution, I'm saying I prefer to see the homophobes on the punishment end for a change. My point is thus. We are polarized to such an extent if this argument continues, neither of us are going to convince the other that they are wrong, and we're probably going to descend into a heated argument that gets us nowhere. The best thing we can do is agree to disagree before this esculates.

I will be able to maintain my composure. But if you're just tired of this conversation, then I understand.

Edit: Fixed my quote tags and removed unintended condescension.

Dude, the entire basis of homophobia is that gay people are wrong for being gay. The extension of that is they deserve what they get, and that is when people say gay people should just take it, because they deserve it. I don't need to point out a specific person on this thread or even the wider world, because it's a basic logical connection you can make by simply looking at any homophobe of any degree. That gay people should "Just take it" is the obvious quality in anyone mildly homophobic, and something that is always in an extremely homophobic person by extension of that. To put it simply, it's an obvious logical conclusion that you can spot if you simply look at the nature of homophobia.

Your argument basically seems to be that my argument is wrong, but you haven't offered any other resolution to the situation they were in other than "Well they shouldn't have been violent". I'd also like to point out that this is why I'm only bringing up calling it quits because you seem on the verge of starting a whole thing that gets neither of us anywhere, due to the fact all you really want to do at this juncture is tell me I'm wrong and that violence is a very bad thing. (Sidenote, thanks for acknowledging the misunderstanding, most people tend to leap on the "You're bullshitting" bandwagon and make it a whole OTHER thing, so yeah, thanks for actually being decent about that.)