From Bullying Gays to Gays who bully...

[SlaverTickler]

Uh, wow.

Is it possible for you to start a post with out the word Uh at the beginning?

Find me a credible news source confirming that this is actually something we need to look out for --- one link from someone who isn't Bill O'Reilly or a group linked to the religious right. That's my point - your sources are terrible. This thing is 3 years old, and I never heard about it, nor any follow-up. This coming from someone who follows the news religiously.

Have any gay rights groups sued O'Reilly for this? I am no fan of Mr. O'Reilly, but does that mean that things like this don't ever happen? To assume that would be to become the very thing you claim to oppose... except on the other side of the coin.

We all have our "biases." Mine doesn't use right-wing media to discuss a non-issue, blow it out of proportion, then use it to somehow say it's equal to the epidemic of teenage gay suicides.

You mean like these post by Madcap...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hangi...+terrorizing+America+with+pink...-a0168283564

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...wse-all-issues/2007/fall/the-oh-really-factor

Witch (unlike yourself or Bill O'Rielly) take a more neural look at the topic of Homosexual gangs, and say "yes they exist" but "The aren't as hostile as Mr. O'Rielly would have you believe.". This means their is a group called GTO (Gays Taking Over) and DTO (Dyke's Taking Over). I don't like any group with the title Taking Over in the name. I didn't like Hitlers little group (Nazi's taking over) nor did I care for Stalin's (Commies Taking Over) or G.W. Bush's (Republicans Taking Over), but in G.W.'s case he was "elected to office". Off course their is Obama Democrats Taking Over (complete with everything but a hand gesture "Yes We Can") What could today be a group of street thug could tomorrow be the Homosexuals Nation Of Islam, or the KKK, I don't like the idea on of that do you?

Who said this? Ninety percent of the people most important to me are straight, so how would that make sense? Nowhere in the subtext of anything I've ever written, my 2000 or so posts, says this. All I said was that you can't take a fake news story, quote bullshit sources, then say it's the same as the actual legitimate problem happening in almost every school in the country.

Thats just the way it came across, if I am wrong, I am sorry.

I'm not on a soapbox, and I didn't start this in the first place. I felt I needed to voice dissent since the other comments previously didn't challenge what I found to be bullshit.

You are entitled to be the voice of dissent... lord knows I have done so in most of my post as well. However, as I pointed out, to entirly dismiss the idea that these gangs exist, and that they could be a threat to other people is to be the opposit of O'Rielly, but to the same extream.

 

[SlaverTickler]

This.

And spreading this sort of press around is just going to cause more hostility towards gays. I was bullied a lot in grade school, and after school shootings became the latest scare, I was alienated and picked on even more by my peers because they saw me as threatening. And I can see "news" like this causing the same type of thing. So as a bisexual girl who many people find a bit intimidating, I can't help but read this and be a little scared.

The bad things committed by Homosexuals should be swept under the rug while the bad things done to them should be front page new? How about the bad things done by and to should both be considered news worthy and leave it at that. Democrat, republican, with us or against us, the left or the right, you just can't win with some people.

 

[AmericaRocks]

The bad things committed by Homosexuals should be swept under the rug while the bad things done to them should be front page new? How about the bad things done by and two should both be considered new worthy and leave it at that. Democrat, republican, with us or against us, the left or the right, you just can't win with some people.

I didn't say they should be swept under the rug. All I said was that reading stories like this made me a little worried (kind of irrationally, I'll admit) that violent lesbian gang rape would become the latest scare, and that happening would personally affect me and the way other people view me.

 

[SlaverTickler]

I didn't say they should be swept under the rug. All I said was that reading stories like this made me a little worried (kind of irrationally, I'll admit) that violent lesbian gang rape would become the latest scare, and that happening would personally affect me and the way other people view me.

People who would be effected like that, aren't really worth the time it take to worry about thier opinion. For the record, I have no issue with your "alternitive" life style. As long as you aren't forcing anybody into anything. Beside, if your life style offends some up tight bible thumpers then it gives me even more reason to cheer you on...

 

[SlaverTickler]

That's the argument you want to prosecute. I never claimed wealth had anything to do with the coverage one way or the other. You did. Prove it. Show your method.

No, you didn't. You claimed that it was strictly about race, and based on your response, I would have to believe you have nothing to back that up.

Yeah, the "propaganda" of nondiscrimination, people being equal, pragmatism and the greatest good for the greatest number. It's practically communism, eh?

I am no friend of Communism. I am also no friend of Bill O'Rielly. However your own links state that the GTO and the DTO exist, only that their actions may be exaggerated by O'Rielly's people. However a gang is a gang, thugs are thugs, and wrong is wrong.

 

[AmericaRocks]

People who would be effected like that, aren't really worth the time it take to worry about thier opinion. For the record, I have no issue with your "alternitive" life style. As long as you aren't forcing anybody into anything. Beside, if your life style offends some up tight bible thumpers then it gives me even more reason to cheer you on...

Yeah, I know this, but more people than a lot of people might think will be affected by it. Whatever, mainly just my paranoia.

 

[Capnmad]

With respect, you need to pay more attention to what you read, and for that matter, what you write.

Since the burden of proof falls to the prosecution I will ask you to prove to me of any time when a wealthy black family has been over looked for a middle or lower class white family.

That's the argument you want to prosecute. I never claimed wealth had anything to do with the coverage one way or the other. You did. Prove it. Show your method.

No, you didn't. You claimed that it was strictly about race, and based on your response, I would have to believe you have nothing to back that up.

Here is the totality of the response from which you derived I was arguing that it was "strictly about race". Read it slowly and carefully.:

One cannot blame a victim or victim set, nor diminish their suffering contingent on the whims of the media that cover them, or the whims of celebrities making PSAs, so it's rather irrelevant.

Nor can one necessarily attribute said whims to the minority status. A while back, the media trend seemed to fetishize the disappearance/abductions of young, light-haired white girls, but ignored the similar disappearances of black girls.

Did the white girls get the coverage because of the minority status of white folks?

I talk about whims of the media, what rationales one cannot attribute to said whims, and I ask you if the white girls got coverage because of some minority status I don't know about. At no point did I say the coverage was due to any single factor.

Allow me to highlight where you did. I don't need your whole post, because what you said was concise and specific:

The example you give isn't a matter of race, it's a matter of money.

That's a very succinct, absolute statement. Now either back it up or back away.

Further, if you keep conjuring arguments I never made and keep asking me (and at least one other at this point) to defend arguments that you make up, I will have to leave this discussion because you are not in fact debating, but ghost-writing fictions, demanding others accept authorship, and demanding that they defend what you write.

Someone else might think you're doing this deliberately, but I think you're just not reading carefully.

 

[sasaxrah]

Is it possible for you to start a post with out the word Uh at the beginning?

Um, hmmm, tell you what. I won't start with "uh" if you try spell checking. Deal?

Have any gay rights groups sued O'Reilly for this?

It's not libel because it wasn't committed against any gay rights group. What could they sue for, exactly? Sadly, crappy and incendiary reporting is not illegal as long as you aren't libelous against a specific person. And even if HRC or GLAAD could sue and didn't, what would that prove?

You mean like these post by Madcap...

So what, like once, three years ago? Where there's been no other incident in three years? That's what you chose to post about? One incident where 2 of the people arrested were straight males? That's what this whole debate is over? You have spent post after post completing obscuring the actual problem. Then you title your post "From Bullying Gays to Gays who bully..." as if there is anything close to a comparison?

Speaking of which, here's the actual problem:

http://www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth

http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/585-1.pdf

This means their is a group called GTO (Gays Taking Over) and DTO (Dyke's Taking Over). I don't like any group with the title Taking Over in the name. I didn't like Hitlers little group (Nazi's taking over) nor did I care for Stalin's (Commies Taking Over)

Nice Nazi reference. Always good to compare anything you disagree with to Hitler. And for the record, the official name of the Nazi party was The National Socialist German Workers' Party... nowhere is "taking over" in their title. Unfortunately, so many call Nazi at everything that your point is cliche, if not totally bogus.

Thats just the way it came across, if I am wrong, I am sorry.

Thank you.

 

[WorkInProgress]

One of the websites is called "American for Truth About Homosexuality." What does that tell you?

 

[SlaverTickler]

One of the websites is called "American for Truth About Homosexuality." What does that tell you?

Nothing.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Thank you.

Your welcome.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Further, if you keep conjuring arguments I never made and keep asking me (and at least one other at this point) to defend arguments that you make up, I will have to leave this discussion because you are not in fact debating, but ghost-writing fictions, demanding others accept authorship, and demanding that they defend what you write.

Let me ask you this, would an average blue collar person get the same coverage regarding their child being killed as Bill Cosby's son did? No, why, because Cosby is a wealthy celebrity. Social Status, money, something that isn't as plentyful in some comunities as others makes the difference. Do you think William Cosby JR was the only person to die that day? No, but his dad is an famouse, wealthy person, so it gets notice.

Thats how it goes.
ST

 

[Capnmad]

Let me ask you this, would an average blue collar person get the same coverage regarding their child being killed as Bill Cosby's son did? No, why, because Cosby is a wealthy celebrity. Social Status, money, something that isn't as plentyful in some comunities as others makes the difference. Do you think William Cosby JR was the only person to die that day? No, but his dad is an famouse, wealthy person, so it gets notice.

We may speculate about the media's motivations, and almost certainly, celebrity and wealth play a part in this story. But group behavior is very messy and tough to pin down singular motivations, and the news media is a VERY large and complex group. There may be other motivations in addition to these.

When it comes to the season of disappearing white girls, I don't seem to recall any with Bill Cosby-status families of wealth and fame. Maybe you can dig that up to help support your contention. I could, however, mount a pretty sound argument that their race and majority status was a factor that led to increased coverage.

Remember the summer of shark attacks? Was wealth or minority status at play in those? Or is it that people are emotionally effected by sharks somehow, and one team saw another news team was getting eyeballs on their story, so they sought out and promoted coverage of the same? Was there liberal anti-shark bias coming into play there?

And all of this sort of misses the more important point: When there's a news story, it's important to learn something and use that information to improve things. Children disappearing? Maybe you should pay more attention to where your own are. Cosby's son dies? Maybe fame isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sharks marauding the shore? Maybe that red surfboard wasn't the best choice.

So then we come to the current epidemic of suicides of gay teens and teens accused of being gay, though they may not so self-identify. For a moment, the spotlight seems to have been focused on this issue. What do we do with it?

Do we take the moment to discuss how parents can work together with schools to discourage bullying, and promote education and tolerance and the importance of tolerance no matter what walk of life you come from?

Or do we dig up years-old debunked stories to give voice to an undercurrent of wrongheaded disenfranchisement, and in confusing the issue, diminish its perceived seriousness, and squander any opportunity we might have to improve things until we watch the media's spotlight move on to the next shiny thing on the horizon?

This is where you're going to find anger. When people see a problem, and someone else tries to distract from and diminish it by saying, "Well, party x didn't get their due", people who take shit seriously are going to get mad. Because all it does is do a great job at deflecting the real issues.

 

[WorkInProgress]

This is so inane, the whole practice of talking as if there were some great big fundamental conspiratorial hypocrisy of, when Scenario A happens, everybody gets all excited and makes a big deal about it, but when Scenario B happens, nobody cares. Inequalities of reaction and coverage happen for complex and intangible reasons, and there's no centralized hypocrisy behind it. But the notion of a phrase like "the truth about homosexuality" tells me loads. It puts the onus on the gay population, treating them as an interest group claiming sympathy, and trying to prove that "they" haven't sufficiently earned that sympathy because there are gays who commit acts of terror. Looking at those websites, by the way, I have nothing to convince me that they didn't make the whole thing up. I'm always suspicious of organizations that try to claim that they're the ones daring to reveal this great cosmic truth that the rest of the media have covered up.

 

[SlaverTickler]

We may speculate about the media's motivations, and almost certainly, celebrity and wealth play a part in this story. But group behavior is very messy and tough to pin down singular motivations, and the news media is a VERY large and complex group. There may be other motivations in addition to these.

When it comes to the season of disappearing white girls, I don't seem to recall any with Bill Cosby-status families of wealth and fame. Maybe you can dig that up to help support your contention. I could, however, mount a pretty sound argument that their race and majority status was a factor that led to increased coverage.

Remember the summer of shark attacks? Was wealth or minority status at play in those? Or is it that people are emotionally effected by sharks somehow, and one team saw another news team was getting eyeballs on their story, so they sought out and promoted coverage of the same? Was there liberal anti-shark bias coming into play there?

And all of this sort of misses the more important point: When there's a news story, it's important to learn something and use that information to improve things. Children disappearing? Maybe you should pay more attention to where your own are. Cosby's son dies? Maybe fame isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sharks marauding the shore? Maybe that red surfboard wasn't the best choice.

So then we come to the current epidemic of suicides of gay teens and teens accused of being gay, though they may not so self-identify. For a moment, the spotlight seems to have been focused on this issue. What do we do with it?

Do we take the moment to discuss how parents can work together with schools to discourage bullying, and promote education and tolerance and the importance of tolerance no matter what walk of life you come from?

Or do we dig up years-old debunked stories to give voice to an undercurrent of wrongheaded disenfranchisement, and in confusing the issue, diminish its perceived seriousness, and squander any opportunity we might have to improve things until we watch the media's spotlight move on to the next shiny thing on the horizon?

This is where you're going to find anger. When people see a problem, and someone else tries to distract from and diminish it by saying, "Well, party x didn't get their due", people who take shit seriously are going to get mad. Because all it does is do a great job at deflecting the real issues.

So I make my point, and you bring up a Shark attack... this conversation is over.

 

[Capnmad]

So I make my point, and you bring up a Shark attack... this conversation is over.

I asked you to back yourself up in one situation. Failing to do so, you then brought up another and tossed in Bill Cosby. The precedent was set.

Frankly, the conversation was dying when you couldn't make accurate assessments of what others said.

It was over when you couldn't answer my inquiries or back up your arguments and had to either resort to new ones or demand that others make your arguments for you.

I thought adding the sharks helped spruce up what was left. 🙂

Peace.

 

[SlaverTickler]

I found this... is this considered legit?

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/lgbtq.html

 

[SlaverTickler]

No, the actual problem is bullying PERIOD, NOT the bullying of a single group of people. The second problem is that because a single group is being used to help push this point, people have lost perspective and somehow believe one group of people will be more greatly affected than others. Whether it is a homosexual child being bullied or whether than homosexual child is doing the bullying, there is NO DIFFERENCE. People put on their blinders to a cause they feel is worth fighting for and ignore the rest. As if somehow the fat kid being bullied to the point of considering suicide does not deserve equal attention.

Folks need to quit ignoring the big picture and focusing on only one aspect of it. Regardless of WHY the bullying is happening, the bullying itself is what should be focused on.

Well said. Example, Spousal abuse can happen to both men and women, yet nothing is done to provide a haven for men who are on the recieving end. Why? Racism happens to everybody, but when a group of visable minorities beat up a white person is it considered a hate crime? I have never heard of that. It only stands to reason that there are Gay Rights Extreamist who would do these types of things... or do the people here think Homosexuals are above doing anything questionable? Whites have the Klan, Blacks have the Nation, so why should the gay comunity be any different then anybody else.

 

[SlaverTickler]

I asked you to back yourself up in one situation. Failing to do so, you then brought up another and tossed in Bill Cosby. The precedent was set.

Frankly, the conversation was dying when you couldn't make accurate assessments of what others said.

It was over when you couldn't answer my inquiries or back up your arguments and had to either resort to new ones or demand that others make your arguments for you.

I thought adding the sharks helped spruce up what was left. 🙂

Peace.

I did back up my arguement, I made my point, you simply could not except the facts as they were laid out before you. It wouldn't have mattered what I said, you would have simply repeated your drivil of "Make Your Point". My assesment of what most are saying here is this. It's okay to hurt somebody as long as they are in the majority, minorities can do no wrong in the eyes of bleading heart liberals, and even if you prove they can the bleaders will demand more proof forever and ever.

Now put that in your shark and smoke it.
ST

 

[BlackestLily]

In my 4+ years of being in the classroom and having MANY kids who were gay, zero did ANY sort of bullying to my knowledge. However, I did witness many times where they were bullied, boys were called gay who weren't (meant to be an insult - slamming a boys sexuality is apparently the worst offense in high school), and so forth. We recently received a new student who is also gay who recently exited rehab because she was not only bullied by her peers about her sexuality, but by her parents also, so she turned to drugs and alcohol.

This has nothing to do with news media. This is a direct experience.

 

[SlaverTickler]

In my 4+ years of being in the classroom and having MANY kids who were gay, zero did ANY sort of bullying to my knowledge. However, I did witness many times where they were bullied, boys were called gay who weren't (meant to be an insult - slamming a boys sexuality is apparently the worst offense in high school), and so forth. We recently received a new student who is also gay who recently exited rehab because she was not only bullied by her peers about her sexuality, but by her parents also, so she turned to drugs and alcohol.

This has nothing to do with news media. This is a direct experience.

A misconseption some people may have about me starting this thread was that I am trying to say "Those evil gays have it coming, look at what they do." well, that isn't what I was trying to do. I was simply trying to show the otherside of things. There are people of all walks that are bad... some are even evil.

Not that it is right, but when young teenage males call each other fag. queer, or gay, it is generally meant as an afront to thier masculinity. The reason for that has allot to do with the fact that they see gay men as effeminent, and that taking it in the ass is something you do when you are somebodies "bitch" (ah the wonderful world of Prison Films and TV). I am sorry that your newest student has gone through what she has, however I am glad she was able to get some help to deal with some of it. Being a teen can be rough, especially if you are unwilling to conform. I went through it, and I wasn't anywhere near the lovable big mouth I am now... I was actually pretty quiet back then. I guess their is just something about the Irish in my blood that brings out the worst in others LOL.

 

[BlackestLily]

A misconseption some people may have about me starting this thread was that I am trying to say "Those evil gays have it coming, look at what they do." well, that isn't what I was trying to do. I was simply trying to show the otherside of things. There are people of all walks that are bad... some are even evil.

Not that it is right, but when young teenage males call each other fag. queer, or gay, it is generally meant as an afront to thier masculinity. The reason for that has allot to do with the fact that they see gay men as effeminent, and that taking it in the ass is something you do when you are somebodies "bitch" (ah the wonderful world of Prison Films and TV). I am sorry that your newest student has gone through what she has, however I am glad she was able to get some help to deal with some of it. Being a teen can be rough, especially if you are unwilling to conform. I went through it, and I wasn't anywhere near the lovable big mouth I am now... I was actually pretty quiet back then. I guess their is just something about the Irish in my blood that brings out the worst in others LOL.

No, I understand where you are coming from. 🙂 But the thing is, I haven't ever assumed that gay people don't bully because they are gay.

I understand it's probably not reported as much in the media. I don't think it's covered as much though because, really, I have found gays as a whole don't really find themselves in a place needing to bully other people sexually. Also if someone is bullying someone else, they don't say, "This straight man bullied this other straight man..." and so on because unless it's bullying DIRECTLY towards someone's sexuality, their sexual preference isn't worth noting.

I guess as an example, when someone posts a thread here with a male and female tickling one or the other, I've never seen someone who is gay come in and say, "Ew that's gross, why would you post that content here you assholes!?" But I've definitely seen it posted over and OVER from straight men when they come across M/M content (even when the link is labeled M/M before you click to see).

So I think a lot of people here don't assume you're outright trying to be anti-gay, but the percentage of gays who are bullied because of their sexuality preference with the same gender far outweighs those who are bullied simply because they are straight. And yes, I did see the link you posted of gays bullying other gays, but that's not a sexuality issue...really...just outright bullying, which isn't reserved for any one group. So it raises people's hair to see something like this come up, when it shouldn't matter who's getting bullied. Bullying just needs to stop.

 

[sasaxrah]

I found this... is this considered legit?

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/lgbtq.html

It doesn't prove your point. Where does it mention gay gangs raping others? This is primarily domestic abuse or rape.

Why is this thread still active...

 

[SlaverTickler]

It doesn't prove your point. Where does it mention gay gangs raping others? This is primarily domestic abuse or rape.

Why is this thread still active...

Because Leftwing crybabies aren't smart enough to ignore me. Besides you thing gays are above that sort of thing right?

 

[SlaverTickler]

So I think a lot of people here don't assume you're outright trying to be anti-gay, but the percentage of gays who are bullied because of their sexuality preference with the same gender far outweighs those who are bullied simply because they are straight. And yes, I did see the link you posted of gays bullying other gays, but that's not a sexuality issue...really...just outright bullying, which isn't reserved for any one group. So it raises people's hair to see something like this come up, when it shouldn't matter who's getting bullied. Bullying just needs to stop.

I think some do assume that very thing. However I agree with you, it should be about people being bullied, not just about Gay People being bullied. All they do when they single out the Homosexuals being abused is real make them a bigger target.