It's also come to my attention recently that Tyler's producer, Syd tha Kyd, is apparently a lesbian herself. I do not, by any means, think that lets Tyler off the hook with this stuff, but it does, along with all the praise they're getting from critics, listeners and the industry, make me wonder if there's something more to Tyler and Odd Future than the punk-ass skater kids I see on the surface.
I think there is. For all his shock lyrics, he goes pretty far out of the way in Goblin to point out that a lot of what he says is hyperbolic or completely made up. I remember him coming out against Prop 8, so that's something.
Now, whether or not his lyrics influence others negatively might be another conversation, but I feel like the album is a little more intelligent than Sara gives it credit for.
“First of all, every player has played with gay guys. It bothers me when I hear these reporters and jocks get on TV and say: ‘Oh, no guy can come out in a team sport. These guys would go crazy.’ First of all, quit telling me what I think. I’d rather have a gay guy who can play than a straight guy who can’t play.”
“We gossiped behind each other’s back before; I’ll be the first to admit that,” he said, before adding, “The first people who whine and complain is them Bible-thumpers, who are supposed to be non-judgmental, who rail against them."
He certainly seems to know what's what. It's a shame more athletes can't be this candid more often.
charles barkley is in the enviable position of pretty much being able to say whatever the shit he wants
good on him
Casual Eddy on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
Bah, Basketball players... If they speak against gay rights, George Takei makes a humorous video. If they speak for gay rights, people listen a bit more.
Bah, Basketball players... If they speak against gay rights, George Takei makes a humorous video. If they speak for gay rights, people listen a bit more.
Barkley's section on Bill Simmons' podcast this week was fairly interesting. Simmons did a half hour with the Phoenix Suns' CEO who came out last weekend and then talked to Barkley about his reaction and general NBA matters.
Simmons also at some point makes the (fairly bold, I think) prediction that an active NBA player will come out in the next 18 months.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Bah, Basketball players... If they speak against gay rights, George Takei makes a humorous video. If they speak for gay rights, people listen a bit more.
Whatever they say, it's a net win for gay rights.
Pun intended?
Hah, I wish I were clever enough to make a pun in a language i am not entirely mastering...
When I say that these people aren't worthy of the respect of human beings, this is exactly what I'm talking about: holding a vote to take away people's fucking rights. That's not something one human being does to another.
If there were gay people holding Pride rallies in front of churches in speedos and leather every Sunday, saying "we're here until gay marriage is legal," I'll bet you gay marriage would be legal in no fucking time.
Thanatos on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Well, they shouldn't. But it's a fairly depressing constant in history really
The look on that guy's face as he left the floor - the one with the walking stick. His eyes were horrible. Full of pride and contempt at the same time. That is a frightening expression.
It's the face of a man who knows he's doing god's righteous work, and he permits himself no doubt.
What's that CS Lewis quote? Ah, here it is.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Delzhand on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It's also come to my attention recently that Tyler's producer, Syd tha Kyd, is apparently a lesbian herself. I do not, by any means, think that lets Tyler off the hook with this stuff, but it does, along with all the praise they're getting from critics, listeners and the industry, make me wonder if there's something more to Tyler and Odd Future than the punk-ass skater kids I see on the surface.
I think there is. For all his shock lyrics, he goes pretty far out of the way in Goblin to point out that a lot of what he says is hyperbolic or completely made up. I remember him coming out against Prop 8, so that's something.
Now, whether or not his lyrics influence others negatively might be another conversation, but I feel like the album is a little more intelligent than Sara gives it credit for.
“First of all, every player has played with gay guys. It bothers me when I hear these reporters and jocks get on TV and say: ‘Oh, no guy can come out in a team sport. These guys would go crazy.’ First of all, quit telling me what I think. I’d rather have a gay guy who can play than a straight guy who can’t play.”
“We gossiped behind each other’s back before; I’ll be the first to admit that,” he said, before adding, “The first people who whine and complain is them Bible-thumpers, who are supposed to be non-judgmental, who rail against them."
He certainly seems to know what's what. It's a shame more athletes can't be this candid more often.
Barkley is fucking awesome. Straight athlete who is willing to come out and say he's liberal as fuck in these issues.
He should be totes governor.
Julius on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
He also made the best game ever in the form of Shut up and Jam Gaiden
Right around 2:22 in the video, the guy expresses my sentiments exactly:
"I don't know about you guys, but I cannot look at his family, I can't look at his picture and say, 'you know what Cpl? You where good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you where not good enough to marry the person you love.' I can't do that, I cannot do that, and I won't do that."
So, if a male rapist were to try to follow a little girl into a womens bathroom right now, a magical forcefield would manifest at the door keeping him out right?
I think we've reached a new level of insane when it comes to our bigot propaganda.
Orochi_Rockman on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Right now I'm on a political bent, as the run-up to presidential elections typically finds me, and today I find myself wondering one unifying question:
"Is a candidate's stance on civil rights, specifically GLBT and abortion rights, the most important qualifier in determining their viability for office?"
Note that I'm not asking whether or not GLBT rights or abortion rights are the most pressing or important issues of the coming election, because I don't really think they are. However, I do feel that a candidate's position on those issues says quite a lot about his or her suitability to lead this nation and direct its national mandate.
I've said this in this thread before, but I think the Right-wing arguments against gay rights and abortion rights skirt very, very closely to being unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate the Jeffersonian interpretations of inherent clauses of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Meaning, if your primary rhetorical argument is based in appeal to religious moral imperative, that should be considered utterly invalid. I know well that the US hasn't ever been consistent in its application of those provisions and statutes, but citing those inconsistencies to support an argument to persist and expand in that erring tradition is patently and knowingly ignorant, and I wish there was a stronger word to use than that.
To the point specifically, if a candidate for political office has either the inclination to promote populism over constitutional protections and egalitarianism, or worse, honestly feels that sectarian religious positions are a legitimate rhetorical foundation for arguments supporting the appropriation or (more likely) restriction of rights and entitlements to anyone, regardless of any sexual, racial, or philosophical qualifier, then I feel that the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that said candidate is utterly and irrecoverably unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
You say "thank you, the South, for making me feel so much better about where I live."
You can usually scale how strong the evangelical's rhetoric is by how ridiculous their counterarguments are. Here, we have a politician equating provisions for transgendered people with allowing grown men to prey on small girls in public restrooms.
I suppose that's somewhat better than the "gay marriage will lead to legalizing bestiality" chestnut, but not by much.
To the point specifically, if a candidate for political office has either the inclination to promote populism over constitutional protections and egalitarianism, or worse, honestly feels that sectarian religious positions are a legitimate rhetorical foundation for arguments supporting the appropriation or (more likely) restriction of rights and entitlements to anyone, regardless of any sexual, racial, or philosophical qualifier, then I feel that the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that said candidate is utterly and irrecoverably unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
That's a wordy way of saying "religious bigots have no place in public service."
I know you have a religion thing going on, but I don't reaaaaly think you want that to be the dividing line. If it's a a toss-up between a libertarian atheist who says "homosexuality is unnatural and biologically dangerous behavior, I have these Powerpoint slides that say so" and a devout liberal Christian who says "God doesn't play pranks on His children, gay or straight, we are all one in Christ Jesus and the state has no business enshrining discrimination," I know which one I'd pick.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
To the point specifically, if a candidate for political office has either the inclination to promote populism over constitutional protections and egalitarianism, or worse, honestly feels that sectarian religious positions are a legitimate rhetorical foundation for arguments supporting the appropriation or (more likely) restriction of rights and entitlements to anyone, regardless of any sexual, racial, or philosophical qualifier, then I feel that the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that said candidate is utterly and irrecoverably unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
That's a wordy way of saying "religious bigots have no place in public service."
I know you have a religion thing going on, but I don't reaaaaly think you want that to be the dividing line. If it's a a toss-up between a libertarian atheist who says "homosexuality is unnatural and biologically dangerous behavior, I have these Powerpoint slides that say so" and a devout liberal Christian who says "God doesn't play pranks on His children, gay or straight, we are all one in Christ Jesus and the state has no business enshrining discrimination," I know which one I'd pick.
You'd pick the one that specifically suits your interests at that one given time? Or you would pick the official who was open to choosing the best position based on logic and informed rhetoric?
To the point specifically, if a candidate for political office has either the inclination to promote populism over constitutional protections and egalitarianism, or worse, honestly feels that sectarian religious positions are a legitimate rhetorical foundation for arguments supporting the appropriation or (more likely) restriction of rights and entitlements to anyone, regardless of any sexual, racial, or philosophical qualifier, then I feel that the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that said candidate is utterly and irrecoverably unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
That's a wordy way of saying "religious bigots have no place in public service."
I know you have a religion thing going on, but I don't reaaaaly think you want that to be the dividing line. If it's a a toss-up between a libertarian atheist who says "homosexuality is unnatural and biologically dangerous behavior, I have these Powerpoint slides that say so" and a devout liberal Christian who says "God doesn't play pranks on His children, gay or straight, we are all one in Christ Jesus and the state has no business enshrining discrimination," I know which one I'd pick.
Remove the word 'religious' and I think very few people would have a problem with the sentence. Hell, most people probably wouldn't mind it as is.
We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that.
To the point specifically, if a candidate for political office has either the inclination to promote populism over constitutional protections and egalitarianism, or worse, honestly feels that sectarian religious positions are a legitimate rhetorical foundation for arguments supporting the appropriation or (more likely) restriction of rights and entitlements to anyone, regardless of any sexual, racial, or philosophical qualifier, then I feel that the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that said candidate is utterly and irrecoverably unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
That's a wordy way of saying "religious bigots have no place in public service."
I know you have a religion thing going on, but I don't reaaaaly think you want that to be the dividing line. If it's a a toss-up between a libertarian atheist who says "homosexuality is unnatural and biologically dangerous behavior, I have these Powerpoint slides that say so" and a devout liberal Christian who says "God doesn't play pranks on His children, gay or straight, we are all one in Christ Jesus and the state has no business enshrining discrimination," I know which one I'd pick.
Remove the word 'religious' and I think very few people would have a problem with the sentence. Hell, most people probably wouldn't mind it as is.
It is something we have talked about before, and I believe our current generation is increasingly willing to criticize religious beliefs when they conflict negatively with society. Previously, when people criticized or discriminated against religion, it was usually based out of baseless religious strife (i.e., people who hated Catholics because they were Protestant) and no valid reason otherwise. So we enacted laws, rightly so, to protect people from being discriminated against based on their religion.
But now we see religion being used as a shield from criticism, because once you apply the adjective "religious" to the word "bigot" suddenly it's okay to be a non-knowing ass because you "believe it to be true." As a result, we are seeing the lines increasingly drawn on the left between those who wish to keep religions free from any criticism, and those who want to say "no, that belief and attitude is fucking stupid, you're a bad person for believing so, and saying it's your religion is no excuse for being a terrible human being."
So how much money is the Mormon Church going to spend interfering with another state's vote?
Is it wrong to hope a LOT?
I want to see their bottom-line suffer, and for them to lose more members like they did after Prop 8.
I don't know much about it, but I'd say it's wrong. Aren't churches usually spending most of their money on charitable stuff? Like food and clothes for the needy and such?
So how much money is the Mormon Church going to spend interfering with another state's vote?
Is it wrong to hope a LOT?
I want to see their bottom-line suffer, and for them to lose more members like they did after Prop 8.
I don't know much about it, but I'd say it's wrong. Aren't churches usually spending most of their money on charitable stuff? Like food and clothes for the needy and such?
They spent thousands towards to the Pop 8 vote in CA. We can have a charity that doesn't support bigotry on the side.
Posts
Livestream here.
http://www.livestream.com/uptakemnhouse
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
He certainly seems to know what's what. It's a shame more athletes can't be this candid more often.
good on him
Whatever they say, it's a net win for gay rights.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Pun intended?
Simmons also at some point makes the (fairly bold, I think) prediction that an active NBA player will come out in the next 18 months.
Hah, I wish I were clever enough to make a pun in a language i am not entirely mastering...
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
If the money goes to charity, I would be so on that.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
That charity being, naturally, Focus on the Family.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if the bill was about defining marriage as between a white, christian man and a white, christian woman.
Is it actually fair to compare sexual orientation/identity with race?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I'll post a pic of mine once it gets in. Ordered it on Friday.
When I say that these people aren't worthy of the respect of human beings, this is exactly what I'm talking about: holding a vote to take away people's fucking rights. That's not something one human being does to another.
If there were gay people holding Pride rallies in front of churches in speedos and leather every Sunday, saying "we're here until gay marriage is legal," I'll bet you gay marriage would be legal in no fucking time.
What's that CS Lewis quote? Ah, here it is.
Barkley is fucking awesome. Straight athlete who is willing to come out and say he's liberal as fuck in these issues.
He should be totes governor.
which I insist he coded himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWKQiZVBtu4
"I don't know about you guys, but I cannot look at his family, I can't look at his picture and say, 'you know what Cpl? You where good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you where not good enough to marry the person you love.' I can't do that, I cannot do that, and I won't do that."
I think we've reached a new level of insane when it comes to our bigot propaganda.
"Is a candidate's stance on civil rights, specifically GLBT and abortion rights, the most important qualifier in determining their viability for office?"
Note that I'm not asking whether or not GLBT rights or abortion rights are the most pressing or important issues of the coming election, because I don't really think they are. However, I do feel that a candidate's position on those issues says quite a lot about his or her suitability to lead this nation and direct its national mandate.
I've said this in this thread before, but I think the Right-wing arguments against gay rights and abortion rights skirt very, very closely to being unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate the Jeffersonian interpretations of inherent clauses of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Meaning, if your primary rhetorical argument is based in appeal to religious moral imperative, that should be considered utterly invalid. I know well that the US hasn't ever been consistent in its application of those provisions and statutes, but citing those inconsistencies to support an argument to persist and expand in that erring tradition is patently and knowingly ignorant, and I wish there was a stronger word to use than that.
To the point specifically, if a candidate for political office has either the inclination to promote populism over constitutional protections and egalitarianism, or worse, honestly feels that sectarian religious positions are a legitimate rhetorical foundation for arguments supporting the appropriation or (more likely) restriction of rights and entitlements to anyone, regardless of any sexual, racial, or philosophical qualifier, then I feel that the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that said candidate is utterly and irrecoverably unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
My mouth is hanging open. I don't know what to say.
You can usually scale how strong the evangelical's rhetoric is by how ridiculous their counterarguments are. Here, we have a politician equating provisions for transgendered people with allowing grown men to prey on small girls in public restrooms.
I suppose that's somewhat better than the "gay marriage will lead to legalizing bestiality" chestnut, but not by much.
That's a wordy way of saying "religious bigots have no place in public service."
I know you have a religion thing going on, but I don't reaaaaly think you want that to be the dividing line. If it's a a toss-up between a libertarian atheist who says "homosexuality is unnatural and biologically dangerous behavior, I have these Powerpoint slides that say so" and a devout liberal Christian who says "God doesn't play pranks on His children, gay or straight, we are all one in Christ Jesus and the state has no business enshrining discrimination," I know which one I'd pick.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Focus on the Family CEO: 'We've Probably Lost' on Same-Sex Marriage
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
You'd pick the one that specifically suits your interests at that one given time? Or you would pick the official who was open to choosing the best position based on logic and informed rhetoric?
Remove the word 'religious' and I think very few people would have a problem with the sentence. Hell, most people probably wouldn't mind it as is.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Ahaha go younger generation!
It is something we have talked about before, and I believe our current generation is increasingly willing to criticize religious beliefs when they conflict negatively with society. Previously, when people criticized or discriminated against religion, it was usually based out of baseless religious strife (i.e., people who hated Catholics because they were Protestant) and no valid reason otherwise. So we enacted laws, rightly so, to protect people from being discriminated against based on their religion.
But now we see religion being used as a shield from criticism, because once you apply the adjective "religious" to the word "bigot" suddenly it's okay to be a non-knowing ass because you "believe it to be true." As a result, we are seeing the lines increasingly drawn on the left between those who wish to keep religions free from any criticism, and those who want to say "no, that belief and attitude is fucking stupid, you're a bad person for believing so, and saying it's your religion is no excuse for being a terrible human being."
Is it wrong to hope a LOT?
I want to see their bottom-line suffer, and for them to lose more members like they did after Prop 8.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I don't know much about it, but I'd say it's wrong. Aren't churches usually spending most of their money on charitable stuff? Like food and clothes for the needy and such?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter