Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I guess it all depends on the "kind" of group that its targetted at. So anyone who is an "identity christian" is a target - regardless. But because they are as a group wrong, hateful and yes - despicable - that makes such comments perfectly ok. The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well? Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about? Some people see Jews as despicable. That's one of the ways the Holocaust was allowed to happen.

The terrible irony is that you have now described the OP, except that you left out blacks, Native Americans and Catholics. It would appear that you would be too busy trying to silence a forum rival to see that.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The terrible irony is that you have now described the OP, except that you left out blacks, Native Americans and Catholics. It would appear that you would be too busy trying to silence a forum rival to see that.

I have no issue with you brigging the OP. I pointed out way earlier in this thread that I found his tone and message way off base. I don't care who the person is - to say any group is worthy of "ripping the piss" because they are "sick puppies" is what it is. Last I read the rules - calling someone "ladyboy but not in a sexual way" - and then admitting that it was all about someone taking "deliveries in the back" was a violation as well. But you guys say its not. So be it.

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster instead of on the content of the posts just goes to show how much of a double standard you are using.

Don't think so? Fair enough. Guess we will see.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have no issue with you brigging the OP. I pointed out way earlier in this thread that I found his tone and message way off base. I don't care who the person is - to say any group is worthy of "ripping the piss" because they are "sick puppies" is what it is. Last I read the rules - calling someone "ladyboy but not in a sexual way" - and then admitting that it was all about someone taking "deliveries in the back" was a violation as well.

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster instead of on the content of the posts just goes to show how much of a double standard you are using.

Don't think so? Fair enough. Guess we will see.

Right. Your posts about that poster are not about that poster. The fact that you have come and done this publically is also not about this poster. The fact that you are attempting to equate ten pages of concentrated hate speech thinly masked with religious piety to a handful of offhand comments means that I am using a double standard. Okay. I've had worse said about me. Par for the course.

The simple fact is that certain individuals from every 'group' on SubSim see themselves as a minority, and an oppressed one at that. The political left thinks that they are victims of double standards. So does the political right, the atheists and the Christians. The fact that everybody feels that way is a signal to me that we're doing a good job. What irks me is when individuals try to nitpick posts in an effort to have moderators silence the opposition. But hey, dealing with that is part of the job too.

Don't think so? That's okay. I won't reciprocate the kind of vague threatening speech in your last sentence. That just wouldn't be cool. Peace to you, bro. I still think you're a good guy.

EDIT: Also, you are looking for 'you're', not 'your'.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I still think you're a good guy.

Just to set the record straight for everyone - I have the utmost respect for the Mods here - and I think they are ALL good folks doing a bang up job for the most part. I simply think that they are wrong on this so I'll leave my sig out there as a "protest".

I will say this - I challenged them on it - and you see how they continue to take a very measured, controlled response. That says something good about them and the way they work.

I have had my dealings with the Mods here myself at times.
I have the utmost respect for them and the job they do.


We don't always agree, but then I don't always agree with the Boss (Nancy).
At lest I can turn the computer off.


(Don't you dare tell her I said that!!!)

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Just to set the record straight for everyone - I have the utmost respect for the Mods here - and I think they are ALL good folks doing a bang up job for the most part. I simply think that they are wrong on this so I'll leave my sig out there as a "protest".

I will say this - I challenged them on it - and you see how they continue to take a very measured, controlled response. That says something good about them and the way they work.

Well I think our treatment of ZeeWolf exemplifies the attitude moderators have to this stuff. Neal has always asked us to take a light touch and only get involved when things are really getting out of hand and going way too far. It took quite a bit of hate filled bile from ZeeWolf before he was given a time out.

What Tribesman said in this thread frankly is not hate speech, for many different reasons (more reasons than I have time to detail right now). He is also applying the main weapon used against people that hate, and that is ridicule. That is what "rip the piss" means... to laugh at them. As for him referring to Zee as possibly being homosexual deep down, I would say it is more than possible (the thought crossed my mind as well). He is absolutely correct when he says that it is very common for the most vocal anti-gay people to actually be gay themselves. They are using a psychological defence called projection, where they project their own internal stuff onto the world around them as they can't accept that which is inside.

Homophobia is fear based more than anything else from my experience.


So at this point I fail to see exactly where the issue lies.

[Armistead]

I've long learned to let people be regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference and take people one at a time, long as they don't harm me or try to force their opinions on me.

I'm more agnostic as I get older, but I don't have a problem with believers, if God tells them to do something, OK, it's only when God tells them to tell me I have to do something that I have issue.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

He is absolutely correct when he says that it is very common for the most vocal anti-gay people to actually be gay themselves. They are using a psychological defence called projection, where they project their own internal stuff onto the world around them as they can't accept that which is inside.

Just to remind you that there is little if no empirical evidence to bolster this claim, amongst psyhcologists this claim is pasisonately discussed, at least it was like that at my time.

The claim is mostly given because the psychoanalytical projection defence mechanism is a known concept to the wide public and nicely serves the purpose of claiming a rethorical victory.

It compares to "women not ready for sex are frigid", and "When she says No, deep inside she means Yes."

Or in short, I think for the most the claim is illustrating a cliche. Or compares to depicting critics of Islam as being "phobic" of it.

[MH]

Well...he might had been molested by bunch of puppies in his childhood.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Just to remind you that there is little if no empirical evidence to bolster this claim, amongst psyhcologists this claim is pasisonately discussed, at least it was like that at my time.

The claim is mostly given because the psychoanalytical projection defence mechanism is a known concept to the wide public and nicely serves the purpose of claiming a rethorical victory.

It compares to "women not ready for sex are frigid", and "When she says No, deep inside she means Yes."

Or in short, I think for the most the claim is illustrating a cliche. Or compares to depicting critics of Islam as being "phobic" of it.

I agree and disagree. In this case I was referring to the most rancid promoters. There has definitely been a trend among very public and vocal anti-gay people, of engaging in gay relationships in secret. Do I think everyone who hates or fears 'fags' are secretly gay? No, but I would not be surprised if a number of them feel this way because of their own internal uncertainties. Others feel this way because of dogma or tradition.

As for empirical evidences, of course there is none, there can't possibly be any given the nature of the beast. How can you quantify and measure such a thing empirically? This is aside from the fact that I reject concepts of empirical evidence as being non-scientific (you cannot prove things with facts, only disprove them).

As for Islam, I think there are plenty of people that are phobic, in that their fear and issues are largely irrational, even if they do present a rational front for it.

Anyhow forgive me if my posts are not up to my usual standards, I am very busy and also rather sleep deprived. Both of which limit my ability to give carefully thought out statements.