Discussion
esxste said:
You assume wrong.
Owen Jones repeatedly tries to frame this as an LGBT attack, and before he can explain why, he's talked over.
Already refuted above:Owen Jones repeatedly tries to frame this as an LGBT attack, and before he can explain why, he's talked over.
iphonedyou said:
Call them out on what? Julia Hartley-Brewer calling it a homophobic attack no less than four times? Longhurst agreeing with her?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-orl...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/the-orl...
esxste said:
Have you watched it? Did you check your biases first?
tarnished said:
LGBT people don't have a monopoly on persecution or empathy.
Owen Jones, as ever, wasn't there to entertain any discussion or debate.
Nobody said LGBT have a monopoly. Nice Strawman. Owen Jones, as ever, wasn't there to entertain any discussion or debate.
Owen Jones wasn't allowed to even articulate a point without being contradicted and talked over. How can anyone entertain a discussion in that circumstance.
esxste said:
You assume wrong.
Owen Jones repeatedly tries to frame this as an LGBT attack, and before he can explain why, he's talked over.
Have you watched it? Did you check your biases first?
I'm straight, my best man and lifelong friend has been gay all his life. Yes I've been dragged down old Compton street for beers countless times with him and yes he has join drinks out in strip clubs etc. I think I'm very comfortable with going anywhere and couldn't care less one way or the other / it's not really something which is even on my horizon. Owen Jones repeatedly tries to frame this as an LGBT attack, and before he can explain why, he's talked over.
Have you watched it? Did you check your biases first?
Anyway OJ. He likes to talk over people I've seen him a number of times in debates and interviews, and following his toys out the pram on Sunday I searched for him and found so so many more debates with him and they all have the same MO shouty he must get his point over then he challenges back but as the other person is answering he keeps talking over no matter who it is. Maybe he is a nice chap in real life but he certainly comes over as a bit of a prick & honestly if you had a friend like him would you look forward to inviting him over to BBqs knowing he is going to be a f
ktard again. Nope. Sadly no matter what he did or didn't think he has made it about him. Y walking off and the. Adding more wood to he fire on Monday. If he had any sense and professionalism even if there was a point to what he was making (which I do not see at all) he should have simply edged back let the public decide if there is or isn't an issue but walking off in a strop took focus away from the vile murders which is a shame and he will certainly regret it.
Welshbeef said:
Sadly no matter what he did or didn't think he has made it about him. Y walking off and the. Adding more wood to he fire on Monday. If he had any sense and professionalism even if there was a point to what he was making (which I do not see at all) he should have simply edged back let the public decide if there is or isn't an issue but walking off in a strop took focus away from the vile murders which is a shame and he will certainly regret it.
It's as though he's never been told he's wrong, ever.esxste said:
irocfan said:
you could argue that an attack in/on a synagogue would be thought of in the same way - but I'd also put that as an attack on humanity first and an attack on Jewishness second. The fact is that the overriding issue here is that it is an attack on humanity and human rights - all else is secondary. It is quite possible, likely even, that straight people could have been caught up in this attack - did the gun-man separate out gay people from straight or did he just shoot away? The same could be said for the poor souls in Paris at the gig and so it goes on
Would the media report it as an attack on human rights first, or as an anti-semetic attack? In America itself, LGBT rights are under constant attack by the Christian Right. A fair number of US states do not prohibit discrimination against LGBT people.
So when an attack happens on LGBT people in that climate, you might want to understand why we don't necessarily feel it was targetted at humanity and human rights.
As for OJ - I wonder if someone could prescribe him some canesten. Might make all of us a lot happier!
sidicks said:
10 seconds in, and the presenter interupts own and tries to change what Owen said. How can anyone engage in discussion when you have to deal with that?
Owen says "you have no idea because you're not gay". I've tried to explain the reasoning on that above. There are certain things that straight people rarely even think to consider. That's not an accusation, thats just a fact of life: why would you consider those things if they've never impacted your life before?
esxste said:
If you're not gay, you need to think hard to understand.
Gay bars have always been considered safe spaces for LGBT people. We have our own stratifications, and sub-groups, fuelled by own human ignorances, but at the end of the day whoever you were, you could feel safe in a gay bar.
In Orlando, as in Old Compton Street in 1999, that safe space was attacked.
It reminded every gay person who has had to endure the homophobic "banter", staring and comments in the street, verbal and physical assults, that even our safe spaces are not safe.
That those who hate us to the point of murder can get us anywhere.
Yes this was an attack on human beings, on western culture of nightclubs. But that it was a deliberate attack targetted at LGBT people trumps those things.
The reaction of the Sky News presenter and his panellist was salt in the wound. They might as well have said "well I just wish they wouldn't rub it in my face". Be gay if you must, but hide it in the closet.
I can see how to straight eyes, this looks no different to say, the Bali bombing. Islamic extremists targeting western style nightclub. It's the same way straight people don't understand what it is like to grow up gay, to resolve that conflict between what you feel and what society tells you that you should be feeling, to be asked "when did you choose to be gay?", to constantly be on the alert for danger in public, to wonder if your safe to show your lover the slightest bit of affection in public.
Owen Jones was right to walk out. They had no intention of letting him even suggest this was primarily an attack on LGBT people; and certainly didn't want to give him the opportunity to explain why.
Not sure if serious... Gay bars have always been considered safe spaces for LGBT people. We have our own stratifications, and sub-groups, fuelled by own human ignorances, but at the end of the day whoever you were, you could feel safe in a gay bar.
In Orlando, as in Old Compton Street in 1999, that safe space was attacked.
It reminded every gay person who has had to endure the homophobic "banter", staring and comments in the street, verbal and physical assults, that even our safe spaces are not safe.
That those who hate us to the point of murder can get us anywhere.
Yes this was an attack on human beings, on western culture of nightclubs. But that it was a deliberate attack targetted at LGBT people trumps those things.
The reaction of the Sky News presenter and his panellist was salt in the wound. They might as well have said "well I just wish they wouldn't rub it in my face". Be gay if you must, but hide it in the closet.
I can see how to straight eyes, this looks no different to say, the Bali bombing. Islamic extremists targeting western style nightclub. It's the same way straight people don't understand what it is like to grow up gay, to resolve that conflict between what you feel and what society tells you that you should be feeling, to be asked "when did you choose to be gay?", to constantly be on the alert for danger in public, to wonder if your safe to show your lover the slightest bit of affection in public.
Owen Jones was right to walk out. They had no intention of letting him even suggest this was primarily an attack on LGBT people; and certainly didn't want to give him the opportunity to explain why.
But if so: Straight people don't all think the same way, just as gay people don't, so please don't preach at us and tell us we have to think carefully. I am permitted to be as shocked and upset as you are at the attack. Why would I not be allowed to? If I said that gay men couldn't feel empathy for me, were my wife killed (god forbid), then I'd be shouted down for homophobia. If you are gay, you CANNOT see how things look to straight eyes.
(See, we can all generalise and pontificate.)
And the reaction of the Sky presenter was nothing of the sort.
esxste said:
sidicks said:
10 seconds in, and the presenter interupts own and tries to change what Owen said. How can anyone engage in discussion when you have to deal with that?
Owen says "you have no idea because you're not gay". I've tried to explain the reasoning on that above. There are certain things that straight people rarely even think to consider. That's not an accusation, thats just a fact of life: why would you consider those things if they've never impacted your life before?
esxste said:
sidicks said:
10 seconds in, and the presenter interupts own and tries to change what Owen said. How can anyone engage in discussion when you have to deal with that?
Owen says "you have no idea because you're not gay". I've tried to explain the reasoning on that above. There are certain things that straight people rarely even think to consider. That's not an accusation, thats just a fact of life: why would you consider those things if they've never impacted your life before?
Welshbeef said:
I'm straight, my best man and lifelong friend has been gay all his life. Yes I've been dragged down old Compton street for beers countless times with him and yes he has join drinks out in strip clubs etc. I think I'm very comfortable with going anywhere and couldn't care less one way or the other / it's not really something which is even on my horizon.
Anyway OJ. He likes to talk over people I've seen him a number of times in debates and interviews, and following his toys out the pram on Sunday I searched for him and found so so many more debates with him and they all have the same MO shouty he must get his point over then he challenges back but as the other person is answering he keeps talking over no matter who it is. Maybe he is a nice chap in real life but he certainly comes over as a bit of a prick & honestly if you had a friend like him would you look forward to inviting him over to BBqs knowing he is going to be a fktard again. Nope.
Sadly no matter what he did or didn't think he has made it about him. Y walking off and the. Adding more wood to he fire on Monday. If he had any sense and professionalism even if there was a point to what he was making (which I do not see at all) he should have simply edged back let the public decide if there is or isn't an issue but walking off in a strop took focus away from the vile murders which is a shame and he will certainly regret it.
We have no idea what OJ's point was, because he wasn't given the space to articulate it. Everytime he said it was an attack on the LGBT, he was interrupted and "corrected". Anyway OJ. He likes to talk over people I've seen him a number of times in debates and interviews, and following his toys out the pram on Sunday I searched for him and found so so many more debates with him and they all have the same MO shouty he must get his point over then he challenges back but as the other person is answering he keeps talking over no matter who it is. Maybe he is a nice chap in real life but he certainly comes over as a bit of a prick & honestly if you had a friend like him would you look forward to inviting him over to BBqs knowing he is going to be a f
ktard again. Nope. Sadly no matter what he did or didn't think he has made it about him. Y walking off and the. Adding more wood to he fire on Monday. If he had any sense and professionalism even if there was a point to what he was making (which I do not see at all) he should have simply edged back let the public decide if there is or isn't an issue but walking off in a strop took focus away from the vile murders which is a shame and he will certainly regret it.
I don't know OJ personally, and I haven't seen him in interviews before now. I've read a few of his pieces. I can't comment on his personality or history. In this instance, I think he was right to walk off.
They had no interest in letting him express his thoughts, as a gay man, on an attack at LGBT nightclub.
esxste said:
We have no idea what OJ's point was, because he wasn't given the space to articulate it. Everytime he said it was an attack on the LGBT, he was interrupted and "corrected".
As above:Julia Hartley-Brewer calling it a homophobic attack no less than four times with Longhurst agreeing with her...
ThunderGuts said:
I assume you accept that you have no idea of certain topics because you're not straight.
I'd be surprised if you could find a topic I have no idea in becuase I'm not straight. The world is massively, entirely straight focused. Understandable because ~95% of the population are straight. I've pretended to be straight. Acted straight. 24/7. For years.Straight people very, very rarely even consider the experiences of gay people. Let alone live their life.
How does the far left come to terms with modern, gay, Western life being fundamentally incompatible with Islam? I've wondered the same about self confessed feminists and Islam. It's probably something that people are going to have to deal with quite soon and I'm wondering what they think? It never seems to be discussed and I'd love for Jones to answer this honestly.
On numerous occasions, I've seen Owen Jones discussing (or more accurately shouting down others) previous Islamic terrorist attacks, where he's been very keen to 'look at the bigger picture' and 'understand the context', rather than simply condemn outright. I wonder if he'll be doing the same for this latest attack? I think not.
esxste said:
Welshbeef said:
I'm straight, my best man and lifelong friend has been gay all his life. Yes I've been dragged down old Compton street for beers countless times with him and yes he has join drinks out in strip clubs etc. I think I'm very comfortable with going anywhere and couldn't care less one way or the other / it's not really something which is even on my horizon.
Anyway OJ. He likes to talk over people I've seen him a number of times in debates and interviews, and following his toys out the pram on Sunday I searched for him and found so so many more debates with him and they all have the same MO shouty he must get his point over then he challenges back but as the other person is answering he keeps talking over no matter who it is. Maybe he is a nice chap in real life but he certainly comes over as a bit of a prick & honestly if you had a friend like him would you look forward to inviting him over to BBqs knowing he is going to be a fktard again. Nope.
Sadly no matter what he did or didn't think he has made it about him. Y walking off and the. Adding more wood to he fire on Monday. If he had any sense and professionalism even if there was a point to what he was making (which I do not see at all) he should have simply edged back let the public decide if there is or isn't an issue but walking off in a strop took focus away from the vile murders which is a shame and he will certainly regret it.
We have no idea what OJ's point was, because he wasn't given the space to articulate it. Everytime he said it was an attack on the LGBT, he was interrupted and "corrected". Anyway OJ. He likes to talk over people I've seen him a number of times in debates and interviews, and following his toys out the pram on Sunday I searched for him and found so so many more debates with him and they all have the same MO shouty he must get his point over then he challenges back but as the other person is answering he keeps talking over no matter who it is. Maybe he is a nice chap in real life but he certainly comes over as a bit of a prick & honestly if you had a friend like him would you look forward to inviting him over to BBqs knowing he is going to be a f
ktard again. Nope. Sadly no matter what he did or didn't think he has made it about him. Y walking off and the. Adding more wood to he fire on Monday. If he had any sense and professionalism even if there was a point to what he was making (which I do not see at all) he should have simply edged back let the public decide if there is or isn't an issue but walking off in a strop took focus away from the vile murders which is a shame and he will certainly regret it.
I don't know OJ personally, and I haven't seen him in interviews before now. I've read a few of his pieces. I can't comment on his personality or history. In this instance, I think he was right to walk off.
They had no interest in letting him express his thoughts, as a gay man, on an attack at LGBT nightclub.
Therefore he comes with baggage, and his points (on the rare occasions when he has something of worth to say) are lost as the other panelists brace themselves for yet another Jones polemic.
AshBurrows said:
How does the far left come to terms with modern, gay, Western life being fundamentally incompatible with Islam? I've wondered the same about self confessed feminists and Islam. It's probably something that people are going to have to deal with quite soon and I'm wondering what they think? It never seems to be discussed and I'd love for Jones to answer this honestly.
Why focus on Islam. Christianity is just as barbaric.
Almost like they're based on the same thing.
esxste said:
Why focus on Islam.
Christianity is just as barbaric.
Almost like they're based on the same thing.
Are there still Christian countries that punish homosexuality? And allow such barbarism towards women? Christianity is just as barbaric.
Almost like they're based on the same thing.
I'm asking an actual important question, not just looking for rhetoric. I know it's hard to get across on the internet but I want to actually know, I'm not looking to attack anyone's viewpoint or anything like that.
esxste said:
tarnished said:
LGBT people don't have a monopoly on persecution or empathy.
Owen Jones, as ever, wasn't there to entertain any discussion or debate.
Nobody said LGBT have a monopoly. Nice Strawman. Owen Jones, as ever, wasn't there to entertain any discussion or debate.
Owen Jones wasn't allowed to even articulate a point without being contradicted and talked over. How can anyone entertain a discussion in that circumstance.
Owen Jones did at least as much interrupting as being interrupted as far as I could see.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff