LCFC Announce Partnership With Stonewall

[Xen]

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

If you think all this rainbow stuff isn't money chasing then you are extremely naive. 

I said LCFC participating in pride isn't money-chasing. Larger Prides are undoubtedly becoming a corporate money-grab (Manchester, Brighton, Birmingham, London in particular), but the Leicester Pride was a completely free event and LCFC would have had minimal financial gain as a result. Surely given everything our club has done for the community in recent years its not that far-fetched to believe that not everything is 100% money motivated.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

If people are so unsure of themselves that they feel the need to be included then maybe they should grow a thicket skin. 

'Unsure of themselves'? There are LGBTQ people in this country disowned by their own families and in some cases driven to suicide because of the persecution they face. Public events like pride show those people that they still have support despite what they're being told elsewhere, and can genuinely make an unfathomable difference to someone's life.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

I don't care what colour someone is, religion they choose or who someone wants to bang, it makes zero difference to me and I don't understand why anyone else would care either. 

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, there's still an awful lot of people who don't see it that way.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

Also why is my sexual preference ridiculous and the person stood next to me isn't? 

I sincerely apologise if you were being serious. However, examples like that are often used as part of the 'snowball effect' argument ("If we allow two men to get married, then what about 3 men? A man and his pets? Children?") so my first instinct is that it's hyperbole meant to detract from the actual talking points. 

Regardless, persecution for being gay is a widespread issue which is why there's a huge campaign against it - trying to solve the bigger issues first and then more niche cases like your own (supposedly) can be addressed when its suitable.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

Just let everyone be who they want, why do we need to assign rainbows to stuff. 

Can agree with this to an extent, there is certainly no need. But if LGBTQ people like using rainbows to identify themselves then more power to them. For what its worth I think its awesome and makes events like Pride into incredibly cheerful occasions.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

You can't walk around these days without someone wearing some kind of badge to let you k ow they identify as what ever it is. 

Yes you can. I'm looking round my office of 300+ people now and there's maybe 1 person with some LGBT stickers on her desk, and that's it. And even if they were - how does that negatively affect anyone?

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

It's political correctness gone wrong. 

What is?

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

Just let people be people. 

Agreed.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

**** your social justice warrioring, in my world no one gives a **** what anyone else is. 

Wow, no need for the tone. There's no "warrioring" going on here - just trying to explain why things might be the way they are. And yes - people absolutely do give a **** what other people are. Given I've received abuse in the street for walking whilst holding my partner's hand.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

Why do you feel the need for validity? I accept you exactly how you are and anyone that don't, well that's their issue, not yours. 

Personally, I don't. I'm happy for it (and it certainly improves my state of mind), but it's not something I need. Thank you for your acceptance (although the whole notion of accepting implies a level of gatekeeping, but that's an argument for another time), but so long as there's still a subtantial number of people whodon't share your mindset, more work is needed. We need to fully eradicate the viewpoint that LGBTQ people are abnormal before we can start to move away from it being notable at all.

 

1 hour ago, Cujek said:

We are all human, we are all here scrapping a living trying to make it better for our children, these labels that we allow our masters to place upon us will be our downfall, keeping us fighting each other and dividing so we can't unite for the good of the human race 

I agree with the ideology. From my perspective that's a lot easier said than done, though.

[Guest Cujek]

31 minutes ago, Xen said:

I said LCFC participating in pride isn't money-chasing. Larger Prides are undoubtedly becoming a corporate money-grab (Manchester, Brighton, Birmingham, London in particular), but the Leicester Pride was a completely free event and LCFC would have had minimal financial gain as a result. Surely given everything our club has done for the community in recent years its not that far-fetched to believe that not everything is 100% money motivated.

 

'Unsure of themselves'? There are LGBTQ people in this country disowned by their own families and in some cases driven to suicide because of the persecution they face. Public events like pride show those people that they still have support despite what they're being told elsewhere, and can genuinely make an unfathomable difference to someone's life.

 

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, there's still an awful lot of people who don't see it that way.

 

I sincerely apologise if you were being serious. However, examples like that are often used as part of the 'snowball effect' argument ("If we allow two men to get married, then what about 3 men? A man and his pets? Children?") so my first instinct is that it's hyperbole meant to detract from the actual talking points. 

Regardless, persecution for being gay is a widespread issue which is why there's a huge campaign against it - trying to solve the bigger issues first and then more niche cases like your own (supposedly) can be addressed when its suitable.

 

Can agree with this to an extent, there is certainly no need. But if LGBTQ people like using rainbows to identify themselves then more power to them. For what its worth I think its awesome and makes events like Pride into incredibly cheerful occasions.

 

Yes you can. I'm looking round my office of 300+ people now and there's maybe 1 person with some LGBT stickers on her desk, and that's it. And even if they were - how does that negatively affect anyone?

 

What is?

 

Agreed.

 

Wow, no need for the tone. There's no "warrioring" going on here - just trying to explain why things might be the way they are. And yes - people absolutely do give a **** what other people are. Given I've received abuse in the street for walking whilst holding my partner's hand.

 

Personally, I don't. I'm happy for it (and it certainly improves my state of mind), but it's not something I need. Thank you for your acceptance (although the whole notion of accepting implies a level of gatekeeping, but that's an argument for another time), but so long as there's still a subtantial number of people whodon't share your mindset, more work is needed. We need to fully eradicate the viewpoint that LGBTQ people are abnormal before we can start to move away from it being notable at all.

 

I agree with the ideology. From my perspective that's a lot easier said than done, though.

Fair enough, I'm sorry for the SJW comment, I got annoyed by something and I was lashing out at you for no reason, for that I apologise. 

 

No one should receive abuse for holding the hand of the person that they love. 

 

Even forest fans should be allowed to wear their shirt in public if they wish. 

 

I just object to labels, I always have, I don't see the need to catagorise things, which to me a rainbow does, however I am a member of the mini club and I like to wave at other mini owners (whether they know they are in the club or nor) not all of them wave back and it makes me sad when they don't, my Mrs is constantly having a go at me for for waving to women in cars, I'm not waving at the person I'm waving at the mini owner.. 

 

"in nature there's no blemish but the mind. None can be called deformed but the unkind" 

Edited 3 September 2019 by Cujek
I hit send to quickly

[PhillippaT]

13 minutes ago, Cujek said:

Fair enough, I'm sorry for the SJW comment, I got annoyed by something and I was lashing out at you for no reason, for that I apologise. 

 

No one should receive abuse for holding the hand of the person that they love. 

 

Even forest fans should be allowed to wear their shirt in public if they wish. 

 

I just object to labels, I always have, I don't see the need to catagorise things, which to me a rainbow does, however I am a member of the mini club and I like to wave at other mini owners (whether they know they are in the club or nor) not all of them wave back and it makes me sad when they don't, my Mrs is constantly having a go at me for for waving to women in cars, I'm not waving at the person I'm waving at the mini owner.. 

 

"in nature there's no blemish but the mind. None can be called deformed but the unkind" 

Until people stop being racist, sexist, ageist, nationalist (in the worst sense), selfish and greedy - labels to differentiate people FROM these, will also be necessary.  LCFC partnering with Stonewall, is to, again, differentiate itself from those.

 

I'm a lesbian, and have been treated badly at times because of it, (though because I've generally stuck with other lesbians since moving down to London, I haven't had as much of a problem recently (yet). But I know (and of) others who have...).

Edited 3 September 2019 by PhillippaT

[AKCJ]

On 31/08/2019 at 14:42, somebum said:

Yes wow this is absolutely fantastic yes great best thing ever yes I agree 

Don't be a tit.

[Hollyfox]

7 hours ago, Cujek said:

Nothing, nothing at all. 

 

It's bandwagon jumping and just chasing the lbgt pound. 

 

No one in their right mind cares what sexual preference someone else holds. 

 

What about the people that are sexually attracted to aeroplanes? Where is our movement, why has no one invested in making us feel at home next to all the haters?

A bloke I knew was attracted to articulated lorrys and used to go to lorry parks and make love to their exhaust pipes. 

 

Sadly he's now HGV positive 

[Xen]

19 minutes ago, Cujek said:

Even forest fans should be allowed to wear their shirt in public if they wish. 

Woah, steady on...

[Guest Cujek]

19 minutes ago, Hollyfox said:

A bloke I knew was attracted to articulated lorrys and used to go to lorry parks and make love to their exhaust pipes. 

 

Sadly he's now HGV positive 

Well at least he got the good version

[somebum]

35 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Don't be a tit.

**** you idiot

[ozleicester]

[AKCJ]

24 minutes ago, somebum said:

**** you idiot

 

[srex9]

4 hours ago, Xen said:

I said LCFC participating in pride isn't money-chasing. Larger Prides are undoubtedly becoming a corporate money-grab (Manchester, Brighton, Birmingham, London in particular), but the Leicester Pride was a completely free event and LCFC would have had minimal financial gain as a result. Surely given everything our club has done for the community in recent years its not that far-fetched to believe that not everything is 100% money motivated.

 

'Unsure of themselves'? There are LGBTQ people in this country disowned by their own families and in some cases driven to suicide because of the persecution they face. Public events like pride show those people that they still have support despite what they're being told elsewhere, and can genuinely make an unfathomable difference to someone's life.

 

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, there's still an awful lot of people who don't see it that way.

 

I sincerely apologise if you were being serious. However, examples like that are often used as part of the 'snowball effect' argument ("If we allow two men to get married, then what about 3 men? A man and his pets? Children?") so my first instinct is that it's hyperbole meant to detract from the actual talking points. 

Regardless, persecution for being gay is a widespread issue which is why there's a huge campaign against it - trying to solve the bigger issues first and then more niche cases like your own (supposedly) can be addressed when its suitable.

 

Can agree with this to an extent, there is certainly no need. But if LGBTQ people like using rainbows to identify themselves then more power to them. For what its worth I think its awesome and makes events like Pride into incredibly cheerful occasions.

 

Yes you can. I'm looking round my office of 300+ people now and there's maybe 1 person with some LGBT stickers on her desk, and that's it. And even if they were - how does that negatively affect anyone?

 

What is?

 

Agreed.

 

Wow, no need for the tone. There's no "warrioring" going on here - just trying to explain why things might be the way they are. And yes - people absolutely do give a **** what other people are. Given I've received abuse in the street for walking whilst holding my partner's hand.

 

Personally, I don't. I'm happy for it (and it certainly improves my state of mind), but it's not something I need. Thank you for your acceptance (although the whole notion of accepting implies a level of gatekeeping, but that's an argument for another time), but so long as there's still a subtantial number of people whodon't share your mindset, more work is needed. We need to fully eradicate the viewpoint that LGBTQ people are abnormal before we can start to move away from it being notable at all.

 

I agree with the ideology. From my perspective that's a lot easier said than done, though.

I agree with most of your points. It's difficult when there will never be complete acceptance. However I also understand the other perspectives.

 

There will always be a minority of idiots but I think it's important that every perspective is understood. For example I'm not the religious type but I certainly feel like religious expression has come under scrutiny and attack over the last few years...and many of these people have been raised a certain way for over half a century. It's so so difficult to tell people they have to change their views after that amount of time and I for one would love a scenario where both sides can accept each other for who they are and not persecute or yell discrimination over minor issues. The only issues that should be dealt with are major ones. 

 

People are different, all over the world, and I don't think everyone should have to conform to a certain mindset. They should just accept. It has to work both ways. I honestly feel like that's where a lot of people's frustrations come from. Would be good to know your thoughts on this as you seem like a far more reasonable and balanced individual compared to many others that I've met from the community. 

[srex9]

4 hours ago, PhillippaT said:

Until people stop being racist, sexist, ageist, nationalist (in the worst sense), selfish and greedy - labels to differentiate people FROM these, will also be necessary.  LCFC partnering with Stonewall, is to, again, differentiate itself from those.

 

I'm a lesbian, and have been treated badly at times because of it, (though because I've generally stuck with other lesbians since moving down to London, I haven't had as much of a problem recently (yet). But I know (and of) others who have...).

Unfortunately it's becoming very difficult to define what constitutes as everything you've listed. The line is getting thinner and thinner. 

 

I've been accused of being sexist without any real justification for it and had to endure full scale disciplinary proceedings at work because something i said was simply misinterpreted. Ive known others that have been accused of racism and homophobic behavior yet they are nothing of the sort. It's becoming very difficult to be comfortable in society these days with the constant risk of offending someone. We don't actually know who decides and dictates these things. 

 

Tolerance must be a two way street and I certainly think it's wrong that you were treated badly for your own sexual preferences. 

[jonthefox]

4 hours ago, Xen said:

I said LCFC participating in pride isn't money-chasing. Larger Prides are undoubtedly becoming a corporate money-grab (Manchester, Brighton, Birmingham, London in particular), but the Leicester Pride was a completely free event and LCFC would have had minimal financial gain as a result. Surely given everything our club has done for the community in recent years its not that far-fetched to believe that not everything is 100% money motivated.

 

'Unsure of themselves'? There are LGBTQ people in this country disowned by their own families and in some cases driven to suicide because of the persecution they face. Public events like pride show those people that they still have support despite what they're being told elsewhere, and can genuinely make an unfathomable difference to someone's life.

 

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, there's still an awful lot of people who don't see it that way.

 

I sincerely apologise if you were being serious. However, examples like that are often used as part of the 'snowball effect' argument ("If we allow two men to get married, then what about 3 men? A man and his pets? Children?") so my first instinct is that it's hyperbole meant to detract from the actual talking points. 

Regardless, persecution for being gay is a widespread issue which is why there's a huge campaign against it - trying to solve the bigger issues first and then more niche cases like your own (supposedly) can be addressed when its suitable.

 

Can agree with this to an extent, there is certainly no need. But if LGBTQ people like using rainbows to identify themselves then more power to them. For what its worth I think its awesome and makes events like Pride into incredibly cheerful occasions.

 

Yes you can. I'm looking round my office of 300+ people now and there's maybe 1 person with some LGBT stickers on her desk, and that's it. And even if they were - how does that negatively affect anyone?

 

What is?

 

Agreed.

 

Wow, no need for the tone. There's no "warrioring" going on here - just trying to explain why things might be the way they are. And yes - people absolutely do give a **** what other people are. Given I've received abuse in the street for walking whilst holding my partner's hand.

 

Personally, I don't. I'm happy for it (and it certainly improves my state of mind), but it's not something I need. Thank you for your acceptance (although the whole notion of accepting implies a level of gatekeeping, but that's an argument for another time), but so long as there's still a subtantial number of people whodon't share your mindset, more work is needed. We need to fully eradicate the viewpoint that LGBTQ people are abnormal before we can start to move away from it being notable at all.

 

I agree with the ideology. From my perspective that's a lot easier said than done, though.

Foxestalk would be so much easier if all threads were answered like this.

[shade]

i would like to see us use the more inclusive term LGBTQIAPK+

[Costock_Fox]

It gets a bit depressing to see this thread come up each year with the same things being raised.

 

I prefer just to laugh it off when narrow minded people can’t understand that there is more to people than who they have sex with. I play football with a gay friendly football team and we are genuinely just a normal bunch of lads who have a laugh. 

 

I’ll admit that sometimes I don’t understand everything that goes with LGBT but why get so worked up by who someone wants to have sex with? 

 

Chill out and enjoy yourselves.

[volpeazzurro]

8 hours ago, Xen said:

I said LCFC participating in pride isn't money-chasing. Larger Prides are undoubtedly becoming a corporate money-grab (Manchester, Brighton, Birmingham, London in particular), but the Leicester Pride was a completely free event and LCFC would have had minimal financial gain as a result. Surely given everything our club has done for the community in recent years its not that far-fetched to believe that not everything is 100% money motivated.

 

'Unsure of themselves'? There are LGBTQ people in this country disowned by their own families and in some cases driven to suicide because of the persecution they face. Public events like pride show those people that they still have support despite what they're being told elsewhere, and can genuinely make an unfathomable difference to someone's life.

 

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, there's still an awful lot of people who don't see it that way.

 

I sincerely apologise if you were being serious. However, examples like that are often used as part of the 'snowball effect' argument ("If we allow two men to get married, then what about 3 men? A man and his pets? Children?") so my first instinct is that it's hyperbole meant to detract from the actual talking points. 

Regardless, persecution for being gay is a widespread issue which is why there's a huge campaign against it - trying to solve the bigger issues first and then more niche cases like your own (supposedly) can be addressed when its suitable.

 

Can agree with this to an extent, there is certainly no need. But if LGBTQ people like using rainbows to identify themselves then more power to them. For what its worth I think its awesome and makes events like Pride into incredibly cheerful occasions.

 

Yes you can. I'm looking round my office of 300+ people now and there's maybe 1 person with some LGBT stickers on her desk, and that's it. And even if they were - how does that negatively affect anyone?

 

What is?

 

Agreed.

 

Wow, no need for the tone. There's no "warrioring" going on here - just trying to explain why things might be the way they are. And yes - people absolutely do give a **** what other people are. Given I've received abuse in the street for walking whilst holding my partner's hand.

 

Personally, I don't. I'm happy for it (and it certainly improves my state of mind), but it's not something I need. Thank you for your acceptance (although the whole notion of accepting implies a level of gatekeeping, but that's an argument for another time), but so long as there's still a subtantial number of people whodon't share your mindset, more work is needed. We need to fully eradicate the viewpoint that LGBTQ people are abnormal before we can start to move away from it being notable at all.

 

I agree with the ideology. From my perspective that's a lot easier said than done, though.

Whilst I don't disagree with the majority of what you've said, I do think at times we are reaching saturation point with LGBT issues and propaganda to the extent that people will just switch off or worse, from an LGBT point of view,  become quite anti.

 

Having worked in a public body workplace these issues seemed at times, to be more promoted than what our core business was about (other issues as well in fairness). Such was the tone used at the time by certain LGBT zealots that people would just not even discuss such issues with each other openly. There was a formerly male colleague who came out as transgender. Whilst previously, certain colleagues might have tried to interact in the nicest possible way and off support, I know many would not even embark upon even a simple conversation in fear of perhaps accidentally using the wrong term and potentially losing their job. Not much of a result really.

 

My daughters friend at Uni (not Leicester) was invited by her gay friend to go with her to a gay disco night on campus. She was stopped at the door and asked if she was gay, when she said not, she was refused entry! How inclusive was that? I have a couple of gay mates and they just shudder at times at some of the things done and said supposedly their name. They merely want equal rights, to get on with their lives and mix in with the community where we live (which they do and are wholly accepted). Sometimes being gay is made to be more of a hip fashionable statement than a normal way of life to the individuals involved. Some within the LGBT movement appear to be motivated more for their self promotion, career and other selfish personal prospects than any real cause.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, volpeazzurro said:

Whilst I don't disagree with the majority of what you've said, I do think at times we are reaching saturation point with LGBT issues and propaganda to the extent that people will just switch off or worse, from an LGBT point of view,  become quite anti.

 

Having worked in a public body workplace these issues seemed at times, to be more promoted than what our core business was about (other issues as well in fairness). Such was the tone used at the time by certain LGBT zealots that people would just not even discuss such issues with each other openly. There was a formerly male colleague who came out as transgender. Whilst previously, certain colleagues might have tried to interact in the nicest possible way and off support, I know many would not even embark upon even a simple conversation in fear of perhaps accidentally using the wrong term and potentially losing their job. Not much of a result really.

 

My daughters friend at Uni (not Leicester) was invited by her gay friend to go with her to a gay disco night on campus. She was stopped at the door and asked if she was gay, when she said not, she was refused entry! How inclusive was that? I have a couple of gay mates and they just shudder at times at some of the things done and said supposedly their name. They merely want equal rights, to get on with their lives and mix in with the community where we live (which they do and are wholly accepted). Sometimes being gay is made to be more of a hip fashionable statement than a normal way of life to the individuals involved. Some within the LGBT movement appear to be motivated more for their self promotion, career and other selfish personal prospects than any real cause.

Your terminology "propaganda" is evidence as to why there is a need for my information and education.

 

The fear of using the" wrong terminology" is just a distraction, no-one would be in trouble for an accidental misuse, its just people who deliberately are antagonistic and are looking to cause disruption.

 

They are NOT wholly accepted, LGBTQI people are routinely beaten and harassed on nights out and are not given equal rights. 

 

Some people get run over while walking on a footpath, but you wouldnt recomend that all people should be walking on the road as a preferred alternative.

[yorkie1999]

Who cares. Think about it!

[volpeazzurro]

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Your terminology "propaganda" is evidence as to why there is a need for my information and education.

 

The fear of using the" wrong terminology" is just a distraction, no-one would be in trouble for an accidental misuse, its just people who deliberately are antagonistic and are looking to cause disruption.

 

They are NOT wholly accepted, LGBTQI people are routinely beaten and harassed on nights out and are not given equal rights. 

 

Some people get run over while walking on a footpath, but you wouldnt recomend that all people should be walking on the road as a preferred alternative.

And your leaping on the use of the word propaganda is evidence of why people at times don't want to engage. People use words that they feel are fit for purpose at the time, yet there are others that can't wait to pick them up on such use of one word in a show of feined shock horror, point scoring and an attempt to reveal an air of superiority for their own agenda. If you really think that people can't get into trouble for saying things innocently 'to them' then your being incredibly neive, probably you're one of those that jumps on them to prove a polititical point.

 

Gay people undeniably get beaten and harassed on a night out at times but, isn't your use of the word 'routinely' perhaps also a little overstated? Many people get beaten and harassed on nights out for a variety of reasons, mainly by drunk ill educated thuggish individuals that will try and find any excuse ie gay, ethnicity or religion being just a few. They are all equally as bad and need stamping out. I think in real terms we would broadly be singing from the same song sheet regarding our views regarding issues of equality. I just feel that sometimes the way the message is put across can be counterproductive to the cause and people switch off.

[MC Prussian]

10 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Your terminology "propaganda" is evidence as to why there is a need for my information and education.

 

The fear of using the" wrong terminology" is just a distraction, no-one would be in trouble for an accidental misuse, its just people who deliberately are antagonistic and are looking to cause disruption.

 

They are NOT wholly accepted, LGBTQI people are routinely beaten and harassed on nights out and are not given equal rights. 

 

Some people get run over while walking on a footpath, but you wouldnt recomend that all people should be walking on the road as a preferred alternative.

Your stance is strong and well-known. And I don't mean to come across as condescending here.

I think it's fair to say nobody is against getting educated on LGBTQI (what happened to the +?) issues, yet the vast majority of the population on this globe don't share these sexual orientations, it's just that some are more receptive and understanding than others. But in the end, who wants to have fringe issue education forced down their throat?

 

I'd like to point out that for LGBTQI people in Australia for instance make up about 3% of the total population (2014 poll), so they are on the fringe of society in terms of numbers.

Same goes for the people you'd call "antagonists", I'm not sure there are that many of those, either.

 

I agree that nobody deserves to be harassed, beaten up or killed because of their sexual orientation, I'm wondering how many incidents there really are in total, how many of those were actually of anti-LGBTQI nature and how they measure up in comparison. How serious is it really?

Educate me here - what's the situation in Australia like in terms of attacks against LGBTQI?

 

Because I sometimes get this impression that some (not all) LGBTQ proponents, especially the activist ones, use generalizations and a somewhat false victimhood mentality, trying to create an image in order to attract more attention - not to the issue, but to themselves. Single incidents are then either blown out of proportion by the movement or the media to create a victimhood mentality narrative, when we have other more pressing and urgent issues to take care of in society in general.

 

And I think there's a kernel of truth in the saying: "If you continue to see yourself as the perpetual victim, you will continue to get victimized".

Edited 4 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

And I think there's a kernel of truth in the saying: "If you continue to see yourself as the perpetual victim, you will continue to get victimized".

Unfortunately, despite the kernel of truth, this is used and exploited by terrible people to try and excuse terrible acts, in many different situations.

 

Just for the record, this is in no way intended as an attack on you or anyone taking up a different point of view to me.

[Finnaldo]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Your stance is strong and well-known. And I don't mean to come across as condescending here.

I think it's fair to say nobody is against getting educated on LGBTQI (what happened to the +?) issues, yet the vast majority of the population on this globe don't share these sexual orientations, it's just that some are more receptive and understanding than others. But in the end, who wants to have fringe issue education forced down their throat?

 

I'd like to point out that for LGBTQI people in Australia for instance make up about 3% of the total population (2014 poll), so they are on the fringe of society in terms of numbers.

Same goes for the people you'd call "antagonists", I'm not sure there are that many of those, either.

 

I agree that nobody deserves to be beaten up or killed because of their sexual orientation, I'm wondering how many incidents there really are in total, how many of those were actually of anti-LGBTQI nature and how they measure up in comparison.How serious is it really?  

Educate me here - what's the situation in Australia like in terms of attacks against LGBTQI? 

Because I sometimes get this impression that some (not all) LGBTQ proponents, especially the activist ones, use generalizations and a somewhat false victimhood mentality, trying to create an image in order to attract more attention - not to the issue, but to themselves. Single incidents are then either blown out of proportion by the movement or the media to create a victimhood mentality narrative, when we have other more pressing and urgent issues to take care of in society in general.

 

And I think there's a kernel of truth in the saying: "If you continue to see yourself as the perpetual victim, you will continue to get victimized".

 

"But in the end, who wants to have fringe issue education forced down their throat?... I'd like to point out that for LGBTQI people in Australia for instance make up about 3% of the total population" How much of a 'fringe argument' it is, is debatable. Knife crime is on the rise- but who cares? It's a small minority of people who actually get stabbed, why should we have a fringe issue shoved down our throat by the news?

 

Ultimately few social issues involve a majority of the population. The fact a totally innocent minority of society are subjected to discriminate acts of violence is unacceptable. 

 

"I'm wondering how many incidents there really are in total, how many of those were actually of anti-LGBTQI" "How serious is it really?"

 

From what I found:

 

- 4 attacked at the 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' in Sydney this year (source: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/mardi-gras-assault-four-lgbt-men-sydney/10872014)

 

- There's been a recent inquiry into how 90 gay murders between 1970-2010 were investigated in New South Wales

(source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/19/police-handling-of-40-years-of-gay-hate-crimes-under-scrutiny-in-nsw)

 

- A study from the Australian government detailing hate crimes between 1989 and 1999, suggesting four gay-hate related homicides per year in New South Wales.

(source: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi155)

 

The issue is that its hard to find much beyond straight up homicide or instances of multiple beating around one event, individual attacks that don;t result in serious injuries or death aren't likely to be deemed news-worthy above possibly local news, and even less so for verbal attacks or other non-violent but threatening behaviour. For that personal accounts are the best indicator we have. For Australia in particular, 'Nanette' by Hannah Gadsby is very good.

 

"Because I sometimes get this impression that some (not all) LGBTQ proponents, especially the activist ones, use generalizations and a somewhat false victimhood mentality...  If you continue to see yourself as the perpetual victim, you will continue to get victimized"

 

Personally, I'd rather a few bad apples driven by self-interest (these people tend to get found out either way) if it means a minority still familiar to violent or rhetoric oppression in Australia, the US, the UK & Europe, and even worse in the Middle East & South East Asia, get a voice and can try and change that situation.

Edited 4 September 2019 by Finnaldo

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

"But in the end, who wants to have fringe issue education forced down their throat?... I'd like to point out that for LGBTQI people in Australia for instance make up about 3% of the total population" How much of a 'fringe argument' it is, is debatable. Knife crime is on the rise- but who cares? It's a small minority of people who actually get stabbed, why should we have a fringe issue shoved down our throat by the news?

 

Ultimately few social issues involve a majority of the population. The fact a totally innocent minority of society are subjected to discriminate acts of violence is unacceptable. 

 

"I'm wondering how many incidents there really are in total, how many of those were actually of anti-LGBTQI" "How serious is it really?"

 

From what I found:

 

- 4 attacked at the 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' in Sydney this year (source: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/mardi-gras-assault-four-lgbt-men-sydney/10872014)

 

- There's been a recent inquiry into how 90 gay murders between 1970-2010 were investigated in New South Wales

(source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/19/police-handling-of-40-years-of-gay-hate-crimes-under-scrutiny-in-nsw)

 

- A study from the Australian government detailing hate crimes between 1989 and 1999, suggesting four gay-hate related homicides per year in New South Wales.

(source: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi155)

 

The issue is that its hard to find much beyond straight up homicide or instances of multiple beating around one event, individual attacks that don;t result in serious injuries or death aren't likely to be deemed news-worthy above possibly local news, and even less so for verbal attacks or other non-violent but threatening behaviour. For that personal accounts are the best indicator we have. For Australia in particular, 'Nanette' by Hannah Gadsby is very good.

 

"Because I sometimes get this impression that some (not all) LGBTQ proponents, especially the activist ones, use generalizations and a somewhat false victimhood mentality...  If you continue to see yourself as the perpetual victim, you will continue to get victimized"

 

Personally, I'd rather a few bad apples driven by self-interest (these people tend to get found out either way) if it means a minority still familiar to violent or rhetoric oppression in Australia, the US, the UK & Europe, and even worse in the Middle East & South East Asia, get a voice and can try and change that situation.

We're digressing from the main topic again here.

 

Just pointing out:

 

Four victims at the Sydney Mardi Gras, two of those who have been identified as a gay couple, two of whom we don't know anything about, and even then we don't know why they were all attacked, whether it was really down to their sexual orientation or other reasons.

 

As for the alleged 90 gay murders in between 1970 and 2010, surely you can see that this cannot be indicative of (Australian) society today for the most part? Besides, that's 2 murders per year, and here again, we don't really know what the real motive was behind the attacks and what the distribution is per annum (tendency of a rise or a decline).

 

I have my issue with "hate crimes", and the data mentioned for NSW in between 1989 and 1999 doesn't show the distribution or whether these crimes were on the rise or the decline (in that period). Again, these are 20- to 30-year old numbers and by no means indicative of the current level of tolerance, bit clinging onto a straw. And also, 37 "hate crimes" against homosexual men out of around 760 homicides with male victims is about 5% (slightly less) - again, these are past numbers.

 

So, we haven't really made any progress here in terms of proving that the issue is real or on the rise. I still sense a bit of fear-mongering coming from one side in particular, and no stats to back it up.

 

Interesting that NSW for example are excluding killings of homosexuals by homosexuals (partners, friends, affiliates, strangers) in those stats.

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Four victims at the Sydney Mardi Gras, two of those who have been identified as a gay couple, two of whom we don't know anything about, and even then we don't know why they were all attacked, whether it was really down to their sexual orientation or other reasons.

 

I mean, a gay couple attacked during a specifically gay event? It's most likely a hate crime. To say otherwise is a stretch.

 

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

As for the alleged 90 gay murders in between 1970 and 2010, surely you can see that this cannot be indicative of (Australian) society today for the most part? Besides, that's 2 murders per year, and here again, we don't really know what the real motive was behind the attacks and what the distribution is per annum (tendency of a rise or a decline).

 

As per my post, it's 90 murder in New South Wales alone. It's true we don't know the trend and as I said, it's extremely hard to get figures on isolated attacks and non-violent intimidation or harassment.

 

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

So, we haven't really made any progress here in terms of proving that the issue is real or on the rise. I still sense a bit of fear-mongering coming from one side in particular, and no stats to back it up.

 

The issue clearly is real. "We can see you holding hands" is still sang at Brighton fans regularly, Ethan Stables was sentenced last year for a planned terrorist attack on a LGBT night one of his local pubs, two lesbians were attacked on a bus in London in June for kissing, a man was detained before London Pride in July on suspicion of carrying out knife attacks there, two actors were attacked in the street in June in Southampton for taking part in a LGBT play. In general, there's been a massive surge of reports of anti-LGBT hate crimes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/14/homophobic-and-transphobic-hate-crimes-surge-in-england-and-wales

 

 

[swanlee]

On 03/09/2019 at 15:04, Cujek said:

 

Quote

Even forest fans should be allowed to wear their shirt in public if they wish. 

Yeah but surely only within the boundary of Nottingham right!?!

 

Quote

No one should receive abuse for holding the hand of the person that they love. 

Unfortunately they do ..... hence the need of a flag and the gesture of the club.

 

 

Quote

I like to wave at other mini owners (whether they know they are in the club or nor) not all of them wave back and it makes me sad when they don't, my Mrs is constantly having a go at me for for waving to women in cars, I'm not waving at the person I'm waving at the mini owner..

I really don't know what to say - I'm of a liberal outlook and you should really be allowed to wave at who you want 

But I can also see yer' missus's point-of-view

And have you ever wondered what the fella's driving the other mini's you wave frantically at might be thinking!