Soldato
The power is in the hands of the minority. It's just the hot topic this day in age. Soon it will pass and it will be some other group.
Phillip Schofield comes out as gay
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
You're making generalisations too.
Some gay people might find the Gordon the gopher jokes acceptable (maybe even funny); some might be mortified and filled with righteous fury.
If you make a blonde joke to a blonde, some might giggle and act up the stereotype (knowing that it is just a stereotype); some might be horrified and report you to HR.
A lot of us reject the "you're a terrible x-phobic" narrative as nothing but a means to gain power/privilege/control. People need to stop assuming everyone is x-phobic and actually get better at telling real prejudice and hate from people have a laugh at Gordon the gopher, or making a harmless blonde joke.
(Please don't respond by saying that blonde jokes are hair-o-phobic)
Soldato
I agree 100%. It's down to the recipient to decide whether the joke offended them, that's all I'm saying. I also don't think analogies are helpful in this particular instance, it just deflects from the actual topic.
I can't add much more than that; I'm not looking to get the last word, people can agree or disagree.
That leaves us with a problem.
Those Gordon jokes were therefore homophobic in the eyes of people who were offended; not homophobic in the eyes of people who weren't offended.
In other words, accusations of homophobia in this case are *entirely* subjective.
Soldato
Yes, subjective. Gay people can decide for themselves whether or not it offended them.
Maybe it's time we started saying people who are gay. Being gay, ethnic, disabled shouldn't define who someone is. I can understand someone being offended if they think like that.
The problem with people deciding for themselves if they should be offended is nobody will talk to that group, because its too awkward. Then soon after we'll see real discrimination.
A persons ego isn't above the rest of society. If a person wants to be integrated then they have to make an effort too. If someone calls you a name there is nothing stopping you calling them a name back. Nobody is immune from insults, and everyone feels them to some degree.
Sometimes it makes it easier to embrace a stereotype. I have a friend who uses a wheelchair and people call him "wheels". I'm sure some people would call that anti-disabled.
I'm not having a go at you. I know a lot of people aren't used to answering back, and they can't defend themselves. A lot of people arent taught how to defend themselves.
People need to take confidence classes and be happy in who they are. Then this stuff wouldn't matter to them.
I believe Schofield as said he appreciated it when Eamonn Holmes made a gay joke during his announcement. The newspapers were white knighting attacking Holmes.
Don
I personally have no issues with Phillip Schofield (or anyone for that matter) being gay. Him coming out as well must have taken a lot of courage, but it is his wife and kids I feel for, mainly his wife. I wonder how she feels in all of this and how hard it must be if asked, not to say "Shocked and hurt" because in this day and age, then she may be made into the villain.
My real question to Mr Schofield is "Why now?"
My real question to Mr Schofield is "Why now?"
Definitely more going on than meets the eye. As somebody said on Reddit, it's like he's the hero for being unfaithful to his wife and some say she's almost the villian.
Apparently Schofield is a real piece of work in real also.
All looks like more propaganda to cover up crimes.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
What crimes ? And how does coming out as gay undo these crimes ?
Yeah if he'd been sleeping around or taking an interest in young women then he'd be getting plenty of flack for cheating on his wife etc...
It's not confirmed whether he's cheated but assuming he has then somehow sleeping with or taking an interest in young men is more acceptable?
I mean in both cases the motivation is perhaps (at least partly) a lack of interest/attraction towards the spouse, in the first case perhaps due to age/lack of sex life etc.. in the second well just straight up wrong sex!
If anything the old straight bloke who did have a happy marriage and then it later fell apart was honest for some time, their partner can know they did at one point have a happy genuine relationship, in this case Phil has essentially lied to someone for decades and they're not getting that time back... he's faked it, all those happy memories, that wedding etc.. she was at best just a good friend he was using/taking advantage of.
I wonder if the allegations that he was a bully, falling out with one of his co-stars and recent awkwardness a the national television awards were a factor - she wouldn't even look him in the face etc..
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/tv/phillip-schofield-ruth-langsford-ntas-17650818
He's gone from allegations of being a bully to "OMG how brave, he came out and did some emotional stuff on TV"
Soldato
Couldn't really care less if someone prefers sausage over taco, what I do care about though is when someone tries to use their "status" as a means to gain power over someone else which is completely unjustified in most cases, and that seems to be the case these days. Look at Labour currently jumping on the trans bandwagon, calling womens rights groups transphobic.
This **** has got to stop.
This **** has got to stop.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
What's this now?
Labour being fully into the crazy end of the SJW spectrum is one of my bigger reservations about them.
Since at least half of the SJW "issues" are nonsense/power struggles/identity politics. Stuff that should mostly be laughed at by serious politicians, but Labour seem to be happy to jump in with both feet.
Man of Honour
You are, unsurprisingly, making that up. It has no connection to my post that you are "replying" to.
When someone is seeking to do you harm and blaming you for them doing you harm, it's bullying. Victim-blaming is something some bullies do. My example was realistic.
Also realistic is the statement that what really matters is the perceived status of the group identities involved because "offended" is entirely political. You're pretending it's about people's feelings, that's it's personal. That is a silly pretence. It's a political weapon and it's entirely about fashionable irrational prejudices.
If I say you've offended me, the only thing that matters is what group identity I lay claim to. If I say you've offended me and I claim the group identity "male", I'll be villified. If I say you've offended me and I claim the group identity "white", I'll be villified. If I say you've offended me and I claim the group identity "gay", you'll be villified unless you claim a higher status group identity or the same group identity and more loyalty to the ideology of fashionable irrational prejudices. It's solely about the fashionable hierarchy of group identity and fashionable irrational prejudices.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
Have you studied the Labour Party's last manmifesto in much detail then?
Do you seriously believe that the average Labour voter is on the "crazy end of the SJW spectrum"?
You REALLY need to retune your set pal
ps - WTF does this have to do with Philip Schofield?
Have you studied the Labour Party's last manmifesto in much detail then?
Do you seriously believe that the average Labour voter is on the "crazy end of the SJW spectrum"?
You REALLY need to retune your set pal
ps - WTF does this have to do with Philip Schofield?
^^^ someone is still super salty about magic grandpa getting BTFO in the election.
The connecting is that FoxEye was replying to a post about identity politics and commented on a. recent issue, in particular Labour and RLB's recent comments re: some women's movements being transphobic.
Note he referred to Labour not Labour voters... though I suspect that plenty of the people you might consider average Labour voters actually voted Tory recently.... On the other hand the woke brigade who would likely share the view re: women's groups/transphobia expressed by at least one current leadership candidate likely did vote Labour.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,747
I'm subjectively offended by you. Ergo you should be banned and all your posts removed from this forum. Am I doing this right?
Soldato
I don't want to quote your entire post as it's very repetitive. What you are essentially saying, and trust me I'm not "making that up" I'm simply paraphrasing what most would consider quite the ramble... is that when gay people complain about others making lewd jokes about their sexuality then it's actually passive aggression on their behalf? You're saying that you have every right to mock these people, but if they express any complaint that they find that offensive then they're bullying you? If this is the case, then I disagree with that and I think I've made that very clear. If not, then feel free to clarify.
Please note, when you refer to people of "higher status group identity" then you're losing my interest pretty rapidly. I'm talking about real people who actually exist, not figments of someone's imagination.
No, the only thing that matters is what I actually did to provoke that reaction, because in real life face to face interaction it should be a rare verbal exchange to have with someone.
Man of Honour
Do you think that's what happened? He woke up and thought, "oh, I'm quite partial to a bit of **** actually"
Honestly, I really wonder about people sometimes.
Soldato
As we are told that it's "normal" to be gay then I don't see what all the fuss is about, if he wanted to be a really "cool kid" he should have come out as Trans, that's the new "special".