It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:38 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 11:40 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
http://www.latintimes.com/articles/3512 ... ollins.htm

Asante Samuel Of The Atlanta Falcons Comments On Jason Collins: ‘Gays Shouldn’t Flaunt Their Sexuality’
By Donovan Longo, May 03, 2013 02:57 PM EDT
0 Comments
inShare
Text Size

(PHOTO CREDIT: Creative Commons)

Asante Samuel, cornerback for the Atlanta Falcons, had an interview with Fox Sports Radio to discuss his feelings on Jason Collins coming out. Collins came out as a first openly gay athlete. The NBA player revealed his homosexuality on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

While during his interview he expressed that he meant no disrespect, Samuel seems to have an issue with the announcement. The Falcons player questions why homosexuals have to "flaunt" their sexuality.

Like Us on Facebook

Samuel stated, "Straight people are not announcing they're straight, so why does everybody have to announce their sexuality or whatever? You know, what they prefer...So that's just how I see it. That's my opinion on things. All respect you know, I have nothing but respect for the people whoever decisions they make and whatever, but you know, you don't have to show it and flaunt it like that. You know what I'm saying, we have kids out here, too."

It seems that Samuel believes in a world of "don't ask, don't tell." However the initial comment seemed non-offensive, his latest comments on ESPN seemed a bit more controversial. Samuel added to Chris McKendry in an interview on Sports Center, "I don't think it's something we have to express and let be known of what my sexuality preference is - just stick to sports. I don't want to teach my kids those things. I teach my kids God. You know, how God lives his life."

People are beginning to question what exactly does Asante Samuel not want to teach his children? Comment below and let us know what you think of Asante Samuel's comment.

src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=MweGljYjpObl5tE93INZp7L6XQz5qE55&video_pcode=BhdmY6l9g002rBhQ6aEBZiheacDu&deepLinkEmbedCode=MweGljYjpObl5tE93INZp7L6XQz5qE55&width=450&height=300">

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Really America?
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Really, Asante? :doh:

http://www.businessinsider.com/asante-s ... out-2013-5

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Really America?
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:02 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4190
Well, I'll go on record to say that I believe in marriage equality. I believe that a gay couple should have exactly the same benefits as a straight couple. Whether or not you believe a relationship should be recognized by the church, I have not found many people that believe that a significant other shouldn't be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital, make health related decisions for that person, be able to file taxes jointly with them, etc.

But I also kinda agree with Asante. People shouldn't have to announce their sexuality. It shouldn't matter what a person's sexual preference is.

I don't agree with Asante bringing religion into the mix. In biblical terms, sin is sin, and assuming that Asante is a sinner, he has no room to judge other people. Fornication is a sin. Adultery is an offense punishable by death, but we don't see many people wanting to bring that biblical law out of retirement. The church itself spits on the 2nd commandment with the crosses, praying to patron saints, etc. It blows me away how selective people are about what religious rules they decide to scream about. I suppose that's why Jesus decided to simplify things by saying to love God, and love each other. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone lived by that standard?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Really America?
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:09 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 2329
Location: Albany NY
wow Asante's a moron.... hope this is the last year he's on our team.

_________________
When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 9:38 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-o ... -tolerated

Goodell on gay players in NFL: It will be accepted, not just tolerated
By Ryan Wilson | CBSSports.com
May 9, 2013 7:15 pm ET

Roger Goodell: 'We're all different in some fashion, and we're accepting of our differences.' (USATSI)
Back in March, a month before the NBA's Jason Collins revealed he was gay, CBSSports.com's Mike Freeman wrote that some people believed the atmosphere was safe for an NFL player to come out.

Linebackers Scott Fujita and Brendon Ayanbadejo and punter Chris Kluwe have long championed gay rights, and all think NFL locker rooms could handle a gay teammate. On Thursday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell weighed in on the matter. In an interview with NFL.com's Steve Wyche, Goodell was asked, in light of the positive response to Collins coming out, if he believed a gay player would be "accepted."

"Yes. Again, I have such great respect for our players," Goodell said. "I don't think it will just be tolerated, I think it will be accepted. These are individuals who play in our league. We're all different in some fashion, and we're accepting of our differences. That's what this is all about.

"To me, if it happens in the league, that's a personal choice that someone would decide to do," the commissioner continued. "But I know their teammates and teams, and I think the fans will all respond the right way."

Earlier this spring, Jim Buzinski of Outsports.com, a website about "sports and gay athletes and fans," told the New York Times the NFL should speak out on the issues of diversity in the workplace.

“Roger Goodell needs to stand up and say something about this,” Buzinski said at the time. “He has never uttered a word about having gay players in the NFL. There are gay players who are known by some people. It's going to happen. We're not going to be waiting seven years for it, like we've been waiting 70 years for it.”

And now the league, through Goodell, has done that.

NFL Player's Association president Domonique Foxworth said in March he could envision a scenario where multiple gay players come out. However it happens, Foxworth says those players will have the full backing of the union.

“When the public finds out about it, it's going to be a media storm and it's going to be a lot of press and a lot of attention, and probably not all of it's gonna be positive,” Foxworth said. “But the NFLPA, as long as I'm president of it, is going to be behind that player and providing support."

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 4:14 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
admit it. when the brave guy decides to come out, he will be a member of the Buccaneers. Jus' sayin 8-)

Not trying to be 'funny' or 'cute', but whenever the first guy to come out in the NFL does: what position would he play? I'm guessing long snapper. How cool would it be if it was some enormous linebacker? Or some cocky Cornerback? :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 8:51 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: San Diego, CA
I dont care who ball players are sleeping with as long as they bring it on the field, but all the attention that a guy gets for coming out of the closet is ridiculous to me. That would be the only reason I would be against a openly gay player being on the Falcons (Unless he is Adrian Peterson, Megatron, or JJ Watt) because it would garner even more attention than Tebowmania. The truth of the matter is that unless a guy is in the top 15% of the league if he comes out he will not be accepted by most of his teammates. Kerry Rhodes is obviously gay and he will not admit to being gay because he knows how it will be received by his potential teammates.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
I disagree. I think unless the was already a high profile player, his homosexuality wouldn't be that much of an issue/distraction by and large within the locker room or the media as a whole.

And now is the ideal time to do it, in the off season, where any of those issues will be settled by the time the season starts and its back to business.

And its a big deal when people come out because these people have basically been living a lie for most if not all of their lives. Its a weight off their shoulders. A decade or so from now coming out won't be any sort of big deal. But now when the majority of Americans are still uncomfortable with homosexuality, it will remain a big deal.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 8:47 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/2 ... t?gcheck=1

Sports, military putting Christianity in the closet
May 12, 2013 |
1 Comment

A
A

Jason Collins, George Stephanopoulos
NBA veteran Jason Collins, left, seen here with George Stephanopoulos on April 29, became the first active player in one of four major U.S. sports to announce he is gay. / ABC
Written by
Gary Bauer

Filed Under

Opinion
Guest Columnist

Sports and the military used to be America’s foremost bastions of physical toughness, traditional masculinity and outspoken faith. They were institutions where, no matter what was happening elsewhere in the culture, smothering left-wing political correctness was unwelcome.

Those days are long gone. In fact, as recent events make clear, sports and the military have been consumed by political correctness. So much so that these institutions’ traditional values, especially their emphasis on faith, no longer are welcome.

Recent news in the sports world has been dominated by NBA player Jason Collins’ announcement that he is gay. For years, the gay rights movement has claimed that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody’s business. Yet Collins has been hailed as a hero for coming out as the first openly gay active player in one of the top American men’s sports leagues.

President Barack Obama said he “couldn’t be prouder” of Collins, whom he called to offer his support. The clear consensus is Collins is “brave” and “courageous” for his trailblazing announcement.

But here’s a prediction: Other than occasional taunts from fans and opposing players, Collins will face little negative response. And the negativity will be drowned out by the adulation he will continue to receive from cultural and political elites.

Any criticism of Collins’ sexuality already is taboo. Consider the response to ESPN commentator Chris Broussard, who cited his Christian faith in expressing his view that homosexuality is a sin, as is adultery, for example. Broussard’s view is well within the tenets of most major religions and is at the heart of Christianity’s moral theology. But that didn’t matter. ESPN issued an apology, saying, “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

ESPN pays Broussard to give his opinion, but when he gave an opinion that conflicted with the views of one of the sports world’s most powerful entities, political correctness won out.

A similar conclusion can be drawn from the Pentagon’s recent statement that soldiers could be prosecuted for sharing their faith. “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense,” the statement read.

The Pentagon later issued a clarification explaining soldiers can talk about their faith but that witnessing to fellow soldiers will not be tolerated and could be grounds for prosecution under military law.

How ironic.

Just a couple of years after the military began encouraging gay soldiers to “ask” and to “tell,” it now insists Christian soldiers not proclaim their faith too loudly.

The stated intent of political correctness is to make us a fairer and more tolerant society. But in reality, it has promoted institutional intolerance of traditional ideas and views. As a result, many people of faith are being pushed into the same proverbial closet that everyone else has been invited to leave.

Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.







Image

"traditional ideas and views"

:lol:

Wasn't that long ago that traditional ideals and views were that blacks were inferior. I always wonder what all these people depicted in this picture, who were just trying to uphold traditional ideals and views are up to now. I hope their "push into the closet" wasn't too much of an inconvenience over the past 40 years.

Image

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 10:05 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
I always wonder what all these people depicted in this picture, who were just trying to uphold traditional ideals and views are up to now. I hope their "push into the closet" wasn't too much of an inconvenience over the past 40 years.

Image



Pudge, you know as far as the 'gay' issues go, I don't give a f*ck. But, my issue is your pointing to this photo from Jackson, Mississippi, from 1963 as being 'politically correct' at that time. I do not believe that is the case.

Look, we all know Miss and the further South you go from Tenn, there are the 'Bubba's'. But, to say that this was 'politically correct' behaviour at the time, I believe, is false. Now, I was born in 67, and I know maybe Birdbrain probably marched on Selma, :roll: but my understanding is that this was documented, and not considered 'PC'. Outside of South of the M/D line. Plenty of other folks marched, sat in, and while the vast majority were black folks, alot of other's marched, sat, got arrested alongside. It 'might' and I say 'might' have been PC to act like this in the Deep South, in 1963...but it was not the norm for anywhere else. That is a fact. Sure, there are exceptions, but you didn't see folks in California pouring salt on peoples heads in the local Woolworths.

But you are saying this is like gays coming out in sports. At this point in time, do you think any NFL athlete is going to 'haze' a gay player? Like in Mississippi circa 1963? Hells to the no. Not today. And part of that is because of P.C. It's too expensive and a hassle.

Pudge, you know I am NOT a 'biblethumper'. Hell, I am considered next to Evil for mot 'christening' my only child. I am not 'that guy'.

Every experience I have had with a 'real old school' Civil Rights guy here in ATL ( Hosea,etc..) is the simple idea of 'Gay Rights' being similar or equal to those fought for those rights dilutes it. I do not agree with it, but I would love to see you engage folks like these about this: when I tried, I was told summarily 'Shut yer mouth, you dont know shizzyt."

But lets look at an example. There is an area in the ATL called the 'Bluff'. In this part of town, you can beat the crap out of a gay guy, but if you cooperate with the APD, then 'snitches get stitches', right? THIS, if you want to 'regionalize' it, is P.C., but the rest of the country/world does not fall in. Meaning: if you live in the Bluff, and you tell the police who committed a crime, it will be considered 'politically incorrect' by everyone else in the Bluff. But, not in Buckhead..See what I mean? (Likewise, while I know you believe a 'nice pretty girl' with a flat chest needs to get a boob job, NOT because of her insecurity, or her desire to attract men sexually, but because she is a nice girl and needs to 'feel better'. :wink: ) That is what P.C. leads to, in some cases. It just does not make sense to me. Look at another P.C. invention: the 'Hate Crime'. Be a white guy that beats up a black guy? Hate Crime. Be a black guy that beats up a gay guy? Hate Crime. White family in Louisiana gets beat up by a gang of black youth for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'? NOT a hate crime? Why? Because it is not 'politically correct'.

I dont cotton to the 'War on Xmas' or other such tripe. I am not a religious man. I do not attend a church ( unless you consider http://www.sisterlouisaschurch.com/

But look around: you can make a Tony Award winning musical mocking the Latter Day Saints ( I am going to see this in july so might have to hit up Emmitt for some beers), you can marginalize Christians, but if you say a peep about Islam or draw a picture of Mohammed, and watch the outrage! This is the worst part of P.C., it's not consistant, and it's because of the {P}. Like I said, Im not religious, but I dont look down on those that believe, even Scientology. I think the religion is silly, but if they want to believe in it, that's fine with me as long as you leave me alone....

BUt look at what is being done to Tebow? For what? It is not like the guy is like the crazy abortion DR in Philly. The worst ( WORST) thing he ever did was an anti abortion commercial. That is enough to keep him 'out of the league' while Asante's ignorant sh*t is just fine. Did you see us dumping Asante for 'talking out'? Yet, Asante is UN-PC, and so is Tebow. I know the weasels will say he 'sucks'. Okay. Whatever. He just makes them mad for being who they are. Tebow is the 'Gallant' to every educated progressives 'Goofus'. But to think this guy is going to the CFL this quick: that is not a case of P.C. gong awry?

What Asante said was un P.C. , but needs to be said. Not that I agree with his views, only that they are out there and considered. Peace :hihi:

Political correctness gets people killed. :beef:

I hope I made some sense here, and you get where I am coming from 8-)

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 9:14 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves

5.13.2013

By Bret Easton Ellis




The rush to embrace and console every gay man who comes out is infantilizing and condescending—but it's a script written and promoted by GLAAD and reinforced by a sanctimonious establishment of gay men that rewards those who play by the rules—and punishes those who don't. Novelist Bret Easton Ellis on why he refuses to take his bitch-slapping lying down.

Was I the only gay man of a certain demo who experienced a flicker of annoyance in the way the media treated Jason Collins as some kind of baby panda who needed to be honored and praised and consoled and—yes—infantilized by his coming out on the cover of Sports Illustrated? Within the tyrannical homophobia of the sports world, that any man would come out as gay (let alone a black man) is not only an LGBT triumph but also a triumph for pranksters everywhere who thrilled to the idea that what should be considered just another neutral fact that is nobody’s business was instead a shock heard around the world, one that added another jolt of transparency to an increasingly transparent planet. It was an undeniable moment and also extremely cool. Jason Collins is the future. But the subsequent fawning over Collins simply stating he is gay still seemed to me, as another gay man, like a new kind of victimization. (George Stephanopoulos interviewed him so tenderly, it was as if he was talking to a six-year-old boy.) In another five years hopefully this won’t matter, but for now we’re trapped in the times we live in. The reign of The Gay Man as Magical Elf, who whenever he comes out appears before us as some kind of saintly E.T. whose sole purpose is to be put in the position of reminding us only about Tolerance and Our Own Prejudices and To Feel Good About Ourselves and to be a symbol instead of just being a gay dude, is—lamentably—still in media play.

The Gay Man as Magical Elf has been such a tricky part of gay self-patronization in the media that you would by now expect the chill members of the LGBT community to respond with cool indifference. The Sweet and Sexually Unthreatening and Super-Successful Gay is supposed to be destined to transform The Hets into noble gay-loving protectors—as long as the gay in question isn’t messy or sexual or difficult. The straight and gay sanctimoniousness that says everyone gay needs to be canonized when coming out still makes some of us who are already out feel like we’re on the sidelines. I’m all for coming out on one’s own terms, but heralding it as the most important news story of the week feels to me, as a gay man, well, kind of alienating. We are apart because of what we supposedly represent because of… our… boring… sexuality—oh man, do we have to go through this again? And it’s all about the upbeat press release, the kind of smiling mask assuring us everything is awesome. God help the gay man who comes out and doesn’t want to represent, who doesn’t want to teach, who doesn’t feel like part of the homogenized gay culture and rejects it. Where’s the gay dude who makes crude jokes about other gays in the media (as straight dudes do of each other constantly) or express their hopelessness in seeing Modern Family being rewarded for its depiction of gays, a show where a heterosexual plays the most simpering ka-ween on TV and Wins. Emmys. For. It? Why isn’t the gay dude I have always known and the gay dude I have always wanted to be not front and center in the media culture now? But being “real” and “human” (i.e. flawed) is not necessarily what The Gay Gatekeepers want straight culture to see.

***

I was invited to the GLAAD media awards last April by one of my agents. The agency had bought a table, and she asked me to be her date. The night was going to honor Bill Clinton—bizarre since Clinton had signed DOMA and 'don’t ask, don’t tell,' but GLAAD has also honored Brett Ratner this year after he had innocuously said “Rehearsals are for fags,” and was forced to repent. So, whatever. But I accepted and started to worry about what I was going to wear. At the time I received the invitation I really had no idea that GLAAD harbored any resentment against a gay man who sometimes expresses his distaste with the stereotypical way Hollywood represents gays in transgressive language on my Twitter account. (GLAAD had even nominated The Rules of Attraction as movie of the year in 2003—it lost to The Hours, where of course a tormented gay dude with AIDS commits suicide by throwing himself out of a window in front of Meryl Streep, whereas in Rules, cool-with-being-gay college student Ian Somerhalder only falls in love with James Van Der Beek and becomes bummed by his rejection.) It’s dumbly obvious to state, but ever since I realized I was gay I have always supported gay rights—as a gay person it just becomes part of your DNA. I have not, however, supported the way gay people have been portrayed in the media, and that’s where the Twitter rancor expresses itself. But since I know so many gay men who feel like I do—that they are represented in some kind of unending gay minstrel show in movies and on TV often created by gay writers and producers, or just conveniently ignored (not a single Best Picture nominee last year had a gay character in it)—I assumed that the community I was supposedly a part of was as inclusive as I was harmlessly critical—it’s a Twitter account, gays, move on. Certainly I hadn’t f****-up as many gay lives as Bill Clinton had. So: I was going to the GLAAD awards. Cool, I guess.

The day before the event my agent texted me and told me that GLAAD was “furious” with my tweets and that I had been disinvited. I was sitting in the ArcLight with my boyfriend of four years about to watch a matinee of Oblivion (I don’t even want to get into the layers of gay irony surrounding that) when I got the news. The agent had sent me part of GLAAD’s email along with their “instructions,” saying that they hoped I wasn’t disappointed by the news (I was a little disappointed, but thinking it through, I guess not that surprised considering how literal-minded and irony-free GLAAD always seemed). They also said they hoped that I would not go public or tweet about this decision. They suggested, like they are prone to do (especially with dudes who have somehow “transgressed” the GLAAD Rules of Humorless Social Etiquette), that they have a “sit down” with me. As a gay man, I could only think: Where in the hell are we? Gay Elementary School? I apologized to the agent for any embarrassment this might have caused her and tweeted about the news.

A lot of gay people came out in support of me, but it was GLAAD’s party and they’re allowed to invite or disinvite anyone they want to. GLAAD has since its inception been divisive within the gay community. For all the good it has done, many gays have seen it as a group that could be almost fascistically politically correct and in confused ways: an organization that preached tolerance but would also bitch-slap anyone who didn’t necessarily agree with their agenda. GLAAD was at the red-hot center of creating The Gay Man as Magical Elf in the culture and often awarded the stereotypes parading around in embarrassing queer movies and degrading retro sitcoms as simply “gay positive” because they were, um, gay, and conveniently disregarded the fact that there is a silent majority of gay men who actively loathe and resist the caricatures on display. And, no, GLAAD, these men don’t hate themselves.

Gay activists dive-bombing other gays who express an opinion that doesn’t lean toward their agenda means that within the gay world we are living in a very simplistic place. A barbed observational opinion tweeted by a gay man about gay men in Hollywood—and not directed at anyone—becomes, in the world of GLAAD, hate-speech. When a community prides itself on its differences and uniqueness and bans the gay man because of the way the gay man expresses himself—then a corporate PC fascism has been put into play that needs to be seriously reconsidered by the LGBT community. This is a problem: If you are a gay man who is not The Gay Man as Magical Elf, then you run the risk of being ostracized by the elite gay community. An organization holding an awards ceremony that they think represents all gays and also feels that they can choose which gays can and cannot be a member of the party is, on the face of it, ridiculous. The fact remains that if you aren’t presenting yourself as a happy homosexual promoting healthy mainstream gay values and pimping for GLAAD, then you’re somehow defaming The Cause.

***

An openly gay director Facebooked me after the GLAAD debacle and said that he agreed with much of what I had tweeted (as did a lot of gay dudes in the industry), especially how aggravating it was to see gay people still portrayed in entertainment as basically bitchy clowns or the queeny best friend or now, on Scandal, the evil Republican. (Max Blum on Happy Endings felt like a move that balanced things out.) He thought a lot of what I said was correct, even though he may have worded it differently. A gay TV writer also agreed with the tweets but couldn’t understand why I would bother to care what The Gay Middlebrow thinks about anything. What exactly drew the ire of GLAAD and threw them into a massive hissy-fit? Well, because of something I tweeted they assumed that I believe that gay actors can’t play straight roles. Wrong.

I never said Gay Actors Can’t Play Straight Roles. I said that openly and famously gay Matt Bomer who is publicly married to his partner seemed a weird idea for the role of the very straight BDSM freako Christian Grey in the movie adaptation of Fifty Shades of Grey. I thought this because of Matt’s easy openness with being gay (which I whole-heartedly encourage and applaud, especially for an actor with leading-man looks working in a homophobic casting biz) and with baggage that I believe would distract from the heavy sexual fantasy of that particular movie. A key exchange in the first section of the book is Anastasia’s open questioning of Christian’s sexuality and his insulted denials—with Bomer in the role, it becomes a very META scene. Right now, in this moment, this particular casting would be a distraction—the public/private life of the actor mixed-up with playing a voracious het predator. Now, I could be totally wrong about this as well. Maybe women seeing the movie wouldn’t have to reprocess the actor playing the role in order to fall into the fantasy. As a friend of gay actors who feel they can’t reveal their sexuality if they want to land certain parts, I know that Bomer coming out couldn’t have been easy, and it should be encouraged, and my tweet could probably be construed as borderline insensitive. But on the other hand: so f**** what? Big deal. It was simply an opinion. I wasn’t in any position to hire or not hire Matt Bomer. I simply said that in this role there’s, um, a problem—I think. (And I disagree with Bomer fans who argue that Matt Bomer successfully played a straight male stripper in Steven Soderbergh’s Magic Mike because I don’t remember Matt in that movie at all except for the scene where he’s ogling Alex Pettyfer while telling him it’s OK to screw his wife while he watches.)

What else outraged them? Tweeting that watching Glee is like “stepping into a puddle of HIV” and that Chris Colfer singing “Le Jazz Hot” gave me “the hivs.” The fact is that my HIV-positive gay friends make gallows jokes about HIV and AIDS all the time, which helps them remove any moralistic stigma surrounding the disease and the black humor as a coping mechanism. If you get pissed at the HIV tweet, then what you are doing is making HIV a moral and political thing (which is what the right-wing did) instead of just another one of nature’s f***-ups that happened to hit the gay community first. What I thought was funny about the tweet was connecting the seriousness of HIV among gay men (which again should have no morality attached to it) with what is essentially a dumb kids show that embarrasses some members of the gay community just because it’s so, well, lamely gay. I probably should have known that this would have enraged the gay PC police, but I didn’t tweet it at anyone. And really? If a gay man—or, let’s face it, a straight man—can’t make an HIV joke and somehow connect it with Glee, then I guess we’re all lost in The French Royal Court of West Hollywood.

***

Because of these and similar comments, I’ve been accused by a few vocal sections of the gay community of being a “self-loathing” gay man. I might be a little self-loathing at times (I don’t think it’s an unattractive quality, BTW) but it’s not because I’m gay. I might come off that way because I think life is essentially hard and that scalding humor and rallying against its absurdities is the path on which to move through the world—and sometimes that means making fun of myself or lashing out at media targets in a way that might make it look to a dumbass that I Hate Bret. That a gay man can’t make a joke equating AIDS with Grindr (something my boyfriend and I had used a number of times) without getting punished and being called “self-loathing” is indicative of the new gay fascism. The real shame isn’t the jokey observation. The real shame is the PC gay reaction to the jokey observation. The real shame is that most gay men—who are every bit as hilariously filthy and raunchy and un-PC as their straight male counterparts—have to somehow tow the GLAAD party line in public or else be criticized. A lot of gay men probably feel they can’t be provocatively raunchy or politically incorrect in the mainstream media because it doesn’t represent The Cause. This is where we’re at now, I guess. Within the clenched world of the gay PC police there has been a tightening of the reigns. It’s as if in this historic moment for gay men we somehow still need to be babied and coddled and used as shining examples of humanity and objects of fascination—the gay baby panda—and this is a new kind of gay victimization. The fact that it is often being extolled by other gays in the Name of the Good Cause is doubly stifling.

***

When I tweet something admiring about Zachary Quinto’s below-radar no-frills coming out or how “Ezra Miller Is The Future” or nominating The Perks of Being A Wallflower as best adapted screenplay on my WGA ballot or how hot I think het porn star James Deen is or glimpsing Alexander Skarsgård naked in the locker room at my gym or that Adam Driver in Girls is the sexiest man on television, I always get slammed by some young straight dude who follows me—occasionally tweeting back “I didn’t follow you to sign up for this gay s***,” and “Why are you such a fag?” I shrug it off. I don’t make a federal case about it and call the local chapter of GLAAD and have this boy’s Twitter account revoked. As a writer, I believe in free speech no matter what. Conversely, I also ignore flak from high-minded members of the gay community who took me to task for tweeting, before its official release, about how much I loved Andrew Haigh’s beautiful 2011 movie Weekend, probably the most extraordinarily honest and touching cinematic depiction of gay men I’ve seen. The two gay men, who hook up and spend a weekend together, are about as far from The Gay Men as Magical Elves as you can get. They’re lonely, they’re angry, they’re attractive but not within the stereotypical gay way the media espouses, they bond, they do a little drugs, they talk, they have fairly explicit sex, they have moments of happiness even though a muted dissatisfaction hovers over everything, they might never see each other again. Certainly no one “triumphs” in a gay cliché way and its ending is extremely moving because it’s so completely open-ended and real. To me: They represent.

But some people in the gay community demanded a more “positive” outlook on gay life and disagreed with me. They argued that, if I was going to recommend this movie to 300,000 followers, I should address the fact that the two men hook-up in a bar, are alienated in their respective ways, do drugs, and express disappointment about gay life—and this is negative. (Added note: They’re also poor.) I guess the guys in Weekend should have looked into adopting an Asian baby, planned their wedding over Mojitos at The Abbey, registered at Neiman-Marcus, and booked The Parker in Palm Springs for the nuptials. I found this response pretty tiresome, as I did when IFC, which distributed the movie, told me that they had problems when testing Weekend with certain members of the gay community who rejected the film and wanted something more gay positive than the wistfulness and confusion that permeates Weekend. The fact that PC gays often demand a candied fantasy that doesn’t really exist but, hey, represents our cause, rather than a sensitive and emotionally complicated movie written and directed by a gay man who is an artist, is a huge part of the disconnect within certain factions of the gay community. Even though Weekend was tossed a GLAAD award, that early criticism of my initial endorsement was indicative of this weird new bullshit: the Gay Suits demanding “gay positive” in the media versus the Gay Dudes who just want “gay reality” in the media no matter how painful and flawed that reality is.

***

Jason Collins, like Frank Ocean last year, is, in this moment a legitimate hero if not just an OK basketball player at the end of his career (which is something I like about him even more). But the over-protectiveness and the avalanche of acceptance is also for some gay men a kind of condescension. It says that if you are gay in this moment you automatically represent something. And you are expected to play this role just because of your sexuality. You have been anointed The Good Gay. What this notion leaves out is that: We are not all well-adjusted Good Gays. We’re not all happily queer—meaning the queer part doesn’t make us happy or unhappy—just that some of us are cranky, depressed wrecks. We’re complicated. We’re angry. We can be as rude about our sexuality as our straight counterparts. Some of us feel the need to express our “gay” selves any way we want to, even if that doesn’t conform to “gay positive” stereotypes. (A lot of us think these so-called “gay positive” stereotypes are, in fact, “gay nightmares.”) Some of us reject the notion of how Gay Life is defined and don’t want to be a part of it, and so we create our own.

Where’s the not-famous, slobby, somewhat lazy gay dude who is fine with being gay but just doesn’t care about being PC or being an example of “moral uplift,” who just wants to get on with his life, the guy who wants to be himself without becoming a label? A gay man who doesn’t equate gay with dignity? The gay man who feels he doesn’t have to march in the parade while smiling? The inclusion and promotion of this common gay man by the Gatekeepers of Politically Correct Gayness would be something shattering. It would be a massive move toward eliminating The Gay Man as Magical Elf. We’ll finally be past the place when a record producer, or a hip-hop artist, or an actress winning her lifetime achievement award becomes an Important Cultural Event teaching us all what it means after their carefully orchestrated outfests. Someone like Jason Collins has moved us much closer to that acceptance—it opens that door wider, and the domino effect keeps rolling. But the fact still remains that if you aren’t a happy homosexual totally at ease with yourself, promoting healthy mainstream values mirroring The Culturally Correct Gay Elite, then you’re considered a self-hating homo. This is still the normal heart of the gay lie.


http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/05 ... ical-elves

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 1:14 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
Fun gus, it's not about political correctness.

I abhor religion, I'm not sure if that's a secret. But I do. I have no problem with Faith, but I think Religion takes Faith, which is between an individual person and whatever his/her Higher Power is, and places rules, restrictions, etc. on it which makes it about power and control as opposed to Faith.

And I really abhor when you often see/hear/read white Southern Christians talk about "traditional" things. I think many of these people have a fundamental misunderstanding of American and World history, particularly when they espouse how this country was founding to be some sort of Christian Citadel in the World. One of the major American ideals is secularism, because America say in Great Britain how bad it was when Church and State were not separated. What these people don't understand is that when Great Britain separated from Rome in the 1500s, they installed their monarch as the head of the new Anglican Church. And that Anglican Church through its political power oppressed many of its citizens, which led a number of them to settle in America (see the Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc.). The Founding Fathers wanted to build a country that would NOT make that same mistake, thus the Separation of Church and State. Religious Tolerance and Freedom and Secularism are the Founding Principles of America, not Christian Ideals and Morals as so many seem to think nowadays.

I was raised by two black parents who were both born in Virginia in the early 1950s, and grew up in Segregation in the South, but also saw the peak of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. So I grew up understanding the idea of change was not something to be feared, but in fact embraced.

So the idea of "traditional" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Because traditions naturally change and evolve over time.

And it wasn't that long ago that traditional meant where Blacks Knew Their Place. So maybe in 1963 as you say, that picture wasn't very kosher in most of America. But in 1943, it would have been.

This is not an anti-Christian rant, as certainly many of the people that in this country's first 200 years wanted to abolish slavery were primarily Christians. But this is an anti-rant against those Christians that are primarily the base of the conservative Right that believe this country should be completely represented by them. And all these people talk about is tradition, trying to rewind the clock to a time when America was better. And I say f*** that. Better for who? White people?

I was born in the 1980s in Virginia a stone's throw from where my parents were born and white kids of my generation grew up pondering why this whole race thing was a big deal a generation before. Just like kids a generation from now are going to grow up not quite understanding why the whole gay rights thing was even an issue. They are going to look at our generation, and say "Really now? All that because you didn't want them to get married?"

Just like kids of my age could look at that picture above and spot their parents/grandparents and say, "Really now? All that because you didn't want them to eat and sit on the same toilets as you?"

It's like illegal immigration. There's really no reason to stop it besides the fact that some white people are afraid that this country is going to be "too brown." Illegal immigration is like marijuana, it's illegal, but no one can give you a good reason why it's illegal.

I hate when people use their religion as a crutch for intolerance and bigotry, and the minute someone says, "Hey, you shouldn't do that" they cry Foul that they are now being oppressed, all the while suggesting their religious views are right because they are "traditional." I say tradition be damned.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 2:14 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
Fun gus, it's not about political correctness.


I hate when people use their religion as a crutch for intolerance and bigotry, and the minute someone says, "Hey, you shouldn't do that" they cry Foul that they are now being oppressed, all the while suggesting their religious views are right because they are "traditional." I say tradition be damned.



Pudge, I get where your coming from, but I think you missed my point. The sad fact is, it IS about political correctness. I hate having to defend douchebags like Gary Bauer.

But look where we are right now: intolerance reigns supreme. Tim Tebow is going to be out of the league, for what? Because he holds 'traditional views' on Gay Marraige and Abortion. That's it. Now, on one hand you;ve got Asante, who also holds 'traditional views' like Tebow, who is basically telling a gay man to STFU, and there is no 'consequence' for him. But Tebow, who at most has said he doesnt support gay marraige or abortion, but we haven't heard a peep about what he thinks about a gay NBA player coming out. And, I might add, he actually walks the walk, and does the hard work ( unlike Asante, who just runs his mouth), but he will be out of a job? Why? Because he holds the same views as Asante? That is a perfect example of the effect that PC has on society. Plus, if a gay white man takes offense at Asante, and calls him out on it: guess what? Asante can always rely on the old 'well, now you are just being racist' card. Tebow? He doesn't get to do that.

You and I agree on most things, and I our personal views on religion are pretty much the same. But, there IS a certain mindset that 'white Southern Christians that talk about "traditional" things' should not be tolerated. You yourself fall victim to this. Why? It seems to me you are not very tolerant of Mr Douchebags opinion...And you seemed to relate his holding his views as the same kind of 'stupid' thinking that occurred in Mississippi in 1963. I dont like the guys views, either. But, Im 'tolerant' of them. And Tim Tebow is a 'white southern christian', the kind that holds views you abhor, yet you've defended him on many occasions..What sets him apart from Mr Douchebag? My opinion is this: Tebow actually lives it, while the other guy talks it.

I have a personal grudge against religion. I wont go into detail, but religion has done more harm to me and my family then good. That's why I am a heathen. But, I am tolerant of my older brothers Catholicism( probably like my older sister who is in AA who is tolerant of my hard drinkin ways;-).

And I know idiots like OReilly go overboard with thier 'war on Christians' crapola, but there is a certain small amount of truth to it. If you think that religious people are 'tolerated' in acedemia, and not looked down upon, Im sorry to say your wrong. I've seen it back when I was in college in the 80's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/educa ... =all&_r=1&

Illegal Immigration. Pudge, do you know who gets affected the most, in inner-city Atlanta by this? African Americans, who used to do the jobs that the immigrants do. There is a guy from here who was a civil rights hero, and I knew him personally. Hosea Williams. I taught his granchild, Owedele in the early 90's. I went on to work for his charity for years and years. This guy was the real deal, and a hilarious man, to boot. He got something like 6 DUI's and still continued to drive all over Atlanta, and there wasn't a cop int he city that would have the nerve to jail him! He has streets and parks named after him. He was present when MLK was shot. Here is something you will not hear, but I heard it from Hosea. He hated Jesse Jackson to the core. According to HOsea ( and I choose to believe him on this) immediately after MLK was shot, and the ambulance, police and press were on the way, Jesse knelt down and started scooping up blood and smearing it on his shirt. Then, when the cameras were on, he began to weep saying 'I cradled the King's head in my bosom as he died'. This pissed off Hosea to no end. BUt I got sidetracked, sorry... Anyways, you would think that a guy like Hosea, who was realy 'down with the struggle' would be pretty openminded. But he disliked Mexicans because, in his view, the construction jobs that black men used to do were getting taken over by them. And the only thing he hated more then a klansman, mexican, or a Republican was a goddamned faggot. It used to shock me to hear him say things like this.

I think I got into a discussion with him back then about 'dont ask/dont tell'. In his view, those goddamned faggots have no place serving in the military AT ALL. When I pointed out to him that this was essentially the same argument used to keep blacks out of the military, he got pretty upset with me. As if, just because of the 'color of my skin' I could not even ask the question: it was that offensive...I leaned a lesson about tolerance that day, a sad one. And I may be wrong, but Im picking up a little of that attitude from you about 'southern white christians', like just because SOME of those a$$holes did a$$holy things they shouldn't be talking about 'traditions'. Also, when I talk to older black guys about gay marriage, and I point out that it is as much a Civil Right as interracial marraige, then tend to get mad at me. Again, because of the color of my skin, I shouldn't 'comment on things I dont know about'. It is not PC.

Hosea once told me the three things that decimated the black man in the ATL was the drug war, the Messicans' and Desegregation. He said Auburn Ave was a bustling black business district, replete with nightclubs, restaurants,churches, etc. Desegregation led to its riun, according to him. Im not sure if he is correct, but I loved that man because he was definitely not 'PC'. But he was not a perfect man.

So I hope some of that makes sense.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 3:09 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
First off, Tim Tebow isn't being run out of the league because of his political/social/religious views, he's being run out of the league because (1) people believe he's not a good quarterback and that it will be extremely difficult to win football games with him long-term, and (2) people fear the distraction he creates due to the increased media scrutiny.

That's why nobody is signing Tebow more than anything because now you're going to have entities like ESPN and NFL Network (and any local media) spending a ton of time talking about him rather than the team. If he was a 65% completer, then he'd probably still be the Denver QB, but he'd certainly have a job. But the guy completes less than 47% in an era where the average NFL quarterback completes 62%.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. Look, Rashard Mendenhall said some unpopular things following the death of Osama bin Laden. But that didn't get him run out of PIttsburgh. It was the fact that since those comments, he's averaged just 53 yards per game when the season before those comments he averaged about 80. He also missed 11 games in the past 2 years due to injury, and had more issues with fumbles (1 fumble every 69 carries past 2 years, 1 per 113 in previous 2). Meanwhile Roddy White doesn't go more than 3 months without saying something unpopular or controversial, yet he's not in danger of being run out of Atlanta because he is still a very good WR. Now in 2 years when his contract is conveniently up and he might not be as good a player, his mouth might get him in a lot more trouble, as was the case in Cincinnati with Chad Johnson when his product dipped.

Look, we might have two opinions that are much more optimistic about Tebow's QB abilities, but the simple fact is that most of the 32 other teams don't agree. Maybe there are a handful of teams that don't like Tebow's "beliefs" but they would be a very small number that would use that as a reason to sign him, the overwhelming majority simply don't believe he can play QB at a high level, especially as a backup given his limitations. Had Joe Webb not been so terrible in the playoffs, maybe that would have given Tebow a better shot, but I think teams are fearful that even as a backup if Tebow got an opportunity it would just be the same as Webb.

As for the illegal immigration thing affecting the black community, I've heard those arguments before and there isn't quite definitive proof that it really has a hugely negative impact there. And one might argue if I may be so bold to criticize my own community, is it really illegal immigration that is causing the problem or the fact that not enough black youths are going beyond secondary education to the point that they are competing with immigrants for low-end jobs rather than whites, Asians, etc. for mid and upper-level jobs?

When I consider myself tolerant, I believe in a largely live and let live philosophy. I may not agree with everything other people do, but generally speaking as long as you are not harming others, then I'm willing to mind my own business. Now when your message starts advocating violence towards others, there's going to be a problem thus why I might not be so willing to let Neo-Nazis be.

Look, I could be overreacting to Gary Bauer simply expressing an opposing viewpoint/opinion. It's just that idea of "traditional values" as it is connected to the American Ideal just strikes a nerve with me. Because I'm an advocate of change of evolution. If I had a religion, it would be that of Science and Evolution, which is one that changes and adapts over time, rather than be stagnant and written by men 3000 years ago like most Judeo-Christian ideals, laws, and beliefs are.

Those laws were written by people that thought you'd burn in hell for eating a cheeseburger or a shrimp cocktail, and had just recently committed their fair share of genocide under the command of Joshua. Or people that believed God was why it rained or why the wind blew, or thought disease and sickness was caused by sin and demons. So I'm sitting here thinking maybe these people shouldn't be the folks who established the rules, laws, and morals that we should live by today. And it's funny because much of my interpretation of the New Testament is Jesus saying that many of the laws written in the Book of Leviticus is all BS, which is the reason Jewish Priesthood was so eager to condemn him to death. And of course it's Leviticus 18 that is often cited by Christians as the reason why homosexuals are unnatural and should not be given the same rights as us normal humans.

Maybe I'm intolerant of "tradition" and all those that wish to harken back to it. It's been a tradition of mankind to rape, murder, and oppress each other. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be it. I'll just be an enlightened hypocrite.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:51 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
As for the illegal immigration thing affecting the black community, I've heard those arguments before and there isn't quite definitive proof that it really has a hugely negative impact there. And one might argue if I may be so bold to criticize my own community, is it really illegal immigration that is causing the problem or the fact that not enough black youths are going beyond secondary education to the point that they are competing with immigrants for low-end jobs rather than whites, Asians, etc. for mid and upper-level jobs?.



What would constitute 'definitive proof'? I gave you one argument that was anecdotal: but honest and correct. Hosea Williams remembered a time when all the nanny's in Buckhead were black women. My father in law and most of his ilk were primarily 'raised' by lower income, hard working black women. Im only 46, but even Ol Fun Gus can remember when I came here in the late eighties, and I would be driving home from the bars early in the a.m. on the backroads (avoiding the DUI stops) and I would see these women getting off the bus and going to work.

I promise you, Pudge, now they are primarily done by hispanic immigrants. Just go to any playground on the 'north' side of town on a sunny day and look around at the nanny's now. It is pretty clear they took over that business.

Similarly, when you needed construction done 30 years ago, it wasn't Hector that was comprimising the majority of the workforce. But you only need to open your eyes and look around and you can see what the impact of illegal immigration has had. It wasn't a 'failing' in poor parenting or a broken school system that is at fault. Black youths aren't 'competing' to get these low paying jobs anymore, they have completely given up: and it's because when you used to cut someone's lawn for 30$ for years and years, and along comes a truckload of somewhat less brown people that now want to do it for 10$, they give up. Why bother?

In fact, this is already well known, which is why the US Commission on Civil Rights says things like "Such grant of legal status will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment...Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men..Expert economic opinions concerning the negative effects range from modest to significant. Those panelists that found modest effects overall nonetheless found significant effects in industry sectors such as meatpacking and construction."

or this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =123811962

would you consider any of what I have posted as 'definitive proof' that opening the door for illegal immigrants has a negative effect on African Americans in the regional South? I think it is planly obvious. :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:40 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
No, I wouldn't because there are just as many reports that indicate that illegal immigrants don't depress wages to any significant degree. Just Google it yourself if you don't believe me. That to me is not definitive when it's 50/50 or 60/40.

But let's assume all of those studies I just pointed out are all wrong, and that you are correct and that illegal immigrants are depressing wages and employment rates for low-skill Americans, a significant portion of which are blacks.

Again, the issue isn't illegal immigration IMO. The issue is that blacks are still only qualifying for low-skilled jobs. The issue isn't illegal immigration. The issue is education.

http://blackboysreport.org/national-sum ... tion-rates

So with all due respect to Mr. Hosea Williams, but he should be less concerned about Mexicans hopping fences and more concerned about why most (i.e. 51%) black males don't graduate from high school in the state of Georgia.

Poorly funded schools, crime, drugs, and teen pregnancy are far more problematic for the black community than the goddamn Mexicans taking their jobs.

The whole "economic drag" argument is a red herring for what is essentially a racial issue when it comes to illegal immigration. Just like all the people that kept trying to say Obama is/was un-American is completely about racism. They can't outright say, "Hey don't vote for the black guy!" they have to find ways of circumventing their hatred.

And I'm not saying being anti-Obama makes you a racist. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, most of them being political. But if you're saying he's "un-American" probably makes you a racist. Because in that sense American is code word for white.

There is nothing more American than illegal immigrants.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:48 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
No, I wouldn't because there are just as many reports that indicate that illegal immigrants don't depress wages to any significant degree. Just Google it yourself if you don't believe me. That to me is not definitive when it's 50/50 or 60/40.

But let's assume all of those studies I just pointed out are all wrong, and that you are correct and that illegal immigrants are depressing wages and employment rates for low-skill Americans, a significant portion of which are blacks.

Again, the issue isn't illegal immigration IMO. The issue is that blacks are still only qualifying for low-skilled jobs. The issue isn't illegal immigration. The issue is education.

http://blackboysreport.org/national-sum ... tion-rates

So with all due respect to Mr. Hosea Williams, but he should be less concerned about Mexicans hopping fences and more concerned about why most (i.e. 51%) black males don't graduate from high school in the state of Georgia.

Poorly funded schools, crime, drugs, and teen pregnancy are far more problematic for the black community than the goddamn Mexicans taking their jobs.

The whole "economic drag" argument is a red herring for what is essentially a racial issue when it comes to illegal immigration. Just like all the people that kept trying to say Obama is/was un-American is completely about racism. They can't outright say, "Hey don't vote for the black guy!" they have to find ways of circumventing their hatred.

And I'm not saying being anti-Obama makes you a racist. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, most of them being political. But if you're saying he's "un-American" probably makes you a racist. Because in that sense American is code word for white.

There is nothing more American than illegal immigrants.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



good grief. where to start?

lets try here "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door "

Door, not 'backyard 'fence'. At the time of this 'gift' from France, the inspiration was from Édouard René de Laboulaye, a French abolitionist. At the time of 'debate' of 'gifting' the statue to the USA, the reign of Napolean the Turd, or the 'second Frnech Empire' was in full swing. I am only privy to this info being married to a Francophile, having travelled there, and some ancient familial relations..And my nerd-like history fascination ( think stats). Since you seem to be a fan of Google, try it. While they were assembling that statue: France was in full revolt over Prussian encroachment. In fact, while they were hammering out the 'huddled masses yearning', France itself had massed armed troops to 'keep out the undesirables'. I might add that a recent look at the Paris suburbs burning, and the rise of Far Right Le Pen type pols, have pretty much secured the idea that those wunnerful, wunnerful French are not the 'tolerant' people we have been led to believe. So please, spare me the Glenn Beck-ish Ellis Island crapola.

Door..DOOR. you come in through the DOOR. Now sneaking in under the skirts.

"So with all due respect to Mr. Hosea Williams, but he should be less concerned about Mexicans hopping fences and more concerned about why most (i.e. 51%) black males don't graduate from high school in the state of Georgia.

Poorly funded schools, crime, drugs, and teen pregnancy are far more problematic for the black community than the goddamn Mexicans taking their jobs."

On this we agree. You will note Hosea was a true Civil Rights hero, yet he did not put his kids in failing schools. And I never understood why he could not equate gay civil rights as Civil Rights. But, it is there.

Schools, Drugs and Crime are largely overseen in the regional South by school boards,city councils and police mostly staffed and run by African Americans. These problems are not being addressed, and even such places as Newark, Detriot, New Orleans, and the like by thier own community. Throw $$ at it, we tried that here, with the Ga Lottery. Some early outreach stuff probably paid dividends, but for the most part, we increased our teacher salaries by a good deal in the late 90's, and we didn't get it 'back'. The 'schools' stayed the same or got worse.

The family unit was broken down by the need for two parents to 'work', and that is a result of the cost of living and taxation.

I wish I could take you to see the African Amercians that line up at the ANCS charter school here in Grant Park. You would see the parents that 'give a s***', praying that ping pong ball will fall thier way, It is heartbreaking when you see the losers, who know they cannot afford 'private' school. knowing thier kids is going to Parkside. Where it is basically state funded daycare..

Tell you what: I will be objective. I will google what you suggested ( I didnt see any studies links, so please send them along ). But, it is going to be hard for me to accept what I see with my own eyes. It is hard for me to buy into a Stanford project on 'the struggle', when it is so clearly presented in front of me. Persuade me, Pudge. Im openminded :wink:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:17 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
The whole "economic drag" argument is a red herring for what is essentially a racial issue when it comes to illegal immigration. Just like all the people that kept trying to say Obama is/was un-American is completely about racism. They can't outright say, "Hey don't vote for the black guy!" they have to find ways of circumventing their hatred.

And I'm not saying being anti-Obama makes you a racist. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, most of them being political. But if you're saying he's "un-American" probably makes you a racist. Because in that sense American is code word for white.



I must say Pudge, I am really dissapointed in you. You just were two steps from saying 'dogwhistle' and 'Selma' to bat for the cycle. Really?

This is where tossing around terms like 'racism' lose thier meaning. Pudge: the definition of Racism: basically speaking is belief in the inheirent SUPERIORITY of one race above others. Correct?

So, when a much beloved Civil Rights figure ( along with the GBO, the Commission on Civil Rights, etc) says that the importation of thousands of menial labor in the chicken production plants of Ga ( which is one of our principal exports) hurts black people who used to do those jobs: that guy is racist? Now I understand that the IDEA that African Americans can ONLY do these menial jobs IS racist. I dont hold those views. But is anyone saying 'Mexicans are just better at chicken plucking'? THAT=racist. However, saying Mexicans will pluck that chicken for 1/4 the amount of Jamaal: that's business. NOT racist. Which is why our TWO Senators are voting for 'Immigration Reform': not because they don't want black people to get thier jobs back: they want cheap labor for thier Chicken Lobbyists.You know, those two lily WHITE guys.. Even though it is a CLEAR political non-winner, it will get them heat on thier collective a$$es and may end up costing one of them thier seat....

And basically, GWB passes the Patriot Act: everyone who called that Un American ( I can proudly put myself in that group, I have airchecks from 2005 getting lit up about this..) NOT racist. Obama resigns it, with MORE horsesh*t in it:

http://it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?area=privacy&page=1281

Well, obviously, it is because he is HALF black. ( wait, was that a 'code word' or a 'dogwhistle';-) :roll:

:so:

Now here is where Wease or HerrBoobenfleisser would 'chime in; and say

"hey! It is just plan ignorant to blame a President who is carrying out a law as prescribed by Congress that was created and passed by the Congress and then revised by the Congress. " except you have to be very special to understand that he could have held it up: vetoe'd it, used the bully pulpit, any manner of things to obstruct something, and that he had ALL three legislative branches in 2008, yet in 2011: after the midterms when his party got waxed, he backed down. NOt only did he 'back down' he brought in even more despicable crap...He said he was goint to close Gitmo and stop torture, and get 'checks and balances' back in a ;transparent' way... :lol: He has been the biggest jailer of whistleblowers, almost every branch under him has f*cked up somehow, and even Hillary is running for cover now. The only net positive is that this Chicago-style politics DOES get guys like Osama wacked. He does have that going for him...

So I am not going to accept that calling President Obama 'UnAmerican' is racist, Pudge. If you really feel that way, I urge you to reconsider...And, I am kinda sad it has even gotten to that :(

FDR was 'UnAmerican' when he interned the Japs. Abraham Lincoln was also 'UnAmerican' suspending H.C. What do they have in common? I can call this POTUS UnAmerican and 13% of the populace will AUTOMATICALLY think Im racist: just by the color of my skin.

I cannot hold sway to the GOP. Not for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... _YQ8560E1w


your.milage.may.vary.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
Racism is a system that purports or supports the idea that people are superior/inferior based on their racial makeup.

The point I'm making is that if he thinks illegal immigration is a big factor affecting the black community then he is dead wrong. Like I said, poorly funded schools, lack of education, crime, drugs, and teenage pregnancy have dramatically bigger impacts on the "degradation" of blacks in Atlanta than the possibility of Mexicans lowering wages and preventing blacks from getting jobs. How many jobs are affected by illegal immigrants? In June 2012, unemployment rate among blacks was roughly 14 percent. How much of that was because of illegal immigrants, and how much of that is because of the issues I outlined earlier?

The root cause of the issue has nothing to do with illegal immigration. And the suggestion that it does, doesn't make you a racist, it just makes you wrong. Now if Hosea Williams and others aren't aware that 51% of black males aren't graduating high school in the state of Georgia, then the fact that they blame illegal immigration is forgivable. But since they are civil rights leaders, if they are unaware of this fact then they are not doing their job are they?

I'm not talking about the people that want to modify immigration law. I'm talking about the people that want to build the wall and are foaming about the mouth about keeping Mexicans out. I'm talking about the people that are doing their damnest to enact tougher laws and ones that allow police and authorities to ostensibly pull over any brown person and ask for their papers.

What is at the root of those laws isn't trying to bolster the economy. The root of those laws is racism IMO. But the great thing about America is that the majority of Americans (at least based off my life experience) aren't racist. And thus racist laws wouldn't get enacted. And thus would not support overt racism. So the politicians, etc. then spin their laws to one that is palatable to non-racists, something they can get behind.

Like I said, if you have political reasons why you have a beef with Obama (such as those you laid out in the previous post), then I don't consider you a racist.

But if you were one of those people going into the 2008 that was trying to portray Obama as "Other" then you are a racist.

One of the things I learn in film school was about horror movies, and how horror movies are all about portraying the "Other" as something to be feared. Whether that other is zombies, vampires, mutant frogs, monsters, etc. the whole premise is built around whatever that is being something that must be feared. What is a common setting for horror movies? An idyllic small town. Often where there is a homogenous white population. You don't see many horror movies set in some neighborhood in Queens where there are a lot of black, brown, and yellow faces.

In the run-up to the 2008, you had a series of political ads that constantly tried to portray Obama as an "Other." It started with the idea that he wasn't born in America. Then it was that he was a Muslim, which of course strikes a cord with certain demographics such as Jews and Christians as an individual to be feared of course because of the long manufactured correlation between Muslims and terrorism in this country. After that he was a Socialist, which was trying to prey on older notions in this country about the Cold War and how the Commies were out to destroy our nation.

Because they know there are many out there that subconsciously have an issue with Obama that may be centered around his race. But if they came out and simply said, "Don't vote for him because he's black since we all know black people suck," most of those people's conscious thought would kick in and say, "Hey! Wait a sec, I'm no racist!"

But they spin it as something else, this "Other" and people can much more easily latch on to that, thinking, "Yeah, I knew there was something up with him. Until you called him a Muslim/Socialist/etc., I hadn't quite put my finger on it."

Politicians are really no different than marketers that try to pump your heads with subliminal messages. And also they are no different that street magicians who use slight of hand to make you focus on one thing when you should be really focused on another.

It's not a coincidence why I compared illegal immigration to marijuana. So much money, manpower, and resources are used to enforce laws that really don't make that much sense. In all likelihood, decriminalizing marijuana would do more good than bad. Just like having a cheap labor force with illegal immigrants probably does more good than bad.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/43599 ... immigrants

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:54 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
c'mon Pudge, you are MUCH better then this.

let me knock these down, one at a time.

First, your 'sourcing' is laughable. Let's take a look at the IPC.

from thier own website : IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: OMG. :roll:

Really? Hmmm... Let see what 'open secrets' and 'discover the networks' has to say about this:

"Founded in 2003, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council (AIC), formerly known as the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF). Like its parent organization, IPC is an advocate of open borders and contends that the massive influx of illegal immigrants into America is due to U.S. government policy, since “the broken immigration system […] spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place.” On IPC’s blog, Immigration Impact, its staff engages in a more divisive interpretation of the immigration issue, arguing that the rhetoric of many Republican politicians and the “radical right,” in general, fuels racial hate and bigotry in American culture.

Through the American Immigration Council, IPC has access to the considerable grant money of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the ChevronTexaco Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI). In addition, IPC’s staff members are connected to some of the most powerful institutions of the radical left; IPC staffers have previously occupied prominent positions in the OSI, the AILA, the National Immigration Forum (NIF), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Immigration Outreach Center (Phoenix, Arizona), the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and the New America Media, an arm of the Pacific News Service."


Now, have I completely discredited the 'non-partisian' IPC, Pudge? Are they being intellectually honest? The LIE right to your face on thier own website! Godd Grief. One and done, there. :dance:

"The point I'm making is that if he thinks illegal immigration is a big factor affecting the black community then he is dead wrong."

Hosea Williams is no longer with us. But I knew him, and he walked the walk. In 1998 the Klan was having a rally in Gainesville. Hosea put out the 'word' that he wanted a counter protest. I was there with him and about maybe 150 people, from all walks of life and religions. Hosea watched the spectacle with the crowd, and at one point the Klansspeaker started railing against illegals 'stealing thier jobs'. This was the ONLY thing Hosea agreed with them about, he was pretty open about his views on the matter. I do not think he was 'wrong', and I do think this issue was a 'factor'. Now we can argue about the scale of the 'factor', but I am inclined to agree with Mr Williams...

for instance, since the State of Georgia implemented a law in 2012 that police could 'ask' for proof of residency or green cards, a cottage industry has popped up in Gainesville. Taxis take illegal workers to the processing plants to avoid deportation. source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17281731

Now you say 'well how do they get these jobs? dont they have to show proof? not always, and often the 'proof' is fake source: http://www.gainesville.com/article/2008 ... /423983649

The people who USED to work in the plants before the 80's were primarily "rural white women and some African Americans, as well as white farmers and construction workers during the off-season." Conditions got pretty bad in the 70's and they tried to Unionize....Then along comes our friends South of the Border.."In the 1980s Georgia's chicken processors turned to a new source of labor: migrants from Latin America. During the 1990s
Immigrant Labor
the Latino population of Georgia increased by 300 percent. In the same period Hall County's Latino population grew by nearly 500 percent. By the opening of the new millennium, the overwhelming majority of production workers in Georgia's processing plants were immigrants from Latin America, mainly from Mexico. To integrators, these workers appeared to provide a more stable, reliable work force, and turnover rates dropped. For immigrant workers, poultry plants provided unheard-of high wages and benefits."

(Census 2000.)also Suggested Reading


David Griffith, "Hay Trabajo: Poultry Processing, Rural Industrialization, and the Latinization of Low-Wage Labor," in Any Way You Cut It: Meat Processing and Small-Town America, ed. Donald D. Stull, Michael J. Broadway, and David Griffith (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 129-51.

Greig Guthey, "Mexican Places in Southern Spaces: Globalization, Work, and Daily Life in and around the North Georgia Poultry Industry," in Latino Workers in the Contemporary South, ed. Arthur D. Murphy, Colleen Blanchard, and Jennifer A. Hill (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001), 57-67.

Now, you may not think this influx of people aren't a BIG factor, but I would bet the African Americans that got squeezed out of thier jobs and homes might disagree with you. Hosea saw the handwriting on the wall a long, long time ago. He knew damn well that the chicken Lobby owned the legislature, and if that meant throwing the AA workers under the bus, that's exactly what they would do: and he was spot on.

Everything you mentioned is, of course. a factor. " poorly funded schools, lack of education, crime, drugs, and teenage pregnancy" are all not good for the AA 'community'. But neither is losing your job or home to a "more stable, reliable work force", which not only costs the infrastructure of Gainesville, but a great deal of the $$ goes back acorss the border. In 1975, there was 5 or 6 places to 'wire' $$, now just drive up and look around. Stroll down Buford highway. Hundreds, literally. Twenty people move into a small home, property devalues. Property devalues:millage suffers. Then the 'poorly funded school' loses MORE $$, and now has to accept a large contigent of kids whos first language isn't even English. Crime? Google "La Onda and SUR-13" and get back to me. You might want to ask the Gainesville-Hall County Gang Task Force about that...

Pudge, in 1997 I worked at Vickery's a restaurant in Midtown. I worked primarily with black guys and po white guys. Today, the ENTIRE kitchen staff speaks Spanish. In fact, I wager you could not go into a restaurant within the perimeter that doesn't have at least a working knowledge of 'kitchen Spanglish'.

Hosea might have been wrong. He was 'old school', tho. Like these folks :http://blog.adl.org/civil-rights/black-american-leadership-alliance-mobilizing-against-immigration-reform

I know Hosea was wrong on Gay rights. I could never find 'common ground' with him on that. But just because he didn't think 'the gays' should get hitched, or that Illegals were depressing wages and hurting poor African Americans, does not mean he didn't care about the other issues you mentioned. In many respects, this is what I found the most troubling of Hosea: he was against Charter schools, when his family went to expensive private schools. He spoke alot about crime, but he made a fortune bonding out criminals and his companies slogan was 'Free at Last!', which I thought was pretty crass coming from a guy with his pedigree. He often seemed 'narrowminded', in that he was only looking out 'for his people', and he despised the Asians in 'Chambodia' ( that used to be Chamblee;-) as much as the Messicans. So dont get me wrong, Im not putting this guy on a pedastel.

But I do think that illegal immigrants do much to work against the plight of the AA community, and are a factor just like all the things you mentioned above. The problem, again, is if you try to articulate these opinions, you asre automatically labeled a 'racist'. And even a guy like Hosea Williams, who was present when MLK was shot, and marched with the Freedom Riders, can get labeled a racist for 'looking out for his own'. And, that, in a nutshell is another example of Political Correctness run amok.

Does any of that make sense? Enjoying the back and forth. :mrgreen:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:31 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
You've constructed a Straw Man argument in regards to the IPC. While their organization may lack credibility in your eyes, their points aren't any less valid. Especially the other 7 points contended not by the IPC about illegal immigration in the link I provided.

And yes, studies show that illegal immigrants affect one segment of American workers: high school dropouts. So if these civil rights leaders could wave their magic wand and have all the illegal immigrants deported, would many/most of this high school dropouts get their old jobs back? Sure. But you still haven't fixed the issue. Because the low-skilled workers are the most susceptible in regards to recession and economic downturn.

The companies that hire the illegal immigrants say they are a better work force? To the victor goes the spoils, right?

Illegal immigration is a peripheral issue. The real issue here is that too many blacks still represent the bottom rung of the economic ladder, and thus are much more susceptible to be being "bounced" by a dare I say better and cheaper labor force from abroad. The vast majority of Americans aren't affected by illegal immigration, because the vast majority of Americans have HS diplomas, college degrees, and thus aren't in competition with low-skilled immigrants for their jobs. The root cause of this problem isn't illegal immigrants, it's education. If you can improve your education, then you can improve your access to jobs.

For the folks that have already dropped out of school and been in the labor force for years/decades, it's tough to say, but they are the sacrificial lambs. Instead, civil rights should be less focused on the short term fix (of reforming immigration laws), and more focused on the long-term fix of improving education among their community IMO.

Again, if you wave the magic wand and get rid of illegal immigrants, what happens? Do things go back to what they were before immigrants started to influx into this country? Back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. were blacks lives better somehow before the damned Mexicans showed up?

No, it wasn't. If you're a civil rights leader and your goal is to uplift your community, then you need to attack the root issues that plague your community, not the peripheral ones. If presented with the "fact" that illegal immigration affects those of lower education and no one else, and the civil rights leaders strategy is to combat immigration vs. education, then I myself am certainly glad those individuals don't represent me.

Another issue here is the lump labor fallacy, which essentially assumes that the number of jobs/labor is fixed and thus that for every job that is given, one has to be taken away. Often used to discuss shortening work hours, thus to increase labor and decrease unemployment. For example, if a factor employs 300 workers that each work 12 hours, if they were to cut their hours to 6 hours, they could then employ 600 workers.

In this case it applies because low-skilled and uneducated blacks only qualify for a finite number of jobs. The immigrants come in and take those jobs. If they were better educated like the majority of Americans, this would not impact their employment rates.

You also have to realize that you can't really stop illegal immigration. Because at the root cause of why people come to this country illegally is because of the greater opportunity here vs. elsewhere in the world. That has been the root cause of why America is such a diverse nation because people have been doing that for centuries. Until America starts to suck a lot more than it currently does, you're not going to stop illegal immigration. Because for 75% of the people that populate this globe (if not more), there is greater economic opportunity for themselves and their children in America. And thus until that changes, people are going to come to this country. And since they've been doing that for 300+ years, I don't think it's going to stop anytime soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4kU9cwgXM

The only thing you can really do is decide whether their coming here is legal or illegal.

But again, I keep talking about the root causes of things because that is the point. You pull off the petals/leaves of a weed, and it might die and wither, but it's going to come back and you'll have to kill it over and over again. But if you attack the root, the weed dies and it won't come back.

fun gus wrote:
Google "La Onda and SUR-13" and get back to me. You might want to ask the Gainesville-Hall County Gang Task Force about that...

I googled it. So Latino gang violence led to the death of 1 person. 12,000 people were the victims of gun violence in Georgia between 2001-10. Did Latinos invent gang violence now?

Look again, I don't deny that illegal immigration has an effect on the African-American community. It does. But it's really a peripheral issue. And if the civil rights leaders in Atlanta are wasting their time and effort trying to battle illegal immigration, then IMO they aren't quite up to snuff. They're entirely too focused on winning the battle as opposed to the war. Yes, you need to win battles in order to win the war, and while it can be useful in the short-term to try and slow illegal immigration, more time and resources need to be spent combating lack of education within their own community, drug use and crime, etc. Because that is going to win the war in the long-term. Even if they win the fight against illegal immigration, it is simply a Pyrrhic victory.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:32 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
fair points all around. I can accept your premise that "it's really a peripheral issue. And if the civil rights leaders in Atlanta are wasting their time and effort trying to battle illegal immigration, then IMO they aren't quite up to snuff. They're entirely too focused on winning the battle as opposed to the war.". Im just pointing out that this is they way they think...And I wonder if you haven't encountered much of the same line of thought? Have you ever talked about Gay Civil Rights with a 70+ black man? All I know is if I try to argue for the 'Gays' and I try to use the 'Civil Rights' analogy, almost every time it gets very un-civil... It is a profound mystery to me. Alot of people don't know or are not aware of the role Jews played in the 'struggle'. Many.many jews ( famous ones, too) marched alongside Ralph Abernathy and Hosea Williams. So you would think that the Atlanta old school civil rights figures would be marching alongside the homo's, but instead you get an almost opposite reaction!? And heaven forbid you be a middle aged white guy making the argument, instead of say a gay black man, because then it gets very interesting indeed..

As for your 'sourcing', Im sorry, but you are wrong on that one, Pudge. You will note that I tried to use somewhat 'neutral' sources...I'm not much interested in 'winning the argument', but in having a dialogue. I easily could have culled some response from Free Republic, Breitbart, the Heritage Foundation, etc...BUt you take a peek behind the curtain, and you can see the 'agenda'. You can tie everything back to the Koch Brothers, similarly with George Soro's. They both think they are doing the 'right' thing, but the go about it in the 'wrong' way. Because they are not 'honest brokers', and when they outright lie about themselves, it invalidates any poin they make that might be 'correct'. :snooty:

But I use alot of this as a way to showcase how Political Correctness can be incorrect. Asante doesn't think Gays should marry. Same with Tebow. But Tebow will get much more flak for saying basically the same thing. Now you can 'say' that is because Tebow is a QB, more popular, and there is some truth to that. There is also some truth that because Asante is black, some media are uncomfortable calling him out on that, because then they might get labeled 'racist'. And that's wrong, IMO.

I mean think of the terminology involved. In my Granparent age, they used either Nigger or Negro (forgiveness, please), but by my fathers time, it was 'colored'. Then for my generation is was 'black' , and for your generation it is 'African-American'. I have encountered great displeasure if I refer to someone, even a close friend who is 'black', as 'black', even though I grew up being taught to say that word, and not 'colored'...and the 'new and improved term' term was hoisted upon us by none other then Jesse Jackson..

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/31/us/af ... all&src=pm

Well, who made Jesse Jackson the arbiter of speech? Hosea was present when that guy despicably used MLK's own blood as a 'prop'! I honestly cannot think of a more politically INCORRECT thing to do in that situation. Scoop up blood and brain matter, rub it on your shirt, then go on the Today show the very next day wearing the shirt, and outright LIE and say "I was the last person to speak to the fallen King as I cradled him, dying, in my bosom'( which is factually untrue, Andrew Young , a unidentified white guy, and RD Abernathy were the last to speak to MLK.)


We have balkanized ourselves into islands of ethnocentrism: Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans. I understand the desire of people to maintain a connection to their history and ancestry. That desire is legitimate, but not at the expense of our national unity. We are Americans with different ethnic backgrounds, but we are first and foremost Americans. Some of our forefathers came from Europe, some from Asia, India, the African continent and a host of nations around the world. If we restrict ourselves to our ethnic enclaves and ethnic identities, we deprive ourselves of the great benefits of the American experiment. In fact here is what T Roosevelt, a proud GOP progressive, said about this :

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism... a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic."


or none other then proud progressive POTUS Woodrow Wilson he regarded "hyphenated Americans" with suspicion, saying, "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.."

Image

""Why should I let these freaks cast whole ballots when they are only half Americans?" :ninja:

Another was the road to hell is paved with good intentions: Hate Crimes. Crime should just be crime: not crime+politicised thought. Because eventually, the onion begins to peel, and we are all left crying. It should not matter if the KKK guy killed someone because he hated thier skin color, it should just be because he killed someone.

Trayvon Martin is a 'hate crime', right? I think we can all agree on that. By his own words, G Zimmerman 'didn't exactly like 'those people'.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi ... ime/nN5pR/

But Reginald Denny, geting dragged out of his truck and beaten senseless, simply because he was white? NOT a hate crime...And there were Hate Crime laws passed in Cali in 1978, yet even though clearly 'racism' was involved, noone was charged under it....

It's not uncommon. 2 black guys beat up a white guy. Not a hate crime. 2 black guys beat up black guy? NOt a hate crime. 2 black guys beat up a GAY black guy?

Hate Crime.

It's not just racial, either. Look at old Helen Thomas. Her career was ruined and she ended up like Micheal Richards, and what was the horrible epithet that she snarled?
"Tell them (the Jooooos) to get the hell out of Palestine" :roll:

And with that,P.C. destroyed an entire life's work.

The whole thing is twisted and sad...And ultimately, doing the wrong thing for the right reason leads us to where we are now...Where the TSA cannot 'profile', but instead has to treat everyone the same, even though a vast majority of airplane terrorist attacks are primarily young Islamic men.

And then we got to the point that a terrorist, screaming Allahu Ackbar walks into a military base, squeezing off rounds, killing 13 and injuring 30, and we cannot even bring ourselves to call it 'terror related' or a 'terrorist attack'. Were so damn afraid to 'offend' we have to call it 'workplace violence'. That is complete bullshit, IMO. This is where Politcal Correctness ends up. And then we have to twist ourselves into logical pretzels to make sense of it..

I mean, we can't have the Washington Bullets, but we can have the Washington Redskins? :shock:



If I use the term 'black' then suddenly this guy : Image

turns into this guy:

Image :ninja:

And even though he is incorrect, if this guy :

Image

says he thinks gays should not be given thier civil rights, then he becomes this guy:

Image

and that is just one of the many problems of P.C. culture. Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Image

I hope I have made some sense in this long rambling post. 8-) Now if you will forgive me, I've gotta cook my Paula Deen turkey. It come with only right wings, and no dark meat :mrgreen:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:09 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
Here's my final thought on the civil rights issue and illegal immigration. 40+ years ago, civil rights leaders in this country were fighting injustice. Hard to see the injustice within immigration law reform, at least not on the side of the people trying to make it tougher for poor people to try and better their lives with the American dream.

As for Roosevelt's hyphenated American speech, the spirit of it is nice, but it's complete BS. That speech was made in 1915 to try and drum up support for American intervention in World War I, because too many of these "hyphenated Americans" supported neutrality out of loyalty to the homeland.

I don't want to be in a position where I'm defending political correctness. Has it jumped the shark? Absolutely, several times. I don't think the 790 Zone guys shoudl have been fired over their Steve Gleason comments, based off that one incident alone. Now if there were several issues with them over a period of time, then I get it. But we've reached a point where people get into a kerfuffle over momentary slips of the tongues or brain farts. Don Imus, Helen Thomas, etc. Should people be allowed to express opinions and or make a joke? Sure. Should there also be consequences for those opinions/jokes? Absolutely. Are those consequences too much nowadays? Absolutely.

Over the weekend, I was visiting college friends in Pittsburgh for a bachelor party. One of my friends, who is white, was talking about calling things gay or calling people a faggot. He explained it that he didn't mean them to express dislike of gays, it's just that he's so used to saying it that he can't stop even if he's in the presence of his brother-in-law, who is a homosexual. I personally don't say such words, having stopped a few years back when I befriended one of my brother's co-workers, who also is a homosexual. At first, it was just to be PC. But in the subsequent years as I've matured, I've realized that saying those words is just being an asshole, and I won't bore you with the reasons why.

This same friend drunkenly confronted me outside a bar about using the N-word. I think he was fishing for "permission" to use the word. I didn't give it. But later on, when we were in the cab home from the strip club, after drunkenly getting into a minor argument with his wife over the phone (who decided to not come and pick him up and instead let him "sleep it off" at another friend's place where the cab was taking us), he hung and said, "Well my wife is being a nigger." Of course, this got a reaction from the others in the cab (who were also white) and myself. We all agreed he was being an asshole. I didn't get riled up.

I personally don't think black people should use the word. The idea that it's a term of endearment is the biggest crock of s*** ever espoused. Do I use it from time to time? Yep. Will I ever stop? Probably not. But I rarely use it in public unless telling a joke or I need to add emphasis to a statement, and that word typically carries just enough punch to give it that.

I'm not here to lecture people on their thoughts and words. I generally believe in the theory espoused in the following video:

http://youtu.be/6qweMOnPmXM

How I see it in this day and age of political correctness, if you can't figure out on your own why shouldn't say certain things because it makes you an asshole, then it's not my job to enlighten you. Cuz ultimately that's what most of these people that get in trouble for these statements are, thoughtless assholes. Should people lose their jobs for that stuff? Probably not. Should we be forcing people to say/act a certain way under the guise of political correctness? No. But if everybody was forced to take a 3-week "sensitivity class" that express why political correctness exists and why they should act accordingly, I don't think that would be a terrible idea. Afterwards, most would probably blow it off and just revert to being assholes. But maybe some folks might be enlightened and be better for it.

AS for hate crime laws, I don't think that stems political correctness. I think that stems more from the American idea that tougher punishments are an effective deterrent, and people don't want things to go back to this:

Image

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
Here's my final thought on the civil rights issue and illegal immigration. 40+ years ago, civil rights leaders in this country were fighting injustice. Hard to see the injustice within immigration law reform, at least not on the side of the people trying to make it tougher for poor people to try and better their lives with the American dream.

As for Roosevelt's hyphenated American speech, the spirit of it is nice, but it's complete BS. That speech was made in 1915 to try and drum up support for American intervention in World War I, because too many of these "hyphenated Americans" supported neutrality out of loyalty to the homeland.

I don't want to be in a position where I'm defending political correctness. Has it jumped the shark? Absolutely, several times. I don't think the 790 Zone guys shoudl have been fired over their Steve Gleason comments, based off that one incident alone. Now if there were several issues with them over a period of time, then I get it. But we've reached a point where people get into a kerfuffle over momentary slips of the tongues or brain farts. Don Imus, Helen Thomas, etc. Should people be allowed to express opinions and or make a joke? Sure. Should there also be consequences for those opinions/jokes? Absolutely. Are those consequences too much nowadays? Absolutely.

Over the weekend, I was visiting college friends in Pittsburgh for a bachelor party. One of my friends, who is white, was talking about calling things gay or calling people a faggot. He explained it that he didn't mean them to express dislike of gays, it's just that he's so used to saying it that he can't stop even if he's in the presence of his brother-in-law, who is a homosexual. I personally don't say such words, having stopped a few years back when I befriended one of my brother's co-workers, who also is a homosexual. At first, it was just to be PC. But in the subsequent years as I've matured, I've realized that saying those words is just being an asshole, and I won't bore you with the reasons why.

This same friend drunkenly confronted me outside a bar about using the N-word. I think he was fishing for "permission" to use the word. I didn't give it. But later on, when we were in the cab home from the strip club, after drunkenly getting into a minor argument with his wife over the phone (who decided to not come and pick him up and instead let him "sleep it off" at another friend's place where the cab was taking us), he hung and said, "Well my wife is being a nigger." Of course, this got a reaction from the others in the cab (who were also white) and myself. We all agreed he was being an asshole. I didn't get riled up.

I personally don't think black people should use the word. The idea that it's a term of endearment is the biggest crock of s*** ever espoused. Do I use it from time to time? Yep. Will I ever stop? Probably not. But I rarely use it in public unless telling a joke or I need to add emphasis to a statement, and that word typically carries just enough punch to give it that.

I'm not here to lecture people on their thoughts and words. I generally believe in the theory espoused in the following video:

http://youtu.be/6qweMOnPmXM

How I see it in this day and age of political correctness, if you can't figure out on your own why shouldn't say certain things because it makes you an asshole, then it's not my job to enlighten you. Cuz ultimately that's what most of these people that get in trouble for these statements are, thoughtless assholes. Should people lose their jobs for that stuff? Probably not. Should we be forcing people to say/act a certain way under the guise of political correctness? No. But if everybody was forced to take a 3-week "sensitivity class" that express why political correctness exists and why they should act accordingly, I don't think that would be a terrible idea. Afterwards, most would probably blow it off and just revert to being assholes. But maybe some folks might be enlightened and be better for it.

AS for hate crime laws, I don't think that stems political correctness. I think that stems more from the American idea that tougher punishments are an effective deterrent, and people don't want things to go back to this:

Image


again, fair points....but I think you missed my point a little.

Thanks for sharing the bachelor party story. Here is something that happened to me recently that brought up a 'discussion' that was both enlightening and frightening.

So me and the band are performing downtown, and were on break, and I order some drinks for the guys. One of the musicians is a young 'African-American' :roll: and he drinks Southern Comfort ( yuck. cough syrup. ) so the white bartender asks 'who got the SoCo'? and I point down the bar and say 'the black guy'.

At this point, she stops and looks at me and says 'excuse me'? So I thought she didn't hear me so I say again 'the SoCo is for the black guy over there'. She gives me the stink-eye and says 'you mean to say the young African-American guy, right'?

Now, at this point I am annoyed, because A: this little sh*t is basically chastising me for being a 'racist' or a 'bigot', and B: she is telling ME what terms I should/shouldn't use. Right? Now I had options. I could say 'no, I said the drink is for the black guy, over there'. Or I could have said 'oops, sorry I didn't know that was offensive'. Or I could do what I did, which was just ignore the whole thing, and tip the b*tch 10% instead of 20%.

But talking with my friend about this was a good thing. Of course, he was not offended at all. But, it was just the ridiculousness of it all that got to me.

Or remember in the Halcyon days of GWB after 9-11, we couldn't call them 'French Fries', they were 'Freedom Fries'. I just hate stuff like this.

This thursday I am going to NYC to see the Book or Mormon. Trey and Matt are two of the most politically incorrect people on Earth. But, they are 'fearless'. Hell, they attempted to draw Mohammed when the Simpsons, Family GUy, everyone else was too afraid. Alot of themes in South Park is how silly P.C. is. But they always expose it in a way that turns it around. Check out these episodes, and you will see what I mean.

thanks for the back and forth and back again :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Apolo ... se_Jackson

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... se-jackson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... the-f-word

Image

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Asante: Gays Shouldn't Flaunt Their Sexuality
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:49 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25760
Location: North Carolina
African-American Civil Rights Leaders would be smart to invest their time and focus on programs that promote the education (and subsequently economic progress) within their community so that a generation or two from now, they will be in the driver's seat to succeed in the "New America" that will be a noticeably darker shade of brown.

"Fighting" illegal immigration is ostensibly trying to fight the current. It's only going to lead to you drowning. Instead, drift with the current and use it to your advantage.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... s_business

More White Americans Dying Than Being Born

Article
Video
Comments (763)

more in US »

smaller
Larger

facebook
twitter
google plus
linked in

Email
Print

Save ↓ More

By
NEIL SHAH
CONNECT

More white Americans are dying than being born for the first time in modern history—suggesting minorities and newcomers will play an important role in fueling the population growth America's recovering economy needs to thrive.

The number of non-Hispanic white Americans who died in the year ended June 2012 exceeded the number who were born during that period by about 12,400, the first "natural decrease" for this group. That's according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released Thursday and an analysis of separate data from the National Center for Health Statistics by demographer Kenneth Johnson at the University of New Hampshire. The white population edged up in absolute terms last year thanks to immigration, Census figures show.
[image]
What's News

What’s News: In historic shift, a new Census report shows that number of deaths now exceeds births among white Americans. Supreme Court rules genes are not patentable. Best Buy to carve out Microsoft mini-stores. Joanne Po reports. Photo: AP

The Census data show that as the non-Hispanic white population grows at a slower pace, the share of young Americans who are minorities is increasing, said demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank in Washington. While most American children under 5 years old are still white—50.1%—that proportion is expected to fall because the majority of births have been minority children for two years in a row, a trend driven mostly by Hispanic and Asian births.

The growth rate of America's white population has been slowing for years, but demographers had expected white births to continue exceeding deaths for some time. Census researchers had projected the "natural decrease," or white Americans' deaths exceeding births, would begin around 2020 and the overall white population would start falling outright several years later.
Real Time Economics

Majority of Toddlers Likely to Be Nonwhite This Year

"Even during the great influenza epidemic of 1919, there was no white 'natural decrease,' " said Mr. Johnson, calling the new numbers "stunning." The epidemic of 1918-19 killed more than 600,000 Americans. The big driver of the recent numbers, Mr. Johnson said, was a drop in white births, which fell about 13% last year from 2007 levels.

The findings illustrate how rapidly the U.S. is becoming more diverse and how much of the nation's population growth is likely to be driven by minorities and new immigrants in the years ahead.

The recent trends are partly due to the nation's weak economic recovery, which has encouraged many young women to delay having children—a trend that demographers say could now reverse. Fertility rates dropped to low levels during the Great Depression and the 1970s malaise before rising again, according to Mark Mather of the Population Reference Bureau.

But the Census numbers underscore a more powerful, long-term demographic shift. As the nation's white population ages, there are fewer white women of childbearing age—a trend unlikely to change—and that results in fewer white children. At the same time, young adults, whether white, black or Hispanic, are having fewer children. America's replacement level—how many children it takes to keep population constant as people die—is about 2.1 births per woman. The fertility rate of U.S. women is about 1.9 births.

That means U.S. population growth will depend significantly on immigration. There are now 14 states where the majority of children under 5 are nonwhite, Mr. Frey said; in 2000, only five states, including the District of Columbia, had "minority majority" toddler populations.

The U.S. population is "browning from the bottom up," Mr. Frey said.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


cron