Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Piliger

gillmelly wrote: »

I never liked John Waters, but I'm getting tired of the bullyfest at this stage.

Please explain the 'bully' element ?

Sulla Felix

Closed account. Ah well.

pauldla

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Closed account. Ah well.

Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate how tired he was of the whole affair.

Nodin

pauldla wrote: »

Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate how tired he was of the whole affair.

He'll probably soon re-register, looking for a "gesture". I already have a number of possibilities in mind.

Turtwig

Guys even if it was Gandalf or Dumbledore you can't speculate on the identity of a poster. It's a bannable offence. Re-read the terms and conditions you agreed to.

The Black Oil

Following an appearance on the Sean O' Rourke show, John was contacted by Jesus. Christ told him to stop trying to walk on water, claimed it's already been done.

MaxWig

Piliger wrote: »

Please explain the 'bully' element ?

Being shouted at in the street.

Being referred to in any number of derogatory terms.

These are associated with bullying.

The most worrying thing about all this though, is that the debate has given a platform to the genuinely thick, who now seem to feel part of something. They seem to relish being 'in the right'. The problem is that we are never 'in the right' if we are simply insulting someone. Regardless of how invigorating our righteous indignation may feel!

The gormless have found a niche into which to slip unnoticed. "We all think John Waters is bad" comes the refrain. The problem with giving a voice to the philistine, is that it becomes hard to distinguish the voices of those who are genuinely trying to move the debate forward - who have thought about the issues at hand - teased them out!

Ranting about Waters being a "(insert insult here)" is all well and good. Those who are genuinely familar with his work over the past 20 years however will know that he is not a bigot, or a lunatic, or a whatever-you're-having-yourself.


I don't happen to agree with Waters on these issues, but I know there are people that do.

Attack the opinions that you don't like - not those who hold them!

Bannasidhe

MaxWig wrote: »

Ranting about Waters being a "(insert insult here)" is all well and good. Those who are genuinely familar with his work over the past 20 years however will know that he is not a bigot, or a lunatic, or a whatever-you're-having-yourself.

I have read his outpourings and to bigot I would add misogynist plus if he believes attacking same sex marriage or women will advance the cause of unmarried fathers he is indeed a lunatic.

My son is an unmarried father and suffers from those same lack of rights Water's is allegedly campaigning against. Son was briefly in contact with Mr Waters Father's Rights campaign and was horrified by what he heard as seemingly my son is the victim of evil women and the gays - lovely thing for the son of a lesbian to be told.

No - my son is the victim of a sexist piece of legislation written in 1964 which gave unmarried men a get out of supporting your children card and placed all responsibility on the shoulders of unmarried mothers - who could then be shipped off to do laundry and forced to sign their rights to their children over...

MaxWig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have read his outpourings and to bigot I would add misogynist plus if he believes attacking same sex marriage or women will advance the cause of unmarried fathers he is indeed a lunatic.

My son is an unmarried father and suffers from those same lack of rights Water's is allegedly campaigning against. Son was briefly in contact with Mr Waters Father's Rights campaign and was horrified by what he heard as seemingly my son is the victim of evil women and the gays - lovely thing for the son of a lesbian to be told.

No - my son is the victim of a sexist piece of legislation written in 1964 which gave unmarried men a get out of supporting your children card and placed all responsibility on the shoulders of unmarried mothers - who could then be shipped off to do laundry and forced to sign their rights to their children over...

I'd have to say my experience was different.

I met Waters and spoke to him regarding the Father's Rights campaign.

Never experienced him as bigoted. He did speak about double-standards etc., but never once disparaged women, or gay people.

He agreed with you in that he felt the legislation was sexist also. You seem to share some of his opinions

SebBerkovich

MaxWig wrote: »

I'd have to say my experience was different.

I met Waters and spoke to him regarding the Father's Rights campaign.

Never experienced him as bigoted. He did speak about double-standards etc., but never once disparaged women, or gay people.

He must just leave that to the privacy of his old national newspaper column then.

Bannasidhe

MaxWig wrote: »

I'd have to say my experience was different.

I met Waters and spoke to him regarding the Father's Rights campaign.

Never experienced him as bigoted. He did speak about double-standards etc., but never once disparaged women, or gay people.

He agreed with you in that he felt the legislation was sexist also. You seem to share some of his opinions

You don't think writing about 'Lesbians playing house' isn't disparaging? Or referring to same sex marriage as a 'satire'?

The fact that I agree with Water's that the 1964 Guardianship of Children act is the problem does not equate to 'sharing his opinions'.

Water's is reaping what he has sown and is now crying foul. It is pathetic.

MaxWig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You don't think writing about 'Lesbians playing house' isn't disparaging? Or referring to same sex marriage as a 'satire'?

The fact that I agree with Water's that the 1964 Guardianship of Children act is the problem does not equate to 'sharing his opinions'.

Water's is reaping what he has sown and is now crying foul. It is pathetic.

I interviewed him for a college thesis. He didn't disparage anyone. Homosexuality didn't come into it.

His views about homosexuality are unpalatable to many people. Myself included. But the idea that a society can make progress by shutting down conversation on these points is counter-intuitive - to me in any case.

Whether Waters feels silenced or not is probably irrelevant in the scheme of things. But people/citizens in the broader sense should not feel scared to say voice an opinion.

How can we have a national conversation about adoptive rights for gay parents for instance, if anyone who is unsure about it is labelled as a bigot.

It's not healthy for society.

Again - challenge the opinions. Don't attack the person

Bannasidhe

MaxWig wrote: »

I interviewed him for a college thesis. He didn't disparage anyone. Homosexuality didn't come into it.

His views about homosexuality are unpalatable to many people. Myself included. But the idea that a society can make progress by shutting down conversation on these points is counter-intuitive - to me in any case.

Whether Waters feels silenced or not is probably irrelevant in the scheme of things. But people/citizens in the broader sense should not feel scared to say voice an opinion.

How can we have a national conversation about adoptive rights for gay parents for instance, if anyone who is unsure about it is labelled as a bigot.

It's not healthy for society.

Again - challenge the opinions. Don't attack the person

Did you specifically question him about his views on homosexuality or did you confine yourself to what was relevant to your thesis - assuming your thesis was not on perceptions of homosexuality?

His newspaper columns are frequently disparaging and are in the public domain so you will understand that I will take far more notice of those than some unpublished notes from an interview by an anonymous (ex?) college student on an unspecified subject conducted at an unknown date.

If you cannot see that it is Waters and his ilk who are attempting to personalise and stifle debate then there is no discussing this with you. Yes, he is 'entitled' to his views - and his opponents are equally entitled to challenge them without treat of legal action.

If you cannot see how I, as a member of a lesbian couple, perceive having my relationship dismissed as 'playing house' as both personal and disparaging than perhaps you are not as opposed to Mr Waters' views on homosexuality as you claim.

MaxWig

If you cannot see that it is Waters and his ilk who are attempting to personalise and stifle debate then there is no discussing this with you. Yes, he is 'entitled' to his views - and his opponents are equally entitled to challenge them with treat of legal action.

If you cannot see how I, as a member of a lesbian couple, perceive having my relationship dismissed as 'playing house' as both personal and disparaging than perhaps you are not as opposed to Mr Waters' views on homosexuality as you claim.

Oh - of course - I'm homophobic too!!

The 'playing house' comment was contemptible - and displayed a lack of understanding. But the point behind the comment is what should be challenged.

Bannasidhe

MaxWig wrote: »

Oh - of course - I'm homophobic too!!

The 'playing house' comment was contemptible - and displayed a lack of understanding. But the point behind the comment is what should be challenged.

I said you may perhaps not be as opposed to Mr Water's views as you claim since you stated he does not disparage homosexuals - not once did I use the term 'homophobic' yet here you are playing that card which you yourself introduced to the conversation between us. Will you next accuse me of bullying you?

So far from you I have read that you believe Water's does not disparage homosexuals but when it was pointed out that he had done just that via a column in a national newspaper, you changed your defence to 'he didn't disparage homosexuals to me when I interviewed him once' and then went on to disassociate yourself from his published comments on homosexuality.

What exactly are you disassociating yourself from? Waters the not a bigot which was your initial claim or Waters the bigot as evidenced by his published comments?

Links234

MaxWig wrote: »

The 'playing house' comment was contemptible - and displayed a lack of understanding. But the point behind the comment is what should be challenged.

Lack of understanding? Please, he has claimed that LGBT people are relishing in the destruction of society, the only difference between his statements and those of the Westboro baptist is that he has a media platform and a thesaurus instead of a street corner and a placard that reads "Fags doom nations"

MaxWig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I said you may perhaps not be as opposed to Mr Water's views as you claim since you stated he does not disparage homosexuals - not once did I use the term 'homophobic' yet here you are playing that card which you yourself introduced to the conversation between us. Will you next accuse me of bullying you?

So far from you I have read that you believe Water's does not disparage homosexuals but when it was pointed out that he had done just that via a column in a national newspaper, you changed your defence to 'he didn't disparage homosexuals to me when I interviewed him once' and then went on to disassociate yourself from his published comments on homosexuality.

What exactly are you disassociating yourself from? Waters the not a bigot which was your initial claim or Waters the bigot as evidenced by his published comments?

I never defended my comments. I stated, separately, two opinions.

Nor am I disassociating myself from either.

As a columnist, I've always found Water's columns to be engaging.
His commentary on the changing face of the family has always been interesting, and sometimes controversial.

I don't consider Waters to a bigot any more than I consider the average Catholic priest to be bigoted.

I do however think he raises interesting questions, particularly about adoption.

But my point is, as it was when I posted fist on this thread, that the vitriol aimed at Waters is indicative of an attitude that does not do anyone any favours.

old hippy

gillmelly wrote: »

I never liked John Waters, but I'm getting tired of the bullyfest at this stage.

Agreed, he is a bully who uses his position to disrespect entire swathes of the populace but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I'm just waiting until he crosses over to incitement to hatred...

SebBerkovich

To me, the argument seems to be - Can someone* who projects intolerant and occasionally hateful opinions to the public be a horrible person.

Perhaps not, someone's ignorance of an issue could lead them to fairly crazy conclusions. Personally i don't think that <certain litigious people> could not make that argument. So, in that case i'd tend to go with opinion that the person saying the homophobic thing... may in fact be homophobic.


*not necessarily the "someone" specifically named in the title of this thread. Any similarities are purely coincidental.

MaxWig

old hippy wrote: »

Agreed, he is a bully who uses his position to disrespect entire swathes of the populace but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I'm just waiting until he crosses over to incitement to hatred...

Disrespect?

Much more measured!

I would agree that Waters has been incredibly disrespectful.

Big jump from disrespectful to hate speech though!

Bannasidhe

MaxWig wrote: »

Disrespect?

Much more measured!

I would agree that Waters has been incredibly disrespectful.

Big jump from disrespectful to hate speech though!

Not when you are one of the people being disrespected constantly in national broadcast media.

One does not 'disrespect' those one loves after all - one disrespects those one holds in contempt. Those one perceives as somehow less deserving of respect than oneself.

Mr Waters has consistently disrespected women and homosexuals but when the shoe is on the other foot he calls his lawyer - so much for 'free speech'.

While you are here you might withdraw your statement that I called you homophobic.

MaxWig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not when you are one of the people being disrespected constantly in national broadcast media.

One does not 'disrespect' those one loves after all - one disrespects those one holds in contempt. Those one perceives as somehow less deserving of respect than oneself.

Mr Waters has consistently disrespected women and homosexuals but when the shoe is on the other foot he calls his lawyer - so much for 'free speech'.

While you are here you might withdraw your statement that I called you homophobic.

Withdrawn

old hippy

MaxWig wrote: »

Disrespect?

Much more measured!

I would agree that Waters has been incredibly disrespectful.

Big jump from disrespectful to hate speech though!

I am, of course, being polite. What I'd really like to say about this satire of a man who plays at being a journalist would probably be deemed as very disrespectful...

MaxWig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not when you are one of the people being disrespected constantly in national broadcast media.

One does not 'disrespect' those one loves after all - one disrespects those one holds in contempt. Those one perceives as somehow less deserving of respect than oneself.

Mr Waters has consistently disrespected women and homosexuals but when the shoe is on the other foot he calls his lawyer - so much for 'free speech'.

While you are here you might withdraw your statement that I called you homophobic.

I guess what irks me most, is that I know Waters is not speaking for some hidden, tiny minority. There are people who hold similar views. Some staunch, some without conviction. Some who are unsure what to think. And all the spectrum in between.

When I see comments sections on various websites almost exclusively deriding Waters as a maniac, it worries me.

He is not a maniac. He does put his name to what he says. He is willing to debate. He has come on national broadcasters several times to do so.

I do not believe that what he is now doing is 'running away' because he feels he is beaten. Its just not what I see.

I do believe there is a fear among individuals and group to be perceived as homophobic.

If someone is genuinely homophobic/bigoted, then I don't mind if they feel ashamed to voice their views. Suits me.

But if people are afraid to voice genuine concerns/questions for fear they will be branded as a bigot, then I think something is amiss.

I'm not an advocate for Water's viewpoint.

I disagree with a lot of what he says.

I agree with some of it too. And it is possible to agree with certain points, even if you are not agreeable with the position as a whole.

Brian Shanahan

MaxWig wrote: »

Being shouted at in the street.

Being referred to in any number of derogatory terms.

These are associated with bullying.

We're not talking about the actions of Jawn here with this specific accusation, we're talking about the actions taken by people against Jawn, and the only evidence we have is a) Jawn's own verbiage, and b) the reasonable (and reasonably stated) conclusions by most intelligent people that Jawn is, well (to use a euphamism), a bit that way.

Piliger

MaxWig wrote: »

Being shouted at in the street.

Nope. Nothing bullying about that.

Being referred to in any number of derogatory terms.

Nope. Nothing bullying about that.

These are associated with bullying.

No they are not.

The most worrying thing about all this though, is that the debate has given a platform to the genuinely thick, who now seem to feel part of something.

People who believe in equality and justice do indeed feel part of something. Something more than the individual. A society and culture that promotes equality, tolerence and justice. One that doesn't discriminate against one minority and insult and another.

They seem to relish being 'in the right'. The problem is that we are never 'in the right' if we are simply insulting someone.

Actually we are in the right when we expose hate for what it is. If that person feels 'insulted' then that is his own personal issue.

Regardless of how invigorating our righteous indignation may feel!

Oh it does feel good. Opposing nasty people who glory in, and make a living out of, prejudice and hate mongering is a very good feeling.

The gormless have found a niche into which to slip unnoticed. "We all think John Waters is bad" comes the refrain. The problem with giving a voice to the philistine, is that it becomes hard to distinguish the voices of those who are genuinely trying to move the debate forward - who have thought about the issues at hand - teased them out!

No again. You appear to have no ability to recognise hateful people and hateful speech. You appear to have non ability to recognise prejudice and bigotry or any sense of self awareness at how appallingly ignorant it is to support that kind of sickness and abuse those who have the sense of justice and decency to actually stand up and be counted.

Ranting about Waters being a "(insert insult here)" is all well and good. Those who are genuinely familiar with his work over the past 20 years however will know that he is not a bigot, or a lunatic, or a whatever-you're-having-yourself.

As someone who is familiar with his writing over a period of ALL of those years I can say that he has consistently been a prejudiced bigot, though he has stepped it up significantly ever since his pet prejudices have actually been challenged by the Irish people and he has discovered himself in the exposed minority.

I don't happen to agree with Waters on these issues, but I know there are people that do.

What that nonsense means I most certainly do not know.

Attack the opinions that you don't like - not those who hold them!

No. People who spread hate and bigotry deserve to take the responsibility of their actions.

Corkfeen

Willing to debate.... He literally attempted to shutdown debate and now has a martyr complex because he has been called up on it.

MaxWig

Being shouted at in the street.

Nope. Nothing bullying about that.

Rory O'Neill felt very uncomfortable when it happened to him.

And rightly so. It's despicable behaviour.

MaxWig

Quote:
Attack the opinions that you don't like - not those who hold them!

No. People who spread hate and bigotry deserve to take the responsibility of their actions.

OK - you seem to have a firm grasp of how best a mature society should operate

MaxWig

Piliger wrote: »

What that nonsense means I most certainly do not know.

Google 'Theory of Mind'!