Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Waters quits BAI

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Are you saying gay people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic? His language was OTT. As I said, about what I expected from the Indo.
    You're assuming they oppose gay marriage because of gay people. This is 99% not the case.
    They are not out in force campaigning against it either.


  • Options
    #123
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Are you saying gay people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic? His language was OTT. As I said, about what I expected from the Indo.


    It's not from the Indo.

    His language was not "OTT", and his meaning was clear.


  • Options
    #124
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Are you saying gay people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic? His language was OTT. As I said, about what I expected from the Indo.

    He described it as an actual plot to cause immense damage to the fabric of society. He was fairly clear. HE doesn't even write for the Indo and it was from an interview.


  • Options
    #125
    Foxhound38
    Registered Users Posts: 2,547 ✭✭✭Foxhound38


    efb wrote: »
    https://m.facebook.com/notes/broadcasting-authority-of-ireland-bai/statement-on-the-resignation-of-john-waters-from-bai/657017111011413

    After pantigate Waters resigns. Martyrdom awaits...

    Why do we have to put "gate" after every "scandal" (I use the term loosely - John Waters making a general pillock of himself is hardly news to anyone at this stage) that happens in Ireland?

    As for Waters - if there was a government project to fire him into the sun I'd gladly pay a tax increase towards it...


  • Options
    #126
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Are you saying gay people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic? His language was OTT. As I said, about what I expected from the Indo.

    Yeah, saying letting gay people marry will destroy the institution of marriage, and by extension, society and human civilisation is just being over the top. Totally not homophobic. :rolleyes:

    If he said that about a racial minority, he'd be branded a racist. I see no reason why those comments shouldn't be classified as homophobic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    Why do we have to put "gate" after every "scandal" (I use the term loosely - John Waters making a general pillock of himself is hardly news to anyone at this stage) that happens in Ireland?
    I'm just surprised people missed out on "Watersgate".


  • Options
    #128
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's not from the Indo.

    His language was not "OTT", and his meaning was clear.

    That's nice etc

    Now, are you going answer my question?


  • Options
    #129
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That's nice etc

    Now, are you going answer my question?
    You're definitely trolling now :pac:


  • Options
    #130
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That's nice etc

    Now, are you going answer my question?

    O look, Phills dodging


    No, they are not nessecarily homophobic.


  • Options
    #131
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,065 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    They are not out in force campaigning against it either.

    3 or 4 of them are unfortunately

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    O look, Phills dodging


    No, they are not nessecarily homophobic.

    But all straight people who object to gay marriage are homophobes.

    This still afterhours or has this thread been moved to conspiracy theories yet?


  • Options
    #133
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    But all straight people who object to gay marriage are homophobes.

    This still afterhours or has this thread been moved to conspiracy theories yet?


    Nobody said that Phill.


    You still seem to be dodging around Waters statement. Obviously you've never had the nerve to make your own views clearly known, but I'm surprised your so shy about a fellow traveller.


  • Options
    #134
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    I see nothing wrong with same sex people marrying if they love Simone let them at it.


  • Options
    #135
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    But all straight people who object to gay marriage are homophobes.
    I object to lots of things. I don't go out of my way to harm and stop it when it hardly affects me though.


  • Options
    #136
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    Nobody said that Phill.


    You still seem to be dodging around Waters statement. Obviously you've never had the nerve to make your own views clearly known, but I'm surprised your so shy about a fellow traveller.

    I post on threads like this all the time. You post on the ones about the introduction of massive rates of abortion. I don't assume you get off on infanticde. Why do you assume I'm homophobic?

    Isn't it true that you look upon me with hatred? Like you look upon so many people? Who's the 'phobe Nodin. I don't carry the weight of hatred like you you know.


  • Options
    #137
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I post on threads like this all the time. You post on the ones about the introduction of massive rates of abortion. I don't assume you get off on infanticde. Why do you assume I'm homophobic?

    Isn't it true that you look upon me with hatred? Like you look upon so many people? Who's the 'phobe Nodin. I don't carry the weight of hatred like you you know.

    You ALWAYS do this. Dodge the questions, taking over-the-top offence to inoffensive remarks and make yourself out to be the victim


  • Options
    #138
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I post on threads like this all the time. .

    And never explain yourself. why is that phill? Why can't you refer to waters comments?
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You post on the ones about the introduction of massive rates of abortion. I don't assume you get off on infanticde..

    Theres never been a thread about "the introduction of massive rates of abortion" phill. There have been threads on Abortion though.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why do you assume I'm homophobic?..

    Well, call it a guess. Prove me wrong though - explain your reasons for objecting to gay marriage in detail.


  • Options
    #139
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Folks, there's no need to have a go at each other. Stick to the topic.


  • Options
    #140
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Nodin wrote: »
    And never explain yourself. why is that phill? Why can't you refer to waters comments?



    Theres never been a thread about "the introduction of massive rates of abortion" phill. There have been threads on Abortion though.



    Well, call it a guess. Prove me wrong though - explain your reasons for objecting to gay marriage in detail.

    He's just going to ignore you or kick up a fuss to avoid the question.

    Then put you on his ignore list


  • Options
    #141
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    humanji wrote: »
    I'm just surprised people missed out on "Watersgate".



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    donspeekinglesh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,867 ✭✭✭donspeekinglesh


    Hootanany wrote: »
    I see nothing wrong with same sex people marrying if they love Simone let them at it.

    Does Simone get a say in it?


  • Options
    #143
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,065 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    donspeekinglesh wrote: »
    Does Simone get a say in it?

    I was wondering earlier who Simone was? :D:P

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #144
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    The same four or five people leap on every thread that concerns gay people, to make swipe after swipe after swipe at gay people - and then play innocent when their homophobic leanings are challenged.
    So cowardly. If they just said "Look, I have a problem with homosexuality" it would be way less pathetic.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Just watched that interview. I would be really surprised if that lad didn't end up in a court room over that.

    Disgraceful rant was disgraceful. Should have counted to ten before he said anything.
    There was no rant, he just made a comment based on John Waters' own behaviour. You know this fully - your comment is pointless.
    JupiterKid wrote: »
    Waters was a self-styled "right on" liberal back in circa 1975 but now he's just a right wing dinosaur reactionary
    "Look at me everyone - I've done an illogical u-turn on my views; what a maverick I am!" sums him up.


  • Options
    #145
    The Gimp of Dundalk
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭The Gimp of Dundalk


    I welcome this development.


  • Options
    #146
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,885 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    if you read the transcript http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/16/wisdom-is-bliss/ you see that Rory/Pantibliss called everyone (a llittle bit) homophobic (which is okay aslong as your are aware of it and work against it).

    so i won't deny but can I sue?

    Rory did name waters and breda earlier but it was Brendan O'Conner who raised whether about Waters was homophobic and I thought Rory was actually fairly careful in generalising it, so much so that he called everyone homophobic, thus we can all sue him?


  • Options
    #147
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,713 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    The withdrawal of Mr. Waters, an excellent and insightful writer- means that the conservative and moderate voice is even less heard in the context on the downturn of the morals in Modern Ireland and the surge of growth of the extremist secular life and the culture of relativity.
    As for being called homophobic, surely a badge of honour as it betokens not following the same progressive group-think that emerges when there is any criticism of homosexual behaviour.


  • Options
    #148
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Manach wrote: »
    The withdrawal of Mr. Waters, an excellent and insightful writer- means that the conservative and moderate voice is even less heard in the context on the downturn of the morals in Modern Ireland and the surge of growth of the extremist secular life and the culture of relativity.
    As for being called homophobic, surely a badge of honour as it betokens not following the same progressive group-think that emerges when there is any criticism of homosexual behaviour.
    Not sure what your stance/point is to be honest. Bit of an irrational statement. I don't think anyone said he was a bad writer, just that he has some very jarring views on various things. I don't think being allowed to love someone is a downturn of morals in Ireland. I don't see gay people screaming abuse walking up the likes of Abbey St.

    Being discriminatory is hardly a badge of honour to anyone, would you get a hold of yourself?


  • Options
    #149
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Manach wrote: »
    As for being called homophobic, surely a badge of honour as it betokens not following the same progressive group-think that emerges when there is any criticism of homosexual behaviour.

    Group-think,
    I must ask my catholic priest about that..........


  • Options
    #150
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Manach wrote: »
    The withdrawal of Mr. Waters, an excellent and insightful writer- means that the conservative and moderate voice is even less heard in the context on the downturn of the morals in Modern Ireland and the surge of growth of the extremist secular life and the culture of relativity.
    As for being called homophobic, surely a badge of honour as it betokens not following the same progressive group-think that emerges when there is any criticism of homosexual behaviour.

    Right... Is it 420 today or something ? Cause that was pretty nonsensical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Surely the moderate voice would be one that's live and let live?

    Even plenty of conservatives don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.

    Proper christians certainly aren't judgemental and hate-filled.

    John Waters is not remotely insightful - nothing he says is in any way interesting or new. It's the same rhetoric all that crowd resort to, just presented in an attention-grabbing/seeking way.


Advertisement