Homophobia still alive in modern Ireland

One eyed Jack

DivingDuck wrote: »

When you say "that sort of treatment", what do you mean?

Most people haven't had the crap kicked out of them or been told they're not being hired because they're gay, no.

Most people will have experienced something along the lines of hearing "Really? Jesus, you don't look gay" or had someone shout something rude at them while they were holding hands with a partner in public, for example, or maybe been called something in a derogatory way while at school.

There are degrees of homophobia. I would be surprised if most of your LGBT friends/acquaintances haven't experienced at least the smaller examples of it.

Well I mean the examples that you mentioned above, or the examples that baby and crumble mentioned earlier. I mean, if we're defining homophobia as an irrational fear or hatred of people who are LGBT (it's my own personal bugbear that people are lumped together like that, but that's for another thread), then that has to have some sort of standard where we can clearly say yes, that is an example of homophobia/transphobia, etc. The recent example of Caitlyn Jenner being subjected to harassment by the paps for example, that's a clear example of transphobia. It doesn't mean transphobia is "alive and well" in the UK. It means that's one example where we can say yes, that person committed a hate crime!

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's understandable you'd have that impression marien given that you don't know me at all.





Every one of them? I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it but one of the reasons why threads like this raise an eyebrow is because most people I know who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender don't experience that sort of treatment. To say it's a fact of life is exactly the sort of negative, divisive attitude I'm referring to.





Yes they should, because that would be maintaining the perspective I mentioned earlier rather than allowing themselves to give in to mass paranoia which would be completely irrational and closing themselves off from society as a result. The George would probably close down as a result though if people realised that people aren't generally homophobic.





No equivocation is necessary, nor was it ever necessary (I hate when people make equivocations myself, they're never legitimate comparisons), nor is exaggeration and polarisation necessary either.

Do I know you personally ? Most unlikely - do I know your boards persona ? Very well , and if you don't accept that may I suggest you don't understand the concept of a chat forum . Now whether your boards persona is totally unrelated to your actual views I have no way of knowing , but I think not , you don't strike me as the kind of person that needs that kind of false validation .

I have yet to meet to LGBT person that has not experienced homophobia , every single one of them - bar none . As I say it is a fact of life , the degree may vary but the experience is a given .

Why not look on it as you would any other criminal act ? Why must the LGBT community be any different ?

It is as if by highlighting a wrong they are being ungrateful as it could be worse .

Frank Fetterson

Bigotry will always exist. Yes, it was an abhorrent act of vandalism, but the widespread condemnation of the offence in question demonstrates how unfavourably homophobia is received by society at large.

Not_A_Racist

How is it criminal damage if its written in chalk?

Maybe its one for the legal forum?

Can the content of the graffiti itself be criminal damage?

If somebody writes 'hello' in chalk on the ground the police won't be looking for them for criminal damage.

If you use a light beam to project a message onto a building are you committing criminal damage?

Will I Am Not

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You can do many things. Challenging through counter speech. Education. Etc etc

You can try many things but the chances of changing the mind of a bigot are slim to none.

There will always be prejudice. It's delusional to think that there will be 100% acceptance, be it sexuality, religion, race etc.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Do I know you personally ? Most unlikely - do I know your boards persona ? Very well , and if you don't accept that may I suggest you don't understand the concept of a chat forum . Now whether your boards persona is totally unrelated to your actual views I have no way of knowing , but I think not , you don't strike me as the kind of person that needs that kind of false validation .

I guess it was when you said anything that doesn't conform to my traditional world view raises an eyebrow but sure all you have to do is look through my post history, I don't think I'm actually that sheltered as I think you're making out.

If anything, it's actually the likes of the George like I said is more of a throwback to a time in history when people were persecuted for being gay. I could understand then the necessity for a place like the George, but nowadays? Not so much. Theirs is the more traditional view of LGBT culture in a modern society.

I have yet to meet to LGBT person that has not experienced homophobia , every single one of them - bar none . As I say it is a fact of life , the degree may vary but the experience is a given.

We probably gravitate towards different people then in that case. I don't tend to gravitate towards people where life is a constant struggle for them and every interaction is analysed to the nth degree. That sort of over-thinking every social interaction is debilitating and mentally exhausting.

Why not look on it as you would any other criminal act ? Why must the LGBT community be any different ?

It is as if by highlighting a wrong they are being ungrateful as it could be worse .

I thought we weren't doing equivocation? Clearly though how I would define homophobia is worlds apart from how some people here would define homophobia.

gizmo81

None of my friends have been victims of domestic abuse, but it exists.
None of my friends have been victims of terrorism, but it exists.
What kind of argument are you trying to make here?

George Weinberg defined homophobia, I''ll go with his definition.

Why are you trying to deny people their lived experience?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I guess it was when you said anything that doesn't conform to my traditional world view raises an eyebrow but sure all you have to do is look through my post history, I don't think I'm actually that sheltered as I think you're making out.

If anything, it's actually the likes of the George like I said is more of a throwback to a time in history when people were persecuted for being gay. I could understand then the necessity for a place like the George, but nowadays? Not so much. Theirs is the more traditional view of LGBT culture in a modern society.





We probably gravitate towards different people then in that case. I don't tend to gravitate towards people where life is a constant struggle for them and every interaction is analysed to the nth degree. That sort of over-thinking every social interaction is debilitating and mentally exhausting.





I thought we weren't doing equivocation? Clearly though how I would define homophobia is worlds apart from how some people here would define homophobia.

.........

Everything is still alive in modern Ireland, from rickets to tb.

sabat

I'm not even gay and I've been called a queer and fag (usually shouted out a taxi window by a gang of scrotes) 3 or 4 times when walking up that end of the street.

rtron

What happened in the George was vandalism surely?

koumi

Yes it is alive and well, this thread is hilarious btw

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

None of my friends have been victims of domestic abuse, but it exists.
None of my friends have been victims of terrorism, but it exists.
What kind of argument are you trying to make here?

I'm saying that it's completely irrational to use an incident like this, to suggest that homophobia "is alive and well in modern Ireland". It an old internet term you may have heard of if you're old enough to remember it - FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. If you don't remember that, then maybe you don't remember the story of the chicken who thought the sky was falling because an acorn fell on her head. It's creating an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, mistrust and divisiveness that is completely disproportionate to the original incident.

George Weinberg defined homophobia, I''ll go with his definition.

And when you continue to expand that definition beyond it's original intent and common understanding to include every slight perceived by a person, then the term quickly becomes misunderstood and loses it's impact.

Why are you trying to deny people their lived experience?

I'm doing no such thing, and I'd thank you to reel that trope back in. I'm not denying anyone their lived experiences which are entirely subjective. I'm questioning the validity of the insinuation that "homophobia is alive and well in modern Ireland", and all the implications a statement like that carries with it on the basis of just this one incident alone.

gizmo81

Dude! You betray yourselves with every sentence you type.

I've quoted two studies which outline that homophobia (violence/bias) is a problem in Ireland and actually has increased since the marriage referendum. Post 80.
:
You are obviously not familiar with George Weinberg's Definition:

I coined the word homophobia to mean it was a phobia about homosexuals, It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear, and it had led to great brutality, as fear always does.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/george-weinberg-dead-coined-homophobia.html

52% of school going teenagers have experienced homophobic taunts. What part of that is it you cannot understand? See post 80 for reference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm saying that it's completely irrational to use an incident like this, to suggest that homophobia "is alive and well in modern Ireland". It an old internet term you may have heard of if you're old enough to remember it - FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. If you don't remember that, then maybe you don't remember the story of the chicken who thought the sky was falling because an acorn fell on her head. It's creating an atmosphere of fear, paranoia, mistrust and divisiveness that is completely disproportionate to the original incident.





And when you continue to expand that definition beyond it's original intent and common understanding to include every slight perceived by a person, then the term quickly becomes misunderstood and loses it's impact.





I'm doing no such thing, and I'd thank you to reel that trope back in. I'm not denying anyone their lived experiences which are entirely subjective. I'm questioning the validity of the insinuation that "homophobia is alive and well in modern Ireland", and all the implications a statement like that carries with it on the basis of just this one incident alone.

Annasopra

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You can try many things but the chances of changing the mind of a bigot are slim to none.

There will always be prejudice. It's delusional to think that there will be 100% acceptance, be it sexuality, religion, race etc.

Did I ever claim there would be 100% acceptance?

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

You are obviously not familiar with George Weinberg's Definition:

From that very same article, exactly what I referred to earlier -

Over time, “homophobia” evolved from a rallying cry to a contested term. Critics, both gay and heterosexual, argued that however useful the word might be as a political tool, or as a consciousness raiser, it did not withstand scrutiny. Homophobia, they pointed out, was not precisely equivalent to an irrational fear of snakes or heights, and the emotions associated with it were more likely to be anger or disgust than fear. Its meaning had become too diffuse, they argued, covering everything from physical assault to private thoughts to government policies.

In 2012, The Associated Press, in a revision of its stylebook, discouraged use of the word. “Phobia means irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness,” David Minthorn, The A.P.’s deputy standards editor, wrote in a column. “In terms like homophobia, it’s often speculation. The reasons for anti-gay feelings or actions may not be apparent. Specifics are better than vague characterizations of a person’s general feelings about something.”

Dr. Weinberg remained unconvinced. The phenomenon still existed, he asserted, and only one word did it justice.

52% of school going teenagers have experienced homophobic taunts. What part of that is it you cannot understand? See post 80 for reference.

When I was in school, 100% of teenagers experienced homophobic taunts. I'm not too sure how many of them actually knew what it meant, let alone how many of them actually hated or had an irrational fear of people who were gay. A 48% reduction? I'd say that was progress, but to teenagers nowadays, everything is gay! I don't immediately assume they actually have an irrational fear or hatred of people who gay though.

Annasopra

......... wrote: »

Everything is still alive in modern Ireland, from rickets to tb.

Yeah. So what. We can all do whataboutery.

SterlingArcher

Some of the replys from the person who actually posted original pictures are quite interesting .

" it's troubling that we can't have spaces of our own and the straights aren't happy with us being too visible "

Some nice us vs them mentality. With awesome sweeping generalisations to boot. I wonder are their parents non gay friends lumped in here too.

Another person " sure the George has become trendy for straights we can't even have our own queer space. Referendum changed nothing" . ok that's quite interesting for someone mentioning a referendum which was voted in by many "straights" so all could be treated the same yet wanting exclusivity in same sentence.

" I'm angry and scared". This for me is getting hysterical.

Now I get these are the opinions of just a few who I consider idiots so I won't go kicking any not straights outta my spaces .

I'm a " straight" so I might be doing the equivalent of mansplaining here.

One eyed Jack

Grey Wind wrote: »

Someone spray paints fag and a swastika across a gay bar and you think it's a publicity stunt? Are you for real? No wonder you don't think homophobia's a problem if this is your reaction to it.

It's not as though the idea is actually unheard of?

Gay Pastor Apologizes After Accusing Whole Foods of Writing Slur on Chocolate Cake

The case of the chocolate cake slur, it seems, was simply a hoax.

An openly gay Texas pastor who had accused Whole Foods of defacing his cake with an anti-gay slur dropped his lawsuit against the grocery chain on Monday, issuing an apology that said he was wrong to “perpetuate this story.”

“The company did nothing wrong,” the pastor, Jordan Brown, said in a statement. “I was wrong to pursue this matter and use the media to perpetuate this story.”

He also apologized to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community “for diverting attention from real issues.”

Lesbian Admits She Faked Homophobic Attack, Punched HERSELF

Last August, Mari Poindexter, a professor at Central Michigan University reported on social media that she was violently assaulted by a man at a local concert she attended with her family.

She posted a detailed account of the alleged assault which included a man shouting “crossdressing fag” at her, before attacking her in a carpark of a local bar later that night. Along with the post, she included graphic pictures of her injuries.

Poindexter’s supporters urged her to report the attack to police. When she did, the police investigated CCTV footage of the carpark, prompting the alleged victim to confess that she had lied about the attack, but maintains that she was still verbally abused by a man at the concert.

Police said that Poindexter, “made the story up about being assaulted by a male subject at the bar and punched herself in the eye because she wanted to raise awareness about the social hardships of people in the LGBT community.”

Her lawyer told Morning Sun News, “On the night in question, she was accosted, by another patron at a local concert. The assault included many homophobic remarks, [and was] very mean spirited” but “made the mistake of exaggerating the assault.”

Gay YouTube personality allegedly faked own assault, hitting himself in head with pay phone

Calum McSwiggan made his name as a YouTube personality whose videos discuss LGBT issues.

The 26-year-old’s channel, which had 62,809 subscribers early Thursday morning, is mostly focused on sex — his videos have titles like “I Paid For Sex in Thailand” and “I Did Gay Porn & I’m Sorry,” interspersed with issue-centric ones like “I Was Fired For Being Gay” and “Homophobic Bullying | Your Stories.”

Following the June 12 mass shooting in Pulse, an Orlando gay nightclub, he choked “we do not deserve this f—— treatment” through tears in a video.

Fifteen days later, McSwiggan posted a disturbing photo to his Instagram account showing him in a hospital bed with bleary, puffy eyes and a bandage on his head.

“Last night was the worst night of my life and I’m really struggling to find the words to talk about it,” the caption read.  It described an attack on him outside a California gay club. According to the post, he was out celebrating after a weekend at VidCon when he was separated from his friends and “beaten up by three guys.”

“With three broken teeth and six stitches in my forehead, I’ve never felt so terrified to be a gay man in the public eye,” the caption said.

Police, though, found no evidence of such an event and have charged him with filing a false police report, according to the Los Angeles Times.

I'm very much for real as it happens, unlike the stories above which were used to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among people in society.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as though the idea is actually unheard of?
Gay Pastor Apologizes After Accusing Whole Foods of Writing Slur on Chocolate Cake

Lesbian Admits She Faked Homophobic Attack, Punched HERSELF

Gay YouTube personality allegedly faked own assault, hitting himself in head with pay phone

I'm very much for real as it happens, unlike the stories above which were used to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among people in society.

Wow. 3 examples from America and suddenly it's a massive social phenomenen. Who knew? I actually think your conspiracy theories on this are really what is trying to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among peoole in society.

Conspiracy theories are alas par for the course with that user. I recall for example the time a reporter wrote about telling a one night stand that she wanted to get pregnant and be a single mother. It was her life choice - the guy happily consented (win-win in his mind). Not happy with her choices the user in question decides to invent out of nowhere that she committed to this 18-21 period of single motherhood as an intentional means to have an article to write and further her career. Not a shred of evidence that was her motivation existed at the time - or that her motivations for getting pregnant were anything other than what she herself claimed them to be - nor was any such evidence offered by him when asked (in fact he moved towards being openly abusive when asked for it) - but that has never stopped him inventing a narrative of his own that he could deride with relative ease.

Interesting too to see that user play down the homophobia in any situation - given how often he plays down his own. Recall how he wrote about how deeply he is adversely affected by merely seeing homosexuals hold hands in a restaurant - to the point not only would he complain about it - but he would do so in the full expectation the management of the restaurant should be expected do anything it can to alleviate his suffering - up to and including removing the loving and innocent patrons from the establishment.

So to see him rolling into a forum about homosexuality to not just play down - but perpetuate _as yet_ unfounded (after all who knows) conspiracy theories about - an ominous (given the reference to Nazism) homophobic event is barely going to move the needle on the surprise meter here at least.

Though it is interesting to see him _exaggerate_ the OP in an effort to _downplay_ the OP. An interesting tactic - but certainly when he wrote "I didn't deny at all that homophobia exists? I'm saying that it doesn't exist to the degree that was implied in the opening post." - I went reading the Opening post again. 5 times in fact. And I am yet to read a single word - let alone sentence - that implied anything remotely approaching "degrees" of it. The user has simply (par for the course once again with him) made it up himself - never one to let what people _actually said_ get in the way of what he would like them to have said.

All that said I do try to look for the silver lining in even the worst events. A couple of years ago we had a referendum on equal marriage and during that time we had all kinds of anti-homosexuality narratives. In our print and audio and visual media. Now two years later we have a lone coward expressing his frustrations and ineptitude and ineffectual lack of any cogent arguments in the only way his cowardice and lack of rational reason allow him to.

In the dark - alone - with a piece of chalk. So horrible thing to do as it may have been - some schadenfreude part of me get spin some pleasure out of the event at the same time - well no not the event itself - so much as this loners pathetic part in it. All the arguments against homosexuality - homosexual marriage - homosexual adoption - and every other topic that came up during that period of debate - have simply evaporated as the empty wind they were at the time. There simply is no arguments left that stood up to even the mildest scrutiny. So scrawling on walls with cowardice is all that little minority have left.

Will I Am Not

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Did I ever claim there would be 100% acceptance?

Well here's how the conversation was going when you quoted me.

NIMAN wrote: »

No-one is denying that, but you are being unrealistic if you think there will be 100% acceptance across the population.

It simply isn't going to ever happen, because people are people. And every country is the same.

There will always be homophobia, racism, sexism, ageism ........

baby and crumble wrote: »

I disagree. Why should we be ok with some of our population being treated unequally? "Just because"? That's not good enough

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You don't have to be ok with it. You just can't do anything about how people feel.

You may not have said it in your own words but you seemed to be arguing the same point as B&C, you even thanked that post.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Wow. 3 examples from America and suddenly it's a massive social phenomenen. Who knew? I actually think your conspiracy theories on this are really what is trying to incite fear, paranoia, uncertainty, divisiveness among peoole in society.

I said it wasn't unheard of and used examples to illustrate my point. How is that any different from your homophobia is still alive in modern Ireland on the basis of this one incident? Homophobia isn't unheard of in Ireland either, but I'm not going to imply people are as ignorant to it or unaware of it as you did in your opening post. People are aware of it, but there's no need to dramatise it in an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said it wasn't unheard of and used examples to illustrate my point. How is that any different from your homophobia is still alive in modern Ireland on the basis of this one incident? Homophobia isn't unheard of in Ireland either, but I'm not going to imply people are as ignorant to it or unaware of it as you did in your opening post. People are aware of it, but there's no need to dramatise it in an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily.

Why is their no need to dramatize it ? Would you say the same if it was a swastika daubed on a synagogue ?

And furthermore how do you come to the conclusion it is ''an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily '' by the OP ?

To be honest with you there seems to be a subtext to all your posts that LGBT people should 'know their place ' . Why are you treating this incident differently than any other incident ?

Grey Wind

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To whip up hysteria and paranoia among the LGBT community is one reason off the top of my head. These incidents go viral very quickly on social media.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Again, it's no wonder you don't see homophobia as a problem if your reaction to blatant vandalism is to come up with conspiracy theories that fit your view.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said it wasn't unheard of and used examples to illustrate my point. How is that any different from your homophobia is still alive in modern Ireland on the basis of this one incident? Homophobia isn't unheard of in Ireland either, but I'm not going to imply people are as ignorant to it or unaware of it as you did in your opening post. People are aware of it, but there's no need to dramatise it in an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily.

But what does the OP imply? You keep saying that the OP dramatises it and suggests a certain level and all that, but literally the only thing the OP says is that it exists:

I think sometimes there can be a perception that homophobia doesn't exist anymore here in this country since May 23rd 2015.

It does.

That's it. OP's point is that yes, while homophobia was a much larger problem in the past and that gay people are relatively lucky to live in a more forward thinking society, it's still there. You have repeatedly been given actual concrete examples of homophobia in Ireland and continue to ignore it and move the goalposts so that whatever weird view you're trying to profess comes out on top.

http://www.thejournal.ie/homophobia-ireland-1313875-Feb2014/
http://www.thejournal.ie/homophobia-1329801-Feb2014/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/52-of-young-irish-lgbti-people-face-abuse-at-school-1.2651002
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homophobia-case-study-there-s-no-classification-of-these-crimes-1.3022277
http://www.independent.ie/sport/revealed-ireland-the-second-worst-offender-when-it-comes-to-homophobia-in-sport-31210431.html

One eyed Jack

Homophobia exists, who knew?

Not_A_Racist

I would argue that homophobia will likely always exist. And for the reason already given; that you cannot control peoples feelings.

Both homophobia and racism can be latent, like racism largely was in Ireland for many years. But now that there's foreigners to rail against the latent racism reasserts itself.

There is simply no way to convince others of your point of view. Doubling down and trying harder often makes the opposing side dig in also and become more fixed in their position.


Gay pride marches are divisive for two related reasons.
Firstly, there aren't straight pride marches, and secondly, our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection or of sexuality. I suspect our culture doesn't like sexually dominant people either and you see a lot of those at gay pride marches.

For those reasons, mainly cultural, gay pride marches are polarising and divisive.

Also, on a global scale, gay rights are divisive with some countries now voting to restrict gay rights.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Why is their no need to dramatize it ? Would you say the same if it was a swastika daubed on a synagogue ?

So much for "no need to draw equivalences" and then you go and draw equivalences. If there were someone trying to use it to make a point as though anti-semitism were prevalent in Irish society I would, yes, and I would be equally cautious about jumping to conclusions based on one single incident.

And furthermore how do you come to the conclusion it is ''an effort to get people riled up unnecessarily '' by the OP ?

One incident in Dublin is not representative of "modern Ireland".

To be honest with you there seems to be a subtext to all your posts that LGBT people should 'know their place ' .

Odd persecution complex you've got going on there.

Why are you treating this incident differently than any other incident ?

I'm only talking about this incident because I'm not drawing equivalences and I'm not blowing it out of proportion to suggest that homophobia is "still alive in modern Ireland" as though it's actually more prevalent than it is.

sunny2004

Why do people think its a phobia ?

Grey Wind

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One incident in Dublin is not representative of "modern Ireland".

...

I'm only talking about this incident because I'm not drawing equivalences and I'm not blowing it out of proportion to suggest that homophobia is "still alive in modern Ireland" as though it's actually more prevalent than it is.

You are completely inventing this narrative. Nowhere in the OP does it say that this is a representation of modern Ireland; simply that it exists in modern Ireland. Nor did the OP imply that any specific level of homophobia is present here.

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

Why do people think its a phobia ?

Maybe because it's a negative attitude towards LGBT people - during the 1980s and 1990s it was an explicit contempt, hatred and violence towards gay people - very often based on irrational fears and religious beliefs. The current pope says it's OK to be gay - provided you don't practice.
Maybe you could google Declan Flynn who was beaten to death in 1983 or Robert Drake who was left permanently brain-damaged in 1999 etc due to homophobia - both attacks were purely based on an irrational fear - or a phobia - of gay people (which was perpetuated by Irish laws and attitudes of society at the time).

sunny2004

Logo wrote: »

Maybe because it's a negative attitude towards LGBT people -

I am not sure that is a phobia.

gizmo81

But but homophobia exists in Ireland and is on the increase, but no lets ignore the stats on focus on an irrelevant argument to reinforce my heteronormative bias.

More than 52 per cent of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans and intersex) young people have experienced homophobic or transphobic name-calling while at school in Ireland, according to a Unesco study.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...hool-1.2651002


And if you want to focus on homophobia as violence rather than bias,


Hate crime figures from the Central Statistics Office, released to the Press Association in October, showed that 26 cases of crimes based on gender, transphobia or homophobia were recorded in the first six months of 2016, compared to 25 overall in 2015. These were the first statistics available since the Pulse recording system used by An Garda Siochana was expanded to include transphobic crimes in 2015.


http://ilga-europe.org/sites/default...17/ireland.pdf

*I already posted these links Post 80 but One-Eye Jack keeps missing them.

Professor Moriarty

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

I would argue that homophobia will likely always exist. And for the reason already given; that you cannot control peoples feelings.

Both homophobia and racism can be latent, like racism largely was in Ireland for many years. But now that there's foreigners to rail against the latent racism reasserts itself.

There is simply no way to convince others of your point of view. Doubling down and trying harder often makes the opposing side dig in also and become more fixed in their position.


Gay pride marches are divisive for two related reasons.
Firstly, there aren't straight pride marches, and secondly, our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection or of sexuality. I suspect our culture doesn't like sexually dominant people either and you see a lot of those at gay pride marches.

For those reasons, mainly cultural, gay pride marches are polarising and divisive.

Also, on a global scale, gay rights are divisive with some countries now voting to restrict gay rights.

Our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection? Time for cultural change.

Sexually dominant people? How would you define one of those? Why are they particularly populous at gay pride parades?

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

I am not sure that is a phobia.

Maybe a negative attitude isn't a phobia but it does create an irrational fear - which is a phobia.

sunny2004

Logo wrote: »

Maybe a negative attitude isn't a phobia but it does create an irrational fear - which is a phobia.

so you assume they are afraid ?

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

so you assume they are afraid ?

Up to 2016 Irelands laws discriminated against gay people. So society accepted that it was OK to value LGBT people as less than others. I never said that anyone was afraid - but it was a phobia or irrational fear of something that wasn't of the mainstream white Irish Catholic majority.

sunny2004

Logo wrote: »

Up to 2016 Irelands laws discriminated against gay people. So society accepted that it was OK to value LGBT people as less than others. I never said that anyone was afraid - but it was a phobia or irrational fear of something that wasn't of the mainstream white Irish Catholic majority.

Trying to work thorugh all the additional information you post to get to your point, I was asking about the use of the term phobia, you mentioned an irrational fear, I always assumed the word fear was associated with feeling afraid. I can see this is going nowhere.

Logo

sunny2004 wrote: »

Trying to work thorugh all the additional information you post to get to your point, I was asking about the use of the term phobia, you mentioned an irrational fear, I always assumed the word fear was associated with feeling afraid. I can see this is going nowhere.

Yep agree that it's going nowhere fast. Will happily agree to disagree.

Not_A_Racist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Our culture doesn't like overt displays of affection? Time for cultural change.

Sexually dominant people? How would you define one of those? Why are they particularly populous at gay pride parades?

Your post is nothing but questions apart from the cryptic phrase 'Time for cultural change' which I suspect is sarcastic.

I suspect therefore that you're not here to offer your own opinion, or to engagein discussion; you're here to harass other people who express opinions you don't like.


Our society doesn't like overt displays of affection.
Do you dispute that?
Are you claiming to be unaware of that?
or are you merely being obtuse?


I believe 'sexually dominant' is self explanatory.

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

gizmo81

Do you know why there is Pride?

Why on earth would there be a straight pride?

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Your post is nothing but questions apart from the cryptic phrase 'Time for cultural change' which I suspect is sarcastic.

I suspect therefore that you're not here to offer your own opinion, or to engagein discussion; you're here to harass other people who express opinions you don't like.


Our society doesn't like overt displays of affection.
Do you dispute that?
Are you claiming to be unaware of that?
or are you merely being obtuse?


I believe 'sexually dominant' is self explanatory.

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

But but homophobia exists in Ireland and is on the increase, but no lets ignore the stats on focus on an irrelevant argument to reinforce my heteronormative bias.

...

*I already posted these links Post 80 but One-Eye Jack keeps missing them.

No gizmo, there's nothing irrelevant about claiming one incident is representative of homophobia in modern Ireland, that would be selection bias, and confirmation bias.

I'm not missing your links as I'm well aware of the stats and the reports behind them, which is why I would suggest that rather than blowing things out of proportion, we wouldn't use one incident to perpetuate myths about modern Irish society. I'd sooner focus on the positives in Irish society than always being attuned to the negatives.

Focusing on pointing out the negatives is a a trait of a person with a persecution complex who wants to confirm their bias. That's far easier for some people to do than focus on the positives, and an incident like this can be used to reinforce negative attitudes among a community towards people whom they perceive to be homophobic where no such homophobia exists.

gizmo81

Please point to where I based anything I've said on one incident.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

gizmo81 wrote: »

But but homophobia exists in Ireland and is on the increase, but no lets ignore the stats on focus on an irrelevant argument to reinforce my heteronormative bias.

...

*I already posted these links Post 80 but One-Eye Jack keeps missing them.

No gizmo, there's nothing irrelevant about claiming one incident is representative of homophobia in modern Ireland, that would be selection bias, and confirmation bias.

I'm not missing your links as I'm well aware of the stats and the reports behind them, which is why I would suggest that rather than blowing things out of proportion, we wouldn't use one incident to perpetuate myths about modern Irish society. I'd sooner focus on the positives in Irish society than always being attuned to the negatives.

Focusing on pointing out the negatives is a a trait of a person with a persecution complex who wants to confirm their bias. That's far easier for some people to do than focus on the positives, and an incident like this can be used to reinforce negative attitudes among a community towards people whom they perceive to be homophobic where no such homophobia exists.

baby and crumble

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

I know that you're not going to listen to what I've got to say, but every day is a straight pride day.

Yes, it has changed massively in Ireland, and now it's less unusual to see a gay couple walking around town holding hands. When I first came to Dublin in 2000 you NEVER saw it. You never saw gay couples kissing in non gay bars. You never saw a gay person approach someone in a non gay specific/ friendly environment. Now all those things happen, but it's still not to the same degree as it should.

If you want to talk about sexual aggressiveness and advertising their sexuality, I give you any nightclub in Ireland, with straight couples practically shagging in corners. I give you stag and hen nights. I give you couples making out on every corner. I give you what I saw every single weekend when I lived on Camden St, which was guys getting blowjobs off women in the street beside whelans, I saw young women wearing no underwear. I saw such sexual aggressiveness that it shocked me. I never ever have seen anything like that at any gay event ever.

It's "sexual aggressiveness" and unpleasant for you to think about from gay people, because all of a sudden you're forced to look at gay people kissing, gay people being proud of something that for centuries was shunned.

And before you say it, because it's always brought up, is this argument of "well I don't see why the men have to dress in leather/ as women/ whatever" at a parade for say, 15,000 people I often see 10 people like that. And anyway, who cares? Have you seen Paddys Day recently?

Don't try and turn this into a classic "gay people are more sexually aggressive" thing because that's exactly the attitudes that were espoused years ago to create the idea that we were sexual deviants and to justify locking us up for existing, or worse.

One eyed Jack

gizmo81 wrote: »

Please point to where I based anything I've said on one incident.

I didn't say you had done that gizmo, I would have said the same of anyone who uses one incident, whatever it is, to insinuate that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is. That's not "hetronormative bias" or anything like that, it's "positivity bias" if there is even such a thing, because I'm not going to look at one minor incident and suggest well that outweighs all the positives in our society.

Professor Moriarty

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Your post is nothing but questions apart from the cryptic phrase 'Time for cultural change' which I suspect is sarcastic.

I suspect therefore that you're not here to offer your own opinion, or to engagein discussion; you're here to harass other people who express opinions you don't like.


Our society doesn't like overt displays of affection.
Do you dispute that?
Are you claiming to be unaware of that?
or are you merely being obtuse?


I believe 'sexually dominant' is self explanatory.

There are no straight pride marches. That's why sexually dominant people can be seen at gay pride marches but not at straight pride marches.. because the straight pride marches don't exist.
I accept that there are many straight people who talk about sex and who boast about their sexual prowess and number of partners, but those people are often considered boring and are shunned.


As to why 'sexually dominant' people are present at gay pride marches I believe it is because some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance.
Why else would you take a central position on the march?

To be honest, I haven't a clue as to what point you're trying to make.

However, your line about "some gay people like to advertise their gayness, and their sexual prowess, skill or dominance." gives me insight into how your mind works. It's rather a silly and anachronistic way of thinking.

Grey Wind

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No gizmo, there's nothing irrelevant about claiming one incident is representative of homophobia in modern Ireland, that would be selection bias, and confirmation bias.

I'm not missing your links as I'm well aware of the stats and the reports behind them, which is why I would suggest that rather than blowing things out of proportion, we wouldn't use one incident to perpetuate myths about modern Irish society. I'd sooner focus on the positives in Irish society than always being attuned to the negatives.

Focusing on pointing out the negatives is a a trait of a person with a persecution complex who wants to confirm their bias. That's far easier for some people to do than focus on the positives, and an incident like this can be used to reinforce negative attitudes among a community towards people whom they perceive to be homophobic where no such homophobia exists.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say you had done that gizmo, I would have said the same of anyone who uses one incident, whatever it is, to insinuate that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is. That's not "hetronormative bias" or anything like that, it's "positivity bias" if there is even such a thing, because I'm not going to look at one minor incident and suggest well that outweighs all the positives in our society.

No one is using this one incident! No one is blowing things out of proportion! The only thing the OP was trying to say was that homophobia still exists in Ireland, which it does. No one even commented on its prevalence. You are the one inventing this narrative that the OP and the others posters are trying to exaggerate this incident.

Also, who is focusing on the negative? We linked you to examples of homophobia when you tried to downplay its existence. We're talking about it in this thread because it's relevant. Pretending a problem doesn't exist isn't being "positive", it's being ignorant of the struggles of people who aren't you.

What are you even trying to argue that this point? It feels more like you have some sort of problem with people discussing homophobia and are using this thread to argue in circles about it.

gizmo81

I can't even read this paragraph as it makes absolutely zero sense. However thank you for agreeing I am correct in my analysis. Now let me point out how your analysis is incorrect regarding people using this incident for their agenda.

You state, I didn't state that, but then go on to say you'd say the same to anyone who uses one incident. No one is using this one incident in isolation to insinuate that homophobia exists.

What you'll find is people are using this highly public act of homophobia to reference the insidious homophobia that prevails in Irish society. I've backed this up numerous times for you.

It is heteronormative to ignore all current research regarding homophobia (violence/bias) to further your agenda that homophobia is not prevalent in Irish society. 52% of teenagers have been subjected to homophobic abuse, that is prevalent.

I don't understand why you're talking about the Pollyanna principle, people focus positive and negative experiences on different levels.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't say you had done that gizmo, I would have said the same of anyone who uses one incident, whatever it is, to insinuate that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is. That's not "hetronormative bias" or anything like that, it's "positivity bias" if there is even such a thing, because I'm not going to look at one minor incident and suggest well that outweighs all the positives in our society.

One eyed Jack

Grey Wind wrote: »

No one is using this one incident! No one is blowing things out of proportion! The only thing the OP was trying to say was that homophobia still exists in Ireland, which it does. No one even commented on its prevalence. You are the one inventing this narrative that the OP and the others posters are trying to exaggerate this incident.

Joey said he thinks there's a perception that homophobia doesn't exist in Ireland since the marriage equality referendum. I think this was an attempt to argue something that simply isn't true, and then to use one single example as a way to make their point was blowing the incident out of proportion, in order to make more of an issue than it actually is.

Also, who is focusing on the negative? We linked you to examples of homophobia when you tried to downplay its existence. We're talking about it in this thread because it's relevant. Pretending a problem doesn't exist isn't being "positive", it's being ignorant of the struggles of people who aren't you.

What are you even trying to argue that this point? It feels more like you have some sort of problem with people discussing homophobia and are using this thread to argue in circles about it.

I could link to dozens of examples of homophobia too, but that would be fuelling the perception that the issue is actually more prevalent than it is as the Internet has a way of magnifying the significance of an incident and people losing the run of themselves. I'm not pretending a problem doesn't exist, I'm saying I don't think it's a good idea to feed a persecution complex. It's completely irrational thinking.

"Being ignorant of the struggles of people who aren't you" suggests that you think you think that by virtue of the fact that you see yourself as different to everyone else, that people you assume you have something in common with experience the same struggles you do. It's literally the definition of a persecution complex, and it's as outdated in modern Irish society as bars like the George and the graffiti that was chalked so carefully on the pillars.

I've never known a conscientious vandal, have you?

baby and crumble

Back onto the original topic, looks like a man in his 20's has been arrested, with CCTV footage showing him undertaking the graffiti.

http://jrnl.ie/3401051

wakka12

baby and crumble wrote: »

Back onto the original topic, looks like a man in his 20's has been arrested, with CCTV footage showing him undertaking the graffiti.

http://jrnl.ie/3401051

So we can put the publicity stunt rumours to bed..