2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

  On 2/17/2014 at 4:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 1:22 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 12:31 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 12:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

haha, boredom? starfucking? homophobia? take your pick.

 

No, all the basement dwelling ignorant shit. not the celebrity shit. it makes me feel gross being here when these retarded conversations come up in 2014.

 

which basement dwelling ignorant shit?

 

It was only a few days ago I read a study talking about how they had identified a few genes for homosexuality in men, that account for 40% of the "gayness" factor, the remaining 60% apparently being environment/nurture. But they have not (yet) found corresponding genes for women. It also claimed that the chance that any given son is gay goes up by something like 30% the further in lineage he is (so second son has a 30% more chance of being gay than the first, the third a 30% more chance of being gay than the second, etc).

 

I have no idea if this study was biased, flawed, or had something to it. But are you saying these studies shouldn't even be done? I think it's interesting.

 

 

Yeah, I referenced the birth order thing, and it supposedly had to do with only 20% of gay males or so. It's pretty shaky stuff. Regardless, it's fucking easily observable that some people are just born gay(at least a proclivity for being so). It's a silly conversation if you ask me. It puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Biology is not a necessity to prove legitimacy. Even then I'm pretty sure you can force sexual fluidity on anyone given the right circumstances. (see prison)These gender identity things are a big joke. I'm not really talking about the science regarding it all though. It's the fucking ignorant posts coming out of the assholes who downplay the struggles of the groups challenging the status quo. Everyone in this thread that is questioning the struggle needs to realize that you're a fucking asshole. Complaining about someone coming out in support of that struggle makes you ignorant asshole. You need to spend some time reflecting on others. Meditate on it or some shit.

 

I get your point, but to me my curiosity trumps everything. I would think if I were gay I might be curious about the reason I ended up in the 5-10% of folks, vs. the other 90--95% of folks. I'm curious just as I was when I heard that all humans on earth have about 5% neanderthal DNA, except black people. That doesn't mean I would use that information normatively, to oppress black people. If they found or didn't find a biological basis for being gay, that doesn't mean I'd consider gay people needed "correction", or should get any fewer human rights than any other group. I think we should be free to explore whatever, as long as it doesn't involve cruel experimentation or creating a supervirus that would destroy life on earth.

I can't believe that in 2014 this shit is still being floated:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

oh and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnOrpyrwxA

the old south with their confederate flags and 'traditional values' innit...

"A man who'll compromise his body will compromise anything"

Says man who owns bar & shitty restaurant

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:32 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I can't believe that in 2014 this shit is still being floated:

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

 

 

oh and:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnOrpyrwxA

 

 

the old south with their confederate flags and 'traditional values' innit...

Obviously got his heart broken by a black handicapped gay.

  On 2/15/2014 at 2:32 PM, Amen Lare said:

Looked gay for me from the start.

yea p much

I didn't really guess she was completely gay but I always felt she was "different". like I found her really cute and attractive but at the same time strangely asexual and boyish. maybe if she'd had a slightly different build with more meat on the bone I would've found her ferociously hot. I dunno. I was just confused.

sigh, and now I've made a post fueling celeb gossip on WATMM. this is a disgrace. need I remind you all this is the cult of AFX and the 'chre and the fucking Daddy? we don't need threads about LaBeef's little art-wank project or Boltie's pussy-eating predilections. if you're not discussing which hand Richard writes with or who Sean cut up in an alleyway last night, you're doing it wrong.

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:16 AM, A/D said:

I don't understand. What is an anti-gay marriage protest if not homophobic?

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

Here we go...buckle your seatbelts everyone

  On 2/18/2014 at 3:03 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:32 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I can't believe that in 2014 this shit is still being floated:

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

 

 

oh and:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnOrpyrwxA

 

 

the old south with their confederate flags and 'traditional values' innit...

 

Obviously got his heart broken by a black handicapped gay.

 

haha.

  On 2/18/2014 at 4:05 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:16 AM, A/D said:

I don't understand. What is an anti-gay marriage protest if not homophobic?

 

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

 

I do think that's homophobic, and I do think the planet is infested with homophobes. In humans, that is.

Homosexual pairings are well-known in nature, even in species who mate for life. I'll never understand how denying someone their love, their basic nature, preserves anything worth keeping. I'll also never understand how two people in a happy union can "destroy" someone else's idea of their own marriage. Is it so fragile?

Do you subscribe to these beliefs, even with a relative you're keeping a second-class citizen? Does your relative subscribe to these beliefs?

  On 2/18/2014 at 3:43 AM, usagi said:

or who Sean cut up in an alleyway last night, you're doing it wrong.

lool

regarding that kook who refuses to serve people, I actually support his right to do that. I'm pretty libertarian about that kind of thing, I think market forces and social shaming will correct it (as that video amply demonstrates). Basically I think businesses should be allowed to commit market suicide if they want.

Speaking of which...the kkk is a legit organization now, right, in the sense that they have marches and stuff? Has a black person ever tried to get into the kkk, and then cried discrimination? That'd be a hilarious lawsuit.

whoah, this is really interesting:

edit: note, title is misleading, but still worth a watch

http://youtu.be/q1Q9NSzQj5M

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:27 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 4:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 1:22 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 12:31 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/17/2014 at 12:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

haha, boredom? starfucking? homophobia? take your pick.

 

No, all the basement dwelling ignorant shit. not the celebrity shit. it makes me feel gross being here when these retarded conversations come up in 2014.

 

which basement dwelling ignorant shit?

 

It was only a few days ago I read a study talking about how they had identified a few genes for homosexuality in men, that account for 40% of the "gayness" factor, the remaining 60% apparently being environment/nurture. But they have not (yet) found corresponding genes for women. It also claimed that the chance that any given son is gay goes up by something like 30% the further in lineage he is (so second son has a 30% more chance of being gay than the first, the third a 30% more chance of being gay than the second, etc).

 

I have no idea if this study was biased, flawed, or had something to it. But are you saying these studies shouldn't even be done? I think it's interesting.

 

 

Yeah, I referenced the birth order thing, and it supposedly had to do with only 20% of gay males or so. It's pretty shaky stuff. Regardless, it's fucking easily observable that some people are just born gay(at least a proclivity for being so). It's a silly conversation if you ask me. It puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Biology is not a necessity to prove legitimacy. Even then I'm pretty sure you can force sexual fluidity on anyone given the right circumstances. (see prison)These gender identity things are a big joke. I'm not really talking about the science regarding it all though. It's the fucking ignorant posts coming out of the assholes who downplay the struggles of the groups challenging the status quo. Everyone in this thread that is questioning the struggle needs to realize that you're a fucking asshole. Complaining about someone coming out in support of that struggle makes you ignorant asshole. You need to spend some time reflecting on others. Meditate on it or some shit.

 

 

I get your point, but to me my curiosity trumps everything. I would think if I were gay I might be curious about the reason I ended up in the 5-10% of folks, vs. the other 90--95% of folks. I'm curious just as I was when I heard that all humans on earth have about 5% neanderthal DNA, except black people. That doesn't mean I would use that information normatively, to oppress black people. If they found or didn't find a biological basis for being gay, that doesn't mean I'd consider gay people needed "correction", or should get any fewer human rights than any other group. I think we should be free to explore whatever, as long as it doesn't involve cruel experimentation or creating a supervirus that would destroy life on earth.

 

Sure, the science is interesting, but people try to use it as evidence in an argument where it is irrelevant.

  On 2/18/2014 at 4:56 AM, A/D said:

 

  On 2/18/2014 at 4:05 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:16 AM, A/D said:

I don't understand. What is an anti-gay marriage protest if not homophobic?

 

how about many people think that marriage is the institution that approves the union between a man and a woman only, which has been a traditional form of sociality for quite some time, and by allowing two men or women to marry, you basically revoke the the ontological base of that institution, its very nature, which is the same as destroying it.

if you consider this homophobic, then the planet is infested with homophobes lol.

 

I do think that's homophobic, and I do think the planet is infested with homophobes. In humans, that is.

 

Homosexual pairings are well-known in nature, even in species who mate for life. I'll never understand how denying someone their love, their basic nature, preserves anything worth keeping. I'll also never understand how two people in a happy union can "destroy" someone else's idea of their own marriage. Is it so fragile?

 

Do you subscribe to these beliefs, even with a relative you're keeping a second-class citizen? Does your relative subscribe to these beliefs?

 

the funny part is you won't discuss my point on democracy.

i personally don't care about the internal debate on gay rights. what i care about is the way the french government deals with public opinion, and more importantly, how those reforms are used to divert attention from the incompetence of that government to deal with real problems: unemployment, economic crisis etc.

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:32 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I can't believe that in 2014 this shit is still being floated:

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

 

 

oh and:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnOrpyrwxA

 

 

the old south with their confederate flags and 'traditional values' innit...

The follow up story is hilarious.

What was your point on democracy? It's the best governing system I know of, but I don't always agree with the results. I live in America. Civil rights is something worth fighting for regardless of popular opinion.

Of course I think that economics is important and diversion tactics by government are terrible. That didn't mean everybody shouldn't be allowed to marry.

  On 2/18/2014 at 5:11 PM, A/D said:

What was your point on democracy? It's the best governing system I know of, but I don't always agree with the results. I live in America. Civil rights is something worth fighting for regardless of popular opinion.

 

Of course I think that economics is important and diversion tactics by government are terrible. That didn't mean everybody shouldn't be allowed to marry.

hahaha what's democratic about imposing policies regardless of popular rejection? i'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "democracy" and the concept it refers to.

i'm saying this because that's what at stake to me. under the pretext of fighting for civil rights equality, a so-called democratic government, with the blessing of an oh-so-democratic lobby, unilaterally imposes its agenda to a most unwilling population. by protesting, you're then described by the media and the government as intolerant, reactionary, etc., which is:

- an intellectual fraud

- off-topic.

the democratic process is what's at stake. if the democratic process gets violated (which is the case every single day here), you enter the reign of arbitrary policy, dictated by private interests. and that's what it's all about: the violation of democratic principles by the establishment, "for the own good of the people", "against discrimination", etc.

pure intellectual fraud.

Actually, it's you who didn't understand the conversation! I didn't say anything about undemocratically imposed policies. In fact, you haven't answered anything I asked you about your personal opinions.

Civil rights are for everyone. To me, a society that's against civil rights is more undemocratic than a society which ignores a majority in order to make a minority first-class citizens. So to me, if your politicians give your citizens equal rights under the law, they're improving your democracy. Only a homophobe would say that they are destroying it.

  On 2/18/2014 at 8:43 PM, A/D said:

To me, a society that's against civil rights is more undemocratic than a society which listens to the majority in order to oppress a minority.

wow, you managed to combine a fallacy and a false accusation in the same sentence:

a fallacy because you can't judge the democratic quality of a regime by only checking whether it gives civil rights or not to people. i wish things were as simple as civil rights = transparent democracy where everyboby's happy yay.

a false accusation because the situation is not that of a majority oppressing a minority. it's not saudi arabia here. gay people have the same rights as everybody. now if you consider refusing marriage to them - when they can have civil union (it's called the civil solidarity pact) and benefit almost all the same rights as for marriage - oppressive, ok then.

btw i'd like to point out that the opposite is a better description of the situation imo: a minority (the government and the LGBT lobby) oppresses the majority.

as a reminder, i'm only talking about france. things might be different in other countries.

now, you ask me about my personal opinion. my personal opinion is this whole mess is a smokescreen.

So did you read this Reuters poll that says a majority of France supports gay marriage? What's your argument again?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE90P0HL20130126?irpc=932

  On 2/18/2014 at 9:42 PM, A/D said:

So did you read this Reuters poll that says a majority of France supports gay marriage? What's your argument again?

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE90P0HL20130126?irpc=932

i say a poll is a poll. if you consider you can determine the issue with it, fine.

So you think the poll is a lie? Or you were wrong about gay marriage being forced on the public?

I think it very well could be a smokescreen, btw. It just happens to be a worthy cause.

Your last reply merits more of a response, which I can make later if you'd like.

Poll. Either way, neckbeards feel a little cheated after she played games with their hearts. The teased them onto their knees.

  On 2/18/2014 at 10:15 PM, A/D said:

So you think the poll is a lie? Or you were wrong about gay marriage being forced on the public?

 

I think it very well could be a smokescreen, btw. It just happens to be a worthy cause.

 

Your last reply merits more of a response, which I can make later if you'd like.

i'm not saying the poll is a lie, i'm saying a poll is an indicator of opinion and nothing more. a poll can't represent a situation, it can only represent tendencies, without determining the causal links that give a specific situation.

Correct. Venn diagram pls