advertisement


Gay Nightclub In Florida Attacked By Gunmen.

Another angle might be that the victims were, yes, gays, but also represented Western hedonism, consumerism, drinking alcohol and unfettered recreational sexuality. The Paris attacks, similar but with many more people and a high level of planning, were also directed against a place where people were having fun with music, alcohol and dancing. But not specifically gay targets.

It is all the same thing to me. Fundamentalist religion and fascism have a huge amount of overlap, it is all about imposing an exceptionally narrow and blinkered viewpoint of what is right/wrong onto others by force. It is all jealous hateful bigoted authoritarian shit.
 
On the other hand there may not have been. Maybe he felt he could use the platform to emphasis the antagonism directed at LGBTs in every society and when that didn't come off he was overcome by petulance.
The attack was quite evidently a targeted one. Why the Sky team were unwilling to accept that is baffling. I wouldn't describe his reaction as petulance.
 
The attack was quite evidently a targeted one. Why the Sky team were unwilling to accept that is baffling. I wouldn't describe his reaction as petulance.

Indeed. He was quite right to be mad. If there was an attack on a synagogue or a mosque nobody would saying it was an attack on praying and monotheism.
 
So what was Jones so upset about? It is a hate crime, there are various targets for people who feel an affinity with Isis, everyone agreed about that.

He was upset because he got argument every time he tried to say "when a guy chooses to attack a gay bar and kill lots of gays, it's an LGBT hate crime.' Host goes 'can't everyone feel it's an attack on them?' Woman goes 'you're trying to own this.' He was fighting a rather determined editorial slant away from 'LGBT hate crime.'

Agree that his freaked-out response to the BS didn't help, but it was rather amazing.
 
He was upset because he got argument every time he tried to say "when a guy chooses to attack a gay bar and kill lots of gays, it's an LGBT hate crime.' Host goes 'can't everyone feel it's an attack on them?' Woman goes 'you're trying to own this.' He was fighting a rather determined editorial slant away from 'LGBT hate crime.'

Agree that his freaked-out response to the BS didn't help, but it was rather amazing.
Although given that Jones is gay it may simply be down to his own personal and justifiable fury at such a bizarrely determined effort to avoid accepting and respecting the obvious.
 
I predict Trump will call for a ban on weapons sales to Muslims.

That bad idea would actually make more sense than what he has called-for. He's renewed his call for banning Muslims from entering the country, although this shooter was born here. And he's called on President Obama to resign (for supposedly not calling the shooter the right names).
 
Although given that Jones is gay it may simply be down to his own personal and justifiable fury at such a bizarrely determined effort to avoid accepting and respecting the obvious.

And has spent all his adult life arguing against such things so when it comes up again in the context of the massacre of 50 people you can understand this anger. It's the same cop shoots another black guy => nominal period of concern => of course this is nothing to do with racism it's just a bad cop cycle that led to Black Lives Matter.
 
That bad idea would actually make more sense than what he has called-for. He's renewed his call for banning Muslims from entering the country, although this shooter was born here. And he's called on President Obama to resign (for supposedly not calling the shooter the right names).
It is astonishing that a politician with this scale of irrational bigotry and plain lack of intelligence is the Republican candidate for President of the United States. It's the gutter politics of the 1930s revived.
'Hi, thanks for Congrats- told you I was right..'.
 
Some Americans advocate going the other way.

i.e. allowing the weapons you choose and allowing open carry.

They would say that if there was open carry of such weapons at the scene the attacker couldn't have succeeded.

Of course one of the problems with this is that once a machine gun fight breaks out, you don't know who started it and who is the who in the ongoing chaos. Once the police arrive, it just gets more complicated. Extra people get hurt because of this.

So its impossible to say, on balance, what would result in fewer casualties.

Sounds like you've answered your own inane question. Remind us of your own view on gun control.
 
Fifty people got murdered?

Come on. He was upset because the people murdered were at a LGBT club and he wanted that to be the main focus of the discussion, the hostility that LBGT people are faced with. I think most people seeing it in a wider context.
 
The attack was quite evidently a targeted one. Why the Sky team were unwilling to accept that is baffling. I wouldn't describe his reaction as petulance.

Of course it was a targeted attack. But Isis sympathisers do not only attack LBGT people as shown many times. So the issue is not just about antipathy to LBGT people. I am half expecting some sort of atrocity to be planned for fans at the European Championship.
 
The killer didn't just pick any nightclub, he targeted an LGBT night club, in the same way anti semites wouldn't target just any church they'd target a Synagogue.
My initial thought was a Christian fundamentalist was responsible as they are just as likely to share the same anti LGBT attitudes.

I'm not aware of any Christian countries that advocate murdering homosexuals though there are several Muslim countries where that is the case.
 
Of course it was a targeted attack. But Isis sympathisers do not only attack LBGT people as shown many times. So the issue is not just about antipathy to LBGT people. I am half expecting some sort of atrocity to be planned for fans at the European Championship.
this attack was specifically against LGBT people because of their sexual preference and saying so is very important.
 
It's not that you just don't get it, but that I think you are incapable of getting it.

Oh wise one, are you telling me I don't understand 50 people were wantonly murdered for no good reason. Are you telling me that I don't understand the hostility that exists towards LBGT people everywhere, or are you telling me that you are a bit dim?
 
this attack was specifically against LGBT people because of their sexual preference and saying so is very important.

Of course, but they are not the only targets of Isis sympathisers.
 
Owen himself speaks:

In sum, I walked off in disgust during a discussion about the massacre: it was an instinctive reaction to an unpleasant and untenable situation. The presenter continually and repeatedly refused to accept that this was an attack on LGBT people. This was an attack “against human beings”, he said, and “the freedom of all people to try to enjoy themselves”. He not only refused to accept it as an attack on LGBT people, but was increasingly agitated that I – as a gay man – would claim it as such.

If a terrorist with a track record of expressing hatred of and disgust at Jewish people had walked into a synagogue and murdered 50 Jewish people, we would rightly describe it as both terrorism and an antisemitic attack. If a Jewish guest on television had tried to describe it as such, it would be disgraceful if they were not only contradicted, but shouted down as they did so. But this is what happened on Sky News with a gay man talking about the mass murder of LGBT people.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality
 
Of course, but they are not the only targets of Isis sympathisers.

It is not claimed they are.

What you don't get is they were the targets in this attack, as it's offensive the way many people insist on saying 'yes but' when this is stated.

As you just did.
 


advertisement


Back
Top