Idk. Phelps et al took homophobia to a whole new level. It's easy to rail against such a comic book villain. Disagreeing with Phelps, even on his stance on homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you still don't have a mostly negative attitude towards homosexuality. I'm thinking of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. I think Huckabee and his ilk fit into this sort of "homophobia lite". They dress their bigotry up in platitudes and are likely to find support from some or the same people who might have decried Phelps. One might look towards Russia in the run up to Sochi. There you see the same sort of stance, where they enact policy that strips gays of their rights whilst insisting that its not borne of homophobia and is merely to protect children from paedophiles. I do not doubt their sincerity in this belief - most homophobes don't identify themselves as homophobes.

Ultimately I think these extreme undiluted views create an illusion of overwhelming support for gay rights. Perhaps the publicity raised a debate about homosexuality/phobia, but that debate still had to be fought and won by gay rights activists, not through us all uniting against a sort of shill.

I certainly hope things continue the way they have been. Still, there are parts of the world which seem to be regressing in this regard (see Russia again -.-). I have a feeling that rallying against any minority group is always going to be an effective political tactic, especially if it's done under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse or preserving "family values".

I disagree with this on a few points.

First up, "we didn't choose to be nerds". er, yeah, you did. It's not skin colour or sexual orientation, it's personal preference. Literally.

At some point you have to own your choices in life. I've always maintained that "you shouldn't judge people on their beliefs/opinions" is bullshit. It's not acceptable to use "it's just what I believe" as a scapegoat for unsavoury beliefs (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc).

Unfortunately, it swings both ways. If we get to tell racists they're assholes, we must accept that people have the right to judge us on our taste in movies, books, etc. If we can't do that, then we are forced to accept that reading Twilight or listening to Nickelback is not up for mockery. That is not a world I want to live in.

Now, that said, of course no-one should be bullied for liking sci-fi or math or science. Those things are awesome, but not even twilights fans deserve to be bullied.

Next up, the whole "it's not you, it's the bully and their own issues".

Sorry, but no. Some kids are just evil little fucks. They're not jealous or looking for attention, they're just mean. It's a nice idea, but honestly, some people just need to be powerslammed.

Maybe it's just me but....
A Facebook defriending makes him cry, that's when he realizes what homophobia does? Seriously?
We better don't tell him that you can get fucking murdered for being gay.

Label it 'gay' and you're guaranteed it'll sift and this represents the credo of the first sentence on the Videosift fact sheet? Which reads:

"Members submit videos from the best video hosts from around the Net to be voted on by other Sifters with only the best being "sifted" up to the front page."

Historically on this site, anything promoting, showcasing, or challenging homophobia has invariably made it to the front page though by far, many of the offerings do not represent the best video content on the web.

This reminder being not at all for those who love all things gay or even the folks who have an agenda-oriented motivation for posting a shitload of gay-themed videos rather, it's more of an indictment for the cunts who use that statement in the faq's as an excuse to indict others publicly for "not adhering to the stated guidelines" when their true motivation is a personal dislike for a particular user. I call these morons haters who don't know themselves very well.

Really man, call it rain while pissing down my leg, it's glaringly obvious regardless of some paltry, long-winded defense of your actual motivations for littering the site with spamtacular drivel...

Now I'll watch the video and vote according to my personal preference, like the majority of people here do, whether or not they chose to admit it.

I always enjoyed how homophobia turns grown men into insecure little teenage boys.

You're right - it's a British institution if we're to take the books as they come. But let's look at it from a J K Rowling point of view - from a brief scan of wikipedia, she went to an average british school with presumably average british children probably around 30 years ago - vastly different from the stats quoted above in 2011. There weren't many africans, pakistanis, etc. nor were there many gay, bi, transgendered people when i went to school about 20 years ago (1 black girl and everyone was "straight"). What she wrote came from imagination based on her own experiences and why on earth would people chastise her for the sheer happen-stance of her life experiences? She didn't write a book to exclude people, she wrote a book that just happened to not include every type of person in a fantasy world where there existed entirely different sorts of people. Are we to expect another video from professional-offence-takers about how JRR Tolkein - another FANTASY writer - didn't represent the diversity of humanity in any of his books?

And that's selling her short; there are elements of the books that make allusions to homophobia, racism, etc. - "Mudblood," is a xenophobic term used by characters in the book and it's not accepted by any of the extended main characters, and people really should think long and hard before placing their own expectations and values on other people and judging them for it.

Whether you like the books or not, they are popular and i think their popularity stems from the belief she has in her characters and story. Sure, she could have replaced Ron with an albino lesbian transgendered midget who would have lived happily ever after with Hermione, but would the books have been as good with a character that didn't come from Rowling's heart, someone that Rowling felt like she understood? What if she wrote a gay part for someone and got it wrong, is she then liable to take an ear bashing from the gay community for misrepresenting gay people? Where do you draw the line? Do we - at the expense of the story - put one gay person in and then suddenly we're taking abuse for including a "token" gay person?

It should not be the responsibility of anyone to compromise their art to appease someone else's sense of right or wrong, especially when it seems that their right or wrong is balanced on "is there someone like me in there?" In my opinion, if you come away from a story like Harry Potter with the burning question "Where were all the gay/whatever people?" then it's probably you that has the problem with diversity.

I say this - homophobia and racism are dead when no one even considers the issue any more. Now you can't do that in the workplace and stuff, because there are genuinely racist people out there who we try and keep in check. But this is the absolute worst place to direct your anger - no one was hired or fired based on their creed, no one did anything wrong here, all this woman has done is draw attention to what i consider to be her own contradiction. We want to encourage the idea that "Everyone is equal; there is no black or white, straight or gay, everyone is simply the same - we're just people!" And quickly follow that up with "Hey, where are all the GAY people in this fictional story?"

And finally, how the fuck does she know that every character in the book was straight? Isn't it a bit strange (i want to say homophobic) for her to expect gay people to act differently to the degree that she can spot them in a crowd? 95% of the people in Huffelpuff could be single and gay for all anyone knows. The main 3 characters are straight, all of their parents had to be straight for them to be their parents, but all the rest of them we never need to know about their sexuality, so why should they stand out, why should we even discuss it in a kids book anyway? There's only about 4 relationships in 7 books and some of them happen to the same characters.

These are just some of the problems i have with this nonsense and i've written an entire page.

Homophobia exists in one species.

Ok, so does classical music.

Why do people dislike homosexuals?

Let's have an honest conversation about homosexuality.

One: it's a repellent thought for most men to think of one man fucking another man or sucking his dick.

Two: Priests

Three: homosexual child predators (I know there are hetero predators too...they are also disliked)

Four: Images of gay men parading down the street with red codpieces, dog collars, etc

Five: gay men flinging semen out of 2nd story windows (you can google for the pics if you have the stomach for it)

Six: gay men act strange, limp wristed etc

Now, I'm not even going to cover gay women. I don't think most men care much about gay women except the butch ones. The lipstick lesbians are a big part of straight porn, so...

Also I realize that there are many gay men who are responsible and don't engage in obnoxious gay behavior, and I know there are hetero men who engage in obnoxious behavior.

But the bottom line is, to most straight men, gay behavior is offensive. Keep it in your bedroom and to yourself.

Homosexuality appears in every species except for those asexual ones who are already flaming. What's more natural than something that every living thing does?

Homophobia exists in one species, ours.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'homophobia, kids, schoolyard, blowjob, oral sex, suck dick' to 'homophobia, kids, schoolyard, blowjob, oral sex, suck dick, chewed up' - edited by xxovercastxx

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

Although the duelling banjos style soundtrack coupled with the video's title gave me chills of homophobia, I found this video to be surprising awesome.

Would you feel better if you watched your grandparents make out? Or two really, really ugly people? Or a straight couple but one of them has been dead for a week?
There's a difference between homophobia and simply witnessing an sexual act that is very unsexy to you. The awkwardness comes from the insecurity how to behave you have when it comes to homosexuality. It's similar with racism. Say the wrong thing, react the wrong way and suddenly you worry that you come across as a hater even if you did nothing unusual or wrong. Suddenly you are afraid to react in understandable or even appropriate ways just because you fear being percieved as a homophobic or racist.

Your "real" heterophobia only exists as a response to homophobia. It would not exist without it.

Please, for your sake and the sake of others, go get therapy. Preferably with voluntary internment, until you sort out your aggressivity and thinly veiled homophobia (or FashionPolicitis, whichever).

@chingalera Way to miss the point there, my friend.

How do you change perceptions? Play on the stereotype to show the falsehood.

Besides, any problems I have with basic Southern stererotypical attitudes are based on actual experience. My dad grew up in rural Oklahoma. I grew up hearing only the n-word. As a teenager, we had to be in the San Francisco area and we were only allowed to drive through. Couldn't stop and spend money because he didn't want any gays getting it. This was 1971.

Is he alone in his prejudices? Absolutely not. And what this dumb show points up is just how the State of Texas is leaving these attitudes behind.

Racism is being driven underground. Homophobia is being driven underground. They'll never go away.

And yes, @jonny got it, too. That Southern politeness is a stereotype, too -- and it too is based on reality.