That's actually what I found the most depressing.... all the happy faces and chirpiness. It is a layer of false smiles on top of homophobia and rejection. And this guy is buying into it, with his own layer of chirpiness, smiling as he talks about his loneliness.

One thing about egregiously awful behavior -- it is easier to break free from it. This guy is in danger of drowning in a pool of niceness.

Sticky and awful.

I am counting on God to tell the head of the Mormon church that it is okay to be gay, just as "he" told a prior president that it is okay to be black. As soon as the church starts losing members and revenue, I have no doubt God will suddenly speak up.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'homophobia, weather, grey bloke, poem, gray bloke' to 'homophobia, weather, grey bloke, poem, gray bloke, mike booth' - edited by alien_concept

Don't worry, I know that your use of the It Get's Better in your argument had no malicious intent, not even subconscious. I will explain why I was disturbed by it in our monster thread, which I believe is the reason my video didn't make it to Golden #1 (boohoo poor me! ); peeps be scared of walls of text, which usually signify "much seriousyness going on here".
In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
In my latest post to the Abortion Discussion Megathread, I asked for clarification on your objection to my "It Gets Better" reference, however uncomfortable that might be for both of us.
While going through random videos looking for ones to length, dead, and thumbnail, the sidebar for "Newest Controversy Talk Posts" produced what looks like an answer.

I'm assuming (since you asked me to work it out for myself), that the charge is perpetuating homophobic culture with the tone of my reference. Essentially, that my crass tone wasn't attacking the absurdity of homophobia (funny jokes), but was presented as tacitly accepting of a culture that is oppressive to LGBT, and implicitly suggestive that the problem isn't that culture, but the sensitivity of LGBT youth to criticism (destructive).

If so, then I hope what little you know of me is enough to recognize this was absolutely not my intent. As I mentioned above, I had already posted that reply before coming across your (rather insightful) Sift Talk post.

In my latest post to the Abortion Discussion Megathread, I asked for clarification on your objection to my "It Gets Better" reference, however uncomfortable that might be for both of us.
While going through random videos looking for ones to length, dead, and thumbnail, the sidebar for "Newest Controversy Talk Posts" produced what looks like an answer.

I'm assuming (since you asked me to work it out for myself), that the charge is perpetuating homophobic culture with the tone of my reference. Essentially, that my crass tone wasn't attacking the absurdity of homophobia (funny jokes), but was presented as tacitly accepting of a culture that is oppressive to LGBT, and implicitly suggestive that the problem isn't that culture, but the sensitivity of LGBT youth to criticism (destructive).

If so, then I hope what little you know of me is enough to recognize this was absolutely not my intent. As I mentioned above, I had already posted that reply before coming across your (rather insightful) Sift Talk post.

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Whats their point here. Whats this theory this guys testimony apparently supports? - That homosexuality and homophobia aren't mutually exclusive? Welll duuuh, self-hatred is a thing. - That all homophobes, or at least a disproportional amount are closet homosexuals? Well, I don't think a few pieces of anecdotal evidence go very far in proving anything. And why the fuck does it matter. What he said is still pure hatred, it matters not to me whether or not he hates himself as equally. I pity him either way tbh.

/rant. So yah. I find it quite purile.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rollins, gay, homophobia, marriage, big think' to 'rollins, gay, homophobia, marriage, big think, the gay marriage' - edited by RhesusMonk

Guy is clearly insane. I wonder if homophobia didn't exist, he'd have ended up killing for an entirely different reason

That's not homophobia, it's just sheer insanity.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

You are precisely who this video is addressing. YOU are the reason this video exists. YOU, who think that human rights are something "earned" by a minority, not inherent, bestowed upon the disenfranchised who should just feel grateful for the tolerance and generosity of the majority and kindly shut the fuck up about it. You just don't get it.
And THEN, after immortalizing your ignorance and arrogance in prose by releasing it into the ether, not to mention a worldview that likely extends no further than the windshield of your Prius, you refuse to clarify something that should be extremely easy to clarify for someone so enlightened. Yet, you dodge the question by dismissing the asker as incapable of understanding that which you have failed to explain as not worth your time, when, in fact, you are incapable of understanding the question in the first place, as already proven by your demonstrable inability to grasp the underlying issue/reality.
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself.

How you have managed to deduce from my comments that this video is aimed at me is, quite frankly, beyond ignorant. And if you don't think rights are fought for, you know nothing about history. Your notion of equality being a fundamental right is, though commendable, rather childish. In the real world, minorities fight hard to change attitudes and, as with homosexuality, are making good ground which is a credit to them. Now, try reading my comments again with a more objective view and you may, just, see them for support of gay rights and NOT a criticism of them. Sadly though, I doubt you have the ability to do so. I shall not respond again, as you have exhausted my patience.


Yeah, because that's what all our worlds rotate around isn't it? Your patience. Your replies are predictable and very formulaic. Trolls have followed the same blueprint since Compuserve was one of the "Big 3". Let's try something you can actually relate to...

Ya know what, probie? Your eulogising here has started to get tiresome. I mean, be happy that your ilk are allowed to post comments and all that, but do the rest of us have to have your opinions and ideals shoved down our throats just because you can? I mean, I'm happy for you and all... comment away! Seriously, it's something you are allowed to do, so I don't begrudge you that right at all. It's just that... do you have to be so goddamned flamboyant about it?

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

You are precisely who this video is addressing. YOU are the reason this video exists. YOU, who think that human rights are something "earned" by a minority, not inherent, bestowed upon the disenfranchised who should just feel grateful for the tolerance and generosity of the majority and kindly shut the fuck up about it. You just don't get it.
And THEN, after immortalizing your ignorance and arrogance in prose by releasing it into the ether, not to mention a worldview that likely extends no further than the windshield of your Prius, you refuse to clarify something that should be extremely easy to clarify for someone so enlightened. Yet, you dodge the question by dismissing the asker as incapable of understanding that which you have failed to explain as not worth your time, when, in fact, you are incapable of understanding the question in the first place, as already proven by your demonstrable inability to grasp the underlying issue/reality.
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself.


How you have managed to deduce from my comments that this video is aimed at me is, quite frankly, beyond ignorant. And if you don't think rights are fought for, you know nothing about history. Your notion of equality being a fundamental right is, though commendable, rather childish. In the real world, minorities fight hard to change attitudes and, as with homosexuality, are making good ground which is a credit to them. Now, try reading my comments again with a more objective view and you may, just, see them for support of gay rights and NOT a criticism of them. Sadly though, I doubt you have the ability to do so. I shall not respond again, as you have exhausted my patience.

>> ^VoodooV:

I really wouldn't be putting down someone else's cognitive functions when you can't even seem to spell it correctly.
Your evasiveness/cowardice is duly noted however.
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

You deliberately miss my point. I'm guessing, but you seem to lack simple cognative thought. If you need to understand "normal" look it up my friend. I have neither the time, nor the patience to get into semantics.


Thanks for pointing out a typo. As for my "evasiveness/cowardice?" The context in which I used the word "normal" should be self explanatory. However, just for you, I will elucidate. Procreation - the process by which we exist- is, in the context I used it, the "norm." Homosexuality, were IT the norm, would mean extinction. Of course the narrow minded will, once again, jump on that simple fact as if I were homophobic. If my comments were read by people who were not so keen to troll, they would see that is NOT the case.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.


You are precisely who this video is addressing. YOU are the reason this video exists. YOU, who think that human rights are something "earned" by a minority, not inherent, bestowed upon the disenfranchised who should just feel grateful for the tolerance and generosity of the majority and kindly shut the fuck up about it. You just don't get it.

And THEN, after immortalizing your ignorance and arrogance in prose by releasing it into the ether, not to mention a worldview that likely extends no further than the windshield of your Prius, you refuse to clarify something that should be extremely easy to clarify for someone so enlightened. Yet, you dodge the question by dismissing the asker as incapable of understanding that which you have failed to explain as not worth your time, when, in fact, you are incapable of understanding the question in the first place, as already proven by your demonstrable inability to grasp the underlying issue/reality.

You aren't fooling anybody but yourself.

I really wouldn't be putting down someone else's cognitive functions when you can't even seem to spell it correctly.

Your evasiveness/cowardice is duly noted however.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

You deliberately miss my point. I'm guessing, but you seem to lack simple cognative thought. If you need to understand "normal" look it up my friend. I have neither the time, nor the patience to get into semantics.