No, there is a world of difference between having a responsibility for your plight and choosing how you respond.

The correct response to being assaulted, robbed, or otherwise offended against, is never to bow down to what your attackers want. You can apply this logic to all kinds of situations.

Don't want cat calls? Don't wear a sexy outfit.
Don't want to be gay bashed? Don't go into the rural south.
Didn't want to be shot? Shouldn't have published those cartoons.

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

But funnily enough, no-one ever tells a white guy that if he didn't want to be car-jacked, he shouldn't be driving that corvette.

It's pretty fucking awful that the assholes who stole the photos manage to be both puritan and lecherous at the same time. Telling the woman she's a slut for posing naked whilst masturbating to the images. It's the height of hypocrisy.

And meanwhile, you have a bunch of guys telling her what she should or shouldn't do in the privacy of her own home.

I recognize this branch. It's oddly very white.
All the non-whites seem go to McDonalds across the street.
My guess is this guy is homeless and though he would be gifted a free meal from Jeebus for being white and homeless. In n Out has been accused for being, shall we say, a white preferential hirer. I mean seriously, look at the people slowly moving out of the way, notice something ?

I'm starting to see a pattern of pissed off religious Americans.
This guy looks identical to this other christian gay bashing loser.

Come on man, making fun of retards is an American tradition. Sort of like slavery, midget tossing, and gay bashing.

It's called shaming. Look it up. And yes, it does work. Matter of fact, psychologically, it's one of the surest ways to endure behavior. Unfortunately, we've lost that in America with teachers barred from using red ink, giving bad grades and every little league athlete getting an award.

When 90% of the worlds population is making fun of you, you begin to rethink your stance. And conversely, it's the same tactic bullies use but only in a negative way. As you said, "human nature" is to conform with a little room for individualism. People want to fit into the crowd, and when you're the only one gay-bashing, you stand out in a very negative way when everyone is either ignoring you or calling you an idiot.

(Not to mention, ads like this cause those of us who support gay rights to cheer louder thus making it harder for those beating up LGBT's to get away with their acts feeling like they did the whim of society. It's called Mob Behavior. It's also very human . . .)

Shit. I must be wrong if I am agreeing with Beck. Time to go do some gay bashing to readdress the balance.

I don't see Parody - just a lot of Gay Bashing....

It is the silence in the face of gay bashing, female bashing, minority bashing by non-trolls that is being addressed by this video.

Speak up. Not to the trolls. But in support of gays, women, minorities. That is how you change the culture.

It is the staying silent that creates a toxic environment. Reclaim the space for yourself.

Oh well. Controversy indeed.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

What is more amazing is the logical pretzels that liberals tie around themselves in order to justify thier bigotry and hate. Savage was attacking thier religious beliefs, and he was doing it in a forum that was supposed to be 'anti-bullying'. You see, it is entirely possible to share an anti-bullying message without attacking religion. What a wild idea! But as with most liberals, he just couldn't help himself from being a rude, selfish, hypocritical jerk. So when He has a captive audience, he uses the the opportunity to flash his bigotry, and then to insult those who were offended by it. Yeah. 'Nuanced'...

The speech was not titled, "Christianity is B.S." If it was appropriately titled, then those who walked out could have just decided not to attend in the first place and saved Savage the embarressment of being shown up as a total douche. But Savage did a bait-and-switch. A bunch of kids sat down and he flies off on his personal obsessions about religion. The apologist justifications you guys are proffering up are not so much about 'nuance' as they are "I agree with his bigotry, and I like it when people I hate get what I think is coming to them. You Jesus people should just shut up and take it."

Whether you agree with Christianity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this guy disresepcted and insulted fellow human beings, and thought it was funny. He showed his true colors - rude, selfish, and hypocritical. His lame 'apology' (like the apologies of most liberals) isn't really an apology. It's the typical, "I'm sorry if YOU WERE OFFENDED by my important message" bullcrap. I reject such faux crocodile tears, and also reject the lame arguments trying to justify his bigotry. It isn't complicated. You like his particular brand of bigotry, so that makes it perfectly OK in your perverse, sick minds. So much for leftists and thier sanctimonious 'tolerance' bologna. Tolerance is only for the people you approve of, eh?

If a journalism school advertised a speech about "Happiness and Tolerance", and the headliner was some gay bashing @$$hat, should all the gays in the audience be forced to sit down and listen to his 'clarity and nuance'? What a load of bullcrap you liberals swallow on a daily basis. I can't fathom having to live a life so dominated by that much hypocrisy, irrational hate, and bitterness that such bad behavior gets dismissed as just some BS sort of 'nuance'. How pathetic.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^smooman:
man, some serious judgmental fucks in this thread =(

Yah, to be fair they only assaulted him because they wanted his money, not because he was gay. I mean, they thought the fact he was gay made him an easier target but thats not WHY they picked up and smacked him around wit a monkey wrench. Not a homophobe, just a coward and an asshole.

Funny that the content of his story teach us not to judge a book by its cover whilst simultaneously filling in enough pages to make judging him oh so easy :3


The attack wasn't gay-bashing, but he comes across as homophobic as well.

>> ^hpqp:

The reason for adding qualifiers is because some teachers share qm's idea that certain types of abuse (especially verbal/psychological) are not bullying but simply "free speech".
>> ^xxovercastxx:
"House Bill 370 prohibits the bullying because of a student's sexual orientation, race or religion."
Wait, wait, wait... We're only prohibiting certain types of bullying? So it's perfectly ok to bully a kid based on his weight, height, clothes or family's wealth?
Why the fuck are we quantifying bullying? Teachers should be required to stop bullying. The end.



They should reword the bill, then, if it's worded the way it was said by the anchor. The way he said it, it would not apply in any of the examples I gave above.

The reason for adding qualifiers is because some teachers share qm's idea that certain types of abuse (especially verbal/psychological) are not bullying but simply "free speech".

>> ^xxovercastxx:

"House Bill 370 prohibits the bullying because of a student's sexual orientation, race or religion."
Wait, wait, wait... We're only prohibiting certain types of bullying? So it's perfectly ok to bully a kid based on his weight, height, clothes or family's wealth?
Why the fuck are we quantifying bullying? Teachers should be required to stop bullying. The end.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Should be titled, "Liberals furious their opponents still have freedom of speech."

I believe that laws to prevent bullying are not worth the limits to freedom of speech.

No, I don't think it is.

Christianity actively "filters" its content to only portray the nice parts; the golden rule, be nice to others, don't kill; that sort of thing, but it hides the gay bashing, slavery, misogyny and all the other bad stuff.

It has an intentional consequence which is sinister. Libertarianism, to follow up on your example, is on the other hand not intentionally evil, it has unintended evil consequences, such as corporate takeover of a "free" market, disregard for people's wellbeing when compared to the money-focus and so on.

Pure libertarianism is bad because it is too naive and thinks to highly of people to know and act "smart" and to make the right choices by themselves. At its core libertarianism seems like a good idea, to each his own, make your own luck, free markets etc. but when you think of the consequences, then it's a bad idea taken to its extreme.

Christianity is bad because it sells itself as something its not. It is explicitly bad when you look at its holy book, the idea of hell and redemption is bad, and it tries desperately to hide its bad sides as "part of the times" or to essentially pick and choose what it is. At its very core, even if you pick and choose like crazy, the idea of God makes no sense. You only have to read the bible to become an atheist.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
Christianity is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "do unto others etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.
That's kinda a generic fill in the blank rhetoric for any ideology you don't like. For example:

Libertarianism is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "you own the product of your labor etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.

>> ^VoodooV:

How do you know you're gay at 13? I know everyone matures physically and emotionally at different rates, but isn't 13 a little early to be certain you're gay?
or is the point that the gay bashing is so bad that it doesn't even matter that you're gay or not. if the bashers think you're gay, then you're bashed.


I personally remember already liking girls in elementary school (or a girl in particular) so I knew from a very early age what I liked. I'm sure I'm not in the majority, but I really don't think it's that rare, so I'm pretty sure that by 13 it's more than enough for most people. Hell, I can name you every single girl I liked from elementary school all the way up to my wife.

edit: And damn it... he was just a child. I feel like hitting someone.

>> ^VoodooV:

How do you know you're gay at 13? I know everyone matures physically and emotionally at different rates, but isn't 13 a little early to be certain you're gay?
or is the point that the gay bashing is so bad that it doesn't even matter that you're gay or not. if the bashers think you're gay, then you're bashed.


How do you know you are heterosexual at 13?