Gunman opens fire in Florida nightclub, many dead

[TheKnightWho]

Various media outlets are reporting that he supposedly scouted Walt Disney World, particularly the shopping mall, a couple of months ago

There is, as yet, no definitive proof that the claim is true but, if it was, it would rather put a dampener on the claims the murders were down to homophobia

I don't understand why people are so desperate to doubt the motivation. Would we doubt anti-Semitism if he'd done it in a synagogue and had scouted Disney World? No.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is there a reason it has to be one thing? Could there not be a cocktail of factors and motivations?

 

[ExRes]

I don't understand why people are so desperate to doubt the motivation. Would we doubt anti-Semitism if he'd done it in a synagogue and had scouted Disney World? No.

Doubt the motivation of who?

The only claims so far are from the media, there is no proof of anything yet, as is usual with the media, just find the biggest headline and the biggest seller which may, just may, one day be proved to be correct

I could equally ask why are people so desperate to claim homophobic intent as motivation and I would suggest that, on this forum, if it had been in a synagogue then there would simply be an effort to blame the Jews for bringing it on themselves

 

[TheKnightWho]

Doubt the motivation of who?

The only claims so far are from the media, there is no proof of anything yet, as is usual with the media, just find the biggest headline and the biggest seller which may, just may, one day be proved to be correct

I could equally ask why are people so desperate to claim homophobic intent as motivation and I would suggest that, on this forum, if it had been in a synagogue then there would simply be an effort to blame the Jews for bringing it on themselves

Because he committed a shooting in a well-known and popular gay club. It's not much of a stretch to say that is quite a likely factor.

Equating the two viewpoints is false neutrality, and if anyone needed proof that LGBTQ issues are marginalised in society it's reactions that attempt to deny/cast aspersions over whether or not it really was an attack against the LGBTQ community over the most tenuous of links.

Even regardless of the motivation, it's the community that has been hit by far the hardest by all of this, and to deny the reality of that is also wrong.

 

[ExRes]

Even regardless of the motivation, it's the community that has been hit by far the hardest by all of this, and to deny the reality of that is also wrong.

And who is denying that the LGBT community has been hit the hardest?, although I would have thought that the families of the victims deserve at least equal if not a higher level of sympathy as many of them would not claim to be part of the LGBT community

 

[TheKnightWho]

And who is denying that the LGBT community has been hit the hardest?, although I would have thought that the families of the victims deserve at least equal if not a higher level of sympathy as many of them would not claim to be part of the LGBT community

And the first part of my post?

And no-one is denying that the families need the most sympathy, but stop weaponising that to make a point that downplays how hard the LGBTQ community has been hit. This is exactly the sort of twisted logic that made Owen Jones storm off, and he was exactly right to do so.

 

[ExRes]

And the first part of my post?

And no-one is denying that the families need the most sympathy, but stop weaponising that to make a point that downplays how hard the LGBTQ community has been hit. This is exactly the sort of twisted logic that made Owen Jones storm off, and he was exactly right to do so.

The first part of your post?, I ignored that because your comment "It's not much of a stretch to say that is quite a likely factor" means nothing, it's your opinion and I, or anyone else, does not have to agree with it

Your second paragraph is meaningless to me and I have no opinion on your comment

Now for your last tirade, 'weaponising', what on earth are you talking about?, your use of pointless words is of no interest to me and doesn't warrant an answer. Owen Jones?, who is Owen Jones? what did he storm off of?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is exactly the sort of twisted logic that made Owen Jones storm off, and he was exactly right to do so.

No, he wasn't. Storming off made him look like a petulant, spoilt, arrogant and selfish child. You could see his anger building throughout the interview as points were made - many of which were valid.

In the end if you are going to be interviewed on a show like that you know points are going to be made that you don't like. He agreed to be featured, he should have stayed and continued in the discussion.

It's like people who block people on Twitter, on here etc just because they disagree. It's childish.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Equating the two viewpoints is false neutrality, and if anyone needed proof that LGBTQ issues are marginalised in society it's reactions that attempt to deny/cast aspersions over whether or not it really was an attack against the LGBTQ community over the most tenuous of links.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but my view of "equality" is at least in part that it is an attack on people by a murderer, with however those people are compartmentalised coming firmly second.

That was the point the Sky presenters appeared to be making, and I really don't see a problem with that point.

Secondarily, it seems it was a homophobic attack based on information that has later come to light, but that doesn't stop it having been a murderous attack on people, just like you and me.

 

[Geezertronic]

I had to Google who Owen Jones was and came across this:

Forty nine innocent people were gunned down in a gay nightclub in Florida on Sunday and 53 more have been injured. But the really important thing to remember is that this is NOT about Owen Jones. ...

I watched the associated clip from Sky News and think Owen Jones is despicable...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I also dislike the view that some seem to be expressing (not necessarily on here) that if you think Owen Jones acted like a spoilt child you are somehow homophobic. This is almost as childish a view as his actions were.

If he can't go on TV without getting angry, he should perhaps consider the written word as a better medium to express his views.

 

[Geezertronic]

You don't understand this because you are not gay

With that one comment, whatever the opposite of homophobic is that is what Owen Jones is. They are talking about the sad murder of 49 people and he comes out with that crap? Unbelievable...

 

[TheKnightWho]

With that one comment, whatever the opposite of homophobic is that is what Owen Jones is. They are talking about the sad murder of 49 people and he comes out with that crap? Unbelievable...

In the wake of 50 dead, you are throwing around accusations of "straight-phobia" or whatever.

It is absolutely ridiculous the lengths that those who are not victimised in society will go to to try and claim that they are, in the wake of those whose communities have been wounded being angry at their pain and suffering being denied or erased.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The first part of your post?, I ignored that because your comment "It's not much of a stretch to say that is quite a likely factor" means nothing, it's your opinion and I, or anyone else, does not have to agree with it

Your second paragraph is meaningless to me and I have no opinion on your comment

Now for your last tirade, 'weaponising', what on earth are you talking about?, your use of pointless words is of no interest to me and doesn't warrant an answer. Owen Jones?, who is Owen Jones? what did he storm off of?

Failing to understand what I mean doesn't make what I said meaningless. It means you should consult a dictionary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I also dislike the view that some seem to be expressing (not necessarily on here) that if you think Owen Jones acted like a spoilt child you are somehow homophobic. This is almost as childish a view as his actions were.

If he can't go on TV without getting angry, he should perhaps consider the written word as a better medium to express his views.

So anger cannot be legitimate now? We must all sit quiet and happy whilst our communities are attacked?

Insisting and forcing people to remain "calm" in the wake of people denying the reality of what occurred is not reasonable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I also dislike the view that some seem to be expressing (not necessarily on here) that if you think Owen Jones acted like a spoilt child you are somehow homophobic. This is almost as childish a view as his actions were.

The problem is that most of the people making the discussion about Owen Jones are making it about him because they want to push the anti-Muslim agenda rather than the homophobic agenda.

I know you're not doing that, but Poundland Hopkins certainly is.

Jones is someone who is prone to the childish outburst. Like others on the left, such as Laura Bates (the woman behind Everyday Sexism) anyone who dares criticise their position is blocked and labelled prejudiced and bigoted. It is very tiresome. But, for once, I actually think he was right on this. Although I'd agree with you: what did he expect going on Sky News?

I could equally ask why are people so desperate to claim homophobic intent as motivation and I would suggest that, on this forum, ]if it had been in a synagogue then there would simply be an effort to blame the Jews for bringing it on themselves

Homophobia is the most likely cause, though. You mentioned Disney World as a reason why it might not have been homophobia, and I pointed out that Disney World had one of the world's largest Gay Pride festivals last week. Maybe it was a coincidence that he scoped the host of a Gay Pride festival before shooting up a gay club, but I'm skeptical.

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about with the phrase in bold. Can you explain?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but my view of "equality" is at least in part that it is an attack on people by a murderer, with however those people are compartmentalised coming firmly second.

That was the point the Sky presenters appeared to be making, and I really don't see a problem with that point.

Secondarily, it seems it was a homophobic attack based on information that has later come to light, but that doesn't stop it having been a murderous attack on people, just like you and me.

If someone goes into someone's home and murders their family, would you say that was an attack on people as a whole, or an attack on that particular person's family? If they did it in a synagogue, is it an attack against all people or targeted against Jews? Denying that it was targeted erases the fact that certain communities are targeted by hatred, regardless of the fact that we're all members of the human race.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So anger cannot be legitimate now? We must all sit quiet and happy whilst our communities are attacked?

Anger is a raw animal emotion and a very weak one which is primarily negative. It is much better to take a calm, controlled view on any bad occurrence and plan the response to it properly. Or in the case of a discussion, to formulate and deliver a quality counter-argument, later on if necessary.

Insisting and forcing people to remain "calm" in the wake of people denying the reality of what occurred is not reasonable.

It absolutely is, and your view is what turns an argument into physical conflict, or on a national level a war.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If someone goes into someone's home and murders their family, would you say that was an attack on people as a whole, or an attack on that particular person's family? If they did it in a synagogue, is it an attack against all people or targeted against Jews? Denying that it was targeted erases the fact that certain communities are targeted by hatred, regardless of the fact that we're all members of the human race.

This was mass murder, not comparable to a family attack. As regards a gay nightclub, many of these are also frequented by heterosexual people - they tend to be a good night out without the kind of attitude you get at many city centre clubs.

 

[Geezertronic]

In the wake of 50 dead, you are throwing around accusations of "straight-phobia" or whatever.

It is absolutely ridiculous the lengths that those who are not victimised in society will go to to try and claim that they are, in the wake of those whose communities have been wounded being angry at their pain and suffering being denied or erased.

In the wake of 49 innocent deaths, why go on national TV and instead of discussing the actual issue, come out with stupid comments and act like a spoilt brat? There is so many rumours around about the motives of the attacker that the concentration should indeed be on the innocent victims not get petty about the actual motive which in the main is unclear. All I will say is that if a straight person had made the opposite comment, they would quite rightly be called homophobic

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that most of the people making the discussion about Owen Jones are making it about him because they want to push the anti-Muslim agenda rather than the homophobic agenda.

I know you're not doing that, but Poundland Hopkins certainly is.

That is a fair point, though the point she was making had other strengths as I noted.

Jones is someone who is prone to the childish outburst. Like others on the left, such as Laura Bates (the woman behind Everyday Sexism) anyone who dares criticise their position is blocked and labelled prejudiced and bigoted. It is very tiresome. But, for once, I actually think he was right on this.

I think his point had strength, but not his manner. Running off stage like an upset 8-year-old because someone disagreed with him seriously damaged the quality of his point. He should have kept calm and continued to counter the point. But if you looked at him throughout the interview you could see him losing control.

Although I'd agree with you: what did he expect going on Sky News?

Quite.

Homophobia is the most likely cause, though. You mentioned Disney World as a reason why it might not have been homophobia, and I pointed out that Disney World had one of the world's largest Gay Pride festivals last week. Maybe it was a coincidence that he scoped the host of a Gay Pride festival before shooting up a gay club, but I'm skeptical.

This does seem to back up the chance of it being a homophobic attack further.

 

[ExRes]

Failing to understand what I mean doesn't make what I said meaningless. It means you should consult a dictionary.

Try reading, I said it was meaningless to me, that means I found it meaningless not that it was meaningless to everyone

I'll consult a dictionary if and when I wish to, I don't need a jumped up schoolboy to advise me, thanks all the same

 

[Tetchytyke]

As regards a gay nightclub, many of these are also frequented by heterosexual people - they tend to be a good night out without the kind of attitude you get at many city centre clubs.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're missing the point with this. The mentality of many homophobes is that those who fraternise with gay people are just as bad, if not worse, as gay people themselves. The fact that many of the people in the club were not gay is irrelevant: they were fraternising with gay people.

It was exactly the same when David Copeland bombed the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho and Brixton Market. He was attacking the symbol as much as the people there.

 

[Starmill]

No, it categorically is not.

The evidence is increasingly that in this specific case it was, but the nightclub being a LGBT nightclub categorically does not define the attack as homophobic. Only if the motive was against gay people etc does it make the attack homophobic.

While technically I agree with your sentiments, and technically you're espousing a perfect vision of how we should all treat others and have the same ideals of equality, this talk is foolish. I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining how this could not have been motivated by his bad attitude towards gay people. I think that is pretty damn clear and while you're right, saying this is making you seem pretty insensitive at best and clueless at worst.

As regards Owen Jones I don't really know who he is very well, but his performance was totally justified. I mean, it was also pretty unhelpful and will have done nothing to help create empathy for the pain and suffering of LGBT people, but he isn't obliged to do that and reacted in essentially the only way he could have. He shouldn't be criticised for being human. But then also he hasn't done anything particularly helpful at the same time.

 

[Harbornite]

According to the news, the killer was gay, so it suggests he was at odds at himself and took out his anger in this way.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'll consult a dictionary if and when I wish to, I don't need a jumped up schoolboy to advise me, thanks all the same

"Jumped-up schoolboys" on this website....surely not...

Spoken as one old enough to be married to a good lady wife nearly four years older than I who can most certainly hold her own in a lecture on the subject of "Grandmothers sucking eggs...Discuss"

 

[TheKnightWho]

Try reading, I said it was meaningless to me, that means I found it meaningless not that it was meaningless to everyone

I'll consult a dictionary if and when I wish to, I don't need a jumped up schoolboy to advise me, thanks all the same

"jumped up schoolboy"

Keep dreaming

If something is meaningless to you, dismissing it just makes you look arrogant and conceited. Trying to patronise and dismiss me isn't helping your image there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the wake of 49 innocent deaths, why go on national TV and instead of discussing the actual issue, come out with stupid comments and act like a spoilt brat? There is so many rumours around about the motives of the attacker that the concentration should indeed be on the innocent victims not get petty about the actual motive which in the main is unclear. All I will say is that if a straight person had made the opposite comment, they would quite rightly be called homophobic

Why are people not allowed to express anger, especially when people deny that this was a targeted attack?

Why is it more important that they act in a way that pleases you than actually being outraged at the real problem here?

 

[southern442]

I don't see at all what the fuss is over Owen Jones. It was a homophobic attack. I challenge anybody to come up with hard evidence that it wasn't.

Ok, I will admit that him saying 'you don't understand because you're not gay' was a rather short-sighted comment to make, but he probably said that out of frustration and so that the other two would shut up. Look at some of the things that Julia Hartley-Brewer said: "he was angered by two men kissing in Miami some months ago. He may have been angered by many other things since then" is the weakest argument I've ever heard on television ever. Why on earth are they trying to say that it wasn't homophobic? Is it because Jones is left-wing and they don't want to make Rupert Murdoch cross by agreeing with him? The man may have had links to terrorist organisations but ISIS are very quick to claim responsibility for things like this, even when sometimes there is very little connection. I don't think I heard any convincing arguments from Hartley-Brewer and she was very aggressive and patronising to Jones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While technically I agree with your sentiments, and technically you're espousing a perfect vision of how we should all treat others and have the same ideals of equality, this talk is foolish. I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining how this could not have been motivated by his bad attitude towards gay people. I think that is pretty damn clear and while you're right, saying this is making you seem pretty insensitive at best and clueless at worst.

It's a discussion on the issues surrounding the incident. If we take a view that raising certain things is insensitive (such as that it might have been a violent attack on Western hedonism rather than homosexuality, and that both things are equally, i.e. totally, unacceptable to me), then I'm afraid a fair discussion cannot take place. Therefore, I must reject that one just as I have the childish behaviour of Owen Jones.

Though as more evidence has arisen my view tends towards the idea that it was a homophobic attack, of course, as I have stated in later postings.

As regards Owen Jones I don't really know who he is very well, but his performance was totally justified. I mean, it was also pretty unhelpful and will have done nothing to help create empathy for the pain and suffering of LGBT people, but he isn't obliged to do that and reacted in essentially the only way he could have. He shouldn't be criticised for being human. But then also he hasn't done anything particularly helpful at the same time.

He lost his temper in a formal television interview. That is not by any stretch of the imagination appropriate conduct, and it has done nothing but make him look very stupid indeed (that kind of conduct might work on a sensationalist debate show but not the news, not even slightly oversensationalist Sky News). Indeed, to some, the impression given may even have felt like it devalued how bad a similar attack on a regular nightclub would have been, e.g. the Bataclan. I don't think that, but I do, as I've said elsewhere, think that it was firstly mass murder and secondly a homophobic attack, though both are to be absolutely abhorred. This is because people are people first, then some subgroup of people (be that by nationality, religion, sexuality etc) very much second. Indeed, I don't think we'll ever get this equality thing right unless we accept we are all simply people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to the news, the killer was gay, so it suggests he was at odds at himself and took out his anger in this way.

If true, that certainly adds further confusion to the mix.

 

[Starmill]

I think the issue is Neil that, while you can go and be opinionated about all issues ever and you have the right to have your views, and you certainly do and you certainly post about them and it is always in very black and white terms about everything ever in the world while on Rail UK, you can't afford to have the kind of empathy deficit that you display sometimes too. This is what you are doing now, I think.

 

[TheKnightWho]

50 people were killed and we are more concerned about "appropriate" conduct on national TV?!?

 

[Geezertronic]

50 people were killed and we are more concerned about "appropriate" conduct on national TV?!?

Thing is, we are in agreement as to the nature of the tragedy but I still maintain that if a straight guy made an opposite comment to the comment that Owen Jones made, it would be deemed massively innapropriate given the circumstances.

And unless I am wrong, it is 49 people killed unless you insist on counting the killer himself

 

[Harbornite]

Thing is, we are in agreement as to the nature of the tragedy but I still maintain that if a straight guy made an opposite comment to the comment that Owen Jones made, it would be deemed massively innapropriate given the circumstances.

And unless I am wrong, it is 49 people killed unless you insist on counting the killer himself

The killer killed himself and murdered 49 others. It's easier just to say 50.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the issue is Neil that, while you can go and be opinionated about all issues ever and you have the right to have your views, and you certainly do and you certainly post about them and it is always in very black and white terms about everything ever in the world while on Rail UK, you can't afford to have the kind of empathy deficit that you display sometimes too. This is what you are doing now, I think.

I see your point, but I don't think a discussion can work if some aspects of it are somehow barred out of sensitivity. If they are, and I can see why they might be, then the discussion should really not occur until people are ready to have it in full. Otherwise some important aspects of it may be missed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

50 people were killed and we are more concerned about "appropriate" conduct on national TV?!?

Call me insensitive (someone already did), but the two are completely separate things. 50 people being killed is a terrible thing, and losing your temper is an extremely negative emotional state which is almost never the best way to solve anything. Both are independently true in my view.