Gunman opens fire in Florida nightclub, many dead

[EM2]

To say that that applies more to LGBT people than it does to Jews, Christians, Muslims, nightclubbers, pubbers, diners in a restaurant, schoolchildren, youth club members or whatever (choose your location) is in my mind not right.

That is not what Owen Jones is saying. He is saying that those people were killed solely because they were LGBT. Julia Hartley-Brewer and Mark Longhurst would not let Jones put that point across, and were instead fixated on the issue of the gunman being a Muslim.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is not what Owen Jones is saying. He is saying that those people were killed solely because they were LGBT. Julia Hartley-Brewer and Mark Longhurst would not let Jones put that point across, and were instead fixated on the issue of the gunman being a Muslim.

Perhaps, then, he should have considered his wording more carefully, which had he calmed down a bit he might have been able to do. The Guardian article is much more considered, even though I don't agree with all of it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Perhaps, then, he should have considered his wording more carefully, which had he calmed down a bit he might have been able to do. The Guardian article is much more considered, even though I don't agree with all of it.

Why does the manner in which something is said matter more to you than the content of what is being said?

This article explains why something polite that excludes oppressed groups is far more dangerous than something rude that stands up for those that are excluded, precisely because politeness is used as a way to remove the voices of those most affected, and is a way to sneak in insidious views under a veneer of being reasonable. This is precisely what you are enabling.

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/6/2/259.abstract

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does the manner in which something is said matter more to you than the content of what is being said?

I wouldn't say it did, but I would say they are probably equally important, subject to allowances for disabilities like dyslexia etc. Because you can't get your point across properly if you just resort to angry shouting or walking out.

This article explains why something polite that excludes oppressed groups is far more dangerous than something rude that stands up for those that are excluded, precisely because politeness is used as a way to remove the voices of those most affected, and is a way to sneak in insidious views under a veneer of being reasonable. This is precisely what you are enabling.

Regrettably I can't read that article as it would cost me $36 (I guess your University or wherever you are reading from has a subscription, or you do?) However, I did have a read of the abstract and I do see your point with the exception that I don't believe this case is excluding anyone, because people being attacked contains <subset of people> being attacked. Just as it is important that we consider all aspects of this attack and not simply who it was against - and I would believe that regardless of which subset of the population it was conducted against.

 

[NSEFAN]

This article explains why something polite that excludes oppressed groups is far more dangerous than something rude that stands up for those that are excluded, precisely because politeness is used as a way to remove the voices of those most affected, and is a way to sneak in insidious views under a veneer of being reasonable. This is precisely what you are enabling.

I can see that, from the perspective of getting a public message across, storming off the Sky set when the presenters are avoiding a topic is more effective, as it will attract more attention than allowing issues to slide. It's important to out homophobic institutions and individuals, but I don't see much value in shouting matches beyond raising awareness and creating discussion (which it arguably has acheived, given this thread!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see that, from the perspective of getting a public message across, storming off the Sky set when the presenters are avoiding a topic is more effective, as it will attract more attention than allowing issues to slide. It's important to out homophobic institutions and individuals, but I don't see much value in shouting matches beyond raising awareness and creating discussion (which it arguably has acheived, given this thread!)

That is true - we are at least discussing that aspect, which had he not done so we might not have had it so strongly brought to our attention. That said, it didn't appear to be a calculated decision of his - you could see him losing his temper over several minutes by his facial expression.

 

[Geezertronic]

And I hope he realises that, to suggest that the presenter and other guest did not understand because they are not gay, that was a massive error in judgement on his part

 

[90019]

I feel this thread has got bogged down in bickering over a man walking off a tv programme, so perhaps this will bring a little perspective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All people who were tragically killed in an horrific attack.

I'm sorry, but to me their sexuality comes second, as does their hair colour, eye colour, gender, nationality, pick any other attribute or grouping you like, to the fact that innocent people lost their lives in tragic circumstances that could have been prevented.

All people with their lives ahead of them, no longer.

We need to stop homophobia. But first and foremost we need to stop people in America getting shot.

 

[TheKnightWho]

All people who were tragically killed in an horrific attack.

I'm sorry, but to me their sexuality comes second, as does their hair colour, eye colour, gender, nationality, pick any other attribute or grouping you like, to the fact that innocent people lost their lives in tragic circumstances that could have been prevented.

All people with their lives ahead of them, no longer.

We need to stop homophobia. But first and foremost we need to stop people in America getting shot.

Please stop downplaying who this attack was against.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please stop downplaying who this attack was against.

It was against innocent people, and it was probably (though it now seems it is rather more complex than that) homophobic in nature.

To me, the fact that innocent people were shot is the primary tragedy. Again, as I said above, that's how I work. People are people. Specific attributes of them don't make them any more or any less people.

Equally (not secondarily, sorry), we need to stop homophobia, and we need to stop it now. We also need to stop racism etc.

I really don't see why you and others have such a problem with this line. People are people. That it was terrible and tragic that they lost their lives in an unnecessary and deliberate attack is the primary thing to me. The secondary thing is the motive, as there are many motives for these kinds of attack.

To me, the tragedy and unacceptability of all of these unnecessary, deliberate deaths are equal:
- This attack
- The Bataclan
- The terror attack on the Boston Marathon
- School shootings
- 9/11
etc.

If you disagree, I'm fine with that, but I don't see why anyone should be upset that I disagree with them on the issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyhow, I think we are going round in circles. TheKnightWho etc, feel free (genuinely) to throw in a concluding argument if you wish, and after that I am inclined to suggest that the mods should perhaps lock the thread.

Or perhaps it would be better that the posts (including mine) below the photographs were deleted, and the thread was locked with that as the last posting.

 

[Steveman]

Please stop downplaying who this attack was against.

It was against people that's all.

 

[ExRes]

It was against people that's all.

Exactly, they deserve the same sympathy as any other person killed by some weirdo with a 'reason' for their actions

Why would these victims deserve any more or less than, for instance, the 200+ killed by an indiscriminate ISIS bomb on the Russian aircraft last year?

Even the most het up of keyboard warriors on this forum can't expect normal people to accept a pecking order of death

 

[Groningen]

The message of hate was passed on by a church in Sacramento. Its pastor said that not enough gays/lesbians were killed.

At Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZns6Qi0BTw

 

[Harbornite]

The message of hate was passed on by a church in Sacramento. Its pastor said that not enough gays/lesbians were killed.

At Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZns6Qi0BTw

What a lovely example of religious tolerance, eh? Having said that, I;m not suggesting that all christian churches would share such a view on the matter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The message of hate was passed on by a church in Sacramento. Its pastor said that not enough gays/lesbians were killed.

That makes me feel physically sick. What an utterly awful thing to say and believe, particularly for a supposed man of the cloth.

 

[Groningen]

Thumps up 113; thumps down 913. I worry about those 113 ups!

 

[Tetchytyke]

What a lovely example of religious tolerance, eh? Having said that, I;m not suggesting that all christian churches would share such a view on the matter.

It's a difficult one. Plenty of senior clergy in mainstream churches say similar things. The previous Bishop of Carlisle, Graham Dow, went on record in 2007 to say the flooding in the UK was us "reaping the consequences of our moral decadence" and "God's judgment to call us to repentance" about legalising gay marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society-say-bishops.html

And that's not to mention the open letter signed by Cardinal O'Brien (who later resigned for "inappropriate behaviour" with priests whilst at seminary) decrying gay marriage as "shameful" in 2012.

But they're not all Christians congregations. The Metropolitan Community Church welcomes everyone, and the United Reformed Church allows the blessing of gay marriages in their churches.

 

[Harbornite]

It's a difficult one. Plenty of senior clergy in mainstream churches say similar things. The previous Bishop of Carlisle, Graham Dow, went on record in 2007 to say the flooding in the UK was us "reaping the consequences of our moral decadence" and "God's judgment to call us to repentance" about legalising gay marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society-say-bishops.html

And that's not to mention the open letter signed by Cardinal O'Brien (who later resigned for "inappropriate behaviour" with priests whilst at seminary) decrying gay marriage as "shameful" in 2012.

But they're not all Christians congregations. The Metropolitan Community Church welcomes everyone, and the United Reformed Church allows the blessing of gay marriages in their churches.

People who believe that flooding is caused by that need to have their heads examined, that shows a lack of rational thought, it reminds me of a UKIP MP, David Silvester, who blamed gay marriage for the flooding that occurred about three years ago. At least some churches have a more progressive view on these issues.

 

[Tetchytyke]

People who believe that flooding is caused by that need to have their heads examined, that shows a lack of rational thought

Graham Dow was never very good at rational thought, not least because he was saying this as Bishop of a city that had been devastated by floods not two years earlier.

But he was a senior Bishop in the Church of England. We're not talking about Pastor Hick of the Hillbilly Baptist Church, Backward, Alabama.

 

[Harbornite]

Graham Dow was never very good at rational thought, not least because he was saying this as Bishop of a city that had been devastated by floods not two years earlier.

But he was a senior Bishop in the Church of England. We're not talking about Pastor Hick of the Hillbilly Baptist Church, Backward, Alabama.

It's rather concerning that people of importance hold such ridiculous. Again, this proves that religion is almost irrelevant in our society.

 

[Johnuk123]

The Orlando gunman sold his share of a house for $10 to his sister and brother in law a few weeks ago which with his past history should have raised a red flag of a possible martyrdom plan.
I doubt his family could say they didn't know something was about to happen when he gave away his house.
It also points possibly to this incident being no "lone wolf" operation.

The FBI missed a golden chance to stop it.

 

[jon0844]

There must be so many people it can't be possible to stop everything.

 

[Johnuk123]

There must be so many people it can't be possible to stop everything.

I agree with that but this bloke had been on a watch list at one stage and you would have thought something like this would trigger a warning.

 

[GatwickDepress]

People who believe that flooding is caused by that need to have their heads examined, that shows a lack of rational thought, it reminds me of a UKIP MP, David Silvester, who blamed gay marriage for the flooding that occurred about three years ago. At least some churches have a more progressive view on these issues.

I'm of the opinion that the likes of David Silvester use religion to excuse their bigotry. Anyone who sees links between natural events and social events really are a bit odd - there was a thunderstorm here in MK a couple of days ago, OBVIOUSLY CAUSED BY SOUTHERN CANCELLING MY TRAIN!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I agree with that but this bloke had been on a watch list at one stage and you would have thought something like this would trigger a warning.

This seems to have been a common theme in the high profile attacks in various places in the world doesn't it? It always seems to transpire that those responsible were already known to the authorities.

So somewhere there is a consistent failing across the board to properly identify which of those on the list are truly dangerous. We should be asking why this is so.