50 Dead, Dozens Wounded in Orlando Club Shooting

[Boris the Blade]

22 minutes ago, S John said:

I mean... LGBTQIAPK is kind of a ridiculously cumbersome acronym.  I really do not agree that making a joke about that is out of line.

Actually it is out of line for a few reasons, but even more so when it's in a thread about 50 people from that community that were killed because of being apart of it. 

I'm gonna assume the people saying that it's ridiculous or making a poor joke about it aren't apart of the community, which means you should probably not make a joke about it or say what you think is ridiculous about it.

 

[S John]

24 minutes ago, Harakiri said:

Actually it is out of line for a few reasons, but even more so when it's in a thread about 50 people from that community that were killed because of being apart of it. 

I'm gonna assume the people saying that it's ridiculous or making a poor joke about it aren't apart of the community, which means you should probably not make a joke about it or say what you think is ridiculous about it.

 

why not?  It takes 34% of the alphabet, that is what I think is ridiculous about it.  Has no bearing on the people it represents.

[TerraPrime]

Please. It's coming from Squab. It's odds-on even that it was meant as a dig at the PC/SJW culture. 

[Squab]

The point of my original post has been missed.  I am not sure me boycotting anything alone would really create enough of an impact and I doubt many politicians will listen but if enough people push, things may change.

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

I'll go with Sexual Minorities in the future.

I strongly suggest using "LGBTQ+" instead. It's better understood, reasonably inclusive, and it has general acceptance in the community. 

[JGP]

Just now, Xray the Enforcer said:

I strongly suggest using "LGBTQ+" instead. It's better understood, reasonably inclusive, and it has general acceptance in the community. 

Done. Appreciate it, M.

[Boris the Blade]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

My intentions mean fuck all to you, you mean. Which is your prerogative. But they're mine, and whether you believe it or not, it doesn't change the truth that I know them better than you do. You want to continue this, bring it to PM. Same goes for Pepper.

No, your intentions really don't mean much when you fail to convey what you were getting at, even more so when you go off like a child having throwing  tantrum after the fact. Now I know you weren't making fun of it. You should know that online tone gets lost. You should know that there are so many people that make fun of marginalized groups left and right, so a misunderstanding is prone to happen when someone says something similar to what casual bigots would say. Pepper explained this to you and you wrote it off as self righteous bullshit and said it was white knighting. BTW, that term is so ridiculous and usually only used by bigoted and ignorant assholes that can't fathom people not going along with their ignorant "edgy" bigoted bs. It's like so called liberals using the term feminazi when it was coined by a known misogynistic conservative in Rush Limbaugh. So you really need to give your ego a check. Who knew that tone and intentions were so hard to pick up on online? Especially when the wording in question is used by people to mock a marginalized community?

 

[TrackerNeil]

I suggest we move on from castigating Jeordhi for one flippant remark and turn the focus back to offenses that actually hurt LGBTQ+ people. Or we can indulge in more ally theater.

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I suggest we move on from castigating Jeordhi for one flippant remark and turn the focus back to offenses that actually hurt LGBTQ+ people. Or we can indulge in more ally theater.

Language actually hurts the LGBTQ+ community.  The murder of 49 queer people doesn't just spring from nowhere.  And it's not just the explicit "kill all the gays" that harms us.  The small stuff and the coded language hurts, too.  

[JGP]

44 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Is this supposed to negate my point somehow?  

This presupposes that your point is valid. And while it clearly seems to be the case that you believe it is, I judge the fidelity of your convictions suspect since you'd prefer to make my question the theatrical subject of your lesson, instead of accepting the invitation to continue somewhere more appropriate than this thread. 

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] TrackerNeil has it right. Points have been made on both sides; let's not harp on this further. Thank you. [/mod]

[Xray the Enforcer]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

Done. Appreciate it, M.

My pleasure.

[Boris the Blade]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Language actually hurts the LGBTQ+ community.  The murder of 49 queer people doesn't just spring from nowhere.  And it's not just the explicit "kill all the gays" that harms us.  The small stuff and the coded language hurts, too.  

Pretty much this. I also take issue with trying to sweep this under a rug since it does nothing helpful IMO.  Allies should be called out for garbage behavior, poor wording and intentions included.

I know quite a few people that aren't homophobic in the sense of not thinking gay people shouldn't get married and wouldn't carry out an act of violence like this, but they do make jokes that are harmful whether or not they deem them to be. 


 

[DunderMifflin]

Small point but how do we know all victims self identified as part of the acronym

[jurble]

Guy has come forward saying he was Mateen's lover:

http://www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/orlando-massacre-was-revenge-not-terrorism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover

[Crixus]

How credible is this? 

[TerraPrime]

On 6/21/2016 at 8:43 PM, DunderMifflin said:

Small point but how do we know all victims self identified as part of the acronym

I don't think we will know unless the family and friends who survived them make a statement.

However, it is not really relevant to the political side of the issue.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OKC, there were victims who didn't work for the federal government. But we didn't let that distract us from the motive behind it, right?

 

And that's actually a point I have been trying to make in the past - anti-gay violence targets presumptive gay people, and your actual sexual identity and history are irrelevant. If you're a supportive ally and you are at the bar, you're just as likely to be harmed. If you're actually anti-gay and just got dragged to the bar against your better judgement that night, you're just as dead in the hands of anti-gay violence.

[DunderMifflin]

3 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

I don't think we will know unless the family and friends who survived them make a statement.

However, it is not really relevant to the political side of the issue.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OKC, there were victims who didn't work for the federal government. But we didn't let that distract us from the motive behind it, right?

 

And that's actually a point I have been trying to make in the past - anti-gay violence targets presumptive gay people, and your actual sexual identity and history are irrelevant. If you're a supportive ally and you are at the bar, you're just as likely to be harmed. If you're actually anti-gay and just got dragged to the bar against your better judgement that night, you're just as dead in the hands of anti-gay violence.

I just mean as saying 49 queer people were killed might be considered offensive. I've been to Pulse a few times, there might be up to 10-30 heterosexual people in there in a given night.  And there are also people of varying sexual preferences who reject being given the LGBT label or any labeling of their sexuality for various reasons that may have been involved.

I agree with what you said, homophobia is dangerous for everybody regardless of the labeling.

[Swordfish]

On 6/14/2016 at 4:37 PM, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

yeah, here's the thing.

Some issues you have to stop via precrime security. For instance, most major strategies for blowing up planes and hijacking planes get stopped (and stopped successfully) by intel, monitoring, and looking for patterns and getting sources. 

Static security is not great at stopping dedicated, trained people. You use static security to deter crazy people, impulsive people or people with bad planning.Same kind of thing with banning assault weapons. We're all aware that it won't stop all gun crime, it won't stop all terrorist attacks. What it will do is deter impulsive folks who buy it and then shoot up a place for reasons.

No.  It won't.

We don't have to speculate about this. We HAD an assault weapons ban, and according to the DOJ there was zero statistically relevant impact on gun violence.

Add to that the fact that he ALSO had 2 handguns, and we don't even KNOW (or at least I have not seen) how many of those people were killed with the rifle and how many with the pistol (or how many from friendly fire from police for that matter), the fact that the previous most deadly shooting was carried out with two 9mm handguns, the extremely rare amount of gun violence that is carried out by these types of rifles, and this argument against 'assault weapons' gets weaker and weaker.

Gun owners know what the gun regulation crowd can't understand or refuse to admit, which is that it's the 'semi automatic' part and not the 'assault weapon' part that makes a weapon more deadly in these types of enclosed spaces.  You won't hear anyone say that, because then you can't also smugly say 'I'm not coming for your guns', but that's the simple fact.  If you are going after assault weapons, and not all semi automatics, then you are simple not serious about wanting to reduce gun violence.  if you are going after all semi automatics, then you are in fact 'coming for the guns', and you should just have the courage of your convictions and say so.

This is not a question of 'solving a little should not be blocked because it does not solve all'.  In the case of assault weapons, it's 'solving nothing is a distraction to keep  from having to deal with the real issues behind gun violence in this country' (which i will point out continues to decrease again this year).

People advocating assault weapons bans, frankly, remind me of anti vaxxers and climate change deniers, who use 'this thing sounds right, therefor it must be true', rather than actual facts to form their opinions.  No one would ever take seriously, for example, someone who used a 'common sense anti vaccination law', because common sense is a terrible basis for creating that kind of policy.  Why that phrase is now being championed in the case of gun regulation I have no idea, except that it appeals to those who in my experience are generally to lazy (or too busy posting about it on facebook) to do any actual research on the topic.