Have homophobia and misogyny been defeated?

[tommydrifter]

9 hours ago, Mr H said:

I'm just wondering what kind of murders and violence goes on against homosexuals and women, purely for the reason that they hate homosexuals and women?

 

SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND MURDERS

We miss the point. The point is the RAPE CULTURE that permeates our civilisation. RAPE CULTURE does not care if it is a man or a woman. It is about exercising POWER over another person. The issue is RAPE CULTURE.

 

My feeling is that RAPE VICTIMS demonstrate an inclination to expose what is going on. When they do that, they are MURDERED.

 

?

[XelNaga]

9 hours ago, pi3141 said:

 

Sorry but I don't understand your point.

 

Do you deny Homophobia is a word or a thing or prejudice that doesn't exist?

 

Here from Wiki - 

 

Homophobia

 

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is also related to religious beliefs.[4][5]

 

Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

 

And here from the dictionary - 

 

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

homophobia
/ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊməˈfəʊbɪə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

 

 

Your saying the term makes no sense when it is a part of English language and a broadly accepted definition of a prejudice.

 

What part of the term makes no sense to you when it is a perfectly valid term?

 

 

Phobia means fear.

 

Definition of phobia is: A phobia is an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity. This fear can be so overwhelming that a person may go to great lengths to avoid the source of this fear. One response can be a panic attack. This is a sudden, intense fear that lasts for several minutes.

 

We have many "valid" phobias, for example: snakes, spiders, height, dark etc..

 

"Homophobia" is a nonsensical term, as no one is afraid of homos.

 

People dislike them, not fear them.

Edited June 5, 2022 by XelNaga

[pi3141]

42 minutes ago, XelNaga said:

'Homophobia" is a nonsensical term, as no one is afraid of homos.

 

People dislike them, not fear them.

 

Yes I know exactly what your trying to say so I'll play that game too.

 

Centipede is a nonsensocal term, it implies they have a 100 legs but they don't.

 

Why call a Mongoose a Mongoose, it doesn't look anything like a Goose in my mind so why call a Mongoose a Mongoose?

 

So why don't we just make up our own terms?

 

Oh thats right, if we agree certain words for certain things it facilitates the exchange of ideas and allows for discussion.

 

If we all talk our own made up language we wouldn't get anywhere.

 

By nit picking that you don't agree with certain accepted terms in the English language you don't have any argument in my mind and it doesn't display intellect.

 

We all know some words don't appear to make sense or that some spellings don't look right, its just language, and sometimes its just the best we have.

[XelNaga]

48 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

 

Yes I know exactly what your trying to say so I'll play that game too.

 

Centipede is a nonsensocal term, it implies they have a 100 legs but they don't.

 

Why call a Mongoose a Mongoose, it doesn't look anything like a Goose in my mind so why call a Mongoose a Mongoose?

 

So why don't we just make up our own terms?

 

Oh thats right, if we agree certain words for certain things it facilitates the exchange of ideas and allows for discussion.

 

If we all talk our own made up language we wouldn't get anywhere.

 

By nit picking that you don't agree with certain accepted terms in the English language you don't have any argument in my mind and it doesn't display intellect.

 

We all know some words don't appear to make sense or that some spellings don't look right, its just language, and sometimes its just the best we have.

To be honest, English is far from "the best we have", but that is another topic.

[tommydrifter]

1 hour ago, XelNaga said:

"Homophobia" is a nonsensical term, as no one is afraid of homos.

 

People dislike them, not fear them.

 

A lot of "homophobes" are disgusted with sodomy and rape culture. It is not fear but it triggers in them feelings of disgust when they think about what is involved in the act of sodomy. Their thinking is along the lines of (when you are around me) "I have to think about what you do" and the thoughts arouse feelings of discomfort in a lot of people and an attitude of hostility. I never realised it, but my fear is for the sanctity of my arsehole. In my understanding of my self, that is a rational fear because if you're not afraid of that, you're not thinking straight!

 

It is a complex issue, there is a lot going on, I am doing my best to work out what is what. But let us not judge too harshly, because we all have a story to tell -- "walk a mile in my shoes" as they say. This is why freedom of speech (and thought) is so important. If the conversation is shut down, by well-meaning but overly-protective people, we will never reach a mutual understanding. Everyone has a responsibility to share their point-of-view and speak their mind. To tell me I'm an idiot or off-my-rocker, is your right; you should not fear another person, ever. 

 

REMINDER! YOU ARE NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION. YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING. WORK OUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR SITUATION.

• sexual orientation
• sexual expression
• programming

 AND FOR CHRIST'S SAKE MAKE LOVE NOT HATE 

 

[XelNaga]

8 minutes ago, tommydrifter said:

 

A lot of "homophobes" are disgusted with sodomy and rape culture. It is not fear but it triggers in them feelings of disgust when they think about what is involved in the act of sodomy. Their thinking is along the lines of (when you are around me) "I have to think about what you do" and the thoughts arouse feelings of discomfort in a lot of people and an attitude of hostility. I never realised it, but my fear is for the sanctity of my arsehole. In my understanding of my self, that is a rational fear because if you're not afraid of that, you're not thinking straight!

 

It is a complex issue, there is a lot going on, I am doing my best to work out what is what. But let us not judge too harshly, because we all have a story to tell -- "walk a mile in my shoes" as they say. This is why freedom of speech (and thought) is so important. If the conversation is shut down, by well-meaning but overly-protective people, we will never reach a mutual understanding. Everyone has a responsibility to share their point-of-view and speak their mind. To tell me I'm an idiot or off-my-rocker, is your right; you should not fear another person, ever. 

 

REMINDER! YOU ARE NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION. YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING. WORK OUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR SITUATION.

• sexual orientation
• sexual expression
• programming

 AND FOR CHRIST'S SAKE MAKE LOVE NOT HATE 

 

I understand what you mean, and I agree with you. For normal, healthy males, probably the worst thing that could happen would be for someone to violate their assholes.

 

I also think there is something more to the term "homophobia", kind a like "psy op" in a way.

 

People who have phobias are regarded as people who have something gone wrong in their minds, which is true and logical in a way.

 

So, perhaps the idea behind using the term "homophobia" is for people who dislike homos to subconsciously feel wrong, or bad, about that.

 

I'm sure what I'm about to say would not look nice to most people, but, dislike of homos, as well as dislike of other races, cultures and religions, is something that is natural, it's ingrained in human nature.

 

Migrations of huge numbers of people of one culture to a place with different native culture never resulted in anything good, never.

 

Perhaps the best thing would be to find a place, like a new country, where sexual deviants could go and live and do whatever the hell they want 

[XelNaga]

37 minutes ago, tommydrifter said:

 

A lot of "homophobes" are disgusted with sodomy and rape culture. It is not fear but it triggers in them feelings of disgust when they think about what is involved in the act of sodomy. Their thinking is along the lines of (when you are around me) "I have to think about what you do" and the thoughts arouse feelings of discomfort in a lot of people and an attitude of hostility. I never realised it, but my fear is for the sanctity of my arsehole. In my understanding of my self, that is a rational fear because if you're not afraid of that, you're not thinking straight!

 

It is a complex issue, there is a lot going on, I am doing my best to work out what is what. But let us not judge too harshly, because we all have a story to tell -- "walk a mile in my shoes" as they say. This is why freedom of speech (and thought) is so important. If the conversation is shut down, by well-meaning but overly-protective people, we will never reach a mutual understanding. Everyone has a responsibility to share their point-of-view and speak their mind. To tell me I'm an idiot or off-my-rocker, is your right; you should not fear another person, ever. 

 

REMINDER! YOU ARE NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION. YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING. WORK OUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR SITUATION.

• sexual orientation
• sexual expression
• programming

 AND FOR CHRIST'S SAKE MAKE LOVE NOT HATE 

 

Look who made that term and when:

 

George Weinberg (May 17, 1929 – March 20, 2017) was a Jewish-American psychologist. He was the author of several books. He coined the term "homophobia" in the 1960s, it first appearing in the press in 1969.

 

Definitely a psy-op 

[pi3141]

1 hour ago, XelNaga said:

To be honest, English is far from "the best we have", but that is another topic.

 

Lol, agreed. English is bloody awful in some respects.

 

Like they say in English - 

 

An inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of the optical organ to an equine quadraped devoid of its visionary capacity.

Edited June 5, 2022 by pi3141

[tommydrifter]

48 minutes ago, XelNaga said:

 

I'm sure what I'm about to say would not look nice to most people, but, dislike of homos, as well as dislike of other races, cultures and religions, is something that is natural, it's ingrained in human nature.

DISCRIMINATION! DIVIDE AND RULE TACTICS!

 

 

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

• ASSOCIATION:  "HOMO", "SEXUAL DEVIANT"
• ASSOCIATION:  "HOMOSEXUAL", "JEW"

 

• A HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT A SEXUAL DEVIANT
• A HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT A JEW

 

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

• DIVIDE AND RULE

~

 

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

• genetics (reptilian %, mammalian %)
• programming -> mind-pattern 
• mind-pattern -> genetic expression

 

WORK OUT WHAT IS WHAT IN YOUR SITUATION!

WHAT IN YOUR MIND-PATTERN IS PROGRAMMING?

WHAT IN YOUR MIND-PATTERN IS YOU?

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS!

NOW IS OUR TIME!

 

 

[Mr H]

7 hours ago, tommydrifter said:

 

SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND MURDERS

We miss the point. The point is the RAPE CULTURE that permeates our civilisation. RAPE CULTURE does not care if it is a man or a woman. It is about exercising POWER over another person. The issue is RAPE CULTURE.

 

My feeling is that RAPE VICTIMS demonstrate an inclination to expose what is going on. When they do that, they are MURDERED.

 

?

Just from experience I've only witnessed a rape culture when I used to spend a lot of time in South America. In the small rural and jungle towns the young girls there are commonly raped . It's almost like a nothing...and there are very few people who care or look out for these vulnerables, can't see it ending anytime soon unfortunately. Not sure if we have such a culture in the West or not. 

[Mr H]

2 hours ago, Mr H said:

Just from experience I've only witnessed a rape culture when I used to spend a lot of time in South America. In the small rural and jungle towns the young girls there are commonly raped . It's almost like a nothing...and there are very few people who care or look out for these vulnerables, can't see it ending anytime soon unfortunately. Not sure if we have such a culture in the West or not. 

I would also add, if you genuinely wish to help these people, discussions on forums, social media posts, lecturing the locals etc will not help these people in the slightest - different worlds. You would have to actually go down there yourself and pay for these women to live in a safe(r) environment. IMO.

[tommydrifter]

Homosexual Rape Culture -- Inside the Boys' Club

 

I am not here to judge people. What consenting adults do is their business. If you believe you have a sexual problem, a sexual addiction, get help -- deprogram. We all have sexual problems. We are all sexual abuse victims to some extent. This is the world we live in. In my opinion, rape culture is unhealthy -- sadism/masochism is not a healthy way for two or more people to relate. This is programming.

 

I went to school with a homosexual boy who later "suicided" but I suspect was murdered because he was going to "blab" about what the boys were all up to. That is intuition (and reading-between-the-lines) but I have seen enough to know this kind of activity is going on everywhere. Because I personally do not participate in this kind of activity, and never have, I am not exactly sure what goes on. Many of you know much more about it than I do, I am sure. 

 

I have always been an outsider, I have never been a part of the club, but I have been around the scene. They speak in code: words have specific meanings in rape culture and it is all a joke to them. I feel for innocent homosexuals who are taken advantage of, used and abused, in these situations. You are horny, you feel unloved, you feel rejected, what do you do? 

 

WARNING! SEXUAL CONTENT! BE AWARE OF TRIGGERS!

 

Rape Culture

• "I will make you my bitch."
• "I will bend you over and tear you a new one."
• "I will take you home later and give you a pounding."

[tommydrifter]

I don't claim to know much at all. I'm as confused as the rest of you. I'm doing my best to bring awareness to what is what. If somebody can tell me what is going on, please, tell me, what is going on?

 

?

 

RAPE CULTURE ...OR, WE COULD RELATE TO EACH OTHER AS EQUALS? 

 

Rape Culture

• power
• control
• domination (submission)
• strong vs. weak

 

Rape Culture

• "gay" men
• "gay" women
• "straight" men
• "straight" women

 

Rape Culture

• poor
• rich
• low-society
• high-society

 

Rape Culture

• nice people
• mean people

 

Rape Culture

• ubiquitous

 

 A symptom of suppressed sexuality?

And why is everybody gay?

[Macnamara]

On 6/3/2022 at 9:46 PM, pi3141 said:

If not, then the early Christian view that women were inferior according to the church is strongly attested to in many historical records.

 

Yet you say it is MY portrayal of history when I have shown sources and in fact its pretty common knowledge.

 

yes your perception of matters is skewed by your hatred for christianity

 

if you were more objective you would look at the world as less black and white and you'd see that the church has had many civilising effects and that instead of trying to demonise european civilisation you would be able to see that european christendom delivered rights and freedoms and opportunities to women far earlier than elsewhere and that as i said the beguines enjoyed many freedoms and protections even in the medieval times

 

that's the mature view of history not the petulant one

Edited June 5, 2022 by Macnamara

[pi3141]

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

yes your perception of matters is skewed by your hatred for christianity

 

Hatred? Have you seen my thread on Christianity?

 

 

I accept the teachings of the one we call Christ, to say I hate his teachings is to infer I hate Christ which is blatantly untrue.

 

I take exception with Christianity in that I think its followers like the Freemasons and others have been duped into following Paganism.

 

Thats what I dislike about Christianity.

 

But I don't hate Christianity and I don't hate Christians, I just think they are being misguided.

 

I could write much more, specifically about my supposed warped view of history and the many crimes the church have committed that you seem not to know about, but I can't be bothered, you won't listen. I looked at your Pirate thread, I see you referring to the Protocols conspiracy, I draw a conclusion about you from that, and I suspect my time would be wasted debating with you.

[oddsnsods]

There are videos out there about this Dallas gay club, turned grooming parlour, sexualizing young kids, im not going to bother posting, pretty disturbing.

 

 

 

 

[pi3141]

1 minute ago, oddsnsods said:

There are videos out there about this Dallas gay club, turned grooming parlour, sexualizing young kids, im not going to bother posting,

 

And I'm not going to disagree that sexualizing kids is wrong, very wrong.

[pi3141]

How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?

 

By Tom de Castella & Tom Heyden
BBC News Magazine

Published27 February 2014

 

The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?

 

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.

 

snip

 

PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for "children's sexuality". It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults "in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting 'under age' partners". The real aim was to normalise sex with children.

 

snip

 

One of PIE's key tactics was to try to conflate its cause with gay rights. On at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE's favour.

 

Most gay people were horrified by any conflation of homosexuality and a sexual interest in children, says Parris. But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements. "If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net."

 

snip

 

But during the 1980s, PIE came a cropper. Its notoriety grew in 1982 with the trial of Geoffrey Prime, who was both a KGB spy and a member of PIE. He was jailed for 32 years for passing on secrets from his job at GCHQ to the Soviet Union, and for a series of sex attacks on young girls.

 

 

Link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

 

[pi3141]

2 hours ago, Macnamara said:

yes your perception of matters is skewed by your hatred for christianity

 

that's the mature view of history not the petulant one

 

I have to say, when a poster resorts to baseless accusations and insults, I find they have generally lost the debate as they have nothing to offer but insults and accusations.

 

Anyway, lets look at your claim.

 

3 hours ago, Macnamara said:

as i said the beguines enjoyed many freedoms and protections even in the medieval times

 

So I looked, here's what I found.

 

 

The Beguines were inspired by the medieval quest for the apostolic life, led by Franciscan and Dominican monks in the burgeoning urban centres of 13th-century Europe. These mendicant friars believed true religious devotion required extreme poverty and asceticism. Lay involvement, too, was essential.

 

 

So asking people to live in extreme poverty while the Pope lived in extreme wealth is moral to you? An act of civilizing? An act of kindness?

 

These women were lucky because they were given 'some' protections and freedom, while the rest of the female population was subjected to a second class or lower status, considered inferior by the church, burnt at the stake as witches, and god knows what other crimes, but because a few women were allowed to live in extreme poverty by the church then it was actually a force for good?

 

Wow. 

[Macnamara]

26 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

So asking people to live in extreme poverty while the Pope lived in extreme wealth is moral to you? An act of civilizing? An act of kindness?

 

There are a number of problems with how you are trying to frame this

 

for example you are trying to create a strawman by implying that i am in defence of the pope or the vatican when i am not. This is what i was talking about when i mentioned a black or white view of things as if everything can be reduced down to such simple terms

 

If you are going to criticise europe nearly a millenia ago then i would say 'compared to what? Compared to what 1000 years ago was europe so terrible for women?'

 

You have to look at these things within a wider context and you have to view christianity in a more nuanced way because clearly it is not a monolithic thing otherwise there wouldn't have been so many schisms and a reformation. Clearly there were many ideas going around europe then as today and those ideas were in competition over the church and society itself.

 

So when we look at christianity in a more holistic way and also within the context of those times we can see that actually it was having certain civilising effects. Yes it didn't catapult europe in a short space of time into what today we might consider a 'liberal' society but you can see processes at work that led to a society that is pretty darn amazing for women

 

On one hand you could argue that women have things biologically stacked against them because they are physically weaker than men, as a rule, and also they have the wombs and the mammaries and therefore birthed the children and then breastfed them so when there was a child to be fed the woman invariably did it and when there was a team of oxen to be shackled to a plough to turn over a field the man invariably did it. So biology dictated a lot for much of history and the modern marxist feminist reductionism doesn't want to acknowledge that because it doesn't want to acknowledge that there exist any differences between men or women at all.

 

So yes in the past men did not carry the greater share of child rearing but on the flipside women also did not get conscripted or press ganged into armies and navies and sent off to be blown to pieces so there are pros and cons to each! History however has had a tendency to look at the big events such as battles and economic bubbles and social uphevals that have largely featured men and the sphere of the small in which women played a vital and HUGE role gets overlooked which frankly i think is a shame because i have an interest in that side of things in terms of the range of skills and knowledge people had in those days to make all their own food and clothes and buildings etc. That side of history is vital too but i also think that even in the big event stuff women would have been there shoulder to shoulder with men having their say in matters if not through the more visible channels such as parliaments and councils.

 

As for beguines living a life of poverty that is not correct as poor women could live on wages whilst wealthy beguines would pour their money into the cooperative venture but different beguines were different and were involved in different activities but they were not victorian workhouses, they were places that offered women choices, learning and opportunities to trade on a par with men.

 

26 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

These women were lucky because they were given 'some' protections and freedom, while the rest of the female population was subjected to a second class or lower status, considered inferior by the church, burnt at the stake as witches, and god knows what other crimes, but because a few women were allowed to live in extreme poverty by the church then it was actually a force for good?

 

well i'm not sure i see the witch burning situation as black and white as you do because the key text in scotland that fuelled that was 'daemonologie' which was written by james the 6th of scotland who i see as a freemasonic knights templar bloodline who outwardly would profess a show of christianity whilst inwardly being a practicising kabbalist

 

As for women having a 'second class status' i would once again have to say 'compared to what?' because men didn't have the vote until relatively recently either for example when the scottish parliament voted to merge with the english parliament the vote was made by the only people allowed into the parliament which is to say the landed aristocracy which i would again tie into templarism and freemasonry.

 

Average men were just working hard to feed their families whilst not being struck down by plague, famine or warfare

Edited June 5, 2022 by Macnamara

[TheConsultant]

@Macnamara you seem to be a wealth of knowledge on the occult, what do you know about The Royal Order of Jesters? is that why people call it clown world?

As I understand it you have to be a freemason in good standing to be invited in to become a Shriner, and a Shriner in good standing in order to be invited in to The Royal Order of Jesters but outside of that, its just a group I know nothing of except the name and of course many associate the shadow government as being occult societies.

Edited June 5, 2022 by TheConsultant

[Macnamara]

12 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

@Macnamara you seem to be a wealth of knowledge on the occult, what do you know about the Royal Order of Jesters? is that why people call it clown world?

 

i have to confess to knowing nothing about that

 

The only thing i do know is that jesters had the potential to play a very important role in the royal court because whilst everyone else was acting obsequiously towards the monarch to curry their favour a jester, alone, was the only person who was able to tell the monarch the hard truths about things

 

However the truth of course had to be delivered in verse and ideally cloaked in irreverent humour so as to make it more palatable. By telling the monarch the truth the jester did of course run the risk of ire of any court members who might be shown up by the revelations of the sacred clown. That is why the jester had to be afforded special protections.

 

Without the sacred clown the monarch had no other voice to listen to except a chorus of yes men/women telling them what they wanted to hear but not necessarily what they needed to hear. A very important role....but one requiring a deft hand

 

the native americans had a similar tribal figure:

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Macnamara

[TheConsultant]

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

i have to confess to knowing nothing about that

 

The only thing i do know is that jesters had the potential to play a very important role in the royal court because whilst everyone else was acting obsequiously towards the monarch to curry their favour a jester, alone, was the only person who was able to tell the monarch the hard truths about things

 

However the truth of course had to be delivered in verse and ideally cloaked in irreverent humour so as to make it more palatable. By telling the monarch the truth the jester did of course run the risk of ire of any court members who might be shown up by the revelations of the sacred clown. That is why the jester had to be afforded special protections.

 

Without the sacred clown the monarch had no other voice to listen to except a chorus of yes men/women telling them what they wanted to hear but not necessarily what they needed to hear. A very important role....but one requiring a deft hand

I wonder how many of those Jesters had accidents after their display? deft hand is an understatement, jeeze!

[Macnamara]

3 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

I wonder how many of those Jesters had accidents after their display? deft hand is an understatement, jeeze!

 

yes i dread to think what their shelflife was!

[TheConsultant]

2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

yes i dread to think what their shelflife was!

Ah damn, I am out of reactions, but I assume not much more than 1 performance?