'Two boys snogging was revolutionary': the greatest gay moments in cinema

[KarenBravo]

1 minute ago, Mr Dome said:

Your wording suggests you grapple with the meaning of words such as "racism". I'd get that straightened out (pun intended), first.

 

Not at all. Why is one scenario racist and the other not?

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

 

That doesn't answer my question. I'll make it easier for you.

 

Majority is told by minority what words to use = Okay.

Minority is told by majority what words to say = Not okay.

 

Why?

Instead of the insult that I ask "clueless" questions, how about giving me a thoughtful, rational answer?

Nice try at baiting spin. You got my answer already. It's OK if you don't like it.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Jingthing

[KarenBravo]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Nice try at spin. You got my answer already.

 

That wasn't an answer as you well know. At least be honest.

[Mr Dome]

Just now, KarenBravo said:

 

Not at all. Why is one scenario racist and the other not?

What's the concrete example? Can't answer without knowing more details. You clearly do have problems in that area. We need context here.

 

[Neeranam]

On 3/21/2021 at 3:34 PM, Mr Dome said:

It's pretty normal within the male gay community to refer to each other as "boys". It obvioulsy doesn't mean someone underage.

 

How many times do people say "girls/boys room" to refer to the restroom? Or "girls will be girls/boys will be boys" when referring to obvious adults and nobody ever throws a fit like you did?

 

The bad you see is in your mind. Plus dictating to a minority what words to use. Some posts maybe need a warning label or enough context to understand it. "B!tch, I can't (facepalm) ... Your post simon43 was rotten & homophobic to the core.

Oh dear, using the minority card again. 

Sadly, we can't say what we think anymore. 

What nonsense. 

[Neeranam]

On 3/22/2021 at 12:57 AM, Jingthing said:

The blossoming of Queer Cinema (and golden age of television Queer stuff) has been one of the great joys of my life. 

 

But it's sad to hear the homophobic posts here. Nobody is making anyone watch anything they don't want to watch. 

Criticizing certain homosexual behaviors is not homophobic. 

Is criticizing hetorosexual behavior hetreophobic?

[Mr Dome]

1 minute ago, Neeranam said:

Oh dear, using the minority card again. 

Sadly, we can't say what we think anymore. 

What nonsense. 

Well, what is it that you wish to say about this topic? You haven't said anything yet but are already bemoaning the fact that you can't say it.

I've already written that nobody has to like it or watch it but you still feel the need to have a go at me. Why?

 

One just cannot win with you people unless you call the shots and nothing changes.

 

 

[KarenBravo]

1 minute ago, Mr Dome said:

What's the concrete example? Can't answer without knowing more details. You clearly do have problems in that area. We need context here.

 

 

You don't need any context whatsoever.

I'll try and make it even simpler by condensing it down to the fundamental idea.

 

If a minority says something and wants the majority to say the same thing it is considered okay.

When a majority says something and wants the minority to say the same thing it is considered not okay, even though it is the exact same action.

Why?

[Neeranam]

1 minute ago, Mr Dome said:

Well, what is it that you wish to say about this topic? You haven't said anything yet but are already bemoaning the fact that you can't say it.

I've already written that nobody has to like it or watch it but you still feel the need to have a go at me. Why?

 

One just cannot win with you people unless you call the shots and nothing changes.

 

 

You people?

 

 

[Mr Dome]

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Criticizing certain homosexual behaviors is not homophobic. 

Is criticizing hetorosexual behavior hetreophobic?

Like what specifically?

 

We've already discussed that "boys/z" here has as much to do with children as a group of adult females calling it "a girl's night out" does.

 

Does it need to be pointed out that it was *the ThaiVisa News Team via the Guardian* that had chosen that wording in the thread title?

If you're not happy about that, why not have a go at them?

[RJRS1301]

On 3/17/2021 at 10:28 PM, Thailand said:

As long as it's not compulsory!

Manners to wait until you are asked ???? ????????

[Neeranam]

1 minute ago, Mr Dome said:

Like what specifically?

 

We've already discussed that "boys/z" here has as much to do with children as a group of adult females calling it "a girl's night out" does.

 

Does it need to be pointed out that it was *the ThaiVisa News Team via the Guardian* that had chosen that wording in the thread title?

If you're not happy about that, why not have a go at them?

What are you talking about "boys"? I have no issue with the title.  

I have no intention of having a debate when I am limited to what I can or can't say. 

[Mr Dome]

15 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

 

You don't need any context whatsoever.

I'll try and make it even simpler by condensing it down to the fundamental idea.

 

If a minority says something and wants the majority to say the same thing it is considered okay.

When a majority says something and wants the minority to say the same thing it is considered not okay, even though it is the exact same action.

Why?

- No, I think context is necessary here. Sorry but we disagree too much here.

- You're also off topic with the racism.

- I can't think of a case where a minority *only* tells a majority what words to use. It appears, what you really mean is what words NOT to use but that won't fit your wording.

 

So, sorry, I'm out of this discussion.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Mr Dome
typo fixed

[Mr Dome]

5 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

What are you talking about "boys"? I have no issue with the title.  

I have no intention of having a debate when I am limited to what I can or can't say. 

Sorry, I expect you to have followed the thread. If you're not willing to read the older posts why even respond?

 

I have asked you what you wish to say and your reaction is claiming to be limited to what you can say.

Twisting much?

Edited March 23, 2021 by Mr Dome
addition; typo corrected

[KarenBravo]

20 minutes ago, Mr Dome said:

- No, I think context is necessary here. Sorry but we disagree too much here.

- You're also off topic with the racism.

- I can't think of a case where a minority *only* tells a majrity what words to use. So, sorry, I'm out of this discussion.

 

I'll simplify it even more.

Why is a minority allowed to do what the majority is not allowed to do?

Edited March 23, 2021 by KarenBravo

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

 

I'll simplify it even more.

Why is a minority allowed to do what the majority is not allowed to do?

I call B.S.

All people are "allowed" to say whatever they want.

But nobody is protected from consequences of what they say.

I see the insipid game that you're playing.  Its that tired canard that minorities are demanding special rights.

Its not true.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Mr Dome said:

Sorry, I expect you to have followed the thread. If you're not willing to read the older posts why even respond?

 

I have asked you what you wish to say and your reaction is claiming to be limited to what you can say.

Twisting much?

Right wingers seem to love to play the fake victim card these days. It may be all that they've got.

[KarenBravo]

Insult the poster rather than the post because you know the answer but, you don't like it.

I am very far from being a right-winger.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, KarenBravo said:

Insult the poster rather than the post because you know the answer but, you don't like it.

I am very far from being a right-winger.

You could have fooled me considering the way that you attack minorities.

[KarenBravo]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You could have fooled me considering the way that you attack minorities.

 

Please show me where I have attacked a minority? You're being dishonest and sticking labels on me.

How would you feel if I did the same to you?

 

My own position on this can be summed up as "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

 

If it's okay for the minority to tell the majority what to say, then it's okay for the majority to tell the minority what to say. Personally, I think this is wrong, so I go with the other option.

It is wrong for either party to tell the other what to say.

 

See, no context needed for an answer to such a simple question.

Edited March 23, 2021 by KarenBravo

[simon43]

KarenBravo, you'll get no reasoned argument from JT and Mr Dome, save your breath ????

 

And JT/Mr Dome, it might surprise or shock you to know that I'm bisexual, you know - attracted to males as well as females.  My so-called homophobic comments about not liking overtly-sexual activities displayed in public applies to both gay and straight partners.  It's unnecessary and often intend to shock others or create controversy.  For both straight and gay, I say again 'get a room!!'

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

KarenBravo, you'll get no reasoned argument from JT and Mr Dome, save your breath ????

 

And JT/Mr Dome, it might surprise or shock you to know that I'm bisexual, you know - attracted to males as well as females.  My so-called homophobic comments about not liking overtly-sexual activities displayed in public applies to both gay and straight partners.  It's unnecessary and often intend to shock others or create controversy.  For both straight and gay, I say again 'get a room!!'

Yeah, you're bisexual. That's the ticket. And I'm a Scientologist.  Ever heard of Internalized homophobia?

Edited March 23, 2021 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

 

Please show me where I have attacked a minority? You're being dishonest and sticking labels on me.

How would you feel if I did the same to you?

 

My own position on this can be summed up as "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

 

If it's okay for the minority to tell the majority what to say, then it's okay for the majority to tell the minority what to say. Personally, I think this is wrong, so I go with the other option.

It is wrong for either party to tell the other what to say.

 

See, no context needed for an answer to such a simple question.

Its the opposite of a simple question. It's a LOADED question. 

 

It's the kind of loaded fake sincere question you would expect from the likes of Tucker Carlson.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Jingthing

[KarenBravo]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Its the opposite of a simple question. It's a LOADED question. 

 

......and my attacking a minority? Can't you show where I did that?

Nah! Didn't think so. Demonstrably dishonest.

 

You seem to be like all the other SJWs. No dissenting opinions allowed. Shut them down with cries of racist and homophobic and hope it sticks.

This stupid stance can be seen in many universities......especially in the States.

These people don't seem to realize that Democracy is a market place of different ideas. The good get adopted and the bad fall by the wayside. Therefore, attempting to silence people's views is anti-democratic and smells of autocracy and dictatorship.

I really have nothing more to add

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

 

......and my attacking a minority? Can't you show where I did that?

Nah! Didn't think so. Demonstrably dishonest.

 

You seem to be like all the other SJWs. No dissenting opinions allowed. Shut them down with cries of racist and homophobic and hope it sticks.

This stupid stance can be seen in many universities......especially in the States.

These people don't seem to realize that Democracy is a market place of different ideas. The good get adopted and the bad fall by the wayside. Therefore, attempting to silence people's views is anti-democratic and smells of autocracy and dictatorship.

I really have nothing more to add

You've got all the buzzwords of resentment. You accuse me of labeling. Look in the mirror!

 

BTW I'm not trying to shut anyone down. That's you projecting. I clearly said anyone can say what they want but that doesn’t mean that they will be free of consequences for what they say.

.

[simon43]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, you're bisexual. That's the ticket. And I'm a Scientologist.  Ever heard of Internalized homophobia?

Yes of course. I'm very happy with my own sexuality, and I have no need to put that sexuality overtly on public show.  A peck on the cheek is fine for either gender that I might be attracted to.

 

Note that my 'disdain' is for others of whatever sexual persuasion to make overt, public displays of that sexuality.  I have no wish to watch 2 men snogging whilst eating my Cadbury's Walnut Whip.  Nor do I want to see a straight couple with their tongues down each other's throats whilst I'm eating a Curly Wurly...  It's totally unnecessary, unless they are trying to elicit some form of response.

 

[Jingthing]

Just now, simon43 said:

Yes of course. I'm very happy with my own sexuality, and I have no need to put that sexuality overtly on public show.  A peck on the cheek is fine for either gender that I might be attracted to.

 

Note that my 'disdain' is for others of whatever sexual persuasion to make overt, public displays of that sexuality.  I have no wish to watch 2 men snogging whilst eating my Cadbury's Walnut Whip.  Nor do I want to see a straight couple with their tongues down each other's throats whilst I'm eating a Curly Wurly...  It's totally unnecessary, unless they are trying to elicit some form of response.

 

The topic is about queer cinema.

It's not about public life. That's a different topic.

 

Do you think queer cinema  should exclude depictions of sexual situations that you have stated that you don't want to see in public in real life?

[simon43]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The topic is about queer cinema.

It's not about public life. That's a different topic.

 

Do you think queer cinema  should exclude depictions of sexual situations that you have stated that you don't want to see in public in real life?

People have a choice to go and watch such movies - they will presumably be aware that a movie of this kind may depict sexual situations, in the same way that a film of Lady Chatterley's Lover will probably include straight sexual situations.  But in both cases, the age advisory to watch that film should take into account the level of overtly sexual depictions.  (Kids will probably be deeply bored watching anyone snogging...)

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

People have a choice to go and watch such movies - they will presumably be aware that a movie of this kind may depict sexual situations, in the same way that a film of Lady Chatterley's Lover will probably include straight sexual situations.  But in both cases, the age advisory to watch that film should take into account the level of overtly sexual depictions.  (Kids will probably be deeply bored watching anyone snogging...)

 

Not all countries have age advisories but yes people have a choice about the movies or t.v. shows that they watch.

[Jingthing]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:15 AM, simon43 said:

I don't see 2 boys snogging.  I see 2 adult men snogging.

Isn't it time the gay community stopped mis-labelling adult gay men as boys.  I suspect it's done to titillate and to suggest under-age sexual acts with 'boys'.

Not good at all.  Put your house in order.????

An inflammatory attempt to manufacture a fake controversy. A classic homophobic trope to associate gay people with pedos.

 

It was obviously just a flippant headline and you know full well young men straight or gay are often called boys and then there are the old boys 

 

But anyway thanks for the mansplaining.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Jingthing