Charles #fundie #homophobia #biphobia

Charles #fundie #homophobia #biphobia christiannews.net

Here's some actual truth as opposed to your propaganda.

The Numbers

New HIV Infectionsb

• In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

HIV and AIDS Diagnosesc

• In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.

• In 2013, gay and bisexual men accounted for 55% of the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS among all adults and adolescents in the United States. Of the estimated 14,611 gay and bisexual men diagnosed with AIDS, 40% were blacks/African Americans; 32% were whites; and 23% were Hispanics/Latinos.

• By the end of 2011, an estimated 311,087 gay and bisexual men with AIDS had died in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic, representing 47% of all deaths of persons with AIDS.

• In 2011, CDC data showed that 80.6% of MSM with diagnosed HIV infection were linked to care, 57.5% were retained in care, 52.9% were prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 44.6% had achieved viral suppression.

Sounds much more like a Homosexual issue than a Heterosexual one.. Remember the Homosexual population isn't more than 2 percent.

50 comments

old comment by Thinking Allowed

...and in the rest of the world...

World Health Organization's statistics link

Global situation and trends:

Since the beginning of the epidemic, almost 71 million people have been infected with the HIV virus and about 34 million people have died of HIV.

Globally, 36.9 million [34.341.4 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2014.

An estimated 0.8% [0.7-0.9%] of adults aged 1549 years worldwide are living with HIV, although the burden of the epidemic continues to vary considerably between countries and regions.

Sub-Saharan Africa remains most severely affected, with nearly 1 in every 20 adults (4.8%) living with HIV and accounting for nearly 70% of the people living with HIV worldwide.

old comment by Tenpenny

I don't see what you're objecting to. Anal sex is an order of magnitude more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex and that is the preferred type of sex for gay males.

First tell the truth then give your opinion. If you want to argue that anal sex is a moral non-issue regardless of the risks be my guest, I agree since I'm not in the business of dictating to people what personal risk threshold they should and should not find acceptable. If you have determined the outcome outweighs the risk go for it.

But don't be a PC idiot and pretend that it's just as safe as vaginal sex. It's actually not safe even if you take HIV out of the equation and it might actually get worse over time as different bacteria adapt to antibiotics. So you're not actually doing gays any favor by lying about the risks.

@Kanna

I don't know how accurate the exact numbers Charles gave are, but I saw similar numbers straight from the CDC's site a while ago.

The idea that facts are homophobic or racist is retarded, unless you believe there's a vast conspiracy to deliberately infect gays or blacks with HIV. Why the rates are higher for blacks (in the US) I have no idea, there are various conditions and diseases that affect blacks more than whites (or whites more than blacks for that matter so this goes both ways), so I'm not even going to claim that's it's necessarily something that's their fault, I'm not a doctor but maybe you could look into it rather than complain when you don't like the numbers like a stupid social justice warrior who hates reality and facts.

@nazani14

No, it's a general problem in African countries, probably due to poor/no sex ed and lack of condoms, poor hygiene, poor healthcare and the fact that they've had HIV for a longer time than the US but haven't dealt with it as well as the US has.

Why the fuck are you comparing apples to oranges? It still doesn't change the fact that given the SAME country, SAME laws, SAME borders, SAME standard of living etc. gay males still get HIV far more often than straight males do.

I know you think you're "helping" gays by obscuring these facts, but you're actually doing a lot of damage by pretending that the risks of vaginal sex and anal sex are exactly the same, all other things being equal. Even if HIV didn't exist, it would still be riskier due to how easy it is to tear the insides - no natural lubrication, LOTS of bacteria from fecal matter, weaker layer of skin. (It's actually so risky that condoms are recommended at all times EVEN if both partners are healthy and monogamous.)

Not saying you should or should not do this, but be serious about the risks because they're not equal to oral or vaginal.

old comment by Skidie

@Tenpenny:

Pretty much anywhere I`ve checked it`s common knowledge that anal sex is basically somewhat more risky and hence requires better protection. It has nothing to do with the orientation of folks practicing it so there is nothing to mention. You however forgot to mention that the risk is only for unprotected sex, using the right procedures anal is as safe as any other sex act.

I know you try to throw numbers here like a big boy but numbers are just numbers. They don`t say what the problem is, which one could easily ascribe to the lack of sexual education in schools and the lack of easy acces to protection. Contrary to what you might belive most gay kids are as clueless as their hetero counterparts when it comes top their first few times, with the sex ed being what it is.

old comment by Tenpenny

@Skidie

Somewhat? No, try 10 times riskier or more. Stop misleading people as to the risks, you're not doing them any favors.

"It has nothing to do with the orientation of folks practicing it so there is nothing to mention."

That would in theory be true except most gay men practice it and most straight couples don't, not to mention that they aren't in sexual contact with members of a population that has the same rate of HIV infection. So even having anal sex with a(n American) woman would be less of a risk than having anal sex with a(n American) gay man, though both would be far riskier than vaginal sex.

You could try to think for a moment rather than push PC nonsense.

"The large percentage of gay and bisexual men living with HIV means that, as a group, gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of being exposed to HIV. Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV and that HIV prevalence increased with increasing age."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

First tell the truth then give your opinion. You can choose to take a risk or not, but you cannot deny that the risk exists and is on the level that it is.

"You however forgot to mention that the risk is only for unprotected sex, using the right procedures anal is as safe as any other sex act."

And that's not entirely true either. Condoms have a certain failure chance and it's going to affect you more if it breaks inside an ass than if it breaks inside a vagina. Also condoms don't protect you from your ass rupturing (the butt doesn't stretch as well as a vagina), you need lube too, and you need to know wtf you're doing because biology didn't exactly make it for sex. You're lucky it even works as good as it does.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Everyone

Even Stevie Wonder can see that Tuppenceha'penny = FSTDT Doesn't Lie/FSTDT Doesn't Suck/Nameless Coward/Aunty-FSTDT.

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117908&Page=2#1930402

@#1930402

"@Nameless Coward

I have to realize that such bad politics affect me as well, not just the idiotic leftists who welcome this 5th column with open arms.

But you're confident Drumpf will win, right? So why are you worried about what "idiotic" leftists do? If he wins, our opinion won't matter anymore!

Unless... You're afraid Trump won't win, so you decide to take care of your insecurity by going to websites full of leftists and ruthlessly attacking them! Yes! It all makes sense now!"

This neocunt retard is basically triggered by FSTDT. This place is too left-wing for your precious sensitivities? Of course, friend. Make your own site if you don't like it here.

If it pleases the court, I would like to submit Exhibits A:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117772

@Nameless Coward

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102375

(OP): 'in a democracy, it’s only a matter of time before everyone comes to believe that everything affects them directly'

Speaking as a straight man, what two consenting adults - who happen to be of the same gender - doesn't affect me in the slightest. Question: how do they - and they given equal legal rights as per heterosexual couples - personally affect you? Oh, and subjective feelings of squickiness at the thought of mano-a-mano by you not allowed. Excuses such as that can never be justified. Otherwise your irrational homophobia is showing.

...oh, and in a democracy - such as Ireland - it's only a matter of time before the majority comes to the conclusion that irrational thinking can never be justified. Ever. And if it takes legislation - via the majority in a democracy - to force the homophobes to get over their unjustifiable irrational thinking, and realise that they're not personally affected by mano-a-mano - then why do you hate America?

Inalienable rights. With Liberty and Justice for ALL.

PROTIP: Charlie 'Manslut' Sheen:

image

Straight people can become HIV+, don't forget.

...and B:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=115402&Page=2#1896028

(After being asked by me if he'd ever had any Gay Impulses):

@Anti-FSTDT (= FSTDT Doesn't Lie, FSTDT Doesn't Suck, Nameless Coward, Tuppenceha'penny)

"One time Moose. It doesn't count. It was one time"

The prosecution rests.

But don't be a Mac idiot and an Armoured Closet Case, 2½p.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Have you ever had any Gay Impulses, Tuppenceha'penny?

Speaking as a straight man, I can answer that extremely easily: No.

...but then, the only way you can refuse to say 'Yes' or 'No' is by admitting you've never had sex. And never will. That's what everyone will realise by your refusal to answer that simple question with a simpler 'Yes' or 'No'.

(Oh, and in b4 'Loaded Question'; we on FSTDT have never beaten/raped our wives. Why should we?)

And I have sex with the lady in my life at least twice a week, so yes, I do Get Fucked. Also, Durex condoms, which I've never had any problems with whatsoever (but then, we've had the tests to prove we're completely clean); ribbed, for her pleasure, natch.

I'd say 'Get Fucked' in return, but I suspect that's something 'off topic' for you. Unless of course, you can answer the simple question 'Have you ever had any Gay Impulses?' with an even simpler 'Yes' or 'No'. Which I can answer extremely easily: No.

Your call.

But then, I refer you to here: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=118677&Page=1#1940320

Your need to show up there - like an unwanted genital wart - is very telling.

As NonProphet says on the next page: 'So we have strawmen, non-sequiturs, ignorance of law & legal terms (with a dose of Dunning-Kruger, I suspect), Ayn Rand, and MRA ideology, all mixed into a big bowl of fail. Well done.'

The only question that should be asked, I guess is this: If you've never had sex - nor will you ever - why should you care about the effects of STDs/Feminism or whatever you perceive to personally affect you?

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102375

(OP): 'in a democracy, it’s only a matter of time before everyone comes to believe that everything affects them directly'

old comment by Tenpenny

@Zachski

You could have googled it you know, or you could have used some common sense, how many straight couples do you know that regularly engage in this sort of thing? How many women in your life engage in it AND engage in it regularly?

The left teaches you not to think as usual.

http://kinseyconfidential.org/common-anal-sex-heterosexual-couples

"The little research that has been conducted suggests that about one-fourth of heterosexual-identified women and men have had anal sex, but that doesn’t mean that one-fourth of heterosexual couples have anal sex regularly. In fact, research suggests that only about 10% of women and men have had anal sex in the past year."

Here's what Puff Ho, oops, Huff Po had to say, and keep in mind this is a very left-wing source that has a vested interest in never saying anything negative about anything that is even remotely related to the gay community:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/anal-sex-heterosexual-couples-report_n_1190440.html

"The report, titled “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States,” which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives."

44% unfortunately for you is:

1. a minority
2. it doesn't mean that people engage in it regularly, one time in college doesn't matter in the long scheme of things and yet the research would have to include those people too

Here's an interesting statement about the left-wing insane asylum known as Sweden:

sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/anal_sex_stats.htm

"In a 1996 survey of Swedish women aged 18 to 74, about 20 percent of women overall reported having engaged in anal sex--specifically, 28 percent of 25 to 34 year-olds and 2 percent of 66 to 74 year-olds."

Guess they're just not liberated enough or something. And 1996 sorry, not that long ago.

Here's another thing you can try. Go to any escort website, how many straight women do you see there that are willing to engage in anal sex? Even with payment a lot of them just don't include it in the services.

My point isn't that anal sex is immoral, I just hate the political correctness attached to it and how leftists treat it as if it's not a big deal. When you deliberately lie to people about the risks involved (either by understating them or obscuring them), you're not doing them any favors, you're not being compassionate, you're not being tolerant, you're just being a jackass.

old comment by Tenpenny

@Swede

"And your source is...?"

Clicking that CDC link is hard. Or in this case copy/pasting it I guess since I didn't bother to make it clickable.

"Straight men run a lower risk of being infected by HIV than
gay/bisexual men."

Much.

"In women, it's the other way around; straight women run a higher risk of contracting HIV than gay/bisexual women."

Strictly lesbian women yeah. Bi, I doubt it, but it's kinda off-topic.

"It's all about how large an area is exposed to the virus."

Area size has nothing to do with it, do you mean how much percentage of the population is exposed to it? That's a factor but it's not the only factor, the other part is the type of sex you engage in.

"Most people died in the beginning of the epidemic, when it was mostly gay people affected. Now, it's not considered a deadly disease any more, with the modern medications."

Very expensive medication I might add. Don't treat the issue lightly. Seriously how old are you? You honestly think it's no big deal because of medication? Like, even with medication, you're in for a very rough ride when you grow older. And you better hope that you don't get some kind of mutated strain that beats existing medication.

https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/education-materials/fact-sheets/21/56/drug-resistance

"In Africa, it's mostly straight people getting HIV, which is helped along with the Pope stating that condoms cause HIV. The US has about 322 million people, Africa has 1,1 billion people."

Again comparing apples to oranges. Africa doesn't have the same conditions that the US does or that Europe does etc. It's much poorer, much less educated and the governments are far more corrupt.

So why is it that within the SAME cultural and material context (gay US citizens have exactly the same access to condoms for example as straight US citizens) you are an order of magnitude more likely to get HIV as a gay man? 2% of the population apparently account for most new infections in a year. But I guess it's "bigotry" now merely to state facts.

If it's one thing the left did right is convince people to suspend their mental faculties and convince them that doing so is somehow "rational" and "compassionate".

Regarding the Pope comments, HIV was already rampant in Africa before the Pope made those comments so I doubt it had any measurable impact. They were reckless comments that never should have been made, but to attribute the crisis to them is stupid.

(Should ALSO take into account as one factor that different diseases affect blacks and whites at different rates. Some things affect whites more, some affect blacks more. That I think contributes more than the Pope comments.)

old comment by creativerealms

Tenpenny is no MRA, he's just a right winger who things everyone left of Sarah Palin is a SJW regressive progressive who lies out of their asses.

Now he is not wrong, he is right that Anal sex is more dangerous and that yes while straight people ingadge in it its the main sexual activity of homosexuals. He's really not wrong here it's just his anti libtard attitude makes him out as an ass.

Here is the thing. When these people bring up the dangers of homosexuality they do so to ban it, to villinize it and criminalize it. Yet pointing out the dangers in this case does not bother me as much as saying things like all gays are pedophiles, the average homosexual has had over 100 lovers in a year and other such crap as that.

When people post stuff like this it's to say "it's unsafe so it's evil." Yet they only do that with something they don't like. They are no better then anti gun people.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@#1943326, Tuppenceha'penny

But then, why are you so worried about getting a dose, when you know you'll never get any to be able to catch Gonorrhoea Crabs & the Clap?

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102375

(OP): 'in a democracy, it’s only a matter of time before everyone comes to believe that everything affects them directly'

Why do you care? Two people of the same gender getting married? Doesn't affect me.

A racist subhuman retard with ideas above his station - who has the slang term for 'Fart' for a surname - getting his hands on 'The Button'? That affects everyone.

And Chuckie here being designated a Fundie? Better ask those who passed the initial submitted quote. If it's good enough for them...!

Perceived 'Bias' here in FSTDT? Of course, friendo. Make your own site if you don't like it here.

Otherwise, force Free Repubic, Faux News, World Nut Daily etc to be [i]left[/i]-wing.

old comment by Tenpenny

@creativerealms

"Here is the thing. When these people bring up the dangers of homosexuality they do so to ban it, to villinize it and criminalize it."

They might have an agenda but it doesn't mean that what they're bringing up isn't accurate. In fact if liberal sources are all you read, this kind of information would never come up.

As for "villinizing it", there are people who are completely against any kind of premarital sex, I don't consider them bigots, those values aren't for me as I have a higher level of risk that I'm willing to tolerate.

"Yet pointing out the dangers in this case does not bother me as much as saying things like all gays are pedophiles, the average homosexual has had over 100 lovers in a year and other such crap as that."

There's definitely no way no how 100% of them can be pedophiles, but I wouldn't be surprised about the last part, that has more to do with male nature than something inherent to homosexual men. I can assure you there is no shortage of straight men who would sleep with 100 women in a year if that was possible on a large scale. Women prefer commitment more though.

What do you think is going to happen when both sides are male and there are no females in the equation to counter-balance the level of promiscuity many young males are open to? Use your common sense.

I know it's shocking for the left, but men and women are in fact different on many levels. This is one of them.

old comment by Tenpenny

@brazenTyrant

So he's racist because someone unrelated to him is possibly racist (or possibly just being a jerk). That's not how it works.

"Donald Trump supporters taunted and called for violence against a number of protesters at a tense rally in Las Vegas Monday night, reports from the scene say."

Doesn't mean they did it for racist reasons though.

"BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins took a short video in which one man can be heard shouting "light the motherfucker on fire" as a black protester is being removed from the premises:"

Ah let's forget the amount of times some kid in a game chat shouted "die in a fire noob". I didn't realize I was actually black and the kid was really a racist.

"NBC's Benjy Sarlin says that one individual shouted the Nazi greeting "Sieg Heil" in the area of the same protester. Sarlin wrote that "Trump took the interruptions in stride and complained that they were the only way to get media outlets to turn their cameras towards his crowds to show off their size.""

OMG! This is possibly one of the biggest FSTDT fails in recently years, it has long since stopped quoting actual people and now just quotes news sources who claim to quote other people. Go to the source:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-audience-member-yells-nazi-salute-protester-removed-las-vegas-n480056
"A large middle aged man shouted, "Sieg heil!" a Nazi Germany-era salute as the protester was taken away. The man, whose motives were not clear, was far enough from the stage that it was unlikely Trump heard the remark."

Seeing the video myself, I can 100% guarantee you that Trump couldn't have possibly heard it either. But it doesn't matter. The idea that he's responsible for what some third party does is ludicrous. Otherwise by your own standards Bernie Sanders is a communist because he ignores his own radical supporters.

It's funny that the supposed "quote" is attributed to "Donald Trump and supporters". The quote isn't actually something Trump said but what Slate says that some other people (Trump not included) said.

You might as well be attributing it to "Obama, Godzilla, The Lochness Monster, The Tooth Fairy, Donald Trump and supporters". But typical shit propaganda site. Oh well.

Bottom line is, you have utterly failed to prove that Trump is racist. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

It's actually not even that clear if the guy shouting Sieg Heil is a real racist, a troll or an asshole who will say anything to provoke people. I don't assume that if some noob in game chat says "go fuck your mother" that he literally promoting incest either, I assume it's an angry asshole.

old comment by creativerealms

Tenpenny I hate generalization. Yes men and women are different, it is stupid to claim they are the same. Yet here you go claiming all men are the same. They are not. Now while the idea that a man can sleep with hundreds of women in a year is possible I highly doubt it's common and yet with homosexuals that's what people think is common.

Now back to generalizations everyone is different and should be treated as such. Just because in general say man are less loyal then woman it does not mean that some men are not just as loyal. Generalizations are meant to be defied, the people who defy them are the ones who stand out and do great things.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Tuppenceha'penny

Eliminating the racist elements from his support base.

If he doesn't, therefore Donald Fart IS as racist as they are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-students-thrown-out-of-donald-trumps-rally-speak-out-a6912431.html

Why didn't he welcome those 30 black students onto the stage at that rally in that Georgia college? And have arrested for Hate Crimes anyone in the crowd who so much as looked at them funny?

Donald Fart not racist, you say? Three letters: N.B.C.

Anti-Fart propaganda here in FSTDT? Of course, friendo. Make your own site if you don't like it here.

Otherwise, force Free Repubic, Faux News & World Nut Daily to be left-wing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/ths-many-ways-in-which-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/

image

Also, Donald Fart. He's good at changing his mind. He decrying the corrupt politicians in the pockets of big business. Because he - like all right-wingers who have superior morals; because of course all you rightists are supposed to be 'superior' to us, otherwise why isn't the world exactly as you would wish it?, and rock-solid unchanging conservative* convictions - would never be hypocritical, amirite?!

*- In the Oxford English Dictionary, 'Conservative' is defined as 'Averse to rapid change'. Your God-Emperor Wiggy flip-flops more than Mitt Romney in a sandal factory.

old comment by Tenpenny

@creativerealms

I didn't say men are the same, it's all about averages and patterns here. There are various external factors that diminish predisposition to sleep around, like religious beliefs or refusal to take the risk that comes with having that many partners in a year. Or just being a relationship.

"Now while the idea that a man can sleep with hundreds of women in a year is possible I highly doubt it's common and yet with homosexuals that's what people think is common."

It's not common because there isn't an equally large pool of equally promiscuous women to go around. Not even comparable. They prefer commitment so that acts like a counter-balance in the heterosexual scene.

You don't get that counter-balance in the gay male scene. It's just guys after guys. You know what happens when you "let men be men" and rarely if ever say no. So I don't know why those numbers are so shocking to you.

old comment by Tenpenny

@creativerealms

"Trump has a way with words and his attitude that draws biggots and racists to him."

Bigots and racists are drawn to Trump because he's the closest ideologically to them. But that's not saying much. New York is closer to London than Los Angeles and they're still an ocean apart. It doesn't matter what your starting point is, if your intention is to swim all the way to London from America, you will never ever ever get there alive.

Racists are welcome to support Trump all they want, he will never make the US the kind of country they want, he won't bring back slavery, he won't bring back Jim Crow, he won't shut the border, he is not Hitler, he is not Mussolini, he's not radical. All he'll do is make some adjustment to immigration policies so it's actually in favor of US interests rather than against. Nobody has any use for illegal immigrants with disproportionate crime rates and problems (they shouldn't be there in the first place, Trump merely promises to enforce the law and it's a sad state of affairs that law enforcement is actually a presidential debate with the left arguing that immigration laws should simply be ignored) and barely literate refugees who think theocracy is the best form of government, sorry. There's gotta be a filter, you can't let everyone in.

Who cares? Bernie Sanders has his own radicals. Every communist who hates America is drawn to him and he's a lot more cozy with the far left than Trump is with the far right. Check his past and the kind of people he shared platforms with.

Why is nobody asking Bernie Sanders to condemn his own radical supporters? Communists killed about as many people as Nazis did and WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more than the KKK or the slave holders ever did.

old comment by brazenTyrant

@Tenpenny
"BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins took a short video in which one man can be heard shouting "light the motherfucker on fire" as a black protester is being removed from the premises:"

Ah let's forget the amount of times some kid in a game chat shouted "die in a fire noob". I didn't realize I was actually black and the kid was really a racist.
Oh my god.
Have you ever heard of context? Ever?
You see, context is an important feature of human communication whereby a phrase changes meaning depending on the environment in which it is used. For instance, if the captain of the other team in a soccer game tells you 'We're going to fuck you up!' that's banter. On the other hand, if a group of men surround you in a dark alley and say the same words, it would be a lot more threatening, because the context is different.
In the example you give, the person shouting at you is a 'kid,' smaller than you and younger than you. If he threatened you, you could almost certainly defend yourself. Furthermore, you're nowhere near each other, so neither of you can actually do anything to the other anyway. Lastly, you're competing on the internet, so a certain amount of anger at the other side is expected. In the context of the game, 'die in a fire' is banter.
Let's compare that to the rally. In this case, it's a black man surrounded by a group of white men. All of them are angry at him, and they are physically restraining him. He cannot fight back because he is surrounded by a crowd of people who are physically threatening him. In that case, 'light him on fire' is an actual credible threat. Even if they aren't capable of burning him, they are easily capable of inflicting physical violence against him.
Furthermore, if you can't understand why a mob of white Americans manhandling a black man while screaming death threats is racist, please read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States. I'm sure you'll find plenty of further reading.

old comment by Tenpenny

@brazenTyrant

Uh, it could possibly be third degree assault if the person bothered to make a complaint, similar to that stupid SJW Melissa Click who called for "muscle to get this reporter out of here", maybe it would stand up in court, maybe not.

But even if you won, racial bias still wouldn't be confirmed. And it still wouldn't be Trump's doing.

"Furthermore, if you can't understand why a mob of white Americans manhandling a black man while screaming death threats is racist"

Probably for the same reasons that a mob of white Americans manhandling a white man while screaming death threats wouldn't be racist.

There are blacks who like Trump. There are whites who really don't. What makes you so sure they wouldn't have acted this way with a white anti-Trump protester (or should I say disruptor in this case, all they're doing is trying to shout him down, they're not actually challenging any of his views)

old comment by brazenTyrant

@Tenpenny
Putting your hands over your eyes and shouting "I can't see it! I can't see it!" won't make racism go away.
Since you clearly didn't bother to read the page I linked, I'll summarise.
America has a massive history of mob violence by white men against black men. Most of these incidents featured a gang of furious white men grabbing a black man, pushing or dragging him around, screaming at him, threatening to kill him, and then hanging or burning him. All of these incidents were racially motivated. Now, we are seeing an incident coming along, in a group which has an existing history of racism, where a black man is being grabbed and pushed around with a person threatening to burn him. I cannot possibly believe you don't see any connection here.

old comment by Tenpenny

@brazenTyrant

"Now, we are seeing an incident coming along, in a group which has an existing history of racism, where a black man is being grabbed and pushed around with a person threatening to burn him. I cannot possibly believe you don't see any connection here."

That "group" (i.e. Trump supporters) is not a monolithic group. We support Trump to different extents for different reasons. Some Trump supporters are black too, you can see them in the footage of the rallies.

People are angry with the agitators who try to shout down Trump, not with any race in particular.

As I said, if it's not racist for a bunch of whites to manhandle a white guy, it's not racist for a bunch of whites to manhandle a black guy either. Your comment sounds actually racist because you're asking for a different set of standards for blacks and whites. White leftists can be roughed up apparently, black leftists handled with kid gloves.

Personally I don't think anyone should roughed up, they should be escorted out by security. But you can't exactly say they didn't have it coming and they're these nice little angels.

old comment by brazenTyrant

@Tenpenny
As I said, if it's not racist for a bunch of whites to manhandle a white guy, it's not racist for a bunch of whites to manhandle a black guy either.
Let's Google a definition of racism.
* "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
OR
* "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
So yes, racism can depend on the ethnicity of the victim, but...
Your comment sounds actually racist because you're asking for a different set of standards for blacks and whites. White leftists can be roughed up apparently, black leftists handled with kid gloves.
If I had actually said that nobody is allowed to manhandle black men, you might have a point. What I actually said was that by threatening to burn a black man who was unable to resist, they were re-enacting a lynching scene. It's the same principle of context that I mentioned earlier. The context here comes from the fact that there's a long history of racially motivated white-on-black violence where people where burned. If there were a similar history of racially motivated white-on-white violence, then that would, by context, make the scene you describe racist.
Here's another example. Let's say that a person is dancing strangely, and I tell them that they're 'flailing around like a monkey.' If the person were white, that would be an innocent comment, because the word 'monkey' has no association with white people. On the other hand, the word has widely been used as a racial slur to vilify and denigrate black people, so if I said it to a black person they would probably be quite rightly offended, and I would look racist.
The bottom line is that racism doesn't affect everybody equally. Black and Hispanic people are more likely to be targeted by racism and have a harder time fighting it. History has demonstrated this time and time again. Because the effects of racism are disproportionately skewed towards some people, the solutions become disproportionately skewed as well. It's unfortunate, and I agree that it's unfair, but that's one of the consequences of racism. If you want to stop that, the best way to do it is to help stop racism.

old comment by Tenpenny

@brazenTyrant

"What I actually said was that by threatening to burn a black man who was unable to resist, they were re-enacting a lynching scene."

Maybe they were re-enacting a lynching scene, maybe it was just a coincidence that a few things fell into place and people were angry with him crashing Trump's rally. I suspect you can't read minds, but one thing is certain: it happened on impulse, nobody really thought it through.

You need to do better than that.

I mean the implication of what you're saying is way out of line. By this logic, Dawkins and anyone who criticizes religion should take a step back and should not speak his mind because it's insensitive to Christians killed by communists. Those guys were just as adamant about spreading atheism and they had the similar talking points about how science was on their side, how religion is evil etc. they even made an organization in Soviet Russia that was literally called "The League of Militant Atheists". So I guess New Atheism is "Christianophobic" or something and they shouldn't have rights. (Then again I forgot that the left doesn't care about Christians' feelings, or anyone who is part of the "majority" so fuck the male crackers or something.)

To the PC police it's not enough not to be a bigot. You also have to not APPEAR to be a bigot.

Yeah, I can't take this seriously sorry. Prove to me they were racist.

old comment by brazenTyrant

@Tenpenny
If you think that people shouldn't take action until they have absolute, 100% proof that racism is occurring, not only do you not understand racism, you are encouraging it.
By this logic, Dawkins and anyone who criticizes religion should take a step back and should not speak his mind because it's insensitive to Christians killed by communists.
No, by this logic, Dawkins should not physically intimidate and threaten to kill Christians. Seriously, what kind of standard is this? 'If we're not allowed to scream death threats at people, you're not allowed to criticise us?'
This is the third time you've used a completely self-centred double standard. First, you claimed that leaving a disabled woman on the side of the road was a justified response to having a business boycotted, then you compared threats of violence to a rude kid on the internet.
(Then again I forgot that the left doesn't care about Christians' feelings, or anyone who is part of the "majority" so fuck the male crackers or something.)
I sincerely hope you're doing this ironically, because if not, that would be extremely hypocritical, given that this is exactly what you just accused me of doing.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Tuppenceha'penny

Well, Donald Fart [i]appeared[/i] on NBC and was a [i]bigot[/i].

I guess you'll have to invest in a blindfold to wear, while you stick your fingers in your ears & constantly scream 'LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!', because perish the thought you'd accidentally perceive any facts... er, I mean 'Leftist Propaganda' that would prove your God-Emperor is an inferior subhuman who's not fit to run a lemonade stand, never mind a country. How are you going to get everyone who doesn't think exactly like you to come to your way of thinking? Name just one regular FSTDTer whom you've converted to the Donald Fart 'Let's Make America FAIL Again' cause. If you can, because your right-wing & anti-PC thinking is certainly making everyone here run you over in the stampede to follow your support for a bigot.

...I mean, where's that same bigot of yours - who hates immigrants, natch - going to get those with lots of problems, drug dealers, criminals & rapists to build his hotels if he's going to be racist about them?

"Bigots and racists are drawn to Trump because he's the closest ideologically to them."

...otherwise he would eliminate them from his support base, and he would be left-wing and Politically Correct*. They could always form their own party, and have it's leader run for president, so what's stopping them? 'Bigots and racists are drawn to Trump because he's the closest ideologically to them', as you say. Honesty. It's so refreshing. Inferior subhuman racist candidate, inferior subhuman racist supporters.

So what's stopping them from forming their own party, if Wiggy isn't racist, then...?

*- So I would like you to therefore explain how my MP Karl Turner - on a purely policies platform, and was certainly Politically Correct - was returned to Parliament in last year's general election with an increased majority, and the neo-Nazi National Front & UKRAP (led by the UK's equivalent of Donald Fart, Nige FaRAGE), on a racist anti-immigration and very much anti-PC & 'populist' platform (not on policies if elected) got nowhere? IF rightist thinking is supposed to be sooooooo 'superior' that the world would be exactly as you would wish it to be, then the National Front would have it's first MP in Parliament right now, and FaRAGE would've won the seat he'd contested (South Thanet). Oh wait.

Better buy yourself those blinkers, then stick your fingers back in your ears & make whiny noises: all the while you rock back & forth in a fetal position, thinking 'Wiggy WILL win, Wiggy WILL win...!'. Because the Reality that is Karl Turner MP (Labour, Hull East), and inferior subhuman neo-Nazis & UKRAP FAILing, thus proving rightist thinking wrong is gonna cause your brainmeats to go all hurty while you try to formulate an explanation as to WHY things went the way they did - Politically Correct - in my neck of the woods.

Your refusal to explain that discrepancy will speak volumes.

As per yours truly, Karl Turner likes being Politically Correct. It gets him places. Because being Correct is the superior state to be in. As opposed to always being WRONG, ergo inferior. Which is what all right-wingers like you & Donald Fart are: Inferior Subhumans.

old comment by Tenpenny

@Anon-e-moose

"'Bigots and racists are drawn to Trump because he's the closest ideologically to them', as you say. Honesty. It's so refreshing. Inferior subhuman racist candidate, inferior subhuman racist supporters."

Don't forget that communists are closer to Sanders ideologically as well. Your camp isn't clean, never was, never will be. Sanders claims he's a democratic socialist, but has never condemned communism.

Communists about Sanders: http://www.cpusa.org/article/bernie-sanders-political-revolution/

"The Sanders campaign is a wonderful development for 2016 and beyond in many ways."

Sanders is cozy to the far left in a way that Trump isn't to the far right:

"in 1980, he served as an elector for the Socialist Workers’ Party, founded by Leon Trotsky and committed to nationalizing major industries."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/

Total media silence, but if some fringe racists endorse Trump, it's all over the news.

The biased media asked Trump to condemn David Duke and his buddies (even though Trump doesn't even know or care who David Duke is), but never asked Bernie Sanders (or Hillary for that matter, even though she's less left-wing) to condemn communism and all its crimes since its inception.

Or to put it in retard speak: Inferior subhuman communist candidate, inferior subhuman communist supporters.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Tuppenceha'penny

Leftists = Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong-uh, amirite?

Social Democratic Norway: The only country to have emerged from the Dumbya-created worldwide recession intact. Therefore it's absolutely impossible for Sanders to do any worse. And you've still to explain that discrepancy, re the utter FAIL in rightist thinking in my neck of the woods, if as you claim it's superior to ours. NEXT!

image

Inferior subhuman rightist candidate, inferior subhuman rightist supporters. Sanders isn't Wiggy.

Don't like being referred to as Inferior Subhumans? Now you know what racism feels like. And I'm white.

As last year's general elections proved, thinking IS race. There's the superior, as Political Correctness by definition is right. The fact the world isn't exactly as you would wish it proves that fact time & again.

And then there's the likes of you.

'Bias' in FSTDT? Of course, friendo. Make your own site if you don't like it here.

Otherwise, force Free Repubic, Faux News, World Nut Daily, and Donald Fart to be left-wing.

Because those who you subjectively claim aren't racist would never be rightist in the first place.

old comment by Tenpenny

@Anon-e-moose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29

"The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a far-left political organization in the United States. The group places a priority on "solidarity work" to aid strikes and is strongly supportive of Cuba. The SWP publishes The Militant, a weekly newspaper that dates back to 1928, and maintains Pathfinder Press."

Ideology:

Communism
Marxism
Castroism

Under "Prominent current and former members"

Bernie Sanders

"in 1980, he served as an elector for the Socialist Workers’ Party, founded by Leon Trotsky and committed to nationalizing major industries."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/

It's all just "democratic socialism" right?? No.

Will Mr. Sanders renounce his past and condemn communism? Why not? Trump has condemned David Duke even though he's never been affiliated with him.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/

Trump hasn't condemned the racists' support, even though he's been affiliated with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29

"The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a far-left political organization in the United States. The group places a priority on "solidarity work" to aid strikes and is strongly supportive of Cuba. The SWP publishes The Militant, a weekly newspaper that dates back to 1928, and maintains Pathfinder Press."

Ideology:

Communism
Marxism
Castroism

Under "Prominent current and former members"

Bernie Sanders

"in 1980, he served as an elector for the Socialist Workers’ Party, founded by Leon Trotsky and committed to nationalizing major industries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn#Early_life_and_career

'His parents were peace campaigners who met at a committee meeting in support of the Spanish republic at Conway Hall during the Spanish Civil War.'

'While still at school he became active in The Wrekin constituency Young Socialists, his local Labour Party and the League Against Cruel Sports'

It's all just "democratic socialism" right?? Yes.

image

As Jeremy Corbyn - leader of the Labour Party - is a left-winger, then Donald Fart has no problem with it. So what makes you think you have the right to think Socialism - i.e. Sanders - is such a bad thing, if your God-Emperor thinks a left-winger is so great? A God-Emperor - if he thinks he has the right to run a country like the US - must know more than everything about everything; particularly concerning politics. Because someone experienced in being a politician - or at least have Done The Research in advance - would. The 'Special Relationship' and all that diplomatic jazz.

...meanwhile, the Communist Party of America still exists to this day. Joseph McCarthy - and his brand of unjustifiable rightist thinking - died a pickled irrelevance, rejected even by President Eisenhower. Q.E. and fucking D.

Conclusive proof of the FAIL of everything - and everyone - right-wing. Otherwise why isn't the world exactly as you would wish it, if your thinking is sooooooo 'superior? Your refusal to answer that simple question speaks volumes of the inferiority of the right-wing as a whole.

As McCarthy would've said: Answer the question. If you dare.

old comment by Tenpenny

I'm sure people remember an insignificant fringe person from 15 years ago.

Your other comment is just plain stupid. Even the left-wing Guardian didn't go that far:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/12/donald-trump-duped-into-retweeting-picture-of-jeremy-corbyn

Notice how you're incapable of defending Sanders though, completely skipped everything.

"In 2000, he knew enough to criticize Duke’s racism. And in 1991, he knew enough to say he hated what votes for Duke represented."

That's even worse then, so you're asking him to condemn someone he already has decades ago?

Keep the smear, nobody believes it but social justice warriors with sub70 IQ.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Tuppenceha'penny

Notice how you're incapable of justifying Wiggy's retardation in not recognising Jeremy Corbyn though, completely skipped everything.

As your continued refusal to answer that question - Why isn't the world exactly as you would wish it, if right-wing thinking is sooooooo 'superior'? - still speaks volumes of your cowardice.

But then, cowardly candidate, cowardly supporter.

Keep the shitstain, nobody believes him but social injustice whiners with sub-70 IQs.

And are inferior subhumans like him.

FSTDT is 'Leftist'? Of course, friendo. Make your own site if you don't like it here.

Otherwise, force Free Repubic, Faux News, World Nut Daily, and Donald Fart to be left-wing.

This place triggers you. What a psychologically insecure little subhuman you really are. Why, it's as if you know that your God-Emperor won't win later this year, thus conclusively proving the inferiority of you rightists, ergo the more than infinite superiority of we leftists.

If your way of thinking was as superior as you keep claiming it is, then you'd be secure enough in your way of thinking's superiority, comfortable in the knowledge that Donald Fart WILL win.

...won't he?

Charles #fundie #homophobia #biphobia christiannews.net

50 comments

Confused?