clash

Bigots are an oppressed group.

└ Tags: , ,

Discussion (33)¬

  1. DocAtheist says:

    @Author, so spot on, and so powerfully succinct!

  2. PrimalVirtue says:

    An atheist bakery should make the author a cake for that one.

  3. Federico Bär says:

    Both groups have the right to fit into the perfect symmetry of Left and Right

  4. Michael says:

    Someone needs to think of the bigots! Their rights are being trampled on! They’re being persecuted and repressed! Someone needs to consider their tender feelings!

    Many people misunderstand bigots. They worry that The Other will change their way of life. It’s not bigots are against change per se, it’s just that their way of life is the correct one and anything else is wrong and destructive. If The Other takes over then the bigots will be the ones persecuted. In fact, that’s already happening. Bigots are being persecuted merely for their bigotry. It’s not fair!

  5. Wrinkly Dick says:

    The left, and the right wings, are on the same bird !

  6. Jim Baerg says:

    “You don’t like the Goths?”
    “No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
    “Persecution?”
    “Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
    “I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
    “That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”

    From the novel “Lest Darkness Fall” by L. Sprague de Camp

  7. Oldfolkie says:

    Brilliantly observed but too true to be funny.

  8. Markywarky says:

    One of your best Author; brilliant 🙂

  9. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Jim Baerg, I personally have no problem with Goths, but those bloody Emos* depress the Hell out of me.

    *as opposed to emus; vicious little dinosaurs that got too lazy to fly.

  10. RESIDENT says:

    If bigots could just be a little more self-centered, they wouldn’t even notice that there is even such a thing as ‘not straight’.

  11. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    The rights of the lgbt
    Are islampophobic, you see
    as written in the koran’s pages
    lgbt is quite outrageous
    Their presence, not in islam, to be.

  12. bear47 says:

    Brilliant!
    BRAVO Author!

  13. machigai says:

    This is mostly a test but where is Nassar?
    and where is preview?
    ok there is an edit … thingy
    oh, I have another minute
    um less than
    aaaaahh

  14. Cagliostro says:

    Hm. One could neevr replase Nassar, but perhaps one can substitute? I’ll try:

    All that tol’rance around here off late
    For the bigots, it spelled a bad fate
    For this situation
    Is just discrimination
    ‘Gainst their right to disccriminate

  15. Someone says:

    It’s ridiculous the level of contention, malice and ignorance those opposed to same sex marriage display, especially in this country, where the conservative government have elected to put it up to a flimsy postal survey vote.
    No will mean “no” and yes will mean “ah fuck…we’ll vote on it in Parliament later.”
    Needless to say, the religious right are throwing a ton of money and vitriol into their No campaigns (with some going so far as to deface properties, commit assault, or even steal people’s mail and dump them so the surveys can’t be sent back*). And yet the Yes campaigners, who are in the majority and are conducting themselves with more dignity and class, are the more violent and repressive of the two.
    Poor bigots.

    *Source, for anyone interested: https://www.smh.com.au/national/second-pile-of-samesex-marriage-surveys-found-dumped-in-melbourne-laneway-20170919-gyklh2.html

  16. Laripu says:

    Richardelguru: great find, I like it. 🙂

    I have been told (by otherwise intelligent Americans, and this is almost an exact quote) that “tolerant people are really intolerant because they don’t tolerate intolerant people”.

    So this idea is really widespread.

    My personal opinion, a mere opinion about which I actually do nothing, is this:
    Hateful racists, violent homophobes, and religious extremists are more easily tolerated with a blunt object. If they feel (falsely) set upon, it’s our fault for not providing are more genuine environment for their desired level of persecution.

  17. Chiefy says:

    I agree with your sentiment, Laripu, if not your methodology. Violence usually makes things worse. I think we Americans tend to confuse “tolerate” with “like.” It take more effort to tolerate someone we don’t like, but that is the American way. Or at least the ideal.

    Referring to the cartoon, lgbt+ people don’t really expect the world to be free of bigots, they only want to be free from being persecuted by bigots. Our boys seem to be unclear on that point.

  18. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I’m fully in support of eradicating all the bigots we can find.

    The only problem I have is, which side are the bigots?

  19. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Dodgy Geezer, if you need to ask that question I think it’s clear which side you’re with.
    Actually, from your recent forays into the comments at Butterflies and Wheels, I know which side of the fence you fall.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I like it.

    Abrahamic religions have always been “a little” touchy about gays. However, I think putting Christianity and Islam on the same level of anti-gay bigotry is unfair. They’re both wrong, but not wanting gay people to get married is not the same as wanting them dead.

    Yes, the Old Testament establishes death penalty for gays, but the “old law” has become totally obsolete for most (if not all) Christian denominations. On the other hand, there isn’t a single branch of Islam that has rejected death penalty for gays as a part of its official doctrine. Many Muslims probably don’t want gays to be executed, but they don’t have religious law on their side, unfortunately.

    Any thoughts on this?

  21. Suffolk Blue says:

    Brilliant.

  22. Troubleshooter says:

    “Clash of rights,” all right: the right to discriminate, the right to demean and condescend to, never mind maintain religious privilege.

  23. Gargleblaster says:

    I am a long time lurker on this site (maybe the guy in the corner of the C&B, just watching things going on), but I want to say something on this topic.
    Problem is that when intolerant people demand something because they are annoyed by a situation, many of the tolerant people will tend to meet them partially. “Oh, if they are so annoyed about this or that, we will just do it a bit less or a bit less openly. Why should we annoy someone unnessecarily?”
    So, the situation changes a bit to the side of the intolerants and it becomes the new normal, also for the tolerant people. Of course, the intolerants will be (a bit) happy(er) for a while and then start complaining again. The tolerant people will, used as they now are to the new normal, tend to partially give in again, and the cycle will continue until the intolerants have (mostly) their way and the tolerant people are just used to it.
    This way the narrowest minds get the most influence in the long run, because there will be no way the intolerants will meet the more broad-minded people.
    I am starting to think that not giving in to ANY demand that narrows down the freedom to be who you are or to do what you want where it does not harm others, is the best thing to do. As an example, if someone wants to walk naked on the streets, who cares if anyone does not like the sight of it? It may offend someone, but it does no harm. If that person starts whining about his Imaginary Sky Daddy or whatever that forbids them to be naked, tell him or her that you don’t force THEM to go naked, and that he or she is free to wear any clothing they want. But tell them also that they can’t force us to wear clothes.
    A slightly extreme example, but that is how I think about this.

    To Author: Keep up the good work, I really like it. Always to the point and often hilariously hitting the nail on the head. Take one from me, and same for the other visitors of this great place!

  24. Gargleblaster, thanks for that comment. I’m a little upset that nobody else seems to be very upset about the Naked Rambler, Stephen Gough, a man who walked from Lands End to John O’Groats wearing only boots and socks, currently serving time in jail for simply walking around naked. I’m glad to hear that you too think this indicates an error in our culture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough
    We need to do something about this situation. Any suggestions?

  25. Dr John the Wipper says:

    GB, DH:

    Whenever the theme comes up (and as practising nudist I regularly run into that situation) my standard reply is “If your god or gods wanted us to wear clothes, why then were we born naked?”
    Usually I get no reply…

  26. Choirboy says:

    Dr. John, I’m surprised you haven’t been regaled with the delights of the ever realistic and believable Genesis.
    God did make us naked but his plans for our continued innocence in that state were stymied by that pesky snake in the grass. Eve, typical woman of course, succumbed to temptation and here we are! Get your fig leaf on.
    It’s another clear example of the men who wrote these fairy stories trying to rationalise their own guilt at their normal reproductive drives. (And managing to lay the blame on women in the process).
    There’s a clear link to the general religious hypocrisy about sex and especially to the imposition of ‘modesty’ by men upon women.
    The Author’s tee shirt really hits it, doesn’t it? “Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust”.

  27. Gargleblaster says:

    DH, Alas I don’t know what to do about the narrow mindedness of people. I did not know about the Naked Rambler, but I think he should be allowed to (not) dress as he sees fit. Maybe it’s possible to start some online petition?
    An other possibility would be to normalise nudity more by frequently going naked in public with lots of people at the same time. Although I must admit I myself don’t see me doing that very easily, even in house (an appartment) I avoid going naked when my curtains are open because I have neighbours across the street who might look into my room. Those neighbours are muslims, the woman even wears a burqa when going out or when she is on her balcony. Yes, I mean a tent with a peephole. But when I meet her on the street and greet her, she does greet me back, no problem there.
    But it’s not because they are muslims that I don’t go naked in house, I wouldn’t do so with any other neighbour. I admit it’s mostly shame that holds me back, there’s no practical reason. Typical case of non-tolerants having their way….

  28. JoJo says:

    Chiefy – there is an ancient proverb: he who thinks violence is the answer to every problem has never had a mosquito land on his balls..

  29. Gargleblaster, you hit the gnail on the head. I whine about the idiocy of a culture that would lock up Stephen Gough, but I do nothing about it. If I had his courage, I’d venture out shopping in the all together and get myself arrested in protest. In my country, I doubt that I’d end up in jail, though perhaps temporarily until I was brought before a judge. More likely I’d be committed to a mental hospital, there to wander the halls in naked splendor with nobody noticing. I’m too lazy to start a petition, on line or off.

    Eh, hold on. That’s so easy now. What has been holding me back? I shall start a petition this morning. Not that I have any faith that it will accomplish anything, but because it’s better than doing nothing. I’ll let you all know where to sign shortly. Or tally if you happen to be of that stature.

  30. Gargleblaster says:

    DH, I would sign a petition to free Stephen Gough in a jiffy. Please post the url!
    In my country, shopping ‘au naturel’ would probably not have you end up in jale, but here in the Netherlands the climate (or better, the weather) would punish you 90% of the time.
    JoJo, nice quote, I must remember that one!

    My original point in my first posting is a bit snowed under by the clothing discussion. It was that by gradually giving in to intolerant people, they get their way while tolerant people keep losing their freedoms, so it might be better to never give in to intolerance, even if it means just a small sacrifice for you. You will never get the sacrificed freedom back and the intolerants will keep on complaining until yet another ‘small’ sacrifice is made to please them, and so on until the intolerants have it (almost) all their way and the tolerant people even don’t realise the freedoms they have given up because this process goes so slow that everyone gets so used to the less-free situation that the more free situation becomes first unusual, then unthinkable.
    I hope you can follow my thoughts! 🙂

  31. And here it is. I got a friend to submit the petition for me, in the interests of what remains of my anonymity. Please sign.
    http://chn.ge/2zyZFeO

  32. mahatmacoat says:

    Well done DH! Petition signed.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.